Fidel Castro is dead!

[FSSL]

Since Jesus did not write down his words... then you are STILL left trusting men.

Genuine faith accepts God's words on the basis that they are authoritative, even when God used men to write them.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Since Jesus did not write down his words... then you are STILL left trusting men.

Genuine faith accepts God's words on the basis that they are authoritative, even when God used men to write them.

I agree.

My point is clear: we both trust men in the process; we just trust a different amount of material as being authoritative and what would be defined as being "God's words".

 

[Jim Jones]

Since Jesus did not write down his words... then you are STILL left trusting men.

Genuine faith accepts God's words on the basis that they are authoritative, even when God used men to write them.

I agree.

My point is clear: we both trust men in the process; we just trust a different amount of material as being authoritative and what would be defined as being "God's words".

Does your "amount of material" come from the advice of particular men you've encountered?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Because every single Greek word has an English equivalent....
Said no actual scholar, ever!

earnestly contend

Exactly. This means the entire doctrine of the inspiration of the 66 books is based on, not the actual text itself, rather based on the hermeneutical opinion of the translators, who in effect by "filling in the blanks" with two single letters ("is"), created a new "inspired" doctrine. An entire "inspired" doctrine based on 2-letters put in because of the opinion of translators! This would mean the translators were just as "inspired" as the original penmen.

Seems like Joseph Smith didn't have the market on claiming to produce "inspired writ".

 

[prophet]

Because every single Greek word has an English equivalent....
Said no actual scholar, ever!

earnestly contend

Exactly. This means the entire doctrine of the inspiration of the 66 books is based on, not the actual text itself, rather based on the hermeneutical opinion of the translators, who in effect by "filling in the blanks" with two single letters ("is"), created a new "inspired" doctrine. An entire "inspired" doctrine based on 2-letters put in because of the opinion of translators! This would mean the translators were just as "inspired" as the original penmen.

Seems like Joseph Smith didn't have the market on claiming to produce "inspired writ".

This post makes assumptions that are nonsensical.

Any translator must do the same, any time they translate.

For instance: The subject/verb order in Romance languages is the reverse of English.
The Romance languages have gender built in to the words.
To translate to English, from Spanish, French, etc, one must add adjectives, reverse the Subject/Predicate order, and decide if gender is necessary for the sentence.

A true scholar understands this.

The wolves of the last 2 centuries have spent the time undoing the Reformation, and convincing the common man that he can't possibly understand the translation process.

But we can and do understand it.

The Scriptures come with a Guide.
The Author moves in to the regenerated reader.
The Author is the Scriptures.
The Scriptures are alive, and read the reader as well, diagnosing his need, and guiding him to the answers.

I refuse to go under the Nicolaitan system, where only a certain class of people can properly understand the Scriptures.

I refuse to buy the modern translative lies.

Carry on in darkness, if you will, but I am in the Light.

earnestly contend

 

[Smellin Coffee]

This post makes assumptions that are nonsensical.

Any translator must do the same, any time they translate.

For instance: The subject/verb order in Romance languages is the reverse of English.
The Romance languages have gender built in to the words.
To translate to English, from Spanish, French, etc, one must add adjectives, reverse the Subject/Predicate order, and decide if gender is necessary for the sentence.

A true scholar understands this.

The wolves of the last 2 centuries have spent the time undoing the Reformation, and convincing the common man that he can't possibly understand the translation process.

And the verse can be translated without the word that wasn't in the original (like the ASV 1901 did). The translators changed the entire context and an entire doctrine was build on a two-letter, man-injected word. Without other biblical support for the doctrine of inspiration (and NOWHERE does biblical inspiration ever teach it is solely the 66-book canon), the doctrine of inspiration is nothing but a house of cards, relying on admitted hermeneutics of translators and not even in the original biblical text.

The Scriptures come with a Guide.
The Author moves in to the regenerated reader.

I actually agree. The point of disagreement is how the word "Scriptures" is viewed.

The Author is the Scriptures.

Bibliolatry at it's finest.

The Scriptures are alive, and read the reader as well, diagnosing his need, and guiding him to the answers.

Again, I agree and the red letters identify how the follower of Christ should live.

I refuse to go under the Nicolaitan system, where only a certain class of people can properly understand the Scriptures.

So even gay Christians can understand.

I refuse to by the modern translative lies.

In view of history, the KJV 1611 is modern. Despite the point, you still support the translative product of man's hermeneutical opinion, injected into the English translation.

Carry on in darkness, if you will, but I am in the Light.

Even Paul taught the enemy disguises himself as an "angel of light" so make sure the light you bask in is the true Light. How do you know which is which? Read and live the red letters, my friend. They are recorded testimony of the Light Himself (IMHO).

 

[FSSL]

Since Jesus did not write down his words... then you are STILL left trusting men.

Genuine faith accepts God's words on the basis that they are authoritative, even when God used men to write them.

I agree.

My point is clear: we both trust men in the process; we just trust a different amount of material as being authoritative and what would be defined as being "God's words".

Before you agree with me, realize that Jesus' words are God's words and John's words are God's words, too. Just as much and with the exact same authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Since Jesus did not write down his words... then you are STILL left trusting men.

Genuine faith accepts God's words on the basis that they are authoritative, even when God used men to write them.

I agree.

My point is clear: we both trust men in the process; we just trust a different amount of material as being authoritative and what would be defined as being "God's words".

Before you agree with me, realize that Jesus' words are God's words and John's words are God's words, too. Just as much and with the exact same authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jesus made the claim His words are God's words. John, by recording Jesus' statement in John 12:49 & John 14:10, also claims Jesus' words are God's words and never claims his (John's) own words are.

So it seems to me there is no power struggle between the authority of John vs. the authority of Jesus. Besides, I think Jesus had something to say about John's authoritative equality with Himself. (Mark 10:35-45, Matthew 20:20-23).

 

[FSSL]

You are mixing two different issues. Please stick with the writings of Scripture. I would never imply that John was equal to God. I AM saying that John's WRITINGS are equal to Gods WORDS.

John recorded Jesus, saying: "If he called them ?gods,? to whom the word of God came?and Scripture cannot be set aside?36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?i (Jn 10:35?36.)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

My problem with Smellin isn't so much his personal canon of positive reinforcement but the fact that he denies the blood atonement of Christ! After that, there's not much left worth arguing about.
Is it just me or is that 'close' to heretical?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You are mixing two different issues. Please stick with the writings of Scripture. I would never imply that John was equal to God. I AM saying that John's WRITINGS are equal to Gods WORDS.

And your last sentence says it all. I believe the recorded words of Jesus are the source of life, not another penman/writer/apostle (Matthew 23:8-9). The disciples (and His followers, by proxy given in the Great Commission) were not to consider anyone else their teacher. So any new revelation apart from His teaching would be for the individual, not for teaching purposes. The Apostles (messengers) were set up to carry His earthly messages, not new revelation. So no, I don't buy that John's writings apart from his recorded red letters (and yes, I know they aren't 'word-for-word') are as authoritative as God's words through Jesus. Jesus is the single conduit between God and man and we are fortunate enough a few men recorded what He taught them and others.

John recorded Jesus, saying: "If he called them ?gods,? to whom the word of God came?and Scripture cannot be set aside?36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?i (Jn 10:35?36.)

So Jesus was referring to writings that had yet to exist? Or was He referring to an already established set of writings?

Of course Jesus had a high view of the true Scripture of that day. He came to fulfill the true Scripture because it had become interpolated.

Still, the recorded Scriptures aren't even as authoritative as Jesus' teaching.

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

It is through the red letters we filter out what is true Scripture and what isn't.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

My problem with Smellin isn't so much his personal canon of positive reinforcement but the fact that he denies the blood atonement of Christ! After that, there's not much left worth arguing about.
Is it just me or is that 'close' to heretical?

Still waiting on Jesus to teach the salvific nature of the atonement.

Oh wait, He did:

But go and learn what this means; 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

My problem with Smellin isn't so much his personal canon of positive reinforcement but the fact that he denies the blood atonement of Christ! After that, there's not much left worth arguing about.
Is it just me or is that 'close' to heretical?

I guess apostate, as opposed to heretical, would be technically correct.
Tomato, tomaaaato.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

My problem with Smellin isn't so much his personal canon of positive reinforcement but the fact that he denies the blood atonement of Christ! After that, there's not much left worth arguing about.
Is it just me or is that 'close' to heretical?

I guess apostate, as opposed to heretical, would be technically correct.
Tomato, tomaaaato.

LOL! So to trust and follow Jesus' teaching makes one an apostate! Count me in!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

My problem with Smellin isn't so much his personal canon of positive reinforcement but the fact that he denies the blood atonement of Christ! After that, there's not much left worth arguing about.
Is it just me or is that 'close' to heretical?

I guess apostate, as opposed to heretical, would be technically correct.
Tomato, tomaaaato.

LOL! So to trust and follow Jesus' teaching makes one an apostate! Count me in!

I have already done so...