Orthodox Christianity, False Teachers, Faith, and Reason

[Chuckt]

Which is precisely why in order to learn the things of God, you have to go to God. He reveals Himself. We can find guidence in the scriptures and revelations of the past, but we must recieve our own revelations to truly know anything of God.

How do you know it is "proof" and not another spirit?

Do you know what question tells me? It tells me you don't know the Holy Spirit from another. Because those who have experienced the Holy Spirit can tell the difference?

I can test Mormonism by Moses because once you start believing in man becoming gods then your prophets are false. The word "gods" is plural and you should know full well that your religion teaches polytheism.

Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

 

[Chuckt]

How do you know it is "proof" and not another spirit?

Do you know what question tells me? It tells me you don't know the Holy Spirit from another. Because those who have experienced the Holy Spirit can tell the difference?

I can test Mormonism by Moses because once you start believing in man becoming gods then your prophets are false. The word "gods" is plural and you should know full well that your religion teaches polytheism.

Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

The deity of Mormonism is, in fact, an exalted man, one who comes in a long line of previously exalted beings, each dependent upon the one before. In fact, as we will see, in Mormonism, God and man are of the same species, with God simply being further advanced in exaltation. In fact, in orthodox Mormon belief, God is not eternal. Matter is eternal; the Mormon God is one god amongst an infinite pantheon of gods existing in unlimited universes.

The real issue with Mormonism: ?God is an exalted man? - The American Vision

 

[Avatar4321]

How do you know it is "proof" and not another spirit?

Do you know what question tells me? It tells me you don't know the Holy Spirit from another. Because those who have experienced the Holy Spirit can tell the difference?

I can test Mormonism by Moses because once you start believing in man becoming gods then your prophets are false. The word "gods" is plural and you should know full well that your religion teaches polytheism.

Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

The scriptures are clear that those who believe in the word are gods. That we are partakers of the Divine nature and joint heirs with Christ.

You may not agree. But the scriptures do say that.

And since Joseph spoke the words God commanded, then according to your scripture he is a prophet.

 

[Chuckt]

Do you know what question tells me? It tells me you don't know the Holy Spirit from another. Because those who have experienced the Holy Spirit can tell the difference?

I can test Mormonism by Moses because once you start believing in man becoming gods then your prophets are false. The word "gods" is plural and you should know full well that your religion teaches polytheism.

Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

The scriptures are clear that those who believe in the word are gods. That we are partakers of the Divine nature and joint heirs with Christ.

You may not agree. But the scriptures do say that.

And since Joseph spoke the words God commanded, then according to your scripture he is a prophet.

No. No. No. There is no other God.

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,

 

[Avatar4321]

I can test Mormonism by Moses because once you start believing in man becoming gods then your prophets are false. The word "gods" is plural and you should know full well that your religion teaches polytheism.

Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

The scriptures are clear that those who believe in the word are gods. That we are partakers of the Divine nature and joint heirs with Christ.

You may not agree. But the scriptures do say that.

And since Joseph spoke the words God commanded, then according to your scripture he is a prophet.

No. No. No. There is no other God.

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

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? (John 10:24-26)

The Father has made us after His image. He has endowed us with the ability to choose between good and evil. When we see Him we will see Him as He is and we will be like Him.

When God says we are the children of God. He means it. And what do children grow up to be?

 

[Chuckt]

The scriptures are clear that those who believe in the word are gods. That we are partakers of the Divine nature and joint heirs with Christ.

You may not agree. But the scriptures do say that.

And since Joseph spoke the words God commanded, then according to your scripture he is a prophet.

No. No. No. There is no other God.

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

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? (John 10:24-26)

The Father has made us after His image. He has endowed us with the ability to choose between good and evil. When we see Him we will see Him as He is and we will be like Him.

When God says we are the children of God. He means it. And what do children grow up to be?

Not exalted men. Not Gods.

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,[/QUOTE]

 

[Foxfyre]

The passage Avatar refers to is likely I John:3

(NIV)
1See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

3All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

(KJV)
1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is

3And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

And like so many verses taken out of context, this scripture can be interpreted in a number of ways and I can see where Avatar's tradition is coming from. But the original sin in the garden was Adam presuming to be the same as God. Moses was forbidden the promised land because he assumed a power not authorized by God. And as that concept was never rescinded in Old Testament or New Testament, I can also see where Chuckt's tradition is coming from.

My personal understanding as an alternative: When Jesus said we would be like him, I believe he was referring to us being spiritual beings who would live forever, and forever growing in the light and love of the living Christ. I do not translate being 'like him' to mean that we would BE him, or would BE God or gods.

Do I think God blesses Avatar who seeks the best truth he can find and whose words demonstrate the good works , good will, and care that comes from a changed life in Christ? By their fruits ye shall know them? Yes I do.

Do I think God blesses Chuckt who also believes he has the truth and who seeks to be worthy in the sight of God? Yes I do.

And do I think God blesses me? I know he does.

I think God cares about our heart and how we choose to hear and obey him far more than he cares about how we interpret a passage of scripture.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that a LOT of worshipers BELIEVE that the Ancient Stories describe a single pathway to a life after death in Heaven and I think that a lot of people believe that they are among the few who're worshiping the God of those stories correctly and will be among those who live on with God.

Oh I do too. Judaism rejects both Christianity and Islam and there are sects within Judaism that are not at all friendly to each other.

Islam rejects Judaism and Chrisitianity and there are sects within Islam that are not at all friendly with each other.

Christianity rejects Islam and embraces the Jewish prophecies and components of the Law, but it is its own thing. And there are hundreds of denominations and other sub groups within Christianity, each believing that it does church better than anybody else at least in some respects.

So obviously all of these cannot be right.

The basic concept of the OP was to explore whether we can use our intellect, logic, and reason to accept that God honors all and uses al for his purposes? Or must we choose one out of the many as the one true church and all others are inferior or heretics?

Step one is to open the mind to possibilities. Both the possibility that others may be right and the uncomfortable possibility that you may be wrong.

The path to intellectual enlightenment starts with tolerance.

And here you have come full circle back to the OP which was intended to be a challenge to approach our faith without putting our intellect, logic, and reason on a high shelf out of sight somewhere.

We have a very large number of different Islamic, Jewish, and Christian traditions as well as all the other great and more obscure religions of the world with all the subdivisions incorporated into almost all. And every single one of them, the groups overall and each sub group, believe they are honoring and obeying their particular deity or deities of whatever name in the best way they know how. Many believe they are doing that in the ONLY proper way it can be done.

It can become a loud cacophony of deafening and absurd noise that cannot help but turn off the unbeliever. Sometimes it takes a hateful turn when one group presumes the authority to damn another group to hell or worse. Sometimes it takes a violent turn when one group presumes that they honor their deity by inflicting pain, suffering, destruction, and death on the 'heretics', 'infidels', or 'false witnesses.'

I believe the Holy Spirit is grieved and the angels weep at such chaos committed in the name of God. Most particularly when Christians quarrel among themselves and accuse and attack each other. This is not the way it was intended to be. And yet I have witnessed God's glory in the midst of it. He's bigger and more powerful than all the stupidity that humankind can devise.

 

[BreezeWood]

certain inaccuracies that are absolutes in the conveyance of Biblical religious interpretations should be circumspect in their teachings as the Almighty is as well of a generic origin that is not itself of a particular gathering but as the overseer of "all" that exists.

.

I interpret this to mean there are certain inaccuracies being put forward as absolutes in their interpretation which should be more circumspect in their teaching, with respect to the message they convey. God is universal belonging to no one religion or organization or people but oversees all of existence. Is this accurate?

ROFL. Are you guys speaking English? Okay just teasing.

But I think this might tie in with my hypothesis I posted a little while ago.

Whether it was the ancient Catholic Church that would not allow the people to read the Bible for themselves or interpret it outside of Catholic orthodoxy, or whether it is the authoritarian Protestant Church now who tells the flock what the scripture says and that is not to be questioned, do ya'll see a danger in that? Or is such a concept comforting?

how quickly dated a post can become with the ongoing dialogue ...

certainly the above hypothesis is relevant and whether the works within the Bible are inerrant or more the works of "human authority" - - but also that there are inerrant messages from God in the Bible meaningful for everyone and exactly which ones they are.

and, What exactly is the "Bible" ?

 

[Foxfyre]

I interpret this to mean there are certain inaccuracies being put forward as absolutes in their interpretation which should be more circumspect in their teaching, with respect to the message they convey. God is universal belonging to no one religion or organization or people but oversees all of existence. Is this accurate?

ROFL. Are you guys speaking English? Okay just teasing.

But I think this might tie in with my hypothesis I posted a little while ago.

Whether it was the ancient Catholic Church that would not allow the people to read the Bible for themselves or interpret it outside of Catholic orthodoxy, or whether it is the authoritarian Protestant Church now who tells the flock what the scripture says and that is not to be questioned, do ya'll see a danger in that? Or is such a concept comforting?

how quickly dated a post can become with the ongoing dialogue ...

certainly the above hypothesis is relevant and whether the works within the Bible are inerrant or more the works of "human authority" - - but also that there are inerrant messages from God in the Bible meaningful for everyone and exactly which ones they are.

and, What exactly is the "Bible" ?

The Old Testament consists of a group of manuscripts or 'books' agreed by a Jewish council of elders during the disapora or the time that the Jews had been driven from Jerusalem by the Babylonians and were living in 'exile' all over the near east, northern Africa, and Europe. Because of the danger of syncretism or corruption of the pure Jewish faith by components of the pagan cultures in which they lived creeping into the mix, they chose the writings that would be authentic teachings and ordered that those writings be the only authorized 'scripture'.

Likewise, hundreds of years later, the Church elders argued long and loudly over what writings were and were not authentic, and eventually settled on the manuscripts or 'books' that make up the New Testament. The criteria for an authorized manuscript was that the writings had to be by somebody who had personally encountered Jesus of Nazareth and/or the risen Christ, or who personally knew one of the Apostles. Because the books of the Apocrypha did not conclusively meet that test or seemed to contradict the books that did meet that test, they could not agree on whether those should be included and some did include them but as a separate section and deemed to have lesser authority. From that point, the New Testament we have was adopted by common usage in the church until it was universally accepted as the New Testament scriptures.

The Old and New Testament together make up the Bible with the Apochrypha also included in some publishings.

 

[Chuckt]

It can become a loud cacophony of deafening and absurd noise that cannot help but turn off the unbeliever. Sometimes it takes a hateful turn when one group presumes the authority to damn another group to hell or worse. Sometimes it takes a violent turn when one group presumes that they honor their deity by inflicting pain, suffering, destruction, and death on the 'heretics', 'infidels', or 'false witnesses.'

I believe the Holy Spirit is grieved and the angels weep at such chaos committed in the name of God. Most particularly when Christians quarrel among themselves and accuse and attack each other. This is not the way it was intended to be. And yet I have witnessed God's glory in the midst of it. He's bigger and more powerful than all the stupidity that humankind can devise.

Do you know where Jehovah's Witnesses get most of their converts from? From Baptist Churches.

The spiritual fight is not neutral. The demons don't stop just because you want to be nice.

Ephesians 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Light reproves. God is light and light reproves.

And yet Paul says to reprove the works of darkness:

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

And taking every thought captive plus reproving the works of darkness is basically biblical support for arguing and even Paul disputed daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9) so basically you would have to accuse Paul the Apostle that he was doing wrong.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

So where am I told to be neutral to the Lord? Saints are pretty much for the Lord and not neutral to the Lord or the truth as far as He is concerned.

And as far as God is concerned, there is evidence that He hates what false prophets and teachers are doing and that Christians tolerate them:

Revelation 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

As far as Mormonism is concerned, it is pretty clear.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I interpret this to mean there are certain inaccuracies being put forward as absolutes in their interpretation which should be more circumspect in their teaching, with respect to the message they convey. God is universal belonging to no one religion or organization or people but oversees all of existence. Is this accurate?

ROFL. Are you guys speaking English? Okay just teasing.

But I think this might tie in with my hypothesis I posted a little while ago.

Whether it was the ancient Catholic Church that would not allow the people to read the Bible for themselves or interpret it outside of Catholic orthodoxy, or whether it is the authoritarian Protestant Church now who tells the flock what the scripture says and that is not to be questioned, do ya'll see a danger in that? Or is such a concept comforting?

how quickly dated a post can become with the ongoing dialogue ...

certainly the above hypothesis is relevant and whether the works within the Bible are inerrant or more the works of "human authority" - - but also that there are inerrant messages from God in the Bible meaningful for everyone and exactly which ones they are.

and, What exactly is the "Bible" ?

I personally believe the manuscripts included in the Bible were inspired by God and are all relevant. And I believe for what they are, they are all inerrant. The problem comes in what they actually say to us; what they are intended to mean; what they meant to those who wrote down the words. And it is that latter concept that so many Christians find difficulty in finding mutual accord.

 

[Foxfyre]

It can become a loud cacophony of deafening and absurd noise that cannot help but turn off the unbeliever. Sometimes it takes a hateful turn when one group presumes the authority to damn another group to hell or worse. Sometimes it takes a violent turn when one group presumes that they honor their deity by inflicting pain, suffering, destruction, and death on the 'heretics', 'infidels', or 'false witnesses.'

I believe the Holy Spirit is grieved and the angels weep at such chaos committed in the name of God. Most particularly when Christians quarrel among themselves and accuse and attack each other. This is not the way it was intended to be. And yet I have witnessed God's glory in the midst of it. He's bigger and more powerful than all the stupidity that humankind can devise.

Do you know where Jehovah's Witnesses get most of their converts from? From Baptist Churches.

The spiritual fight is not neutral. The demons don't stop just because you want to be nice.

Ephesians 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Light reproves. God is light and light reproves.

And yet Paul says to reprove the works of darkness:

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

And taking every thought captive plus reproving the works of darkness is basically biblical support for arguing and even Paul disputed daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9) so basically you would have to accuse Paul the Apostle that he was doing wrong.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

So where am I told to be neutral to the Lord? Saints are pretty much for the Lord and not neutral to the Lord or the truth as far as He is concerned.

And as far as God is concerned, there is evidence that He hates what false prophets and teachers are doing and that Christians tolerate them:

Revelation 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

As far as Mormonism is concerned, it is pretty clear.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

So what is your motive? To condemn those who do not believe? Or who believe wrongly? Or to introduce another to the living Christ and the nurture of the Holy Spirit?

For those who believe differently than you do, you can quote scripture until you are blue in the face, but without your personal witness, you might appear as the noisy gong or clanging symbol that Paul spoke of in Corinthians. For every scripture you post, the one who disagrees can post another scripture that appears to contradict your scripture.

Which is why just quoting scripture, without someone to competently interpret it, is almost always useless in teaching the truth to the unbeliever or the one who believes wrongly.

But quoting scripture to underwrite the testimony the Holy Spirit gives us is sometimes useful and instructive.

 

[Chuckt]

It can become a loud cacophony of deafening and absurd noise that cannot help but turn off the unbeliever. Sometimes it takes a hateful turn when one group presumes the authority to damn another group to hell or worse. Sometimes it takes a violent turn when one group presumes that they honor their deity by inflicting pain, suffering, destruction, and death on the 'heretics', 'infidels', or 'false witnesses.'

I believe the Holy Spirit is grieved and the angels weep at such chaos committed in the name of God. Most particularly when Christians quarrel among themselves and accuse and attack each other. This is not the way it was intended to be. And yet I have witnessed God's glory in the midst of it. He's bigger and more powerful than all the stupidity that humankind can devise.

Do you know where Jehovah's Witnesses get most of their converts from? From Baptist Churches.

The spiritual fight is not neutral. The demons don't stop just because you want to be nice.

Ephesians 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Light reproves. God is light and light reproves.

And yet Paul says to reprove the works of darkness:

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

And taking every thought captive plus reproving the works of darkness is basically biblical support for arguing and even Paul disputed daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9) so basically you would have to accuse Paul the Apostle that he was doing wrong.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

So where am I told to be neutral to the Lord? Saints are pretty much for the Lord and not neutral to the Lord or the truth as far as He is concerned.

And as far as God is concerned, there is evidence that He hates what false prophets and teachers are doing and that Christians tolerate them:

Revelation 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

As far as Mormonism is concerned, it is pretty clear.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

So what is your motive? To condemn those who do not believe? Or who believe wrongly? Or to introduce another to the living Christ and the nurture of the Holy Spirit?

For those who believe differently than you do, you can quote scripture until you are blue in the face, but without your personal witness, you might appear as the noisy gong or clanging symbol that Paul spoke of in Corinthians. For every scripture you post, the one who disagrees can post another scripture that appears to contradict your scripture.

Which is why just quoting scripture, without someone to competently interpret it, is almost always useless in teaching the truth to the unbeliever or the one who believes wrongly.

But quoting scripture to underwrite the testimony the Holy Spirit gives us is sometimes useful and instructive.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The construction of 2 Tim. 3:16 is "all writings God breathed". It is profitable so if God says it is profitable then what I'm doing is profitable because these are God's words. God's words are profitable for doctrine which means teaching, it is profitable for reproof which means exposing, God's word is profitable for correction because it makes people stand upright and for instruction in righteousness. You don't give any discipline to non-neutral people by being nice.

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

The Bible says that some people will get worse and not better.

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Paul told Titus to rebuke with all authority.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

In season and out of season means to do it when you feel like doing it and when you don't feel like doing it. Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. I appreciate Jeri's long posts because it sounds like "longsuffering".

1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

You are right in the sense that we have to like people and I do like Avatar because he helps keep civility towards belief, he is probably closer to me than an atheist and he blends in well but when it comes to Jesus, the gospels and salvation, I have to speak up and disagree.

If I am a salesmen with a false gospel, you aren't going to win me with love because I'm a seller and not a consumer. Some people peddle cults because they get paid and that is a pure and simple answer why their need will trump you being nice. If they need to live then their extra $100 a week or whatever they make buys the groceries and puts the heat on.

That is my motive. You can criticize the Bible now.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you know where Jehovah's Witnesses get most of their converts from? From Baptist Churches.

The spiritual fight is not neutral. The demons don't stop just because you want to be nice.

Ephesians 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Light reproves. God is light and light reproves.

And yet Paul says to reprove the works of darkness:

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

And taking every thought captive plus reproving the works of darkness is basically biblical support for arguing and even Paul disputed daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9) so basically you would have to accuse Paul the Apostle that he was doing wrong.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

So where am I told to be neutral to the Lord? Saints are pretty much for the Lord and not neutral to the Lord or the truth as far as He is concerned.

And as far as God is concerned, there is evidence that He hates what false prophets and teachers are doing and that Christians tolerate them:

Revelation 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

As far as Mormonism is concerned, it is pretty clear.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

So what is your motive? To condemn those who do not believe? Or who believe wrongly? Or to introduce another to the living Christ and the nurture of the Holy Spirit?

For those who believe differently than you do, you can quote scripture until you are blue in the face, but without your personal witness, you might appear as the noisy gong or clanging symbol that Paul spoke of in Corinthians. For every scripture you post, the one who disagrees can post another scripture that appears to contradict your scripture.

Which is why just quoting scripture, without someone to competently interpret it, is almost always useless in teaching the truth to the unbeliever or the one who believes wrongly.

But quoting scripture to underwrite the testimony the Holy Spirit gives us is sometimes useful and instructive.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The construction of 2 Tim. 3:16 is "all writings God breathed". It is profitable so if God says it is profitable then what I'm doing is profitable because these are God's words. God's words are profitable for doctrine which means teaching, it is profitable for reproof which means exposing, God's word is profitable for correction because it makes people stand upright and for instruction in righteousness. You don't give any discipline to non-neutral people by being nice.

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

The Bible says that some people will get worse and not better.

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Paul told Titus to rebuke with all authority.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

In season and out of season means to do it when you feel like doing it and when you don't feel like doing it. Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. I appreciate Jeri's long posts because it sounds like "longsuffering".

1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

You are right in the sense that we have to like people and I do like Avatar because he helps keep civility towards belief, he is probably closer to me than an atheist and he blends in well but when it comes to Jesus, the gospels and salvation, I have to speak up and disagree.

If I am a salesmen with a false gospel, you aren't going to win me with love because I'm a seller and not a consumer. Some people peddle cults because they get paid and that is a pure and simple answer why their need will trump you being nice. If they need to live then their extra $100 a week or whatever they make buys the groceries and puts the heat on.

That is my motive. You can criticize the Bible now.

In studying the methods and M.O. of almost all the famous cult leaders who called themselves Christian, every single one of them knew their Bibles and quoted it extensively. And by corrupting the scriptures and/or twisting them for their own purposes, they lured people by the thousands into their webs.

And THAT is why I am cautious of those who have little or nothing to offer but scripture when giving their witness even as they claim to have the truth and declare all others to be in error and in danger of hellfire. It is a tactic employed by wolves far more often than true shepherds of the Christian flock.

I have not criticized the Bible. I rather believe I have been pretty consistent in defending it on this thread and on many others as I do elsewhere in my life. I do that by teaching or giving testimony to what I believe to be the truths contained within it.

Also I have not accused you on your understanding of scripture and have not criticized your chosen church home. I have accused you of bearing false witness against me and am calling you out on your error about that. To do that with no explanation and nothing to show as evidence that authorizes you to indict me is not my understanding of what Christians are to do. I have absolutely no clue what I could possibly have said to set you against me with such contempt and venom. But I bear you no ill will, nor do I condemn you.

 

[Chuckt]

So what is your motive? To condemn those who do not believe? Or who believe wrongly? Or to introduce another to the living Christ and the nurture of the Holy Spirit?

For those who believe differently than you do, you can quote scripture until you are blue in the face, but without your personal witness, you might appear as the noisy gong or clanging symbol that Paul spoke of in Corinthians. For every scripture you post, the one who disagrees can post another scripture that appears to contradict your scripture.

Which is why just quoting scripture, without someone to competently interpret it, is almost always useless in teaching the truth to the unbeliever or the one who believes wrongly.

But quoting scripture to underwrite the testimony the Holy Spirit gives us is sometimes useful and instructive.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The construction of 2 Tim. 3:16 is "all writings God breathed". It is profitable so if God says it is profitable then what I'm doing is profitable because these are God's words. God's words are profitable for doctrine which means teaching, it is profitable for reproof which means exposing, God's word is profitable for correction because it makes people stand upright and for instruction in righteousness. You don't give any discipline to non-neutral people by being nice.

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

The Bible says that some people will get worse and not better.

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Paul told Titus to rebuke with all authority.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

In season and out of season means to do it when you feel like doing it and when you don't feel like doing it. Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. I appreciate Jeri's long posts because it sounds like "longsuffering".

1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

You are right in the sense that we have to like people and I do like Avatar because he helps keep civility towards belief, he is probably closer to me than an atheist and he blends in well but when it comes to Jesus, the gospels and salvation, I have to speak up and disagree.

If I am a salesmen with a false gospel, you aren't going to win me with love because I'm a seller and not a consumer. Some people peddle cults because they get paid and that is a pure and simple answer why their need will trump you being nice. If they need to live then their extra $100 a week or whatever they make buys the groceries and puts the heat on.

That is my motive. You can criticize the Bible now.

In studying the methods and M.O. of almost all the famous cult leaders who called themselves Christian, every single one of them knew their Bibles and quoted it extensively. And by corrupting the scriptures and/or twisting them for their own purposes, they lured people by the thousands into their webs.

And THAT is why I am cautious of those who have little or nothing to offer but scripture when giving their witness even as they claim to have the truth and declare all others to be in error and in danger of hellfire. It is a tactic employed by wolves far more often than true shepherds of the Christian flock.

I have not criticized the Bible. I rather believe I have been pretty consistent in defending it on this thread and on many others as I do elsewhere in my life. I do that by teaching or giving testimony to what I believe to be the truths contained within it.

Also I have not accused you on your understanding of scripture and have not criticized your chosen church home. I have accused you of bearing false witness against me and am calling you out on your error about that. To do that with no explanation and nothing to show as evidence that authorizes you to indict me is not my understanding of what Christians are to do. I have absolutely no clue what I could possibly have said to set you against me with such contempt and venom. But I bear you no ill will, nor do I condemn you.

Foxfyre, I wonder if you would have been in the upper room with Jesus. Satan entered into Judas at that point so would you have been there since Judas was a famous cult leader who called himself Christian but back then it was called "The way". They were all quoting Jesus so if Satan was there, does that mean you cannot follow Jesus in certain places and situations like the upper room?

You say you aren't criticizing the Bible but you are criticizing me.

What we believe is that we are allowed to talk about Jesus (Mark 16:15) and the disciples were allowed to tell people whether they retain or remit their sins (John 20:23) so the question today is, "Who is a disciple?" If someone is honestly following Jesus, I believe they have that right given to them by God.

The Bible isn't my words. We believe they are God's words so if people reject them then they are rejecting God. When I give people the Bible and you criticize me, you are criticizing God:

Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth (rejects) you despiseth (rejects) me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

I didn't want to be doing what I'm doing here today but God called me and I'm just a sinner but when I follow the methods and words of God in the Bible then you are criticizing God. Did Aaron get removed when he built the goden calf? Who removed Aaron? Are you allowed to remove Aaron? Why or why not? I'm not Aaron but I am trying to do what God called me to do as an imperfect sinner as I am.

Proverbs 14:4 Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox.

I'm going to mess up the Church because I'm going to get it dirty but if you want a clean church then don't have any oxen.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have not criticized or even corrected you about anything Chuckt. I have even defended you in your view of the Bible. I have asked you to present evidence for what you have accused me. To accuse your neighbor without evidence is to bear false witness. That's it.

 

[BreezeWood]

ROFL. Are you guys speaking English? Okay just teasing.

But I think this might tie in with my hypothesis I posted a little while ago.

Whether it was the ancient Catholic Church that would not allow the people to read the Bible for themselves or interpret it outside of Catholic orthodoxy, or whether it is the authoritarian Protestant Church now who tells the flock what the scripture says and that is not to be questioned, do ya'll see a danger in that? Or is such a concept comforting?

how quickly dated a post can become with the ongoing dialogue ...

certainly the above hypothesis is relevant and whether the works within the Bible are inerrant or more the works of "human authority" - - but also that there are inerrant messages from God in the Bible meaningful for everyone and exactly which ones they are.

and, What exactly is the "Bible" ?

The Old Testament consists of a group of manuscripts or 'books' agreed by a Jewish council of elders during the disapora or the time that the Jews had been driven from Jerusalem by the Babylonians and were living in 'exile' all over the near east, northern Africa, and Europe. Because of the danger of syncretism or corruption of the pure Jewish faith by components of the pagan cultures in which they lived creeping into the mix, they chose the writings that would be authentic teachings and ordered that those writings be the only authorized 'scripture'.

Likewise, hundreds of years later, the Church elders argued long and loudly over what writings were and were not authentic, and eventually settled on the manuscripts or 'books' that make up the New Testament. The criteria for an authorized manuscript was that the writings had to be by somebody who had personally encountered Jesus of Nazareth and/or the risen Christ, or who personally knew one of the Apostles. Because the books of the Apocrypha did not conclusively meet that test or seemed to contradict the books that did meet that test, they could not agree on whether those should be included and some did include them but as a separate section and deemed to have lesser authority. From that point, the New Testament we have was adopted by common usage in the church until it was universally accepted as the New Testament scriptures.

The Old and New Testament together make up the Bible with the Apochrypha also included in some publishings.
............

I personally believe the manuscripts included in the Bible were inspired by God and are all relevant. And I believe for what they are, they are all inerrant. The problem comes in what they actually say to us; what they are intended to mean; what they meant to those who wrote down the words. And it is that latter concept that so many Christians find difficulty in finding mutual accord.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

the above is as far as I have "read" the Bible - I can not accept the passage as an inerrant message from God, "and let them have dominion over ... " or that God is not the image and likeness of all the Flora and Fauna of the Garden that itself is the Physical Presence and Proof of Gods Existence.



The Old Testament consists of a group of manuscripts or 'books' agreed by a Jewish council of elders ... Likewise, hundreds of years later, the Church elders argued long and loudly over what writings were and were not authentic


well, how can the Bible be the inerrant message of God if it is actually a product of one religious order or another - including Islam as they also use parts of the Bible in their Koran ? -

the first 26 verses I have read are not referenced as Judaism I have no affiliation with ... so what is being read ?

Chuckt: The Bible isn't my words. We believe they are God's words so if people reject them then they are rejecting God. When I give people the Bible and you criticize me, you are criticizing God:

where is the separation between the word of Christianity and the word of God - in fact they may be rejecting Christianity and not God.

Foxfyre: But are those of us who do not feel compelled to shrug off obvious differences or who take the stories as allegory to teach universal truths so much in error that we cannot be considered children of God? Must we be considered heretics or false teachers?

that is a good question including those that believe the search for the inerrant message of God to be the goal for reading the Bible that is not affiliated with any particular religious order but for the purpose of attaining Remittance as Commanded to the Everlasting and that present interpretations have not yet reached that goal.

 

[Foxfyre]

how quickly dated a post can become with the ongoing dialogue ...

certainly the above hypothesis is relevant and whether the works within the Bible are inerrant or more the works of "human authority" - - but also that there are inerrant messages from God in the Bible meaningful for everyone and exactly which ones they are.

and, What exactly is the "Bible" ?

The Old Testament consists of a group of manuscripts or 'books' agreed by a Jewish council of elders during the disapora or the time that the Jews had been driven from Jerusalem by the Babylonians and were living in 'exile' all over the near east, northern Africa, and Europe. Because of the danger of syncretism or corruption of the pure Jewish faith by components of the pagan cultures in which they lived creeping into the mix, they chose the writings that would be authentic teachings and ordered that those writings be the only authorized 'scripture'.

Likewise, hundreds of years later, the Church elders argued long and loudly over what writings were and were not authentic, and eventually settled on the manuscripts or 'books' that make up the New Testament. The criteria for an authorized manuscript was that the writings had to be by somebody who had personally encountered Jesus of Nazareth and/or the risen Christ, or who personally knew one of the Apostles. Because the books of the Apocrypha did not conclusively meet that test or seemed to contradict the books that did meet that test, they could not agree on whether those should be included and some did include them but as a separate section and deemed to have lesser authority. From that point, the New Testament we have was adopted by common usage in the church until it was universally accepted as the New Testament scriptures.

The Old and New Testament together make up the Bible with the Apochrypha also included in some publishings.
............

I personally believe the manuscripts included in the Bible were inspired by God and are all relevant. And I believe for what they are, they are all inerrant. The problem comes in what they actually say to us; what they are intended to mean; what they meant to those who wrote down the words. And it is that latter concept that so many Christians find difficulty in finding mutual accord.

the above is as far as I have "read" the Bible - I can not accept the passage as an inerrant message from God, "and let them have dominion over ... " or that God is not the image and likeness of all the Flora and Fauna of the Garden that itself is the Physical Presence and Proof of Gods Existence.



The Old Testament consists of a group of manuscripts or 'books' agreed by a Jewish council of elders ... Likewise, hundreds of years later, the Church elders argued long and loudly over what writings were and were not authentic


well, how can the Bible be the inerrant message of God if it is actually a product of one religious order or another - including Islam as they also use parts of the Bible in their Koran ? -

the first 26 verses I have read are not referenced as Judaism I have no affiliation with ... so what is being read ?

Chuckt: The Bible isn't my words. We believe they are God's words so if people reject them then they are rejecting God. When I give people the Bible and you criticize me, you are criticizing God:

where is the separation between the word of Christianity and the word of God - in fact they may be rejecting Christianity and not God.

Foxfyre: But are those of us who do not feel compelled to shrug off obvious differences or who take the stories as allegory to teach universal truths so much in error that we cannot be considered children of God? Must we be considered heretics or false teachers?

that is a good question including those that believe the search for the inerrant message of God to be the goal for reading the Bible that is not affiliated with any particular religious order but for the purpose of attaining Remittance as Commanded to the Everlasting and that present interpretations have not yet reached that goal.

But I did qualify 'inerrant scriptures' with the phrase 'for what they are.' The Bible is amazing literature, a vast collection of history, statement of the law, allegory to explain or make a theological statement, legend, lore, prophecy, poetry, wise counsel, symbolism, and instruction. The Bible is a glimpse into a powerful relationship with the Almighty and the story of the people who knew Him and/or seek to know and obey him as seen through the eyes of those who wrote down the words. Because of the enduring power of the scriptures to inform, bless, inspire, and instruct us, I have to believe God was in the process.

Do I believe God created light on the Earth before he created the Sun and stars? Of course not, though I respect the beliefs of those who do believe that. Do I believe that the text as we have it is intended to be a theological statement that all that has ever existed, is, or will be is because God caused it to happen? Yes, I believe that with all my heart and believe that to be true. So 'inerrant' is not the same thing as saying that everything in the Bible happened exactly as it would be as we understand it using only our 21st Century experience and understanding.

In my belief, the truth of God and/or the scriptures is not dependent on what church we belong to or what tradition we come from.

 

[Chuckt]

But I did qualify 'inerrant scriptures' with the phrase 'for what they are.' The Bible is amazing literature, a vast collection of history, statement of the law, allegory to explain or make a theological statement, legend, lore, prophecy, poetry, wise counsel, symbolism, and instruction. The Bible is a glimpse into a powerful relationship with the Almighty and the story of the people who knew Him and/or seek to know and obey him as seen through the eyes of those who wrote down the words. Because of the enduring power of the scriptures to inform, bless, inspire, and instruct us, I have to believe God was in the process.

Do I believe God created light on the Earth before he created the Sun and stars? Of course not, though I respect the beliefs of those who do believe that. Do I believe that the text as we have it is intended to be a theological statement that all that has ever existed, is, or will be is because God caused it to happen? Yes, I believe that with all my heart and believe that to be true. So 'inerrant' is not the same thing as saying that everything in the Bible happened exactly as it would be as we understand it using only our 21st Century experience and understanding.

In my belief, the truth of God and/or the scriptures is not dependent on what church we belong to or what tradition we come from.

I would see theological problems with that.
And that is the kind of thing that we would have friction over.
You said I bear false witness against you.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.