Why Choose the Church over the Bible

[Garee]

I really wish you understood what context meant.

You can go beyond wishing.

What does context mean?

How are we to rightly divide (interpret) the parables ?

Matthew 13:34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Are the mysteries given unto you? Or do they remain mysteries ? unsolved parables

 

[complete]

This day (24\7) the today spoken of in Hebrews 4. Or did that record end when the Sun went down???

'I call heaven and earth to record this day against you,
that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing:
therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
That thou mayest love the LORD thy God,
and that thou mayest obey His voice,
and that thou mayest cleave unto Him:
for He is thy life, and the length of thy days:
that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers,
to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.'
(Deu 30:19-20)

Hello @Garee,

There is a figure of speech here called 'Deasis' or 'adjuration' - an expression of Feeling by Oath or asseveration. or a calling to witness. The figure is used when the speaker or writer calls God or heaven to witness to the truth of what is said, or to the facts which he states.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Rhema]

Imagine asking for a yes or no answer and receiving all this emotional cherry picked drivel.

So I guess in a very long winded reply, you choose option B and C.

I did not. You are so self-absorbed and self-important that you just can't see that you MUST tell others what they believe. I did not choose option B and C. Your options are, in short, stupid. That's why I gave a rational and comprehensive answer.

But it's become quite obvious that when you have no rational reply, you just hurl out insults.
(should have known better)

 

[Rhema]

Yes one had the faith of Christ working in him

Not according to Mark.
Not according to Matthew.
Not according to John.

 

[Rhema]

My sources were, 'Figures of Speech found in Scripture,' by Dr. E.W. Bullinger, and also the marginal notes in my Bible.

The operative word being Figures (Plural). The figure of speech in Luke should not be twisted together with other figures of speech. They all don't mean the exact same thing.

That said, the figure of speech "I say unto you (plural)" or "I say unto thee (you singular)" with its various forms of "but" or "verily", is found 136 times in the gospels, and in no instance can the content that follows after truly be connected to the figure of speech itself.

From my perspective (and what seems to be the general consensus) is that out of the 136 times this exact same figure of speech is used, it would be an aberration of linguistic statistics that a word from the content that follows (in this case the word to-day) should be attached to the figure of speech itself, significantly altering the meaning of the text. To express the isolation of this figure of speech in English, a comma is placed after the "unto you" even though no commas exist in the original texts. The comma isolates and highlights the figure of speech because of the figure of speech itself.

136 times is rather significant.

Kindly,
Rhema

So why do people place a comma where it shouldn't be placed? Because it's obvious that the "thief" (a better word is insurrectionist) did not wind up in paradise with Jesus to-day.

It just drives me crazy when people change the text to "fix" what they perceive to be a theological contradiction.

 

[Rhema]

Says the co conspirator who will also not disclose their belief of a good (cough cough), evil God.

I wasn't asked, ya (insert epithet of choice).

God is Good. All the time. His humans, not so much.

Rhema

(The fact that you would even use the word co-conspirator says a lot about how mixed up your perception is.)

 

[complete]

The operative word being Figures (Plural). The figure of speech in Luke should not be twisted together with other figures of speech. They all don't mean the exact same thing.

That said, the figure of speech "I say unto you (plural)" or "I say unto thee (you singular)" with its various forms of "but" or "verily", is found 136 times in the gospels, and in no instance can the content that follows after truly be connected to the figure of speech itself.

From my perspective (and what seems to be the general consensus) is that out of the 136 times this exact same figure of speech is used, it would be an aberration of linguistic statistics that a word from the content that follows (in this case the word to-day) should be attached to the figure of speech itself, significantly altering the meaning of the text. To express the isolation of this figure of speech in English, a comma is placed after the "unto you" even though no commas exist in the original texts. The comma isolates and highlights the figure of speech because of the figure of speech itself.

136 times is rather significant.

Kindly,
Rhema

So why do people place a comma where it shouldn't be placed? Because it's obvious that the "thief" (a better word is insurrectionist) did not wind up in paradise with Jesus to-day.

It just drives me crazy when people change the text to "fix" what they perceive to be a theological contradiction.

Hi @Rhema,

* No I agree the record that we have in Scripture denies the possibility of the thief being with the Lord Jesus Christ in paradise on that day , for the Lord Himself was not there. I have said quite a bit now about that figure, so I won't bore you by repeating it,( #142 being the last).
* Do you think it is possible that the Lord was referring to the paradise which has yet to come, spoken of in Revelation 2:7?
* It is frustrating when the text of Scripture is not adhered to, or the context not considered, for accuracy when quoting Scripture is very important isn't it? as Eve's example shows us.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[KingJ]

I did not. You are so self-absorbed and self-important that you just can't see that you MUST tell others what they believe. I did not choose option B and C. Your options are, in short, stupid. That's why I gave a rational and comprehensive answer.

But it's become quite obvious that when you have no rational reply, you just hurl out insults.
(should have known better)

Imagine accusing someone of being irrational when your reply to a multiple choice question of three very rational options is a long winded emotional rant off of cherry picked scripture.

You remind me of the Democrats. What sex are you? Male of female. Rhema proceeds to answer with an essay...about there being multiple sexes.

-----------------------------

As always, and I really mean, as always, you dance around very simple and logical questions. You are either a very irrational, illogical, intellectually dishonest troll or you are a wolf in sheep's clothing that cannot concede to the corner you are placed in for fear of being banned.

It is a complete and utter waste of time engaging with you.

 

[Rhema]

* Do you think it is possible that the Lord was referring to the paradise which has yet to come, spoken of in Revelation 2:7?

The short answer would be no, since the book of Revelation is not in our canon and ought not to have been in your canon either. It wouldn't take God 393 years to figure out whether a book ought to belong in the Bible or not.

I think the conversation just didn't happen. The Gospel according to Mark clearly states that both thieves were railing at Jesus. (Best to read all of the text.)

And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, Save thyself, and come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.​

- Mark 15:27-32 KJV

Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.​

- Matthew 27:38-44 KJV

For the life of me I cannot countenance that Mark and Matthew would have merely forgotten an event where one of the thieves gets saved, or considered it too trivial to include in their accounts.

So what about Luke, then?

The Gospel of Luke is not so much interested in providing factual historical accounts of the life of Jesus as it is in presenting spiritual truths about Jesus. When writing his Gospel, Luke gets to the point where he is describing the crucifixion and has an epiphany of sorts. "HEY, !!! (he realizes) There are TWO thieves, !!! one on His right and another on His left. There MUST be some spiritual significance to this. And so a spiritual lesson is born - One must choose Jesus or one must reject Jesus, and so he places the two thieves in these spiritual roles. One accepts. The other rejects. Hence, I do not believe the account describes a literal event, but a spiritual truth or allegory. And that's why "paradise" is used in the story.

I once spent some time thinking about how one could "block" this story for a movie when using a single Point of View reference. The arms of the wooden crosses wouldn't be touching. One ought to have space between these crosses for two soldiers to easily pass through without tripping each other up - eight feet minimum, with room for equipment. The wooden cross arms would be six feet minimum, but I'll allow for five feet to accommodate small Jewish people.

So between the head of the first thief and the head of the second thief, we have a distance of 26 feet.

Now how are two people going to have a polite theological chat over a twenty six foot span (with Jesus in the middle turning his head back and forth) while at the same time all three being tortured in pain - especially as the soldier's job is to ensure that the victim is in as much pain as possible?

Not realistic.

But oh so useful when presenting the spiritual truth that one must accept Christ or reject Christ.

Now the possibility has been pointed out to me that Saint Andrews' crosses ( X ) may have been used. And with all three facing each other in a triangle arrangement, a conversation could easily be had by all, but I don't buy it for several reasons that I'll not go into here.

* It is frustrating when the text of Scripture is not adhered to, or the context not considered, for accuracy when quoting Scripture is very important isn't it? as Eve's example shows us.

More so frustrating when the text of Scripture is interpreted in a deceitful manner in order to promulgate a specific Doctrine - the worst being 2 Tim. 3:16.

May God bless,
Rhema

 

[complete]

The short answer would be no, since the book of Revelation is not in our canon and ought not to have been in your canon either. It wouldn't take God 393 years to figure out whether a book ought to belong in the Bible or not.

I think the conversation just didn't happen. The Gospel according to Mark clearly states that both thieves were railing at Jesus. (Best to read all of the text.)

And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, Save thyself, and come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.​

- Mark 15:27-32 KJV

Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.​

- Matthew 27:38-44 KJV

For the life of me I cannot countenance that Mark and Matthew would have merely forgotten an event where one of the thieves gets saved, or considered it too trivial to include in their accounts.

So what about Luke, then?

The Gospel of Luke is not so much interested in providing factual historical accounts of the life of Jesus as it is in presenting spiritual truths about Jesus. When writing his Gospel, Luke gets to the point where he is describing the crucifixion and has an epiphany of sorts. "HEY, !!! (he realizes) There are TWO thieves, !!! one on His right and another on His left. There MUST be some spiritual significance to this. And so a spiritual lesson is born - One must choose Jesus or one must reject Jesus, and so he places the two thieves in these spiritual roles. One accepts. The other rejects. Hence, I do not believe the account describes a literal event, but a spiritual truth or allegory. And that's why "paradise" is used in the story.

I once spent some time thinking about how one could "block" this story for a movie when using a single Point of View reference. The arms of the wooden crosses wouldn't be touching. One ought to have space between these crosses for two soldiers to easily pass through without tripping each other up - eight feet minimum, with room for equipment. The wooden cross arms would be six feet minimum, but I'll allow for five feet to accommodate small Jewish people.

So between the head of the first thief and the head of the second thief, we have a distance of 26 feet.

Now how are two people going to have a polite theological chat over a twenty six foot span (with Jesus in the middle turning his head back and forth) while at the same time all three being tortured in pain - especially as the soldier's job is to ensure that the victim is in as much pain as possible?

Not realistic.

But oh so useful when presenting the spiritual truth that one must accept Christ or reject Christ.

Now the possibility has been pointed out to me that Saint Andrews' crosses ( X ) may have been used. And with all three facing each other in a triangle arrangement, a conversation could easily be had by all, but I don't buy it for several reasons that I'll not go into here.


More so frustrating when the text of Scripture is interpreted in a deceitful manner in order to promulgate a specific Doctrine - the worst being 2 Tim. 3:16.

May God bless,
Rhema

I acknowledge your post, but will have to come back to it, @Rhema.

In regard to the last point re. interpreting the text in a deceitful manner, I think of, (2 Cor. 4:2)

'Therefore seeing we have this ministry,
as we have received mercy, we faint not;
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
not walking in craftiness,
nor handling the word of God deceitfully;
but by manifestation of the truth
commending ourselves to every man's conscience
in the sight of God. '
(2Cor. 4:1-2)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Garee]

Not according to Mark.
Not according to Matthew.
Not according to John.

The idea of four gospels is not a biblical teaching.

Blasphemy to attribute the power of Christ faith or called a labor of His love to dying mankind called apostles

Changing the meaning the word was invented by Catholicism They changed the meaning of apostle "sent messengers" errand boys, UPS, Fed X , Western Union, Pony express. . . etc

Rather than according to the mutual faith of Christ as it is written the power of the husband of the bride the church.

The same faithful power that mutual works in every born-again son of God

Not according to the apostles. Like Abel the first recorded apostle, martyr. How beautiful are their feet. Shod with the one gospel of Christ again not of dying mankind the apostles

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, (sola scriptura) Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1 Corinthians 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

2 Corinthians 8:15 As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.

2 Corinthians 9:9 (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.

Romans 1:11-12For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.

Romans 1:16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:(not the gospel of the apostles) for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written,(sola scriptura) the just (Christians) shall live by faith.

Does God have faith. or is the faith, the "let there be" and "it was good" power of the apostles????????

Faith of Christ the husband (sola scriptura) or dying mankind the apostles???? Which teaching master today?

 

[complete]

The short answer would be no, since the book of Revelation is not in our canon and ought not to have been in your canon either. It wouldn't take God 393 years to figure out whether a book ought to belong in the Bible or not.

I think the conversation just didn't happen. The Gospel according to Mark clearly states that both thieves were railing at Jesus. (Best to read all of the text.)

And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, Save thyself, and come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.​

- Mark 15:27-32 KJV

Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.​

- Matthew 27:38-44 KJV

For the life of me I cannot countenance that Mark and Matthew would have merely forgotten an event where one of the thieves gets saved, or considered it too trivial to include in their accounts.

So what about Luke, then?

The Gospel of Luke is not so much interested in providing factual historical accounts of the life of Jesus as it is in presenting spiritual truths about Jesus. When writing his Gospel, Luke gets to the point where he is describing the crucifixion and has an epiphany of sorts. "HEY, !!! (he realizes) There are TWO thieves, !!! one on His right and another on His left. There MUST be some spiritual significance to this. And so a spiritual lesson is born - One must choose Jesus or one must reject Jesus, and so he places the two thieves in these spiritual roles. One accepts. The other rejects. Hence, I do not believe the account describes a literal event, but a spiritual truth or allegory. And that's why "paradise" is used in the story.

I once spent some time thinking about how one could "block" this story for a movie when using a single Point of View reference. The arms of the wooden crosses wouldn't be touching. One ought to have space between these crosses for two soldiers to easily pass through without tripping each other up - eight feet minimum, with room for equipment. The wooden cross arms would be six feet minimum, but I'll allow for five feet to accommodate small Jewish people.

So between the head of the first thief and the head of the second thief, we have a distance of 26 feet.

Now how are two people going to have a polite theological chat over a twenty six foot span (with Jesus in the middle turning his head back and forth) while at the same time all three being tortured in pain - especially as the soldier's job is to ensure that the victim is in as much pain as possible?

Not realistic.

But oh so useful when presenting the spiritual truth that one must accept Christ or reject Christ.

Now the possibility has been pointed out to me that Saint Andrews' crosses ( X ) may have been used. And with all three facing each other in a triangle arrangement, a conversation could easily be had by all, but I don't buy it for several reasons that I'll not go into here.


More so frustrating when the text of Scripture is interpreted in a deceitful manner in order to promulgate a specific Doctrine - the worst being 2 Tim. 3:16.

May God bless,
Rhema

'These things have I spoken unto you,
being yet present with you.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in My name,
He shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.'
(Joh 14:25-26)

Hello @Rhema,

Thank you for expressing your opinion as you have.

I believe the whole Bible that we have, both old and new testaments (or Gr. diatheke = covenants 2 Cor. 3:6 & 14), are God Breathed. So that I would not be able to view it critically in the way that you have done. The four gospels each have a separate purpose and so cannot be compared without doing despite to each. If, as the verse quoted above tells us, each writer was taught by the Holy Ghost, Who brought all things to their remembrance, then there cannot be error in either, simply, as I say, a different purpose, each bringing to the fore that which the Holy Spirit desires to be recorded. The Old Testament Scriptures are spoken of in 2 Timothy 3:16, as being by inspiration of God, so this is what I believe:-

'And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works.'
(2Tim. 3:15-17)

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

'And he said unto Jesus,
Lord, remember me
when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.
And Jesus said unto him,
Verily I say unto thee To day
shalt thou be with Me in paradise.'
(Luke 23:42-43)

Hello @Butch5,

The words, 'I say unto thee today', is a Hebraism, which is used many times in Scripture: e.g., in Deuteronomy 4:26, 'I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day', it is a solemn idiom, used to emphasise the solemnity of an occasion, or of the facts being stated; like an apostrophe in grammar. Apparently it is used on forty-two occasions in Deuteronomy alone (e.g., Deut 30:19; 2 Sam. 20:20; Job 27:5; Isa. 14:24; Isa. 62:8; Jer.22:5; 27:5; Ezek. 5:11; 33:11; 34:8).

* Paul's words are also noted for the use of the same idiom, in Acts 20:26:- ' Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Yeah. It's a shame that people don't look to this stuff.

 

[Butch5]

'To whom also He shewed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs,
being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:'
(Act 1:3)

Hello again @Butch5,

Yes, they died, both the thief and our Lord Himself. Praise God! That our Lord rose from the dead, and had 40 more days with His disciples in which He taught them concerning the Kingdom.

Paradise is referred to again in Revelation 2:7:- 'He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.'

There is no life after death without the power of the resurrection, so it is in the paradise of God that the thief will be with His Lord, following his being raised from the dead.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Agreed! In Genesis it says that God planted a paradise east of Eden. We call it the Paradise or Garden of Eden.

 

[Butch5]

Many are in mans traditional ways some believe that God don't even talk to his children some believe ya go to church on Sunday some on Saturday some believes in fasting on food n announcing to the world..
It is written you will know Them by their fruits..
Most then temples keep the spiritually immature because an immature tree can not produce fruit..
They crave the attention of others over seeking what pleases Abba..

I've seen many get nasty n all puffed up when ya disagree with their pastors ways tho their pastors ways to against the word..
I've seen much Evil n many of them Temples

As it is written a house divided will fall n Christianity is chopped up like mince meat to be honest..
Let God Be True and man be a liar⋋⁠✿⁠ ⁠⁰⁠ ⁠o⁠ ⁠⁰⁠ ⁠✿⁠⋌

Anyways if one ponders on that word christian it's a derogatory word..j.s.

(⁠≧⁠▽⁠≦⁠)

＼⁠(⁠◎⁠o⁠◎⁠)⁠／

Too many choose church doctrine over the Scriptures. There's a saying, there's safety in numbers. People also want to belong. Most people don't like being rejected and if you step outside of the lines in Churchianity you will be rejected. Therefore, many simply turn a blind eye in order to avoid the uncomfortableness and rejection.

 

[Butch5]

Evading. You are ignoring my response to your line.



No, but you are suggesting God can punish someone who hasn't sinned and is still righteous and just. Or, you don't believe He is righteous and just and cant type your true belief here for fear of being banned.



I have explained many times before and kindly repeated myself in post # 61.

God planned and sent Jesus and Jesus offered. Both are true.



Well what should I call you not wanting to settle on a definition of what Jesus endured? You most certainly are guilty of moving the goal posts on Jesus's suffering, God sending Him and God being responsible for His death.

And now instead of telling me your A-Z belief so that the goal posts can remain in place, you resort to this ad hominem.

Must be hard being unable to type your true belief here for fear of being banned. That is the real truth, isn't it?



The death from sin is simply excommunication from God's presence as we see with paradise, sheol and Adam and Eve removed from Eden.

Christians do not suffer this death. We are immediately reconciled with God in heaven.

Your bias view requires you to believe death = death by fire / annihilation. Which makes me wonder why you asking the question...



You obviously don't understand that it is irrelevant to the point I am making. Vastly!



So good to hear you say this, finally. Correct!!!! we agree!!!!!

Now, face the reality that your belief taints God as Jesus did NOT sin and deserved NO punishment. Now since Jesus 1. Did not sin, 2. Did suffer a cruel death and 3. Was sent by God. We are left with only two possibilities.

1. God remains just and righteous as He made Himself flesh.
2. God is not just and righteous, He is a mix of good and evil.

You are leaving the reader to assume number 2 of you, and that per both of us, is false teacher space!



Which one, you have raised two. And I don't know how else to say to you that at this point, I am just thoroughly convinced that you are closing your eyes when you read me explain why it is not false. Your accusations of a false premise are so ''insanely'' silly.

For the last time.

False premise accusation 1 - God did not send Jesus

God created Jesus Isa 9:6, planned Him for the cross before the foundations of the earth Eph 1:4 and impregnated Mary Luke 1:35.

My whole body cringes when I read this accusation!!

False premise accusation 2 - God did not punish Jesus, the devil did and Jesus offered Himself as a ransom.

Imagine thinking a father who sends his daughter (who volunteered) to a very cruel Mexican drug cartel to settle a debt he created, being not guilty of her violent and cruel murder.

My whole body cringes when I read this accusation!!

When you're done playing games and want to have an honest discussion let me know.

 

[Rhema]

In regard to the last point re. interpreting the text in a deceitful manner, I think of, (2 Cor. 4:2)

My apologies, I ought to have written translated....

More so frustrating when the text of Scripture is translated in a deceitful manner in order to promulgate a specific Doctrine - the worst being 2 Tim. 3:16.

The Old Testament Scriptures are spoken of in 2 Timothy 3:16, as being by inspiration of God, so this is what I believe:-

Yes, that's the verse deceitfully translated. It's worse when people apply it to the New Testament writings. I see you only mention the Old Testament Scriptures, so... not the New Testament then?

We would still have a problem with this profound declaration of the prophet Jeremiah.

How can you say, "We are wise, and the law (TORAH) of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?​

- Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV

Judaism, even by the time of Jeremiah, had gotten so far off track because of the scribes changing the OT text that God had to send his Son. Why? Jesus relates a parable, the servants being the prophets.

Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.​

- Luke 20:9-13 KJV

So that I would not be able to view it critically in the way that you have done.

Indeed, when we attach holy status to anything written or said, then critical thinking flies out the door and we are left with a religion that enslaves. Think of your brothers and sisters (if they be such) who are Roman Catholic, and how to them anything said or written by the Pope is holy. Then realize it was these very same Catholic Bishops who declared the canon of the Bible to be holy.

So what did Jesus say about this? From your very own post.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in My name,
He shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.'
(Joh 14:25-26)

Indeed the Comforter is to teach YOU whatsoever Jesus had preached. But please realize that Jesus said this about himself, not about others. The epistles of Paul are the Foundation of the gentile-Roman Orthodox Church. Indeed there does exist this thing called Pauline Christianity LINK. As I've said before, a good rule of thumb is that Peter preached Jesus and Him Resurrected, while Paul preached Christ and Him Crucified. There is a difference.

The four gospels each have a separate purpose

Says who? Can this be found in the Bible? No. It is a teaching of the church - in specific - the Roman Catholic Church. It's church tradition, along with the claim that there can only be four gospels since there are only four winds.

It also speaks to the title of this thread, that people choose church teachings and so cannot really study the New Testament texts as they ought.

I acknowledge your post, but will have to come back to it, @Rhema.

Yes, about Luke's story of the two thieves. But when one cannot let Luke's narrative speak for itself, then one does damage to Luke. When one cannot let Mark's account stand on its own, then one does damage to Mark. Etc.

So should we just stop looking at what the texts actually say? In order to preserve the tradition of our church and its derivative religion? I would not have thought that of you.

In regard to the last point re. interpreting the text in a deceitful manner, I think of, (2 Cor. 4:2)

'Therefore seeing we have this ministry,
as we have received mercy, we faint not;
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
not walking in craftiness,
nor handling the word of God deceitfully;
but by manifestation of the truth
commending ourselves to every man's conscience
in the sight of God. '
(2Cor. 4:1-2)

Unfortunately when using the phrase "the Word of God" Paul did not mean the Old Testament. Nor could he have meant the NT Gospels, as they hadn't been written yet. When Paul is speaking about not "handling the word of God deceitfully," he was speaking about his own writings; his own Gospel; the one that he received by a divine revelation (and he even says so):

What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.​

- 1 Corinthians 14:36-37 KJV

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

- Galatians 1:11-12 KJV

But would Jesus Christ reveal a gospel message to Paul that was different from that which he taught the Twelve? And why would Paul even need to write those things? Paul himself confesses that there was a different gospel being preached that differed from his own:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.​

- Galatians 1:6-10 KJV

So are we to be servants of Christ? Or are we to be disciples of Jesus? Many would claim that there is no difference, that we are to save people from going to hell and make sure they go to heaven when they die. I'm sorry, but the text does not say that God sent Paul into the world that the world though him might be saved. Paul truly is not my Messiah.

BUT... in the very early part of Paul's ministry, Paul did preach that which Peter preached:

Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man (Jesus) is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.​

- Acts 13:38-39 KJV

Again it's unfortunate that the text only says, "all that believe" but does not say what is to be believed. It's obvious, though, from the gospels and Peter's sermon in Acts 2 that this would refer to the teachings of Jesus who preached a very, very different "mechanism" for how one is to be forgiven their sins than that which Moses taught.

If, as the verse quoted above tells us, each writer was taught by the Holy Ghost, Who brought all things to their remembrance, then there cannot be error in either,

Well we find ourselves back to context. Luke was not one of the Twelve. Neither was Mark (although tradition has it that Mark was Peter's "secretary"). And the Gospel name John has its own... issues. So either Jesus was speaking to only the Twelve, or he was speaking to all of us.

Again I hasten to remind everyone that I am an Acts 2:38 Christian, lest I once more suffer the slings and arrows of the hateful ones on the forum.

But I'm an Acts 2:38 Christian with his eyes open, and one having received the Holy Spirit in like manner as recounted in Acts chapter two.

then there cannot be error in either, simply, as I say, a different purpose, each bringing to the fore that which the Holy Spirit desires to be recorded.

Admittedly, I don't know what you mean by error, but certainly the Holy Spirit wouldn't desire to have discrepancies recorded (and there are some). This is why I don't speak about Inerrancy, but Reliability. The account of the two thieves makes sense as a Spiritual Lesson, not as an historical account. And that would be the same with Abraham's Bosom. But some have problems with allowing Luke to write Spiritual Lessons. I don't. None of them conflict with the Gospel message of Jesus and Peter, and none conflict with the absolute Sovereignty of the Father to forgive sin without payment. (I mean can one really pay someone to be forgiven?)

One of these days I'll have to post a Thread on what the Greek text of 2 Timothy 3:16 really says, but it ain't what one finds in most all Bibles, because people want the fiction and religious solace found in the KJV (purposeful) mis-translation.

God bless,
Rhema
(So why are you forgiven?)

 

[Twistie]

Too many choose church doctrine over the Scriptures. There's a saying, there's safety in numbers. People also want to belong. Most people don't like being rejected and if you step outside of the lines in Churchianity you will be rejected. Therefore, many simply turn a blind eye in order to avoid the uncomfortableness and rejection.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

¯⁠\⁠_⁠ʘ⁠‿⁠ʘ⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[KingJ]

When you're done playing games and want to have an honest discussion let me know.

When you decide to take an actual stab at my accusations of your belief and stop moving the goal posts and evading, let me know.

But alas, you cannot actually deal with them. Can you.....

I ask both you and @Rhema for simple answers. Type Yes or No. Select A, B or C. But instead I get emotional rants off of cherry picked scripture.

If only this site had a formal debate section, you two would have nowhere to run or ground to stick your heads in and pretend the problems go away.

I boxed you both in and you don't even realize it. Like a person deciding to focus on their day of work when a bomb is falling on their head.

You two really are special cases.

 

[Garee]

Says who? Can this be found in the Bible? No. It is a teaching of the church - in specific - the Roman Catholic Church. It's church tradition, along with the claim that there can only be four gospels since there are only four winds.

It also speaks to the title of this thread, that people choose church teachings and so cannot really study the New Testament texts as they ought.

Four winds????

There is one gospel of Christ the husband, called sola scriptura (all things written in the law and prophets)

The so-called church fathers as oral traditions. I heard it through the grape vine of dying mankind. The pagan foundation "out of sight out of mind". No invisible God

.Murder the deceived misperceived competition. Punish them for not worshiping dying mankind. The venerable ones that lord it over the faith of the non-venerable pew warmers

Acts 22:1-62 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.;(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,);I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

Born again Paul became #1 on the most wanted dead or alive as they judged him according to their law. "I heard it through the venerable grape vine "

Acts24:5-6 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

Things backfired they proved to be the kind of liars that would add the idea of the gospel of Thomas and not the gospel of sola scriptura (all things which are written in the law and in the prophets

Acts 24:13=14;Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Paul turning things right side up nor earthly inspired of dying mankind.

Worship the God of the fathers. Not the legion of fathers as if they were invisible God