"The Church gets its authority from Jesus. The NT Scripture writers testify to that authority. If you would dismiss this, then to be consistent you must dismiss the entire Bible."According to you, the bible is just another church document.
"Go back a couple of posts. I was asking what you meant by the condemned man not being able to follow Jesus. Do you mean literally, or spiritually? I didn’t get the point that you were trying to make."See, this is what you get for taking your tinfoil hat off.
"Oh, Lord, not another one."Hey, I warned you to not take off your tinfoil hat!
"They are not interchangeable."Tough.
"I am not asking for Google’s definition. I am asking for yours."Do I look like a dictionary?
"Expanded? Does your Bible not contain the Gospel of Jesus or the writings of Peter and Paul? Impressive. The Church has set the canon and we are instructed to neither add nor remove anything from that. There are not many Protestants courageous enough to admit that they have removed Scripture, or else approve of the removal. Congratulations."In case you haven't noticed, I don't give a hoot what a group of men in Italy have to say. ;)
"Not really. I am just not interested in your feelings."Yep, theres a nerve there.
"Are you calling the Holy Spirit ‘it’?"No, if I was, I would have used quotes like you did.
"You have a fascinating theology. Would you care to expand upon it?"I'd love to, but I doubt your ability to understand me.
***”The Church gets its authority from Jesus. The NT Scripture writers testify to that authority. If you would dismiss this, then to be consistent you must dismiss the entire Bible.”
According to you, the bible is just another church document.
Documents testifying of the authority of their author is no testimony at all.***
And your point is? What is your view of the 72 books of Scripture?
***I never said that a man who was hell bound could not fallow Jesus around.
I merely said that walking around with Jesus would not profit a hell bound man.***
What if that man would repent, believe and be baptized? Or do you believe in predestination?
***”They are not interchangeable.”
Tough.
I’m using them interchangeably.***
It’s difficult to debate with someone who changes the meanings of words as much as they change their theology. I may, for instance, claim that my cat is a dog and structure my arguments accordingly. Words have meanings and exact words have exact meanings within the context of the sentence or paragraph.
***”I am not asking for Google’s definition. I am asking for yours.”
Do I look like a dictionary?***
When you use words, you may have a meaning for them in your mind that differs from the orthodox. We have one example above and, I suspect, are about to encounter others.
***”Expanded? Does your Bible not contain the Gospel of Jesus or the writings of Peter and Paul? Impressive. The Church has set the canon and we are instructed to neither add nor remove anything from that. There are not many Protestants courageous enough to admit that they have removed Scripture, or else approve of the removal. Congratulations.”
In case you haven’t noticed, I don’t give a hoot what a group of men in Italy have to say. ;)***
What does your Scripture consist of?
***”Are you calling the Holy Spirit ‘it’?”
No, if I was, I would have used quotes like you did.
I was only referring to it in general.***
You may wish to reread your post.
***”You have a fascinating theology. Would you care to expand upon it?”
I’d love to, but I doubt your ability to understand me.
It requires the ability to think for your self to comprehend it.***
But obviously not to construct it.