Biblical Contortions: It Doesn't Fit

[TLC]

There are many definitions, back in TWI we supported Romans 10:9 & 10 as the confession that got us Christianized, some denominations rely on "repent and be baptized (Acts 2) as the gold standard. I've heard some say it's "accept Jesus into your heart". Still others require water baptism. Many just claim to "believe in Jesus". And of course there's those who emphasize the outside, the works, maintaining that reciting a formula is worthless without acting like Jesus. Most, if not all of these different groups can point to and interpret some section of the bible to support their view, and if they can't, so what?

Yes, so what. (Which more or less agrees with what I said earlier, in my first response to you.)

Definitions aren't what determines or makes anyone a Christian, it's whether or not Christ lives within you.

Who am I, or you, or anyone else to decide whether anyone else is a Christian?

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see the issue being discussed a matter of anyone "deciding" (as in, casting a vote to win either yes or no) who was or wasn't a Christian. They either are, or they aren't, in accordance with the criteria (i.e., believing) set forth by God. God knows what anyone really believes. However, whether you or I ever know what someone really believes is another matter altogether. But that alone doesn't preclude us from learning or knowing what must be believed to allow Christ in, nor does it necessarily prevent or deter us from perceiving whether or not Christ is present within someone else. If I can't see Christ living within you, does that necessarily mean that he's not there? No, not necessarily. You might just have him locked up or hidden from view (lol...)

However, if we do see (what we think is) him at work within someone, well... I suppose I could still be mistaken about it. Maybe my "spiritual antenna" (so to speak) is wacked out and needs some tweaking. But, if we're right, and Christ is at home within them... then I also know from what is set forth in scripture that Christ never abandons ship to leave his property unattended and unclaimed.

I think DWBH said elsewhere something to the effect that he looks for the fruit that's produced. While I don't think that's an exact science or necessarily fail proof, I also somewhat understand what can be meant by it and why some people would choose to use it when either thinking of (or in referring to) themselves and/or others as being "Christian" or Christ-like in everyday life. Others might choose to think or say that "walking the talk" means a helluva lot more than talking the walk. There are undoubtedly various other ways or means whereby we use some means or standards to evaluate the validity or worth or meaning of someone's claim to be "Christian." But in returning to my initial post, my point was to was saying that neither walking nor talking (nor does fruit of any sort) establish the criteria for actually being Christ's. And, in saying that, perhaps what could or should be added to that, is that aside from being Christ's (i.e., you know that he lives, and that you are his), there really is no other proof necessary or guaranteed.

Edited March 9, 2016 by TLC

[TLC]

I expect that it's a given that anyone posting on this thread knows that we don't have the originals and have no access to them. However, despite this, we (on this thread and in other places) discuss "the bible", what it says, what's in it and what its meaning is all the time. We have a collection of books that some time around 1600 years ago (referring to what we call the New Testament) were collected into a canon of scripture. Understanding that what we have are versions and translations of various manuscripts that underwent copyists' errors and do not all agree with each other, we can still manage to ahve a discussion about the bible. Resorting to "you don't know that, we don't have the originals" leaves us in the place where any discussion is pointless.

We don't have the originals and no one knows precisely what was in them or what was changed before some of the earliest manuscripts that we have appeared, but we have what we have, and what we have contains contradictions.

Agreed. But just because we have the same (or similar) presumption - which is probably better referred to here as a premise - doesn't mean that we don't have or use them.

[Oakspear]

The subject of whether or not someone is a Christian and how to determine that was not meant to be a major part of this discussion. My fault for including that one sentence at the end of my initial post. My point in starting this topic was to discuss the lengths some people go to in order to harmonize biblical contradictions. The criteria that the writers of the bible set down about what makes someone a Christian might be an interesting topic, but I ask that a separate thread be started if discussion on that topic continues. I'm sure the mods could move any relevant posts if asked. Again, my fault for leaving an opening by including that one sentence.

[Bolshevik]

You left and open door.

We're to LOOK for open doors to witness The Word.

The Word is The Written Bible without ERROR.

If you don't want to be witnessed to, don't LOOK like you want to be witnessed to.

See how it all fits?

Like a hand in a Blender.

[teachmevp]

There are many definitions, back in TWI we supported Romans 10:9 & 10 as the confession that got us Christianized, some denominations rely on "repent and be baptized (Acts 2) as the gold standard. I've heard some say it's "accept Jesus into your heart". Still others require water baptism. Many just claim to "believe in Jesus". And of course there's those who emphasize the outside, the works, maintaining that reciting a formula is worthless without acting like Jesus. Most, if not all of these different groups can point to and interpret some section of the bible to support their view, and if they can't, so what? Who am I, or you, or anyone else to decide whether anyone else is a Christian?

Should that 'lord' in Rom. 10:9-10 be 'savior'? Should the word "lord' be in Paul's writings? I mean they stopped using Yahweh's name back in the second temple time and started calling him Lord. Just slap Lord all through Paul and what do we get?

Edited March 15, 2016 by teachmevp

[TLC]

Should the word "lord' be in Paul's writings?

Sure. Why not?

see Philippians 3:20; 1Timothy 1:1; and Titus 1:4.

Just slap Lord all through Paul and what do we get?

What are you supposing we get?

[teachmevp]

Sure. Why not?

see Philippians 3:20; 1Timothy 1:1; and Titus 1:4.

What are you supposing we get?

The Lord: The Hebrew states God’s name, YHVH, meaning according to v.14): ”He Will Be.” The Lord is actually a translation of “adonai” (lit. “my Lord”) because that is what the Israelites now pronounce whenever the consonants YHVH appear. YHVH was probably originally pronounced “Yahweh,” but in Second Temple times, as an expression of reverence, Israelites began to avoid uttering it, substituting “adonai” and other surrogates. (As a reminder to do so, in printed Hebrew Bibles the consonants are accompanied by the vowels of the surrogate words, leading to such hybrid English forms as Jehovah [i.e., “Yehovah” or the consonants Y-H-V-H with the vowels from “adonai”].)

[TLC]

The Lord: The Hebrew states God’s name, YHVH, meaning according to v.14): ”He Will Be.” The Lord is actually a translation of “adonai” (lit. “my Lord”) because that is what the Israelites now pronounce whenever the consonants YHVH appear. YHVH was probably originally pronounced “Yahweh,” but in Second Temple times, as an expression of reverence, Israelites began to avoid uttering it, substituting “adonai” and other surrogates. (As a reminder to do so, in printed Hebrew Bibles the consonants are accompanied by the vowels of the surrogate words, leading to such hybrid English forms as Jehovah [i.e., “Yehovah” or the consonants Y-H-V-H with the vowels from “adonai”].)

So what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

(because whatever you said, you're sure not communicating.)

[teachmevp]

So what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

(because whatever you said, you're sure not communicating.)

This research is way over your head.

[TLC]

This research is way over your head.

lol...

that'd be funny if it wasn't so typical of anyone perfidiously aggrandized by TWI and their own bluster.

[teachmevp]

lol...

that'd be funny if it wasn't so typical of anyone perfidiously aggrandized by TWI and their own bluster.

Aggrandized by TWI! I have a thread called "People ARE Mixing the Good News Messages" It's my name Teachmevp, I get it, come on that thread and I will show you how much TWI is left in me. Expose me please, thank you.

Edited March 16, 2016 by teachmevp

[TLC]

Aggrandized by TWI! I have a thread called "People ARE Mixing the Good News Messages" It's my name Teachmevp, I get it, come on that thread and I will show you how much TWI is left in me. Expose me please, thank you.

So you learned egotism elsewhere, or it just came naturally?

[waysider]

Now, boys, we all have to try to get along on this playground.

[teachmevp]

So you learned egotism elsewhere, or it just came naturally?

I remember reading a lot of thoughts, the person who started this thread wrote. Out of respect for what this person is trying to do on this thread, I asked you to talk to me elsewhere. Thank you.

Edited March 16, 2016 by teachmevp

[teachmevp]

Now, boys, we all have to try to get along on this playground.

Here is some fun. VP would never have reason with these people like this. TWI is full of it. But check out the contradiction we can find?

http://defendingthetruth.com/religion/53392-people-mixing-gospels-together.html

[TLC]

I remember reading a lot of thoughts, the person who started this thread wrote. Out of respect for what this person is trying to do on this thread, I asked you to talk to me elsewhere. Thank you.

Quite frankly, I can barely understand your English, your sentence structure, or what you are possibly trying to say about half the time, and not at all the other half. Is English not your first language? (Because I've honestly tried to assess why your speech is so bloody incoherent much, if not most, of the time.) Furthermore, I don't think you've yet sincerely answered a question I've asked you, on any thread. So, no, I'll freely admit that I'm really not that interested in talking to you elsewhere unless and until you start making more sense.

And btw, cut the crap that your "research" is somehow "over the heads" of anyone (or everyone) else here, because it's not. You evidently enjoy thinking it's some puzzle you've taken apart, but whatever it is, it's shoddily strewn into bits and half missing pieces onto the floor, which you are then either incapable (which is what I suspect) or unwilling to explain.

[modcat5]

Let's please keep the conversation about the topic and not the people posting.

Thanks.

[TLC]

Let's please keep the conversation about the topic and not the people posting.

Thanks.

Well, you're a downright Jack Frost now, aren't you?

Opps... there I go again, talkin' bout the people posting.

(some weatherman you are...)

Edited March 18, 2016 by TLC