On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:38:04 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
But there were* (and still are**) bodies that call
themselves "Christian" and read the same Bible but
deny the doctrine of the Trinity: some see Father, Son
and Holy Spirit as simply different names

I know not everyone agrees on this...

--
Maggie

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
On the contrary... a word that describes something
in the Bible doesn't

So it is okay to believe in a word that doesn't
appear in the Bible? You are confusing me.

I don't "believe" in a word. I accept the meaning of the word.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
We are also told by the Bible to hold to the traditions
the founders (Apostles) taught us:

There is nothing wrong with traditions as long as we don't turn them
into a religion. Tradition is supposed to remind us of the past.
It's not supposed to be our number one focus. When that happens
tradition becomes legalistic and people use it to try to control
others so they're behavior will fit into a nice neat box that the
powers that be can control. Following Christ isn't about emphasizing
tradition over all the other things Christ taught us.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
If "solar scriptura" was correct, then we wouldn't have
folks going off on such tangents when they read the
Bible.

How people respond is they're choice. Choice doesn't negate sola
scriptura.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
not call anyone Father, except our father in heaven.

Matt 23:9

That's the origin of this dispute. No everyone agrees with how it's
interpreted.

I, personally, won't call anyone "father" except for my dad (he was
my father on earth), and God who is my father in heaven.

For me, it would be wrong to do otherwise.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
authority of the Church) to make sure we know what
things are suppose to mean.

The Bible says we're to study for ourselves, so we know if what
others are trying to teach us is true or not. No church or
denomination has the authority to supersede what the Bible says.
That includes putting a denominational spin on how they want to
interpret scripture, too.

The Church is the body of Christ, not a building or special group of
people who claim they are the originals.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
I really don't understand.

I don't understand why this is an issue to you.

It's an issue because saints are dead and talking to the dead is akin
to fortune telling, which is forbidden. That's what the Bible says.

Think of the saints as loved ones. They don't
forget about you. When they pray for you, they
pray to the same Jesus you pray to.

But, they're still dead, and we're forbidden to try to talk to the
dead.

Show me in the Bible where it isn't forbidden.

--
Maggie

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 01:30:05 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 04:29 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 00:11:32 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 03:14 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:36:50 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 02:14 AM, Bod wrote:
You *hope* :-)

No hoping about it. The Lord is active in my life.
I do not believe is God because someone made a rational
argument that won me over. It is because I have a personal
relationship with him. Is still remember the times he
has spoken to me. If you are interested, I can describe it
to you.

You're smoking illegal drugs, there is no other explanation for this
stupidity.


That is exactly what I would expect you to think.

People who believe in god are unable to think clearly. I therefore
ignore your desire to expect.

No problem. God love you James.

No he doesn't. A non-existent being cannot love.

Even if he did exist, explain all the people he doesn't love - all the innocent people who die all the time? You're worshipping an arsehole.

"desire to expect" is that a British term?

"Desire to" is a common term. You said you expected, so you can have a desire to expect.

--
The teacher wrote "Like I ain't had no fun in months" on the board and then she said, "Timmy, how should I correct that?"
Timmy replied, "Maybe get a new boyfriend?"

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 01:04:16 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 00:35:47 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

when it comes to that side... I haven't come across
scripture that says the dead in Christ have access
to the living, or vice versa.

Why are you reading that ****ing ****e? Are you a
religious moron?

I study... and I'm not religious. I'm spiritual. There's a difference.

Morons can't and don't know the difference.

They both require the same ****ed up thinking.

--
Negligent (adj.), describes a condition in which you absentmindedly answer the door in your nightgown.

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 01:32:45 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 04:40 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Cut the religious **** you ****ing imbecile.

Is someone forcing you to read it? Are you
tied to a chair and someone is reading religious
stuff to you? Do we need to call 911? Are they
drenching you with holy water and it stings like
****e?

James, just ignore what you don't want to read.

http://memestorage.com/_nw/23/87899101.jpg

--
Negligent (adj.), describes a condition in which you absentmindedly answer the door in your nightgown.

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:31:59 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:
Why are you reading that ****ing ****e? Are you a
religious moron?

I study... and I'm not religious. I'm spiritual. There's
a difference.

Morons can't and don't know the difference.

They both require the same ****ed up thinking.

Learning and understanding require an aptitude TO learn. Maybe that
concept is foreign to you?

--
Maggie

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:35:54 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 05:59:12 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:53:50 -0800, T wrote:
thing rankles; intercession of a saint goes against
the solas.

I find it bazaar that they pray for each other and get
scandalized if a saint is asked for their prayers.

I can't find any scripture that tells us to ask people who have
passed away to pray for us. Jesus is supposed to be our intercessor
when it comes to that side... I haven't come across scripture that
says the dead in Christ have access to the living, or vice versa.

Why are you reading that ****ing ****e? Are you a religious moron? Is it true that most Americans are so ****ing thick that they believe in a floaty light being instead of grasping reality?

89% of adult Americans believe in God. 66% of British adults believe
in God. Sure, we've got you beat on percentages, but most British
adults believe in God. Apparently they're ****ing thick.

I can't blame people for believing in God. It's comforting to
think that someone is looking out for you. I can blame them
for being assholes about it.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:37:57 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:31:59 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:
Why are you reading that ****ing ****e? Are you a
religious moron?

I study... and I'm not religious. I'm spiritual. There's
a difference.

Morons can't and don't know the difference.

They both require the same ****ed up thinking.

Learning and understanding require an aptitude TO learn. Maybe that
concept is foreign to you?

I understand how utterly stupid you have to be to believe that rubbish.

--
Ted Walsh - Horse Racing Commentator - "This is really a lovely horse. I once rode her mother."

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:41:58 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:35:54 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 05:59:12 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:53:50 -0800, T wrote:
thing rankles; intercession of a saint goes against
the solas.

I find it bazaar that they pray for each other and get
scandalized if a saint is asked for their prayers.

I can't find any scripture that tells us to ask people who have
passed away to pray for us. Jesus is supposed to be our intercessor
when it comes to that side... I haven't come across scripture that
says the dead in Christ have access to the living, or vice versa.

Why are you reading that ****ing ****e? Are you a religious moron? Is it true that most Americans are so ****ing thick that they believe in a floaty light being instead of grasping reality?

89% of adult Americans believe in God. 66% of British adults believe
in God. Sure, we've got you beat on percentages, but most British
adults believe in God. Apparently they're ****ing thick.

They are, although I'm sure the percentages are lower in the UK. AFAIK most of us are now atheists (excluding the immigrunts).

I can't blame people for believing in God. It's comforting to
think that someone is looking out for you. I can blame them
for being assholes about it.

It's pathetic is what it is. They can't handle reality. And potentially dangerous if you assume someone who doesn't exist is going to help you.

--
A can of diet coke floats in water, but a can of regular coke sinks.

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 12:37:57 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:31:59 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:
Why are you reading that ****ing ****e? Are you a
religious moron?

I study... and I'm not religious. I'm spiritual. There's
a difference.

Morons can't and don't know the difference.

They both require the same ****ed up thinking.

Learning and understanding require an aptitude TO learn. Maybe that
concept is foreign to you?
Moreover, learningmandmunderstanding require a DESIRE to learn and
unsedstand - which is obviously VERY foreign to "not the sharpest
razor in the drawer"

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 22:38:03 -0000, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 12:37:57 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:31:59 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:
Why are you reading that ****ing ****e? Are you a
religious moron?

I study... and I'm not religious. I'm spiritual. There's
a difference.

Morons can't and don't know the difference.

They both require the same ****ed up thinking.

Learning and understanding require an aptitude TO learn. Maybe that
concept is foreign to you?
Moreover, learningmandmunderstanding require a DESIRE to learn and
unsedstand - which is obviously VERY foreign to "not the sharpest
razor in the drawer"

At least I don't create four spelling errors in one sentence.

--
"So it was the first ****in' leave in six ****in' months. I dropped off my ****in' uniform at the ****in' Y, went to a ****in' bar, and picked up a ****in' broad. I took her to a ****in' hotel, laid her out on the ****in' bed, and had sexual intercourse."

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 17:38:03 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 12:37:57 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:31:59 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:
Why are you reading that ****ing ****e? Are you a
religious moron?

I study... and I'm not religious. I'm spiritual. There's
a difference.

Morons can't and don't know the difference.

They both require the same ****ed up thinking.

Learning and understanding require an aptitude TO learn. Maybe that
concept is foreign to you?
Moreover, learningmandmunderstanding require a DESIRE to learn and
unsedstand - which is obviously VERY foreign to "not the sharpest
razor in the drawer"
Damn - my keyboard can't spell again ---

Moreover, learning and understanding require a DESIRE to learn and
understand - which is obviously VERY foreign to "not the sharpest
razor in the drawer"

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:24:36 -0000, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 17:38:03 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 12:37:57 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:31:59 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:
Why are you reading that ****ing ****e? Are you a
religious moron?

I study... and I'm not religious. I'm spiritual. There's
a difference.

Morons can't and don't know the difference.

They both require the same ****ed up thinking.

Learning and understanding require an aptitude TO learn. Maybe that
concept is foreign to you?
Moreover, learningmandmunderstanding require a DESIRE to learn and
unsedstand - which is obviously VERY foreign to "not the sharpest
razor in the drawer"
Damn - my keyboard can't spell again ---

Your keyboard typed m instead of space?!

Moreover, learning and understanding require a DESIRE to learn and
understand - which is obviously VERY foreign to "not the sharpest
razor in the drawer"

There's not much to understand about nitwits who believe in things that don't exist. If I claimed pink elephants existed, you'd call me a fool. What do you mean there's no evidence? I can feel their presence!

--
"I'm wide eyed and witless & totally off my rocker" -- Ronald Tompkins, circa 2013

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 19:24:36 -0500, wrote:
Moreover, learning and understanding require a
DESIRE to learn and understand - which is obviously
VERY foreign to "not the sharpest razor in the
drawer"

That's true.

--
Maggie

On 12/31/2016 11:13 AM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:20:45 -0800, T wrote:
If you find something different, quote me the verse
and the edition of the Bible so I can see what is
different.

The part about paying to saints isn't in any Bible I've read.

I did give you some quotes to look at. We are suppose to
pray for each other. And again, it is whatever you are comfortable
with. Love never ends.

And remember that not everything that Christians believe is in
the Bible: the Nicaean Creed, the Trinity, etc.. Some of
it is the "traditions" that have been passed on that the Apostles
tell us int he Bible to hold fast to.

It helps that my church wrote the Bible, well
"compiled" it. We did not write the Old Testament. All of the writers
in the new testament were member
of my church. We know what is suppose to be in it.

I always thought God's church were all believers - not any specific
group or denomination.

When I refer to the "Church" I am referring to the predenominational
ancient institution that Jesus founded. This is the church that
showed up at at the seven ecumenical councils. The first one is where
we got the bible from. This church still exists. It is the one whose
authority both of us accept over the Bible. Today, it is called
the Orthodox Church.

I have heard the word Church used the way you are using it. I
prefer to refer to it am my Bothers and Sisters in Christ.
Or just Christian believers. Unless you are Orthodox, you
are part of the institution that Jesus founded. By the
way, I probably am not either, as I have never formally
been accepted into an Orthodox church.

But it doesn't matter:

€œTeacher,€� said John, €œwe saw someone driving out
demons in your name and we told him to stop, because
he was not one of us.€�

€œDo not stop him,€� Jesus said. €œFor no one who does
a miracle in my name can in the next moment say
anything bad about me, for whoever is not against
us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives
you a cup of water in my name because you belong
to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
-- Mark 9:38-41 NIV

We both belong to Christ.

Glory be to God!
-T

On 01/01/2017 10:14 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 01:30:05 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 04:29 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 00:11:32 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 03:14 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:36:50 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 02:14 AM, Bod wrote:
You *hope* :-)

No hoping about it. The Lord is active in my life.
I do not believe is God because someone made a rational
argument that won me over. It is because I have a personal
relationship with him. Is still remember the times he
has spoken to me. If you are interested, I can describe it
to you.

You're smoking illegal drugs, there is no other explanation for this
stupidity.


That is exactly what I would expect you to think.

People who believe in god are unable to think clearly. I therefore
ignore your desire to expect.

No problem. God love you James.

No he doesn't. A non-existent being cannot love.

Even if he did exist, explain all the people he doesn't love - all the
innocent people who die all the time? You're worshipping an arsehole.

He give us free will. Some do not act as desired.


"desire to expect" is that a British term?

"Desire to" is a common term. You said you expected, so you can have a
desire to expect.

On 01/01/2017 11:28 AM, The Peeler wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:14:02 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:


That is exactly what I would expect you to think.

People who believe in god are unable to think clearly. I therefore
ignore your desire to expect.

No problem. God love you James.

No he doesn't. A non-existent being cannot love.

Not even any existent being loves YOU, you disgusting abnormal sociopath!


God still loves him. You too.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:19:10 -0000, T wrote:

On 01/01/2017 10:14 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 01:30:05 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 04:29 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 00:11:32 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 03:14 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:36:50 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 02:14 AM, Bod wrote:
You *hope* :-)

No hoping about it. The Lord is active in my life.
I do not believe is God because someone made a rational
argument that won me over. It is because I have a personal
relationship with him. Is still remember the times he
has spoken to me. If you are interested, I can describe it
to you.

You're smoking illegal drugs, there is no other explanation for this
stupidity.


That is exactly what I would expect you to think.

People who believe in god are unable to think clearly. I therefore
ignore your desire to expect.

No problem. God love you James.

No he doesn't. A non-existent being cannot love.

Even if he did exist, explain all the people he doesn't love - all the
innocent people who die all the time? You're worshipping an arsehole.

He give us free will. Some do not act as desired.

Then he ****ed up. So why do you worship him?

--
Be careful about reading health books, you may die of a misprint. -- Mark Twain

On 01/03/2017 04:23 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

He give us free will. Some do not act as desired.

Then he ****ed up. So why do you worship him?

Because he makes it apparent to me that he loves me.

On 12/31/2016 09:37 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
On the contrary... a word that describes something
in the Bible doesn't

So it is okay to believe in a word that doesn't
appear in the Bible? You are confusing me.

I don't "believe" in a word. I accept the meaning of the word.


You believe in the Trinity. The meaning, although
hinted at, is not outlined in the Bible. It was
outlines at the First Council at Nicaea, as
was the Bible. If you believe in the Trinity, then
your are not Sola Scriptura. The Bible told you not
to do that anyway.

On 12/31/2016 09:47 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
We are also told by the Bible to hold to the traditions
the founders (Apostles) taught us:

There is nothing wrong with traditions as long as we don't turn them
into a religion. Tradition is supposed to remind us of the past. It's
not supposed to be our number one focus. When that happens tradition
becomes legalistic and people use it to try to control others so
they're behavior will fit into a nice neat box that the powers that be
can control. Following Christ isn't about emphasizing tradition over
all the other things Christ taught us.

Hi Maggie,

True and not the traditions I was speaking of.

The traditions I am speaking of are the ones the Apostles
taught that Jesus had taught them and told us to hang
on to.

At the start of the Ancient Church, there was no Bible.
There were scraps of paper and oral teachings. The
need to get all this under control was what brought
about the Bible at the First Ecumenical Council.

Here is one of the most popular scraps of paper
that was going around at the time. It is
called "The Teaching of the Apostles" (Didache)

http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/ap...didache_en.htm

This link shows how the teaching were solidified into
the bible. It is a fascinating read. And it links
us back to the time of the Apostles and those that have
gone before.

There is a strong condemnation of abortion in it too, so if
any lefties remark that earily Christians accepted abortion, you
can throw it in their faces.

Yours in Christ,
-T

On 12/31/2016 09:50 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
If "solar scriptura" was correct, then we wouldn't have
folks going off on such tangents when they read the
Bible.

How people respond is they're choice. Choice doesn't negate sola
scriptura.


Sola Scripture is not a biblical principle. The Apostles met in
Councils, later in Ecumenical councils to iron things out.
You can see the first one written about in Acts. Paul and
Barnabas definitely had some disagreements. And that
was how it was ironed out.

On 12/31/2016 09:57 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
not call anyone Father, except our father in heaven.

Matt 23:9

That's the origin of this dispute. No everyone agrees with how it's
interpreted.

I, personally, won't call anyone "father" except for my dad (he was my
father on earth), and God who is my father in heaven.

For me, it would be wrong to do otherwise.


Nonsense Maggie! Do a search on the bible for the words
"father" and the words "teacher". The Disciples and writer
of Bible used those words over and over and over, including
those disciples that were personally tutored by Jesus!

Then go back and read the "entire" chapter. Jesus was
admonishing us for our "pomposity". Taking single
sentences out of context takes away the importance of
what Jesus was teaching. It also turned the teachings of
the Bible into Legalism.

And this is why we need the Church (the institution
that Jesus founded) to speak with authority over
what was placed in the Bible and what it is suppose
to mean.

By the way, when we pre-denominational-ists call our
priest "father", we know he is not our father in
heaven, anymore than when we call the wife of a priest
"mother".

On 12/31/2016 10:04 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
authority of the Church) to make sure we know what
things are suppose to mean.

The Bible says we're to study for ourselves, so we know if what others
are trying to teach us is true or not. No church or denomination has the
authority to supersede what the Bible says. That includes putting a
denominational spin on how they want to interpret scripture, too.
The Church is the body of Christ, not a building or special group of
people who claim they are the originals.


The writing authority was the First Council at Nicaea. No authority,
no Bible. You should not accept any teaching unless it has "authority"
to go with it.

If you doubt who the "originals" are, read your church history.

On 12/31/2016 10:12 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
I really don't understand.

I don't understand why this is an issue to you.

It's an issue because saints are dead and talking to the dead is akin to
fortune telling, which is forbidden. That's what the Bible says.

No it does not. The Bible says we are in "communion" with them.

Do you or do you not believe in Heaven?


Think of the saints as loved ones. They don't
forget about you. When they pray for you, they
pray to the same Jesus you pray to.

But, they're still dead, and we're forbidden to try to talk to the dead.

They are with Christ in Heaven. The Bible says they pray for
us. I gave you those references!

Show me in the Bible where it isn't forbidden.

Are you serious? Someone tells you to do something
and you do it because you can't find it in the Bible?
And you follow the Bible only?

On 12/31/2016 05:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:38:04 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
But there were* (and still are**) bodies that call
themselves "Christian" and read the same Bible but
deny the doctrine of the Trinity: some see Father, Son
and Holy Spirit as simply different names

I know not everyone agrees on this...


The Trinity is based on the same "authority" as
the "authority" that the Bible was based on.
(The First Council). So rejecting the Trinity
and you also reject the Bible.

On 01/01/2017 10:32 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 01:32:45 -0000, T wrote:

On 12/31/2016 04:40 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Cut the religious **** you ****ing imbecile.

Is someone forcing you to read it? Are you
tied to a chair and someone is reading religious
stuff to you? Do we need to call 911? Are they
drenching you with holy water and it stings like
****e?

James, just ignore what you don't want to read.

http://memestorage.com/_nw/23/87899101.jpg


Chuckle!

On 12/31/2016 02:29 AM, Bod wrote:
If your god created everything, then that means he created Satan.

Yes it does. Satin was an angle and Jesus did indeed create
him.

Jesus gave us all free will, including angles. Satin when
against God and wound up running the Eternal Golf Course.
Satin's power comes from his ability to seduce. Evil
comes wrapped in a pretty package.

Now WHY would he create something so evil?

He didn't. That was Satin's choice.

If he didn't create satan, that implies that Satan had equal powers to
your god and had a hand in creation.

Also if your god was so powerful and clever to give everyone free will,
then why did he not create *goodwill* in everyone?

He did. We are created in his image and likeness. Jesus took
on our form in every respect. (Yes, that does put a hitch in
the Wester belief of original sin.) We are all created
good.

If I was a god, I would make *all* humans to be good people.

Me too. My guess is that without free will, we could not chose him.
An he finds a conscious choice to choose him. And by choosing
him, we have to follow his teaching. All eh declarations in
the world are meaningless, if yo don't make a conscious effort to follow
his teaching.

On 1/3/2017 6:39 PM, T wrote:
On 12/31/2016 09:37 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
On the contrary... a word that describes something
in the Bible doesn't

So it is okay to believe in a word that doesn't
appear in the Bible? You are confusing me.

I don't "believe" in a word. I accept the meaning of the word.

You believe in the Trinity. The meaning, although
hinted at, is not outlined in the Bible. It was
outlines at the First Council at Nicaea, as
was the Bible. If you believe in the Trinity, then
your are not Sola Scriptura. The Bible told you not
to do that anyway.

I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The word "Trinity"
describes the three. A word that describes what is in the bible doesn't
negate sola scriptura.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

--
Maggie

On 1/3/2017 7:28 PM, T wrote:
On 12/31/2016 09:47 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
We are also told by the Bible to hold to the traditions
the founders (Apostles) taught us:

There is nothing wrong with traditions as long as we don't turn them
into a religion. Tradition is supposed to remind us of the past. It's
not supposed to be our number one focus. When that happens tradition
becomes legalistic and people use it to try to control others so
they're behavior will fit into a nice neat box that the powers that be
can control. Following Christ isn't about emphasizing tradition over
all the other things Christ taught us.

Hi Maggie,

True and not the traditions I was speaking of.

The traditions I am speaking of are the ones the Apostles
taught that Jesus had taught them and told us to hang
on to.

At the start of the Ancient Church, there was no Bible.
There were scraps of paper and oral teachings. The
need to get all this under control was what brought
about the Bible at the First Ecumenical Council.

Here is one of the most popular scraps of paper
that was going around at the time. It is
called "The Teaching of the Apostles" (Didache)

http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/ap...didache_en.htm

This link shows how the teaching were solidified into
the bible. It is a fascinating read. And it links
us back to the time of the Apostles and those that have
gone before.

There is a strong condemnation of abortion in it too, so if
any lefties remark that earily Christians accepted abortion, you
can throw it in their faces.

Yours in Christ,
-T

I don't bother to get into discussions on abortion with lefties.

--
Maggie

On 1/3/2017 7:32 PM, T wrote:
On 12/31/2016 09:50 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
If "solar scriptura" was correct, then we wouldn't have
folks going off on such tangents when they read the
Bible.

How people respond is they're choice. Choice doesn't negate sola
scriptura.


Sola Scripture is not a biblical principle. The Apostles met in
Councils, later in Ecumenical councils to iron things out.
You can see the first one written about in Acts. Paul and
Barnabas definitely had some disagreements. And that
was how it was ironed out.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, too.

--
Maggie

On 1/3/2017 7:50 PM, T wrote:
On 12/31/2016 09:57 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
not call anyone Father, except our father in heaven.

Matt 23:9

That's the origin of this dispute. No everyone agrees with how it's
interpreted.

I, personally, won't call anyone "father" except for my dad (he was my
father on earth), and God who is my father in heaven.

For me, it would be wrong to do otherwise.


Nonsense Maggie! Do a search on the bible for the words
"father" and the words "teacher". The Disciples and writer
of Bible used those words over and over and over, including
those disciples that were personally tutored by Jesus!

Teacher and father are very different.

Then go back and read the "entire" chapter. Jesus was
admonishing us for our "pomposity". Taking single
sentences out of context takes away the importance of
what Jesus was teaching. It also turned the teachings of
the Bible into Legalism.

And this is why we need the Church (the institution
that Jesus founded) to speak with authority over
what was placed in the Bible and what it is suppose
to mean.

The Church consists of the body of Christ - not a building,
denomination, or any one particular congregation. Anyone who studies
"to show themselves approved" can teach and speak with authority over
what's in the Bible.

By the way, when we pre-denominational-ists call our
priest "father", we know he is not our father in
heaven, anymore than when we call the wife of a priest
"mother".

Well, I'm non-denominational, and will never call a priest "father"
because I have only one father that is in heaven.

Maybe, non-denominationalists and pre-deomininationalists still have
other things in common?

--
Maggie

On 1/3/2017 7:52 PM, T wrote:
On 12/31/2016 10:04 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
authority of the Church) to make sure we know what
things are suppose to mean.


The Bible says we're to study for ourselves, so we know if what others
are trying to teach us is true or not. No church or denomination has the
authority to supersede what the Bible says. That includes putting a
denominational spin on how they want to interpret scripture, too.
The Church is the body of Christ, not a building or special group of
people who claim they are the originals.


The writing authority was the First Council at Nicaea. No authority,
no Bible. You should not accept any teaching unless it has "authority"
to go with it.

The authority of the Nicaea Council ended when the content of the book
was decided upon. We are told that each and every one of us is to study
(2 Timothy 2:15) for ourselves, and we're supposed to hold those people
accountable who teach us. All too often those in leadership abuse their
positions and manipulate the people they are charged with to teach. Too
many trusting people get damaged and hurt because they haven't studied
for themselves, and instead, trusted someone else to do the work for them.

If you doubt who the "originals" are, read your church history.

No offense, but I don't really care who the "originals" are, and I don't
think it matters. Being an "original" has never been a criteria for
following Christ. I want to know how a person lives out their beliefs
in Christ, now.

--
Maggie

On 1/3/2017 8:03 PM, T wrote:
On 12/31/2016 10:12 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
I really don't understand.

I don't understand why this is an issue to you.

It's an issue because saints are dead and talking to the dead is akin to
fortune telling, which is forbidden. That's what the Bible says.

No it does not. The Bible says we are in "communion" with them.

Do you or do you not believe in Heaven?

We aren't going to agree on this particular practice.


--
Maggie

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 11:42:07 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/3/2017 8:03 PM, T wrote:
On 12/31/2016 10:12 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 20:41:15 -0800, T wrote:
I really don't understand.

I don't understand why this is an issue to you.

It's an issue because saints are dead and talking to the dead is akin to
fortune telling, which is forbidden. That's what the Bible says.

No it does not. The Bible says we are in "communion" with them.

Do you or do you not believe in Heaven?

We aren't going to agree on this particular practice.


--
Maggie

I think everybody else can agree that you and T should take this
discussion to e-mail. It's tiresome.

Cindy Hamilton