A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2012, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2012 06:01 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
"I am compared to Joseph Smith one of many prophets of the Mormon cult, yet, that it escapes you that I am not seeking to glorify myself, nor start a movement, but to glorify God and the furtherance of His will and plan...is humorous.Whether my doctrine is in line with that which scripture teaches can only be judged in light of the scripture themselves, a point that you do not seem to comprehend."

The gentleman fails again. I have not asserted that the similarity lies in the attempt at personal glorification. (First of all, both the gentleman and ole Joe, only make themselves look stupid, because they BOTH do not know about the original nature of the communal experience that Christianity was, because, instead of just doing "bible-study", thay have never studied history). The point was TOTALLY missed. It's NOT about personal glorification, but about an historical process, which is unknown to Joe, and the gentleman. The gentleman is working under a false assumption, that Christianity is even possible by a "personal" interpretation. As I tried to point out, that is a, historical fallacy. It's also somewhat ridiculous that a human could ever possibly add something, to that which is by definition infinite, and perfect, (ie "bring glory to a god"). The POINT was, the there IS no "interpretation" possible OTHER than personal interpretation. It's all just in your individual brain cells, AND any attempt to compare what your brain says is "doctrine" can never be proven, (in the single instance), and CAN be proven to be radically different in the historical context. Point missed. lol

The IS NO "BIBLICAL DOCTRINE". There are about 33,000 Christian sects in the cult, and all say they have the "truth". I could care less about the details of the comparison, (Smith with your view of what doctrine is). What invalidates it, is that YOU BOTH have arrived at your conclusions OUTSIDE of a Christian community. I can debate, (and will), the details, but YOU are not a Christian. Christianity comes in groups, "churches", and you say you don't care about the beliefs of others. You are not a Christian, by definition. You are a "maverick", a "lone ranger". THAT is precisecly what "Christians are not. Scripture does not read itself. It takes a human brain to write it, and read it. Jeebus, (supposedly) gave the keys to a "church". (oh, I forgot, .... lol). There is no one idealised "scripture" hanging out there in mid air. It's IN YOUR HEAD. It doesn't matter, in the end what's on the page. It can only get in there by your brain cells changing. You simply have never examined your assumptions. lol

"Can you quote me on "do it apart from it's historical context?" This is part of understanding scripture, to know the historical context. I am not aware that I have denied this vital aspect of study." lol

OK. Tell me, in it's historical context, first what it was, then why and how, Greek Gnosticism got grafted onto the forth Gospel, and why it is absent from the other three. lol

The revelatory process has been assumed to be complete at every point along the line. Christians today assume it is complete. Where was the end point, and why, exactly is that point determined to be so. lol

"You just don't understand: exegesis is a requirement for personal knowledge. In other words, it is not good enough for one to simply take on faith that those that teach him are correct." lol

Yeah, the usual, "you just don't understand" crap. If the exegesis is a requirement for the knowledge, then the revelation is refuted, and you just made my point. Thank you. Everything about "your doctrine", exists ONLY in YOUR head. There is no "ideal doctrine" sitting out there somewhere. lol

The data has not been changed. The understanding of the data has changed. Point missed again. lol

(02-06-2012 09:30 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  If we apply this to the scientific world, will you also say that the opposing views of scientists are all...correct?

Irrelevant and incorrect. There ARE opposing views. That's what science is all about. That's not what your supposed "revelation" is all about. That is not a problem for science. It IS a problem for religion. You god seems to be pretty ineffective with it's communication skills. Scientific debate is not a problem for science. It IS a problem for a cult that supposedly has the "revealed" truth. lol

"There is no single doctrine (a Doctrine) or there is, as a result of controversy."

Point missed again. lol The controversy implies there is no revelation, and no ONE truth. lol

The controvery continues. lol It aint't over yet. lol

If there is or was "revelation", then yes, controversy IS a problem. In science THAT the way it's done, by definition. It's not a problem in the slightest. You "say" you have the revealed truth. Why is it no one can agree on what it is ? lol

You lack of knowledge of history makes you think there is "harmony" in the revelatory process. In fact the was none. lol

The usual crap. "oh you have never read it", I challenge you to look at it". lol

I have. It's interesting, but in context, nothing special or different. lol

"for your own sake" ...same ole threat. Not interested in ancient paradigms. lol

If the words are mistranslated, saying "the New Testament is clear", is preposterous. Nothing is clear, if they mistranslated the words, and drove the bus over the cliff. lol

There is no Doctrine of Christ. There are many understandings of that, and it's why I originally jumped into this disaster. Jesus never claimed he was the "christ". You just don't know when and how that started. As I pointed out above, it was a political concept. Your cult changed it, and it developed. Even the Apostles did not know "who he was"

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?''

14. So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.''

15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?''

16. And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.''

17. Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

19. "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.''

Those words exist ONLY in one gospel. And if you are so ignorant as to not know how and why they got there, then I cannot help you. The fact is there was no such thing as a "church" at the time. They would not have known what he was talking about. The words, are "placed in his mouth" as a literary device. Do you know what that means, S.T. ? The fact that the author places those words in his mouth, despite the fact that at the time of Yeshua, a "son of god"/"son of man" was a general honorific, and not intnded as THE son of god, is a clue that the cult had moved it out from it's original context.

Can I go now? Bye. lol

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-06-2012, 10:37 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Frequently the cult members cite "prophesy" as a reason to support belief. Again here it's a mistaken modern view of what the function even was.

I wholeheartedly agree. You may have not noticed, but I gave the usage of the word prophet when I mentioned it.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A prophet was not a fortune teller.

Biblically speaking, a prophet was one that spoke to man for God. Concerning Christian doctrine, prophecy is a speaking forth, not necessarily just "speaking before."

In our efforts to interpret scripture we have to be aware of implicit as well as explicit teaching. For example, a general teaching would be that is wrong to murder, and was commanded explicitly by the Lord that man was not to do this, given in uncertain terms. However, God had behind the explicit command not just a "Well, if I don't murder my neighbor I am pleasing God," but instruction to have love for his neighbor. So while it was possible to "obey" the command of God by not committing the physical act of murder, this was not in fact obedience to that which God intended for the heart of man.

Hope that makes sense.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A prophet was a "mouthpiece", or one who, (supposedly), was chosen to "speak truth to power",

While I would agree this could well be said of the Prophets, I don't think we can seclude biblical usage to this narrow definition. I say this because I believe that the Lord had a broader application for prophecy, though the direct revelation did in many cases address those that governed. In view was the intent that all men would benefit from the revelation of God, not merely a means to correct those that governed.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  and usually confront the king, or political power OF THAT DAY,

This is very true. However, when we consider Israel as a Nation, the eventual goal was for a people that in truth knew, and followed God. Meaning, the Lord was not just concerned that the Kings were "following the rules," but that the entire nation understood the will of God, and might be able to proclaim Him to the world, both through the oracles of God committed to them, as well as in practical testimony.

Religion will institute a governing body that is not to be questioned. The oral tradition of the Jew is no different than the oral tradition of the Roman-Catholic, as well as many other sects.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  with a possible different path or understanding, or action.

I would have to disagree on this point based upon the fact that scripture does not present God as constantly changing that which He had previously revealed.

As I mentioned before, doctrine concerning Messiah as taught in the Old Testament harmonizes with the doctrine of the New. The will of God for Israel is no different in relation to the Abrahamic Covenant as it is in the First...or the New.

The Prophets may have tried to change the direction of those they spoke to, but the change was in their own actions (those they prophesied to and about), not in God or the revelation previously given.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thus the entire enterprise of establishing that "oh this proves that it's all true because he said it was going to happen", is an entirely misguided, and essentially non-biblical enterprise.

So we just eliminate prophecy as an element of biblical study, despite the internal witness of scripture itself? That is just a little too convenient, my friend.

This is like saying that we eliminate hunger from the scientific research that seeks to grow better, and faster, and in poor conditions.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  But as usual, with no real biblical educations, the "bible study" crowd doesn't even know what their own traditions are. All they know is the Hollywood version, they got in bible-study.

Which is it? Hollywood...or bible study? Or are these thought to be the same thing?

As far as what a "real biblical education" is, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how one goes about getting one, seeing that you hold interpretation as a work of futility, as I view study of The Lord of the Rings similarly.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  BTW, for anyone who wants references other than the ones provided for beginners, (the Wiki references), I'll be happy to provide some.

Now looking at the understanding of prophecy that you have just given, look at your own desire to provide information. Can you see the similarity and would you explain how you do not qualify as a prophet?

Because you limit the definition to those that speak to governing bodies (which no scholar would do), does not mean you can excuse yourself from qualifying. As far as speaking to governing bodies, would you also deny the impact that those that seek to further agendas have had upon our own government?

The EPA is a good example of how the prophets of science have affected the way we live. And while the science could be debated in certain areas, such as global warming for example, we still see the efforts of individuals that closely resemble familiar patterns of religion. I do not say this to upset you, simply to give my particular viewpoint, to be considered for what it is...my opinion. My conclusion from the study of scripture, man, past and current events.

(02-06-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The supposed insulting "wiki education" cracks, in context of assertions by the gentleman that "you don't know me", are hilarious.

It is regretful when I have to expose my facetious nature, but, sometimes it comes in handy. It almost always results in bringing a more focused nature to a conversation.

Hey...I get to have a little fun to, don't I?

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 10:43 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 08:06 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Ah. So ST is a drug addict. And now God is his drug of choice. Thumbsup

So you embrace the teaching of AA as true: once an addict, always an addict?
If I were half as faithful to God and exerted half of the energy I did in securing drugs...well, that would be something.
I did enjoy the cat with the light sabre coming out of his mouth. I guess that is a jedah warrior?
lol
Just a joke...okay?
GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 10:55 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 10:43 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(02-06-2012 08:06 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Ah. So ST is a drug addict. And now God is his drug of choice. Thumbsup

So you embrace the teaching of AA as true: once an addict, always an addict?
If I were half as faithful to God and exerted half of the energy I did in securing drugs...well, that would be something.
I did enjoy the cat with the light sabre coming out of his mouth. I guess that is a jedah warrior?
lol
Just a joke...okay?
GTY
No. Rather the science which indicates that there is a genetic/biological predisposition for addiction.

And it was a segue into talking a bunch of smack about how my Gwynnies is greater than your god, cause I got over my shit without "medical supervision." Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 12:06 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "I am compared to Joseph Smith one of many prophets of the Mormon cult, yet, that it escapes you that I am not seeking to glorify myself, nor start a movement, but to glorify God and the furtherance of His will and plan...is humorous.Whether my doctrine is in line with that which scripture teaches can only be judged in light of the scripture themselves, a point that you do not seem to comprehend."

The gentleman fails again. I have not asserted that the similarity lies in the attemt at personal glorification.

Okay, let me put it another way, that night be more understandable: I am not advocating a "new" doctrine that "has been lost for centuries."

Smith claimed new revelation. I do not make that claim, though it is is not only denied, but alluded to. For, if in fact my doctrine does not correspond to that found in scripture...then it is "new."

As to whether Smith sought glory or not, I guess the historical record would have to be interpreted as to whether this is true or not. Now, should we pursue that, who would you believe first, secular or Mormon historians?

Going a bit further, I would ask "Can we expect a truthful account or interpretation from those that stand to lose, should Mr. Smith be cast in a bad light." Would we trust that they would have the integrity to speak the truth, even if the historical account would bring their doctrine into question?

We have but to look at the integrity of their "new revelation" itself to find our answer, which would be, no, because it is a common trait for them to change their doctrinal positions when it is convenient for them, or when they can no longer sustain a current position.

Taking that just a wee bit further, if you don't minid, apply that same principle to those that engage in the question of whether the history of scripture is reliable or not. Can we trust both sides to have integrity, and to speak the truth...even when it hurts their position. The fact that scripture never tries to paint over the errors of those in view, despite the fact that it would be more convincing to the average reader is for me, an indication of it's veracity. But that's just me.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  (First of all, both the gentleman and ole Joe, only make themselves look stupid, because they BOTH do not know about the original nature of the communal experience that Christianity was, because, instead of just doing "bible-study", thay have never studied history.

And a continuance of proclaiming omniscience...lol.

At the very least consider how insane it seems to say "You cannot know anything about scripture...by studying it."

This is like saying you can never know anything about Star Wars by watching the movies.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The point was TOTALLY missed.

I agree.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's NOT about personal glorification, but about a historical process, which is unknown to Joe, and the gentleman. The gentleman is working under a false assumption, that Christianity is even possible by a "personal" interpretation.

Actually, "Joe" was not the originator of the distinctive doctrines of Mormon Theology, at least, concerning scripture. One aspect would be the pluralistic nature of their theology, which allowed him free reign to concoct heresy.

And there is no question that Christianity is possible by "private interpretation," as it is given in such a way that a man might read it and come to right conclusions as to what God would have him know. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And keep in mind that biblically, "hearing" is not just a matter of audible recognition. Similarly, if a parent thought a child had actually heard them, they would not angrily say..."Did you hear me?"

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As I tried to point out, that is a, historical fallacy. It's also somewhat ridiculous that a human could ever possibly add something, to that which is by definition infinite, (ie "bring glory to a god").

It is written.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The POINT was, the there IS no "interpretation" possible
OTHER than personal interpretation.

No true scholar would make such a statement, this is simply an unscientific assertion.

In fact, we would not have scholars on the subject if this were true.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's all just in your individual brain cells, AND any attempt to compare what your brain says is "doctrine" can never be proven, (in the single instance), and CAN be proven to be radically different in the historical context. Point missed. lol

Again, I agree: the point has completely gone unnoticed.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The IS NO BIBLICAL DOCTRINE. There are about 33,000 Christian sects in the cult, and all say they have the "truth". I could care less about the details of the comparison, (Smith with your view of what doctrine is). What invalidates it, is thet YOU BOTH have arrived at your conclusions OUTSIDE of a Christian community.

Just as with the evidence of the manuscripts we have available to us today, each is individually examined and compared to the others.

And again, you have no data as to my interaction in a Christian Community, nor where we are in agreement or disagreement. This is a hollow statement.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I can debate, (and will), the details, but YOU are not a Christian.

And again, I would simply ask: on what do you base this judgment?

You have shown an incredible lack of knowledge concerning scripture, much less the Doctrine of scripture, having only the repeated appeal to secular history and its teachings. You can recognize false history when it is presented by a false prophet, yet, embrace the accumulation of history which, conveniently, verifies that which you choose to believe.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Christianity comes in groups, "churches", and you say you don't care about the beliefs of others.

Again, a common misconception: Christianity is not dependant upon organized "religion." Shall a man be found outside of Christ because there are not "two or three gathered?"

A believer is, according to scripture, a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. it does not teach, as most who are unfamiliar with scripture think, that the Church is some building on the corner. The Church can be found across the world, gathered together as well as individually. Consider the missionaries that have traveled to lands where there were no Christians, because there was no Bible. When they arrived, did they cease to be Christians because they were alone?

And it should seem apparent that I care about the beliefs of other believers. You are making "care" and "embrace," or at least, validate the beliefs of...synonymous.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You are not a Christian, by definition. You are a "maverick", a "lone ranger".

A better term would be "rogue," it just sounds better.

As to whether I am one or not, that can only be determined when the necessary data is examined. You assume too much to imply that you have that data, or that you have the necessary information to come to such a conclusion. Just an unscientific approach, if you ask me.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  THAT is precisecly what "Christians are not.

And this I would agree with. When we see a "Christian" holding hands with the world, decrying all others, we can certainly declare this person to be rogue, a counterfeit that has a personal agenda, whether it be fulfilling the activities of the spirit of antichrist which is within him, for monetary gain, or perhaps for simple vainglory.

That person has his reward.

Continues...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2012 12:52 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 12:06 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Continues...


I could have sworn he said he didn't care about the beliefs of other Christians. lol

I thought I just put in a quarter. Please, someone unplug the monster. lol

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 01:12 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Scripture does not read itself. It takes a human brain to write it, and read it.

Not according to scripture. While God employed men in the record of scripture, and within scripture are accounts which record events and thoughts of men, we trust that God Himself orchestrated the the record of scripture.



(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Jeebus, (supposedly) gave the keys to a "church". (oh, I forgot, .... lol). There is no one idealised "scripture" hanging out there in mid air.

Yes, this is an interesting point you seek to make. And this is appreciated, as it begins to look at scripture itself.


(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's IN YOUR HEAD.

It is in my heart. Care to talk of the philosophical acceptation of this concept in history?

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It doesn't matter, in the end what's on the page. It can only get in there by your brain cells changing. You simply have never examined your assumptions. lol

So we all determine truth for ourselves. I am one that is certainly glad this is true, because I appreciate the fact that people recognize concrete truths, like stopping at stop signs.

Not only have I examined my own assumptions, but now...I get to examine yours.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Can you quote me on "do it apart from it's historical context?" This is part of understanding scripture, to know the historical context. I am not aware that I have denied this vital aspect of study." lol

OK. Tell me, in it's historical context, first what it was, then why and how, Greek Gnosticism got grafted onto the forth Gospel, and why it is absent from the other three. lol

As in the case of the New Covenant, which is taught by some that it is an invention of Paul, the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ is found in the Old Testament. Now let me ask you, would it be more acceptable for me to say, "Read this book concerning the deity of Christ in the Old Testament, it is written by a Jewish Scholar," or to simply say, "Let's see what scripture has to say about it?"

It is my guess (and yes that is an admission of an assumption) that both would be rejected, because...you already have an author or authors of a book you do believe. And if pressed hard enough, or, if the issue disturbs you enough...you will search until you find one.


(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The revelatory process has been assumed to be complete at every point along the line. Christians today assume it is complete. Where was the end point, and why, exactly is that point determined to be so. lol

Honestly, I don't know where you get this stuff.

It may be true some Christians see the revelatory process as complete, but this is not my particular view. In fact, Revelation, generally accepted as the last book of the Bible to be penned (except by those who for one doctrine or another pushes an earlier date), makes it clear that while for now there is to be no further revelation, knowledge of God and many aspects of that which occur is limited.

This is why many spurious books cropped up...because the individual was disatisfied with that which the Lord saw fit to give us.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "You just don't understand: exegesis is a requirement for personal knowledge. In other words, it is not good enough for one to simply take on faith that those that teach him are correct." lol

Yeah, the usual, "you just don't understand" crap.

How could I charge you with not understanding? You would have to have at least a working knowledge of the subject to "not understand."

As it is, you have so far only refused to present anything from scripture itself. Which is why I am pleased that you have done so in this post. Thanks.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If the exegesis is a requirement for the knowledge, then the revelation is refuted, and you just made my point. Thank you.

Why would this be thought to be a reasonable statement?

First, it is so vague I hesitate to comment, as whatever tact I take will probably be met with "You missed the point, what I was talking about was..."


I will just say that you are still confusing the study of ancient literature with the creation of it. Or...the distortion of it. Most of which has been carefully studied by sincere scholars, believing and unbelieving, that because of their love of truth which is not a trait uncommon for those with a scientific bent, who would treat this subject no different than they would the study of disease.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Everything about "your doctrine", exists ONLY in YOUR head. There is no "ideal doctrine" sitting out there somewhere. lol

If it makes you feel better to think that, this is your right.

However, the fact that people can study scripture and come to the same conclusions would deny this statement of dismissal. I am charged with this mentality, but the record would show otherwise for the discerning.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The data has not been changed. The understanding of the data has changed. Point missed again. lol

Well, make up your mind. Either the data has, or hasn't. You have said both. Are you now saying that we can, in fact, rely on the belief that God has preserved His word over the millennia? Then progress has been made.

And while it is true there are a multitudes of "understanding," both now and historically, as you say the data has not changed, so we must examine those understandings in order to determine sound doctrine and false.

That is how it is done.


(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-06-2012 09:30 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  If we apply this to the scientific world, will you also say that the opposing views of scientists are all...correct?

Irrelevant and incorrect. There ARE opposing views. That's what science is all about. That's not what your supposed "revelation" is all about.

Yet you seek to divorce the study of ancient documents as unscientific. Are high school students not engaging in science because they are just beginning? Are the conclusions they reach as they perform experiments in the school lab disqualifed from being termed scientific ort valid?

You seek to cloud the point that is made here, but I think at heart you are forced to admit to yourself that...it is a valid point, and it is relevant to the discussion.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That is not a problem for science. It IS a problem for religion. You god seems to be pretty ineffective with it's communication skills. Scientific debate is not a problem for science. It IS a problem for a cult that supposedly has the "revealed" truth. lol

Another misconception. The layman can, as well as the scholar, come to a right understanding of God's word. It is a promise of God to the hearer. There are no requirements, no entrance exam, merely the desire for truth.


(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "There is no single doctrine (a Doctrine) or there is, as a result of controversy."

Point missed again. lol The controversy implies there is no revelation, and no ONE truth. lol

So the controversies that have been a continual aspect of science proves there are no indisputable scientific facts?


The point is missed, I just do not think it is I that is missing it. But...that is just my ego peaking through, right?

The fact that there are controversies surrounding Biblical Doctrine only reveals man's unwilling attitude concerning the word of God. It is really not a complicated book that was given to confuse. Why would God reveal His will and then hide it at the same time? That is a contradiction...lol.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The controvery continues. lol It aint't over yet. lol

And with this I agree wholeheartedly.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If there is or was "revelation", then yes, controversy IS a problem. In science THAT the way it's done, by definition. It's not a problem in the slightest. You "say" you have the revealed truth. Why is it no one can agree on what it is ? lol

Familiarity with the condition of man as taught in scripture reveals the source of doctrinal division.

And I say "I study the revelation God has given," and do not claim that I am not in error on anything. As far as agreement, there are many that are in agreement in what we could call primary doctrine, yet differ in secondary issues. Take Charismatic doctrine, and the distinctive of "tongues" in scripture being ecstatic speech. Who is right? The best way to know is to examine tongues in scripture, keeping intact historical, grammatical, and contextual elements. When that is done, a conclusion, a scientific conclusion...can be drawn, and one can determine which group he will agree with.

Another would be the memorial of Christ's death, Communion. Some believe in transubstantiation, some do not. How do we determine who is right? Apply the same process.



(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You lack of knowledge of history makes you think there is "harmony" in the revelatory process. In fact the was none. lol

Is it thought that adherence to a particular historian will impress? Would you, if I posted historical data (and properly theory), then consider me to be engaging in rational discussion? I am not opposed to history, but this is a different topic from the examination of scripture. We use historical data as we interpret, but we do not abandon all other aspects involved. And this is what it seems to me that is done in many cases: well, history teaches that Paul invented the concept of the New Covenant, and introduced gnosticism to Christian belief, thus creating a separate faith.

Both of these can be disproven by an examination of scripture itself.

If I said that Darth Vader did not die (and if there is a different story you prefer for my analogies, let me know), but in fact lived and went on to be King of Naboo, you could say, "Just isn't in there, sorry."


(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The usual crap. "oh you have never read it", I challenge you to look at it". lol

I have. It's interesting, but in context, nothing special or different. lol

It is one thing to read, another to study. And another to compare scripture with scripture. The accusation is made that scripture contradicts itself concerning redemption, for instance. However, when comparing scripture with scripture, doctrine with doctrine, one will see that the same plan of redemption was first given to man in the Garden, and carries through without contradiction.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "for your own sake" ...same ole threat. Not interested in ancient paradigms. lol

It's not a threat, really. I would aslo say that an issue like global warming should be pursued in detail. Not meant to be offensive, just a friendly exhortation.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If the words are mistranslated, saying "the New Testament is clear", is preposterous. Nothing is clear, if they mistranslated the words, and drove the bus over the cliff. lol

Not sure why it is thought that many have mistranslated the New Testament. There are quite a few translations, but only one stands alone as being mistranslated to the point where primary doctrine is atually changed. That is the New World Translation.

The KJVonly controversy is a worthy study for those that are interested in translations. As is my usual advice to the potential student, our study does not stop at a translation. If a translation (whether in part or in entirety, this latter not really a serious consideration) is in question, you do not work backward to conform the original language to the translation, but examine the translation in light of the available manuscripts available. It is a scientific process and those that violate basic principles of this process are usually denounced by those that treat this matter with the respect it deserves, as was the case (and still is) concerning the New World Translation.

You may find the preface to the KJV 1611 to be very interesting. The translators, in my opinion, display an excellent standard of scholarship (in their statements) and humility concerning an issue that is thought to have originated with the KJVonly controversy. A reading of that will, I think, give those that are on both sides something to think about. And hopefully, it will give insight to the history of translations. It will, I think, surprise many to read what is in there.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no Doctrine of Christ.

Then there is no doctrine of light.

No pun intended.

How about...then there is no doctrine of gravity...lol.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There are many understandings of that, and it's why I originally jumped into this disaster.

Personally, I have thought it to be a great discussion.



(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Jesus never claimed he was the "christ".

He did, actually, and we can look at many places in the Gospels where he does this. Just off the top of my head, consider this passage:


John 10:24-26

King James Version (KJV)

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.



Does a simple read of this not show that He did in fact confirm that He was the Messiah?

Messianic prophecy taught that He would be a Shepherd. The terminology inlight of prophecy and cultural understanding would be clear to the Jew.

Continued...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 01:13 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 12:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-06-2012 12:06 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Continues...


I could have sworn he said he didn't care about the beliefs of other Christians. lol

I thought I just put in a quarter. Please, someone unplug the monster. lol
Well, you know how robotic we "religious people" can be...lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2012, 01:49 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 01:13 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(02-06-2012 12:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I could have sworn he said he didn't care about the beliefs of other Christians. lol

I thought I just put in a quarter. Please, someone unplug the monster. lol
Well, you know how robotic we "religious people" can be...lol.



pssssst.... (this is ONLY a nickel, mind you)...

It's called the "Theory of Gravity", and when and if it needs to be changed, because of EVIDENCE, it will be adjusted, altered or dumped. It could very well be, that it encompasses far more than we now understand. Saying "we don't know yet" is not a problem. It IS for those who say thay are the recipient of THE truth. lol

"Not according to scripture. While God employed men in the record of scripture, and within scripture are accounts which record events and thoughts of men, we trust that God Himself orchestrated the the record of scripture."

a. I said scripture does not READ itself. I know the gentleman claims, (without any evidence), that somehow an invisible guy helped them to write it, (and never bothered to answer "where along the way in the process, it "helped", or why the voting was non-unanimous). The subject was just changed, yet again, to attempt deflection. The gentleman said it did not WRITE itself. The "cognitive" question, was avoided, not so deftly. SO you are claiming that everytime someone READS scripture your god interfers withe the atoms in the brains. If THAT is correct, why have Christian Neurologists not attempted to prove it by PET scan, or MRI technology ? lol

b. Once again, we do not give a tinker's damn what the bible says. Quoting the Babble to prove the Babble is circular. Apparently the gentlman needs a Logic course, along with the many others. lol

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-06-2012, 01:59 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You just know when and how that started. As I pointed out above, it was a political concept. Your cult changed it, and it developed.

I am pretty sure I agreed, at least in part that the Jewish concept of Messiah was very much a "political" view.

Acts 1 gives great insight to the understanding of the disciples before Pentecost. Same disciples, same experience, yet, it was not until the coming of the Comforter that we see an understanding according to the teaching of the Old Testament, and the teaching of Christ. Nothing changed concerning His doctrine.

What did change, as you astutely pointed out earlier...was their perception.

You see this in a later historical timeframe, but I suggest to you that the primary factor in the understanding of the disciples was the fulfillment of the coming of the Comforter. Who was promised by Christ, and mentioned in the Old Testament as well.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Even the Apostles did not know "who he was"

And I would agree with that wholeheartedly. After three years of teaching under Christ, they still looked for that "political Messiah," having not understood explicit statement by Christ Himself that He came to die for the sins of man.

Even John the Baptist, after being incarcerated, sent his disciples to inquire of Christ whether He was the Christ, or did they await another.

Now while this seems insignificant, remember that John had declared...



John 1:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.



So why would a man that declares exactly what Christ Himself said He had come to do...send his disciples to inquire if Christ was He Who they awaited? Both passages verify that the Doctrine of Messiah was a well known doctrine, and the fact that they did not understand it does not change the fact that it was...a basic principle of the oracles of God.



(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?''

14. So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.''

15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?''

16. And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.''

17. Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

19. "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.''

Those words exist ONLY in one gospel.

Could you provide a link to support this? I would like to know the source of this statement.

I cannot find anything that calls this passage in question. I even looked at some Catholic resources, that would surely be interested in the validity of this passage.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And if you are so ignorant as to not know how and why they got there, then I cannot help you.

Cannot...or will not? There is a differnece, that being the motivation behind the discussion.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact is there was no such thing as a "church" at the time.

Understanding the use of the word in it's ancient employment, rather than the general, mostly misconceived, modern use may help:



Acts 7:38

King James Version (KJV)

38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:


That this term predate the advent of Messiah can be seen here.


(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They would not have known what he was talking about.

If this were true...they would not have killed Stephen.

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The words, are "placed in his mouth" as a literary device.

And you base this upon...?

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Do you know what that means, S.T. ? The fact that the author places those words in his mouth, despite the fact that at the time of Yeshua, a "son of son" was a general honorific, and not intnded as THE son of god, is a clue that the cult had moved it out from it's original context.

So now, all of a sudden, context is important? lol

(02-06-2012 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Can I go now? Bye. lol

It's time I called it a day as well.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: