Subforum assumption, Bible authority

[daedalus 2.0]

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

I agree. This subforum allows the believer to skip the sticky, uncomfortable mess of showing the Bible is true and dive right into their doctrine. This forum needs to be this way because Xians need protection from this basic logical process.

Now, when I reference Andrea Yates or Fred Phelps as an example of the dangers of Xianity, the Xian will say: But you can't judge Xianity by the people who don't represent Xianity.

My question is this: If we are assuming the Bible is an authority - whose authority do we use? All we get are a long list of people who DON'T speak for Xianity, but is there anyone who does? Jesus? But he didn't write anything and the Bible's authority is up to interpretation.

Personally, I like Bob Price's or Bishop Shelby Sprong's interpretation.

Whose authority do you accept as the authority on what authority the Bible holds as authority?

[Word_Swordsman]

You are the one distorting truth here. You are not numbered among the children of God, so cannot speak for us, citing scriptures out of context and contrary to the other teachings of Paul.

All people are the children of God, no matter what their beliefs about him are. That includes Hindu's, Muslims, Wiccians, Christians , Jews and atheists. As for 'scripture out of context'.. well, that sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

Sorry, goat, in this subforum the Bible has authority. You don't get to bring your lovey-dovey, hippie Bible in here and start making claims.

The Bible can only mean ONE thing: God's Bible. The Word. This can ONLY mean Marcion's Bible. He was inspired by God and rightly rejected all other texts in favor of the truth.

Word swordsman does not have any biblical support that only people who follow his belief are 'children of god'.

I haven't written those not following my belief are not children of God. However, the Bible is clear about that, and I believe the Bible.

Matthew 13:38 "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;"

1 John 3:10 "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."

You are proved wrong. Not all people are God's children. Most belong to Satan. Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

[Word_Swordsman]

It is one thing to get a Sunday school version of the 19th century bible believer's interpretaion but as a debating forum I think the threats of hell and blaming everything on Satan borders on childish.

But certainly the Bible supports these threats to infidels. I don't think you can separate them. In this subforum the Bible is the word of God. If God says it, it isn't childish, it's Divine.

In other subforums it is considered vastly inappropriate, but here, where the Bible has authority it is not up to our interpretation. We can only express what the Bible says - not if it is right, wrong, childish or divine.

Not so. In other forums it should be reason v. reason, fact v. fact, deniers of claims needing to offer sufficient facts to disprove their own claims against a testifier. In a court of law a witness can't just say the testimony of another witness is false and let that statement stand. Without proof that witness is better off not commenting at all, lest he perjure himself. Many witness having seen an event are required to make their testimony having weight of evidence.

In a true debate a party responding to an opening claim by another party can't legitimately make a case by merely saying "prove it" or "that is ridiculous". If the second party can't make a convincing argument that by its content successfully challenges the first party claims, the first party claim is established as successful. Relying totally on reason, logic or raw data often fails to enter into communication between two debating parties because of perspectives of sets of reason, logical process, or presentation of a set(s) of data pertinent to the argument.

This is the nature of religion. God says it, you do it - no "or else". If the Bible says infidels burn in Hell, then saying it is not childish. It's pious.

Not so. There is another side to the nature of religion, personal testimony. If I say I know God personally, what proof would you have otherwise? He answers my prayers when I ask according to the limits of the Bible. I do agree saying what the Bible says is "pious", a marked devotion to deity.

[Word_Swordsman]

The Bible can only mean ONE thing: God's Bible. The Word. This can ONLY mean Marcion's Bible. He was inspired by God and rightly rejected all other texts in favor of the truth.

Marcion's foolish contentions were soundly rejected and remains rejected by the Church.

The Heretical Church of Satan, maybe.

Hi Daedalus,

I cannot believe you still saying the 'heretical Church of satan.

I can't either! You'd think I wouldn't have to. You'd think people would stop following the wrong Bible.

They say practice makes perfect so you have a lifetime to get it right.

Love Faith.xx

Not to bring it into the real world, but, while you are true that all people have a lifetie to get it right, some people only live a few years and die before they can read.

What then?

Glad you asked. Paul wrote of such people being judged according to how they responded to their conscience. There are three areas to be taken into account as pertaining to what a person has experienced. Those having the law will be judged by the law. The conscience will bear internal arguments in every person. The gospel is the final standard of judgment.
Romans 2:12-16 "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; [13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) [16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

[Goat]

You are the one distorting truth here. You are not numbered among the children of God, so cannot speak for us, citing scriptures out of context and contrary to the other teachings of Paul.

All people are the children of God, no matter what their beliefs about him are. That includes Hindu's, Muslims, Wiccians, Christians , Jews and atheists. As for 'scripture out of context'.. well, that sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

Sorry, goat, in this subforum the Bible has authority. You don't get to bring your lovey-dovey, hippie Bible in here and start making claims.

The Bible can only mean ONE thing: God's Bible. The Word. This can ONLY mean Marcion's Bible. He was inspired by God and rightly rejected all other texts in favor of the truth.

Word swordsman does not have any biblical support that only people who follow his belief are 'children of god'.

I haven't written those not following my belief are not children of God. However, the Bible is clear about that, and I believe the Bible.

Matthew 13:38 "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;"

1 John 3:10 "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."

You are proved wrong. Not all people are God's children. Most belong to Satan. Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

God, what a depressing idea you have about people. I think you are taking it out of context. He is not saying that all men aren't the children of God, but he is saying that how people are judged are by their actions. You are so caught up in a turn of phrase on how things are said you are failing to read the entire parable, and understand the lesson which is being taught. Context context context. The message of the Bible is not sound bits.

In John also, it seems that the accusation of people not being 'the sons' of God is purely slang, and not literal. It has to do with demonizing those people who don't have the same belief.

Now, it also claims if you are a true believer, you can not sin. Somehow, I can't see anybody being as 'perfect' as 1 john thinks CHristians should be. 1 John also expects Jesus to be back within his lifetime, and that was well over 1800 years ago.

[daedalus 2.0]

It is one thing to get a Sunday school version of the 19th century bible believer's interpretaion but as a debating forum I think the threats of hell and blaming everything on Satan borders on childish.

But certainly the Bible supports these threats to infidels. I don't think you can separate them. In this subforum the Bible is the word of God. If God says it, it isn't childish, it's Divine.

In other subforums it is considered vastly inappropriate, but here, where the Bible has authority it is not up to our interpretation. We can only express what the Bible says - not if it is right, wrong, childish or divine.

Not so. In other forums it should be reason v. reason, fact v. fact, deniers of claims needing to offer sufficient facts to disprove their own claims against a testifier. In a court of law a witness can't just say the testimony of another witness is false and let that statement stand. Without proof that witness is better off not commenting at all, lest he perjure himself. Many witness having seen an event are required to make their testimony having weight of evidence.

In a true debate a party responding to an opening claim by another party can't legitimately make a case by merely saying "prove it" or "that is ridiculous". If the second party can't make a convincing argument that by its content successfully challenges the first party claims, the first party claim is established as successful. Relying totally on reason, logic or raw data often fails to enter into communication between two debating parties because of perspectives of sets of reason, logical process, or presentation of a set(s) of data pertinent to the argument.

This is the nature of religion. God says it, you do it - no "or else". If the Bible says infidels burn in Hell, then saying it is not childish. It's pious.

Not so. There is another side to the nature of religion, personal testimony. If I say I know God personally, what proof would you have otherwise? He answers my prayers when I ask according to the limits of the Bible. I do agree saying what the Bible says is "pious", a marked devotion to deity.

My personal testimony says my Bible is correct. Using your "court of law" analogy it is as if we are both in a court and each have brought our own Laws.

Are you to tell me which law I should follow? Should I tell you which Holy Book you should follow? Which Holy Book you should personally testify to?

Of course not!

My testimony is absolute and my Bible is absolute in this subforum. It is not about right or wrong, it is simply about WHAT IS.

You can debate all you want, but if my personal testimony tells me to follow the Bible and not some other later heretical work, then what are you going to do? Use evidence that you are right?

I have my evidence: personal testimony. It says the Book of Marcion is the True Bible and yours is from Satan. Any evidence you bring forth undoubtably comes from Satan. Next you will try to convince me of some OTHER later collection of books is the true Bible: the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics....

The evidence is clear - and you admitted to it. Personal testimony and the Bible trump all here. My view (as a pious and dedicated follower of Jesus) is, therefore, absolute - since Jesus won't steer me wrong.

Case closed.

[Word_Swordsman]

God, what a depressing idea you have about people. I think you are taking it out of context. He is not saying that all men aren't the children of God, but he is saying that how people are judged are by their actions. You are so caught up in a turn of phrase on how things are said you are failing to read the entire parable, and understand the lesson which is being taught. Context context context. The message of the Bible is not sound bits.

I could have listed the whole parable, but apparently some here object to that. which way will this go? Post it all, or put up a small reference to the whole? By your response not posting the whole passage doesn't serve the discussion fairly, so here it is. Matthew 13:24-30
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: [25] But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. [26] But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. [27] So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? [28] He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? [29] But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. [30] Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

Here's the part you must have missed:

Matthew 13:36-43 "Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. [37] He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; [38] The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; [39] The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. [40] As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. [41] The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; [42] And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. [43] Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. "

In John also, it seems that the accusation of people not being 'the sons' of God is purely slang, and not literal. It has to do with demonizing those people who don't have the same belief.

Your argument is against the Bible which you do not understand enough to oppose!

Now, it also claims if you are a true believer, you can not sin. Somehow, I can't see anybody being as 'perfect' as 1 john thinks CHristians should be. 1 John also expects Jesus to be back within his lifetime, and that was well over 1800 years ago.

Where does John say Jesus will return in his lifetime?

You need to read all of the book of 1 John. It clearly teaches no child of God lives a deliberate life of sin, but if we do sin, not by plan to sin, we have an advocate in heaven, one Jesus. We must confess any sin. John states anyone who says he doesn't sin is a liar. We just can't continue a lifestyle of sin.

[Goat]

God, what a depressing idea you have about people. I think you are taking it out of context. He is not saying that all men aren't the children of God, but he is saying that how people are judged are by their actions. You are so caught up in a turn of phrase on how things are said you are failing to read the entire parable, and understand the lesson which is being taught. Context context context. The message of the Bible is not sound bits.

I could have listed the whole parable, but apparently some here object to that. which way will this go? Post it all, or put up a small reference to the whole? By your response not posting the whole passage doesn't serve the discussion fairly, so here it is. Matthew 13:24-30
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: [25] But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. [26] But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. [27] So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? [28] He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? [29] But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. [30] Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

Here's the part you must have missed:

Matthew 13:36-43 "Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. [37] He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; [38] The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; [39] The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. [40] As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. [41] The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; [42] And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. [43] Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. "

In John also, it seems that the accusation of people not being 'the sons' of God is purely slang, and not literal. It has to do with demonizing those people who don't have the same belief.

Your argument is against the Bible which you do not understand enough to oppose!

Now, it also claims if you are a true believer, you can not sin. Somehow, I can't see anybody being as 'perfect' as 1 john thinks CHristians should be. 1 John also expects Jesus to be back within his lifetime, and that was well over 1800 years ago.

Where does John say Jesus will return in his lifetime?

You need to read all of the book of 1 John. It clearly teaches no child of God lives a deliberate life of sin, but if we do sin, not by plan to sin, we have an advocate in heaven, one Jesus. We must confess any sin. John states anyone who says he doesn't sin is a liar. We just can't continue a lifestyle of sin.

Yes, your hightlighting the points I made an answer to is not countering my arguments.. Your point?

And , you really should read 1 John, Chapter 3. 3:2 implies that John will know him when he appears, and that he will appear in his life time .

[Word_Swordsman]

My personal testimony says my Bible is correct. Using your "court of law" analogy it is as if we are both in a court and each have brought our own Laws.

Are you to tell me which law I should follow? Should I tell you which Holy Book you should follow? Which Holy Book you should personally testify to?

Of course not!

You have selected a collection of books not regarded as the Holy Bible held in these sub-forums as the authorized text. Therefore you are found declaring your own standard and rule. I am not surprised.

My court of law analogy perfectly explained my point which obviously you missed, as well as the whole discussion itself. I am not surprised.

My testimony is absolute and my Bible is absolute in this subforum. It is not about right or wrong, it is simply about WHAT IS.

Your "bible" is an incomplete collection of books contained in the Holy Bible. It is incomplete due to the heretical views of a man the great majority of Bible scholars of his day rejected. Marcion was a fool, making bold statements against even the teachings of Jesus. Therefore Marcion was not a Christian, nor a child of God.

You can debate all you want, but if my personal testimony tells me to follow the Bible and not some other later heretical work, then what are you going to do? Use evidence that you are right?

You follow the cherry picked selections of a heretic who attempted to make a liar out of Jesus in his writings. There is only one true Bible, containing all 66 books with no commentary about Jesus denying the God He obeyed was not the God of the Tanach.

I have my evidence: personal testimony. It says the Book of Marcion is the True Bible and yours is from Satan. Any evidence you bring forth undoubtably comes from Satan. Next you will try to convince me of some OTHER later collection of books is the true Bible: the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics....

Your personal testimony about that is flawed, partly because your testimony now says I might endorse those other religious texts as equal to the Holy Bible. Furthermore, you disparage yur own book of books contained in my Bible. You now say I represent Satan whenever I cite from the books in common?

The end of reason......goodness.

The evidence is clear - and you admitted to it. Personal testimony and the Bible trump all here. My view (as a pious and dedicated follower of Jesus) is, therefore, absolute - since Jesus won't steer me wrong.

Case closed.

Case re-opened for a final judgment. That testimony sounds more like the guy on the corner saying he is Napoleon. Jesus didn't steer you wrong...Satan did.

[Word_Swordsman]

Yes, your hightlighting the points I made an answer to is not countering my arguments.. Your point?

Readit and weep. You now have what God says about the tares here that oppose God. None are His children. Only those found with the righteousness of God are His children, the rest children of Satan, the Devil, the wicked one, of darkness.

And , you really should read 1 John, Chapter 3. 3:2 implies that John will know him when he appears, and that he will appear in his life time .

1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

I see you need some help comprehending some very simple English literature. Right now any Christian is a son of God. We really don't know what manner of being we shall become. The main resurrection of the saints has not yet come. However, we know that whatever sort of being Jesus is right now, we shall be like Jesus when He comes. At that time we who are risen to meet Christ will see Jesus as He is right now, KING of glory, LORD of lords.

Nothing in there indicates John believed Jesus would come in his own lifetime. Instead of just saying it says that, how about pointing out the phrase you think you see there?

[otseng]

That testimony sounds more like the guy on the corner saying he is Napoleon. Jesus didn't steer you wrong...Satan did.

Moderator formal warning:

Please do not make any personal comments directed at another poster.