Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Pasong Tirad]

I'd disagree (not with the subjective morality part, with the immoral part). Not following Christian morality means they don't follow Christian morality. If they do good without following Christian morality, is that immoral? No. Whenever people do good, they are being Christian. Not following Christian morality just means that whether or not they do good is up to a hit-and-miss because what they believe to be good may not be Christian.

Having some difficulty trying to explain this, I hope that makes sense.

I think I understand. If a person does good acts that a Christian should do, but not actually being a Christian, they are still being moral. The same goes for avoiding bad acts.

Pretty much. Christians don't have a monopoly on doing the good that ought to be done.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I think I understand. If a person does good acts that a Christian should do, but not actually being a Christian, they are still being moral. The same goes for avoiding bad acts.

Pretty much. Christians don't have a monopoly on doing the good that ought to be done.

Paul would agree
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

[Salus Maior]

Catholic Archbishop of Ottawa apologizes for giant robotic spider

I feel like this is an outrage that could have been easily avoided.

Like asking the churchgoers "hey, would you think this would be inappropriate? Yay/nay?"

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Catholic Archbishop of Ottawa apologizes for giant robotic spider

I feel like this is an outrage that could have been easily avoided.

Like asking the churchgoers "hey, would you think this would be inappropriate? Yay/nay?"

What is this, a democracy? Jesus Spider wants to be there, and Jesus Spider goes where he pleases!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Catholic Archbishop of Ottawa apologizes for giant robotic spider

I feel like this is an outrage that could have been easily avoided.

Like asking the churchgoers "hey, would you think this would be inappropriate? Yay/nay?"

The real problem is the Archbishop revealing the army of Robotic Spiders we've been developing to defeat the Orthodox Conspiracy...it's not yet time.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Alright, finally had enough time to sit down and address this.

When I said he I had meant they, which is my bad.
The scholars who translated the bible chose to use that word because it more clearly shows the message Paul was trying to convey. Because the word he used still meant study, so they wrote study instead of endeavor so that people would clearly understand Paul's message without it being turned into something Paul did not mean. If you look at the original definition of the word Word: spoudazw
Pronounce: spoo-dad'-zo
Strongs Number: G4704
Orig: from 4710; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest:--do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study. G4710
Use: TDNT-7:559,1069 Verb
Heb Strong: H213 H926 H2814
1) to hasten, make haste
2) to exert one's self, endeavour, give diligence
it shows that you are to endeavor, labour, and study. Studying being the key component in what Paul was talking about a the time, so again looking at the original meaning only serves to prove my point.

I suppose it’s pointless to reiterate to you, that just about every modern Biblical scholar disagrees with you. Even the Anglican Church, which produced the King James Version, (for which you have an unfounded but steadfast loyalty to) basically admitted the error and when producing their updated manuscript, the “New” King James Version, changed their translation to one similar to the one I’ve repeatedly shown to you.
NKJV: 2 Timothy 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
I also suppose it would be pointless to point out the damning flaw in your argument. Your argument essentially boils down to a claim that the KJV scholars were right, and every other biblical scholar who disagrees with them, is wrong. Your argument is essentially that the KJV alone is correct, for which there is no actual basis in fact. Now, not to upset the English, the KJV is without a doubt one of the most important books in Western History. I have a collector’s edition copy of it sitting on my bookshelf. And while, I’ve flippantly chastised it in the past, it is a very decent translation of the “Textus Receptus”. However, does that make it free from error? No, because translation is not simple and eternal, it is a constantly evolving discipline as more and more information becomes available. This is why the Neste-Atland New Testament, basically the standard for all non-KJV derivative texts, doesn’t pull just from the Textus Receptus, but is cobbled together from all the pieces of the NT we have found. Translation information has been pulled from virtually every Greek source that we have a record of. Our translation abilities are vastly superior to that of the Greek sources available to English academics in the 17th century.

And I suppose it would be pointless to point out to you, that despite all the various sources we have, the hundreds and hundreds of Greek manuscripts from ages and ages, to the point where lexicons will cite dozens of uses of words to prove its definition, they can only cite one definitive usage of the word σπουδάζω being translated as having anything to do with “study.” It was from one work by the Greek Sophist Philostratus, and even this word usage, is only in implication. For in Philostratus’s work, “Vitae Sophistarum” he uses the word “σπουδαζων” the participle form of the word. Which means it literally translates to the “ones working” with the implied notion that the work these one’s are doing is studying, because he’s describing students. He even uses the word again later in the same text, in the same fashion, only there the implication is “lecturing” because he’s describing teachers.

I suppose it’s also pointless to point out to you, that Philostratus wrote that work 150- 200 years after Paul had died. Which would mean the scholars translated Paul’s words, according to an extremely obscure, approximated usage of the word, that didn’t even appear in the Greek Lexicon, until long after Paul had died. I’m hoping you’re beginning to see just how completely wrong you are, but you’ve proven unwilling to consider any contextual information about this passage so far.

So the only way I think I can prove it to you, is to show you specifically how wrong you are, by evaluating the Greek itself. So I pulled out my lexicon, reference books, and Greek NT, and set about to translate this passage. In doing so, I actually recognized the mistake the translators made, and it’s a fairly easy mistake to make. However, to explain it entirely would take far too long and would be difficult to explain via text. (But if you want me to, I’ll take the time) So I’ll skip to the pertinent part. The phrase in question, of 2 Timothy 2:15 is “σπουδασον σεαυτον” Now σπουδασοv is the imperative case of σπουδάζω, it is a command, which on its own, could potentially but not probably mean Study. However, it is paired with σεαυτον, a reflexive pronoun meaning “yourself”, and (This is the key part) in the accusative case. Which means that “yourself” is the object of the verb σπουδασοv. Now if we translate this as study, the command would be to “Study yourself” Not study for yourself, but to literally make yourself the object of your study. Which, while already doesn’t fit with the claim your making about it meaning to study scripture, doesn’t really make sense in the Greek either. So what does make sense? Translating the word as Endeavor, such as “Endeavor yourself.” So a literal translation of the passage would be “Endeavor yourself, to present yourself approved to God” We drop the first "yourself" because it’s clunky in English. thus becoming, “Endeavor to present yourself approved to God.

So finally after showing you the context, the data, history, and giving you a first hand grammatical analysis, there is no evidence to suggest that what you’re saying is correct. I think I’ve proven it beyond any doubt.

Now, if you want to say that as part of that diligent effort we are supposed to study, and I would agree with. But that would be an interpretation.

I did not say we are apostles but we are indeed disciples and followers of Christ, as such we to are sent out to preach his word and do as the apostles did since they are the example of what we must do here on earth to serve Yahweh. So again what Christ said to them still applies to directly to us, since we all to do as they did and preach and die in his name.

So were not called to be apostles, but were called to do everything the Apostles did? That would by definition make us apostles. I’ll try to explain it again. The term Apostle is not a random title, it’s a derivative from their calling. It literally means “the sent.” The title is implicit of function. If we are all to do as they are to do, it means that we are in fact Apostles. This is a simple question of logic. Now we are absolutely called to be disciples, to learn the doctrines and live according to them as best we can, but that’s not the same thing.

So again what Christ said to them still applies to directly to us, since we all to do as they did and preach and die in his name.

No, we aren’t. That would make us apostles. Now some are called to take up this mantle of Apostle, to stand in their office, but that is a highly controlled and regulated office. We call them Priests.

The Holy spirit guides us to the truth, through the spirit of truth God gives us understanding of his word and guides us to the light of his word. The Holy spirit now just as with the apostles gives us understanding and the gifts Yahweh, though each person is given different gifts all who have them posses the holy spirit.

Ah but the gift of knowledge is one of those gifts that that only some people get.
1 Corinthians 12: 8 To some people the Spirit gives a message of wisdom. To others the same Spirit gives a message of knowledge. 9 To others the same Spirit gives faith.

Paul is clearly saying that we don’t all have the gift of wisdom and knowledge from the Holy Spirit. Only some do. So you are claiming that your gift, from the Holy Spirit, is knowledge, a claim which you have no basis for. Now yes, the Holy Spirit does lead us to the truth, but that does not inherently mean you get divine revelation from the Holy Spirit as to what is true and what is not, as you read along. Case in point the Eunuch. He read the Scriptures and could make his own interpretations on them, but he openly admitted that unless someone with knowledge taught him what it meant, he would not be able to adequately understand it. As the Passage of the Eunuch shows us, the Holy Spirit leads us to truth, by leading us to people who already know the truth, who have said gift of knowledge.
This is why we must understand that not every promise in the Gospel was made to every Christian. Some people were chosen for specific tasks, and were given specific promises. The Apostles obtained their knowledge directly from Christ. That knowledge is preserved within the Church, in all its Scriptures and Traditions.

This is something I’ve tried to explain to you multiple times. There is no guarantee the Holy Spirit is guiding your understanding. Given that as it says, only some people receive this gift of Knowledge, it is far more likely that your interpretation (which is extremely fundamentalist in nature) is your own understanding, not the Holy Spirit's. And given this disparity, you have no reasonable expectation that your interpretation is divinely inspired. This is the mission of the Church, who have the Apostolic Authority. You can have reasonable expectation of their knowledge, because it was promised to it, in a way it wasn’t promised us as individuals.

All ministers who preach the word of Yahweh and teach his word do as the apostles did, so to say we are not to teach is saying that we are to let man remain ignorant of the word of God.

On the contrary, its saying the deaf should not lead the blind. If you yourself are ignorant or inadequately educated on the subject matter, then you should not be the one to proclaim the Gospel to other people. It’s far more likely you will give them bad information, and lead them astray.

Minsters should preach. Laymen should not, without the blessing and/or guidance of a minister. That is the point here.

Now if the teacher teaches that which is against the word spoken of by the apostles or Christ then the teacher is false and his word is of satan.

Which is exactly my point.

So we must be able to discern truth from lies, studying to show ourselves approved and our doctrine correct.

But if they use the same book you do, how can you know? Without any authority, all you have as the basis of your argument is your interpretation verses theirs. You can “prove” it all you want by regurgitating as much scripture as you can, but this doesn’t effectively prove anything, except to those who already agree with you, for they will also regurgitate scripture that supports their position. And then we get into an extremely long text proofing discussion which is in itself, counter-productive, because the scriptures were never meant to be text proofed. Hell they weren’t even written with the intention of being scripture.

The way you see it we are not to study for ourselves but to accept blindly without questioning anything, even though you are being taught the doctrines of devils you would not try and find the gospel of truth believing it is not your place to do so and therefore bringing your soul to damnation.

Are you serious? That has never been my position. I have never once claimed that an individual should not study the Bible. I have claimed only that your exposition of 2 Timonthy 2:15, was a mistranslation, and thus invalid proof of your claim. I mean, not to get prideful here, but I’ve studied scripture far more in depth than you have. I’ve studied its words, its history, the culture which produced it, the institution which codified it. I literally read it in Greek so I can get as close to the original meaning as possible. And I cross reference it with other multiple languages. I’ve studied the science of Biblical interpretation. I wasn’t born in to the Catholic Church, I chose it, after years of study.
You’ve shown nothing more than google skills and what you heard your pastor say in service. So don’t tell me, that I don’t study.
The claim I have made, if any, is that study should be guided by the Doctrines of the Church, who made it scripture in the first place

As always you attack my person and claim that I have said I am a prophet or an apostle or the direct emissary of Christ risen again in the form of faceless internet persona.

Because, that is how you act. You claim often, that your words, your interpretations, are divine truth, revealed to you by God. Those are your words, not mine. YOU, make the claim. I’d certainly like to believe that God led me to the Church, but I would not be so presumptuous as to make any claims on behalf of God.
Stop acting like it, and I will stop criticizing you for it.

But like I have said countless times to you, if you do not show proof for what you are saying then I will not accept it blindly as you do.

Oh..but you do. You blindly, without any rational basis, believe the Bible to be the unadulterated Word of God. You have no valid reason to believe that, beyond your own calculations, it feels right to you. You claim that this conclusion is brought to you by the Holy Spirit, a claim you also have no rational reason to believe in. It’s self-insulating, circular logic. You’re right, because the Holy Spirit says you’re right. And the Holy Spirit says you’re right, because you say the Holy Spirit says you’re right. And you know the Holy Spirit say's you're right because the Holy Spirit told you so.

Essentially, You’re right, because you think you are, and you’ve convinced yourself that God gave you this knowledge.

My faith in the Church is not blind, it’s a rational deduction based on analysis of history, scripture, theology, philosophy and prayer.

Show me biblical evidence for what you say and I will believe it

And that is your problem. You’ve fallen in with an extremely fundamentalist group, to point where you’re willing believe anything if it can be shown biblically. I would have thought the Flat Earth incident would have opened your eyes to the dangers of this outlook. When you take the Bible outside of its idiom it can be made to say anything anybody wants it to. The Bible does not exist in a vacuum, it cannot be adequately interpreted by just reading the Book, you have to incorporate all your knowledge. You have to understand the culture of the people who wrote it. You have to understand who it was who said that these 73 books were the legitimate books of the Bible, and others weren’t, and you have to understand why.
I constantly rebuff you on this, because I reject this position of scripture alone. It’s simply illogical. It begs a huge question of Why? Why the Bible? Why not anything else?

Now I would like to point this out to you, the Catholic church as an institution is evil.

I will get to all it has done in a second. But first I would like to clarify that there have been those within the church that have received the gift of the holy spirit and have taught/done what the spirit guided the to do and have been saved by the light that was given to them, though again the church is still of satan.

That is your opinion, but in no way a statement of irrefutable fact.

The Catholic church has tortured, burned, massacred, butchered, enslaved, murdered, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. The inquisition, the crusades, and the near genocide of the Native Americans should be enough to prove that this is not the church of God.

It is incredibly intellectually disingenuous to distill down the complex sociopolitical issues of these events to simply “evil church.” The Inquisition for example, was an institution dedicated to essentially what we are doing now, rooting out heresy. All it did was Identify heretics, and did so passionately for many of the reason you yourself have made. Heresy leads people astray, condemning them to damnation. Admittedly mistakes were made. But the overwhelming majority of violence was carried out not by the Inquisition, or the Church, but by the Secular authorities. The problem here wasn’t so much the Church, but Feudalism. Kings and Lords depended on homogenous populations to maintain public order. Heretics were a subversion to this established order, and were rooted out, often violently in order to maintain this hegemonic control. The Church has on multiple times acknowledged its sins in these instances, and even asked for forgiveness from surviving traditions. For instance the Waldensians you mentioned, Pope Francis reconciled with them over the issue two years ago. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... he-church/
Your logic also fails considerably, if the logic is also applied to you. You claim you are proclaiming the true Doctrine of Christ, but if we looked at every one of your sins over your life time, it would be just as easy to judge you as a man of Satan, as you do the Church. So I’m just as justified in calling you satanic, and not a follower of Christ.

The real problem with your position here is not that its spurious, Protestant Propaganda, but that it’s simplistic logic that undermines the very essence of Christianity. Your criticism reduces authenticity to an ideological purity test that, by Christian Theological standards cannot be achieved. You claim the Church is illegitimate because it sins, when the entire Christian religion is based on the concept that no one is without sin. By your own argument, no Christian nor Church can ever claim to be legitimate. I’m claiming that though man and Church might lose their way and sin, even grievously, that doesn’t put them beyond redemption. So I ask you, which position sounds more Christian?

The Church will always be flawed, because it will always be comprised of humans, and humans being weak can fall away from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But Christ promised the Spirit will not abandon the Church, even when it screws up. I mean look at Saint Peter. St. Peter screws up constantly, and yet Christ still gives him authority and standing in the Church. St. Peter's life, like the life of all Christians is an arc that curves towards righteousness. The history of the Church is an arc that bends towards righteousness.

If not, then simply look at indulgences, persecution/torture/murder of those who even sought to study let alone possess a bible, the implementation of pagan traditions and rituals/festivals for money/power, the fact that they have put a single man at the head of their Church and say that he is sole emissary/mediator/spokesman of God.

A. Indulgences are not a problem, selling them was. This conflict stems from Protestants not understanding what Indulgences actually are. Indulgences are not “Get into heaven free cards.” All they do is give prayer for reduction of time an individual must spend in Purgatory. Purgatory also isn’t what the Protestants tend to believe it is, there are no potentially damned in Purgatory. Purgatory is the process of purification one goes through as they enter heaven. If heaven where an airport, Purgatory would essentially be the security line.
B. Nobody, not one person in Catholic history was ever persecuted simply for studying or possessing a Bible. The Bible was available in the Latin vulgate, and open to study to all who were able, which anybody in the merchant class and up, was and did. The issue was about “vernacular” translations of the Bible, and it had very little to do with the Bibles themselves, but the sociopolitical issues surrounding the groups who produced said Bibles. Again, I’m not saying the Church was justified in everything it did, but to dumb down and simplify these events is just plain disingenuous.
C. The pagan argument is one I’ve seen crop up more and more from many extreme fundamentalist groups, but it’s ridiculous. First of all, there is no pagan practice in the Catholic Church. At no point do we offer prayers and sacrifice to Odin, Zeus, or any of the other thousands of pagan gods and goddesses. We worship God, and God alone. And every practice we have, is put towards glorifying Him. Just because we celebrate Christ’s birthday on Dec 25th and the cult of Mithras celebrated his on the same day, doesn’t mean we are celebrating Mithras' birthday by some weird proxy. Symbols and rituals have no inherent meaning. Their meaning is derived from the ones who employ them. If we have appropriated some pagan activities, and changed them into Christian worship, it doesn’t insult God or give those pagan deities any glory, it only demonstrates the Might of God prevailing over those false idols.
D. Uh, we believe none of those things about the Pope. The Pope’s authority is ecclesial not sacramental. The Pope isn’t the true Head of the Church, he’s merely the foremost priest on earth. He guides the Church in his role as a Pastor and Priest. He doesn’t rule it, he leads it. Now we do call him the Vicar of Christ, because in Christ's perpetual absence, he is the foremost authority over the Church on Earth, but neither his power nor his teachings are absolute. Granted some Popes have tried to rule the world, but again with the whole flawed human thing.

Lastly, a lot of your criticisms are incredibly anachronistic. The Inquisition? The Crusades? Those are Hundreds of years old. When’s the last time you heard of the Catholic Church burning heretics, or calling on heads of states to invade Muslim lands. Hell American Protestants hate Pope Francis because he calls for them not to. I mean, at least come at me with something recent, like the molestation issue.

Is this not enough? Does anything the Catholic church as an institution has done even remotely resemble the form of godliness it professes? Nothing they did or do gives credence to that claim, this is not the Church of Yahweh but the Church of Lucifer.

Literally nothing? They don’t do anything right? We’re just killing babies and stuff over her? Come on man.

Peter was not the foundation of this satanic Catholic Church as the church claims. Though he was and still is an important part of Yahweh's Church founded on Christ.
The passage you are thinking of is talking about Christ himself, Christ is the rock the church of Yahweh is founded on.

See, this is one of the problems with text proofing that I mentioned before. Yes, there are a lot of rock metaphors in the Bible. Christ was a builder, he worked a lot with stones, it makes sense. However, just because they get used a lot, doesn’t mean it always means the same thing. A rock doesn’t automatically mean Christ, it has to be unpacked within each metaphor. I’ll go down a bit of the list:

Yahweh said there was to be a new covenant.
Jerimiah 31:31-34

This has nothing to do with rocks metaphors, you’re trying to contrive one into existence here.

A cornerstone is Laid down, a tried stone, on which a new covenant will be made and the old will not stand.
Isaiah 28:14-19

This is a pretty contentious prophecy, and it’s unclear specifically what the “foundation” that is being referred to in the passage. There are several possibilities, with Christ being one of them, but more likely the New Covenant itself. The cornerstone here is presented as firm everlasting foundation, as opposed to the all the flimsiness that have corrupted the old covenant. Either way, just because the metaphor is used here, doesn’t mean it is the same metaphor everywhere else.

Yahushua the Christ is the chief cornerstone, the stone on which Yahweh's church is founded.

Ephesians 2:19-22

Yes this claims Christ is the chief Cornerstone, but it also claims the Apostles and the Prophets as part of that same foundation: “20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” The metaphor here is to iterate that Christ is the bit that binds everything together. He’s not merely the foundation of the Church, he’s the focal point of the entire religion. His role is far more important than the mere foundation of the Church.



Matt 16:17-18
And here we get to the main contention:
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

Now, I’m not gonna mince words here, the rock here is clearly Peter. I’ve studied this single passage for the last six years and written multiple commentaries on it. I can tell you now with absolute certainty, that whatever nonsense someone has fed you about “Petros/petra” or big rocks and little rocks, is exactly that. Nonsense. It’s contrived posturing based on inadequate knowledge of Koine Greek, text proofing, and a desire to undermine Catholic Theology.

The issue here is not that Simon is the Rock, or that the Church is founded on him, the question is what does that mean within the confines of the passage?What does Christ mean by saying that? And it’s very simple. Christ calls Simon the Rock after he confesses that Christ is the Messiah. Peter is the first person to confess his faith in Christ. Peter is the first Christian, he is the first member of the Church, and that Church is not going to remain just as Peter, it is going to continue to grow. That’s all this means. Peter is the First, of many to come. That is why he is called the rock, because from him or as Christ says, upon him, the Church will grow in membership. And that’s what we mean, when we say “The Church, founded upon St. Peter” It means, “The Ecclessia, the assembly of believers, that started with St. Peter.” We’re talking about an unbroken line of succession and faith, between current Christians, and the First Christian, St. Peter.

This title of Peter, has little to do with his office as the first Pope. That comes later in the passage.

-snip-

I cut the rest out, because there’s not point in going through them all. I think the point is made

The Church I have been apart of did not break from the Adventists, I don't even know where you go that idea. But while we are on the subject they do have more truth in their doctrine than what I have heard you say.

I only assumed you were part of this church because you cited it as a source when you declared, unequivocally, that world is flat…..so what was that about truth?

It is hard to take you serious when you go down the train of thought that says the word of the apostles and even of Christ is not be trusted or kept.

Well, I’ve actually never said that, so I don’t see the problem here.

Also I do not know where you are getting any of what you just said, your own personal interpretation of what I have said I'm guessing. I will try harder to help you more clearly understand what I am saying.

I agree, that Phillip was brought to the Eunuch to teach him, guided by the Holy spirit. Though this does not discount what I am saying, and I would like to point out again that I see nothing wrong with and in fact give full support to the positions of pastors, bishops, and deacons. We need people to teach us the word of Yahweh but we are also to study the doctrine they give to us on our own to show ourselves approved and to test soundness of what they are teaching.

But what you can’t see is how that Logic is inconsistent. You reject the Catholic Church, as an invalid teacher, on account of its sins. You require a perfect tract record as proof that an authority is valid. But since no authority can have a perfect tract record then that means there are no valid authorities. Therefore, you cannot accept pastors bishops and deacons, (all positions within the Catholic Church mind you) because those are men and they sin. If we continue the logic further, that means you also can't trust the Bible as a valid authority either, because it was written by sinful men, and codified by sinful men. Your position dictates that there is no valid authority of morality and teaching, therefore there is no truth.

This position isn't new. It's very similar to the Donatists. They were rejected by the Church over a thousand years ago.

The holy spirit will help us to recognize Yahweh's teachers and his word, but as it has always been the spirit of truth does bring to certain men new light which they are to teach others.

And those teachers and that “new light” had to be recognized by the Church. Otherwise St. Paul said to throw them out. People might bring new ideas, but they were never given authority to overthrow the Church, because the Church “IS” Yahweh’s teachers. They have the valid authority.

Now the flat earth I am actually ashamed of, since I did believe it but looking further could not accept it to be true. I asked everyone for poof in the bible to show the earth round not because I was certain but because I doubted the validity of it and wanted to see what information you and others on here could produce to either reaffirm this belief or disprove it. When I came on here I wanted to see what you people had to say on the subject, using the bible, to help me with my own doubts on the matter.

And I know I’ve kicked you over this a couple times, but I do so for a reason. Not to run you down, but to illuminate a point. Your own interpretation is not as concrete as you think it is.

This does not mean that what else I have said is false simply because I was wrong about it being flat, the rest of what I said I can indeed prove about the earth being fixed and the sun revolving around it, and the moon sun and stars being within the firmament that I can prove. On closer inspection though I could not prove that the earth was flat through extensive study. So as I have said before if I cannot prove something without a doubt, using the bible, I will not preach it and I will admit when I am wrong about something.

Except the same science that proves the Earth is round, also proves the earth moves around the sun. I mean just think about this rationally for a second. The New Horizons space probe, was launched by NASA in 2006. In 9 years, it traveled about 7.5 Billion miles to Pluto, an incredibly precarious journey that required absolute precision. If their course was off even a fraction of a percent it would have missed Pluto by hundreds of thousands of miles. These calculations were made based on a heliocentric model of the solar system, and it was done successfully. There are pictures, you can see them. IF that model was wrong, and the Genesis depiction accurate: it never would have worked. The calculations would be wrong.

You’re not wrong totally because you were wrong about that bit. You’re wrong because we can scientifically prove you’re wrong. I mean, what’s more likely? That all these scientists, which includes Christians, are on a mission from Satan to deceive us? That they know the universe revolves around the Earth, so they can make accurate calculations and just lie to us about it? Or that in 3000 BC, perhaps they didn’t have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of Astrophysics and Astronomy?

You prove the Light given is true by showing that it goes along with rest of the scripture and what it says, and proving the light you have been given with many passages and even whole chapters all saying the same thing from the bible.

Firstly, you should always study whole chapters, hell the entire books, as the Bible was not written in verse. The Chapters and Verses were added much, much later.

Also if it is indeed the truth, then once proven using scripture, then the Church and its people would accept it as such and there would be no need for them to leave since all the people within and the Church itself are of Yahweh.

You’re assuming an awful lot. What if they don’t? By your logic, if the Church rejects this “light”, no matter how a person might “prove it”, then it is false. You’re still emphasizing the importance of the Church here, you’re essentially advocating for my position.

So what I have said does not go against the words of John or any of the Apostles for that matter since those people for who John was speaking of did not preach the word of God but instead followed after their own doctrines and lusts, had they been of Yahweh and done his will and preached his word the Church would have accepted them and they would have stayed.

Oh but it is, YOU advocated that if you prove all your doctrines to your satisfaction, and the Church rejected it, then you should leave. Those were your words. They’re very clear that if you leave the Church and teach different doctrines, you’re not of them, but are Anti-Christ.

What I was speaking when referring to a church of man was a church that does not speak the word of God but teaches doctrines of their own creation and the doctrines of devils.

And this is the logical conundrum you can’t seem to get your head around. The bible itself was created by man. Now we say it’s God breathed or inspired, but it was human hands that wrote it, and human hands that cobbled it together. So, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot reject the Institution, but accept the product. Either the Church and the Bible are valid, or neither are. And if the Bible is valid, than any teachings the Church gives is valid, so long as it doesn’t conflict with the Bible. And if any teaching were to contradict the Bible, it is the teaching that would be invalid, not the Church itself. Consistency is key.

If you look he was speaking to that church and its people since they could only take milk and would choke on meat since they were still of the flesh and not fully living life as Yahweh commanded them to do. Those people were the ones not fit to judge the word of God for themselves since they were still living after the flesh and not after the spirit. If a person is living after the spirit as the apostles did then indeed they would not choke on meat and be able to discern the truth by the guidance of the spirit of truth.

There is one Church, not many. Paul’s letter may have been sent to the members of the Church in that city, but it applies to all the Church, that is why it is included in the Bible We’re all living after the flesh. We’re all guilty.

I see the point you are making, while I disagree that the meaning of this passage is saying that we are not to search scripture and validate what is given/presented to us. So then I say as I've already said every tradition that we have discussed thus far can be shown false in the scripture since it contradicts what has been said by the Apostles and Christ. Also the original meaning shows that we are prove what is given to us, to examine using the scripture as it is our only means of discerning the truth while guided by the holy spirit.

Word: dokimazw

Pronounce: dok-im-ad'-zo

Strongs Number: G1381

Orig: from 1384; to test (literally or figuratively); by implication, to approve:--allow, discern, examine, X like, (ap-)prove, try. G1384

Use: TDNT-2:255,181 Verb

Heb Strong: H974 H977 H2713 H3365 H6884
1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals
2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy

I’m really getting tired at this point (It’s taken me six hours to get this far), so forgive me if I come off snide. I don’t understand how you can’t understand this very simple concept. I’ve never made the claim, that people shouldn’t study the Bible, have knowledge of it, and weigh the teachings against it. The point I have made, in this particular reference, is disputing once again, your demand that all doctrines be inherently biblical. You claim that essentially, that if its not found in the bible it’s not valid. This verse here, in it’s proper translation disagrees with you. It allows for extra-biblical doctrines to exist, so long as they’re delivered by proper authorities, er go. The Church. When it says to “test all things” it doesn’t mean to prove true, as you are asserting, it means to make sure it isn’t false.

I realize that seems semantical but it’s a very important distinction. A doctrine delivered by a proper authority is deemed true, based on the weight of its own authority. HOWEVER, if scripture were to directly contradict said doctrine, then it would override said authority, but if it does not contradict the doctrine, then the doctrine stands. THAT, is my point.

Now I have shown that these quotes support what I have said, we are to be of one mind, one spirit and one doctrine and all be apart of the Church of Yahweh and his son Yahushua the Christ. We are to separate from those Churches who profess Godliness but do that which is against the will of Yahweh and teach doctrines of Devils.

So here you are telling people to leave the Church again. You can’t seem to make up your mind. Either you’re supposed to stay or you’re supposed to leave. I can tell you what the Bible says, (and it’s not leave)

For if we are to be of God's Church we should never leave it. Though if we find ourselves within a church that teaches false doctrines then we should first tell them the error of their ways showing them the falsehood of their beliefs and bring the light of truth to them, though if all deny it then we should not be apart of them for what place does sin have with righteousness.

But figure this logic for me. The Catholic Church codified pretty much the entire canonical Bible list, at the council of Nicea. Random people like you and I didn’t decide what was scripture. The Church decided what was scripture. The Church created the Bible. The Church decreed what the Bible was. Now the Church had also existed for some several hundred years at this point, and they picked books that matched with doctrines they held. They didn’t accept the Gospel of Thomas, because that didn’t jive with their teachings. So what you are presuming is that the ones who picked and compiled the Bible, in accordance with their teachings, don’t actually know the correct interpretations, but you do. And if they won’t listen to you, you should go your own way and teach. Can you not see the absurdity of that logic?

This is another thing you can’t seem to understand. There isn’t “churches.” There is one Church, one true Church, that Christ founded upon the first Christian, St. Peter, if you are not in that Church, you are not in Christ’s Church. It’s that simple.

[Pasong Tirad]

Pope Francis wants us all to welcome refugees as neighbors into our nations. Does that count as the work of Lucifer? He also wants the world to know that environmental degradation is a moral and ethical concern. Demons must have been whispering in his ear when he said that. And let's not forget how Pope Francis wants us all to know that we need to be doing more to aid the plight of the poor and oppressed peoples of the world. Definitely the work of Satan.

Spent some time during work reading through all this and I just can't fathom ever having the patience you have, Tars.

[The Blaatschapen]

I feel like this is an outrage that could have been easily avoided.

Like asking the churchgoers "hey, would you think this would be inappropriate? Yay/nay?"

What is this, a democracy? Jesus Spider wants to be there, and Jesus Spider goes where he pleases!

A spider cross will require a few more planks of wood.

[Gim]

What is this, a democracy? Jesus Spider wants to be there, and Jesus Spider goes where he pleases!

A spider cross will require a few more planks of wood.

And gossamer.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Pope Francis wants us all to welcome refugees as neighbors into our nations. Does that count as the work of Lucifer? He also wants the world to know that environmental degradation is a moral and ethical concern. Demons must have been whispering in his ear when he said that. And let's not forget how Pope Francis wants us all to know that we need to be doing more to aid the plight of the poor and oppressed peoples of the world. Definitely the work of Satan.

Spent some time during work reading through all this and I just can't fathom ever having the patience you have, Tars.

Immigration is not a problem, the problem is that those who wish to live in a region should assimilate their culture, and this is not happening. Brazil in the last century received more than 50 million immigrants for 80 years, most of them Japanese, Portuguese, Jews and Arabs, and the country did not become a caliphate or a country because all these peoples were assimilated to local customs.

[Catlander]

In Barcelona still have building the last catholic cathedral of the world



You can to visit it like tourist till.

I'm catholic... but not seriously practicant, anyway i respects the gospels, celebrations, marries, funeral, etc.etc.

We have a great mandatory: never you will go againts yourself and you love them, otherwise you must to repent for your sin, confess it, to apologize, repent, waiting for the God 's forgiveness and finally pray for thank Him it. In Heaven anyones have a VIP soul card.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Eh, I just don't like the Gothic style of cathedral. The style looks like it's trying way too hard to include lots of extra features.

[Dylar]

Eh, I just don't like the Gothic style of cathedral. The style looks like it's trying way too hard to include lots of extra features.

[Luminesa]

In Barcelona still have building the last catholic cathedral of the world

(Image)

You can to visit it like tourist till.

I'm catholic... but not seriously practicant, anyway i respects the gospels, celebrations, marries, funeral, etc.etc.

We have a great mandatory: never you will go againts yourself and you love them, otherwise you must to repent for your sin, confess it, to apologize, repent, waiting for the God 's forgiveness and finally pray for thank Him it. In Heaven anyones have a VIP soul card.

Tis on my bucket list of places to visit, good sir. :3

[United Muscovite Nations]

Eh, I just don't like the Gothic style of cathedral. The style looks like it's trying way too hard to include lots of extra features.

That's a more tame example, and it looks better. But This is overdoing it, to the point of being an eyesore.

[Catlander]

Eh, I just don't like the Gothic style of cathedral. The style looks like it's trying way too hard to include lots of extra features.

It was begun to build in 1883, but in 1936 (Spanish Civil War) the anarchists burned it all including the design planes belonging to the architect Antoni Gaudi. Since then, the new architects tries to emulate Gaudi's style, but it is very difficult because there are many rare innovations.

Can you see it inside here
God's Arquitect: Gaudi's glorious vision

[The Blaatschapen]

In Barcelona still have building the last catholic cathedral of the world

(Image)

You can to visit it like tourist till.

I'm catholic... but not seriously practicant, anyway i respects the gospels, celebrations, marries, funeral, etc.etc.

We have a great mandatory: never you will go againts yourself and you love them, otherwise you must to repent for your sin, confess it, to apologize, repent, waiting for the God 's forgiveness and finally pray for thank Him it. In Heaven anyones have a VIP soul card.

Tis on my bucket list of places to visit, good sir. :3

Also on mine. I have a theory to test.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Eh, I just don't like the Gothic style of cathedral. The style looks like it's trying way too hard to include lots of extra features.

It was begun to build in 1883, but in 1936 (Spanish Civil War) the anarchists burned it all including the design planes belonging to the architect Antoni Gaudi. Since then, the new architects tries to emulate Gaudi's style, but it is very difficult because there are many rare innovations.

Can you see it inside here
God's Arquitect: Gaudi's glorious vision

Interior looks nice, very bright, which is what I like in a Church.

[Catlander]

It was begun to build in 1883, but in 1936 (Spanish Civil War) the anarchists burned it all including the design planes belonging to the architect Antoni Gaudi. Since then, the new architects tries to emulate Gaudi's style, but it is very difficult because there are many rare innovations.

Can you see it inside here
God's Arquitect: Gaudi's glorious vision

Interior looks nice, very bright, which is what I like in a Church.

Me too, no matter if someone believe or not, in any case it is an special place to relax and to feel yourself so good.

[Dylar]

That's a more tame example, and it looks better. But This is overdoing it, to the point of being an eyesore.

Nah, fam. This is a true eyesore

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's a more tame example, and it looks better. But This is overdoing it, to the point of being an eyesore.

Nah, fam. This is a true eyesore

That's nothing. There's a nondenominational church in a town about 20 minutes South of me that is in an inflatable tent and uses emojis in its design.

[Dylar]

Nah, fam. This is a true eyesore

That's nothing. There's a nondenominational church in a town about 20 minutes South of me that is in an inflatable tent and uses emojis in its design.

I never thought it could any worse...I thought wrong.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's nothing. There's a nondenominational church in a town about 20 minutes South of me that is in an inflatable tent and uses emojis in its design.

I never thought it could any worse...I thought wrong.

If you think that's bad, they have a "worship band" with guitars and drums, and anyone can lead the worship service. I don't even think they do communion.

The reformation has gone too far.

[Dylar]

I never thought it could any worse...I thought wrong.

If you think that's bad, they have a "worship band" with guitars and drums, and anyone can lead the worship service. I don't even think they do communion.

The reformation has gone too far.

Egad! Sounds like someone decided to put the emoji movie and iTown Church together...

[United Muscovite Nations]

If you think that's bad, they have a "worship band" with guitars and drums, and anyone can lead the worship service. I don't even think they do communion.

The reformation has gone too far.

Egad! Sounds like someone decided to put the emoji movie and iTown Church together...

Every day, the reformation strays further from God.