The ten virgins need not be interpreted. Got it.It's in the NT. It needs no interpretation. I suggest you read it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The ten virgins need not be interpreted. Got it.It's in the NT. It needs no interpretation. I suggest you read it.
You don't get to interpret it. Get it yet?The ten virgins need not be interpreted. Got it.
You don't get to interpret it. Get it yet?The tearing out your eye instead of looking at sexy needs no interpretation.
I understand what you are saying. Are you saying it is nobody's right to interpret it? I agree. Are you saying some people may rightly interpret it but some people shouldn't?You don't get to interpret it. Get it yet?
Nice. What's the name of your 'church?'I don't interpret scripture. Except for the one about gathering together because a non-bishop took it upon himself to interpret it wrongly. I fix them.
God's son? Yes. God himself? NO. There is not one single direct statement from either God or his Christ that makes Jesus anything other than God's son. If you have such a statement, then please share it. Inference does not make doctrine.
If it has a name, it is Jesus Christ.Nice. What's the name of your 'church?'
This post makes it into my top ten best. Very good!"There is not one single statement from either God or His Christ that makes Jesus an archangel!" If you have such a statement, then please share it. Inference does not make doctrine. Christians believe in the Trinity the same way the JW's believe in the slave. Please show one direct "statement" from either God or Christ that proves the GB is the slave.
I'm saying that unless you have apostolic succession or you are working miracles as a sign of God's approval, you don't get to interpret scripture.I understand what you are saying. Are you saying it is nobody's right to interpret it? I agree. Are you saying some people may rightly interpret it but some people shouldn't?
Apostolic succession is your interpretation. I do not like it.I'm saying that unless you have apostolic succession or you are working miracles as a sign of God's approval, you don't get to interpret scripture.
When people think like you, I always throw the word APOSTLES at them. If Jesus thought like you, there would have been no need for apostles. He could have just hired a scribe and let you loose with his writings for you to interpret.Apostolic succession is your interpretation. I do not like it.
More power to you, Bishop Savagewind.I think the fact that I haven't been shot yet is a pretty good miracle.
So you're the pope of the church of Jesus Christ?If it has a name, it is Jesus Christ.
This post makes it into my top ten best. Very good!
Sorry but my Jesus is real and his "coming" or more correctly his "manifestation" as judge and executioner is a visible event. (Luke 21:25-28; 2 Thess 1:6-9) Your "internal" stuff is a bit airy fairy to me...sorry.
I believe they can. Who but an archangel speaks with an archangel's voice? If God used his own voice at Jesus baptism, why use the inferior voice of a lesser being to call his anointed to heaven?