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?

Sola Scriptura is a demonstrably false principle. This is not about one who "turned against [me]" or anyone else. I get the impression that you are not going to debate facts. Is that right?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I try to lessen the blow, but I cannot ignore the truth because then I would be denying God himself.

Yet you'll deny a personal relationship with God? Why is this?

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I did no such thing.

Originally posted by ScienceDada

Originally posted by saint4God
That doesn't sounds like a made up answer. How did you come to that definition?

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 ScienceDada
Sola Scriptura is a demonstrably false principle. This is not about one who "turned against [me]" or anyone else.

Actually it is. When one party inserts emotion to askew previously known facts, then there's generally good motivation for doing so (as much as they would like to claim "the mere love of truth"). Those who had not been hurt have no motivation for doing so. I'm not looking for a name, or even to know the relationship of this person to you, only wish you to consider how this event impacted your impression and facts on the matter.

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

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I try to lessen the blow, but I cannot ignore the truth because then I would be denying God himself.

Yet you'll deny a personal relationship with God? Why is this?

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I did no such thing.

I apologize if I've misunderstood. I hope then we can find a commonality that is more important than the dictionary then. Perhaps you can describe in more detail this phrase

Originally posted by ScienceDada
This validation cannot be done using the scriptures alone, nor by "asking Jesus into your heart"...

Does not The Bible tell us that this is how we achieve validation?

Can you give me a yes or no to this question please: Are we supposed to have a personal relationship with God?

Is Jesus unfit to help us discern what is and is not the truth?

Does God judge differently than in the messages Christ had given to us?


[edit on 12-9-2008 by saint4God]

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.

I am going to be straightforward with my answers as best I can be. At this pace, it is going to take a LONG time to get anywhere if you keep dodging my questions. If it will be so drawn out, then perhaps we should start a debate thread where we can be sure not to step outside the scope of the thread.

You pull your definitions from an English dictionary (presumably) to define what scriptural passages mean. While it sounds like a reasonable methodology, it is actually ambiguous because the dictionary contains multiple definitions depending on the context, and is greatly influenced by Protestant theology. Thus, you are really saying that you are using Protestant definitions for terms while making it seem as if you are being impartial.

For example, in the Random House Webster's Dictionary (1993), Salvation is defined as "deliverance from the power and penalty of sin." This is a demonstrably Protestant definition of the term, and is inaccurate for describing first Century Christian theology because it is anachronistically imposing a theological bias on the authors of the New Testament canon. 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). If the dictionary you chose had a Mormon bias, then it would be obvious to most others reading this thread that it was out of place. Yet, since they are predisposed to believe Protestant interpretations, it sounds very reasonable. The only way to avoid confusion then is to pin down the definitions.

My definitions are much more fuzzy than yours, for sure, and I readily admit this. I also accept the fact that the scriptures are inexact writings of men that bear witness to Christ, not in some fashion written as if the Apostle were a fax machine accepting a data feed from God; nor do I assert that the canonical scriptures contain no errors or that the scriptures harmonize perfectly (they do not). In fact, there is evidence that they do contain errors, and I can identify several of these (and I will if requested to do so in due time). So, for me to provide definitions is useless because I have an Eastern Understanding of Christian Theology and scriptural interpretation. Thus I do not have the baggage that accompanies Western interpretations (i.e., Roman Catholic, and by extension, Protestant).

I will not be a hypocrite in this discussion, and I readily offer my purpose in pursuing the discourse. I am bent on tearing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to shreds. It is a false faith and it is idolatry. 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. 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. 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). But let me reassure you that it is nothing personal, nor irrational... quite the opposite.

So please stop deflecting my questions. I will in good faith try to do the same.

I reiterate my request -- please provide definitions for the terms:
* Salvation
* Faith
* Works
* Boast
* Scripture

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.

I think we are at the point where it is necessary to start using facts. I will provide references as often as I can, so it will be clear where it is coming from (although this is not what you meant).

Look, I think this is a reasonable request. You want to know where I am coming from... that is cool. I ask the same in return. Do it over U2U, and we can carry the conversation there for private information. Then the public discussion can be over facts. I think we can both trust that our privacy will be respected. And we also agree as gentlemen (or ladies, it is not even clear to me yet) to conduct ourselves in a manner that denies ignorance.

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.

It is not the same book, otherwise let us then use the New World Translation (Jehovah Witness translation), or the Joseph Smith Translation (Mormon translation). Or, just for the sake of this argument, perhaps we should quote all scriptures from the New Jerusalem Bible. Then we can see why the NIV changes "bishop" to "overseer." Why is this?

Take for instance Timothy 3:15 which says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Yet Protestants hold that it is the Bible which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Why is that?

I have one case study that will really illustrate my point... so let's get down to brass tacks. Here are a bunch of Greek words that the NIV lumps under the ambiguous term worship together with a Strong's number for reference:
* eusebeo (to show piety towards) 2151
* sebo (to be devout, to worship) 4576
* threskeia (religion) 2356
* latreuo (to worship as God) 3000
* leitourgeo (liturgy) 3008
* proskuneo (to protstrate) 4352
* phobeo (to fear, as in a "phobia") 5399

Given that the Church already had a liturgical tradition in the years prior to the authoring of the canonical scriptures, how is this justified? I assert that this was a way to bias the translation because Protestant worship is non-liturgical (i.e., not "Catholic" in Protestant street slang). So then, according to the dictionary that you cite, these all mean "a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual." Then, what were the rituals? Did the early Christians prostrate? If so, then do you? If so, why not? (Because it is in the Bible after all)

This is only one example of heinous bias in the NIV. But I think it is a good illustration of what I am referring to.

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?

For the purposes of my argument, you can use a Strong's concordance. That will at least get us on the same page. If we get really into it, perhaps we can get something more technical... but for now, this will at least remove any ambiguity.

I don't know about Mormons and their definitions... so you would have to ask a Mormon, I suppose.

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?

It is a quote from the Gospel, is it not?

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.

"Guided by God" vs. "automaton" are two very different concepts. Guided by God to bear witness to Christ is not the same as taking dictation from God. I am not following your argument here. Are the New Testament canonical writings dictation from God? No.

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?

Yes, because that is what Christ did. He came to build a Church not to write a book. And the Church kept the CliffsNotes without asserting that they were the entire story. It was only later that the Reformers attempted to turn the CliffsNotes into a manual or a blueprint. I appreciate the illustration... it is a very good one!

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.

So then, lets test. What does Paul mean when he makes recommendations and makes it clear that it is not God who makes the recommendations? If it is not God but Paul, then why do many assert that Paul's words are God's words when Paul makes it clear that they are not?

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?

No, my point is that the argument in this last statement is a false dichotomy. Simply because there was controversy over the Apostolic authorship of several canonical books does not mean that they are not representative of the Gospel and the faith of the Apostles. Similarly, because some councils of Bishops 300-400 years after Christ decided that some books were not to be included in the Canon does not mean that they do not correctly represent the Gospel or the faith of the Apostles.

The really good illustration for the non-canonical example is that of The Shepherd (Hermas). The good examples of the canonical are II Peter, II and III John, Jude, James, and the Apocalypse of John.

Sorry OP if someones already asked this i wanted to post before i forget then ill go though the whole thing(its getting pretty long)

has and one read the Gnostic Gospels or any of the other books?

I've read the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, and The Gospels of Mary Magdelene, Judas, and Barabas.

the were all pretty good with most of the left out gospels showin Christ more as a man that as the son of God...


Peace.

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".

Please refrain from lecturing me and giving me this kind of patronizing advice. You know very little about my "personal relationship with Jesus" just as you appear clueless about the very scriptural "corporate relationship with Jesus." I offered in a very reasonable manner to discuss this over U2U, so from this point on I will be ignoring such comments. It detracts from the facts.

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.

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
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.

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
It is a false faith and it is idolatry.

Surely. Worshipping a book is bad, I hope we all agree on this.

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
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.

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.

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; and to let love not be in hypocrisy.

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.

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."

To go directly to God and ask him is a wonderful thing, except for one caveat: how do you account for delusion? Taking "The Bible" as a whole emphasizes one point, that Jesus is present where at least two or three are gathered in His name. Thus, the whole personal Jesus thing is a dangerous place to be and unscriptural at that.

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. But as a scientist by training, I will make my arguments according to facts and debate in that manner. But to use my own experiences as a tool to discredit my arguments is not going to lessen the facts, which speak for themselves.

I will try to use the scriptures alone to invalidate the use of the scriptures alone as much as I can---but to ignore the historical arguments will eventually be difficult to do. 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 saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDadaBut let me reassure you that it is nothing personal, nor irrational... quite the opposite.

You'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.

To which event do you refer?

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.

The Apocalypse of John is one HUGE exception, and it was very controversial in the Early Church.

Several non-canonical works have love as their theme, and I think you will see this when you read them (unless you already have). These include: The Shepherd (Hermas), I Clement, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Barnabas, and The Didache (the Teachings of the Twelve) very much carry the love theme.

saint4God and I (ScienceDada) are locked in "mortal combat" over these issues, as you can tell. But it is all in the name of Denying Ignorance, so perhaps you can contribute examples of what you mean.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
You know very little about my "personal relationship with Jesus"

This is true. I only know what you've told me. Candidly, what you've told me about yoru personal relationshiop with Jesus is very little. Hence the probing questions.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
just as you appear clueless about the very scriptural "corporate relationship with Jesus."

Paul spoke extensively on the subject, need I do the same?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I offered in a very reasonable manner to discuss this over U2U,

I hope I've not given any indication that I would refuse a U2U. The threads are great for general discussion, U2U's are great for more person to person discussions. I'd not argue doctrine in a U2U though, that's what the boards are for.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
so from this point on I will be ignoring such comments.

Ignore as you wish.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
It detracts from the facts.

If by facts you mean your perspective, how fair would it be if I were to do the same?

Originally posted by ScienceDada

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.

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.

I would agree that The Bible is unnecessary to get one into heaven as would the Protestant churches as I understand it..

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).

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 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.

Which is accomplished by... ?

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 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.

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."

What is of importance in The Shepherd of Hermas that The Bible leaves out?

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?

How do you judge whether or not it is 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.

That's not the only time Jesus is there and we can both point to proofs in the Bible to show it. He's not a rockstar seeking crowds.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Thus, the whole personal Jesus thing is a dangerous place to be and unscriptural at that.

On the contrary. "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." - John 17:3

We could go into the linguistic semantics of what "that they may know you" means, but it's said many times and many ways and can be more easily deciphered by one who merely reads, trusts and applies the passage.

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me" - Revelation 3:20

This says "anyone". Back then, having dinner with someone is the most intimate kind of friendship one could know. It's fairly much true today too. Do you invite the co-worker you despise to your house for dinner? "I...with him" and "he with me". This is one-on-one.

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.

That's probably more appropriate. I didn't expect a broadcast here and threw in the sub-text that I wasn't questioning to bring out a lot of personal things on a board.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
But as a scientist by training, I will make my arguments according to facts and debate in that manner.

Cool, we'll share in the same profession ^_^.

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.

I think it's important to know oneself, our hope, our fears, our anger, our motivation. If we know these, then we can understand why we feel as we feel and do as we do.

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---

I love talking scripture specific. Gets rid of a lot of ambiguities.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
but to ignore the historical arguments will eventually be difficult to do.

Historical arguments are very important, saves repetition and time.

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.

Yep yep, I down wit it, and think the mods see it too.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by ScienceDada
To which event do you refer?

The one that'd probably be more appropraitely U2U'd about.

Originally posted by saint4God

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).

That's a wild stretch. I hope the difference between "worship the Bible" and "worship God as the Bible instructs" is clear.

Not any more clear than iconography. But that is another discussion.

(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... ?

That is really the question, isn't it? It can't be quantified, nor encompassed by some formula or mechanism. But it certainly includes both faith and works.

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?

Belief is by necessity accompanied by action. Even Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and all the Prophets were righteous because they believed God and acted on that belief. This is what faith is... believing and doing.

Does this contradict John 3:16? No.

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.

While I agree with you, the Apostle Paul goes through the trouble to write "Let love be without hypocrisy" (Romans 12:9).