How To Get To Heaven When You Die

263,012 Views | 3172 Replies | Last: 41 min ago by Realitybites
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You never seem to want to answer the questions that are posed to you, therefore I won't extend that courtesy to you until you do.

(1) Where did the sincere Christian go to church in 500, 1000, and 500 AD?

(2) Is church optional? (You've already indirectly answered this question as Yes being that you believe that the church fell into heresy / stopped existing for most of history.)
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joseywales said:

You are lost in mythology. You are a mammal never in need of saving. These are facts now not some made up stories to prop up a belief system. Fear and ignorance allow religion to thrive. Go educate your self with real facts.


I did get educated that's why I don't believe in darwinian evolution. There are different types of evolution. Lateral adaptation is a type Evolution that really happens and that is just the different breeds of dogs, cats, horses. But you never see them evolve into a different kind of animal that's false. Education supports me not believing in evolution and believing in christianity.
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:

Yes, true healing are from God. Once again, the devil cannot heal.

What matters here is that people are going to an authentic Marion Shrine and getting healings FROM GOD. Why would God allow these healing to continue "heresy and idolatry"?

It is astounding how you can't even recognize how going to a "Marion Shrine" is not promoting heresy and idolatry. Absolutely astounding.

Quote:

I don't need miracles to believe. I'm already a believer.
Then why do you ask me what miracle I need in order to believe??
What's wrong with having a shrine to Mary, the most holy human person in the world?

Miracle - I asked you what type of miracle would i it take for you to believe in the Real Presence.

I believe in some of those miracles that I listed. I just don't need them for my belief.
Are those Shrines used for praying to Mary? That's a form of worship and idolatry if true. That's UnBiblical. Secondly, Mary is a great woman, but you don't know if she is the most holy person in the world, because she was a sinner like the rest of us and needed a Savior. The Lord said that no greater man came out of the womb than John the Baptist, yet John the Baptist admitted that he wasn't even worthy to loose the sandals of Jesus.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

You never seem to want to answer the questions that are posed to you, therefore I won't extend that courtesy to you until you do.

(1) Where did the sincere Christian go to church in 500, 1000, and 500 AD?

(2) Is church optional? (You've already indirectly answered this question as Yes being that you believe that the church fell into heresy / stopped existing for most of history.)
You're reading, but you're not thinking. Your questions were answered:

1) A "sincere Christian" IS part of Jesus' "church", his body of believers. The building he goes to, the nameplate of that building, or the leaders he is subject under - NONE make him part of that body. His/her faith is what makes him part of that body. They can go to whatever building under whatever leader, and engage in whatever institutional liturgy you think he/she should. And despite the errors of that leader or institution and the method of worship, the true believer will be known by Jesus, and is saved by him.

2) You didn't ask if "church" is optional, you asked if "worship" was optional. My answer was clearly that with regard to salvation, worship is not required. Therefore, in that sense it is optional. It is, however, something that a true believer will do, though it doesn't have to be in a certain way. Every believer is free to worship God/Jesus from their heart, in the way they want. Jesus did not come to establish a certain way to worship. What matters is the sincerity and love for God in their heart. A farmer who marvels at how his crop can grow from a tiny seed, and praises God for how he constructed such a miraculous mechanism in his heart, is worship. A person standing in his yard, looking at the moon and stars in awe, and praising God for how great, incredible, and beyond understanding what and who He is that He is able to create such a universe, is worship. Worship happens throughout the life of the believer. It isn't confined to predetermined rites and rituals on Sundays.

With regard to whether "church" is optional, it depends on what you mean by "church" and what you mean by "optional". If by "church" you mean "the body of Jesus' believers", then no, it is not optional with regard to salvation, because it is necessary to be a believer in Jesus in order to be saved. If you mean "church" as in a building with a nameplate, then yes, it is optional in that going to certain building is not necessary with regard to salvation. If however, you mean "optional" in the sense of pleasing God, then the answer for most instances is likely no. God desires we be part of a physical body of believers while we are on earth. It is the ideal. But for the lone Christian in China who can't do this because there are no other believers where he/she lives, and he/she has to be a Christian in secret or he will be arrested, even this isn't a requirement to please God or to be saved.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Mary the most holy human person in the world? Yet more words from you that directly contradict Jesus. Jesus said "among those born of women none is greater than John (the baptist)". And any christian would know that it's wrong to make shrines to people. And you Catholics say you don't worship Mary? Unbelievable.
Unbelievable, once again, you can quote a bible verse without truly understanding the context.

When you go back an read the entire passage, you'll discover that Jesus was talking about the Prophets. He was asserting that John was the greatest of all the Prophets, not of all people.


BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Miracle - and the antichrist will ask you what miracle would it take for you to believe him. What will you say?
I won't follow an antichrist. You still haven't stated what miracle it would take for you to believe in the real presence.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Satan started laughing as soon as he fooled some of the Israelite priests, and there are more than a few popes who served Satan far more faithfully than Christ, so don't pretend Martin Luther was anything like what you implied.
Which popes and how did they serve Satan?

Oldbear83 said:

That's why it's a damnable lie, because you did and are claiming a moral superiority for the RCC where it simply does not exist.
Where have I claimed moral superiority for the Catholic Church? I will certainly argue that it does contain the fullness of the truth.

Oldbear83 said:

Must I remind you that no human can pretend to being holy? Consider why Jesus, within minutes of praising Peter because the Holy Spirit had shown him that Jesus was the Christ, also called Peter 'Satan' for saying 'God forbid' that Christ serve as the sacrifice God intended.
Once again, "Holy" does not mean "God". "Holy" literally means, that it is set apart, consecrated for a sacred purpose. It is not profaneordinary or run-of-the-mill.


Oldbear83 said:

No, Mary was not holy, although she was blessed for her faith in God. It's very important not to be deceived by the powerful desire to see oneself as important to God - that way lies a grave sin.
As the mother of God, I'd argue that she was "set apart" and certainly "consecrated for a sacred purpose."

Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:



What Satan wants is a divided church. Martin Luther started in the 1517. Satan rejoiced on that day. He rejoiced every split after that. He rejoiced with Zwingli, Calvin, Tyndale, Knox, Russell, White, Smith, Smythe, etc.

Christ prayed for the Church to be one. It's not.
What Satan wants is a church united in damnable error. Division of his true people from those in error is what Jesus wants. Jesus prayed for his true believers to be united as one, AWAY from false believers. And it will be so.
Where is your authority to determine what is damnable error? Why should anyone follow your religion? You won't even tell us what church you belong to. Where are your statements of beliefs? Your beliefs many be less than 200 years old. Why should we trust your fallible interpretation of the bible?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Mary the most holy human person in the world? Yet more words from you that directly contradict Jesus. Jesus said "among those born of women none is greater than John (the baptist)". And any christian would know that it's wrong to make shrines to people. And you Catholics say you don't worship Mary? Unbelievable.
Unbelievable, once again, you can quote a bible verse without truly understanding the context.

When you go back an read the entire passage, you'll discover that Jesus was talking about the Prophets. He was asserting that John was the greatest of all the Prophets, not of all people.


BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Miracle - and the antichrist will ask you what miracle would it take for you to believe him. What will you say?
I won't follow an antichrist. You still haven't stated what miracle it would take for you to believe in the real presence.
He wasn't saying he was the greatest "among the prophets", he clearly says "among those born of women". That includes a whole lot more than just the prophets.

You just don't want to be honest with Scripture because it goes against what you want to believe.

If you won't follow the antichrist even though he performs a miracle, then why should I believe in the "Real Presence" over a miracle??
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:



What Satan wants is a divided church. Martin Luther started in the 1517. Satan rejoiced on that day. He rejoiced every split after that. He rejoiced with Zwingli, Calvin, Tyndale, Knox, Russell, White, Smith, Smythe, etc.

Christ prayed for the Church to be one. It's not.
What Satan wants is a church united in damnable error. Division of his true people from those in error is what Jesus wants. Jesus prayed for his true believers to be united as one, AWAY from false believers. And it will be so.
Where is your authority to determine what is damnable error? Why should anyone follow your religion? You won't even tell us what church you belong to. Where are your statements of beliefs? Your beliefs many be less than 200 years old. Why should we trust your fallible interpretation of the bible?

What church I attend is completely irrelevant. My arguments stand on their own merits with regard to Scripture, logic, and reason. The reason you have to attack my "authority" or lack thereof is because you are failing with regard to Scripture, logic, and reason.

You're like someone who needs a math teacher to tell you what 2+2 is.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

There is no "with". There is no co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, or co-anything. There are no shrines to Mary. There is only one mediator between God and man, that is Christ.

1st Timothy 2:5.
Please read 1 Tim 2:1 - I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people

Christ calls for us to pray for one another. That's what Mary does for us.

Realitybites said:

That is why in Orthodox churches, the icon of Christ is central on the inside of the dome (representing heaven), looking down on the congregation and the icons of the rest of the family of God surrounding the congregation (the great cloud of witnesses). He may have a place of prominence on the iconostasis, representing his earthly ministry as well, typically the Christ pantocrantor icon taken from the image on the Mandylion (John 20:7).
That's why there is a large crucifix behind or over every altar of a Catholic Church.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

What church I attend is completely irrelevant. My arguments stand on their own merits with regard to Scripture, logic, and reason. The reason you have to attack my "authority" or lack thereof is because you are failing with regard to Scripture, logic, and reason.

You're like someone who needs a math teacher to tell you what 2+2 is.
If you're embarrassed of your church, that's on you. My "attacking" your authority is because you are interpreting scripture based on your beliefs and NOT what the early Church nor the apostles believed.

You can say "x" and a bible verse and I can say "y" about a verse. The difference is that I can back my beliefs up with Church fathers. You can't.

You've provided your fallible interpretations, but have never provided a historic context for them because, at best, they came from the 16th century.

No, I don't submit to your fallible interpretations. Back them up with history or you're beliefs are just as bad as 7th Day Adventist or the JW's.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xfrodobagginsx said:

Are those Shrines used for praying to Mary? That's a form of worship and idolatry if true. That's UnBiblical. Secondly, Mary is a great woman, but you don't know if she is the most holy person in the world, because she was a sinner like the rest of us and needed a Savior. The Lord said that no greater man came out of the womb than John the Baptist, yet John the Baptist admitted that he wasn't even worthy to loose the sandals of Jesus.
The Marion shrines are built to draw people closer to Christ. We don't worship Mary. We ask for her intercession.

Mary never sinned. I answered the John the Baptist comment earlier.

BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

What church I attend is completely irrelevant. My arguments stand on their own merits with regard to Scripture, logic, and reason. The reason you have to attack my "authority" or lack thereof is because you are failing with regard to Scripture, logic, and reason.

You're like someone who needs a math teacher to tell you what 2+2 is.
If you're embarrassed of your church, that's on you. My "attacking" your authority is because you are interpreting scripture based on your beliefs and NOT what the early Church nor the apostles believed.

You can say "x" and a bible verse and I can say "y" about a verse. The difference is that I can back my beliefs up with Church fathers. You can't.

You've provided your fallible interpretations, but have never provided a historic context for them because, at best, they came from the 16th century.

No, I don't submit to your fallible interpretations. Back them up with history or you're beliefs are just as bad as 7th Day Adventist or the JW's.
This has nothing to do with embarrassment. I don't think anyone's denomination matters with regard to their arguments or ideas. They should be judged strictly based on their own merits in light of Scripture, using logic and reason.

If you think that someone needs "authority" to know that when Jesus said "greatest among those born of women" that he means greatest among those born of women..... then it shows just how much of a cultish mindset you are in. It truly is scary to behold. The words of Jesus are right there, right in front of our face, and it isn't difficult to read them and understand them. "Historic context" doesn't change their meaning. If you really think they do, then please show us how "historical" context makes the words "among those born of women" to mean anything but "among those born of women". If you can find a church father that thinks Jesus meant "among all the prophets born of women", then I'll show you a church father who is wrong and who is trying to fit Scripture to what they already want to believe. Church fathers were not infallible. That should be easily seen in Church history.

Your claims that your interpretations have church father support, but mine do not, is just a flat out lie, because I've been showing you church father support for my interpretation, such as the belief that eating Jesus' flesh was thought of as symbolic. Or maybe your memory is extremely selective, just like your reading of Scripture.


"And why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" - Jesus, in Luke 12:57

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." - Acts 17:11
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Happy Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe!

Today is the day that we celebrate the anniversary of an amazing miracle.

Backstory
When Cortes reached the new world in 1519, he helped end the reign of terror by the Aztecs which practiced the evil, pagan practice of human sacrifice. They sacrificed 20,000 captured indigenous people every year by marching them up to the top of the temples, holding them down, and cutting out their still-beating heart with a knife fashion from obsidian glass (volcanic lava). 30 years prior to Cortes' arrival, the Aztecs sacrificed 80,000 in a four-day period. They were feared throughout the land.

(Editor's note: please don't read that I am white-washing the Spanish's actions toward the Mexicans. They practiced slavery, face-branding, etc. They were horribly abusive. In one defense, they did bring Franciscan priests to help convert the pagan population.)

In 1531, less that 20 decades after Martin Luther's 95 Thesis' was written, Christianity had not spread very far into modern-day Mexico.

Early one morning, on Dec 9, a Nahua peasant was walking to mass around Tepeyac Hill (near Mexico City) to pray for his sick uncle when he was approached by a young of mixed Indigenous and European features (mestiza) wearing a turquoise-colored mantle surrounded by a sunburst. She tells to Juan Diego to go to the bishop (Juan de Zumarraga) and request that a church be built at the top of the hill.

He goes to tell the bishop. He waits nearly all day. The bishop finally meets with him and Juan Diego explains what happened and what she said. He says to come back with proof.

He leaves and see the woman the following morning and relays what the bishop said to him. She says to come back on the 11th.

However, on the next day, Juan Diego's uncle became very sick and he was obligated to stay and care for him. Juan Diego set out the next to find a priest for his uncle. He was determined to get there quickly and didn't want to face the Virgin Mary with shame for missing the previous day's meeting.

She looked at him and asked "No estoy yo aqui que soy tu madre?" (Am I not here, I who am your mother?) She promised him his uncle would be cured and asked him to climb to the hill and collect the flowers growing there. He obeyed and found many flowers (Castilian Roses) which blooming in December on the rocky land when roses don't typically bloom. He filled his tilma (cloak) with flowers and returned to Mary.

Like a carrying mother, the Virgin Mary arranged the flowers within his cloak and told him this would be the sign he is to present to the bishop.

Once Juan Diego found the bishop, he opened his cloak and showed him the out-of-season blooming flowers.

The roses were not the sign. When Juan Diego dropped the roses, the bishop was presented with a miraculous imprinted image of the Virgin Mary on the previously, flower-filled cloak.



When Juan Diego arrived back home his uncle was miraculously cured, and he stated that he also met the Virgin Mary.

The bishop did have a shrine built on Tepeyac Hill and now the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe is one of the most visited shrines in the world.

As a result of the Virgin Mary's appearance, more than 9 million pagans converted to Christianity within 10 years.

Miraculously, 475 years later, the tilma, made from cactus fibers, which normally disintegrates in 50 years, is still intact. Scientific study shows no sketch underneath. No brush strokes. The colors appear to be fused to the fibers. The stars on our Lady's mantle match the constellations in the sky that fateful night of December 12, 1531.

In 1921, the Mexico government was persecuting the Catholic Church during the Cristero War. An operative of the Mexican government, dressed as a pilgrim visiting the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, planted dynamite beneath the tilma. The explosion damaged candles, marble steps, the altar, a crucifix, and broke glass in windows up to several hundred yards away. The tilma and its frame remained unharmed.



Listed here are some interesting facts about the Tilma.
Here the Knights of Columbus have some facts and dispel some false miraculous claims that have been made about the tilma.

She is the patron saint of Mexico and the Americas.

Our Lady of Guadalupe ...

Pray for Us!
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

This has nothing to do with embarrassment. I don't think anyone's denomination matters with regard to their arguments or ideas. They should be judged strictly based on their own merits in light of Scripture, using logic and reason.
Who determines whose logic is sound? What if you and Oldbear83 disagree with a passage? How do you determine who is correct?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

If you think that someone needs "authority" to know that when Jesus said "greatest among those born of women" that he means greatest among those born of women..... then it shows just how much of a cultish mindset you are in. It truly is scary to behold. The words of Jesus are right there, right in front of our face, and it isn't difficult to read them and understand them. "Historic context" doesn't change their meaning. If you really think they do, then please show us how "historical" context makes the words "among those born of women" to mean anything but "among those born of women". If you can find a church father that thinks Jesus meant "among all the prophets born of women", then I'll show you a church father who is wrong and who is trying to fit Scripture to what they already want to believe. Church fathers were not infallible. That should be easily seen in Church history.
Is John the greatest prophet ever? If that's what Jesus said, then Absolutely!

Like I stated earlier, you refuse to accept that Jesus is discussing the prophets in this passage. Take an honest, unbiased reading of it. He's not taking about the greatest of ALL people. You're reading thru a very biased lens.

Why is so hard for you to believe that Mary was the greatest human person to walk the earth? Did she not give birth the Son of God? Does the bible not record her saying that "All generations will call me Blessed"? Did Anna the prophetess not say that a "sword would pierce her heart"? Did she not start Jesus' public ministry at the Wedding Feast of Cana? God trusted her to raise his only son.

She's the new Ark of the Covenant. She's the new Eve.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Your claims that your interpretations have church father support, but mine do not, is just a flat out lie, because I've been showing you church father support for my interpretation, such as the belief that eating Jesus' flesh was thought of as symbolic. Or maybe your memory is extremely selective, just like your reading of Scripture.
I showed you quotes from those same Church fathers saying that it was the Real Presence. I've also stated, from the Catechism, that the eucharist has symbolic elements. It's a both/and not an either/or.


BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

"And why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" - Jesus, in Luke 12:57

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." - Acts 17:11
Acts 8:30-31
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.


BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Quote:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
This has nothing to do with embarrassment. I don't think anyone's denomination matters with regard to their arguments or ideas. They should be judged strictly based on their own merits in light of Scripture, using logic and reason.
Who determines whose logic is sound? What if you and Oldbear83 disagree with a passage? How do you determine who is correct?


It isn't as hard as you are making it out to be. When Jesus says "greatest among those born of women", then clearly that means that among those who are born of women (everybody) he is the greatest. When you try to say that what Jesus is really saying is "greatest among the prophets", then logically that fails, because prophets aren't the only ones who were born of women. Do you see? This is a simple, logical fact. It isn't opinion.

If OldBear were to disagree (I'm willing to bet that he does not), then he or you would have to explain how that logic is false. Rationally and critically thinking people can then judge for themselves. Logic has rules and structure. It is easy to determine who is logically correct and who isn't. Now, it may happen that you or OldBear might disagree with the logic, but that would only be because you are in denial because you want to keep believing what you believe, and you're too stubborn and prideful to change to more correct thinking. But that doesn't make you right, you are still wrong. Also, what usually happens is that I or someone else will ask you or OldBear questions that expose your incorrect logic, but those questions will get unanswered or completely dodged,or you resort to ad hominem. That pretty much decides the issue.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Quote:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If you think that someone needs "authority" to know that when Jesus said "greatest among those born of women" that he means greatest among those born of women..... then it shows just how much of a cultish mindset you are in. It truly is scary to behold. The words of Jesus are right there, right in front of our face, and it isn't difficult to read them and understand them. "Historic context" doesn't change their meaning. If you really think they do, then please show us how "historical" context makes the words "among those born of women" to mean anything but "among those born of women". If you can find a church father that thinks Jesus meant "among all the prophets born of women", then I'll show you a church father who is wrong and who is trying to fit Scripture to what they already want to believe. Church fathers were not infallible. That should be easily seen in Church history.
Is John the greatest prophet ever? If that's what Jesus said, then Absolutely!

Like I stated earlier, you refuse to accept that Jesus is discussing the prophets in this passage. Take an honest, unbiased reading of it. He's not taking about the greatest of ALL people. You're reading thru a very biased lens.

Why is so hard for you to believe that Mary was the greatest human person to walk the earth? Did she not give birth the Son of God? Does the bible not record her saying that "All generations will call me Blessed"? Did Anna the prophetess not say that a "sword would pierce her heart"? Did she not start Jesus' public ministry at the Wedding Feast of Cana? God trusted her to raise his only son.

She's the new Ark of the Covenant. She's the new Eve.

Even if John was indeed the greatest prophet ever, still, Jesus said "among those born of women" which obviously includes Mary, given that she was among those born of women. You're just not being honest with Jesus' words. The phrase "among those born of women" is a Hebrew idiomatic phrase that means "among all of human existence" (Berean Study Bible commentary). Was Mary among all of human existence?

HOW IN THE WORLD is it a "biased lens" to take "greatest among those born of women" to mean greatest among those born of women?? This is an example of the aforementioned logic and reason when dealing with arguments about Scripture and especially with Jesus' words, and how your interpretation CLEARLY violates it. It is so obvious that you are the one readng this through a biased lens, not I.

You're simply DENYING what Jesus said here.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Please do not put me in the same category as Coke Bear, when the topic is Marianism or other heresies.

And to your earlier question Coke Bear, no I am not going to name the Popes in question, the point is that being a Pope does not make someone infallible, anymore than being a Priest or a Minister makes someone infallible.

There are a great number of Christians who were/are practicing Roman Catholics, just like Baptists, Episcopalians and other denominations. My point is that being part of a specific denomination does not make you more pleasing to Christ, what matters is how you follow Christ and serve Him.

With due respect for the office, the current Pope is far more political than a servant of Christ, and this is not good for such a high-profile position.

Busy Tarp Duster, you are correct that different groups will please or offend God according to their doctrines, provided of course that members live by the precepts and don't just play at it.

BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Please do not put me in the same category as Coke Bear, when the topic is Marianism or other heresies.

And to your earlier question Coke Bear, no I am not going to name the Popes in question, the point is that being a Pope does not make someone infallible, anymore than being a Priest or a Minister makes someone infallible.

There are a great number of Christians who were/are practicing Roman Catholics, just like Baptists, Episcopalians and other denominations. My point is that being part of a specific denomination does not make you more pleasing to Christ, what matters is how you follow Christ and serve Him.

With due respect for the office, the current Pope is far more political than a servant of Christ, and this is not good for such a high-profile position.

Busy Tarp Duster, you are correct that different groups will please or offend God according to their doctrines, provided of course that members live by the precepts and don't just play at it.


I'm not putting you in CokeBear's category, I was only answering his hypothetical. He was the one who included you into our conversation, it wasn't me. I even said that I highly doubt that you'd disagree with me with regard to Mary. I just think you've been way too reticent to speak out against such heresies. Though of late, you have been calling it out, and so I commend you. It's a duty of Christians to be the salt and light of the earth, and that entails calling out falsehood.

My problem with what you're saying here, though, is that a practicing Roman Catholic can NOT please Jesus, because they are involved in idolatry, heresy and a false gospel. I don't think you can even call Roman Catholicism a "denomination" of Christianity. It's so corrupted a version of Christianity that it has become an entirely different religion.
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mary was a good woman, no doubt about that. To say that she was the greatest human being to walk the face of the earth? I am not so sure about that. Paul suffered much more than any man for the cause of Christ. Jesus said that no greater man has come out of the womb than John the Baptist. David was called the Apple of God's eye. Moses was highly regarded by God and God spoke to him face to face. Not sure how many men could say that. Abraham was a great man of faith, waited 50 years for God's promise to come to fruition. God doesn't tend to use women in the same way that He uses men. To say that she had accomplished more than those men I listed? Not sure about that. She did birth our Savior and I am sure she was an Amazing and loving mother. A woman of great honor. To make a shrine of her and pray to her? Can't do that for her or any other person.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It isn't as hard as you are making it out to be. When Jesus says "greatest among those born of women", then clearly that means that among those who are born of women (everybody) he is the greatest. When you try to say that what Jesus is really saying is "greatest among the prophets", then logically that fails, because prophets aren't the only ones who were born of women. Do you see? This is a simple, logical fact. It isn't opinion.
"the greatest of those born among women" ... How do you know that the "those" is talking about the is indeed the prophets and not mankind in general?

For the sake of the argument, let's say that Jesus did mean John. Would you agree that Mary is the greatest of all women born?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

If OldBear were to disagree (I'm willing to bet that he does not), then he or you would have to explain how that logic is false. Rationally and critically thinking people can then judge for themselves. Logic has rules and structure. It is easy to determine who is logically correct and who isn't. Now, it may happen that you or OldBear might disagree with the logic, but that would only be because you are in denial because you want to keep believing what you believe, and you're too stubborn and prideful to change to more correct thinking. But that doesn't make you right, you are still wrong. Also, what usually happens is that I or someone else will ask you or OldBear questions that expose your incorrect logic, but those questions will get unanswered or completely dodged,or you resort to ad hominem. That pretty much decides the issue.
Your logic is always correct? That's amazing! You believe that you're logic is correct. It's possible to have valid logical argument, but not be sound. You do this often. You present very valid arguments, but they are rarely sound.

I have not used to ad hominen attacks. You have. I will attack arguments, but not people. I believe that you've used the terms "cult", "idolator", and "heretic" about me. You've stated that I''m not a Christian. I have only pointed out that your agruments have NO historical basis for YOUR interpretations on the bible. I have demonstrated, many times, that the early Church father hold the same beliefs that the Catholic Church still holds today.

Finally, if I have used as hominem attacks to you or anyone else here, then I truly apologize. I am a firm believer in 1 Peter 3:15. I try to say it once a day.

I will try to do better.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When discussing the beliefs of people, I keep in mind that none of us are perfect, and so we should always be mindful of what Christ tells us.

There are am number of lessons in Scripture against becoming too proud that our own ways are right with God just because we like our own opinion. That is actually one issue I take with Coke Bear's own statements, which basically say that because their practices have a long history this makes them good and right despite lacking Scriptural support.

But I also keep in mind the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Why does Christ make a point about the man being a Samaritan?

I would suggest it's because a lot of Jews of Jesus' day considered Samaritans to be heretics, holders of wrong doctrine.

The Samaritans, for example, were considered so bad that the name Samaritan was used an insult by religious people. See John 8:48 where critics told Christ "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"

Jesus even instructed His own disciples at first not to waste their time and effort visiting the Gentile towns of the Samaritans (Matthew 10:5)

Yet Jesus repeatedly used Samaritans as examples of people who pleased Him. Aside from the Good Samaritan, there was the one man among ten who took the time to come back and thank Jesus after healing him or leprosy, identified as a Samaritan (Luke 17:15). When Jesus entered a town and talked about the living water He brought, He did so to a woman identified as a Samaritan (John 4:4-26).

My point is that Jesus made clear that the Samaritans practiced a false religion, but He also saw people within the group who served and pleased God.

If someone seeks Christ truly, they will find Him, even if their walk is as a Roman Catholic.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It isn't as hard as you are making it out to be. When Jesus says "greatest among those born of women", then clearly that means that among those who are born of women (everybody) he is the greatest. When you try to say that what Jesus is really saying is "greatest among the prophets", then logically that fails, because prophets aren't the only ones who were born of women. Do you see? This is a simple, logical fact. It isn't opinion.
"the greatest of those born among women" ... How do you know that the "those" is talking about the is indeed the prophets and not mankind in general?

For the sake of the argument, let's say that Jesus did mean John. Would you agree that Mary is the greatest of all women born?

Your comments are all so frustrating to read, because they are almost always so wrong. And the lengths you go to defend the indefensibly illogical and unscriptural is absolutely ridiculous.

First of all you're not even getting the quote right. It's not "of those born among women", it's "among those born of women". As I already pointed out, this is a Hebrew idiomatic phrase that means "among all humans who ever existed".

To separate out "those" to be referring to a certain subset of people would make the rest of the phrase "born of women" to be nonsensical and superfluous. All Jesus had to say was "among all the prophets" if that's what he meant. It'd be like saying "of all the dentists born of women, he's the best". What dentist is not going to be born of a woman? It's completely unnecessary to say that. And it ignores the meaning of the whole of the Hebrew idiomatic expression "those born of women" as explained. And it doesn't even make sense in the context of the passage. There is no reason to think Jesus was only comparing him to all the other prophets.

And don't you Catholics consider Mary a prophet? So even if you take Jesus to mean "of all the prophets" you've defeated your own argument.

There is no way to know if Mary was the "greatest of all women born". It's not even necessary that Mary be the greatest in order to give birth to Jesus. She was "highly favored" by God, no doubt, and truly blessed as the chosen earthly mother of Jesus, and for that she is to be highly respected. But to say she was the greatest woman to ever exist is way beyond our knowledge. We simply can't claim that, and there is NOTHING in Scripture which even approaches making that proclamation. You repeatedly claim that your beliefs come from the early church fathers - ok then, which early church father believed Mary was the greatest woman ever?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:



BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

If OldBear were to disagree (I'm willing to bet that he does not), then he or you would have to explain how that logic is false. Rationally and critically thinking people can then judge for themselves. Logic has rules and structure. It is easy to determine who is logically correct and who isn't. Now, it may happen that you or OldBear might disagree with the logic, but that would only be because you are in denial because you want to keep believing what you believe, and you're too stubborn and prideful to change to more correct thinking. But that doesn't make you right, you are still wrong. Also, what usually happens is that I or someone else will ask you or OldBear questions that expose your incorrect logic, but those questions will get unanswered or completely dodged,or you resort to ad hominem. That pretty much decides the issue.
Your logic is always correct? That's amazing! You believe that you're logic is correct. It's possible to have valid logical argument, but not be sound. You do this often. You present very valid arguments, but they are rarely sound.

I have not used to ad hominen attacks. You have. I will attack arguments, but not people. I believe that you've used the terms "cult", "idolator", and "heretic" about me. You've stated that I''m not a Christian. I have only pointed out that your agruments have NO historical basis for YOUR interpretations on the bible. I have demonstrated, many times, that the early Church father hold the same beliefs that the Catholic Church still holds today.

Finally, if I have used as hominem attacks to you or anyone else here, then I truly apologize. I am a firm believer in 1 Peter 3:15. I try to say it once a day.

I will try to do better.
Who's saying that my logic is "always correct"?? And if my logic is incorrect, then logically explain why that is. How is my logic unsound?

For example, what is incorrect about my logic that if "eating Jesus' flesh" is literal, then in light of Jesus' statements in John 6:53-54 it makes salvation entirely relegated to the act of eating something, which is obviously false? If it's literal, then how was the thief on the cross saved? If it's literal, then how can there be "mortal sin" after one has taken the Eucharist? If drinking Jesus' blood is literal, then how could Jesus have commanded his disciples to break the Law, and thus be a sinner for doing so? If it's literal, then why not just give everyone Eucharist bread and wine in order to save them, regardless of their beliefs?

You actually have used ad hominem, maybe in a couple of instances. But that's beside the point. I wasn't accusing you of anything, the point was that when someone starts doing that instead of providing a cogent logical answer to a question, then it usually is an indicator who is correct and who isn't. What I have said to you is not ad hominem. I said you were engaged in idolatry and heresy, and you are not a Christian because you met the definition idolater and heretic, and your beliefs are demonstrably non-Christian. I have provided the reasons and evidence. Discernment of what is true and declaring it, is not an ad hominem attack.

It is incredible that even now, after all that I've discussed, you still make the claim that the Roman Catholic Church has the same beliefs as the early church. The early church looked NOTHING like the RCC today. From the differences in canon, to the beliefs and practices on Mary, praying to Mary and the saints, veneration of icons, the papacy, and many more - these are all accretions and additions that took place over time and have NO basis in original apostolic authority. And most of these additions are straight up evil, hence straight from the devil. Roman Catholicism is a *******ization of true Christianity, having incorporated millenia-old pagan god and goddess worship. It is unbelievable how blind and deceived you are to this.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

When discussing the beliefs of people, I keep in mind that none of us are perfect, and so we should always be mindful of what Christ tells us.

There are am number of lessons in Scripture against becoming too proud that our own ways are right with God just because we like our own opinion. That is actually one issue I take with Coke Bear's own statements, which basically say that because their practices have a long history this makes them good and right despite lacking Scriptural support.

But I also keep in mind the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Why does Christ make a point about the man being a Samaritan?

I would suggest it's because a lot of Jews of Jesus' day considered Samaritans to be heretics, holders of wrong doctrine.

The Samaritans, for example, were considered so bad that the name Samaritan was used an insult by religious people. See John 8:48 where critics told Christ "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"

Jesus even instructed His own disciples at first not to waste their time and effort visiting the Gentile towns of the Samaritans (Matthew 10:5)

Yet Jesus repeatedly used Samaritans as examples of people who pleased Him. Aside from the Good Samaritan, there was the one man among ten who took the time to come back and thank Jesus after healing him or leprosy, identified as a Samaritan (Luke 17:15). When Jesus entered a town and talked about the living water He brought, He did so to a woman identified as a Samaritan (John 4:4-26).

My point is that Jesus made clear that the Samaritans practiced a false religion, but He also saw people within the group who served and pleased God.

If someone seeks Christ truly, they will find Him, even if their walk is as a Roman Catholic.

If someone truly finds Jesus while in their walk as a Roman Catholic, it would most certainly have to be IN SPITE OF Roman Catholic beliefs and practices, and ultimately lead them away from it.

If the Samaritans believed/practiced a false religion as you say, but there were Samaritans that Jesus found to be pleasing to God and serving Him - would Jesus have wanted them to continue believing/practicing that false religion? Or does he call them out of it?

You seem to be saying that it's ok to be a Roman Catholic, because if you truly seek Jesus you'll find him in that route - but Roman Catholicism puts up a LOT of road blocks and impediments to that, don't you think? Sure, you may "find" Jesus, but end up believing that the only way to him is through Mary and priests/the pope, and believe that you have to perform certain rites and rituals in order to get to him. You'd have to engage in idolatry and heresy to get to him. What's infinitely worse, is that you may end up believing it the point where you start to worship Mary and the saints and entrust your salvation on their intervention rather than Jesus'. And that would disqualify you from salvation, wouldn't it? Do you think Jesus wants all of this?
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, can we all agree that the Bible is the Word of God and our final Authority? If so, then we should be able to use Scripture to back up our points and not twist it to mean what we wish it did, but rather conform OUR beliefs to what the Bible actually says.
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Happy Sunday Everyone!
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

1) A "sincere Christian" IS part of Jesus' "church", his body of believers. They can go to whatever building under whatever leader, and engage in whatever institutional liturgy you think he/she should.

Really. *Whatever*?

Are there any limits to that whatever?

Joel Osteen? ELCA with a t r a n n y pastor? Vatican 2 masses with dancing girls, blue haired karens strumming guitars, and a rainbow stole? A Russell Moore SBC service where the Brittany Spears "praise" team singing Jesus is my boyfriend songs followed by a powerpoint on how we're supposed to welcome all the illegals?

I think for all this talk of an invisible church, those who promote it will quickly realize that on a Sunday morning that invisible church is found in some very visible places, and not in others.

Quote:

I would suggest it's because a lot of Jews of Jesus' day considered Samaritans to be heretics, holders of wrong doctrine.

Can you list a handful of wrong doctrines held by the Samaritans?

Quote:

So, can we all agree that the Bible is the Word of God and our final Authority? If so, then we should be able to use Scripture to back up our points and not twist it to mean what we wish it did, but rather conform OUR beliefs to what the Bible actually says.

God is actually our final authority. The problem is that we don't even have agreement on what the Bible is at this point. From it's full recognition around 300-400 AD, the Biblical Canon was shortened in the 16th century and the actual bible was shortened in the 20th. This 20th century shortening was the result of protestant scholars coming to a consensus that Jewish sources should be authoritative, and not those of the early church such as the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Think about that for a minute. Why are Jewish sources "Jewish"? Who did they reject to remain Jewish? That's a bit like reading Das Kapital for information about capitalism.

Coke Bear and I agree that the Book of Wisdom - including its prophecy about Christ - are scripture. Christians for a thousand years were in agreement with that. But many readers of this post will deny that it is scripture and reject the prophecy.

'Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected'.

- Wisdom 2:12-20


If Jewish sources reject this as scripture, why do you think that is?
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:

Quote:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If you think that someone needs "authority" to know that when Jesus said "greatest among those born of women" that he means greatest among those born of women..... then it shows just how much of a cultish mindset you are in. It truly is scary to behold. The words of Jesus are right there, right in front of our face, and it isn't difficult to read them and understand them. "Historic context" doesn't change their meaning. If you really think they do, then please show us how "historical" context makes the words "among those born of women" to mean anything but "among those born of women". If you can find a church father that thinks Jesus meant "among all the prophets born of women", then I'll show you a church father who is wrong and who is trying to fit Scripture to what they already want to believe. Church fathers were not infallible. That should be easily seen in Church history.
Is John the greatest prophet ever? If that's what Jesus said, then Absolutely!

Like I stated earlier, you refuse to accept that Jesus is discussing the prophets in this passage. Take an honest, unbiased reading of it. He's not taking about the greatest of ALL people. You're reading thru a very biased lens.

Why is so hard for you to believe that Mary was the greatest human person to walk the earth? Did she not give birth the Son of God? Does the bible not record her saying that "All generations will call me Blessed"? Did Anna the prophetess not say that a "sword would pierce her heart"? Did she not start Jesus' public ministry at the Wedding Feast of Cana? God trusted her to raise his only son.

She's the new Ark of the Covenant. She's the new Eve.

Even if John was indeed the greatest prophet ever, still, Jesus said "among those born of women" which obviously includes Mary, given that she was among those born of women. You're just not being honest with Jesus' words. The phrase "among those born of women" is a Hebrew idiomatic phrase that means "among all of human existence" (Berean Study Bible commentary). Was Mary among all of human existence?

HOW IN THE WORLD is it a "biased lens" to take "greatest among those born of women" to mean greatest among those born of women?? This is an example of the aforementioned logic and reason when dealing with arguments about Scripture and especially with Jesus' words, and how your interpretation CLEARLY violates it. It is so obvious that you are the one readng this through a biased lens, not I.

You're simply DENYING what Jesus said here.


Let's nail down Luke 7:28

King James Bible
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Douay-Rheemes
For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.

New King James Version
For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

------------------------------------------

New American Standard Bible
I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

New International Version
I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

New Living Translation
I tell you, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of God is greater than he is!"

English Standard Version
I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

Contemporary English Version
No one ever born on this earth is greater than John. But whoever is least important in God's kingdom is greater than John.

The CEV/NLT really make plain the intent of the newer translations, along with going the gender neutral route.


So clearly these don't mean the same things. Basically all bibles printed after 1970 went with the "no one ever born is greater than John", while the bibles printed before the 20th century called him chief among the prophets. So, sola interpres crowd, which Bible is correct?
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Church is made up of those In Christ in Salvation. It's not a Building or Denomination.


Nothing About A Church Here:

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Or Here:

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to youunless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by [a]Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have [b]fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who is this passage talking about?

Isaiah 9:6 (KJV)
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

What does Jesus mean by this statement?

John 8:58 (KJV)
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Who is this passage talking about?

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Why does Thomas call Jesus, "My Lord and My God" and why didn't Jesus rebuke him?

John 20:28 (KJV)
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Secular Historical Non Biblical Writings affirm Jesus Christ and that He died on the Cross and that He was worshipped by those who knew Him and that they believed that He rose from the dead. Jesus Christ fulfilled well over 100 Prophecies written of Him hundreds of years before His birth. These prophecies include when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and many more. Then Christ performed countless miracles to prove who He was, He predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again from the dead. He was seen by hundreds of people who were willing to die rather than deny that they saw Him risen from the dead. Had He not risen from the dead, they would not have been willing to die for their faith. Think about that.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

Quote:

1) A "sincere Christian" IS part of Jesus' "church", his body of believers. They can go to whatever building under whatever leader, and engage in whatever institutional liturgy you think he/she should.

Really. *Whatever*?

Are there any limits to that whatever?

Joel Osteen? ELCA with a t r a n n y pastor? Vatican 2 masses with dancing girls, blue haired karens strumming guitars, and a rainbow stole? A Russell Moore SBC service where the Brittany Spears "praise" team singing Jesus is my boyfriend songs followed by a powerpoint on how we're supposed to welcome all the illegals?

I think for all this talk of an invisible church, those who promote it will quickly realize that on a Sunday morning that invisible church is found in some very visible places, and not in others.


Let me rephrase what I said to convey my point better -

A sincere Christian (i.e. a true believer) IS part of Jesus' "Church", aka his body of believers. He/she can be in whatever building or under whatever leader and engaging in whatever worship - that's not what determines whether or not they are a true believer and hence part of the body of Christ. What ultimately determines that is whether the belief and faith in their heart is true belief and faith. If a true believer happens to be in one of those corrupted "churches" you listed, obviously their belief and faith is IN SPITE OF the beliefs and practices of that so-called church, and they will certainly feel conflicted and have a strong conviction to leave that church. But the point is that being a listed member of a certain organization is not what makes you part of the body of Christ, it's true belief and faith in the gospel. Jesus will judge that.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:

Quote:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If you think that someone needs "authority" to know that when Jesus said "greatest among those born of women" that he means greatest among those born of women..... then it shows just how much of a cultish mindset you are in. It truly is scary to behold. The words of Jesus are right there, right in front of our face, and it isn't difficult to read them and understand them. "Historic context" doesn't change their meaning. If you really think they do, then please show us how "historical" context makes the words "among those born of women" to mean anything but "among those born of women". If you can find a church father that thinks Jesus meant "among all the prophets born of women", then I'll show you a church father who is wrong and who is trying to fit Scripture to what they already want to believe. Church fathers were not infallible. That should be easily seen in Church history.
Is John the greatest prophet ever? If that's what Jesus said, then Absolutely!

Like I stated earlier, you refuse to accept that Jesus is discussing the prophets in this passage. Take an honest, unbiased reading of it. He's not taking about the greatest of ALL people. You're reading thru a very biased lens.

Why is so hard for you to believe that Mary was the greatest human person to walk the earth? Did she not give birth the Son of God? Does the bible not record her saying that "All generations will call me Blessed"? Did Anna the prophetess not say that a "sword would pierce her heart"? Did she not start Jesus' public ministry at the Wedding Feast of Cana? God trusted her to raise his only son.

She's the new Ark of the Covenant. She's the new Eve.

Even if John was indeed the greatest prophet ever, still, Jesus said "among those born of women" which obviously includes Mary, given that she was among those born of women. You're just not being honest with Jesus' words. The phrase "among those born of women" is a Hebrew idiomatic phrase that means "among all of human existence" (Berean Study Bible commentary). Was Mary among all of human existence?

HOW IN THE WORLD is it a "biased lens" to take "greatest among those born of women" to mean greatest among those born of women?? This is an example of the aforementioned logic and reason when dealing with arguments about Scripture and especially with Jesus' words, and how your interpretation CLEARLY violates it. It is so obvious that you are the one readng this through a biased lens, not I.

You're simply DENYING what Jesus said here.


Let's nail down Luke 7:28

King James Bible
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Douay-Rheemes
For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.

New King James Version
For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

------------------------------------------

New American Standard Bible
I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

New International Version
I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

New Living Translation
I tell you, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of God is greater than he is!"

English Standard Version
I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

Contemporary English Version
No one ever born on this earth is greater than John. But whoever is least important in God's kingdom is greater than John.

The CEV/NLT really make plain the intent of the newer translations, along with going the gender neutral route.


So clearly these don't mean the same things. Basically all bibles printed after 1970 went with the "no one ever born is greater than John", while the bibles printed before the 20th century called him chief among the prophets. So, sola interpres crowd, which Bible is correct?
The King James and New King James version are based on the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament that was compiled by Erasmus, who only used a handful of greek manuscripts that were available to him at the time, and did his translation/compilation quickly in order to beat others to the press. This Greek version is not considered by scholars to be the most accurate version for these reasons as there were many errors. The Douay-Rheims bible is just a translation of the Latin Vulgate into English - it's not a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew.

The reason why the modern versions (ESV, NIV, Berean, NLV, etc) are the most accurate is because they are the result of utilizing ALL the available Greek texts of the New Testament and employing the scientific process of textual criticism, a process which most accurately determines what the original Greek text actually said. These bibles were based on critical texts, while the KJV, NKJV, and Douay-Rheims were not. Based on textual criticism, it is determined that Luke 7:28 in the original Greek likely did not contain the word "prophet" ().
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible - Christian Muslim Debate


 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.