A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholic Fidelity.Com ^ | Dave Armstrong

[Cronos]

“displaying the insight of a parrot” —> RM, here’s a pretty good example of making it personal, quite contrary to forum rules. Also note that this is not the first time.

[The Comedian]

Yup, run to the teacher.

Exactly what I'd expect after you throw a punch at me and miss.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Natural Law]

"Yup, run to the teacher."

Internet bullies and tough guys are usually those who spent much of high school sitting in a drinking fountain with a jock strap over their heads vowing vengeance on the football team.....

[Cronos]

Nah, that’s because most of us here on the RF are Christians who want to discuss our faith. If anyone tries to spread antagonism, they are better off on DU.

[Cronos]

What is really sad is that folks like these are the ones who keep spreading the lies. We had such a reasonable discussion going on with real Christian Protestants who truly believe what they believe and don't resort to lies and insults

Some people believe the lies that are fed to them, they believe the lie that somehow purgatory is a place of torment, Church doctrine clearly states that this is a process, NOT a place a place where who die in God's grace and friendship, who have been saved by the blood of the lamb are given their final scrubbing clean of sin by God before they enter the presence of the Lord (because in God's presence sin is non-existent, destroyed).

It's sad that they reject a biblical fact like the limbo of the fathers(Luke 16:22). Jesus told the Good Thief that the two of them would be together "this day" in "Paradise" (Luke 23:43; see also Matthew 27:38); but between on the Sunday of his resurrection he said that he had "not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17).

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell. Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him

Then they believed the lies their fake group tell them about limbo of the infants
Limbo of the infants,the very term is not and has never been, defined doctrine. The Church says As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

Finally, they repeat the old canard which exists in the ENGLISH-speaking world forgetting that the rest of the world speaks other languages too. I address my Catholic priests Ksiądz which translates as Priest.

I told him to realise that all those who tell him to hate The Church lie about it's teachings. He can tell that liar, 1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat [him] as a father, [and] the younger men as brethren.

Quote to him, Matthew 23: 8-10 But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your teacher; and all you are brethren. [9] And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. [10] Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ.

So, if one is not supposed to call any man teacher then why do one address one's school teachers as such? Why does one call a Doctor,'doctor' (it's just the Latin word for teacher)? Why in Matthew 28:19-20 does Christ say "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Why does Paul say For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). ?

Why does Paul tell us that that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11).?

Why does one call men "Master" Why call them "Mister" and "Mistress (Mrs)" which are forms of the word "master"?

If someone stopped calling people teacher, doctor, Mr., Mrs, because of quotations from scripture, that is a misunderstanding of Christ’s words due to solo scriptura

[Bobsvainbabblings]

Of course there is a scriptural basis for this -- St. Paul himself told those he appointed as leaders to choose their successors.

I agree to a point. That command would not be limited to those leaders and their successors but everyone they taught. It includes you and me.

Paul also gave a criteria for those leaders in 1 Timothy 3.

 

1 Timothy 3

Qualifications of Overseers

 ¹ This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,^[a] he desires a good work. ² A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; ³ not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,^[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; ⁴ one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence ⁵ (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); ⁶ not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. ⁷ Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Qualifications of Deacons

   
⁸ Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, ⁹ holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. ¹⁰ But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. ¹¹ Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. ¹² Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. ¹³ For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Some of the deacons of your local Churches could fit these qualifications.

I will grant you Paul taught that he thought it was OK or good for some to serve the Lord while single. However, he does not include them in leadership functions in a church.

All in your church's leadership fails these requirements making them unscriptural. BVB

[Natural Law]

"What is really sad is that folks like these are the ones who keep spreading the lies."

Even sadder is the fact that some of these folks purport to be former Catholics or married to former Catholics and believe that their ignorance is therefore impossible. Had they truly known and understood the Church they never would have felt the need to leave it. Sadly they project their own deficiencies into the Church.

[Cronos]

I humbly submit that that is making a judgement call on what not to have -- saying that it is good for one to be a man of but one wife does not mean that he MUST have one wife.

There is no explicit instruction which says: "he must be married" -- for that matter it's not "he must single".

Paul says a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5).

If one interprets this to mean that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven, this leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise "self-control" (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of "managing his household well," even if his "household" is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely "concerned about the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have "left everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be "soldiers" of Christ must avoid "civilian pursuits": "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him" (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these "civilian pursuits."

An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: "The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’" (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.

Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.

In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.

Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring.

Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

[Natural Law]

"Paul also gave a criteria for those leaders in 1 Timothy 3.

Why would you choose Paul as the authoritative source when Christ assigned the establishment and leadership of His Church to Peter?

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." - Matthew 16:18

"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." - Matthew 18:18

[Iscool]

It was not the original twelve, thirteen counting Paul, who determined the canon of Scripture.

That's true...But it wasn't your religion that determined it either...

God determined the canon with the creation in Gen. 1:1 and the ending with the New Heavens and New Earth in Revelation where John says, 'Even so, Come Lord Jesus'...

Those writing the New Testament did not know they were writing Scripture. To them Scripture was the Old Testament.

Well sure they did...

2Co 1:13 For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end;

Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The Apostles knew absolutely they were providing scripture for future generations...They knew that the Old Testament was Scripture and they knew that what was revealed to them by God was the scripture for the future...

At what point did the Holy Spirit stop guiding us to truth?

The question for you is; when did the Holy Spirit START guiding your religion into all truth OUTSIDE OF THE SCRIPTURES???

The Holy Spirit has and does guide us into all truth, in the scriptures...

Scripture certainly does contain all we need to know but does it contain all there is to know?

Pertaining to God??? Absolutely...For now...Anything outside of scripture pertaining to knowledge of God is nothing short of a wild guess...

[Natural Law]

"The question for you is; when did the Holy Spirit START guiding your religion into all truth OUTSIDE OF THE SCRIPTURES???"

The question for you is why are you ignoring the questions I asked you regarding relying only on Scripture?

1) Define scripture and differentiate it from the hundreds of competing contemporary works rejected by Canon.

2) Provide a Scriptural table of contents or listing of the works that comprise Scripture.

3) Provide a Scriptural proof that establishes that 100% of the revealed Word of God is found in Scripture.

4) Explain how the Scriptural imperative functioned in the 400 years before canon was established.

5) Explain how the Scriptural imperative functioned in the 1200 or so years between the establishment of canon and a level of literacy and availability of Bibles in the common language.

[Zuriel]

I’m not going to invite others to observe and comment. If they want to, that’s fine. I can debate without rounding up a posse of select FRiends to wage a ‘sWORDfight’.

**So, let’s understand this — you say that Jesus was a human who got God’s spirit in Him? That Jesus Christ is not God?**

You took the first sentence (seen below) and left the rest alone as if it wasn’t there; which is an EXPLANATION of the first sentence.

God is Christ, only if you’re referring to the Father dwelling in him. Most notably in John chapters 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 16, Jesus Christ spoke a great deal about ‘the Father’ in him, teaching him all things, telling what to say, doing the ‘works’, etc. When speaking of God dwelling in himself, the Christ calls him the Father, not the Holy Ghost.

IN those chapters are some very clear claims by the Christ:

John 5:19 “..the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..” The Man that God SENT (God doesn’t need to be sent anywhere, he’s already omnipresent) received instruction on EVERYTHING. God doesn’t need instruction on anything, for he knows ALL things.

John 5:26 “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he GIVEN to the SON to have life in himself.” God can’t be given anything he doesn’t already have. God is the giver of life, not the receiver.

John 5:27 “And hath GIVEN him (the SON) AUTHORITY to execute judgement also, because he is the Son of man.” God is the GIVER of authority, not the receiver.

John 6:37 “All that the Father hath GIVEN me shall come to me..”.

John 8:28 “..as my Father hath TAUGHT me, I speak these things.”

John 10:27-30 “My sheep hear my voice.... My Father, which GAVE them me is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one (by now you should see the flow of power consistantly coming from the Father to the Son)

John 14 is the ‘heavy iron’ of this revelation of the Godhead. “I am the way, the truth ,and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye KNOW him. and have SEEN him.......he that hath SEEN me hath SEEN the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the WORDS (REMEMBER JOHN 1:1??) that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that DWELLETH IN ME(HELLLOOOO?), he doeth the works.” vss 6-10.

The Christ still showed his dual nature of Spirit (the Father), and soul housed in flesh, when he said, “my Father is greater than I”. John 14:28

It pleased the Father that IN him (Christ) should ALL fulness dwell (Col. 1:19). Not just a portion of the Spirit of God dwells in him, but the fulness of God the Father. That’s how the Christ has all power.

Yet the ‘trinity’ logic chooses to slice, dice, and compartmentalize the infinite God. You know, the same God that you don’t call on directly much of the time, using deceased souls as an avenue of reaching God.

I asked Ben to tackle this riddle, how about you giving it a try:
Why is the term ‘God the Father’ found in scripture, but the term ‘God the Holy Ghost’(Spirit) not; and why is Jesus Christ never referred to as ‘God the Son’, but ‘the Son of God’?

Maybe you would like to execute judgement on the following as well:
In nearly every epistle’s greeting, of the churches he helped to found, Paul mentions ‘God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’. Two things stand out in those greetings: They don’t say ‘and God the Lord Jesus Christ’; and not only is there no ‘and God the Holy Ghost’ phrase, the Holy Ghost is mostly left out of those greeting verses (kinda dissing the ‘third person’ donchathink).

More replies are comming.
(ya know, that cartoon character of a knight in armour, on your homepage, is probably symbolic of the ‘sWORDfight’ you’ve gotten into here. The sword in the drawing is nearly as tall as the knight, and with my extensive steel fabricating background (I’ve made a few swords; ride horses too), I’m estimating it would be very difficult to win a swordfight trying to swing that mass of steel from the back of a horse. A little timing, and a light efficient sword wins handily.

I certainly not claiming that you don’t love God, but your ‘sword’ is too big and bulky, weighted down with all that man-made tradition.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

I chose Paul for that source because the poster I was answering used Paul as a their source.

 

Having Paul set standards shows what God thinks of your Church's interpretation of that scripture. Peter may be the head of the Church of the Magisterium but Jesus is the rock His Church is built on. Peter makes that clear when he spoke to the Sanhedrin under the power of the Spirit in Acts 3.

⁵ And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders, and scribes, ⁶ as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. ⁷ And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”
⁸ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: ⁹ If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. ¹¹ This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’^{[a] 12} Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

BVB

[Zuriel]

**Then why exactly does Jesus sayd in Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Seriously — that has clearly specified that there is ONE name for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.**

He was addressing his disciples. They KNEW who he was. And they KNEW that the NAME (singular) was one.
Jesus made it clear that he INHERITTED his name, saying that he came in his “Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his OWN name, him ye shall receive” (John 5:43).
“...as he hath by INHERITANCE obtained a better name than they.” Heb. 1:4

Jesus Christ declared that the Holy Ghost would be sent in HIS name. John 14:26

That’s why the apostles baptized in the NAME of JESUS.

**in Gen 1:26, God says “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” — since God is ONE, this expression of plurality must refer to God Himself.**

The image (the Son) of the invisible God, is the FIRSTBORN of every creature. Col. 1:15 And God wasn’t born; he’s from everlasting to everlasting, no beginning and no ending, amen.

**At the tower of babel, God says “let US go down”, yet no one else comes down with Him.**

“Yet no one else comes down with Him.”???? As much as I hate to sound like a pro-blamer (lawyer); it doesn’t say he didn’t use a variety of his powers (including angels) to do that. The Word just says that “the Lord scattered them abroad..” Gen. 11:8

**There is adequate proof in the Bible for the Trinity**

There is none. But there is a devil that want’s to divide and conquer God. Of couse, that’s not going to happen.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

Your post is an interesting read but it did not disprove my claim.

More to the point, your argument should be with God. He is who had Paul set this standard if you believe all scripture is inspired.

BVB

[Jvette]

It was the early church leaders, under the inspiration of God, the Holy Spirit that determined which writings were in fact Scriptural and would be included with the Old Testament as such.

Nowhere in the New Testament does any writer acknowledge their writings to be Scripture. In none of the verses you quote does the writer claim to be writing Scripture as they knew it then. Peter does use the phrase other scriptures, but remember the writings of Paul to which he is referring are wherein Paul is interpreting the OT Scriptures in light of Jesus for those who are just coming to belief in Him or to guide those who already believe but were just learning how to live this new life in Christ.

It was just as common in their day for people to twist Scripture for their own ends as it is in ours. But, all the Scriptures referred to in the NT are the OT and make no claim of that themselves. The Holy Spirit has never guided the Church to any truth or doctrine that cannot be support either explicitly or implicitly by Scripture.

What we accept as truth, you choose to reject and that is your right. But, your rejection is your own opinion and interpretation of Scripture for this was never a caveat issued by Jesus regarding the Holy Spirit.....

The Holy Spirit has and does guide us into all truth, in the scriptures...

To say for now, is to reject Jesus' explicit words in John wherein He says that He has much more to say. The fact that many doctrines accepted as truth by all Christians came to fruition after the writings canonized as the New Testament belies that all there is to know about God is contained in the Bible and only in the Bible. It is untrue and provably so.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

How come you didn't show my whole post and/or answer the questions I posed?

"If you deny that the Son is God, then you aren’t a Christian. Something else for sure, but not a Christian."

This is the teaching of your church, the church of the Magisterium. It only came into being to make Mary the mother of God to support all that came with that title.

Your first Pope, Peter, would not be a Christian by your standards. Peter called Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, not God the Son when he was asked by Jesus who Peter thought He is.
 

Matthew 16:15-17 (New King James Version)

¹⁵ He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
¹⁶ Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
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.

If Jesus was God, why didn't He correct him?

If He is God and didn't correct Peter, it would be a lie and He would no longer be sinless.

He reinforced Peter's answer by telling Peter His Father in Heaven had given Peter that knowledge.

We have both the Father and Son saying He is the Son of God.

Only flesh and blood years after the fact say Jesus is God.

BVB

 

 

"If you deny that the Son is God, then you aren’t a Christian. Something else for sure, but not a Christian."

This is the teaching of your church, the church of the Magisterium. It only came into being to make Mary the mother of God to support all that came with that title.

Your first Pope, Peter, would not be a Christian by your standards. Peter called Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, not God the Son when he was asked by Jesus who Peter thought He is.
 

Matthew 16:15-17 (New King James Version)

¹⁵ He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
¹⁶ Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
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.

If Jesus was God, why didn't He correct him?

If He is God and didn't correct Peter, it would be a lie and He would no longer be sinless.

He reinforced Peter's answer by telling Peter His Father in Heaven had given Peter that knowledge.

We have both the Father and Son saying He is the Son of God.

Only flesh and blood years after the fact say Jesus is God.

BVB

"If you deny that the Son is God, then you aren’t a Christian. Something else for sure, but not a Christian."

[Judith Anne]

John 14: 9ff has some interesting words about that, spoken by Christ.

[Cronos]

Remember a key point of "Of one wife"... The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who has more than one wife (e.g. a polygamist)

having his children in submission with all reverence -- if we take this literally then any minister who has naughty kids should be booted out of the ministry, correct?

Remember clearly that 1 Tim is written against Gnostics with their beliefs that the OT God was just a demiurge

[Cronos]

Firstly, as you can see by the rest of this thread, with the exception of Ben, the rest are folks I am actively debating with.

Secondly, I asked you two things which can help clear things up and ensure we don't talk at cross-purposes:

1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?

Is this a standard belief for your Protestant group?

To the first, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Jesus Christ was a man filled with the spirit of God, not God Himself -- is that correct?

btw, very good verses and interesting argument. I have to go to bed now. will respond tomorrow. thank you and God bless