 |
Why are there so many Christian church bodies and denominations? Why don't we all belong to one, the same one? Why aren't we all Catholic?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm not talking about "committing the same sin every day."Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
You don't commit any sins at all, is that what I'm reading?
Those in Christ have been freed from the slavery of sin. If you find yourself committing the same sin every day...Quote:
We are not free of sin, not yet. We sin every day.
WG, I know where you are coming from. I've listened to you for years.
"We are just born that way and it's okay, and I love you." - I agree with you. But what I don't agree with, is you telling people that they are going to be okay just being who they are. Yes, it is okay, it's okay with me, it's okay with JL, and Jesus might be okay (with people being who they are) with it as well. One thing we do know for certain - God is not okay with it.
None of that has anything to do with differences in translations. That's what you asserted and concerning which I asked you for examples. The truth is, you can read the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, Amplified version, CSB, NIV, and get to the same place. If you disagree with that, then please give specific examples.Quote:
Why isn't there only one Christian church? We should all be Catholic (but Luther changed that).
So, Walter, you are not holy?Quote:
100% correct.
Why was the Catholic Church against translating the Bible?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
In 1498, the Inquisition (Catholic court) stated that it was impossible to translate the Vulgate (Latin Bible) into any other language without making mistakes that would plunge unskilled and especially new converts into doubts about faith.
You claimed, "It's those "differences between translations" that have caused doctrinal problems and divisions for centuries." I asked you to give one example. You have come up with no examples of translation issues that caused problems/divisions. It's because you don't know of any. Don't feel bad. I don't either.
The Catholic Church is corrupt and has been corrupt for centuries.
There ya go again! I've been busy working on a Sunday sermon and trying to keep up with this thread. You will get an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Btw, check Post #44.
Here ya go:
Martin Luther claimed that what distinguished him from previous reformers was that while they attacked corruption in the life of the church, he went to the theological root of the problem—the perversion of the church’s doctrine of redemption and grace. Luther, a pastor and professor at the University of Wittenberg, deplored the entanglement of God’s free gift of grace in a complex system of indulgences and good works. In his Ninety-five Theses, he attacked the indulgence system, insisting that the pope had no authority over purgatory and that the doctrine of the merits of the saints had no foundation in the gospel. Here lay the key to Luther’s concerns for the ethical and theological reform of the church: Scripture alone is authoritative (sola scriptura) and justification is by faith (sola fide), not by works.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Reformation
I think I know what you're getting at.Quote:
You said, "Then you will know that the two (holiness and sin) are mutually exclusive." I asked, "So do you sin?" If you do, then aren't you, according to your statement, not holy since sin and holiness are, "mutually exclusive"?
@JL: Are you asking; How can we, as sinners, become Holy if sin and holiness are, "mutually exclusive"? Answer; It is only through God's grace and the humility of Jesus Christ that we are able to share in His holiness (1 Corinthians 1:28–31; 2 Peter 1:3–4).
I don't think anybody should ever refer to themselves as Holy. I only know myself as a sinner...because that is all I bring to the table. I've heard pastors say - when I became righteous - When declaring something like that, it should always be followed with; In Jesus. Otherwise, a person is liable to get a big head. In fact, every time we speak, we should mention the name Jesus :-) Hoo YAh for Jesus!
WG, there won’t be an answer. Post 44 had no answer. And your long answer above about Martin Luther is an answer to a question no one asked. It does nothing to support your idea that various translations have caused divisions and problems. It doesn't even mention translations!! Luther worked from the Latin Vulgate. His German translation which he later did was not one ounce responsible for his different views. You have come up with zero.
It can be a difficult issue to work through. I think it would be proper to say, "I am holy in Christ." It is purely an issue of faith.Quote:
I don't think anybody should say that they are Holy. I only know myself as a sinner...because that is all I bring to the table.
Look again.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
WG, I know where you are coming from. I've listened to you for years.
"We are just born that way and it's okay, and I love you." - I agree with you. But what I don't agree with, is you telling people that they are going to be okay just being who they are. Yes, it is okay, it's okay with me, it's okay with JL, and Jesus might be okay (with people being who they are) with it as well. One thing we do know for certain - God is not okay with it.
No response, WG? Maybe you finally see the error of your ways? No worries. I'm not about to Challenge anybody of that nature. Spread the love while letting them know we are all a mess and God is the only person that is able to straighten us out.
You have no answer. You seem to do this constantly. You are facing a question for which you have no answer, so rather than just be honest and admit it, you have started listing extraneous answers (such as the one above from Britannica about Luther) in the hope that maybe it won't be noticed. It never works, and it amazes me that you continue to try it.Quote:
Look again.
So again, just for the record.You'll have no answer. Perhaps you don't even understand the question?Quote:
You claimed, "It's those "differences between translations" that have caused doctrinal problems and divisions for centuries." I asked you to give one example. You have come up with no examples of translation issues that caused problems/divisions. It's because you don't know of any. Don't feel bad. I don't either.
Walter, Jesus and God are never in disagreement. One does not approve of something while the other disapproves.Quote:
Jesus might be okay (with people being who they are) with it as well. One thing we do know for certain - God is not okay with it.
I had then added -----Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Martin Luther claimed that what distinguished him from previous reformers was that while they attacked corruption in the life of the church, he went to the theological root of the problem—the perversion of the church’s doctrine of redemption and grace. Luther, a pastor and professor at the University of Wittenberg, deplored the entanglement of God’s free gift of grace in a complex system of indulgences and good works. In his Ninety-five Theses, he attacked the indulgence system, insisting that the pope had no authority over purgatory and that the doctrine of the merits of the saints had no foundation in the gospel. Here lay the key to Luther’s concerns for the ethical and theological reform of the church: Scripture alone is authoritative (sola scriptura) and justification is by faith (sola fide), not by works.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Reformation
Yes, I saw that and noted it TWICE in my answers. IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.Your article does not even mention translation issues, so how on earth do you think it would be an adequate answer?Quote:
You claimed, "It's those "differences between translations" that have caused doctrinal problems and divisions for centuries." I asked you to give one example. You have come up with no examples of translation issues that caused problems/divisions. It's because you don't know of any. Don't feel bad. I don't either.
Where the heck are you getting all this????Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Catholic Church/pope - we are saved by our worksQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Luther - we are justified by faith
And how did translation issues cause that division? That is, after all, what you claimed, and it's what I have raised as a question. Can you answer that, for that is the question. Both of them were working from the Latin Vulgate, so what other translation caused a problem?Quote:
Catholic Church/pope - we are saved by our works
Luther - we are justified by faith
For the fourth or fifth time.Quote:
You claimed, "It's those "differences between translations" that have caused doctrinal problems and divisions for centuries." I asked you to give one example. You have come up with no examples of translation issues that caused problems/divisions. It's because you don't know of any. Don't feel bad. I don't either.
What do you want? The Latin from the Vulgate? Do you know Latin?
Ephesians 2
8 Gratia enim estis salvati per fidem, et hoc non ex vobis: Dei enim donum est:
9 non ex operibus, ut ne quis glorietur.
Vs.
James 2:20
Vis autem scire, o homo inanis, quoniam fides sine operibus mortua est?
I don't know how to make the question any more simple, or to make my responses ("And how did translation issues cause that division?") any more simple, so I don't know what else to tell you. The translation being used was the same for both sides, so it didn't cause the problem as you alleged was happening. I just don't know what else to tell you other than to continue repeating the question until at some point, hopefully, you get it.
There are no translation issues in the ML example you are citing, so it is not an answer to the question. I do sincerely hope you can understand that.Quote:
examples of translation issues that caused problems/divisions.
Are you Catholic, JL?
Another non-answer. I guess I will have to supply your answer for you.
The only division I know of that is translation based would involve the small, small group who insist on handling snakes due to the Mark 16 passage, a passage that most likely was not written by Mark and is set off in italics in most modern translations to indicate that. Other than that, I know of no divisions caused by differences in translations. Neither, apparently, do you, so your statement was not correct. Now if you can accept that, we can move on.
I believe what you are saying is that the Holy Bible has become a misnomer.
Might I point out that you have said the same thing regarding Jesus's Holiness.
As if Jesus was able to keep his Holiness intact...next to God not being able to keep his holy word intact.
The Holy Bible still saves!
You are saying this to who?Quote:
I believe what you are saying is that the Holy Bible has become a misnomer.
Might I point out that you have said the same thing regarding Jesus's Holiness.
As if Jesus was able to keep his Holiness intact...next to God not being able to keep his holy word intact.
The Holy Bible still saves!
The Bible does not save, but it does point us to the one who can save.
I thought it was pretty obvious. Saying it to whoever believes Jesus could have chosen (chosen sin over holiness) to sinQuote:
You are saying this to who?
should I simply not post things that I know you are going to take issue with? When posting this quote (see above), I knew you would come up with an objection. There is the power of the Holy Scriptures, The Holy Bible does indeed save. Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek.Quote:
.The Bible does not save, but it does point us to the one who can save
I'm open to discussing this, just not here.
Is this better? Or maybe I spelled something wrong? Let us keep on track (which has proven to be impossible with the two of you).Quote:
I believe what you are saying is that the Holy Bible has become a misnomer.
Might I point out that you have said the same thing regarding Jesus's Holiness.
As if Jesus was able to keep his Holiness intact...next to God not being able to keep his holy word intact.
Reminds me of the time when Paul was brought in before the Pharisees and Sadducees, when he brought up - the hope and resurrection of the dead.
The two of you seem confused. Something having to do with the interpretation of the Holy Manuscripts...How is the life of Christ any different? I mean he was Holy and was not in any way corrupted. Being that Jesus is the living Word of God, it would hold equally true that the Holy Bible is beyond corruption. They are both intertwined...That is why it would be good for those who don't believe the Bible has remained intact, to start to believe otherwise.
@WG: You have brought up the fact that you have 50+ years on me. What good is it having 50 years of unbelief (believing the Bible is full of discrepancies and false translations etc.)?
I should go back to work. I'll leave the two of you to sort it out.
There is no original Bible. All we have are copies. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest Bible manuscripts -- (circa 250 B.C.E.–70 C.E.) are centuries older than Codex Sinaiticus, but are extremely fragmentary and rarely make up anything close to complete books.
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/ask-a-s...-oldest-bible/
And...Jesus was true man as well as true God. Yes, He could have given in to sin -- but He didn't.
Walter, you are contending that the Bible does save, but then you post the Romans scripture that most certainly does NOT say the Bible saves, but rather says the Gospel is the power of God to save. The Gospel is in the Bible, but is not the Bible. But if it bothers you to have your ideas questioned, just say so and I will be quite willing to stop posting on your comments.Quote:
The Holy Bible does indeed save. Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek.
And so what is your point?Quote:
There is no original Bible. All we have are copies. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest Bible manuscripts.
That is partially true. There have been two complete copies of Isaiah found, and they are remarkably close to the Masoretic Text, so there is no compelling reason to think that wholesale changes were made to any books of the Bible.Quote:
but are extremely fragmentary and rarely make up anything close to complete books.
A response to waltero.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Good. I'll let you two sort this out.
Good! JL said Good!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
deleted
This seems to be the only thing you can come up with. I don't think it is any coincidence, that you - have the same mindset when believing, that both the Son of God and the Bible are Fallable. I don't want your idea of what "man-God" is, or your idea of True "Holiness." Jesus is not running for God, he just is.Quote:
And...Jesus was true man as well as true God. Yes, He could have given in to sin
There is no original Bible. All we have are copies.
Take this for instance:Why do you say "was"? And do you think it's just coincidental that you jotted down Man (before) God? As in (when you said) "Jesus was Man as well as God..." as if Jesus was simply a man of God, Like all the other Men of God throughout the Bible. The difference being - Jesus is the God-man, as in the one and only. Jesus is God and Man aka God-man...the G-in man comes before man.Quote:
Jesus was true man as well as true God.
Some people just don't mind as long as it can just be Jesus in his Humanity, Jesus as a good man, Jesus as a wise man, Jesus as an important man who said important things. Jesus is a man who suffered, Jesus as a Man Who Loved unlike any man has ever loved and all of those things are absolutely true and woefully insufficient
he is the God-man.
In fact, there are people who use Jesus in his Humanity to argue for their sins when you think about for example: The abortion debate, there are people who try to use Jesus in their arguments for abortion. Just be reminded of the fact that the greatest tool or one of the greatest tools of deception that the enemy has is the fact that it has been easy to make people appreciate Jesus in his Humanity.
Jesus is the creator. He is the creator God [as] himself.
Waltero, is Jesus still True Man?
I didn't say the Bible is fallible.
You certainly seemed to imply it when you said, "There is no original Bible. All we have are copies."Quote:
I didn't say the Bible is fallible.
We have the original?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You don't need to worry about any of that anymore. You need to know him as your great redeemer, God, and Lord of all! Not using his humanity as you see fit.Quote:
Waltero, is Jesus still True Man?
You did in as much as you saying it doesn't exist. Yeh, Jesus Humanity still exists for you, but the [original] Bible doesn't exist at all? Maybe the Original Bible doesn't exist, but the Bible I have in my hand right now does (I'm sorry it doesn't for you).Quote:
I didn't say the Bible is fallible.
@jl: Do you see now? Do you see why no amount of talking, arguing, debating, discussing, and trying to convince somebody to believe is not what it's about..It can not come about that way. Then you ask - then why am I in here trying to convince? I'm in here doing research, learning the truth. I do it for me, I am not getting too Aggravated, not so much trying to convince. I am using this site as a journal...learning.
As far as the Bible saves. It's complicated and a bit touchy...I haven't got there yet. But the fact that you believe the Bible doesn't save, won't allow you to listen or see anything believable having to do with that subject. You can't take much of what is said here with an open mind. I think that holds true with many Christians when it comes to Bible talk. I'll throw one verse in for you. do with it what you will.
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
The Bible can save about as much as you can save, by bringing the gospel to somebody's doorstep. And yes, only Jesus saves. I (personally) understand it as some people are being saved today without knowing Jesus (in name) as their personal savior. Take some of the Jews today, still following the scriptures and believing God in his word...just as they were saved pre-Jesus. I'm not 100 % on this. there is a verse that would back this up. I'll allow you to find it if you ever run into it, you can bring it up to me.
Yes, waltero, I KNOW Jesus as my Redeemer. You implied in Post #69 that he is still true man as well as true God.
We read the Bible. The Bible TELLS us how to be saved. That's what matters.
What doesn't exist are the original manuscripts. All we have are copies. Since they coordinate and reference each other and tell consistent truths, they are accepted and are vital to sustain our faith.
Walter, I actually agree with you that just discussing the Gospel with someone doesn't change their mind. Sometimes we are just sowing seed that will bear a crop at a later time, and other times, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we are allowed to gather in a harvest.
Jesus does the saving. The Bible points us to him. When thousands were saved in Acts 2, they had no New Testament at all, and few of them had a copy of the OT. So how do you suppose they were saved? In fact that was true of the rest of the Book of Acts and then practically all of the first century. Many people have been saved with radio or television preaching and had no Bible in their possession, and yet Jesus still saved them. Yes, the message of salvation is in the Bible, and perhaps that's what you mean, but the Bible, the book itself, does not save.Quote:
As far as the Bible saves. It's complicated and a bit touchy...I haven't got there yet. But the fact that you believe the Bible doesn't save, won't allow you to listen or see anything believable having to do with that subject. You can't take much of what is said here with an open mind. I think that holds true with many Christians when it comes to Bible talk. I'll throw one verse in for you. do with it what you will.
A wonderful text that does NOT say that the Bible saves.Quote:
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Just saw this.So I think we are in agreement.Quote:
And yes, only Jesus saves.
WGIf you are not implying that the Bible is flawed, then what is your point?Quote:
What doesn't exist are the original manuscripts. All we have are copies.
Why do you consistently bring this up? What are you inferring? Most of the time you bring this up when you want to shut down the truth of the matter at hand.Quote:
What doesn't exist are the original manuscripts. All we have are copies.
@JL; I was just wondering. On the matter of Jesus having the capacity to sin...You were Neutral. Are you still on the fence?
I was responding to your wailing with this explanation -- "Since they coordinate and reference each other and tell consistent truths, they are accepted and are vital to sustain our faith."Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Why are you acting dumb all of a sudden? I don't know how many (hundreds if not thousands ) times you've mentioned how fallible man might have influenced the Bible (Word of God).Quote:
I was responding to your wailing with this explanaation
Bible Saves? Should I go into - in the beginning the Word was...and the Word became flesh and so on and so on?
or; “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
It's my understanding that those (Jews) that have been saved, Pre-Jesus incarnate, are still being saved in the same way as they were in the Old Testament.
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? Clearly, Jesu knew them, but they did not know Jesu by name.
I have not! All I've said is that we don't have the original Bible, the original manuscripts.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Oh Boy, here we go Again!!! WG, you have brought up (numerous times), in the past. Past Posts. About How we could not trust the Bible being God's word being that man has dabbled with it. And all we have is man's dibble-dabbling manuscripts of God's Word. I can accept that. Let's go with that, you are 100% right. If God wanted man to dibble dabble with his manuscripts, then that is what we have. There we have it, the Holy Bible as God has presented it to us. The living Word!
If you're not going to accept what you have been saying all along, there is no reason why anybody should listen to you. Don't you agree?
(and No!. I'm not going to look up posts that I (and you) know exist.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:08 PM. |