Christian doctrine.... What part of that doctrine do you want to suggest is operative in dealing with ISIS? Or is that all just flowery, pretty talk on Sunday?
Didn't thinkk it would happen?
- Thread starter trickpony1
- Start date
Hard to be vigilant or a crusader if we're already dead.
oldngray
nowhere special
There is no doctrine related to ISIS. Why would there be?
oldngray
nowhere special
It's the Book of Revelation, not Revelations by the way.
Z
ZQXC
Guest
wkmac
Well-Known Member
The fact that these scripts just repeat themselves should be telling us something.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
So how do you come up with Jesus if the OT is so unimportant? Even the gospels spend a lot of time quoting or making reference to it. When Jesus says, "it's is written" or "it was said" you think he's referencing The Books of Monty Python?
I've told you before, you should read Marcion as he is right up your ally!
oldngray
nowhere special
Did I say the OT was unimportant to Christians? It was written for us but not to us.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
This has nothing to do with either Manson or race.
It's about our freedom to choose how we want to live. The Muslims seem to have a BIG problem with that and won't let it go.
Scripture is either applicable to our daily lives or it is faithless dribble.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
You said none of the OT can be used as christian doctrine. What is doctrine? From the Etymology Online Dictionary under the word doctrine:
How do you teach Jesus without the OT which from the christian POV foretold of Jesus? Why do we need Jesus at all when the so-called Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden made Jesus an absolute necessity for the purpose of redemption? The very fundamental foundation of the need for christianity in the first place. How do we know there is only one god? From your POV, how do we even know morality or the basis moral code? If no OT is needed, where did Jesus get his morality from?
I would argue just the opposite of your point, the OT is fundamental to christianity as we know it in the larger context today. But there is another argument in which you are fundamentally correct on your point concerning the OT but to make that argument you will have to argue from the gnostic POV and much of that is seen heretical from the view of orthodox christianity. If you haven't you should read the Gospel of Thomas as well as the other works of the Nag Hammadi library. Great read, especially the Gospel of Thomas.
oldngray
nowhere special
Of course it applies but you can't quote out of context.
So put it in context.
oldngray
nowhere special
Using Apocryphal books as a source is a weak argument. There are reasons those books were rejected.
oldngray
nowhere special
Read your Bible and use Scripture to interpret itself.
moreluck
golden ticket member
drivel.....
Dribble is b-ball.
Spell checker
So how would you interpret it?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
If you argue the scripture interprets itself, I hope you don't go to a church and sit and listen to a preacher give his/her "interpretation" of the bible. That's not letting the bible speak for itself. Not to mention I hope you reference the hebrew from which the english is translated from? The english translated bible in many cases is horrible in reflecting hebrew thought and intent. Many words are not translated but transliterated and thus lose the original meaning and intent.
Reading the bible I completely agree with. Few christians do but yet they should.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Since Dave isn't around, good thing we have you.
If Panin and RR are the same, could Upstate and Moreluck be.........Hmmmm!
Similar threads
