It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

GodsGrace · Sep 25, 2017

OzSpen said:
BoL,

Your view of Wikipedia is not convincing to me. I'm presently writing a curriculum for religious instruction in secular high schools, so I emailed leading evangelical theologian and apologist, Dr Norman Geisler, for an outline of the apologetic model he uses.

What did he do? He referred me to his article on Wikipedia: 'Outline of Geisler's apologetic system'.

Geisler has written 4 vols of Systematic Theology, several vols on apologetics, and he dares to give me an outline of his theological views on defending the faith through an article on Wikipedia. He obviously knows the vision of Wikipedia can be used to promote his views.

Could it be that you are the one out of step with some of the theological work that represents sound theology that is being promoted on Wikipedia?

Oz

Sure oz,
What's wrong with using anything on the net?
I find that wikipedia is very good at summing up different topics.

Maybe some posters here never liked the Encyclopedia Britannica either??

GodsGrace · Sep 25, 2017

Truth said:
Remember, please, that there is Translation, trying to get the right word from one Language to another!!!! Then there is Interpretation!!!! that can be what someone Interpret's it to mean!!! In the Hebrew, it is said that their language is Concrete! and that the Greek language is abstract!
If you look at the Gospels, the Parables, they almost always use terms about crops, and how people react, also He uses situations to describe meanings within meanings. But the Greeks were mostly into Philosophy, so this could mean this and or that, and this being said we need to watch how others try to convince us about what they THINK. I have used many online sources to learn from, some we need to take with a grain of Salt!

Wow.
You've said a mouthful !
More knowledge in this one post than .....

Here's what I think...

You cannot learn from the internet because there are different doctrines and concepts being proposed and some are not even legitimate.

However, I've found wikipedia to be very reliable and serious.

Truth · Sep 25, 2017

GodsGrace said:
Wow.
You've said a mouthful !
More knowledge in this one post than .....

Here's what I think...

You cannot learn from the internet because there are different doctrines and concepts being proposed and some are not even legitimate.

However, I've found wikipedia to be very reliable and serious.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood my post, there are some hear that have learned how to push what their interpretation is, or what they have been taught it is. I have said in the past I do get long winded, I have just posted on a different thread, that many will us a verse to establish a doctrine, Like they do in churches where they play with Rattle Snakes. Take a verse out of Context!!!!

GodsGrace · Sep 25, 2017

Truth said:
Sorry, I think you misunderstood my post, there are some hear that have learned how to push what their interpretation is, or what they have been taught it is. I have said in the past I do get long winded, I have just posted on a different thread, that many will us a verse to establish a doctrine, Like they do in churches where they play with Rattle Snakes. Take a verse out of Context!!!!

I agree.
Doctrine cannot be made using one verse.
The Bible is a complete thought and this must always be taken into consideration.
Do you feel I've done this?

bbyrd009 · Sep 25, 2017

GodsGrace said:
Maybe some posters here never liked the Encyclopedia Britannica either?

there is a well documented silent war going on for control of these publications, like, people have died even. The stakes are huge

GodsGrace · Sep 25, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
there is a well documented silent war going on for control of these publications, like, people have died even. The stakes are huge

Are you talking about the Julian asange affair?

Rollo Tamasi · Sep 25, 2017

GodsGrace said:
Are you talking about the Julian asange affair?

no, the Thomas Crown Affair

GodsGrace · Sep 26, 2017

Rollo Tamasi said:
no, the Thomas Crown Affair

Oh. So you do watch modern day moves.
That was a good one.

epostle1 · Sep 26, 2017

OzSpen said:
False!
I hold to a biblical position and have tried to demonstrate it throughout this thread. In addition, my article, Perpetual virginity of Mary promoted by false document, deals with the biblical and other material.

It's not a biblical position. It's fad theology that started in the 19th century.
Spencer D Gear is a modernist. He most likely studied under modernists.

I do not hold to the Protestant Tradition of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & John Wesley, who were coming out of the RCC, and continued to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Of course not! You are a Protestant! Your private opinion trumps any reformer, even your own pastor! Even Geisler!
Are you saying Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & John Wesley, founders of Protestantism, didn't know the Bible well enough??? With that many reformers teaching the PVM, could it be that it might be true???

My position comes from Scripture.

Your position comes from your opinion of Scripture. When you separate Scripture from Tradition and the Teaching Authority that it flowed from in the first place, your left with thousands of conflicting opinions. So what makes your opinion better than any body else??? But I am to believe it's better than your own reformers!

I find nothing in Scripture to support Mary's perpetual virginity.

I find nothing in scripture that explicitly states that Jesus was a perpetual virgin, or the He loved His mother. Statements like that indicate you don't know what the Bible is for, and FYI, the Bible is not about the sex life, or lack thereof, of any secondary biblical character, you raise the bar to ridiculous heights. You refuse to settle for inferences no matter how many are given yet you cannot come up with a single inference for sola scriptura and I am supposed to play by your rules that are based on a non existing premise??? I've posted the evidence for the PVM repeatedly, you just ignore it.

A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity

A Biblical Basis For Mary's Perpetual Virginity?
Vows Taken by A Young Woman in Her Father's House
Book of Numbers

Dialogue with Protestants on the Irrational, Unbiblical Demand for Multiple, Explicit Scriptural Prooftexts for Every Doctrine

Ezekiel 44:1-2 Dave Armstrong

GodsGrace · Sep 26, 2017

kepha31 said:
It's not a biblical position. It's fad theology that started in the 19th century.
Spencer D Gear is a modernist. He most likely studied under modernists.
Of course not! You are a Protestant! Your private opinion trumps any reformer, even your own pastor! Even Geisler!
Are you saying Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & John Wesley, founders of Protestantism, didn't know the Bible well enough??? With that many reformers teaching the PVM, could it be that it might be true???
Your position comes from your opinion of Scripture. When you separate Scripture from Tradition and the Teaching Authority that it flowed from in the first place, your left with thousands of conflicting opinions. So what makes your opinion better than any body else??? But I am to believe it's better than your own reformers! I find nothing in scripture that explicitly states that Jesus was a perpetual virgin, or the He loved His mother. Statements like that indicate you don't know what the Bible is for, and FYI, the Bible is not about the sex life, or lack thereof, of any secondary biblical character, you raise the bar to ridiculous heights. You refuse to settle for inferences no matter how many are given yet you cannot come up with a single inference for sola scriptura and I am supposed to play by your rules that are based on a non existing premise??? I've posted the evidence for the PVM repeatedly, you just ignore it.

A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity

A Biblical Basis For Mary's Perpetual Virginity?
Vows Taken by A Young Woman in Her Father's House
Book of Numbers

Dialogue with Protestants on the Irrational, Unbiblical Demand for Multiple, Explicit Scriptural Prooftexts for Every Doctrine

Ezekiel 44:1-2 Dave Armstrong

All of the above also applies to YOU!!
Of course, Catholics are right about everything...
God must be a Catholic.

I just hope you realize that all catholic dogma, except the very first hundred years, were arrived at after much time and thought.

Doesn't the bible say that we are not to add to scripture?
Doesn't it say that Jesus is the LAST revelation?

I don't really expect an answer.
Thanks.

bbyrd009 · Sep 26, 2017

GodsGrace said:
Are you talking about the Julian asange affair?

no, the war for control of who defines things, the Webster's...1842? edition is still widely considered to be the last uncorrupted dictionary, etc.

bbyrd009 · Sep 26, 2017

GodsGrace said:
Oh. So you do watch modern day moves.
That was a good one.

probably, but it looks like the stakes in that one were just diamonds and gold or whatever

it's hard to google, but "dictionary wars" (not 'dictionary OF wars') would get you started

amadeus · Sep 26, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
no, the war for control of who defines things, the Webster's...1842? edition is still widely considered to be the last uncorrupted dictionary, etc.

And excepting Jesus, Adam prior to his disobedience is widely considered to be the last uncorrupted man.

Have there been any newer overcomers since Jesus who have completely killed [with God's help] their own old man and all of his ways?

amadeus · Sep 26, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
probably, but it looks like the stakes in that one were just diamonds and gold or whatever

it's hard to google, but "dictionary wars" (not 'dictionary OF wars') would get you started

And what kind of wars would you name those conducted here on this and other similar Christian forums?

bbyrd009 · Sep 26, 2017

amadeus said:
And excepting Jesus, Adam prior to his disobedience is widely considered to be the last uncorrupted man.

Have there been any newer overcomers since Jesus who have completely killed [with God's help] their own old man and all of his ways?

ha dunno, this is why i brought up old people the other day, the ones who have mostly stopped talking, who really knows what one experiences as mortal death looms near? We might certainly argue that many or even most 90 year olds seem to have a certain peace, and--for the most part--are hardly characterized as sin factories at that stage, right

bbyrd009 · Sep 26, 2017

amadeus said:
And what kind of wars would you name those conducted here on this and other similar Christian forums?

ya, the same wars, we pretty much argue over what amount to differences in definitions, imo, while we pretend that our definition is the one God would pick, i guess

amadeus · Sep 26, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
ha dunno, this is why i brought up old people the other day, the ones who have mostly stopped talking, who really knows what one experiences as mortal death looms near? We might certainly argue that many or even most 90 year olds seem to have a certain peace, and--for the most part--are hardly characterized as sin factories at that stage, right

If we are not ourselves already overcomers, we may be missing one or more necessary essentials to properly see what is in others. This does not mean that overcomers in the flesh today do not exist.

Thomas doubted that Jesus had resurrected because he had not seen him with his own physical eyes. Especially among older believers the overcomers, I believe, are to be found. For them to say the words "I have overcome the world as Jesus did" would likely normally serve no good purpose in God's eyes, so they do not usually speak it. They would be following the lead of God perfectly.

amadeus · Sep 26, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
ya, the same wars, we pretty much argue over what amount to differences in definitions, imo, while we pretend that our definition is the one God would pick, i guess

It all goes back to what Jeremiah and Solomon wrote:

"I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jerem 10:23
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Prov 14:12
"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prov 21:2

OzSpen · Sep 26, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
there is a well documented silent war going on for control of these publications, like, people have died even. The stakes are huge

bby,

When you make statements like this, I consider that you ought to provide a link that documents your statements.

Oz

bbyrd009 · Sep 26, 2017

OzSpen said:
bby,

When you make statements like this, I consider that you ought to provide a link that documents your statements.

Oz

sorry, i looked, and other terminology that is very close to "dictionary conspiracy" et al gets in the way. Googling "dictionary conspiracy" takes on to a definition of "conspiracy" lol, i mean that's how bad it is. I posted one this morning, "dictionary wars" though, fwiw. I just googled "conspiracies about dictionaries" and got 10 pages of yack about how to define "conspiracy," so iow either i and ol' Noah were nuts, or the real story is being occluded either intentionally or not

It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Similar threads