Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'm the one quoting Scripture. And I am the one who answered Frodo's question.

BTD? Welllllllllll ...

---

Would you agree with this statement, In order for a person to be saved, they must place thier faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, believing that He died and rose again, shedding His blood as the paymebt for our sins?

That's what Romans 10:9,10-13 says. Do you agree?

---

I answered that 2 days ago, frodo. Yes in short, and I went to some trouble to explain my reasoning.

Please go see again what I wrote. It's worth your attention, and comes direct from Christ, rather than depending on Paul.

---

You do know that Christ gave Paul his message for the Grace age Church if today and Jesus was Ministering to Law keeping Jews right? The message is a bit different because it's a different audience. Jesus came to fulfil the OT promises to the Jews and Preached the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews. The Gospel of the Kingdom was to believing Israel:

1) Repent (of sins, unbelief, trusting in things other than God)
2) Accept your Messiah
3) Be Baptized

That SAME Jesus AFTER He resurrected and the Jews Rejected Him, sent Paul to Preach to the grace age gentiles of today and DIFFERENT message.

1) Place your Faith In Jesus Christ as your Lord
2) Believe That He died on the cross and rose from the dead, shedding His blood as the Sacrifice for your sins.

The Repent is to those who already believe. It could be said that in order to have faith in Christ, you have to repent of trusting in other things other than Christ and His death and resurrection to save you.

Remember that Peter and the 12 affirmed of Paul's message as from the Lord Jesus Christ and it's fully inspired of God, Just like Jesus was. The difference is the audience and slightly different message.

I understand why you feel the way you do because you don't want to trust anyone but Christ with your eternal soul and you shouldn't. But Jesus is the one who sent Paul to give Christ's Message of Grace.

The fact that the other Apostles affirm Paul should make you feel at ease about Trusting Paul's Message of Grace.

Remember Jesus Ministered to Jews still under Law:

"But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us." But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.""
Matthew 15:23-24 NKJV


"These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "
Matthew 10:5-6 NKJV

Tbey were Ministering to Israel. Yes that gies against what you heard all of your life. Me too, but that is ehat the Bible.says.

Likewise, Paul was sent to the gentiles. READ THIS CAREFULLY:

"if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power."
Ephesians 3:2-7

I think you misunderstand, Frodo.

I have no trouble accepting Paul as a valid apostle, but the words of Christ Himself are more significant, especially regarding how we need to persevere.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think you misunderstand, Frodo.

I have no trouble accepting Paul as a valid apostle, but the words of Christ Himself are more significant, especially regarding how we need to persevere.

---

What I am telling you about the Words of our Lord, Jesus is that they don't pertain to you or I because He was talking to Israel. Just as when God told Noah to build an ark in the Bible, should we build an ark also? No, because they don't pertain to us. Just whwn God gave the Law to Moses, we don't keep the Law today, because we are under Grace. Well that's hos it is here in the Gospels. Only Paul's writings pertain to the Church today. All others were directed to Israel.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think you misunderstand, Frodo.

I have no trouble accepting Paul as a valid apostle, but the words of Christ Himself are more significant, especially regarding how we need to persevere.

---

What I am telling you about the Words of our Lord, Jesus is that they don't pertain to you or I because He was talking to Israel. Just as when God told Noah to build an ark in the Bible, should we build an ark also? No, because they don't pertain to us. Just whwn God gave the Law to Moses, we don't keep the Law today, because we are under Grace. Well that's hos it is here in the Gospels. Only Paul's writings pertain to the Church today. All others were directed to Israel.

---

Disagree. While Jesus directed His mission first to the Jews, He often interacted and helped non-Jews in many places. His words were and are for all of us.

Agreed. Jesus spoke to people in public places for anyone to hear plus speaking to thousands on multiple occasions. Some of the towns were regional trade centers and people from a wide area were able to hear him. If I recall correctly, many people, again, including non-Jews even traveled to see the temple due to its grandeur.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think you misunderstand, Frodo.

I have no trouble accepting Paul as a valid apostle, but the words of Christ Himself are more significant, especially regarding how we need to persevere.

---

What I am telling you about the Words of our Lord, Jesus is that they don't pertain to you or I because He was talking to Israel. Just as when God told Noah to build an ark in the Bible, should we build an ark also? No, because they don't pertain to us. Just whwn God gave the Law to Moses, we don't keep the Law today, because we are under Grace. Well that's hos it is here in the Gospels. Only Paul's writings pertain to the Church today. All others were directed to Israel.

---

Disagree. While Jesus directed His mission first to the Jews, He often interacted and helped non-Jews in many places. His words were and are for all of us.

---

It is true thay Jesus helped non Jews a couple of times, but His ministry was to Israel. Jesus says it Himself when helping the gentile woman with the possessed daighter. Read this carefully. He is telling her that ministering to her, a gentile (Dog) is not why He was sent because He was sent to fulfil God's promises to Israel, not the gentiles. (At that time until after His death and resurrection)

"But He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."
Matthew 15:26, 24-25, 27-28

The Plan was for God to send ISRAEL to the Gentiles to give us the Gospel, BUT the Jews rejected Him.. since they did, He chose Paul, a Jew, and gave him the gospel of grace. Paul webt up to Arabia (Probably Mt Sinai) and was given His message DIRECTLY by the Lord Jesus Christ:

LOOK:

"But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, "He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God in me."
Galatians 1:11-12, 18-19, 21-24 NKJV

Why didn't God just have the Apostles teach Paul the Gospel of grace?

BECAUSE it was DIFFERENT than the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught Israel. The Gospel of the Kingdom and it's teschings WILL be applied during the Kingdom age AFTER Christ physically comes back to the earth and sets up His Kingdom for 1000 years.

These are things I was never taught until 20 years ago and it seemed foreign to me, BUT it was all Scriptural and as I studied, I realized that it was all backed by the Scriptures. Essential Doctrines were list in the dark ages because of the persecution of the Catholic Church.

Chexk this guy out. He is the man who transformed my Biblical understanding and it all fits with Scripture. He has a TV show also.

He walks you through the Bible in 25 Minute lessons:

Through the Bible with Les Feldick https://share.google/l4pWqICszdVnpossn

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think you misunderstand, Frodo.

I have no trouble accepting Paul as a valid apostle, but the words of Christ Himself are more significant, especially regarding how we need to persevere.

---

What I am telling you about the Words of our Lord, Jesus is that they don't pertain to you or I because He was talking to Israel. Just as when God told Noah to build an ark in the Bible, should we build an ark also? No, because they don't pertain to us. Just whwn God gave the Law to Moses, we don't keep the Law today, because we are under Grace. Well that's hos it is here in the Gospels. Only Paul's writings pertain to the Church today. All others were directed to Israel.

---

Disagree. While Jesus directed His mission first to the Jews, He often interacted and helped non-Jews in many places. His words were and are for all of us.

---

It is true thay Jesus helped non Jews a couple of times, but His ministry was to Israel. Jesus says it Himself when helping the gentile woman with the possessed daighter. Read this carefully. He is telling her that ministering to her, a gentile (Dog) is not why He was sent because He was sent to fulfil God's promises to Israel, not the gentiles. (At that time until after His death and resurrection)

"But He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."
Matthew 15:26, 24-25, 27-28

The Plan was for God to send ISRAEL to the Gentiles to give us the Gospel, BUT the Jews rejected Him.. since they did, He chose Paul, a Jew, and gave him the gospel of grace. Paul webt up to Arabia (Probably Mt Sinai) and was given His message DIRECTLY by the Lord Jesus Christ:

LOOK:

"But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, "He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God in me."
Galatians 1:11-12, 18-19, 21-24 NKJV

Why didn't God just have the Apostles teach Paul the Gospel of grace?

BECAUSE it was DIFFERENT than the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught Israel. The Gospel of the Kingdom and it's teschings WILL be applied during the Kingdom age AFTER Christ physically comes back to the earth and sets up His Kingdom for 1000 years.

These are things I was never taught until 20 years ago and it seemed foreign to me, BUT it was all Scriptural and as I studied, I realized that it was all backed by the Scriptures. Essential Doctrines were list in the dark ages because of the persecution of the Catholic Church.

Chexk this guy out. He is the man who transformed my Biblical understanding and it all fits with Scripture. He has a TV show also.

He walks you through the Bible in 25 Minute lessons:

Through the Bible with Les Feldick https://share.google/l4pWqICszdVnpossn

---

yes, John 10:16 in Jesus own words tells us that the gentiles will be added

Paul was revealed as the pathway for this to happen.

4th and Inches said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think you misunderstand, Frodo.

I have no trouble accepting Paul as a valid apostle, but the words of Christ Himself are more significant, especially regarding how we need to persevere.

---

What I am telling you about the Words of our Lord, Jesus is that they don't pertain to you or I because He was talking to Israel. Just as when God told Noah to build an ark in the Bible, should we build an ark also? No, because they don't pertain to us. Just whwn God gave the Law to Moses, we don't keep the Law today, because we are under Grace. Well that's hos it is here in the Gospels. Only Paul's writings pertain to the Church today. All others were directed to Israel.

---

Disagree. While Jesus directed His mission first to the Jews, He often interacted and helped non-Jews in many places. His words were and are for all of us.

---

It is true thay Jesus helped non Jews a couple of times, but His ministry was to Israel. Jesus says it Himself when helping the gentile woman with the possessed daighter. Read this carefully. He is telling her that ministering to her, a gentile (Dog) is not why He was sent because He was sent to fulfil God's promises to Israel, not the gentiles. (At that time until after His death and resurrection)

"But He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."
Matthew 15:26, 24-25, 27-28

The Plan was for God to send ISRAEL to the Gentiles to give us the Gospel, BUT the Jews rejected Him.. since they did, He chose Paul, a Jew, and gave him the gospel of grace. Paul webt up to Arabia (Probably Mt Sinai) and was given His message DIRECTLY by the Lord Jesus Christ:

LOOK:

"But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, "He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God in me."
Galatians 1:11-12, 18-19, 21-24 NKJV

Why didn't God just have the Apostles teach Paul the Gospel of grace?

BECAUSE it was DIFFERENT than the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught Israel. The Gospel of the Kingdom and it's teschings WILL be applied during the Kingdom age AFTER Christ physically comes back to the earth and sets up His Kingdom for 1000 years.

These are things I was never taught until 20 years ago and it seemed foreign to me, BUT it was all Scriptural and as I studied, I realized that it was all backed by the Scriptures. Essential Doctrines were list in the dark ages because of the persecution of the Catholic Church.

Chexk this guy out. He is the man who transformed my Biblical understanding and it all fits with Scripture. He has a TV show also.

He walks you through the Bible in 25 Minute lessons:

Through the Bible with Les Feldick https://share.google/l4pWqICszdVnpossn

---

yes, John 10:16 in Jesus own words tells us that the gentiles will be added

Paul was revealed as the pathway for this to happen.

---

Excellent. I ha mve also thought that John 10:16 was referring to this.

"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?""
I Corinthians 15:51-55 NKJV

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Did it ever occur to you, that the Protestant Reformation was maybe God putting guard rails on the Rome church?

---

First, I don't know what the "Rome church" is.

Second, protestants didn't reform anything. They LEFT.

---

You sound bitter.

---

Actually, no. My response merely mirrored the tone in yours.

Having said that, I, like Jesus, pray that the Church can be one.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Did it ever occur to you, that the Protestant Reformation was maybe God putting guard rails on the Rome church?

---

First, I don't know what the "Rome church" is.

Second, protestants didn't reform anything. They LEFT.

---

In all fairness, some protestants do subscribe to Reformed Theology. That was the Theology that came out of the Reformation. Dispensationalism is better Theology, but Reformed Theology is certainly better than Catholic Theology.

---

Dude, Reformed Theology was made up 500 years ago. It has no historical backing.

Dispensationalism was MADE UP about 200 years ago and has even less.

Please do some actual research on what the early Church actually believed and taught.

So, maybe to an American who's read The Late Great Planet Earth and Left Behind series too many times, Dispensationalism might sound better. But for those who've researched actual Church history, we understand that Dispensationalism is a "Johnny-come-lately" fad.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Did it ever occur to you, that the Protestant Reformation was maybe God putting guard rails on the Rome church?

---

First, I don't know what the "Rome church" is.

Second, protestants didn't reform anything. They LEFT.

---

In all fairness, some protestants do subscribe to Reformed Theology. That was the Theology that came out of the Reformation. Dispensationalism is better Theology, but Reformed Theology is certainly better than Catholic Theology.

---

Dude, Reformed Theology was made up 500 years ago. It has no historical backing.

Dispensationalism was MADE UP about 200 years ago and has even less.

Please do some actual research on what the early Church actually believed and taught.

So, maybe to an American who's read The Late Great Planet Earth and Left Behind series too many times, Dispensationalism might sound better. But for those who've researched actual Church history, we understand that Dispensationalism is a "Johnny-come-lately" fad.

---

Although I disagree with much of it, Iwouldn't call it simply made up. It came in the 1500s. Dispensationalism is about 200 years old and there is a good reason for it. The Catholic Church perverted the Doctrines of Scripture and murdered, tortured anyone who didn't subcribe to their false teachings. Hundreds of millions of people were murdered by them over the centuries. As a result, many essential doctrines were lost. In order to reclaim these Doctrines, you kust study Scripture, which was written by the actual eyewitnesses and the Apostles themselves. That's what reformed theology was trying to do although flawed. Dispensationalism came later and is also trying to do the same thing I believe much more accurately than reformed theology. I am actually a mid-acts Dispensationalist which takes it even farther. These are brilliant men who study scripture and peace the Bible together as it is actually written rather than adding non-biblical false theology into it like the Catholic Church did for centuries.

Frodo makes a very good point here. Anytime someone argues that this human interpretation or that one is the right one everyone should accept, there is a reasonable pushback and counter.

There is a great deal of hubris mixed in with genuine concern for the welfare of our brothers and sisters. I fear that sometimes we see only the part we want, while ignoring our Lord in preference of our own designs.

The verse about 'fear and trembling' applies to us all. I hope we heed it.

Pretty much agree with your post. Additionally, as
scripture appears to indicate in James 3:13-17, true wisdom is demonstrated through a good life and humble deeds, contrasting earthly and demonic ambition with the pure, peace-loving, and merciful wisdom that comes from heaven.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Although I disagree with much of it, Iwouldn't call it simply made up. It came in the 1500s. Dispensationalism is about 200 years old and there is a good reason for it. The Catholic Church perverted the Doctrines of Scripture and murdered, tortured anyone who didn't subcribe to their false teachings. Hundreds of millions of people were murdered by them over the centuries.

---

So. Much. Wrong. Here.

First, you'll need to prove that "Hundreds of millions of people were murdered" by the Catholic Church. Historical proof does NOT exist for this. Please note that Foxs's Book of Martyrs does not count as proof. It has been debunked multiple times as grossly exaggerated and wildly fantastical. He was writing polemical propaganda designed to inflame Protestant sentiment against the Catholic Church. It was institutionalized by the Church of England as a tool of propaganda against Catholicism.

Foxe supported a regime that tortured and killed Catholics who simply wanted to live in the faith of their ancestors. He also supported a regime that burned Evangelical Christians such as Baptists!

The breathtaking hypocrisy here is stunning: Foxe documented Protestant deaths under Catholics with horror and outrage while supporting the Protestant regime that was simultaneously killing Catholics and dissenting Protestants.

Second, it was statistically IMPOSSIBLE for the Church to have "killed hundreds of millions of people." The Black Death in Europe killed 25 million people, which was a 30-50% of the population in Europe. It's well documented as one of the worst losses of mankind in history. Historians and Sociologist have deemed this one of the "population bottlenecks." There were NOT hundreds of millions of people to kill. It is laughable and NO true historian believes that the Church could have killed that many.

Finally, with respect to your false (and ignorant), I am happy to discuss any specific period of the "deaths" that happened at the hands of the Church. But please know that I will bring historical facts into the arguments.

I hope that you will do honest research on your claim and not attempt to use it again. When one uses tired and obviously false claims, it really damages one's credibility and quite frankly, many will stop listening or even responding to one's "chicken-little" posts.

I've rarely engaged with you on these posts for that very reason.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

As a result, many essential doctrines were lost. In order to reclaim these Doctrines, you kust study Scripture, which was written by the actual eyewitnesses and the Apostles themselves. That's what reformed theology was trying to do although flawed. Dispensationalism came later and is also trying to do the same thing I believe much more accurately than reformed theology. I am actually a mid-acts Dispensationalist which takes it even farther. These are brilliant men who study scripture and peace the Bible together as it is actually written rather than adding non-biblical false theology into it like the Catholic Church did for centuries.

---

Once again, you will have to find REAL historical proof "many essential doctrines were lost." No real historian believes this.

Finally with respect to your "brilliant men who study scripture and peace the Bible", I'll gladly take the Church fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius, who knew John an actual apostle. I'll take Augustine and Aquinas over any Dispensationalist "brilliant" man.

If you would like to discuss ANY "non-biblical false theology" that the Catholic Church has "made up", I'll happily discuss them with you one at a time.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo makes a very good point here. Anytime someone argues that this human interpretation or that one is the right one everyone should accept, there is a reasonable pushback and counter.

There is a great deal of hubris mixed in with genuine concern for the welfare of our brothers and sisters. I fear that sometimes we see only the part we want, while ignoring our Lord in preference of our own designs.

The verse about 'fear and trembling' applies to us all. I hope we heed it.

---

Simple question, who's "human interpretation" SHOULD we trust as the right one? Yours, BTD17's, frotto's?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo makes a very good point here. Anytime someone argues that this human interpretation or that one is the right one everyone should accept, there is a reasonable pushback and counter.

There is a great deal of hubris mixed in with genuine concern for the welfare of our brothers and sisters. I fear that sometimes we see only the part we want, while ignoring our Lord in preference of our own designs.

The verse about 'fear and trembling' applies to us all. I hope we heed it.

---

Simple question, who's "human interpretation" SHOULD we trust as the right one? Yours, BTD17's, frotto's?

---

How about Scripture, not any one human. That includes Popes, by the way.

Coke Bear said:

---

So, maybe to an American who's read The Late Great Planet Earth and Left Behind series too many times, Dispensationalism might sound better. But for those who've researched actual Church history, we understand that Dispensationalism is a "Johnny-come-lately" fad.

---

I would suspect a majority of people in Big Eva/Baptist/Pentecostal circles don't even realize that there are views of eschatology that differ from the Left Behind series.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo makes a very good point here. Anytime someone argues that this human interpretation or that one is the right one everyone should accept, there is a reasonable pushback and counter.

There is a great deal of hubris mixed in with genuine concern for the welfare of our brothers and sisters. I fear that sometimes we see only the part we want, while ignoring our Lord in preference of our own designs.

The verse about 'fear and trembling' applies to us all. I hope we heed it.

---

Simple question, who's "human interpretation" SHOULD we trust as the right one? Yours, BTD17's, frotto's?

---

How about Scripture, not any one human. That includes Popes, by the way.

---

I'm confused. Are you saying that Scripture should interpret Scripture?

BTW, the Church doesn't leave the interpretation of Scripture to just Popes. We have the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, to help us interpret scripture.

Jesus promised this to His Church:

John 14:1617

Quote:

---

"I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth."

---

John 14:26

Quote:

---

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

---

John 15:26

Quote:

---

"But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me."

---

John 16:1214

Quote:

---

"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

---

I think you should stop, go back to my post which pointed out the danger of trusting any human interpretation, realize your mistake, and start again from that point.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo makes a very good point here. Anytime someone argues that this human interpretation or that one is the right one everyone should accept, there is a reasonable pushback and counter.

There is a great deal of hubris mixed in with genuine concern for the welfare of our brothers and sisters. I fear that sometimes we see only the part we want, while ignoring our Lord in preference of our own designs.

The verse about 'fear and trembling' applies to us all. I hope we heed it.

---

Simple question, who's "human interpretation" SHOULD we trust as the right one? Yours, BTD17's, frotto's?

---

The person who actually believes what it says. Too many so-called Bible students allegorize the Bible rendering it useless. This is the biggest problem within the church. If you just leave it where it lies most of the time it makes perfect sense and fits with the rest of scripture. There are a few instances where the Bible is truly allegory but it usually makes it very clear. Revelation has many allegories but they all have literal meanings. Too many people try to allegorize the Bible where it's not meant to

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo makes a very good point here. Anytime someone argues that this human interpretation or that one is the right one everyone should accept, there is a reasonable pushback and counter.

There is a great deal of hubris mixed in with genuine concern for the welfare of our brothers and sisters. I fear that sometimes we see only the part we want, while ignoring our Lord in preference of our own designs.

The verse about 'fear and trembling' applies to us all. I hope we heed it.

---

Simple question, who's "human interpretation" SHOULD we trust as the right one? Yours, BTD17's, frotto's?

---

The person who actually believes what it says. Too many so-called Bible students allegorize the Bible rendering it useless. This is the biggest problem within the church. If you just leave it where it lies most of the time it makes perfect sense and fits with the rest of scripture. There are a few instances where the Bible is truly allegory but it usually makes it very clear. Revelation has many allegories but they all have literal meanings. Too many people try to allegorize the Bible where it's not meant to

---

To claim you only believe what the Bible says, if you truly mean it, is to claim that you are infallible. It implies that your interpretation never differs from what the Bible actually says.

Sam Lowry said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo makes a very good point here. Anytime someone argues that this human interpretation or that one is the right one everyone should accept, there is a reasonable pushback and counter.

There is a great deal of hubris mixed in with genuine concern for the welfare of our brothers and sisters. I fear that sometimes we see only the part we want, while ignoring our Lord in preference of our own designs.

The verse about 'fear and trembling' applies to us all. I hope we heed it.

---

Simple question, who's "human interpretation" SHOULD we trust as the right one? Yours, BTD17's, frotto's?

---

The person who actually believes what it says. Too many so-called Bible students allegorize the Bible rendering it useless. This is the biggest problem within the church. If you just leave it where it lies most of the time it makes perfect sense and fits with the rest of scripture. There are a few instances where the Bible is truly allegory but it usually makes it very clear. Revelation has many allegories but they all have literal meanings. Too many people try to allegorize the Bible where it's not meant to

---

To claim you only believe what the Bible says, if you truly mean it, is to claim that you are infallible. It implies that your interpretation never differs from what the Bible actually says.

---

Not much logic in Sam's post. Believing Scripture is what Jesus did, judging by how often Christ quoted Scripture.

Sam Lowry said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo makes a very good point here. Anytime someone argues that this human interpretation or that one is the right one everyone should accept, there is a reasonable pushback and counter.

There is a great deal of hubris mixed in with genuine concern for the welfare of our brothers and sisters. I fear that sometimes we see only the part we want, while ignoring our Lord in preference of our own designs.

The verse about 'fear and trembling' applies to us all. I hope we heed it.

---

Simple question, who's "human interpretation" SHOULD we trust as the right one? Yours, BTD17's, frotto's?

---

The person who actually believes what it says. Too many so-called Bible students allegorize the Bible rendering it useless. This is the biggest problem within the church. If you just leave it where it lies most of the time it makes perfect sense and fits with the rest of scripture. There are a few instances where the Bible is truly allegory but it usually makes it very clear. Revelation has many allegories but they all have literal meanings. Too many people try to allegorize the Bible where it's not meant to

---

To claim you only believe what the Bible says, if you truly mean it, is to claim that you are infallible. It implies that your interpretation never differs from what the Bible actually says.

---

It's not about ME being infallable, it's about believing that the Bible is infallable. Liberals intentionally change the meaning to make it fit their preconceived notions rather then THEM conforming to the Word of God.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think you should stop, go back to my post which pointed out the danger of trusting any human interpretation, realize your mistake, and start again from that point.

---

We ARE humans. Whose interpretation should we trust?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The person who actually believes what it says. Too many so-called Bible students allegorize the Bible rendering it useless. This is the biggest problem within the church. If you just leave it where it lies most of the time it makes perfect sense and fits with the rest of scripture. There are a few instances where the Bible is truly allegory but it usually makes it very clear. Revelation has many allegories but they all have literal meanings. Too many people try to allegorize the Bible where it's not meant to

---

I agree that many people may allegorize the Bible, but WHO is the authority to determine when it is allegorical, literal, or polyvalent?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

It's not about ME being infallable, it's about believing that the Bible is infallable. Liberals intentionally change the meaning to make it fit their preconceived notions rather then THEM conforming to the Word of God.

---

Once again, I agree that liberals change the meaning of the bible to fit their narratives (See Talarico), but many PEOPLE do this as well.

Stepping back from politics on this, let's look at something as simple as baptismal regeneration.

I don't want to debate the topic; I want to look at the principles behind the exegesis.

Let's take Catholics out of this conversation for a moment ...

Many protestants believe in baptismal regeneration - Lutherans and the Churches of Christ.
Many protestants reject it - Baptists, Anabaptists, and Non-Denominational Protestants
Many protestants have a nuanced view between the two - Anglicans and Reformed/Presbyterians

The Bible contains verses that explicitly state:

1 Peter 3:21 - "Baptism NOW saves you."
Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"
Titus 3:5 - "saved us... by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"

How do we determine WHO is correct in their interpretation?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think you should stop, go back to my post which pointed out the danger of trusting any human interpretation, realize your mistake, and start again from that point.

---

We ARE humans. Whose interpretation should we trust?

---

You really don't bother to read anyone else's posts, I observe.

I made it plain that no human interpretation should be taken as perfect.

I, like Frodo, trust Scripture. Perhaps you are one of those people who imagines Scripture is nothing but human words, but I take Scripture as Holy Writ.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

It's not about ME being infallable, it's about believing that the Bible is infallable. Liberals intentionally change the meaning to make it fit their preconceived notions rather then THEM conforming to the Word of God.

---

Once again, I agree that liberals change the meaning of the bible to fit their narratives (See Talarico), but many PEOPLE do this as well.

Stepping back from politics on this, let's look at something as simple as baptismal regeneration.

I don't want to debate the topic; I want to look at the principles behind the exegesis.

Let's take Catholics out of this conversation for a moment ...

Many protestants believe in baptismal regeneration - Lutherans and the Churches of Christ.
Many protestants reject it - Baptists, Anabaptists, and Non-Denominational Protestants
Many protestants have a nuanced view between the two - Anglicans and Reformed/Presbyterians

The Bible contains verses that explicitly state:

1 Peter 3:21 - "Baptism NOW saves you."
Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"
Titus 3:5 - "saved us... by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"

How do we determine WHO is correct in their interpretation?

---

baptism is based on a greek word that means " fully immerse" , just like the bride does in historic jewish wedding ceremony.

I would say John 3 verse 6 clarifies that birth by water is the fleshly birth and birth by the spirit is the regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We see this played out in the house of Cornelius. Also, we know Simon the sorcerer was water baptized, but clearly did not have the Holy Spirit.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I made it plain that no human interpretation should be taken as perfect.

---

What good is an infallible book without an infallible interpreter?

Please note that I'm not claiming that a single Pope is always infallible about his interpretation of scripture. You are making another strawman fallacy here.

The Magisterium is infallible in it's interpretation - guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, as laid out in the bible in my previous post.

The Pope is only infallible when speaking about faith and morals WHEN it's stated that he's exercising that charism. That's happened twice since Vatican I.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I, like Frodo, trust Scripture. Perhaps you are one of those people who imagines Scripture is nothing but human words, but I take Scripture as Holy Writ.

---

I'm not sure what makes you believe something SO untrue. I "take Scripture as Holy Writ" SO seriously that I, and 1.2 billion Catholics, believe that an ordinary piece of wheat bread and grape wine can become TRULY, REALLY, and SUBSTANTUALLY the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't find ANY protestants that "take Scripture as Holy Writ" with that type of belief.

You obsess on attacking Protestants over and over again, yet you demand a single man be considered "infallible" just because a group of privileged men in Rome gave him a title.

You don't see the hypocrisy in your stance?

And it's simple. Jesus quoted Scripture, not once qualifying according to some human council. His followers trust the Bible in emulation of our Lord.

Good luck to you in your path.

4th and Inches said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

It's not about ME being infallable, it's about believing that the Bible is infallable. Liberals intentionally change the meaning to make it fit their preconceived notions rather then THEM conforming to the Word of God.

---

Once again, I agree that liberals change the meaning of the bible to fit their narratives (See Talarico), but many PEOPLE do this as well.

Stepping back from politics on this, let's look at something as simple as baptismal regeneration.

I don't want to debate the topic; I want to look at the principles behind the exegesis.

Let's take Catholics out of this conversation for a moment ...

Many protestants believe in baptismal regeneration - Lutherans and the Churches of Christ.
Many protestants reject it - Baptists, Anabaptists, and Non-Denominational Protestants
Many protestants have a nuanced view between the two - Anglicans and Reformed/Presbyterians

The Bible contains verses that explicitly state:

1 Peter 3:21 - "Baptism NOW saves you."
Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"
Titus 3:5 - "saved us... by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"

How do we determine WHO is correct in their interpretation?

---

baptism is based on a greek word that means " fully immerse" , just like the bride does in historic jewish wedding ceremony.

I would say John 3 verse 6 clarifies that birth by water is the fleshly birth and birth by the spirit is the regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We see this played out in the house of Cornelius. Also, we know Simon the sorcerer was water baptized, but clearly did not have the Holy Spirit.

---

A - I stated that "baptism" wasn't truly the discussion topic here, but since you mentioned it ...
B - I didn't mention John 3:5. Rather, I used three other verses that explicitly state baptism DOES something - saves & forgives sins
C - EVERYONE is born of a fleshly birth. It makes no sense that Jesus would say "anyone who is fleshy born."
- Unanimously, the Church fathers that discuss John 3:5, state that Jesus is speaking of baptism.
- The "fleshly birth" interpretation doesn't come about for nearly 1500 years.
D - Your point fails to answer, "WHO gets to determine what John 3:5 means?"
E - Take this Catholic out of the conversation - Why should a Lutheran or Christ of Christ member or Anglican, etc. accept this interpretation?

Oldbear83 said:

---

You obsess on attacking Protestants over and over again, yet you demand a single man be considered "infallible" just because a group of privileged men in Rome gave him a title.

You don't see the hypocrisy in your stance?

---

I'm not attacking protestants. I'm encouraging them to see the truth.

Maybe you feel attacked because you're defensive of your lifelong views being challenged?

Let's examine your " a group of privileged men in Rome gave him a title" statement ...

Why was that said?

I'm NOT demanding anything. I'm explaining the Catholic Church and refuting a strawman argument.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And it's simple. Jesus quoted Scripture, not once qualifying according to some human council. His followers trust the Bible in emulation of our Lord.

Good luck to you in your path.

---

Another strawman argument. Jesus IS God. He didn't need to qualify "according to some human council."

BUT, before He ascended, He did promise a paraclete to guide the apostles and promised It would be with them forever (John 14:1617). When those apostles died, the Holy Spirit remained with their successors. Those are today's bishops. When they speak collectively, in union with the Pope, they speak infallibly about faith and morals.

If they don't, then Jesus was a liar. My Jesus isn't a liar.

PS. I truly wish you well and good luck on your path, as well. : )

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I made it plain that no human interpretation should be taken as perfect.

---

What good is an infallible book without an infallible interpreter?

Please note that I'm not claiming that a single Pope is always infallible about his interpretation of scripture. You are making another strawman fallacy here.

The Magisterium is infallible in it's interpretation - guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, as laid out in the bible in my previous post.

The Pope is only infallible when speaking about faith and morals WHEN it's stated that he's exercising that charism. That's happened twice since Vatican I.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I, like Frodo, trust Scripture. Perhaps you are one of those people who imagines Scripture is nothing but human words, but I take Scripture as Holy Writ.

---

I'm not sure what makes you believe something SO untrue. I "take Scripture as Holy Writ" SO seriously that I, and 1.2 billion Catholics, believe that an ordinary piece of wheat bread and grape wine can become TRULY, REALLY, and SUBSTANTUALLY the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't find ANY protestants that "take Scripture as Holy Writ" with that type of belief.

---

On the Contrary, Jesus Himself said that those things were Spiritual, not Physical. So we are, in fact, taking Scripture for what it says. Read the last sentence. It's Spiritual.

Jesus said:

"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. "
John 6:55-63 KJV