The Roman Catholic Church Infallibility Thread

[BreadOfLife]

1. The Law contained concessions.
2. God's commands can change : incest used to be a holy command ("Be fruitful and multiply" meant "commit incest"), however, now, God calls it an abomination.

Yup – you’re almost there . . .

The thing you don’t comprehend is the Bible’s use of hyperbole, because you are a Literalist. This is a flawed way of understanding Scripture because SOME of Scripture is literal – and SOME of it is symbolic. Allow me to explain . . .

Hyperbole
Many verses use this, such as
Matt. 2:3
When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and ALL Jerusalem with him.

Really? ALL of Jerusalem was troubled, including the babies, the bedridden, the mentally -ill??
Or, does it mean that MANY were troubled?

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.”

Another example of hyperbole. We are commanded to HONOR our parents (Exod. 20:12) and to LOVE one another (John 13:34).

I've already debunked your argument, and, now, it is your job to respond to my response.

The ONLY thing you’ve “debunked” is your own credibility as a Scripture scholar . . .

 

[GracePeace]

Yup – you’re almost there . . .

The thing you don’t comprehend is the Bible’s use of hyperbole, because you are a Literalist. This is a flawed way of understanding Scripture because SOME of Scripture is literal – and SOME of it is symbolic. Allow me to explain . . .

Hyperbole
Many verses use this, such as
Matt. 2:3
When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and ALL Jerusalem with him.

Really? ALL of Jerusalem was troubled, including the babies, the bedridden, the mentally -ill??
Or, does it mean that MANY were troubled?

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.”

Another example of hyperbole. We are commanded to HONOR our parents (Exod. 20:12) and to LOVE one another (John 13:34).


The ONLY thing you’ve “debunked” is your own credibility as a Scripture scholar . . .

Then James could be using hyperbole when he says "not by faith alone" LOL

 

[nedsk]

Yup – you’re almost there . . .

The thing you don’t comprehend is the Bible’s use of hyperbole, because you are a Literalist. This is a flawed way of understanding Scripture because SOME of Scripture is literal – and SOME of it is symbolic. Allow me to explain . . .

Hyperbole
Many verses use this, such as
Matt. 2:3
When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and ALL Jerusalem with him.

Really? ALL of Jerusalem was troubled, including the babies, the bedridden, the mentally -ill??
Or, does it mean that MANY were troubled?

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.”

Another example of hyperbole. We are commanded to HONOR our parents (Exod. 20:12) and to LOVE one another (John 13:34).


The ONLY thing you’ve “debunked” is your own credibility as a Scripture scholar . . .

Or simply that as the king, herod represents ALL Jerusalem

 

[GracePeace]

Could we define OATH?

Anything beyond "yes, yes", or "no, no" is of the evil one--a vow that you will do this or that, that, by your word, it is a certainty, as sure as the Sun will rise in the morning, that the thing will occur, falls under "beyond 'yes, yes' or 'no, no'".

It's not a matter of tradition...

When people ask, "Well, do you disagree with MARITAL VOWS!?" yeah that is a tradition they think I cannot disagree with.

it's a matter of what is believed about oaths in Christianity.

"Christianity" can err by their traditions--what I'm saying is I believe the Bible teaches against these traditions. Pretty simple.

You should post something that speaks against it that can easily be understood.

I have.

If Jesus meant what it sounds like He meant, then Paul was wrong in taking oaths:

Romans 1:9
9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you,


Romans 9:1
1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,


2 Cor 1:23
23 But I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I did not come again to Corinth.


2 Cor 11:31
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.


Galatians 1:20
20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)


Above Paul is doing what Jesus said not to do.
He is not relying solely on his word when making a statement but swearing by God.

Remember that what Jesus is forbidding is you arrogating yourself to a position you have no right to--ie, God's--because His reasoning is "You are not able to make one hair on your head white or black, therefore, WHO ARE YOU to see yourself as ABLE to promise you will make this or that thing happen, making a vow about what you will do, and taking the focus of trust away from God, Who is ABLE to do all things, and Who can be trusted, and to put it on yourself, when you can guarantee NOTHING because of your PUNINESS and CONTINGENCY on God, the only One Who really has the power?"

Therefore, if Paul says "I am telling the truth about this matter", not promising "I will do make this thing happen", it isn't a violation of the prohibition.

Apparently Jesus meant that we are to not use God's name to swear frivolously, as had become the custom.

I don't agree--James would've known what Jesus meant, and he simply said "make no vow at all", not "don't make frivolous vows--but there are SOME vows that are all right".

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then James could be using hyperbole when he says "not by faith alone" LOL

That doesn't fit the context of what James is saying.
He is literally talking about the efficacy of works as they pertain to faith.

Nive try . . .

 

[GracePeace]

That doesn't fit the context of what James is saying.
He is literally talking about the efficacy of works as they pertain to faith.

Nive try . . .

No, "in the context", he's just being "hyperbolic"!

 

[nedsk]

No, "in the context", he's just being "hyperbolic"!

Not likely but in order for your claim here to be true you have to say all the other places in Scripture that agree with James are also hyperbole. In fact the resurrection could be nothing more than hyperbole. You really want to go there? You can't just claim something is hyperbole simply because you don't like the message.