literal belief and christianity

[sojourner]

These two statements of yours makes no sense.

Tradition, culture, experience, theological treatises, etc. are not extra-canonical resources???

what doesn't make sense about the second statement? I reject the BOM as scripture, because it's not in the canon. I don't reject the possibility that it contains truth, and that the truth it contains is valid truth.

However, I don't place it as a standard for truth, in the way that canonical scripture is a standard for truth.

 

[dance-above]

How does blood wash away sins?

Im not


Im not a scholar or anything, didnt even finish high school, but I hope my answer helps. By the way I havent read all the other post in this thread, so its possible someone has already wrote this. I used to ask this question to myself. The scripture states that there is no remission without the sheading of blood, just like the "will" of a man doesnt go into effect until after his death.
The "will" of God was our forgiveness. So there had to be the death of the testor.Himself in the Son.The blood of the New covenent.
A new covenent.remession of the sins commited under the first covenent.Which was the Law.
Hope this Helped.

Mercy triumphs over Judgement

 

[dance-above]

Hi!

It is quite strange to me that you use the title Christian, Christ being the emphasis, yet you do not believe his words or the words of his apostles. A very shaky foundation, indeed!

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.---Jesus.

and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Cheers!

Amen. God Bless.:yes:

 

[dance-above]

What you're describing here is ancient Judaism, not Christianity. Sacrificing animals, and leading a strict sinless society was part of the Levitical law laid down by Moses from God. It had nothing to do with Christianity as CHRIST wasn't to be born for another 2000 years. Other then the fact that it was the method of salvation laid down by God before the birth of Christ, it is a completely different religion. Christianity did not evolve from that. I reject the idea that Christianity is just one more step on the evolutionary scale of religions because God lays down these doctrines, and He doesn't evolve.

Amen:yes:

 

[dance-above]

what are you talkign about? Cain killed Abel because he was jealous, Cain was giving crappy offerings to God, God Commanded Adam and Eve to give sacrifices. do you not read the bible?

I dont know that God commanded Adam and Eve To do anything And I truly believe that if he had it would have been wrote down. He did command them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and they sinned and he himself provided a sacrifice. Cain and Abel were symbolic of the old and new covenent.

Mercy triumphs over Judgment

 

[dance-above]

Hi!

One could call Christianity the oldest religion in the sense that the first sacrifice was after sin when God made clothes for Adam and Eve with animal skins and Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God, Abel's being accepted as it was not worked for as Cain's crops were and it was a blood sacrifice without which there is no remission of sins and representative of, at that time, a looking forward to Christ's sacrifice once for all. The Jewish sacrifices and Abel's, being a picture of what was to come as the one true sacrifice for sin.

Cheers!

I think I am Going to have to start reading the other post before I say anything.

 

[dance-above]

Proof?

Do you have proof of all the things you belive in?

 

[Francine]

The four hundred years between Malachi and Matthew. God sent no prophets, so they wrote no books. The Apocrypha is very interesting reading but it's not scripture.

In 1521 Luther deprecated seven books from the Old Testament (Baruch, Judith, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees) and even tried to delete three "Epistles of Straw" from the New Testament (James, 2 Peter, Jude). In 1546 the Church, reacting to Luther and others, defined the table of contents for the bible officially for the first time ever.

You can find the original 1611 AD King James translation of these books here (scroll to the bottom of the page):

KJV Bible -- Browse

After the books in question were removed from use in the Church of England's liturgy by an act of the Long Parliament of 1644, subsequent editions of the KJV do not include them.

 

[sojourner]

Im not


Im not a scholar or anything, didnt even finish high school, but I hope my answer helps. By the way I havent read all the other post in this thread, so its possible someone has already wrote this. I used to ask this question to myself. The scripture states that there is no remission without the sheading of blood, just like the "will" of a man doesnt go into effect until after his death.
The "will" of God was our forgiveness. So there had to be the death of the testor.Himself in the Son.The blood of the New covenent.
A new covenent.remession of the sins commited under the first covenent.Which was the Law.
Hope this Helped.

Mercy triumphs over Judgement

Balderdash. Since the will of God cannot be finally thwarted, God provided for reconciliation in the Incarnation. Blood cannot (and does not) wash away sins, like so much soap and water on dirty hands. The Sacrifice sealed the Covenant Christ made with us, because we demanded his death. It was an unfortunate end, but a necessary one. How else would we have believed what Jesus said, if he was not willing to recant, even upon pain of death? It is the example of Christ in being faithful to the message God gave him that shows us the way to salvation.

 

[sojourner]

The four hundred years between Malachi and Matthew. God sent no prophets, so they wrote no books. The Apocrypha is very interesting reading but it's not scripture.

since the Prophets most likely didn't write the books ascribed to them, your point is moot.

In 1546 the Church, reacting to Luther and others, defined the table of contents for the bible officially for the first time ever.

1546? What about when the Canon was set at Nicea?