16 Oct 23
@kellyjay saidNice to see everyone having a wonderful time lol 😂😂
Why are you using scripture to justify yourself and condemn others, do you worship it?
Tell me, you’ve mentioned worshipping the scriptures a couple of times; help me - what does that mean in simple terms (sorry it’s Monday and I don’t wake up properly until Wednesday lunchtime)
@medullah saidI called him a bible worshipper. What he says is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. There are no mistakes, errors or omissions. The bible is perfect therefore is his point. Many posters here have taken him up on that, and so far he cannot explain mistakes in the bible. I pointed out to him many times that the bible we now have is not the same as the one in the time of Christ and the Apostles.
Nice to see everyone having a wonderful time lol 😂😂
Tell me, you’ve mentioned worshipping the scriptures a couple of times; help me - what does that mean in simple terms (sorry it’s Monday and I don’t wake up properly until Wednesday lunchtime)
I started the bible worshipping comment.
Just to clarify, I believe that the words of Jesus Christ are sufficient and necessary for eternal life and there are not mistakes in His teachings. Paul on the other hand has some pretty weird stuff even coming close to being contradictions to what Jesus preached.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29975
@kellyjay saidTo clarify:
Romans 3:21-23
English Standard Version
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Joe is an atheist. His conscience leads him to have genuine concern for Jack who is dying from thirst. Joe gives water to Jack and asks for nothing in return.
Are Joe's actions comparable to dirty rags?
(Your own response please, not another cut and paste).
@rajk999 saidThanks for owning up 😁
I called him a bible worshipper. What he says is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. There are no mistakes, errors or omissions. The bible is perfect therefore is his point. Many posters here have taken him up on that, and so far he cannot explain mistakes in the bible. I pointed out to him many times that the bible we now have is not the same as the one in the time ...[text shortened]... r hand has some pretty weird stuff even coming close to being contradictions to what Jesus preached.
The bible has been messed with and no claim about total accuracy should be made
I appreciate your view point, though personally I can’t see the letters of Paul being allowed to stand unless God approved
Can you give me an example of the Paul stuff please as I’ve never found any of it contradictory ?
@medullah saidWell first Paul was not infallible. He was a man with biases and can have errors in his judgment. Paul said [more than once], that certain things he got from Christ and certain things are his own opinion. Let me know if you want the references.
Thanks for owning up 😁
The bible has been messed with and no claim about total accuracy should be made
I appreciate your view point, though personally I can’t see the letters of Paul being allowed to stand unless God approved
Can you give me an example of the Paul stuff please as I’ve never found any of it contradictory ?
Here are a couple misleading things:
1. Somewhere along the line Paul gave Christians the impression faith alone is good enough. Works are trying to earn ones eternal life. I think it is people who are not reading through it carefully. James made it clear that faith without works is dead. Paul did as well but he did not preach good works and righteousness the same way Jesus and the other Apostles did.
2. In Romans 5 Paul said that all of mankind is justified unto life by the death of Christ. Yet in many parts of the other letters he said that man is only justified by Grace through faith.
The point is Paul is not abundantly clear the way Jesus was about critical doctrines.
I can list many more.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29975
16 Oct 23
@medullah saidRomans 13:1-2:
Can you give me an example of the Paul stuff please as I’ve never found any of it contradictory ?
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Would Jesus, do you think, have thought the Roman tyrants who persecuted him were the rulers God had wanted?
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
It wasn’t the Romans that persecuted him sir, they were merely the hit men that did the deed. It was the Sanhedrin who went after Christ (Matt 26:3) and held a kangaroo court (23:65) that was illegal under Jewish law to do so. Then Christ’s garments were ripped in pronouncement of judgement by Ciaphas, who technically could not do so at that point of the hearing.
Pilate didn’t want to kill Jesus, and even hoped that the Jews would let him off, but instead they opted to release Barabbas, declaring that they had no king but Caesar. I think that they might have also said that “Let his blood come upon us and our children”. And of course Pilate publicly washed his hands of the matter (Matt 27:24).
Or so I believe 😉
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29975
16 Oct 23
@medullah saidEven taking 'persecuting' off the table, the question still stands. - Would Jesus have thought the Roman tyrants were the rulers God had wanted? Didn't Jesus come to bring something new?
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
It wasn’t the Romans that persecuted him sir, they were merely the hit men that did the deed. It was the Sanhedrin who went after Christ (Matt 26:3) and held a kangaroo court (23:65) that was illegal under Jewish law to do so. Then Christ’s garments were ripped in pronouncement of judgement by Ciaphas, who technically could not do so at that point of the ...[text shortened]... en”. And of course Pilate publicly washed his hands of the matter (Matt 27:24).
Or so I believe 😉
I don't think Jesus would have been on the same page as Paul when he said the authorities that existed had been established by God.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122153
16 Oct 23
@rajk999 saidThat’s not what KellyJay replied to me sometime back:
I called him a bible worshipper. What he says is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. There are no mistakes, errors or omissions. The bible is perfect therefore is his point.
@divegeester said
@KellyJay
Here is an example of a an honest, unequivocal and well thought out question for you:
Is the bible the complete, inerrant and exclusive word of god?
There are three possible answers:
- 1) yes it is
- 2) no it isn’t
- 3) I don’t know
Over to you.
@kellyjay replied
I've answered this as no already the way you worded it.
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/attributes-of-god.195809/page-10#post_4617123
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo last question first.
Even taking 'persecuting' off the table, the question still stands. - Would Jesus have thought the Roman tyrants were the rulers God had wanted? Didn't Jesus come to bring something new?
I don't think Jesus would have been on the same page as Paul when he said the authorities that existed had been established by God.
Yes you are correct, Jesus came 1) to repurchase mankind and 2) to introduce a New Coventnant. You will be familiar with the term "the lamb of God"; Jesus was to be the figurative sacrificial lamb on whose death that New Covenant would be sealed (1 Cor 11:25)
First question
The Romans were one of the sets of world rulers that God allowed, whose coming was foretold in the book of Daniel. They were going to happen and so were expected. They were never designated as the final rulers of the world, but would come and go. Then the final world power that followed them would arise and be crushed by the very Kingdom that Jesus would be heading up (Dan 2:44)
Your question suggests that God may have wanted the Romans; you could argue that is the case, because they were prophecied and God woudn't have wanted the prophecy to fail. It is truer though, to say that they were a means to an end; a stepping stone in time towards greater things, which would end with the establishment of the Kingdom.
I've tried not to do a Sonship on you I promise. If I haven't ticked all of the boxes please ask again.
16 Oct 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidJesus preached no such thing; he railed against the Temple authorities of his time and place, the Sadducees and Pharisees.
Romans 13:1-2:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Would Jesus, do you think, have thought the Roman tyrants who persecuted him were the rulers God had wanted?
But cowing down to governing authority is exactly what suited the Roman bishops who decided which scrolls to canonize and which ones to condemn as apocryphal.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29975
17 Oct 23
@medullah saidPaul did say though that there is no authority except that which God has established. - I think this not only raises problems with Jesus and the Romans but also previous authorities that ruled with a tyrannical fist. (The Egyptians, for example, who put God's chosen people into slavery).
Your question suggests that God may have wanted the Romans; you could argue that is the case, because they were prophecied and God woudn't have wanted the prophecy to fail. It is truer though, to say that they were a means to an end; a stepping stone in time towards greater things, which would end with the establishment of the Kingdom.
Do you really want to argue the case that God established tyrannical authorities just to fulfil a prophecy? - I'm not omniscient or omnibenevolent myself, but suspect such a deity would have better options available.
17 Oct 23
@rajk999 saidYou are a liar.
I called him a bible worshipper. What he says is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. There are no mistakes, errors or omissions. The bible is perfect therefore is his point. Many posters here have taken him up on that, and so far he cannot explain mistakes in the bible. I pointed out to him many times that the bible we now have is not the same as the one in the time ...[text shortened]... r hand has some pretty weird stuff even coming close to being contradictions to what Jesus preached.
17 Oct 23
@rajk999 saidYou are a liar, you know nothing of the church I go to, you are a fraud, a hypocrite who uses the word to justify yourself and condemns others for using it.
And these professed believers [who you claim to be righteous] pass the beaten up man, and turn the other way. These are like your church people. Jesus said these are going to be cast out. Your doctrine again in contrary to Christ.
The man who does the right thing, keeps the commandments, is the one right with God.
Your hypocrite professed faithful, is not right with God and will be booted out of the Kingdom of God.
You are preaching rubbish.