Posted on 02/04/2006 1:47:00 PM PST by bornacatholic
>>>In verse 3 he told Nicodemus that he must be born again, but verse 5 says nothing about...again.
In verse 3 it doesn't really say "again" either. At best it's a word play. It's literally: " born **from above** ". The same greek word is used here:
James 1:17
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is ***from above***, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
It just makes your point even more.
Thank you, friend....for pointing that out.
I believe the Tanach and the Torah were already published...Sounds as tho most Synagogues had a copy of the 'published' scrolls...
I don't know why it would be so hard to believe that people grabbed a stack of papyrus and started making copy after copy of what the Apostles preached...
I believe the Tanach and the Torah were already published...Sounds as tho most Synagogues had a copy of the 'published' scrolls...
I don't know why it would be so hard to believe that people grabbed a stack of papyrus and started making copy after copy of what the Apostles preached...
63 posted on 02/05/2006 12:09:25 PM MST by Iscool
I use the Blue Letter Bible b'shem Y'shua I would be cautious of the use of the word "Published" as it is GSN-1308 which means:
1) to bear or carry through any place
and compare it against other verses it occurs:
2) to carry different ways
a) to carry in different directions, to different places
1) of people who are carried hither and thither in a ship, driven to and fro
b) to differ, to test, prove, the good things that differ,
1) to distinguish between good and evil, lawful and unlawful, to approve of things that excel, to differ from one
2) to excel, surpass one
c) impersonally, it makes a difference, it matters, is of importance
sola scripture=The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.
I couldn't disagree with you more...It a matter of Final Authority...God wrote the Bible...He tells us that...I believe that...I believe that when God says my salvation is 'secured' unto eternity, I believe He was telling the truth...I know it's true...
I would never claim you are not a saved, born again Christian but look at this verse that I'm sure you are familiar with:
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I have a spiritual connection with God...I know what he says is true...
You on the other hand, look to a church for your final authority...No thanks, not for me...
I asked God to save me and he did...I got baptized to show the world what I did...Jesus says that puts me into his church (small c) as part of the Bride of Christ...
I wouldn't trust my eternal destination to 'any' body or group of people, especially when that group is making the rules about my salvation out side of God's word, the Bible...
"Is it a physical action?"
Work = Force*Distance. (I had asked where in the Bible is baptism referred to as a work.) Now, where in the Bible is baptism referred to as a sign? It is still obedience and I will leave it to God regarding the part it plays in our salvation. We are baptised "into" Christ where the blessings are. Gal 3:21-29. Are we debating when God puts our name in the book of life? Why would I (or John Calvin) try to mysticize the plain teaching He gave us.
That is true partially, but Jesus certainly expounded on their meanings as taught by the then religious authorities.
For example: Ye have heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not commit murder, and whosoever shall commit murder shall be guilty of the judgment; but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother out of control shall be in danger of the judgment (Mat 5:21-22).
And of course, when Jesus talks about suffering in the face of persecution and turning the other cheek, I don't find that in the OT. Perhaps you might help me there, I don't find it.
He condemned the traditions of man and always pointed to the Holy Word of G-d
No He didn't. We have previously discussed this. Jesus only condemns traditions that move men AWAY from God. Thus, Jesus tells His Apostles to OBEY THOSE WHO SIT IN THE CHAIR OF MOSES...Where is that in Scriptures??? In addition, Jesus, at the end of Matthew's Gospel, says NOTHING about the written Word of God (nor do the other Gospels) when He commissions His Apostles to teach and preach ALL that He had taught them. Nothing about securing a printing press and distributing pamplets of the "Gospel" for private interpretation...
Regards
When or where did God tell us that He wrote the Bible, or even every book within it? Does He come down from heaven and tell you this personally, and to each and every Christian?
I believe that when God says my salvation is 'secured' unto eternity, I believe He was telling the truth...I know it's true
Again, God TELLS you? How exactly does God tell you anything without other men telling us that God told THEM? How do you know the "voice of God" in your mind is really the voice of God?
I have a spiritual connection with God...I know what he says is true...You on the other hand, look to a church for your final authority...No thanks, not for me......
Isn't the Church the Body of Christ (Ephesians 5, 1 Cor 12)? Doesn't God speak through His Church to tell us that the Scripture is the Word of God?
I asked God to save me and he did
How do you know you are not being delusional in thinking that "God" is speaking to you? Seriously? How do you know that God speaks to you directly, while you probably do not believe He speaks to Muslims to kill unarmed civilians? I am sure those Muslims are sincere in their belief that God speaks to THEM. See where this "God talked to me" gets you?
I wouldn't trust my eternal destination to 'any' body or group of people
But you do. You trusted SOMEONE that the Bible was God's Word. You believed them. Unless you are going to tell me that God came and spoke to you personally in your bedroom...
Regards
"Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, "Go and write Bibles and distribute them, and let everyone judge for himself." That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth Century, and we have seen the result of it. Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another."
That's not an accurate statement of history. I challenge you to find instructions of any Protestant Reformer from the 16th and even 17th Centuries, which called for a free-for-all of individualistic interpretations. The Protestant creeds developed at the time (and there are actually very few...and they all agree on 90%+ of doctrines) show that Protestant leaders were trying to call for consistent, communal (not individualistic) interpretation--written and agreed upon by the leading Christian scholars of the day.
The Reformation period only saw 3 bodies... (Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican) (based as much on geography as belief) with a 4th, catch-all category of "Anabaptists", or "Radicals", which the main Reformers (Luther, Calvin, et als) regarded as fanatics. Historians agree that 90%+ of the Protestants in the 16th and 17th Centuries belonged to those 3 main groups--not exactly evidence of a free-for-all of interpretations.
Of course in Spain, France, Italy and other parts of Europe Protestant ideas were heavily suppressed...at the behest of Rome, through the power of the state. And in the Eastern churches too--it was always considered normal and necessary to suppress heresy using government sanction. That same sort of repression...in a much milder way, still exists in traditional Orthodox countries.
It took the religious freedom of America (spreading to other places, and back to Europe, too)(along with the freedom of the press...to print bibles) to really allow for the spawning of the multitudes of denominations we see today.
So in order to stem the tide of denominational splits, all good Roman Catholics have to do is reinstate the Inquisition, then we can have back the good-old days of medieval Roman Catholic hegemony.
Show me countries where 90%+ are Christians of one denomination and I'll show you countries where freedom of religion, and of the press, and of expression, are either currently compromised, or, are relatively new phenomena.
"Show me countries where 90%+ are Christians of one denomination and I'll show you countries where freedom of religion, and of the press, and of expression, are either currently compromised, or, are relatively new phenomena."
I suspect as a general proposition you're probably right if you want to call the past 100 years or so "relatively new".
Have you ever asked Jesus to save you???
Iscool,
You wrote: "I couldn't disagree with you more...It a matter of Final Authority...God wrote the Bible...He tells us that...I believe that...I believe that when God says my salvation is 'secured' unto eternity, I believe He was telling the truth...I know it's true..."
Is anyone here doubting that scripture is true? We knew scripture to be true 1500 years before your religious ancestors walked the earth. We TAUGHT YOU that scripture is true. Scripture being true in no way means sola scriptura is true. After all, it is a self-refuting proposition for sola scriptura is no where in scripture.
And aren't you forgetting that Christ sent the Church? Isn't it the Church's job to teach? Ever realize just how great a teacher the Church is? Read Ephesians 3:14. The Church even teaches angels. And yet you think it isn't worthy to teach you?
"I would never claim you are not a saved, born again Christian but look at this verse that I'm sure you are familiar with: 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
I am familiar with the verse. But you are making an assumption here. Do you know what it is?
"I have a spiritual connection with God...I know what he says is true..."
So do I. I also know you are wrong. We can't both be right. It is unlikely we are both wrong. So how do we decide who is right?
"You on the other hand, look to a church for your final authority...No thanks, not for me..."
You look to yourself as your final authority. Please don't even try to tell me that you rely on scripture. You don't. You rely ON YOUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. Lutherans believe in sola scriptura -- and they baptize infants. Baptists believe in sola scriptura -- and they DON'T baptize infants. Who is right? Clearly sola scriptura doesn't work. When someone uses sola scriptura he rely just relies on his own conclusions, feelings, thoughts, desires, and needs. Is that all there is?
"I asked God to save me and he did...I got baptized to show the world what I did...Jesus says that puts me into his church (small c) as part of the Bride of Christ..."
Jesus also sent the Church. Yet you ignore it.
"I wouldn't trust my eternal destination to 'any' body or group of people, especially when that group is making the rules about my salvation out side of God's word, the Bible..."
No, you'll just trust your eternal salvation to a group of editors, translators, commentaries and your mood that day. Yeah, I think you're on the losing end there. I trust in God's word. I also trust in God's Church. He sent both.
... churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another."
What churches are these ... which are fighting and quarreling with one another ?
The most antipathy I've seen ... comes from churches which think that they're it.
Most of the other churches are quite content to live and let live.
We even have many interdenominational fellowships.
We learn and share with one another.
We delight in one another.
We hold our essentials in common, ... and grant freedom in the non-essentials ... even as did Paul ...Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
...
Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
No where in the Pauline Epistles does it say, suggest or hint that the Apostle Peter was the head of the church, the head Apostle or any such thing...
The church was a mystery given to Paul to reveal to the believers...
Peter went thru a bit of a transition in doctrine...He started out preaching to Jews, under the law and God showed him in the book of Acts that salvation would then be extended to Gentiles as well...And Paul was given the commission to preach to the Gentiles and churches were created...Local assemblies...Often times in people's houses...
No doubt many still clung to Peter's initial message as can be witnessed by Paul's statement:
1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
There were divisions then as there are divisions now...The Catholic Church may somehow find it's way back to Peter's initial message...And since there is no pope mentioned in any scripture, and since Peter, as the head of the church was not alluded to in any of the Pauline Epistles, I would say it's pretty clear that the initial assembly of local churches were Protestant in nature...
The 'church' in the bible does not at all resemble the Catholic Church...
Iscool,
You wrote: "No where in the Pauline Epistles does it say, suggest or hint that the Apostle Peter was the head of the church, the head Apostle or any such thing.."
Where in the Bible does it say that it has to be in the Bible explicitly to be true? Sola scriptura is NO WHERE in the Bible yet you believe it. That's a self-refuting proposition. I do not believe in sola scriptura and neither did Jews, Jesus or early Christians.
"The church was a mystery given to Paul to reveal to the believers..."
So the Church only existed since the baptism of Paul? Are you serious? So Matthew was lying when he wrote Matthew 16 AND 18?
"Peter went thru a bit of a transition in doctrine...He started out preaching to Jews, under the law and God showed him in the book of Acts that salvation would then be extended to Gentiles as well...And Paul was given the commission to preach to the Gentiles and churches were created...Local assemblies...Often times in people's houses..."
Peter was also an apostle to the Gentiles. He baptised Cornelius and his family -- not Paul. Protestants always forget that.
"No doubt many still clung to Peter's initial message as can be witnessed by Paul's statement:"
Peter's initial message is found in Acts 2. It is that message that Paul came to believe in LATER.
"There were divisions then as there are divisions now...The Catholic Church may somehow find it's way back to Peter's initial message..."
It never left it.
"And since there is no pope mentioned in any scripture,..."
Where is "Bible" mentioned in scripture? No where. Where is "Trinity" mentioned? No where. Ever realize that? No, apparently not.
"... and since Peter, as the head of the church was not alluded to in any of the Pauline Epistles,"
Oh, no? Did Paul not say he didn't seek to interfere with a foundation built by someone else? Romans 15:20. Ever wonder who that someone else was IN ROME?
"I would say it's pretty clear that the initial assembly of local churches were Protestant in nature..."
How could they be what didn't exist yet? And wouldn't exist for 1500 years? That's simply anachronism at its worst.
"The 'church' in the bible does not at all resemble the Catholic Church..."
Actually it does. Bishops, priests, and deacons. Do you have those? The Mass, the Eucharist and other sacraments. Got those? A Church that teaches authoritatively (even to the angels). Does your sect do that? Did you sect even exist a century ago? Three centuries ago? Five centuries ago?
Written perhaps 60 years after the Resurrection and in reference only to the writing of John.
"Oh a Calvinist, never mind, yall abandoned grace a long time ago."
Grace includes all of the terms God requires of us in order to be reconciled to Him. What a ridiculous situation we would be in if God sent His very special Son to pay the price of our redemption and then did not tell us what to do in order to inherit that salvation. "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that OBEY him." (Emp. mine.) BTW, you did not answer either question. "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.