Greatest Sect of Christianity

[Kidlicious]

No, it's not context, if you believe that the Word is Jesus and the bible.

Yes or no: is the bible god? You *****ed and moaned when I "refused" to answer your question that you refused to repeat, so maybe you can do me this one service and answer this question. Yes or no: is the bible god?

The fact that you insist that I simply answer a yes or now question means that you don't care about context. You're a cretin.

[loinburger]

The fact that you insist that I simply answer a yes or now question means that you don't care about context. You're a cretin.

It's not a yes or no question? What are the alternatives to the bible being god or the bible not being god? Do you believe that the bible is half god or something?

How can context change your belief that the bible is god? Do you only believe that the bible is god on a full moon?

[Kidlicious]

You have no knowledge of Jesus? Maybe you should try reading the bible and talking to others in order to correct this problem.

Ah. So Jesus is who the Bible says he is. And you propose to worship that Jesus. Is that Jesus perfect, or do you propose to worship imperfection?

[loinburger]

Ah. So Jesus is who the Bible is. And you propose to worship that Jesus. Is that Jesus perfect, or do you propose to worship imperfection?

I've wasted too much time on you - you started out stupid and have taken a turn for the despicable. Do yourself a favor and have a long talk with your minister about your bible worship.

[Kidlicious]

It's not a yes or no question? What are the alternatives to the bible being god or the bible not being god? Do you believe that the bible is half god or something?

How can context change your belief that the bible is god? Do you only believe that the bible is god on a full moon?

Are you too stupid to understand how context creates meaning and the truth can't be told by answering yes or no questions?

[Kidlicious]

I've wasted too much time on you - you started out stupid and have taken a turn for the despicable. Do yourself a favor and have a long talk with your minister about your bible worship.

That was actually a typo. It should have read "Jesus is who the Bible says he is"

Anyway, if you've grown tired of trolling have a nice day.

[Elok]

Filoque clause! No, just kidding - no one cares about that anymore (its questionable if they really did back then either).

Um... how about the concept of Heaven? The conception of a nice cloud land you go to after you die (if you were righteous) vs. a concept of a soul sleep, when the wake up will occur when Christ comes again, and a New Heaven and New Earth arise again. I think, and this is welcome, that a lot of evangelicals are turning away from the primary and going to the secondary - but I may get that impression because I mostly read stuff from the emergent church. What's the Orthodox view?

The latter, definitely. I've heard a lot of grumpy sermons railing against the former.

[Elok]

So if verses in the Bible are false and the prophet in who wrote in says it's God's Word and not his own interpretation that's not a lie?! You must have manure in your head.

Loin did a decent job of answering this, but:

Verses may be incorrect due to human error on a number of levels. Maybe the prophet phrased it wrong, maybe it was transcribed wrong or translated incorrectly somewhere along the line before it got to us. I'm not alleging that any particular part is wrong, just that a book written by human beings cannot be infallible. In addition, as Loin said, lies require intent. I do not believe there is any intentional deception in the Bible, aside from bits where liars are quoted.

[Elok]

It's not a yes or no question? What are the alternatives to the bible being god or the bible not being god? Do you believe that the bible is half god or something?

How can context change your belief that the bible is god? Do you only believe that the bible is god on a full moon?

I believe he is saying that the word "Word" refers to Jesus and the Bible in some verses, Jesus alone in others. Because there are plenty of lines where it can't possibly refer to the Bible. No lines where it's clear that it refers to the Bible at all, but that's not an issue for him, I guess.

[Jon Miller]

Latter for me also.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Loin did a decent job of answering this, but:

Verses may be incorrect due to human error on a number of levels. Maybe the prophet phrased it wrong, maybe it was transcribed wrong or translated incorrectly somewhere along the line before it got to us. I'm not alleging that any particular part is wrong, just that a book written by human beings cannot be infallible. In addition, as Loin said, lies require intent. I do not believe there is any intentional deception in the Bible, aside from bits where liars are quoted.

loinburger explained it? No, and either have you. Please consider specific verses such as 2 Peter 1:20. A bald face statement is not an explaination. Either admit that you believe that, "...prophesy never had its origin in the will of man ..." or admit that you believe the prophets lied.

[Kidlicious]

I believe he is saying that the word "Word" refers to Jesus and the Bible in some verses, Jesus alone in others. Because there are plenty of lines where it can't possibly refer to the Bible. No lines where it's clear that it refers to the Bible at all, but that's not an issue for him, I guess.

Um. Again scripture is the Word.

[Kidlicious]

Latter for me also.

JM

I'm assuming you haven't noticed that I've quoted 2 Peter several times. The Bible says, in no uncertain terms that it is the Word of God. Do you want to talk about interpreting verses out of context now?

[Kidlicious]

1 Thessalonians 2:13 - "...when you recieved the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God ..."

So that's two different apostles with direct language.

[Jon Miller]

Kid, I think you are just not understanding, and I think this is clear here.

I wasn't at all talking about the previous discussion, but instead was referring to what I quoted (Soul Sleep versus Cloudy Heaven).

As far as it goes, there is a far cry between:

"...prophesy never had its origin in the will of man..."
and
"... the interpretation of prophesy never had its origin in the will of man... "

and Paul was talking his direct presentation of Jesus Christ. Not his written teaching as understood by Kid almost 2000 years later. Paul would not have been referring to his written words, or the gospels (which were written at the same time or a couple of decades later) as the word of God. He would have been talking about his teaching of Christ as heard by the people in his time.



JM