User Tag List

Page 162 of 164 FirstFirst ... 62112152159160161162163164 LastLast
Results 2,416 to 2,430 of 2449

Thread: Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

  1. #2416
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,459
    Thanks
    4,103
    Thanked 3,669 Times in 2,094 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147682
    Quote Originally Posted by daqq View Post
    Moreover, as anyone who reads can see, it is not an interruption but rather concerns a topic which has been argued for pages and pages and pages. However, if you like, I can go back and address the post to @WatchmanOnTheWall.
    You should quote a snippet of the person's post to which you are responding. The discussion spans many pages so someone reading the last page should not be forced to manually page back to find some linkage to what you are posting. Moreover, the number of pages is a function of the user's settings on how many post per page they prefer to see.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  2. #2417
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,459
    Thanks
    4,103
    Thanked 3,669 Times in 2,094 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147682
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post
    I followed your link and saw nothing about any 'woodshed'. Is this discussed anywhere else in a 'rules' thread?

    So it's all about the money...

    How disappointing.

    Zenn

    PS: You are more than welcome to contribute alms.
    The bit in the table of subscriber options about having access to private forums includes the Woodshed.

    Click the "Why?" in my sig below to gain further insight concerning your sardonic "all about money".

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    glorydaz (January 16th, 2018),Lon (January 16th, 2018)

  4. #2418
    Journeyman Zenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    176
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 66 Times in 46 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3253
    Quote Originally Posted by daqq View Post
    I cannot understand why, (unless it is a charismatic thing), he seems to be attempting to alienate "the sword" from "of the Spirit".
    It has nothing to do with any "charismatic thing". (I see you missed the point that I'm not Charismatic.)

    The issue here is one of translation. And no, I'm not 'alienating' anything. The sword of the Spirit is prayer. Such hyperbole only shows your hatred for the scriptures as they are actually written.

    The best way to destroy something is to redefine the terms to mean something else. When "sword" is redefined to mean Bible, then one has nullified the truth intended to be expressed. People run around waving their Bibles like a sword, looking like idiots.

    The truth is inherent in the text. Now if people wish to ignore what was actually written or create some kind of mythical interpretation by redefining the words... well... according to their faith so be it. This is why Protestant Christianity has miserably failed, and it's looking like Pentecostal Christianity is following down the same doomed road.

    Quote Originally Posted by daqq View Post
    PS ~ Oops, I see he just posted, I will go back and read . . .
    Wow... I guess I should feel honored.

    Zenn
    It is difficult to be reasonable with those who cannot reason.

  5. #2419
    Journeyman Zenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    176
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 66 Times in 46 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3253
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    The bit in the table of subscriber options about having access to private forums includes the Woodshed.

    AMR
    Sir,

    The word 'woodshed' is not used on the entire page. So it rather explains nothing.
    It is difficult to be reasonable with those who cannot reason.

  6. #2420
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,459
    Thanks
    4,103
    Thanked 3,669 Times in 2,094 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147682
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post
    Sir,

    The word 'woodshed' is not used on the entire page. So it rather explains nothing.
    It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits. You have your answer. Become a paying subscriber.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    glorydaz (January 16th, 2018),Lon (January 16th, 2018)

  8. #2421
    Over 5000 post club daqq's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Olam Haba
    Posts
    5,525
    Thanks
    1,143
    Thanked 1,621 Times in 1,283 Posts

    Mentioned
    185 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    368233
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post
    It has nothing to do with any "charismatic thing". (I see you missed the point that I'm not Charismatic.)

    The issue here is one of translation. And no, I'm not 'alienating' anything. The sword of the Spirit is prayer. Such hyperbole only shows your hatred for the scriptures as they are actually written.

    The best way to destroy something is to redefine the terms to mean something else. When "sword" is redefined to mean Bible, then one has nullified the truth intended to be expressed. People run around waving their Bibles like a sword, looking like idiots.

    The truth is inherent in the text. Now if people wish to ignore what was actually written or create some kind of mythical interpretation by redefining the words... well... according to their faith so be it. This is why Protestant Christianity has miserably failed, and it's looking like Pentecostal Christianity is following down the same doomed road.

    Wow... I guess I should feel honored.

    Zenn
    Please tell me then what the following passage is truly speaking about:

    Hebrews 10:5-7 ASV
    5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou prepare for me;
    6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure:
    7 Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God.


    Does the Psalmist speak of a person or a written Torah scroll?

    You've gone too far in personification; and as a result you not only add sin, (error), to the Word but you (unknowingly?) add sin, (error), to Messiah the Word. Moreover, from what I saw in what you posted, you did appear to be attempting to alienate "the sword" from "of the Spirit" by saying that the Spirit is the Rhema and not the sword; and that seemed pretty clear by how you were arguing your point against Glorydaz. You may not have actually said it outright but that is what seemed to be coming through in what you were saying.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to daqq For Your Post:

    glorydaz (January 16th, 2018)

  10. #2422
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,222
    Thanks
    2,406
    Thanked 4,402 Times in 2,610 Posts

    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2092949
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post
    Then why all this nonsense accusing cobra and watchman?

    Woodshed?
    (OMG I'm dealing with children in ninth grade..)
    .
    OMwhat???? First of all, for me, taking His name in vain. I don't care how old you are.

    Next? "Says the guy with cartoon quote.
    ...................................

    Again, PLEASE try and leave your disdain at the door. "If" this forum is beneath you, move along.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (January 16th, 2018),glorydaz (January 16th, 2018)

  12. #2423
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,057
    Thanks
    12,743
    Thanked 34,308 Times in 17,253 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147782
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post
    gldz, the New Testament wasn't written in English,
    Spoiler
    and the word "which" is written in the neuter gender to agree with Spirit (cf. Dr. Alfred Marshal's Interlinear LINK). For the word 'which' to refer to Sword, it would, by the rules of Koine Greek grammar, NEED to be written with a feminine gender ending. It isn't.

    You are looking at a translation error. And you are basing your 'knowledge' on the rules of the WRONG LANGUAGE. One cannot apply modern English rules of grammar to Greek.

    And If you diagram the sentence in Greek you will see...

    Spirit/ is/ Rhema ... πνευματος ο εστιν ρημα

    Any serious student of Biblical Koine Greek can teach you about gender matching. Please try and learn something this time.
    If not from me, then from someone who can read the text in the language in which it was initially written. Pugnacious ignorance does no one any good.

    Spoiler
    Would you apply the rules of English grammar to a sentence written in German? Of course not. So why would anyone apply the rules of English grammar to a sentence written in Greek? Like it or not, the New Testament wasn't written in English. And so again, I provide you the text as it was actually written:

    και την περικεφαλαιαν του σωτηριου δεξασθε και την μαχαιραν του πνευματος ο εστιν ρημα (RHEMA) θεου δια πασης προσευχης και δεησεως προσευχομενοι εν παντι καιρω εν πνευματι


    Zenn
    You seem to think I'm claiming we pick up the Bible and throw it at someone.

    Let me see if I can explain this to you. What kind of a sword are we discussing here? It's a spiritual sword. The Spirit is not the sword, as you have stated is your understanding from the Greek.

    Let's go backwards on this one. The word of God is conveyed to His people by the Spirit of God. It's the Spirit's sword which we are able to wield against all enemies...both for defence and offence.


    2 Timothy 3:16
    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    2 Peter 1:21
    21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    As I mentioned before, we should memorize verses from the Bible, so we have that Sword close at hand. When we learn something new as we study the word, we sharpen that sword. I've heard it said that the Bible is our arsenal from which we can draw forth another sword.

    For you to claim that the Greek tells you the Spirit is the word of God, is foolishness considering the fact that scripture, itself, doesn't support that claim. The misunderstanding is yours and your understanding of the Greek. You seem to be ignoring the entire text.

    Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    daqq (January 16th, 2018),JudgeRightly (January 16th, 2018),Tambora (January 17th, 2018)

  14. #2424
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,057
    Thanks
    12,743
    Thanked 34,308 Times in 17,253 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147782
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post
    Then why all this nonsense accusing cobra and watchman?

    Woodshed?
    (OMG I'm dealing with children in ninth grade..)
    .
    What? You're to good for our little forum?

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 16th, 2018),Tambora (January 17th, 2018)

  16. #2425
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,057
    Thanks
    12,743
    Thanked 34,308 Times in 17,253 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147782
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post

    So it's all about the money...

    How disappointing.

    Zenn
    Ah, you're one of those people who think they are owed all things good and wonderful.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 17th, 2018)

  18. #2426
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,057
    Thanks
    12,743
    Thanked 34,308 Times in 17,253 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147782
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post
    Oh that's rich, coming from someone who hurls around incomprehensible Hebrew words and cross-linked terminology.

    But since you both agree that I need to dumb it down for gldz, I shall try to post a more elementary explanation later.

    (Unless AMR wishes to add his expertise)
    .

    Zenn
    Just so you know, I reported you TO THE WOODSHED for that unnecessary dig....especially since they didn't say to "dumb it down" for me.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Lon (January 16th, 2018),Tambora (January 17th, 2018)

  20. #2427
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,057
    Thanks
    12,743
    Thanked 34,308 Times in 17,253 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147782
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post

    The best way to destroy something is to redefine the terms to mean something else. When "sword" is redefined to mean Bible, then one has nullified the truth intended to be expressed. People run around waving their Bibles like a sword, looking like idiots.


    Zenn
    Yeah, just as I thought.

    Now you run around claiming you attack people with your sword of prayer.

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Lon (January 16th, 2018),Tambora (January 17th, 2018)

  22. #2428
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,293
    Thanks
    1,207
    Thanked 428 Times in 334 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    183963
    Zenn,

    I apologize for the delay. But, alas, here is my response:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post
    Technically, the text states:

    When he had said this, he breathed (G1720) on them; and he said to them: Receive (G2983) ye the Holy Ghost. (Joh 20:22 DRB)

    It does not read, "he breathed on them and they received the Holy Ghost." Granted, such is implied, but not directly stated that this was the actual event where the Holy Ghost was received.

    In addition, instructions for such receiving of the Holy Ghost are given in Acts chapter 1.

    But you shall receive (G2983) the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.(Act 1:8 DRB)

    Followed by a description of the event.

    And they were all filled (G4130) with the Holy Ghost: and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.(Act 2:4 DRB)

    Shall I presume at this point you place the account of John after the ascension as described in Acts? Yet Act 1:11 rather seems to place a definitive end on any further Jesus sightings. And it's curious that the author would exclude the account in John, presenting instead, a differing account that the 'receiving' (yes I know he used the word "filled") took place without Jesus being there - or at best Didn't Even Give an Account of the Receiving.
    I was paraphrasing. But I would readily state that I agree with the accounts rendered in the Gospel and Acts.

    jsan, I don't see anything in your post that answers the question I asked:

    Where in the New Testament is it stated that the Apostles are inerrant when writing things down?

    I have no problem with accepting this position, but ... Where in the New Testament (outside of the Apocalypse of John - cf. Rev. 1:11, Rev. 1:19) is it stated that any Apostle was guided by the Holy Spirit to write things down? And technically, the author of the Apocalypse says he was commanded by Jesus, not the Holy Spirit.
    I concede that nowhere in the New Testament is it stated that the Apostles are inerrant, nor does the word inerrant even appear, to my knowledge.

    I would say, that through belief in Jesus, we would trust in what He declared. Therefore, when declarations are made, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (which could include writing), that the declarations are free from error.

    Then one should "further extrapolate" this into their actions. But you yourself realize this isn't true. If one cannot extrapolate into their actions, then how can one justify an extrapolation into their writings? So... I hear... NO, without some illogical extrapolation, what the apostles write isn't inerrant.
    If I were to write down "I woke up today. You woke up today," I would have been inerrant in my writing. After all, both pieces of information are true, therefore, "inerrant."

    So, accurate and precise record of facts would surely be considered "inerrant." Now, if one trusts that Jesus spoke Truth and that the Holy Spirit is infallible/inerrant, then we should logically infer that any declaration, be it oral or transcribed, while guided by Jesus/Holy Spirit, is free from error.

    Essentially, it is a long line of trusting in Truth, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and lastly the Apostles. If one believes that each of these sources are speaking accurate and precise truths/facts, then the term "inerrant" can be applied.

    Yes, unless the claim was bogus, or there actually wasn't a claim of writing "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit," or such guidance would be limited to the passages covered by such claims ... and this would be in essence, the same thing as what is claimed for the Pope today. But we're back to the question...
    I would agree. (You seem to misunderstand the claim for papal infallibility, but that is another topic and unrelated)

    Where in the NT is any passage specifically claimed to be written "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit"? Just because a book got listed and published in the NT? I'm sure you wouldn't deny that pseudepigrapha exists. Just because some author slapped the name "Paul" on the writing doesn't mean it was really written by Paul, and we need look no further than 3rd Corinthians as the perfect example of this.
    Here, we begin to rely on Apostolic authority and succession. If one trust the Apostles, then one can trust that which they declared.

    The writings of several NT books contain therein quotes about declarations of inspiration, by God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. Works of Peter and Paul both reference the Spirit and its relation to Scripture (such as 2 Timothy, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews which in turn references the Gospels, and especially 1 Peter). At this point, we would have to discuss internal and external evidence that points to various authorship of NT works, which would point back to the Apostles and the truth in their authority/succession. This is not a circular argument, rather, one that begins with trust, uses evidence and logic to progress, and in the end, relies on the conclusions made. If any piece of that falters, then the entire structure collapses, including the initial trust.

    I think you are basing your views on the position "if it's in the New Testament it must have been authored by the Holy Spirit" and therefore by extrapolation (i.e. by definition) must be inerrant. And there is a further presupposition that your Bishops selected the right books. Hence, infallibility is not based upon "it was authored by the Holy Spirit" or that the book says "it was authored by the Holy Spirit" but upon, "My Bishops say it was authored by the Holy Spirit."
    My view is based on trust in Jesus, which must then continue down the line to the declaration of the Scriptures.

    And I agree that I must trust the selection made by various Bishops; as must all who even read the Scriptures (this is the paradox within the sola scriptura doctrine, and any doctrine which relies on anything other than Church Authority). I am not saying that Church Authority overrules Scripture, for that is not true. Both must possess authority, and should support and sustain each other. They are independent, yet co-exist.

    So, if one does not believe in the divine inspiration of those who selected the Scriptures (which is Church Authority, attained by Apostolic Succession), then how can one rely at all on the Scriptures? After all, it was the Church that declared them "Inspired" and even "Inerrant." So, any argument against this authority, must logically rely on sources outside of Scripture, as the very nature of Scripture (Inspiration and Inerrant) are doctrines first declared by the Church, which were accepted by all.

    The simple contradiction in the synoptics with Jairus' daughter would make your whole argument fold. An error exists, hence the text cannot be inerrant.
    What contradiction?

    Thank you for the following quotations. I appreciate it.
    Sure.

    The above two declarations are different and not harmonious. By your earlier assertion that a declaration of any apostle must be inerrant, something's wrong here. One of these two declarations is Not inerrant. In essence, though, James won, and Peter lost. In addition, while the written notice sent out by this convocation said that such was approved by the Holy Ghost (Act 15:28), there is nothing in the account that actually indicates this happened, unlike in Act 13:2.

    And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. (Act 13:2 DRB)
    How is there disagreement between Peter and James? I may be just overlooking it, but I see Peter speaking, then James reiterating that which Peter spoke.

    Thank you for the reply, and your patience waiting for my own.

  23. #2429
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,222
    Thanks
    2,406
    Thanked 4,402 Times in 2,610 Posts

    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2092949
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Just so you know, I reported you TO THE WOODSHED for that unnecessary dig....especially since they didn't say to "dumb it down" for me.
    Sorry, I had mentioned this to him in PM (trying to get a bit of the heat some place else). But I did talk about you in that post and so neglected to post it here. Here is the pertinent quote from it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenn View Post
    But since you both agree that I need to dumb it down for gldz, I shall try to post a more elementary explanation later.
    Zenn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon
    "Not" using Greek shouldn't be considered 'dumbing down.' Glorydaz is a very intelligent woman, she just didn't bother learning Greek. I'd bet $500 if she did, she'd blow you and I out of the water. To me, that's not 'dumbing down' but being accommodating and playing on a fair field. -Lon
    "didn't bother" is poorly said "not learning Greek" presumptuous and ignorant, I've no idea, for the record, how much if any of these languages Glory has had, but my bet that she'd blow all of us out of the water stands, whether I was presumptuous on the other or not. In Him -Lon

    Formal apologies if I overstepped my bounds.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    glorydaz (January 16th, 2018),Tambora (January 17th, 2018)

  25. #2430
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,057
    Thanks
    12,743
    Thanked 34,308 Times in 17,253 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147782
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Sorry, I had mentioned this to him in PM (trying to get a bit of the heat some place else). But I did talk about you in that post and so neglected to post it here. Here is the pertinent quote from it:

    "didn't bother" is poorly said "not learning Greek" presumptuous and ignorant, I've no idea, for the record, how much if any of these languages Glory has had, but my bet that she'd blow all of us out of the water stands, whether I was presumptuous on the other or not. In Him -Lon

    Formal apologies if I overstepped my bounds.
    Nothing you've said bothers me at all, Lon. Please don't give it a second thought. I honestly don't believe knowing Greek would give me any kind of an edge in understanding the spiritual truths we find in the Bible. If anything, what Zenn just did proves it can be a detriment when one's pride is too invested in knowing a language. It can get in the way of true knowledge. I've seen it before from the self proclaimed "wise".

    I reported Zenn so he would be aware his presumption in such matters will not be overlooked. He "read into" your statement, just as he did Daqq's. Neither of you said anything negative about me, and he just twisted it to make himself look better.

    I was required to respond....for the sake of any future interactions with him.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Lon (January 16th, 2018),Tambora (January 17th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us