Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
Nice of you to tell me what I already know :)
:)
Who are we to boast of anything we did/do or anything our church body did/does? If God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare us either. Us "gentiles" did not seek God, yet we have a full share in the riches of Abraham. We do not give life to the tree but we draw life from the tree which receives its life source from the taproot, which is Jewish. Let's not even deceive ourselves by offering a replacement theology as an excuse as Paul's words in Romans 11:1 and 11 demolishes such theology.
Sorry to go off topic but when reading your post this simply crossed my mind.
Very well put....thank you for your response.
If you are refering to the smearing tactic that you employ typical of our leftist brethren, then you are quite right.
No smearing. Your attitude is obvious. Consider yourself exposed.
The statement/question was:
But it would be pointless for us to argue: "It says what I say it says; no it says what I say it says.." Whom/what will be our final authority to determine which of us is correct?
And your answer is:
the Scriptures themselves
So, our final authority on the meaning of the scripture is: the scripture says what it says I say it says. You have only re-framed the question, unanswered.
Which of course, logically begs the illogical question: Huh?
To illustrate by rephrasing with your reply included:
It would be pointless for us to argue: "the scripture says it says what I say it says; no it says it says what I say it says."
So, my question remains:
Who/what shall be the final authority to determine which of us is correct?
Please tell me you see the logical fallacy and self-referential loop involved here.
They're not all that hard to understand, really.
I think not. But still we disagree on what it all means. If they were not all that hard to understand, why then would intelligent learned men disagree? And, if you're right, what would you and I have to debate? Your point falls on its face.
One or both of the two is unaware of one or more passages which either prove the point, or reconcile the two positions (I see this a lot in the predestination debates)…
Oh yes, been there, done that. So you have dueling verses. The Calvinist/Arminian debate shows you can proof text to your heart's content. And both sides are right, both have a fine case based on the scripture they chose. Depending on the judge. That you can build a legal case using scripture for your position is not unique. I've even seen fine cases built on scripture that Jesus was not claiming to be divine.
At some point, authority comes in and decides. I know you are your authority, or you believe your case has the most legal merit.
But I can read all that from your website; and you can read all my responses from any number or Catholic apoligetic websites. And what have we accomplished?
If you wish, I will grant you: You have a fine legal argument from scripture that Christians should be observant Jews.
And then what? Do we then progress to an argument on sola scriptura? Or a debate on whether Christianity and Judaism should have split? To what end, friend?
On what basis do we discuss our chosen church?
Merely shows that God has a use for Evengelicals to take His loved ones one step closer to their home in His church; and, that heresy is also part of His plan.
{^_^}
We'd all be pre-pagan. I certainly wasn't saying that's ALL that matters. But it does matter. It would be suspect in a religion for someone to come along 2,000 after the founding and claim the previous millenia of believers and doctrine were moot. But age will not be an issue, no:
"I want you to know that I will not make age an issue. I am not going to exploit, for religious purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."
Nope, just a monotheist who believes that the Bible teaches that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God.
Funny how all y'all still chose to interpret scripture based on faulty inference while ignoring the extremely clear texts.
You can call me an arian, heretic, or anything you like, it doesn't change the fact that you are rejecting God's word.
Consider yourself a liar.
Er -- yeah it does, sporto. :-) false·hood An untrue statement; a lie. mis·un·der·stand·ing A failure to understand or interpret correctly.
The definition I was operating with is "absense of truth or accuracy"........ Which is also acceptable.
No thanx.
The equivalent would be writing a letter from "Atlantis". Babylon was already destroyed. Why can't you accept this?
Jesus appearing to all of his disciples for the 3rd time since the resurrection and says to Peter after the meal: Feed my Lambs(verse 15); Take care of my sheep(verse 16); Feed my sheep(verse 17). These are not Gentile sheep.
"Sheep" are designated in three variations: Rams, ewes, and lambs. Just as humans are designated in three variations: Men, women, and children. Feeding "my sheep" implies the entire flock, not just the lambs ("the little ones" Jesus refers to in the Gospels). Why aren't Gentiles included?
Matthew 10:5; [These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the "Lost Sheep of Israel".]
What about the Samaritan woman Jesus approached at the well?
Again....why would it be necessary for the Lord to designate Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles if it was O.K. for the twelve to handle that chore? As you can see by plain scripture....that was not their commission.
If this be the case, then no one but the twelve (plus Paul) are called to evangelize. Thus, there should be no evangelization in the world since it was limited to exactly what Jesus said, according to your methodology.
BTW, I don't see "Diego1618" commissioned to evangelize on the Internet, anywhere in the Bible.
Thessalonica was in Macedonia. Also a Gentile city. So Gentile, in fact, Paul and Timothy were prohibited from preaching to the Gentiles there. Well to whom then did they preach? The "circumcised". In the synagogue there.
You requested chapter and verse?
Acts 17:1-4
"1 And when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
2 And Paul, according to his custom, went in unto them; and for three sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the scriptures:
Why was this Paul's custom if his strict orders were to evengelize only the gentiles?
3 Declaring and insinuating that the Christ was to suffer, and to rise again from the dead; and that this is Jesus Christ, whom I preach to you.
4 And some of them believed, and were associated to Paul and Silas; and of those that served God, and of the Gentiles a great multitude, and of noble women not a few. "
1 Thessalonians 2:16
"Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved"
So we know he preached to the Jews, and was not allowed to preach to the Gentiles.
(But wait, there's more)
What about Acts 17:10, where Paul preaches to the Jews at Berea?
"But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews."
Sounds like Paul couldn't "quit" them, could he? Given your methodology, Paul was overtly disobedient to Christ in preaching to the Jews when he was supposedly betrothed to the Gentiles. Do you really think that's the case, or are you perhaps interpreting Scripture much too narrowly?
However, I do find it incredibly ironic that in Revelation, fundamentalists are quick to label "Babylon" as Rome, but in the first letter of Peter, IT MUST MEAN THE REAL BABYLON! lol
Correct, but not the first accepted definition. Your use of the word "falsehood", as can be ascertained by your posts, infers a will to deceive. There's no will to deceive, just a blatant misunderstanding on my part which I'm willing to admit. The first accepted definition of "misunderstanding" is appropriate here. The choice of "falsehood" is accusatory. The choice of "misunderstanding" is corrective. Vive la difference!
Doesn't matter if its the first. The second one is also acceptable.
There's no will to deceive, just a blatant misunderstanding on my part which I'm willing to admit. The first accepted definition of "misunderstanding" is appropriate here. The choice of "falsehood" is accusatory.
I never thoght you were lying in the first place. So now if you'll refrain from judging my motives we'll be even. But if you can't bring yourself to do that its no skin of my teeth.
Even.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.