Greatest Sect of Christianity

[Jon Miller]

Kid you have been repeatedly taking verses out of context.

That is where I differ with you.

I quit responding to you because it was not working.

JM

[Jon Miller]

If everything that Paul was writing that is scripture is as if the Lord was saying it, why in the particular verse does he say 'the Lord and not I'. And why, when he is done with the passage, does he go back to saying 'I and not the Lord'.

This is also in his life instructions area, the gospel is not life instructions, the gospel is in Jesus Christ: His life, death, and resurrection.

For example, consider the divorce instructions.

That is something that I think is clearly from Christ (note how many Christians disobey this). It was stated in Paul's letters as coming from Christ and in the gospels as coming from Christ. It is definitely how we should live our lives, it is what is right, if we follow it (while following Christ) it will be a blessing.

But is it the gospel? No. Does it save us? No.

You are getting confused because you don't read the Bible in context. This is a common failing, even our pastors today do not have the level of Bible study that one should have (and many people, including people in my own denomination, that do have lots of Bible study have it through the lens of a small group of spiritual men/women (a small tradition) rather then going at it by themselves and in addition with a large part of the Christian tradition).

Read the Bible more, read it in context. Bible studies are good, but it is good to get many different inputs and not just your pastors or one favored spiritual man/woman.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Some Bible studies and theological discussions I have been reading recently (last couple of months):

http://www.livingbiblestudies.org/study/TT2/index.html

(non-SDA (non-denominational?), phillippians)

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/11d/

(SDA, galatians)

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/11c/

(SDA, worship)

In the past I have read CS Lewis and others as well.

I am glad to engage in new Bible studies, although I admit that if there is too much 'cherry picking' (Reading a verse or a few verses and interpreting them outside of context), I get tired of it and quit.

I also don't do near as much Bible study as I would like. I suppliment the directed Bible study (the above), with readings of chapters and books (recently I read Philemon and Titus and some of Corinthians, and a bit of something else), listening to sermons at church (recently in Swedish, I don't get so much sometimes), and with theological books.

JM

[molly bloom]

You haven't said anything that I care to respond to.

Well, that's clearly untrue. You have responded to more than a few of my posts, and yet once again when I ask you to back up your accusations (specifically my supposed dishonesty, this time) by using my own words you seem unable (or unwilling) to comply.

Is this an example of Christian behaviour in your opinion ?

Or more the act of a truculent child ?

[Kidlicious]

Well, that's clearly untrue. You have responded to more than a few of my posts, and yet once again when I ask you to back up your accusations (specifically my supposed dishonesty, this time) by using my own words you seem unable (or unwilling) to comply.

Is this an example of Christian behaviour in your opinion ?

Or more the act of a truculent child ?

I've responded where I wanted to. You just want to be combative.

[molly bloom]

I've responded where I wanted to. You just want to be combative.

This is clearly not the case. If you make an accusation or dole out abuse then I expect you to back up your accusations with specific instances, from my posts, not from your imagination. When found out, I expect an apology- still waiting for one for the 'conman' crack.


You see, your behaviour as a supposedly new Christian reminds me of an old Ike and Tina Turner song:

In case it's unclear to you:

Mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm
I cant believe what you say
'Cause I see what you do

[Kidlicious]

JM,

How can quoting more Bible verses be taking things out of context? For example, the "word" is refered to many times in the Bible. Everytime the "word" is mentioned context. The Word of God is mentioned in text before Jesus was born. Are you saying the psalmist was talking about Jesus. I would be skeptical about reading that into it, as it's clear that he was talking about what he knew.

Also you have no response to my quote from second Peter saying not to think that the prophets had their own interpretation.

Again, is any scripture the word of God? Yes right?! Then how can John 1:1 mean that the Word isn't scripture? Itmakes no sense, yet you continue to refer to me as not able to umderstand or not reading the Bible correctly.

I know that in Paul's he differentiates between what is Gospel and what is an opinion, but for the sake of intelligent debate, he is the apostle (not you!). He was the pharisee among pharisees. Do you have any idea.how knowledgable you had to be to be to be a pharisee? He was hand picked.by Christ to tell you what the gospel means! Furthermore, this is what the early church believed, that Paul's letters were holy. Oh but hey go ahead and tell us all what is true since you speak with such authority!

[Kidlicious]

You might want to know that the church who created that first website believes the Holy Bible is inerrant and infalliable. Good Night!

[molly bloom]

You might want to know that the church who created that first website believes the Holy Bible is inerrant and infalliable. Good Night!

Do they believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus too ?

[Jon Miller]

You might want to know that the church who created that first website believes the Holy Bible is inerrant and infalliable. Good Night!

People who believe that also interpret the Bible.

Just like you do.

And they come up with different interpretations than you.

And what do they mean by 'infallible'?

There are plenty of people who have read the Bible and become atheists, so it can't mean that whoever reads the Bible instantly understands truth. There are many places where (I think) the choice is between recognizing that the Bible was written by people with different perspectives/experiences/cultures/etc, or else saying that it is contradictory garbage and throwing it out. What theologians have done throughout Christian history, and what those in the Bible did, is to recognize this.

I think that 'infallible' means that if you are studying the Bible with an open heart, praying and seeking God, you will find Him. I think that 'inerrant' means that if you are studying the Bible with an open heart, praying and seeking God, that the Bible will not lead you into spiritual falsehood.

Traditional Christian belief is that Solomon wrote two of the books of the Bible. He offered his own babies as offerings to false Gods! How can what he writes be the same as if God was writing it?

People in biblical times had no concept of science as we now know it, no concept of atoms or electrons or particles or optics (Really). Why should we believe that anything they would write would be relevant scientifically? Why would it matter to them? Why would it matter to God?

Jon

[Jon Miller]

Scripture is deep, it isn't an Ayn Rand book. Quit treating it as if it were one.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Infallible and inerrant don't need to be defined. You didn't address anything I said.

[Kidlicious]

As I've said, interpreting the Bible isn't the problem. I told you that many pages ago. Do you know there is a field of study where people learn how to interpret the Bible correctly. The are correct interpretations and bat **** insane interpretations. Yours is the latter.

[loinburger]

JM, he won't even talk to his minister about his belief that the bible is god. There is little chance he'll listen to you or anybody else on the subject.

[Kidlicious]

People who believe that also interpret the Bible.

Just like you do.

And they come up with different interpretations than you.

And what do they mean by 'infallible'?

There are plenty of people who have read the Bible and become atheists, so it can't mean that whoever reads the Bible instantly understands truth. There are many places where (I think) the choice is between recognizing that the Bible was written by people with different perspectives/experiences/cultures/etc, or else saying that it is contradictory garbage and throwing it out. What theologians have done throughout Christian history, and what those in the Bible did, is to recognize this.

I think that 'infallible' means that if you are studying the Bible with an open heart, praying and seeking God, you will find Him. I think that 'inerrant' means that if you are studying the Bible with an open heart, praying and seeking God, that the Bible will not lead you into spiritual falsehood.

Traditional Christian belief is that Solomon wrote two of the books of the Bible. He offered his own babies as offerings to false Gods! How can what he writes be the same as if God was writing it?

People in biblical times had no concept of science as we now know it, no concept of atoms or electrons or particles or optics (Really). Why should we believe that anything they would write would be relevant scientifically? Why would it matter to them? Why would it matter to God?

Jon

The second website that you refered me to says that the "Holy Scriptures" are the "Word of God." They are "infalliblle" and writen by "Holy men of God." It says they are trustworthy. Is this ambiguous?m? Should I look at the third?