Wow, I feel so tiny and patheticOf what? Of your adolescent dismissal? Absolutely.
It sooooo obviously worked
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!
Wow, I feel so tiny and patheticOf what? Of your adolescent dismissal? Absolutely.
Protestants, including myself, believe what the Bible says. We consider it to be the very word of God, expressed through human authors.What protestant think is irrelevant as they believe things that aren't even in the Bible like the two solas. The canon of scripture was established in 382 at the council of Rome and reaffirmed at Hippo 393, Carthage 397, and Florence 1442. No on questioned that until Luther decided he disagreed with the Bible. Protestants arent good interpretors of scripture.
Seriously??? Your description of "the Christian Bible" is totally wrong. The Bible that Christians use is composed of the Old Testament and the New Testament. (Some denominations include the Apochrypha.)The compendium generally understood as the Holy Bible can be considered schizophrenic, as it combines the Hebrew Bible with the Christian Bible, with the Christian Bible largely using quotations from the Greek Septuagint. Moreover, it is a religious affront to Jews to refer to the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testament, implying it is outdated, no longer in effect, and surpassed.
See my post #44.If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.
James (the Lord's brother), Cephas (a.k.a Peter), and John were all Jews, as was Paul (a.k.a. Saul). Paul was chosen to bring the gospel to the Gentiles and the Jews in the Mediterranean region; the others ministered to the Jews in Jerusalem and Palestine.The resolution of the council wasn't part of Paul's message to the Galatians:
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Only [they would] that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Galatians 2:9-10
Close. The Christian Bible contains the entire Old Testament and the New Testament (and some denominations include the Apochrypha).All religions must be respected in their particulars and especially in their sacred writings. The Hebrew Bible is the sacred book of the Jews (without the use of gentilic and pagan terms to refer to it), the Greek Bible ("New Testament" with its citations from the Septuagint) is that of the Christians, and the Arabic Quran of Islam, as are all other sacred writings in the languages of the peoples of the world. Each should be interpreted in its native language. Here's what I think.
I cannot use the Novum Testamentum Graece, the Latin title for the critical or eclectic edition of the New Testament text in Koine Greek, developed through textual criticism and officially published by the German Bible Society (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft), to impose my own conceptions, beliefs, and ideologies on variant texts to the Greek Orthodox Church, which uses the Greek edition from the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 1904.
It would be another example...
Close. The Christian Bible contains the entire Old Testament and the New Testament (and some denominations include the Apochrypha).All religions must be respected in their particulars and especially in their sacred writings. The Hebrew Bible is the sacred book of the Jews (without the use of gentilic and pagan terms to refer to it), the Greek Bible ("New Testament" with its citations from the Septuagint) is that of the Christians, and the Arabic Quran of Islam, as are all other sacred writings in the languages of the peoples of the world. Each should be interpreted in its native language. Here's what I think.What is the Bible?
It's a big book with lots of stories in it!!!!!
I cannot use the Novum Testamentum Graece, the Latin title for the critical or eclectic edition of the New Testament text in Koine Greek, developed through textual criticism and officially published by the German Bible Society (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft), to impose my own conceptions, beliefs, and ideologies on variant texts to the Greek Orthodox Church, which uses the Greek edition from the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 1904.
It would be another example...
Chosen by who?Paul was chosen to bring the gospel to the Gentiles
Seriously???Chosen by who?
Peter's vision:
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Acts 10:28
You're conflating what Paul said happened with what actually happened.He was traveling on the road to Damascus when he was personally commissioned to bring the gospel to the Gentiles (and also Jews).
No, that information was given to Ananias, not to Paul.Acts 9:15 clear says what Paul was personally commissioned by the Lord to do.
Stop your legalistic nonsense! You want your foolish legalism corrected? THE LORD NEVER SPOKE IN ARCHAIC ENGLYSHE, SO ANYTHING THAT YOU SAY THAT ANANIAS OR JESUS OR PAUL SAID IS WRONG!No, that information was given to Ananias, not to Paul.
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Acts 9:15
What Paul was told to do was:
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 9:17
What Ananias told Paul is quite different to what Paul says that he was told:
At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Delivering thee from the people, and [from] the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Acts 26:13-18
It's time for you to deal with the fact that Paul was a liar.Stop your legalistic nonsense!
t's time for you to deal with the fact that Paul was a liar.
Paul's account in Acts 26 disagrees with the account in Acts 9 regarding what Paul was told, where he was told it, and who told him.
AFAIK there is no reason to think that the author (probably Luke) was dishonest. He could be mistaken about events that he had no direct knowledge of, though.Whatever one might think of Paul, the question here is the accuracy of the author's two accounts found in Acts.
Which other parts of God's Word do you disbelieve? Your pathetic legalism keeps you far from God!It's time for you to deal with the fact that Paul was a liar.
Paul's account in Acts 26 disagrees with the account in Acts 9 regarding what Paul was told, where he was told it, and who told him.
The Bible isn't "God's Word". Mouth, not pen.Which other parts of God's Word do you disbelieve?
AFAIK there is no reason to think that the author (probably Luke) was dishonest.