Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
May I suggest you have missed the point and your RCC filter is what makes my view seem novel.
No, it's an objective fact that your view is novel. You are of course welcome to prove me wrong by producing a single theologian or churchman prior to the 16th century who backs up your interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbosixx
I read the bible mostly. It's not that hard to understand.
Some of it is, some of it isn't. Peter said that Paul's letters (such as 1 Timothy) can be hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). The Ethiopian in Acts 8 was having a hard time understanding. He had to have apostolic guidance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbosixx
Hiding from the RCC or they would have been killed. The RCC has killed many who have opposed them for many years. Thankfully not anymore.
Ahh, do you hold to the Trail of Blood conspiracy theory?
There are things the RCC holds to that I agree with. Sola scripture. One true church. One must be baptized to be saved. I'm sure there's more but that's all I can think of now.
Perhaps you are mistaken on what "sola scriptura" means, as the Catholic Church most definitely does NOT hold to it.
There are things the RCC holds to that I agree with. Sola scripture. One true church. One must be baptized to be saved. I'm sure there's more but that's all I can think of now.
Enjoyed the discussion. Gotta go for now, be back tomorrow.
No, it's an objective fact that your view is novel. You are of course welcome to prove me wrong by producing a single theologian or churchman prior to the 16th century who backs up your interpretation.
Some of it is, some of it isn't. Peter said that Paul's letters (such as 1 Timothy) can be hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). The Ethiopian in Acts 8 was having a hard time understanding. He had to have apostolic guidance.
Ahh, do you hold to the Trail of Blood conspiracy theory?
There isn’t any of the Bible that is hard to understand if you open it up and study it yourself. Lazy people.
There isn’t any of the Bible that is hard to understand if you open it up and study it yourself. Lazy people.
Even a comprehensive concordance puts the Bible in ABC order for us by topic or subject arrangement.
So, by cross checking with the corresponding cross-reference verses and passages one can see a picture of what is going on.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written......" meaning referring to the already written down OT.
The OT which was written aforetime is also for instruction our learning - Romans 15:4
No, it's an objective fact that your view is novel. You are of course welcome to prove me wrong by producing a single theologian or churchman prior to the 16th century who backs up your interpretation.
Some of it is, some of it isn't. Peter said that Paul's letters (such as 1 Timothy) can be hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). The Ethiopian in Acts 8 was having a hard time understanding. He had to have apostolic guidance.
This could be why you see the way you do. Why go to a theologian or churchman? They are men and each has his own different opinion. People look for the one that agrees with their thinking. That's why I mostly stick to scripture. I fully believe God has given us His word and at a level we can understand.
Keeping things in context and cross-referencing, it's not too hard to understand. It does take effort, time and study. The bible is the best theologian/churchman. For the most part, it's plain English that we use everyday. Theologians muddy the water.
It amazes me how people will deny what is plainly written and say "that's your interpretation" when all I did was quote the scripture word for word. We all have filters and it can be hard to actually grasp what is written because of them. As for the eunuch, yes he needed help but look at what he had available to him and being a proselyte, he possible was a babe.
I was chewing on the elder thing last night and thought I'd try this approach. Last time I bring it up, promise. IF an elder can be single or married, then marital status is irrelevant. IF irrelevant, then it makes no sense why verse 4&5 are there.4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
How one manages his household, spiritual leader, either qualifies or disqualifies them. How a man manages his children and did they turn out to be believing or unbelieving determines if he is qualified. How is the single man to be judged as far as being a good spiritual leader? If his dog is house broken?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
Ahh, do you hold to the Trail of Blood conspiracy theory?
Never heard of it so I looked it up. No, I do not agree with it.
Last edited by turbosixx; 02-11-2023 at 05:43 AM..
There isn’t any of the Bible that is hard to understand if you open it up and study it yourself. Lazy people.
It seems to me they are putting there souls in hands of men. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own souls. We can't blame our spiritual leaders. It's on us. That's why I take what MEN say with skeptical eye.
I think about the story of the prophet of God in 1 Kings 13. God gave him specific instructions and he knew exactly what they were. 8 And the man of God said to the king, “If you give me half your house, I will not go in with you. And I will not eat bread or drink water in this place, 9 for so was it commanded me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water nor return by the way that you came.’
Yet, when a "man of God" told him what he wanted to hear, he believed him over God. 18 And he said to him, “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house that he may eat bread and drink water.’” But he lied to him. 19 So he went back with him and ate bread in his house and drank water.
I'm afraid a lot of "Christians" are guilty of the same today. We KNOW the bible is God's word. We know Paul was inspired by God, yet they believe what MAN tells them for various reasons. I will always believe the bible over what a man says.
It seems to me they are putting there souls in hands of men. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own souls. We can't blame our spiritual leaders. It's on us. That's why I take what MEN say with skeptical eye.
I think about the story of the prophet of God in 1 Kings 13. God gave him specific instructions and he knew exactly what they were. 8 And the man of God said to the king, “If you give me half your house, I will not go in with you. And I will not eat bread or drink water in this place, 9 for so was it commanded me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water nor return by the way that you came.’
Yet, when a "man of God" told him what he wanted to hear, he believed him over God. 18 And he said to him, “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house that he may eat bread and drink water.’” But he lied to him. 19 So he went back with him and ate bread in his house and drank water.
I'm afraid a lot of "Christians" are guilty of the same today. We KNOW the bible is God's word. We know Paul was inspired by God, yet they believe what MAN tells them for various reasons. I will always believe the bible over what a man says.
So, if you take what MEN say with a skeptical eye, does that mean that you'll listen to what WOMEN say? After all, you didn't mention women.
If I took what you wrote literally, I would conclude that you weren't talking about women, or even "manKIND" (which obviously includes women)
It seems to me they are putting there souls in hands of men. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own souls. We can't blame our spiritual leaders. It's on us. That's why I take what MEN say with skeptical eye.
I think about the story of the prophet of God in 1 Kings 13. God gave him specific instructions and he knew exactly what they were. 8 And the man of God said to the king, “If you give me half your house, I will not go in with you. And I will not eat bread or drink water in this place, 9 for so was it commanded me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water nor return by the way that you came.’
Yet, when a "man of God" told him what he wanted to hear, he believed him over God. 18 And he said to him, “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house that he may eat bread and drink water.’” But he lied to him. 19 So he went back with him and ate bread in his house and drank water.
I'm afraid a lot of "Christians" are guilty of the same today. We KNOW the bible is God's word. We know Paul was inspired by God, yet they believe what MAN tells them for various reasons. I will always believe the bible over what a man says.
So, if you take what MEN say with a skeptical eye, does that mean that you'll listen to what WOMEN say? After all, you didn't mention women.
If I took what you wrote literally, I would conclude that you weren't talking about women, or even "manKIND" (which obviously includes women)
Right?
Correct. But you knew what I meant, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
