I have a question for all of the "Denominational Believers" out there.
1. When did people performing miracles, such as healings, raising the dead, etc. cease to happen?
2. Please try to answer with scriptural references.
3. WHY should you believe your CHURCH doctrines over the Word Of GOD????
I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, I am trying to provoke you to good works, to reading, to KNOWLEDGE.
Question for the NON Believers
-
acousticide
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:12 pm
Question for the NON Believers
acousticide;503661 wrote: I have a question for all of the "Denominational Believers" out there.
1. When did people performing miracles, such as healings, raising the dead, etc. cease to happen?
2. Please try to answer with scriptural references.
3. WHY should you believe your CHURCH doctrines over the Word Of GOD????
I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, I am trying to provoke you to good works, to reading, to KNOWLEDGE.I'm denominational and a believer, perhaps I qualify?
1. Padre Pio was fairly recently canonised, though I expect there's others more recent still. Nobody gets canonised unless their intercession in healing is recognised.A discussion of the effects of his life on others followed, including the cure of an Italian woman, Consiglia de Martino, which had been associated with Padre Pio's intercession. In 1999, on the advice of the Congregation, John Paul II declared Padre Pio blessed.
After further consideration of Padre Pio's virtues and ability to do good even after his death, including discussion of another healing attributed to his intercession, the Pope declared Padre Pio a saint on 2002-06-16. Half a million people were estimated to have attended the announcement ceremony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pie ... #Sainthood
I could look for the recent intercession of recent saints raising people from the dead too, but I'm not sure if I'm going in a direction which helps answer your question. I think my point is that these things didn't "cease to happen" and it makes scriptural references irrelevant to the answer.
3. Where do you find the Word Of GOD? Solely in the inerrant text of the bible, or active in the world? If it's the first then CHURCH doctrines are irrelevant. If it's the second then CHURCH doctrines are inspired by the Holy Ghost to a greater or lesser extent, as is the individual heart of the believer.
1. When did people performing miracles, such as healings, raising the dead, etc. cease to happen?
2. Please try to answer with scriptural references.
3. WHY should you believe your CHURCH doctrines over the Word Of GOD????
I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, I am trying to provoke you to good works, to reading, to KNOWLEDGE.I'm denominational and a believer, perhaps I qualify?
1. Padre Pio was fairly recently canonised, though I expect there's others more recent still. Nobody gets canonised unless their intercession in healing is recognised.A discussion of the effects of his life on others followed, including the cure of an Italian woman, Consiglia de Martino, which had been associated with Padre Pio's intercession. In 1999, on the advice of the Congregation, John Paul II declared Padre Pio blessed.
After further consideration of Padre Pio's virtues and ability to do good even after his death, including discussion of another healing attributed to his intercession, the Pope declared Padre Pio a saint on 2002-06-16. Half a million people were estimated to have attended the announcement ceremony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pie ... #Sainthood
I could look for the recent intercession of recent saints raising people from the dead too, but I'm not sure if I'm going in a direction which helps answer your question. I think my point is that these things didn't "cease to happen" and it makes scriptural references irrelevant to the answer.
3. Where do you find the Word Of GOD? Solely in the inerrant text of the bible, or active in the world? If it's the first then CHURCH doctrines are irrelevant. If it's the second then CHURCH doctrines are inspired by the Holy Ghost to a greater or lesser extent, as is the individual heart of the believer.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
acousticide
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:12 pm
Question for the NON Believers
spot;503673 wrote: I'm denominational and a believer, perhaps I qualify?
1. Padre Pio was fairly recently canonised, though I expect there's others more recent still. Nobody gets canonised unless their intercession in healing is recognised.A discussion of the effects of his life on others followed, including the cure of an Italian woman, Consiglia de Martino, which had been associated with Padre Pio's intercession. In 1999, on the advice of the Congregation, John Paul II declared Padre Pio blessed.
After further consideration of Padre Pio's virtues and ability to do good even after his death, including discussion of another healing attributed to his intercession, the Pope declared Padre Pio a saint on 2002-06-16. Half a million people were estimated to have attended the announcement ceremony.
[]I could look for the recent intercession of recent saints raising people from the dead too, but I'm not sure if I'm going in a direction which helps answer your question. I think my point is that these things didn't "cease to happen" and it makes scriptural references irrelevant to the answer.
3. Where do you find the Word Of GOD? Solely in the inerrant text of the bible, or active in the world? If it's the first then CHURCH doctrines are irrelevant. If it's the second then CHURCH doctrines are inspired by the Holy Ghost to a greater or lesser extent, as is the individual heart of the believer.
First of all, I am not trying to be anything but provoking reading of the Word.
I do not know or understand the practice of the Catholic church and its right of Sainthood.
There is no reference in the Bible that we are to pray to men, in fact, Jesus himself told us to pray to the Father THROUGH him.
I have visited many churches in recent years, that teach that once the Apostle John died on the Isle of Patmos, the spiritual gifts ceased to be given to all. That sometimes, God raises someone up and gives them special gifts.
If this was so, why does the bible say that God is no respecter of men?
My personal problem with praying to saints, ( I am not insinuating that these were not pious people , nor am I inferring that they were not worthy of recognition of their deeds.
Once again, people are looking to other MEN instead of Jesus, The Son Of Man.
1. Padre Pio was fairly recently canonised, though I expect there's others more recent still. Nobody gets canonised unless their intercession in healing is recognised.A discussion of the effects of his life on others followed, including the cure of an Italian woman, Consiglia de Martino, which had been associated with Padre Pio's intercession. In 1999, on the advice of the Congregation, John Paul II declared Padre Pio blessed.
After further consideration of Padre Pio's virtues and ability to do good even after his death, including discussion of another healing attributed to his intercession, the Pope declared Padre Pio a saint on 2002-06-16. Half a million people were estimated to have attended the announcement ceremony.
[]I could look for the recent intercession of recent saints raising people from the dead too, but I'm not sure if I'm going in a direction which helps answer your question. I think my point is that these things didn't "cease to happen" and it makes scriptural references irrelevant to the answer.
3. Where do you find the Word Of GOD? Solely in the inerrant text of the bible, or active in the world? If it's the first then CHURCH doctrines are irrelevant. If it's the second then CHURCH doctrines are inspired by the Holy Ghost to a greater or lesser extent, as is the individual heart of the believer.
First of all, I am not trying to be anything but provoking reading of the Word.
I do not know or understand the practice of the Catholic church and its right of Sainthood.
There is no reference in the Bible that we are to pray to men, in fact, Jesus himself told us to pray to the Father THROUGH him.
I have visited many churches in recent years, that teach that once the Apostle John died on the Isle of Patmos, the spiritual gifts ceased to be given to all. That sometimes, God raises someone up and gives them special gifts.
If this was so, why does the bible say that God is no respecter of men?
My personal problem with praying to saints, ( I am not insinuating that these were not pious people , nor am I inferring that they were not worthy of recognition of their deeds.
Once again, people are looking to other MEN instead of Jesus, The Son Of Man.
Question for the NON Believers
Nobody in the Roman Catholic church ever prays to any saint. The only prayer regarded by Roman Catholics as acceptable to God is prayer to God in the name of Jesus.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
acousticide
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:12 pm
Question for the NON Believers
Forgive me for my assertion that is wrong.
I have always heard things about pray to St Christopher
or pray to Mary, etc...
You have my humble apology.
I have always heard things about pray to St Christopher
or pray to Mary, etc...
You have my humble apology.
Question for the NON Believers
That's why talking and learning is such a good idea.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Question for the NON Believers
accousticide:-6
I am in agreement with spot that miracles have never ceased.
I cannot comment on the issue of praying to the saints and can only trust to Spot's reply.
The reading of the word is another matter altogether. The Bible is not in and of itself "the word of God". However, God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible which is not the absolute and inerrant word of God. In fact that phrase belongs to One only, "the Word made flesh" and to none other.
The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, theology and philosophy. Though it does contain some history there is really very little there. It was written by the Hebrews in a style of writing called midrash which makes a great deal of use of both past stories and metaphor.
The question is not "Did this really happen this way?" but "What does this story mean?".
Shalom
Ted:-6
I am in agreement with spot that miracles have never ceased.
I cannot comment on the issue of praying to the saints and can only trust to Spot's reply.
The reading of the word is another matter altogether. The Bible is not in and of itself "the word of God". However, God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible which is not the absolute and inerrant word of God. In fact that phrase belongs to One only, "the Word made flesh" and to none other.
The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, theology and philosophy. Though it does contain some history there is really very little there. It was written by the Hebrews in a style of writing called midrash which makes a great deal of use of both past stories and metaphor.
The question is not "Did this really happen this way?" but "What does this story mean?".
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
acousticide
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:12 pm
Question for the NON Believers
In the past two days I have researched the Catholic Doctrines
1. Official church doctrine advocates prayers to God The Father, Jesus.
Mary the mother of Jesus and the dead saints.
2. It is also a documented fact that the church elders refused for almost 1900 years to speak scriptures in any language but latin. The reasoning is similar to the lawyers of today, that people would get just enough knowledge to be dangerous to themselves. It was better to leave the Word of God to learned men of the cloth.
3. The Catholic church acknowledges itself ALONE as the true representative of Christ on the earth. There are NO indications by Peter or Josephus a comtemporary historian of the day about Peter forming a church that became the Catholic church. As a matter of fact the Apostle Paul was the one who most fervently preached to the Romans.
4. The Catholic church has its origin from the Emperor Constantine somewhere around 308-312 A.D.
5. By 318 AD the Catholic church was already so powerful that the Bishop could overrule a courts judgement.
I am not trying to denegrate the work done by millions of Catholics over the years.
But, There is no such thing as Limbo or Purgatory. If these places existed, I am sure God would have seen fit to place them in his word.
Religion comes from an old word religare which means to fasten. tie up, or bind.
God's word is for all, the belivers and the non belivers. His love is for all, he does not hate sinners, no matter how vile, he loves us all.
Think about why Jesus said let the one of you without sin cast the first stone.
Sin is simply failing to be perfect. So the next time you want to rail against homosexuals, prostitutes , Drug users, etc.. Remember It is also a sin to speed, lie on your taxes, tell a little white lie, etc....
For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
I do not think that God ever wanted there to be a large controlling body that directed his flock. He wants us to know him for ourselves, up close and personal.
Not to live from the crumbs dropped to us by others.
1. Official church doctrine advocates prayers to God The Father, Jesus.
Mary the mother of Jesus and the dead saints.
2. It is also a documented fact that the church elders refused for almost 1900 years to speak scriptures in any language but latin. The reasoning is similar to the lawyers of today, that people would get just enough knowledge to be dangerous to themselves. It was better to leave the Word of God to learned men of the cloth.
3. The Catholic church acknowledges itself ALONE as the true representative of Christ on the earth. There are NO indications by Peter or Josephus a comtemporary historian of the day about Peter forming a church that became the Catholic church. As a matter of fact the Apostle Paul was the one who most fervently preached to the Romans.
4. The Catholic church has its origin from the Emperor Constantine somewhere around 308-312 A.D.
5. By 318 AD the Catholic church was already so powerful that the Bishop could overrule a courts judgement.
I am not trying to denegrate the work done by millions of Catholics over the years.
But, There is no such thing as Limbo or Purgatory. If these places existed, I am sure God would have seen fit to place them in his word.
Religion comes from an old word religare which means to fasten. tie up, or bind.
God's word is for all, the belivers and the non belivers. His love is for all, he does not hate sinners, no matter how vile, he loves us all.
Think about why Jesus said let the one of you without sin cast the first stone.
Sin is simply failing to be perfect. So the next time you want to rail against homosexuals, prostitutes , Drug users, etc.. Remember It is also a sin to speed, lie on your taxes, tell a little white lie, etc....
For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
I do not think that God ever wanted there to be a large controlling body that directed his flock. He wants us to know him for ourselves, up close and personal.
Not to live from the crumbs dropped to us by others.
Question for the NON Believers
Historian and Biblical scholar B. Erhart in his book "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene" makes the following comments. Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome and may, in fact, never was a Bishop of Rome.
Geza Vermes in his book "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" makes the point, that where Jesus presumably speaks to Peter about being a rock, that these words did not come from the Historical Jesus at all but were a later addition to the Gospel by the early church. This is also supported by Crossan and others.
Another good example of adjustments to the Gospels is the following:
This concerns the story of Mary Magdalene being attacked by a group of men who wanted to stone her for adultery.
190 MARY MAGDALENE
". . . in this intriguing story is left unnamed. I should point out that even though this has long been a favorite story for readers of the New Testament-
and the one episode from Jesus' ministry that seems to make it into every
Hollywood version of his life-it is a story that did not originally occur
in any of our Gospels. Today you will find it in your English Bible at the
beginning of John chapter 8. But almost all modern translations will
place the story in brackets. That's because it does not occur in our oldest
and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. It was evidently added to
John's Gospel-as were other verses, just as yet other verses were de-
leted-by scribes who had heard the story and wanted to include it in
their gospel accounts, even though it was not originally there .2 In any
event, there is nothing in the story about Mary Magdalene: the woman
caught committing adultery is unnamed: (By the way, if she was caught,
where's the man she was caught with? Jewish law condemns them both,
not just the woman, to death.)" pg 190, "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene", B. Ehrman.
The problem of multiple manuscripts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Geza Vermes in his book "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" makes the point, that where Jesus presumably speaks to Peter about being a rock, that these words did not come from the Historical Jesus at all but were a later addition to the Gospel by the early church. This is also supported by Crossan and others.
Another good example of adjustments to the Gospels is the following:
This concerns the story of Mary Magdalene being attacked by a group of men who wanted to stone her for adultery.
190 MARY MAGDALENE
". . . in this intriguing story is left unnamed. I should point out that even though this has long been a favorite story for readers of the New Testament-
and the one episode from Jesus' ministry that seems to make it into every
Hollywood version of his life-it is a story that did not originally occur
in any of our Gospels. Today you will find it in your English Bible at the
beginning of John chapter 8. But almost all modern translations will
place the story in brackets. That's because it does not occur in our oldest
and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. It was evidently added to
John's Gospel-as were other verses, just as yet other verses were de-
leted-by scribes who had heard the story and wanted to include it in
their gospel accounts, even though it was not originally there .2 In any
event, there is nothing in the story about Mary Magdalene: the woman
caught committing adultery is unnamed: (By the way, if she was caught,
where's the man she was caught with? Jewish law condemns them both,
not just the woman, to death.)" pg 190, "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene", B. Ehrman.
The problem of multiple manuscripts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Question for the NON Believers
Magenta flame;503799 wrote: Well I was brought up strict "sickeningly" strict Roman Catholic. Yes Catholics are trinitarians, Yes they pray to saints, Apostles, divinities etc. It usually depends on where abouts you are in the world as to what degree this happens.
Yes Catholics believe more in the doctrines of the church than bible scripture they are seldom taught bible principles etc.
It is utterly heretical and totally against Roman Catholic dogma to address any prayer to anyone or anything except the Persons of the Trinity. This has been the case from the earliest times through the various schisms which defined the Roman Catholic Church until today and there has never been any exception to this hugely important part of Roman Catholic belief. To quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:To whom may we pray
Although God the Father is mentioned in this prayer as the one to whom we are to pray, it is not out of place to address our prayers to the other Divine persons. The special appeal to one does not exclude the others. More commonly the Father is addressed in the beginning of the prayers of the Church, though they close with the invocation, "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end". If the prayer be addressed to God the Son, the conclusion is: "Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end"; or, "Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity, etc.". Prayer may be addressed to Christ as Man, because He is a Divine Person, not however to His human nature as such, precisely because prayer must always be addressed to a person, never to something impersonal or in the abstract. An appeal to anything impersonal, as for instance to the Heart, the Wounds, the Cross of Christ, must be taken figuratively as intended for Christ Himself. I can't imagine what brought you to think that "Yes they pray to saints, Apostles" but it's an absolute reversal of a central Roman doctrine.
Yes Catholics believe more in the doctrines of the church than bible scripture they are seldom taught bible principles etc.
It is utterly heretical and totally against Roman Catholic dogma to address any prayer to anyone or anything except the Persons of the Trinity. This has been the case from the earliest times through the various schisms which defined the Roman Catholic Church until today and there has never been any exception to this hugely important part of Roman Catholic belief. To quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:To whom may we pray
Although God the Father is mentioned in this prayer as the one to whom we are to pray, it is not out of place to address our prayers to the other Divine persons. The special appeal to one does not exclude the others. More commonly the Father is addressed in the beginning of the prayers of the Church, though they close with the invocation, "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end". If the prayer be addressed to God the Son, the conclusion is: "Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end"; or, "Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity, etc.". Prayer may be addressed to Christ as Man, because He is a Divine Person, not however to His human nature as such, precisely because prayer must always be addressed to a person, never to something impersonal or in the abstract. An appeal to anything impersonal, as for instance to the Heart, the Wounds, the Cross of Christ, must be taken figuratively as intended for Christ Himself. I can't imagine what brought you to think that "Yes they pray to saints, Apostles" but it's an absolute reversal of a central Roman doctrine.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Question for the NON Believers
spot;511604 wrote: It is utterly heretical and totally against Roman Catholic dogma to address any prayer to anyone or anything except the Persons of the Trinity.
I can't imagine what brought you to think that "Yes they pray to saints, Apostles" but it's an absolute reversal of a central Roman doctrine.
Is this a difference between dogma and practice?
The people have always prayed to "Our Lady" etc.
I can't imagine what brought you to think that "Yes they pray to saints, Apostles" but it's an absolute reversal of a central Roman doctrine.
Is this a difference between dogma and practice?
The people have always prayed to "Our Lady" etc.
Question for the NON Believers
I'm quite sure the priests have tried to knock it out of them over the years, then.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Question for the NON Believers
Bryn Mawr;511608 wrote: Is this a difference between dogma and practice?It's possible that invocation is being popularly (or merely here) mistaken for prayer. From the same source:
The Catholic doctrine of intercession and invocation is set forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches thatThe saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour. Those persons think impiously who deny that the Saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked; or who assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invocation of them to pray for each of us is idolatry, or that it is repugnant to the word of God, and is opposed to the honour of the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ (Sess. XXV). This had already been explained by St. Thomas:Prayer is offered to a person in two ways: one as though to be granted by himself, another as to be obtained through him. In the first way we pray to God alone, because all our prayers ought to be directed to obtaining grace and glory which God alone gives, according to those words of the Psalm (lxxxiii, 12): 'The Lord will give grace and glory.' But in the second way we pray to the holy angels and to men not that God may learn our petition through them, but that by their prayers and merits our prayers may be efficacious. Wherefore it is said in the Apocalypse (viii, 4): 'And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel' (Summ. Theol., II-II, Q. lxxxiii, a. 4). The reasonableness of the Catholic teaching and practice cannot be better stated than in St. Jerome's words:If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! One man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for six hundred thousand men in arms; and Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in Christ, begs forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be less after having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares that two hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were freely given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with Christ, shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in behalf of those who throughout the whole world believed at his preaching of the Gospel? And shall the living dog Vigilantius be better than that dead lion? ("Contra Vigilant.", n. 6, in P. L., XXIII, 344).
The chief objections raised against the intercession and invocation of the saints are that these doctrines are opposed to the faith and trust which we should have in God alone; that they are a denial of the all-sufficient merits of Christ; and that they cannot be proved from Scripture and the Fathers. Thus Article 22 of the Anglican Church says: "The Romish doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
The Catholic doctrine of intercession and invocation is set forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches thatThe saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour. Those persons think impiously who deny that the Saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked; or who assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invocation of them to pray for each of us is idolatry, or that it is repugnant to the word of God, and is opposed to the honour of the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ (Sess. XXV). This had already been explained by St. Thomas:Prayer is offered to a person in two ways: one as though to be granted by himself, another as to be obtained through him. In the first way we pray to God alone, because all our prayers ought to be directed to obtaining grace and glory which God alone gives, according to those words of the Psalm (lxxxiii, 12): 'The Lord will give grace and glory.' But in the second way we pray to the holy angels and to men not that God may learn our petition through them, but that by their prayers and merits our prayers may be efficacious. Wherefore it is said in the Apocalypse (viii, 4): 'And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel' (Summ. Theol., II-II, Q. lxxxiii, a. 4). The reasonableness of the Catholic teaching and practice cannot be better stated than in St. Jerome's words:If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! One man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for six hundred thousand men in arms; and Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in Christ, begs forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be less after having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares that two hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were freely given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with Christ, shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in behalf of those who throughout the whole world believed at his preaching of the Gospel? And shall the living dog Vigilantius be better than that dead lion? ("Contra Vigilant.", n. 6, in P. L., XXIII, 344).
The chief objections raised against the intercession and invocation of the saints are that these doctrines are opposed to the faith and trust which we should have in God alone; that they are a denial of the all-sufficient merits of Christ; and that they cannot be proved from Scripture and the Fathers. Thus Article 22 of the Anglican Church says: "The Romish doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Question for the NON Believers
spot;511617 wrote: It's possible that invocation is being popularly (or merely here) mistaken for prayer. From the same source:
The chief objections raised against the intercession and invocation of the saints are that these doctrines are opposed to the faith and trust which we should have in God alone; that they are a denial of the all-sufficient merits of Christ; and that they cannot be proved from Scripture and the Fathers. Thus Article 22 of the Anglican Church says: "The Romish doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
So people are invoking the Saints and asking then to interceed, telling them what prayer to pass on, and not praying to them after all.
How silly of me not to realise
The chief objections raised against the intercession and invocation of the saints are that these doctrines are opposed to the faith and trust which we should have in God alone; that they are a denial of the all-sufficient merits of Christ; and that they cannot be proved from Scripture and the Fathers. Thus Article 22 of the Anglican Church says: "The Romish doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
So people are invoking the Saints and asking then to interceed, telling them what prayer to pass on, and not praying to them after all.
How silly of me not to realise
Question for the NON Believers
Pinky;511725 wrote: When you said 'Non-believers' I thought you meant non-christian. Oh well, not much point me being here really.
That's the same thing surely Shirley?
That's the same thing surely Shirley?
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
Question for the NON Believers
Chookie;511882 wrote: That's the same thing surely Shirley?
You would have thought so but the OP then went on to define his query in terms of "Denominational Believers".
You would have thought so but the OP then went on to define his query in terms of "Denominational Believers".
Question for the NON Believers
acousticide;503661 wrote: I have a question for all of the "Denominational Believers" out there.
1. When did people performing miracles, such as healings, raising the dead, etc. cease to happen?
2. Please try to answer with scriptural references.
3. WHY should you believe your CHURCH doctrines over the Word Of GOD????
I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, I am trying to provoke you to good works, to reading, to KNOWLEDGE.
Since when does someone have an avatar promoting something they should be burning in giant piles in accordance with their holy book?
1. When did people performing miracles, such as healings, raising the dead, etc. cease to happen?
2. Please try to answer with scriptural references.
3. WHY should you believe your CHURCH doctrines over the Word Of GOD????
I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, I am trying to provoke you to good works, to reading, to KNOWLEDGE.
Since when does someone have an avatar promoting something they should be burning in giant piles in accordance with their holy book?
Question for the NON Believers
trOlle:-6
It all depends on what you understand by "holy book".
Shalom
Ted:-6
It all depends on what you understand by "holy book".
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Question for the NON Believers
The spiritual place.............the plane where we believe in something more than the human body is personal to each of us and cannot be defined by another human being..............only the God we carry within ourselves can make us.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Question for the NON Believers
acousticide;503661 wrote: I have a question for all of the "Denominational Believers" out there.
1. When did people performing miracles, such as healings, raising the dead, etc. cease to happen?
2. Please try to answer with scriptural references.
3. WHY should you believe your CHURCH doctrines over the Word Of GOD????
I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, I am trying to provoke you to good works, to reading, to KNOWLEDGE.
Yes thats all very interesting, but how do You know what the WORD of GOD is? I don't remember god writing any books, or giving any speeches, do you? So who do you think you are telling other people what they should and shouldn't believe, and on what basis are you giving yourself the right to ask such inane questions eh?
1. When did people performing miracles, such as healings, raising the dead, etc. cease to happen?
2. Please try to answer with scriptural references.
3. WHY should you believe your CHURCH doctrines over the Word Of GOD????
I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, I am trying to provoke you to good works, to reading, to KNOWLEDGE.
Yes thats all very interesting, but how do You know what the WORD of GOD is? I don't remember god writing any books, or giving any speeches, do you? So who do you think you are telling other people what they should and shouldn't believe, and on what basis are you giving yourself the right to ask such inane questions eh?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Question for the NON Believers
Ted;544761 wrote: trOlle:-6
It all depends on what you understand by "holy book".
Shalom
Ted:-6
I see what you mean
It all depends on what you understand by "holy book".
Shalom
Ted:-6
I see what you mean
-
Sweet Tooth
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:03 pm
Question for the NON Believers
acousticide;503661 wrote: I have a question for all of the "Denominational Believers" out there.
1. When did people performing miracles, such as healings, raising the dead, etc. cease to happen?
2. Please try to answer with scriptural references.
3. WHY should you believe your CHURCH doctrines over the Word Of GOD????
I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, I am trying to provoke you to good works, to reading, to KNOWLEDGE.
Ok,
#1) I don't think that miracles have ceased to happen. God heals even today.Acts 2:14-41 The last known raising of the dead recorded in the Bible is when Jesus was raised from the dead in Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12 and John 20:1-9. And there where only 2 cases recorded in history of rasing of the dead. Lazarous and Jesus.
#3) Church doctrine is not a replacement for the word of God, its the framework to help explain the interpretation of the Bible. 2Timothy 3:16
hope that helps!
1. When did people performing miracles, such as healings, raising the dead, etc. cease to happen?
2. Please try to answer with scriptural references.
3. WHY should you believe your CHURCH doctrines over the Word Of GOD????
I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, I am trying to provoke you to good works, to reading, to KNOWLEDGE.
Ok,
#1) I don't think that miracles have ceased to happen. God heals even today.Acts 2:14-41 The last known raising of the dead recorded in the Bible is when Jesus was raised from the dead in Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12 and John 20:1-9. And there where only 2 cases recorded in history of rasing of the dead. Lazarous and Jesus.
#3) Church doctrine is not a replacement for the word of God, its the framework to help explain the interpretation of the Bible. 2Timothy 3:16
hope that helps!
Question for the NON Believers
Sweet Tooth:-6
The very phrase "the word of God" is fraught with all kinds of problems.
The "word of God" can and does refer to the living word, Jesus of Nazareth and most properly belongs to him.
It can also mean the written word which can mean either the Bible or other Christian writings. The Bible is not in and of itself "The inerrant and absolute "word of God". It becomes for Christians the "word of God" by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us both corporately and as individuals through the very human words of the Bible. It is up to us to discern what God is saying to us either as individuals or corporately.
The third use of the term can in fact mean the spoken word of the religious thinkers and specialists of the day or for that matter of the past such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr or Ghandi etc.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The very phrase "the word of God" is fraught with all kinds of problems.
The "word of God" can and does refer to the living word, Jesus of Nazareth and most properly belongs to him.
It can also mean the written word which can mean either the Bible or other Christian writings. The Bible is not in and of itself "The inerrant and absolute "word of God". It becomes for Christians the "word of God" by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us both corporately and as individuals through the very human words of the Bible. It is up to us to discern what God is saying to us either as individuals or corporately.
The third use of the term can in fact mean the spoken word of the religious thinkers and specialists of the day or for that matter of the past such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr or Ghandi etc.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Question for the NON Believers
Far Rider:-6
I did miss your presence and often wondered where you got to.
What value is it if it is midrash and metaphor? Profound truths can be presented better through midrashic and allegorical or metaphorical writing. Teachers have used this tactic for many years in their teaching.
The only thing I seek to eradicate is the error of literalism.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I did miss your presence and often wondered where you got to.
What value is it if it is midrash and metaphor? Profound truths can be presented better through midrashic and allegorical or metaphorical writing. Teachers have used this tactic for many years in their teaching.
The only thing I seek to eradicate is the error of literalism.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Sweet Tooth
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:03 pm
Question for the NON Believers
Ted;551473 wrote: Sweet Tooth:-6
The very phrase "the word of God" is fraught with all kinds of problems.
The "word of God" can and does refer to the living word, Jesus of Nazareth and most properly belongs to him.
It can also mean the written word which can mean either the Bible or other Christian writings. The Bible is not in and of itself "The inerrant and absolute "word of God". It becomes for Christians the "word of God" by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us both corporately and as individuals through the very human words of the Bible. It is up to us to discern what God is saying to us either as individuals or corporately.
The third use of the term can in fact mean the spoken word of the religious thinkers and specialists of the day or for that matter of the past such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr or Ghandi etc.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think that you have a point. But the Bible was given to us by God, therefor it is the "inerrant and absoulte word of God" I think that God uses other people to say things, of course he uses pastors to teach us and to help us grow in faith, but they teach from The Bible! Myabe I'm not understanding what you are saying, but if a man tells me that God told him that I should jump off a ledge, I would not take that seriously, because in the Bible it talks about not commiting suicide. So I dont think that mans word should be thought of as just as good as the Bible!
The very phrase "the word of God" is fraught with all kinds of problems.
The "word of God" can and does refer to the living word, Jesus of Nazareth and most properly belongs to him.
It can also mean the written word which can mean either the Bible or other Christian writings. The Bible is not in and of itself "The inerrant and absolute "word of God". It becomes for Christians the "word of God" by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us both corporately and as individuals through the very human words of the Bible. It is up to us to discern what God is saying to us either as individuals or corporately.
The third use of the term can in fact mean the spoken word of the religious thinkers and specialists of the day or for that matter of the past such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr or Ghandi etc.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think that you have a point. But the Bible was given to us by God, therefor it is the "inerrant and absoulte word of God" I think that God uses other people to say things, of course he uses pastors to teach us and to help us grow in faith, but they teach from The Bible! Myabe I'm not understanding what you are saying, but if a man tells me that God told him that I should jump off a ledge, I would not take that seriously, because in the Bible it talks about not commiting suicide. So I dont think that mans word should be thought of as just as good as the Bible!
Question for the NON Believers
Sweet Tooth:-6
If you believe the Bible is the absolute and inerrant word of God I have no problem with that.
After years of formal and informal study including training in translation and interpretation of both Hebrew and Greek I do not believe that the Bible is such a book. It becomes for Christians "the word of God' not by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible.
The Bible is not in and of itself the word of God but attests to the "word made flesh", one Jesus of Nazareth.
God also speaks to us as I indicated above.
If you wish further explanations I can give them. I continue to study formally at the Vancouver School of Theology and so continue learning.
The Bible and how it came to be is a fairly large part of my training and studying.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If you believe the Bible is the absolute and inerrant word of God I have no problem with that.
After years of formal and informal study including training in translation and interpretation of both Hebrew and Greek I do not believe that the Bible is such a book. It becomes for Christians "the word of God' not by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible.
The Bible is not in and of itself the word of God but attests to the "word made flesh", one Jesus of Nazareth.
God also speaks to us as I indicated above.
If you wish further explanations I can give them. I continue to study formally at the Vancouver School of Theology and so continue learning.
The Bible and how it came to be is a fairly large part of my training and studying.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Question for the NON Believers
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
This didn't have an expiration date. Do you see an expiration date? My prayers work. One time, I locked my keys in my car, and I was about to break open the window, it was like midnight or so, and instead, I stopped and prayed, and immediately a tow truck showed up and lent me a stick to open the door with.
This, and many other wondrous works, has the Lord done for me, in Jesus name. The only way the "gifts could stop" is if the Holy Spirit stopped existing, which he has not.
Other great scriptures:
(John 5:19) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
(John 6:47) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
(John 6:53) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
(John 16:23) And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
note: "verily verily" in greek is "amen amen"... now that Amen is an english word, why don't they just write "Amen amen"?
This didn't have an expiration date. Do you see an expiration date? My prayers work. One time, I locked my keys in my car, and I was about to break open the window, it was like midnight or so, and instead, I stopped and prayed, and immediately a tow truck showed up and lent me a stick to open the door with.
This, and many other wondrous works, has the Lord done for me, in Jesus name. The only way the "gifts could stop" is if the Holy Spirit stopped existing, which he has not.
Other great scriptures:
(John 5:19) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
(John 6:47) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
(John 6:53) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
(John 16:23) And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
note: "verily verily" in greek is "amen amen"... now that Amen is an english word, why don't they just write "Amen amen"?
Question for the NON Believers
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
The scripture cannot be broken. Every word is true, and should be taken as literally as possible, except when it is obviously figurative. Creation took 6 days + the 1 day of rest. God didn't need billions of years.
Also, as Jesus said above: "ye are gods" (to whom the word of God came) v34-35
The old testament reference is to:
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
So why should the gifts stop, seeing as "ye are gods" and seeing as, by faith in Christ Jesus, we are sons of the living God?
Miracles and righteous behavior should be as commonplace to Christ's elect as wickedness is to the children of this world.
Also, regarding gifts ceasing, that is often misinterpreted:
1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
v10: "WHEN that which is perfect is come" - i.e. the second coming of Christ Jesus. There is no need for tongues when Jesus returns, because perfect love will have come in glory. There will be no need for prophecy in the future, when that which is perfect has come, because all things will be revealed in their entirety at Christ's second coming. Paul is, in my opinion, MOST OBVIOUSLY referring to Christ's second coming in glory, when all of those things which are "in part" now will be made full then, in the future.
If you're not convinced, and you say "oh tongues have passed away" then you must also concede that "knowledge has passed away" since that's in the same line. But that is ridiculous. Knowledge has not yet "passed away", but when Jesus returns, we will have a whole new knowledge, because that which is perfect has come.
Believe, do not doubt. As surely as the Holy Spirit lives, he still gives his gifts to those with faith.
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
The scripture cannot be broken. Every word is true, and should be taken as literally as possible, except when it is obviously figurative. Creation took 6 days + the 1 day of rest. God didn't need billions of years.
Also, as Jesus said above: "ye are gods" (to whom the word of God came) v34-35
The old testament reference is to:
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
So why should the gifts stop, seeing as "ye are gods" and seeing as, by faith in Christ Jesus, we are sons of the living God?
Miracles and righteous behavior should be as commonplace to Christ's elect as wickedness is to the children of this world.
Also, regarding gifts ceasing, that is often misinterpreted:
1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
v10: "WHEN that which is perfect is come" - i.e. the second coming of Christ Jesus. There is no need for tongues when Jesus returns, because perfect love will have come in glory. There will be no need for prophecy in the future, when that which is perfect has come, because all things will be revealed in their entirety at Christ's second coming. Paul is, in my opinion, MOST OBVIOUSLY referring to Christ's second coming in glory, when all of those things which are "in part" now will be made full then, in the future.
If you're not convinced, and you say "oh tongues have passed away" then you must also concede that "knowledge has passed away" since that's in the same line. But that is ridiculous. Knowledge has not yet "passed away", but when Jesus returns, we will have a whole new knowledge, because that which is perfect has come.
Believe, do not doubt. As surely as the Holy Spirit lives, he still gives his gifts to those with faith.
Question for the NON Believers
Gannet10:-6
Where is it written that the Bible is the absolute and inerrant word of God?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Where is it written that the Bible is the absolute and inerrant word of God?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Question for the NON Believers
> Where is it written that the Bible is the absolute and inerrant word of God?
(Psa 119:140) Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
(Pro 30:5) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
but especially:
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
If Jesus is risen, and he cannot lie, then the scriptures can't be broken. and if an omnipotent God exists, he is able to preserve his scriptures by his mighty hand.
also: Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exclusivity started when God chose his people Israel
Exo 11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
And he continued it when Jesus explicitly stated that he was the only way to the Father. If you don't like "exclusivity", or if you think the scriptures are malleable, take it up with Jesus.
(Psa 119:140) Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
(Pro 30:5) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
but especially:
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
If Jesus is risen, and he cannot lie, then the scriptures can't be broken. and if an omnipotent God exists, he is able to preserve his scriptures by his mighty hand.
also: Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exclusivity started when God chose his people Israel
Exo 11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
And he continued it when Jesus explicitly stated that he was the only way to the Father. If you don't like "exclusivity", or if you think the scriptures are malleable, take it up with Jesus.
Question for the NON Believers
How very dogmatic of you, Gannet. I'm sure you believe it all to be so. Fortunately I'm not obliged to interpret matters in the same way. You seem to be here to annoy people rather than to lead them to the Lord.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Question for the NON Believers
I'm only annoying to those who are perishing.
2Co 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
2Co 2:16 To the one we are the savor of death unto death; and to the other the savor of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
And I hope and pray i will be equally as annoying as Paul or Peter, and that some of you will feel some godly sorrow and repent of your unbelief.
2Co 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
2Co 2:16 To the one we are the savor of death unto death; and to the other the savor of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
And I hope and pray i will be equally as annoying as Paul or Peter, and that some of you will feel some godly sorrow and repent of your unbelief.
Question for the NON Believers
Gannet101;672284 wrote: And I hope and pray i will be equally as annoying as Paul or Peter, and that some of you will feel some godly sorrow and repent of your unbelief.On the contrary, you are - and I say this quite seriously - hardening hearts. This may, of course, be the Lord's will, but it's a heavy responsibility even so.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Question for the NON Believers
Gannet101;672258 wrote: > Where is it written that the Bible is the absolute and inerrant word of God?
(Psa 119:140) Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
(Pro 30:5) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
but especially:
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
If Jesus is risen, and he cannot lie, then the scriptures can't be broken. and if an omnipotent God exists, he is able to preserve his scriptures by his mighty hand.
also: Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exclusivity started when God chose his people Israel
Exo 11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
And he continued it when Jesus explicitly stated that he was the only way to the Father. If you don't like "exclusivity", or if you think the scriptures are malleable, take it up with Jesus.
But these quotations do not refer to the Bible, they refer to the word of God. Where John refers to the Scripture he was referring to the Torah, not the Bible which did not exist at that time.
The original question was where does it state that the Bible is inerrant - if God speaks then I bow down and listen but the Bible was written a hundred odd years after the even by men with all their frailties.
Also, to quote a source as proof that that self same source is true beyond doubt is a logical fallacy that would be laughed out of any junior school debating society.
(Psa 119:140) Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
(Pro 30:5) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
but especially:
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
If Jesus is risen, and he cannot lie, then the scriptures can't be broken. and if an omnipotent God exists, he is able to preserve his scriptures by his mighty hand.
also: Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exclusivity started when God chose his people Israel
Exo 11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
And he continued it when Jesus explicitly stated that he was the only way to the Father. If you don't like "exclusivity", or if you think the scriptures are malleable, take it up with Jesus.
But these quotations do not refer to the Bible, they refer to the word of God. Where John refers to the Scripture he was referring to the Torah, not the Bible which did not exist at that time.
The original question was where does it state that the Bible is inerrant - if God speaks then I bow down and listen but the Bible was written a hundred odd years after the even by men with all their frailties.
Also, to quote a source as proof that that self same source is true beyond doubt is a logical fallacy that would be laughed out of any junior school debating society.
Question for the NON Believers
Spot is far more knowledgeable and eloquent than I could ever aspire to become. He said it all with fact and reason. I say this, people of faith have no need to question faith. We may desire to sometimes, but then faith reminds us we have faith. Faithfully?
Life ain't linear.
Question for the NON Believers
Spot and Bryn have said it all very well.
I have yet to get an answer to my question as to where in the Bible it claims to be inerrant. Such a claim is purely a human created doctrine.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I have yet to get an answer to my question as to where in the Bible it claims to be inerrant. Such a claim is purely a human created doctrine.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Question for the NON Believers
Bryn Mawr;672496 wrote: But these quotations do not refer to the Bible, they refer to the word of God. Where John refers to the Scripture he was referring to the Torah, not the Bible which did not exist at that time.
Jesus was referring the the Torah and also to the prophets (Isaiah and so forth). The evidence of the truth of the prophets is that what they said: it happened. The prophets talked about the Jews being delivered to Babylon (the exile), and it happened. They foretold Christ's coming, and that also has happened.
Bryn Mawr;672496 wrote: Also, to quote a source as proof that that self same source is true beyond doubt is a logical fallacy that would be laughed out of any junior school debating society.
yes, for most proofs, as Jesus also said:
Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Joh 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
and
Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Joh 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
The WORKS of Jesus, his miracles, bear witness both to the truth of the gospel, and to the truth of the Scriptures in general. For most sources, self-reference would be futile, but the Bible is different because it is inerrant.
Jesus was referring the the Torah and also to the prophets (Isaiah and so forth). The evidence of the truth of the prophets is that what they said: it happened. The prophets talked about the Jews being delivered to Babylon (the exile), and it happened. They foretold Christ's coming, and that also has happened.
Bryn Mawr;672496 wrote: Also, to quote a source as proof that that self same source is true beyond doubt is a logical fallacy that would be laughed out of any junior school debating society.
yes, for most proofs, as Jesus also said:
Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Joh 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
and
Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Joh 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
The WORKS of Jesus, his miracles, bear witness both to the truth of the gospel, and to the truth of the Scriptures in general. For most sources, self-reference would be futile, but the Bible is different because it is inerrant.
Question for the NON Believers
Gannet:-6
Prophecy is not about predicting some event in the distant future. It is about the prophets telling what he or she sees happening in the immediate future and calling the people of Israel back to God. "Understanding The Old Testament", B Anderson.
Yes the prophets seem to have been correct but when writing in hindsight one can always be 100% correct.
If we look at the NT and especially the birth narratives the events as written come right out of the OT. This is the nature of midrashic writing. A good deal of the Bible is midrash or metaphor. There is very little actual history involved though some.
Even the story of the Exodus is a metaphor which I can explain if you wish.
I am talking ancient midrash not modern midrash.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Prophecy is not about predicting some event in the distant future. It is about the prophets telling what he or she sees happening in the immediate future and calling the people of Israel back to God. "Understanding The Old Testament", B Anderson.
Yes the prophets seem to have been correct but when writing in hindsight one can always be 100% correct.
If we look at the NT and especially the birth narratives the events as written come right out of the OT. This is the nature of midrashic writing. A good deal of the Bible is midrash or metaphor. There is very little actual history involved though some.
Even the story of the Exodus is a metaphor which I can explain if you wish.
I am talking ancient midrash not modern midrash.
Shalom
Ted:-6