|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 23:50:49 GMT -5
Like I said call it whatever make you sleep at night, matter of fact lets stick with scripture, after all isn't the doctrine you protest call Sola scriptura? Scripture Alone, so yeah lets call it scripture. The term or belief "Sola Scriptura" appears no where in the Bible. So you are teaching a Doctrine that is "outside" of The Bible. I teach nothing I believe only what can be proven in scripture, that is my personal choice, I do not tell anyone else to or not to do likewise. Now do you want to outline your version of the doctrine of salvation so I can support that doctrine with scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 11, 2009 0:01:54 GMT -5
The term or belief "Sola Scriptura" appears no where in the Bible. So you are teaching a Doctrine that is "outside" of The Bible. I teach nothing I believe only what can be proven in scripture, that is my personal choice, I do not tell anyone else to or not to do likewise. Now do you want to outline your version of the doctrine of salvation so I can support that doctrine with scripture. Ok, you brought it up...I accused you of using a Doctrine not in Scripture...prove me wrong. Show me where The Holy Bible defines Sola Scriptura. And, show me where The Holy Bible defines The Doctrine Of Salvation. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 11, 2009 0:05:06 GMT -5
#1 Teresa brought up Sola scriptures.
#2 I will give you scripture that support the doctrine of salvation as soon as you tell me what your view of the doctrine of salvation is.
What I will not do is give scripture after scripture showing you the doctrine of salvation for you to say that is not the doctrine of salvation.
So tell me what you believe the doctrine of salvation is and Then I will give you scripture that proves it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 11, 2009 0:08:09 GMT -5
#1 Teresa brought up Sola scriptures. #2 I will give you scripture that support the doctrine of salvation as soon as you tell me what your view of the doctrine of salvation is. What I will not do is give scripture after scripture showing you the doctrine of salvation for you to say that is not the doctrine of salvation. So tell me what you believe the doctrine of salvation is and Then I will give you scripture that proves it. I asked you first. I obliged you the first time when you refused to answer my question until I answered yours first, but this time, I insist that you go first since I already asked you first and you asked me second. We have to have some semblance of order here. Otherwise, there will be chaos. Let's be mature about this...I asked you first so have some common courtesy and respect and just respond. We'll get a lot further with order. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 11, 2009 0:13:21 GMT -5
Matter of fact, here are all the questions you haven't answered yet?
Where in The Bible is The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura taught?
Where in The Bible is The Holy Bible mentioned?
Where in The Bible is the Doctrine of Salvation taught?
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 11, 2009 0:15:30 GMT -5
So you are just bluffing you really do not want me to show you the doctrine of salvation in scripture?
Like I said I will not waste my time until we are in agreement as to what the doctrine of salvation is or at least until I know your version of it.
If you want me to research the scripture then give me an outline.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 11, 2009 0:20:17 GMT -5
This conversation is going in circles I could careless about the doctrine of sola scripture if you want to believe everything your told that is your prerogitive I will not try and talk you down from that ledge, as far as if the Holy Bible is mentioned in scripture that is simply a facetious that is not meant to have an answer. Now as far as the doctrine of salvation. Tell me what you believe the doctrine of salvation is then i will give you scripture.
The doctrine of salvation might mean different things to different people I need to know what you mean by the doctrine of salvation before i start my research.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 11, 2009 0:42:37 GMT -5
So you are just bluffing you really do not want me to show you the doctrine of salvation in scripture? Like I said I will not waste my time until we are in agreement as to what the doctrine of salvation is or at least until I know your version of it. If you want me to research the scripture then give me an outline. If you wanted to show it to me, you would've done it already. You spent more time talking about everything else but where you believe The Doctrine of Salvation is taught in The Holy Bible. And yes, if you're not going to respond to direct questions posted to you, then you are wasting your time here. I don't have to give you an outline for your definition of what The Doctrine of Salvation is. You should already know that, but I'll tell you what I'm going to... ...I challenge you to a formal debate on whether or not The Doctrine of Salvation is "in" The Bible. There are rules that will stop this kind of "not" responding to questions (if you do that in the formal debate, you will automatically lose). This is to ensure that a constructive exchange is had. If you feel that you can prove you point, then you should have no problems doing it within the contraints of a formal debate. Read the rules and either accept or reject my challenge...will be back with the link. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 11, 2009 0:49:10 GMT -5
This conversation is going in circles I could careless about the doctrine of sola scripture if you want to believe everything your told that is your prerogitive I will not try and talk you down from that ledge, as far as if the Holy Bible is mentioned in scripture that is simply a facetious that is not meant to have an answer. Now as far as the doctrine of salvation. Tell me what you believe the doctrine of salvation is then i will give you scripture. The doctrine of salvation might mean different things to different people I need to know what you mean by the doctrine of salvation before i start my research. Very well, to stop the circles, let's have a formal debate...read the rules and let me know if you approve of them. fideidefensor.proboards80.com/index.cgi?board=debatingboard&action=display&thread=488 |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Feb 12, 2009 16:47:00 GMT -5
But you just said that you don't believe we should take Jesus' words literally about cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye? Why not? Where in scripture does it say that this verse wasn't meant to be taken literally?
Why do you take certain verses, like the verse you sighted in in Romans, and say that is literal, but then you take other verses (like the Lord's Supper)and say that they are not?
Please explain what in the world St. Paul meant when he said this:
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.(1 Corinthians 11)
How can that be more plain???
Was he only speaking symbolically?
You see watchman, the point of me asking all these questions about what is literal and what is symbolic is to show you a very important thing. That we cannot try to interpret the Bible by ourselves as if it exists in a vacuum. It doesn't! It was written, completely inspired by the Holy Spirit, through the Church, and it also MUST BE INTERPRETED by the Holy Spirit, THROUGH THE CHURCH. (sorry for the caps)
Why is the Eucharist so important to us? Because it has always been important to the Church.
"They(the Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils."St. Ignatius(Bishop of Antioch) b. 50 AD martyr sometime between 98-117AD
Ignatius of Antioch, one of the Apostolic Fathers and a direct disciple of the Apostle John, mentions the Eucharist as "the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ",[17] and Justin Martyr speaks of it as more than a meal: "the food over which the prayer of thanksgiving, the word received from Christ, has been said ... is the flesh and blood of this Jesus who became flesh ... and the deacons carry some to those who are absent."[18]
(Wikipedia)
Again, do you really think that God let the Church be deceived for over 1400 years until the Reformers came along and proclaimed that the Eucharist was only a symbol?
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.(2 Tim. 4)
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 12, 2009 16:55:43 GMT -5
But you just said that you don't believe we should take Jesus' words literally about cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye? Why not? Where in scripture does it say that this verse wasn't meant to be taken literally? Why do you take certain verses, like the verse you sighted in in Romans, and say that is literal, but then you take other verses (like the Lord's Supper)and say that they are not? " I teach nothing I believe only what can be proven in scripture, that is my personal choice, I do not tell anyone else to or not to do likewise."  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 12, 2009 18:13:57 GMT -5
But you just said that you don't believe we should take Jesus' words literally about cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye? Why not? Where in scripture does it say that this verse wasn't meant to be taken literally? Why do you take certain verses, like the verse you sighted in in Romans, and say that is literal, but then you take other verses (like the Lord's Supper)and say that they are not? " I teach nothing I believe only what can be proven in scripture, that is my personal choice, I do not tell anyone else to or not to do likewise." I take it all literally, however I am not catholic, so i cannot be a cafeteria catholic. I am under no obligation to believe extra biblical catholic traditions. I believe every single word of scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 12, 2009 18:29:14 GMT -5
I take it all literally, however I am not catholic, so i cannot be a cafeteria catholic. I am under no obligation to believe extra biblical catholic traditions. I believe every single word of scripture. What would you say about a Christian who chooses to personally interpret which verses are to be taken literally and which are not to be taken literally? In other words, someone who says that they take the whole Bible "as written", but don't believe that Jesus meant for one to pluck their eye out? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 12, 2009 18:38:28 GMT -5
I take it all literally, however I am not catholic, so i cannot be a cafeteria catholic. I am under no obligation to believe extra biblical catholic traditions. I believe every single word of scripture. What would you say about a Christian who chooses to personally interpret which verses are to be taken literally and which are not to be taken literally? In other words, someone who says that they take the whole Bible "as written", but don't believe that Jesus meant for one to pluck their eye out? I would think that person understands the difference between a simile, metaphor, parable, and a direct command. I think that they have a grasp of the English language. P.S. I know the N.T. was written in Hebrew. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 12, 2009 19:07:59 GMT -5
What would you say about a Christian who chooses to personally interpret which verses are to be taken literally and which are not to be taken literally? In other words, someone who says that they take the whole Bible "as written", but don't believe that Jesus meant for one to pluck their eye out? I would think that person understands the difference between a simile, metaphor, parable, and a direct command. I think that they have a grasp of the English language. P.S. I know the N.T. was written in Hebrew. Wait a minute...a "simile, metaphor, parable"? How is any of that literal? Let's define literal: 1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word. 2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe. 3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions. 4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city. 5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic. 6. of or pertaining to the letters of the alphabet. 7. of the nature of letters. 8. expressed by letters. 9. affecting a letter or letters: a literal error. –noun 10. a typographical error, esp. involving a single letter. Sorry, but I don't see any room for personal interpretation there when one reads the Bible literally. The words you used "simile, metaphor, parable" don't mean the same thing as "literal". simile 1. a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared, as in “she is like a rose.” Compare metaphor. 2. an instance of such a figure of speech or a use of words exemplifying it. metaphor 1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1). 2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol. parable 1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson. 2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like. Now, let's look at the opposites of the word "literal"...okay now, pay attention: Antonyms: exaggerated, figurative, imaginative, loose "not figurative" Synonyms: accurate, actual, apparent, authentic, bona fide, close, critical, faithful, genuine, gospel, methodical, natural, not figurative, ordinary, plain, scrupulous, simple, strict, to the letter, true, undeviating, unerring, unexaggerated, unvarnished, usual, veracious, verbal, verbatim, veritable, written dictionary.com |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 12, 2009 19:12:29 GMT -5
I would think that person understands the difference between a simile, metaphor, parable, and a direct command. Wait a minute...you just wrote that a person "understands" the difference. Are you now admitting that a person has to personally interpret what Jesus meant and decide on whether it's literal or figurative?  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 12, 2009 21:38:30 GMT -5
I would think that person understands the difference between a simile, metaphor, parable, and a direct command. Wait a minute...you just wrote that a person "understands" the difference. Are you now admitting that a person has to personally interpret what Jesus meant and decide on whether it's literal or figurative? No, you just have to have normal I.Q. levels, and it will be obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 12, 2009 21:51:10 GMT -5
Wait a minute...you just wrote that a person "understands" the difference. Are you now admitting that a person has to personally interpret what Jesus meant and decide on whether it's literal or figurative? No, you just have to have normal I.Q. levels, and it will be obvious. So Mentally Retarted people won't have the guidance of The Holy Spirit then? Are "normal" I.Q. levels a requirement in order for one to decipher between a verse being literate and figurative? How does a person who believes that the whole Bible is to be interpreted literally? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 12, 2009 22:49:08 GMT -5
No, you just have to have normal I.Q. levels, and it will be obvious. So Mentally Retarted people won't have the guidance of The Holy Spirit then? Are "normal" I.Q. levels a requirement in order for one to decipher between a verse being literate and figurative? How does a person who believes that the whole Bible is to be interpreted literally? I guess a mentally retarted could be led to the truth by the Holy Spirit. I believe the whole Bible should be accept literally. When Some thing is given as an analogy then you do not make it to be m something it is not, but the Bible is to be taken literally. because Jesus taught in parable does not mean that the entire Bible is figurtive. I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 12, 2009 22:53:44 GMT -5
cepha, If you do not think the Bible is meant to be taken literally then you are wrong, and if you do not know when Jesus is speaking in parables or using metaphors, then you are not only lacking in discernment, but common sense as well.
|
|
