I think it is Jesus who thinks that is a GOOD JOKE
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who gave Jesus all authority in Heaven and Earth?
- Thread starter savagewind
- Start date
Is that an example for somebody? I don't agree with Mormonism. It is contradictory to think that I believe their way is right, but I am not one.
I have never, ever, denied Christ's divinity. I think an atheist who reads my posts knows I believe in the divinity of Christ.
Evidence for you that I know "all scripture inspired of God". A seamless whole refers to a priest's garment.
If scripture had real authority it could be changed (Jesus says, "it was") and you still are under its authority. I call that bad. What do YOU call it?
You mean "true scripture". I think I do that.
The integrity of a book infinitely exceeds my own. I shall take note of that.
Which, is the problem. Isn't it? Jesus says "nothing needs resolving" and I am going to go look up the intricate meaning of resolve. But, I shall be back.
Done. Jesus is right.
YOU say something needs resolving. Jesus says that if a dispute should occur it is as though you who tell the truth are being slapped, then just turn your other cheek to him.
And he said, "Leave them, blind guides are what they are"
You say scripture is for resolving. Can you prove that?
Also, people teach that I am to obey "others who have far greater credentials" but the word they use for obey just means let. Really, it does. I think I got that one DIRECTLY from Jehovah.
It's not a joke.
And he said, "Leave them, blind guides are what they are"
You say scripture is for resolving. Can you prove that?
Also, people teach that I am to obey "others who have far greater credentials" but the word they use for obey just means let. Really, it does. I think I got that one DIRECTLY from Jehovah.
It's not a joke.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
No that is not what it means but even if it was it would still be perfectly rational and no means what so ever silly. Not that what you might think is silly is an argument even if it were possible that you might be right, which is not the case.
Before I tell you what solo scriptoria means let me first quote what God said about people who think his command or actions are silly:
1 Corinthians 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." (20) Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (21) For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
http://www.bryankimsey.com/gospel/foolishness.htm
Anyway, lets move on.
Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.
Now if you can't quite understand what this means, why instead of it being silly it is the most logical and rational issue possible, or why it must be absolutely true I will expound upon the foundations for this concept.
1. The God described in the bible as good, personal, morally excellent, and powerful among other things. Even the generic God of philosophers is composed of all great making attributes which include the 4 characteristics I gave, plus others. Those four qualities mean that certain things must be true of a God with those characteristics. If God is moral then he must have moral expectations. If God is good then he would want us to know what those expectations are and he would not lie to us about them, a God who is personal is one in which he can interact with us, a God who is all powerful can communicate his will for us and can do so without error and keep his revelation in tact to a sufficient degree. The bible is such a creation.
You do not seem to disagree with anything above since you quote scripture constantly, but if you do then which point above do you deny and on what basis. I will warn you that I can back up everything I say using textual criticism and logical rules about composition.
2. God would and could supply a pure form of truth, and based on his attributes he in fact must produce it. If he did not do everything consistent with his attributes then he is not the God the bible describes and therefore can be ignored. So if a God with the above characteristics exists then he has and must give us a pure revelation of his will and his relevant actions. This is called the Holy Scriptures.
3. So if God exists then he has produced the scriptures and those scriptures must be without error in the original revelation and they must and have retained sufficient accuracy to accomplish their purpose. If we were given a perfect revelation and God has maintained the accuracy of transmissions necessary (even critics like Ehrman give the bible a 95% accuracy of transmission). So the original revelation must have had a 100% accuracy rate and the transmission must be sufficient (and it actually is between 95% and 99.5% accurate in transmission) then we must have an extremely reliable collection of scriptures.
4. If we have an extremely accurate copy of what God revealed (and we most certainly do) then anything or anyone who contradicts the scripture or denies it's authority is in defiance of God and his message.
5. Now this in no way means that God can only communicate through the written word but it is obvious that nothing can conflict with it or deny it and still be true and so the bible is the judge of all claims to divine truth where it applies. This is exactly what I have been stating and exactly what you have been denying.
6. Now if you deny the scriptures authority you are left with only individual claims to divine truth and no objective standard to determine who is right which is contradictory to God's nature. The complete irrationality and inadequacy of your thinking an individuals opinions over rule God's revelation can easily be seem in history with Groups yelling God wills it right before they beheaded thousands outside of Acre in Israel, saying God told them to torture false confessions out of Spanish citizens in the inquisition, or using their own opinions about God's will in an effort to enslave millions in the 19th century, etc.....
If God had not sent us an objective standard (the Bible) to judge those actions above and instead left us to wallow in the subjective opinions derived from the metaphysical speculation which you have appealed to then God is not God and we need not be concerned nor have discussions about him.
Now your going to have to get on board with these foundations God gave us or there exists no ground upon which the truth might be discovered and evaluated in further debates. I think I have given you enough reasons and the foundations for what is necessary. You must either get on board or I will have to move on.
Jesus primarily stated "For it is written....." when confronting Satan, I am using "For it is written..." when confronting you, but you are using "What is written is silly and has no authority....". Which of us is more closely following Christ?
I agree with that except for this one and I have proof that YOU deny.
The purpose of Holy Scripture is this: All people be saved and to knowledge come.
The scriptures as they are can not do that. I ask God why can't you believe me and the answer I get is that they can't carry the shame of it. It is too heavy.
On the other hand, the scriptures as is HAVE accomplished their purpose for me.
Scriptures? Many are called but few chosen (which might be a scriptural error, because all are chosen for everlasting life but few endure to the end) The end of what? Is there someone with greater credentials who can tell me what it is that a person must endure to the end of?
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That is unbiblical. The Bible in no passage nor any doctrine claims the anti-Christ or any other mortal human will ever rule over the whole earth. Not the geographical earth nor the population of the earth. Please quote me any scripture that claims that. I will quote you one showing the opposite however.
The anti-Christ will:
New International Version
He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.
No if he is making war on the strongest fortresses (this means the mighty nations) then he does not rule over the whole world then does he? Taking them all together the anti-Christ verse point to a middle eastern leader only who will come against Israel and other nations "terrible in war" and be defeated in the end. He is not nor ever was the leader over the whole earth. You must be very careful to examine the context and uses when you see the term world or earth. Countless times the word does not mean the whole planet or population there of.
If scripture is for "accomplishing God's purpose" No, that ain't right. @1robin says, "scripture is for accomplished their purpose".
Let's just say that is a scribal error and what you really meant was scripture is for accomplishing God's purpose. If scripture is for getting things done, then what in the world was Jesus for?
Let's just say that is a scribal error and what you really meant was scripture is for accomplishing God's purpose. If scripture is for getting things done, then what in the world was Jesus for?
I think it is interesting that you ever realized I call scripture silly. I am silly. I think most people know that. Scripture is very serious. The reason I waste my time on the internet is because I believe all scripture is VERY SERIOUS.
The authority of any scripture, right or wrong, is not itself. Can you believe that?
IF any meaning was changed (you say that is not possible and I say it was changed) and you put yourself under the authority of any scripture which was changed and you obey it, are you obeyingGod still?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Wow, that is a mouthful.Ah, but I did not rid it. I think it is just in another spiritual reality actualized as immaterial information on some hard discs of mine
Reminds me of that famous but silly quote from Hawking: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".
I think I am up to about 6 glaring faults in that single sentence.
Let's see how many yours above has.
1. Your prior worldview does not include a spiritual reality, yet here you posit one.
2. There is no such thing (that I am aware of) as information without a material media of some sort.
3. Then you mention a hard drive which requires the material your statement does not allow for.
4. There was also the grammar issue with saying "but I did not rid it".
However you are light years ahead of Hawking in that:
1. You were joking but while he made a joke, unlike you he did not intend to. Instead, that horrific statement of his has become a mantra of sorts among the atheist community. Sad.....
2. Your allowing for a non material spiritual realm is closer to my worldview than yours when we had our last discussion. That's progress...
3. As for grammar I would be a hypocrite^2rd if I was to really complain.
I do not have a massive sample size but for the size I do have for those who like Monty Python the majority are Christian. Life of Brian might be an exception but I liked it. "Wonderful juniper bushes.........he left us his shoe.......". What was the cult that juxtaposed with the followers of the shoe? Was it those that followed the holy gourd, I am drawing a blank?Let me think about it. I might change it again for you. After all, you are special to me: you are the first Christian I know who likes Monty Python
Ciao
- viole
djhwoodwerks
Well-Known Member
Revelation 13:5-8 (ESV Strong's) 5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. 7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, 8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Revelation 13:16-18 (ESV Strong's) Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.
When someone who believes he serves God by obeying scripture obeys a scripture which was changed from what was "God-breathed" will God consider that one loyal or will God consider that one divided as in serving two masters?
Your answer, I suppose, is the question is not moot because the god you know would not let any mistake creep in. You don't have proof except to say, "God wouldn't do that!".
It will be kinda funny if God would do that. Do what? Let a mistake or two creep into The Bible.
At least it will show some people how ridiculous the World really is.
It will be kinda funny if God would do that. Do what? Let a mistake or two creep into The Bible.
At least it will show some people how ridiculous the World really is.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
There were dozens of points in what you responded to here. A. You did not specify what it is you don't agree with. Stating you do not agree with something is not an argument. B. I deny what, and where is the proof? I spend an hour posting scriptures and you respond with I deny and you disagree with something but won't even tell me what you don't agree with. The rate of return I am getting from you does not justify detailed posts on my part.
I did not state what the purpose of scriptures were (and no they do not all have a single purpose) because it did not matter what the purpose was for the point I made. It only mattered that they had a purpose and God could create scriptures to accomplish whatever it was.
Listen, you are only going to hurt your credibility in a debate by constantly claiming God is answering every little petition you make to him with answers that contradict scripture and my much greater experience in theological debate and mainstream doctrinal studies. If God is dictating messages to you for me then why don't you tell me something only me and God know about my own life to gain credibility. His prophets come with prophecy that is fulfilled so as to authenticate the ultimate author. Where are yours? Supply proof not subjective declarations which lack any authenticating evidence. It is in God's interest to convince me with facts I would recognize. Supply them or stop being so arrogant and weird.
Well they did not accomplish correct grammatical statements. This one is some botched up I can't even figure out what you mean so I can agree not agree. If God is telling you my secrets why doesn't he tell you how to use a sentence properly? Your credibility is suffering.
What? This is a completely different subject and a complex one. First you must accept the authority of scripture before you can demand an analysis of a complex doctrine based on them. I am not debating OSAS until you agree to let God's word speak for God's doctrines. I am really losing interest at this point.