It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by saint4God
That doesn't sounds like a made up answer. How did you come to that definition?
Originally posted by saint4God Help! I'm being devastated by someone else's opinion being stated as fact! Who was is it that 'turned against you' in the Protestant faith?
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I did no such thing.
Originally posted by saint4God
Yet you'll deny a personal relationship with God? Why is this?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I try to lessen the blow, but I cannot ignore the truth because then I would be denying God himself.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Originally posted by saint4God
That doesn't sounds like a made up answer. How did you come to that definition?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Sola Scriptura is a demonstrably false principle. This is not about one who "turned against [me]" or anyone else.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I get the impression that you are not going to debate facts. Is that right?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I did no such thing.
Originally posted by saint4God
Yet you'll deny a personal relationship with God? Why is this?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I try to lessen the blow, but I cannot ignore the truth because then I would be denying God himself.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
This validation cannot be done using the scriptures alone, nor by "asking Jesus into your heart"...
Originally posted by saint4God
For example, the definition I got was from the dictionary, a book you're finding invalid for the basis of definition in our discussion. In order to understand your definitions, I'd like to know where you get them from so that we can relate in a meanful way.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I get the impression that you are not going to debate facts. Is that right?
I'd love to, yet when the other party is unwilling to stick to them, we have to disect where this different information is coming from. Not something I like to do, but if it helps in the long run I'll bear the brunt.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Thus, you are really saying that you are using Protestant definitions for terms while making it seem as if you are being impartial.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
It is similar to the Mormons imposing meanings on the New Testament, such as "elder" to mean a 19-year-old who walks around in a suit with a backpack proselytizing for a false gospel (where Jesus and Satan are brothers, and salvation literally is part of becoming a god of a planet).
Originally posted by ScienceDada
My definitions are much more fuzzy than yours, for sure, and I readily admit this.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
as if the Apostle were a fax machine accepting a data feed from God;
Originally posted by ScienceDada
So, for me to provide definitions is useless because I have an Eastern Understanding of Christian Theology and scriptural interpretation.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Thus I do not have the baggage that accompanies Western interpretations (i.e., Roman Catholic, and by extension, Protestant).
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I am bent on tearing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to shreds.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
It is a false faith and it is idolatry.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I could go so far as to say that it leads people astray from the path to true salvation, although this would be very over-dramatic and give the wrong impression---it is not that dangerous.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
But it is not true, and it leads to conclusions like "the early Christian writings only have value when they 'agree' with the canonical scriptures" which is demonstrably false.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
As such, I have the responsibility to give an answer for the faith that I have inside me, not necessarily for myself, but also to protect others who are walking in ignorance (i.e., to deny ignorance).
Originally posted by ScienceDada
But let me reassure you that it is nothing personal, nor irrational... quite the opposite.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
So please stop deflecting my questions. I will in good faith try to do the same.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I reiterate my request -- please provide definitions for the terms:
* Salvation
* Faith
* Works
* Boast
* Scripture
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Thus, you are really saying that you are using Protestant definitions for terms while making it seem as if you are being impartial.
I do not own a Protestant dictionary...though would like to see one if one exists. Secondly, you're assuming that I read the Bible as a Protestant, which I did not. Third, the assumption is that the translation of the NIV is for lack of a better word, Protestant, which it is not. Those who do not believe, pick up a KJV and compare...or any other translation at all...or the original. Same book, same book, same same, the same book.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
It is similar to the Mormons imposing meanings on the New Testament, such as "elder" to mean a 19-year-old who walks around in a suit with a backpack proselytizing for a false gospel (where Jesus and Satan are brothers, and salvation literally is part of becoming a god of a planet).
I'd like to read their dictionary AND yours. Do you have a link or either or both?
Originally posted by saint4God
In this quote here... 2 Peter 1:17
*Do you believe that the apostle was paraphrasing? I think these days we are so removed from knowing the exactness of the Hebrew oral tradition that we cannot fathom how someone can remember and memorize the instruction that they were given. We really need to shift our paradigm from having cellphones giving us alarms and computers saying "you have mail" to a time where people had A LOT of time on their hands. The things that were important then where absolutely taken care of remembering and exacting. Would you want to be responsible for screwing up the word of God?
Originally posted by saint4God*Secondly there is the assumption here that the Apostles were not guided by Christ and God along the way. In Acts we read how the apostles were given VERY specific instruction on what to do. Jesus foretold this would happen before pentacost even occurred.
Originally posted by saint4God*Thirdly, do you believe God would allow His son to take the trip to earth, suffer and die just so some CliffsNotes speakers would botch up for thousands of years what the Christ had said?
Originally posted by saint4God*Fourthly, the Bible is very practical in application. Would you try to assemble a car without instructions? As the Bible says "Test Everything." Now without going into the definition of what everything is, let's assume it means everything. That means scripture itself. That means what Christ told us to do too. If one applies what is written there, results come that will knock one's socks off. This is yet another point of validation.
Originally posted by saint4GodThe question that you seem to be raising is not whether the non-canonical scriptures should be included but that what IS included is invalid. That's a problem, is it not?
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
So, for me to provide definitions is useless because I have an Eastern Understanding of Christian Theology and scriptural interpretation.
I think we're in agreement here. My advice then would be to take a moment to read without interpreting, and understand instead of parsing words. In addition, asking God will provide a great deal of clarity...and yes that would mean "accepting Jesus into your heart".
Then why do you insist on reading "The Bible" through biased Western translations? You personally may not have baggage, but the translators did. You also mention attending Protestant churches... this carries baggage as well, since there are parts of "The Bible" that those Churches ignore in practice. This exposes the hypocrisy of following the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Thus I do not have the baggage that accompanies Western interpretations (i.e., Roman Catholic, and by extension, Protestant).
Drop all baggage. I was fortunate to not have any when I began. I did not find God through the Bible, rather it was God who directed me to the Bible.
Absolutely. In fact, I would go so far as to state that "The Bible" is unnecessary "to get one into heaven," although I don't want the statement to be misleading. So let me emphasize that this is a qualified statement that I expect will be an entirely different rabbit trail, so I do not want this statement quoted out of context.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I am bent on tearing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to shreds.
Interesting. Protestant churches I've attend also mention that knowing scripture alone does not get one to heaven...so I guess you're in agreement with them in this regard.
Originally posted by saint4God
Surely. Worshipping a book is bad, I hope we all agree on this.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
It is a false faith and it is idolatry.
Originally posted by saint4God
What do you believe is "the path to true salvation"?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I could go so far as to say that it leads people astray from the path to true salvation, although this would be very over-dramatic and give the wrong impression---it is not that dangerous.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
But it is not true, and it leads to conclusions like "the early Christian writings only have value when they 'agree' with the canonical scriptures" which is demonstrably false.
This kind of cross-verification does lend a bit of validation in consistency. It doesn't mean that when something agrees, but in whole are right...it means the parts that do agree "match" and lend to it a greater possibility of truth. Being that we're talking scripture here, we also have to factor in the points where I placed an *. Bottom line is, a person can spin their head round and round trying to figure out what is and is not valid...but the answer can be clearly gotten by going to God Himself and simply asking Him. He may not strike someone with a bright white light of lightning knowledge en totale, but things will become more and more clear as the person discovers what indeed holds water and what does not.
Originally posted by saint4GodYou've brought a personal event into play in the discussion, hence my questioning about it. Had you omitted it and taken the effort of an unbiased approach, I certainly would have tried to be more objective myself.
Originally posted by ScienceDadaBut let me reassure you that it is nothing personal, nor irrational... quite the opposite.
Originally posted by jhill76
I am at a loss and alot of people never knew alot of books were left out of the bible. I mean why do people not mention these, I happen to stumble upon it while researching demons. Here is a bit of what I found:
The Apocrypha refer to texts which are left out of officially sanctioned versions ('canon') of the Bible. The term means 'things hidden away,' which implies secret or esoteric literature. However, none of these texts were ever considered secret.
In some Protestant Bibles, they are placed between the New and Old Testament. In the Roman Catholic Bibles the books are interspersed with the rest of the text. In this case they are also called 'Deuterocanonical', which means 'secondary canon.' The books on this page are all Deuterocanonical.
Sacred-Texts
sacred-texts.com has all of the books online if anyone is interested.
There has to be every bit of over 20 or more books left out of the bible and give a whole lot more knowledge about life after death and Jesus descent into hell.
My biggest question is why do people not mention these books or not preach upon them?
Originally posted by mhc_70
Maybe it has something to do with the continuous theme of "Love" in the New Testament Bible, with exception to Revelations. These other books do not reflect or teach the same principles based on Love, so they were not included. To me, the Bible is proof in and of itself, otherwise it is the greatest conspiracy ever known to man and I cannot come to terms with the arguement that the majority of people are really that ignorant.
Originally posted by mhc_70
Maybe it has something to do with the continuous theme of "Love" in the New Testament Bible, with exception to Revelations. These other books do not reflect or teach the same principles based on Love, so they were not included. To me, the Bible is proof in and of itself, otherwise it is the greatest conspiracy ever known to man and I cannot come to terms with the arguement that the majority of people are really that ignorant.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
You know very little about my "personal relationship with Jesus"
Originally posted by ScienceDada
just as you appear clueless about the very scriptural "corporate relationship with Jesus."
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I offered in a very reasonable manner to discuss this over U2U,
Originally posted by ScienceDada
so from this point on I will be ignoring such comments.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
It detracts from the facts.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Absolutely. In fact, I would go so far as to state that "The Bible" is unnecessary "to get one into heaven," although I don't want the statement to be misleading. So let me emphasize that this is a qualified statement that I expect will be an entirely different rabbit trail, so I do not want this statement quoted out of context.
Originally posted by saint4God
Interesting. Protestant churches I've attend also mention that knowing scripture alone does not get one to heaven...so I guess you're in agreement with them in this regard.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Does this mean worship as the NIV translates the word? If so, then Protestant Churches often "worship" the Bible. This is exactly what I was getting at with my emphasis on definitions (as covered in the previous posting).
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
What do you believe is "the path to true salvation"?
In one phrase, this would be appropriate:
To be conformed to the image of Christ.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
To elaborate a bit more:
To love the Lord your God with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your might; to love your neighbor as yourself;
Originally posted by ScienceDada
and to let love not be in hypocrisy.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
No, because implicitly in this approach is this notion: if "The Bible" does not talk about it or touch on it, it must not be important. Therefore, works such as the epistles of Ignatius or The Shepherd of Hermas are ignored as being "additions" to "The Bible."
Originally posted by ScienceDada
To go directly to God and ask him is a wonderful thing, except for one caveat: how do you account for delusion?
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Taking "The Bible" as a whole emphasizes one point, that Jesus is present where at least two or three are gathered in His name.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Thus, the whole personal Jesus thing is a dangerous place to be and unscriptural at that.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
You pressed me hard in previous posts as to who "hurt" me or caused such reaction. I have seen and encountered great heresy that utterly destroys people's lives in the name of Sola Scriptura and Sola Christo. I will not go into that in these posts for privacy reasons, but I will in U2U.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
But as a scientist by training, I will make my arguments according to facts and debate in that manner.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
But to use my own experiences as a tool to discredit my arguments is not going to lessen the facts, which speak for themselves.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
I will try to use the scriptures alone to invalidate the use of the scriptures alone as much as I can---
Originally posted by ScienceDada
but to ignore the historical arguments will eventually be difficult to do.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
And the relevance to this thread is the criteria for what "The Bible" is and why books were left out of it.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
To which event do you refer?
Originally posted by saint4God
That's a wild stretch. I hope the difference between "worship the Bible" and "worship God as the Bible instructs" is clear.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Does this mean worship as the NIV translates the word? If so, then Protestant Churches often "worship" the Bible. This is exactly what I was getting at with my emphasis on definitions (as covered in the previous posting).
(saint4God) What do you believe is "the path to true salvation"?
(ScienceDada) To be conformed to the image of Christ.
(saint4God) Which is accomplished by... ?
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
To elaborate a bit more:
To love the Lord your God with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your might; to love your neighbor as yourself;
Does this negate John 3:16? Or conform to it? Is salvation achieve through faith or the act of loving?
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by ScienceDada
and to let love not be in hypocrisy.
If you truly love, there would be no hypocrisy. This was one of the points Christ was trying to make.