Luke 7:50

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You've got to be kidding me. Any logic forum that deems Coletti to be an authority is a logic forum that I want nothing to do with. I browsed through briefly, read some crap and left.

Bóóóóóóóóóó .......

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is so very simple.

The issue here is St Luke 7:50 which says 'your faith has saved you.'
But it is incomplete without St Luke 7:47 'her many sins have been
forgiven, seeing that she has loved much.'

In other words, her faith -- which is indicated by her loving much --
has saved her. Faith and works are inseperable.

This is supported by ...[text shortened]... lover.

Anyone trying to say otherwise is a heretic according to the Bible itself.

Nemesio

There's something strange about Nemesio, no1 and me being on the same side in a Spirituality debate... 😀

Originally posted by no1marauder
Who said that?? The Bible is a collection of books written centuries apart. What books went into the Bible was a decision made by men; there were writings by early Christians who were just as much authorities as Paul, but they were excluded. There were bishops and others writing letters to people that weren't included. Those are historical facts.

...[text shortened]... ry least, not reflected in Jesus' words. As such, what makes you so sure it is proper doctrine?

Sure, and you simply ignore 2Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, and Galations
1: 11-12...

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(NKJ)

2 Pet 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
(NKJ)

Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(NKJ)

But I am surely wasting my time since you don't believe any of the scriptures, you don't even believe in God and you are a novice in the scriptures.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Sure, and you simply ignore 2Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, and Galations
1: 11-12...

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 [b]All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(NKJ)

2 Pet 1:20 ...[text shortened]... ve any of the scriptures, you don't even believe in God and you are a novice in the scriptures.[/b]

Er... you cannot use the Inspiration of Scripture to say that it is Divinely Inspired. That is circular reasoning (before no1 uses that term!)

Besides, the Scripture referred to in 1 Tim 3:16 is the OT, not the NT.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
There's something strange about Nemesio, no1 and me being on the same side in a Spirituality debate... 😀

Thats what I was just thinking lol, Actually Nemesio said it right on,

The Bible says we will be judged by works, and saved by faith, Which means they go together

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Er... you cannot use the Inspiration of Scripture to say that it is Divinely Inspired. That is circular reasoning (before no1 uses that term!)

Besides, the Scripture referred to in 1 Tim 3:16 is the OT, not the NT.

You must mean 2 Tim.3:16....how is "all scripture" referring to just the OT?
Furthermore, if I could not use the inspired word of God, I would probably not even believe in God. That is all I have, that is what I have believed, and that is what has made me what/who I am today. The word of God is powerful and has changed me into what I would have thought impossible.
🙂

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You must mean 2 Tim.3:16....how is "all scripture" referring to just the OT?
Furthermore, if I could not use the inspired word of God, I would probably not even believe in God. That is all I have, that is what I have believed, and that is what has made me what/who I am today. The word of God is powerful and has changed me into what I would have thought impossible.
🙂

Let me ask you a serious question: when Paul was writing letters to different people (which are what Romans, Galatians and others are) do you think that he believed that someday they would be considered equal to the words of Jesus in the Gospels?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let me ask you a serious question: when Paul was writing letters to different people (which are what Romans, Galatians and others are) do you think that he believed that someday they would be considered equal to the words of Jesus in the Gospels?

Absolutely. When I read Pauls words, Peter's or James, I see Jesus's words because they are His. Paul is nothing. Peter is nothing. James is nothing. All is Jesus! These men are merely vehicles to preach Jesus to all. This is where we disagree. What did Paul preach? Paul? No! And a thousand times No! Paul preached Jesus Christ.

Phil 1:15-17
15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will:
16 The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains;
17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel.
(NKJ)

Phil 2:3-5
3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.
4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
(NKJ)

Phil 2:8-11
the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(NKJ)

Phil 3:7-9
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.
8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
(NKJ)

What did Paul have to gain? Nothing, except the rewards he will receive from Christ. What kind of life did he live? He had nothing. He was beaten for Christ, beaten with rods, in prison for preaching Christ!
And I think he was beheaded for Christ.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You must mean 2 Tim.3:16....how is "all scripture" referring to just the OT?
Furthermore, if I could not use the inspired word of God, I would probably not even believe in God. That is all I have, that is what I have believed, and that is what has made me what/who I am today. The word of God is powerful and has changed me into what I would have thought impossible.
🙂

When 2 Timothy was written, the NT canon hadn't even been formed!
To say that it applied specifically to the four Gospels, Acts, the
Epistles/Letters and Revelation is utterly anachronistic and completely
unsupportable!

Furthermore, many scholars believe that, on the basis of writing style,
vocabulary, and content, they think that the Pastoral Epistles (I and II
Timothy and Titus) wasn't even written by St Paul, but was written
pseudonomynously (sp?!), like many of the so-called apocryphal
Gospels.

Lastly, the Greek is somewhat unclear. A totally reasonable translation
of the same passage could read: 'All that is Scripture is God-breathed
(or inspired by God). It fails to define what Scripture is. So, given that
St Paul (or his follower who wrote in his name) was a Jew, he was most
certainly referring to the OT Bible which was circulating amongst the
Helenized Jews in the day: The Septuagint.

Let me ask you this, checkbaiter: Does your Bible have Baruch,
Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom, I and II Maccabees, Tobit, or
Judith? Or do you reject these as 'not Scripture' along with the
Jews at the end of the 1st century (as the spat and cursed the name
of Jesus)?

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let me ask you a serious question: when Paul was writing letters to different people (which are what Romans, Galatians and others are) do you think that he believed that someday they would be considered equal to the words of Jesus in the Gospels?

No he damn well didn't or he would have wrote the letters to wider audiences.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Absolutely. When I read Pauls words, Peter's or James, I see Jesus's words because they are His. Paul is nothing. Peter is nothing. James is nothing. All is Jesus! These men are merely vehicles to preach Jesus to all. This is where we disagree. What did Paul preach? Paul? No! And a thousand times No! Paul preached Jesus Christ.

Phil 1:15-17
15 Some ...[text shortened]... rist, beaten with rods, in prison for preaching Christ!
And I think he was beheaded for Christ.

I really have nothing more to say to you; if seriously believe that Paul as he was writing letters was thinking "These are just as important as the words of Jesus" then you are beyond hope.

Originally posted by Nemesio
When 2 Timothy was written, the NT canon hadn't even been formed!
To say that it applied specifically to the four Gospels, Acts, the
Epistles/Letters and Revelation is utterly anachronistic and completely
unsupportable!

Furthermore, many scholars believe that, on the basis of writing style,
vocabulary, and content, they think that the Pastoral Epist ...[text shortened]... at the end of the 1st century (as the spat and cursed the name
of Jesus)?

Nemesio

Nemesio

The KJV was translated from the Stevens Greek Text. I would have to refer to that and my dictionarys/concordances, etc to see what it says about 2Tim.
No I do not have a Catholic bible, wait, actually I do. But I have never read much of the mentioned books. At least not in depth. But maybe I should.
I never gave much thought to those books, but it would be an interesting study to see if they contradict the rest of the bible in any way.

But I will look into this some more...🙂

Originally posted by no1marauder
I really have nothing more to say to you; if seriously believe that Paul as he was writing letters was thinking "These are just as important as the words of Jesus" then you are beyond hope.

Sigh. Here we go again. You think he was just writing letters. Jesus was dead right? Jesus had no influence on him? He never met Jesus on the road to Damascus? Jesus is not risen? And if He is, He is just sitting somewhere in heaven with nothing to do? He is not the head of the church?
Well, if you don't believe that Jesus lives, which is the crux of Christianity. And that He is not actively involved in the members of His church, well then, you are right. We have nothing further to say to each other.😳

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The KJV was translated from the Stevens Greek Text. I would have to refer to that and my dictionarys/concordances, etc to see what it says about 2Tim.
No I do not have a Catholic bible, wait, actually I do. But I have never read much of the mentioned books. At least not in depth. But maybe I should.
I never gave much thought to those books, but it woul ...[text shortened]... if they contradict the rest of the bible in any way.

But I will look into this some more...🙂

The issue isn't whether or not you have read them, but if you regard
them as Scripture. It is clear that the Jews of the early- to mid-
1st century regarded the contents of the Septuagint as Scripture and
those contents were what was incorporated into the RC Bible. After
over 1000 years of tradition, the Protestant Reformation decided that,
because Jews revised their Scriptural contents, that they should
follow suit (and because some of the contents were theologically
unpleasant from a Protestant point of view). However, they fail to
acknowledge a known fact: that when the Jews voted to the new
contents of Scripture, they cursed the name of Jesus.

About 85% of the quoted passages in the Gospels use the Septuagint
as their source, not the Hebrew. This gives credence to the notion that
Jesus and His disciples used the Septuagint as their Scripture. The
same is likely true with St Paul, who was a Helenized Jew.

So, I'll ask you again: do you accept 'Wisdom' or 'Baruch' as Scripture?

Nemesio

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Sigh. Here we go again. You think he was just writing letters. Jesus was dead right? Jesus had no influence on him? He never met Jesus on the road to Damascus? Jesus is not risen? And if He is, He is just sitting somewhere in heaven with nothing to do? He is not the head of the church?
Well, if you don't believe that Jesus lives, which is the crux of ...[text shortened]... members of His church, well then, you are right. We have nothing further to say to each other.😳

Why don't we publish some of your letters in the Bible and say they're inerrant Scripture? You claim that Jesus even now is "actively involved with the members of his church", so any one of their letters has the same authority as Paul's, right??