Transgender boy wins girls state wrestling title

[Smellin Coffee]

The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture, that's why we don't also.

They don't accept the New Testament, so why do you?

Becauuuuuuuse Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. This is funny because you repeatedly accuse us of picking and choosing.

Your argument is what the Jews accepted is canon. They don't accept the NT even though Jesus fulfilled the Torah. Your argument still doesn't account for the New Testament. If anything, your argument says there is no need for further inspiration since all had been fulfilled. Besides, "the Law" was not the same as "the Torah", meaning Jesus is the fulfillment of the first 5 books of the Torah. So why are the other books of the Torah acceptable but other works (like the Apocrypha) are not acceptable? Remember, the Book of Wisdom arguably contains prophecies Jesus fulfilled also.

Again, where do you see that I am not admitting to picking and choosing? WE ALL DO IT. I choose to admit reading the Bible through a bias. Why won't you?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Perhaps you think you do, but I thought you believed in context. Paul was NOT talking about any New Testament writings, so you "believe" that passage out of its context.

You reiterate a common misconception. There were a few NT books existing in his day. In fact, Paul quoted Luke and referred to his writings as Scripture (cf 1 Tim 5.18 with Lk 10.7).

The first part of I Timothy 5:18 goes back to Deuteronomy 25:4. The second part refers back to Leviticus 19:13. Remember, Paul traveled with Luke so Luke's Gospel could easily have some Pauline influence. It reasons that both Luke AND Paul were referencing Leviticus.

Paul even knew that what he wrote, himself, was Scripture ( 1 Corinthians 14:37?-38).

In the same book, chapter 7, Paul clearly says at least one, the teaching came from him and "not the Lord". Not that big of a deal with me, but the point being Paul wrote some things he believed from God and some that didn't. He diluted the waters here.

Paul assigned authority to his own words AND Luke's words.

First. as mentioned above, context would indicate both he and Luke were referencing the same source, not that he was authenticating Luke.

Second, don't you get what you just said? "Paul assigned authority TO HIS OWN WORDS." How is that not problematic? Weren't prophets "to be tested and authenticated"? So when Benny Hinn or Jim Bakker claim their words are "from God", we are to take them at face value? The church at Ephesus was commended in Revelation for having "tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false." If Paul was right in II Timothy 1:15, Ephesus abandoned him.

Third, Jesus said in John 5:31 and John 8:14, that even if HE ALONE could not testify of His own validity. So Paul's singular claim goes against the teachings of Jesus.

When Paul says, "All Scripture," he certainly understands that Scripture includes the NT books that were already being distributed among the believers in his day.

Again, three points.

First, there is no proof of what writings were spread throughout the region at that time and what was accepted. There is no evidence of which documents Paul was referencing, assuming he did have (then) modern day writings in mind.

Second, context clearly identifies what those Scriptures were. He introduced it the very verse before by telling Timothy, "...that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." So what (then) modern day Scriptures were being passed around that had Timothy had studied in his youth?

Third, the word "is" is not in original language. The KJV shows the word in italics, meaning it was thrown in by the translators. The ASV translation correctly leaves out the word which changes the entire meaning. "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness..." So the term "inspired of God" is a modifier to show which Scriptures are profitable. This implies part of the Scriptures were not inspired.

The entire doctrine of divine inspiration of the 66-book canon hinges on a singular, two-letter word which was not in the original text, but added by translators. Pretty shaky ground, IMHO.

 

[FSSL]

There is so much going on "upstairs" that I could not possibly take the time and effort to reply in full (and with a cellphone). However, this should be sufficient...

1) you reversed the dependency on Luke and Paul. Paul quotes Luke. Remember, Luke's book came first. Paul certainly was referring to the OT and the books of the NT that were in existence before he wrote Timothy. I am trying to help you out. Remember, you are the guy who exalts the red letters. If you do not follow this line of thinking I presented, then you are arguing against the red letters as Scripture. Paul's statement about inspired Scripture also includes Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

2) Paul told us what was an optional command. There is no dilution.

3) "inspiration" does not tell us anything about 'which' books. It describes the QUALITY and AUTHORITY of the books.

4) the only way to translate theopneustos into English, to give the sense that is found in the Greek is to supply the word "is." No theological problems revolve around the supplied word. Theological problems DO revolve around a different word, panta, which the ASV translates as "every."

 

[Smellin Coffee]

There is so much going on "upstairs" that I could not possibly take the time and effort to reply in full (and with a cellphone). However, this should be sufficient...

1) you reversed the dependency on Luke and Paul. Paul quotes Luke. Remember, Luke's book came first. Paul certainly was referring to the OT and the books of the NT that were in existence before he wrote Timothy. I am trying to help you out. Remember, you are the guy who exalts the red letters. If you do not follow this line of thinking I presented, then you are arguing against the red letters as Scripture. Paul's statement about inspired Scripture also includes Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Before I respond, let me thank you for this debate. You bring quality information to the argument and you aren't riddling me with scorn like others on the forum do. I sincerely appreciate it.

That aside, dependency isn't the issue. The fact that they no doubt studied the Scriptures together, Luke quoted the Torah in several places; in the very same passage Paul quoted the passage Luke referred to, directly after his quoting his primary thought which came directly from the Torah. I'm not sure if Paul ever quoted Luke again. We do know apart from this passage, He never quoted red letters in his writings.

Here is the rub: The volume he wrote may have quoted one time, a historian who was not at the Great Commission being commanded to spread "everything (Jesus) had taught (His disciples)" while He was on earth. So if Luke was doing His part by spreading as much as he could to Theophilus, why didn't Paul continue to follow the principle of the Great Commission by presenting the life and teachings Jesus taught on earth?

Oh, and by the way, I don't hold to the doctrine of inspiration of the Gospels either. I hold them as revelation and let the Spirit bring to mind that which Christ taught and on record in the Gospels.

2) Paul told us what was an optional command. There is no dilution.[/quote]

If the idea of 'inspiration' is "God breathed", for Paul to claim something was from him and not God, is God saying the same thing was not from God. It is a contradiction.

1. Everything said is what God said.
2. Part of what is said is not from God.
3. God said the part was not from God, so it authenticates it wasn't from God.
4. Then why did God say it with authority?

Circular reasoning. In essence God says something (through Paul) then claims He doesn't say it. If Paul's words in that passage are inspired, then he makes God out to be a liar. If Paul's words aren't inspired, then his words (or should I say, the TEACHING of the doctrine of inspiration hinged) in II Timothy 3:16 is a lie. So if every single one of Paul's words in the canon is inspired, God is a liar in one passage or the other. Or perhaps, neither are inspired which leaves God off the hook.

3) "inspiration" does not tell us anything about 'which' books. It describes the QUALITY and AUTHORITY of the books.[/quote]

I do agree with what you are saying, but the application about which books IS the argument. To determine a particular canon outside of Paul's context and claim is inspired, is giving the same authority to Mormons about Smith or Muslims about Mohammad. If there is no inspiration, then the Spirit leads. If there is inspiration, then there is no definitive canon to which it applies, legitimizing Muslims, Mormons and the like.

4) the only way to translate theopneustos into English, to give the sense that is found in the Greek is to supply the word "is." No theological problems revolve around the supplied word. Theological problems DO revolve around a different word, panta, which the ASV translates as "every."
[/quote]

You are much more of a Greek learner than I am so I will concede the translational argument about "every".

Here's my take: by adding the singular word "is", the entire doctrine of inspiration is made; a word you admit is NOT in the Greek, but rather assumed in the context. I do realize words cannot be translated from one language to another in word-for-word format. However, if the translators had translated without THEIR clarification, the passage would read: "All Scripture given by inspiration of God, profitable for instruction, correction, reproof, training in righteousness..." That phrase still implies parts of Scripture that are not inspired. If I said, "All the green apples are sprayed with insecticide." This implies there are other apples besides green that may be free of insecticides.

So the argument still stands: on a translated two-letter word that doesn't exist in the original text, hinges the entire Evangelical argument for inspiration of their canon.

 

[FSSL]

Before I respond, let me thank you for this debate. You bring quality information to the argument and you aren't riddling me with scorn like others on the forum do. I sincerely appreciate it.

If I do get snarky, it is all in trying to keep everything a bit lighter. This is a great topic and you are bringing some depth that I like to see the FFF move towards.

That aside, dependency isn't the issue. The fact that they no doubt studied the Scriptures together, Luke quoted the Torah in several places; in the very same passage Paul quoted the passage Luke referred to, directly after his quoting his primary thought which came directly from the Torah. I'm not sure if Paul ever quoted Luke again. We do know apart from this passage, He never quoted red letters in his writings.

No. The quote came directly from Luke. It is identical to Paul. There is a similar statement in Lev 19, but it is worded differently.

...why didn't Paul continue to follow the principle of the Great Commission by presenting the life and teachings Jesus taught on earth?

He endured shipwrecks to accomplish the Great Commission as, he calls himself, "a servant of Christ."

If the idea of 'inspiration' is "God breathed", for Paul to claim something was from him and not God, is God saying the same thing was not from God. It is a contradiction.

I don't see the tension. Paul clearly noted that it was his opinion. He gave a qualifier. Your syllogism is strained in that it doesn't recognize that Paul was stating clearly what his opinion was (one time) and trying to foist that on the rest of Paul's writings.

I do agree with what you are saying, but the application about which books IS the argument. ... If there is inspiration, then there is no definitive canon to which it applies, legitimizing Muslims, Mormons and the like.

THIS is why the translation, "every scripture" misleads people.

Here's my take: by adding the singular word "is", the entire doctrine of inspiration is made; a word you admit is NOT in the Greek, but rather assumed in the context....So the argument still stands: on a translated two-letter word that doesn't exist in the original text, hinges the entire Evangelical argument for inspiration of their canon.

The word "is" is often added throughout the NT. It is the nature of the Greek language. If that word causes you issues with this passage, then what about all of the other places in the NT where the state of being verbs need to be added to make sense of the sentence?

Jesus, in the red letters, in Mark 2.5 the word "be" is added to make sense in the KJV. The state of being is assumed in the one Greek word translated "be forgiven."

 

[FSSL]

Perhaps you think you do, but I thought you believed in context. Paul was NOT talking about any New Testament writings, so you "believe" that passage out of its context.

You reiterate a common misconception. There were a few NT books existing in his day. In fact, Paul quoted Luke and referred to his writings as Scripture (cf 1 Tim 5.18 with Lk 10.7).

The first part of I Timothy 5:18 goes back to Deuteronomy 25:4. The second part refers back to Leviticus 19:13.

Notice how different Lev 19:13 is. I will bold the word in Leviticus that is the same word used by Luke.

Lev: 13 ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ????????, ??? ?? ?? ???????????? ? ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ????.

Compared to the identical...
1Tim5: ??????? ?? ????????? ???? ??????? ???????.

Lk10: ??????? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ??????? ???????.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jo]

It is nice to read a real discussion without seeing a photo of Peewee Herman. 

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[biscuit1953]

Since the church gave up the fight for the biblical view of marriage at least a generation ago, I am not surprised that she so easily gets lost in the lies about human sexuality.

If you had a child that behaved like Kai...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said they were gay or transgender what would your response be?

If you had a child that behaved like a dog...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said that they like to have sex with children or with crossdressers what would your response be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85fSBUbjE20

If you had a grown child that came to you and said he liked to cook and eat women what would your response be?  Absurd?  Not on your life. 

'There are a lot of people out there who are aroused by a lot of weird things. No one would ever admit to it openly, because it's embarrassing,'  (Gilberto Valle)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4462262/Cannibal-cop-DEFENDS-fetish.html

There is no shame in defending anything (including men having sex with crossdressers) as LongGone has proven  unless it is standing up for Biblical morality.  Shame is a good thing.  This generation has lost the ability to be ashamed.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Perhaps you think you do, but I thought you believed in context. Paul was NOT talking about any New Testament writings, so you "believe" that passage out of its context.

You reiterate a common misconception. There were a few NT books existing in his day. In fact, Paul quoted Luke and referred to his writings as Scripture (cf 1 Tim 5.18 with Lk 10.7).

The first part of I Timothy 5:18 goes back to Deuteronomy 25:4. The second part refers back to Leviticus 19:13.

Notice how different Lev 19:13 is. I will bold the word in Leviticus that is the same word used by Luke.

Lev: 13 ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ????????, ??? ?? ?? ???????????? ? ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ????.

Compared to the identical...
1Tim5: ????? ? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????.

Lk10: ????? ??? ? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Smellin does not believe in the same Jesus that you and I believe in...everything else is moot.

 

[LongGone]

Since the church gave up the fight for the biblical view of marriage at least a generation ago, I am not surprised that she so easily gets lost in the lies about human sexuality.

If you had a child that behaved like Kai...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said they were gay or transgender what would your response be?

If you had a child that behaved like a dog...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said that they like to have sex with children or with crossdressers what would your response be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85fSBUbjE20

If you had a grown child that came to you and said he liked to cook and eat women what would your response be?  Absurd?  Not on your life. 

'There are a lot of people out there who are aroused by a lot of weird things. No one would ever admit to it openly, because it's embarrassing,'  (Gilberto Valle)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4462262/Cannibal-cop-DEFENDS-fetish.html

There is no shame in defending anything (including men having sex with crossdressers) as LongGone has proven  unless it is standing up for Biblical morality.  Shame is a good thing.  This generation has lost the ability to be ashamed.

Biscuit...I asked an honest question that real believers have had to deal with and respond. You come back with a ridiculous  example and try to some link me to defending it. What is true is that every generation is always criticized by the previous generation.

 

[biscuit1953]

Since the church gave up the fight for the biblical view of marriage at least a generation ago, I am not surprised that she so easily gets lost in the lies about human sexuality.

If you had a child that behaved like Kai...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said they were gay or transgender what would your response be?

If you had a child that behaved like a dog...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said that they like to have sex with children or with crossdressers what would your response be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85fSBUbjE20

If you had a grown child that came to you and said he liked to cook and eat women what would your response be?  Absurd?  Not on your life. 

'There are a lot of people out there who are aroused by a lot of weird things. No one would ever admit to it openly, because it's embarrassing,'  (Gilberto Valle)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4462262/Cannibal-cop-DEFENDS-fetish.html

There is no shame in defending anything (including men having sex with crossdressers) as LongGone has proven  unless it is standing up for Biblical morality.  Shame is a good thing.  This generation has lost the ability to be ashamed.

Biscuit...I asked an honest question that real believers have had to deal with and respond. You come back with a ridiculous  example and try to some link me to defending it. What is true is that every generation is always criticized by the previous generation.

LongGone...I asked an honest question that real believers have had to deal with and respond.  What would you do if your child behaved like a dog...how would handle it?  What if a grown child came to you and said he was aroused and likes to have sex with children or transvestites what would be your response? 

 

[LongGone]

Since the church gave up the fight for the biblical view of marriage at least a generation ago, I am not surprised that she so easily gets lost in the lies about human sexuality.

If you had a child that behaved like Kai...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said they were gay or transgender what would your response be?

If you had a child that behaved like a dog...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said that they like to have sex with children or with crossdressers what would your response be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85fSBUbjE20

If you had a grown child that came to you and said he liked to cook and eat women what would your response be?  Absurd?  Not on your life. 

'There are a lot of people out there who are aroused by a lot of weird things. No one would ever admit to it openly, because it's embarrassing,'  (Gilberto Valle)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4462262/Cannibal-cop-DEFENDS-fetish.html

There is no shame in defending anything (including men having sex with crossdressers) as LongGone has proven  unless it is standing up for Biblical morality.  Shame is a good thing.  This generation has lost the ability to be ashamed.

Biscuit...I asked an honest question that real believers have had to deal with and respond. You come back with a ridiculous  example and try to some link me to defending it. What is true is that every generation is always criticized by the previous generation.

LongGone...I asked an honest question that real believers have had to deal with and respond.  What would you do if your child behaved like a dog...how would handle it?  What if a grown child came to you and said he was aroused and likes to have sex with children or transvestites what would be your response?

There is no comparison between a person having same sex attraction and the examples you have chosen to use. That is why I really can no consider you question as honest but I will answer anyhow. If my child behaved like a dog I would get them the psychiatric help that was needed. If my grown child said he like to have sex with children I would notify authorities. If my grown child  like to have sex with transvestites there isn't much I can do. It would not change my love for them.

So how would you handle this differently?

Another reason I doubt you were asking an honest question is that there was no reason to bring my name into it the point you were making. I had not addressed any of these issues.

 

[biscuit1953]

Since the church gave up the fight for the biblical view of marriage at least a generation ago, I am not surprised that she so easily gets lost in the lies about human sexuality.

If you had a child that behaved like Kai...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said they were gay or transgender what would your response be?

If you had a child that behaved like a dog...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said that they like to have sex with children or with crossdressers what would your response be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85fSBUbjE20

If you had a grown child that came to you and said he liked to cook and eat women what would your response be?  Absurd?  Not on your life. 

'There are a lot of people out there who are aroused by a lot of weird things. No one would ever admit to it openly, because it's embarrassing,'  (Gilberto Valle)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4462262/Cannibal-cop-DEFENDS-fetish.html

There is no shame in defending anything (including men having sex with crossdressers) as LongGone has proven  unless it is standing up for Biblical morality.  Shame is a good thing.  This generation has lost the ability to be ashamed.

Biscuit...I asked an honest question that real believers have had to deal with and respond. You come back with a ridiculous  example and try to some link me to defending it. What is true is that every generation is always criticized by the previous generation.

LongGone...I asked an honest question that real believers have had to deal with and respond.  What would you do if your child behaved like a dog...how would handle it?  What if a grown child came to you and said he was aroused and likes to have sex with children or transvestites what would be your response?

There is no comparison between a person having same sex attraction and the examples you have chosen to use. That is why I really can no consider you question as honest but I will answer anyhow. If my child behaved like a dog I would get them the psychiatric help that was needed. If my grown child said he like to have sex with children I would notify authorities. If my grown child  like to have sex with transvestites there isn't much I can do. It would not change my love for them.

So how would you handle this differently?

Another reason I doubt you were asking an honest question is that there was no reason to bring my name into it the point you were making. I had not addressed any of these issues.

The reason I brought your name into it is because you believe it is "normal" to sexually mutilate a child by cutting off his penis and testicles if he pretends he is a girl.  A few years ago only a mad man would comprehend that on a Christian forum in the year of our Lord 2017 someone would advocate such an evil act much less defending men engaging in sexual acts with other men.  I have no respect for you or anyone with your position.  Go back to your cave.

 

[LongGone]

Since the church gave up the fight for the biblical view of marriage at least a generation ago, I am not surprised that she so easily gets lost in the lies about human sexuality.

If you had a child that behaved like Kai...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said they were gay or transgender what would your response be?

If you had a child that behaved like a dog...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said that they like to have sex with children or with crossdressers what would your response be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85fSBUbjE20

If you had a grown child that came to you and said he liked to cook and eat women what would your response be?  Absurd?  Not on your life. 

'There are a lot of people out there who are aroused by a lot of weird things. No one would ever admit to it openly, because it's embarrassing,'  (Gilberto Valle)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4462262/Cannibal-cop-DEFENDS-fetish.html

There is no shame in defending anything (including men having sex with crossdressers) as LongGone has proven  unless it is standing up for Biblical morality.  Shame is a good thing.  This generation has lost the ability to be ashamed.

Biscuit...I asked an honest question that real believers have had to deal with and respond. You come back with a ridiculous  example and try to some link me to defending it. What is true is that every generation is always criticized by the previous generation.

LongGone...I asked an honest question that real believers have had to deal with and respond.  What would you do if your child behaved like a dog...how would handle it?  What if a grown child came to you and said he was aroused and likes to have sex with children or transvestites what would be your response?

There is no comparison between a person having same sex attraction and the examples you have chosen to use. That is why I really can no consider you question as honest but I will answer anyhow. If my child behaved like a dog I would get them the psychiatric help that was needed. If my grown child said he like to have sex with children I would notify authorities. If my grown child  like to have sex with transvestites there isn't much I can do. It would not change my love for them.

So how would you handle this differently?

Another reason I doubt you were asking an honest question is that there was no reason to bring my name into it the point you were making. I had not addressed any of these issues.

The reason I brought your name into it is because you believe it is "normal" to sexually mutilate a child by cutting off his penis and testicles if he pretends he is a girl.  A few years ago only a mad man would comprehend that on a Christian forum in the year of our Lord 2017 someone would advocate such an evil act much less defending men engaging in sexual acts with other men.  I have no respect for you or anyone with your position.  Go back to your cave.

Show me where I said that it was normal to sexually mutilate a child by cutting off his penis and testicles if he pretends to me a girl. I never said that and you know I never said it.  You don't have to respect me (I am not your servant anyhow so I don't need to be judge by you) but you should respect your own position enough that you don't misrepresent what has been said. Sorry...I don't have a cave to go back to :  Once again you show you were not asking honest questions.