ECT What is the Gospel?

[Right Divider]

No, it is true. I do not think I am the only one who holds the truth. That would be ignorant and preposterous. This is an attribute you are claiming I make, so that you can knock it down. (This is called the "Straw Man fallacy") The fact is that I do not hold some pre-existing truth, absent of evidence or logic, as a foundation of belief. As I stated before, it can be demonstrated.

Then feel free to demonstrate how one comes to "objective truth".

All you do is deny and dismiss, never putting forth evidence that disputes my claims, and supports your own.

I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that this is self-evident. I realize that you do not understand the a priori nature of that faith.

You have yours and I have mine.

Peter denied that he would deny Christ. But that didn't make it true, did it? Likewise, you simply deny logic, history, and demonstrations that highlight your lack of reasons. This is simply arrogant and ignorant.

I do no such thing.

So rather than simply chuckling to yourself and utilizing acronyms in an attempt to show higher cognitive ability, simply provide reason and evidence.

I do when such "reason and evidence" is appropriate.

Your claim that the RCC has established what the "Bible/Canon" is shows your bias and not your "logical reasoning".

(If you wish to add input on how I could "come clean about my 'church,'" feel free; I would love to see some alternative history that exists apart from reality)

Simply admit that you're an RCC shill.

 

[jsanford108]

Nope.

Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Hello friend. I am unsure of what exactly you are disputing here. I am assuming it is that the term "Scripture" utilized in Timothy refers to Scripture as it existed in the time of Paul, being the Old Testament canon, utilized by the Hebrews.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[dodge]

You are completely self-deceived.

Nah, I aint MAD that is a deception of epic proportions.

 

[Danoh]

Hello friend. I am unsure of what exactly you are disputing here. I am assuming it is that the term "Scripture" utilized in Timothy refers to Scripture as it existed in the time of Paul, being the Old Testament canon, utilized by the Hebrews.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Passages like the two I quoted show Peter and Paul, et al, had much more than merely the OT in their day.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Nah, I aint MAD that is a deception of epic proportions.

Dodgeism- 47% in error
MADism- 46.9% in error

 

[jsanford108]

Passages like the two I quoted show Peter and Paul, et al, had much more than merely the OT in their day.

I would agree. But the things they had were oral in nature, or letter being passed/copied, such as the Gospels and NT letters. There was no established canon outside of the Old Testament. And letters were simply that: letters. Just because it may begin or end with "In Christ," did not make it the workings of the Holy Spirit. Many denominations today have statements of faith with the very same salutations; but that does not render them as Divine. See my point?

So yes, Peter, Paul, Apostles, etc did have more than the OT, but it was oral in nature, teachings by the Apostles, and as far as physical, letters at best.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Tambora]

All MAD (on TOL ) has done is create a second "GOSPEL' that does not exist.

Wrong and made up.

Promote and elevate Paul above the teachings of Jesus as revealed in the 4 Gospels .

Wrong and made up.

Accuse anyone NOT in there cult of being OUT of the B.O.C.

Wrong and made up.

Nit pick at the bible until nothing means what it clearly says to promote something so totally irrelevant to any one in Christ as being done here on TOL.

Wrong and made up.

The whole message and good news of the Gospel is perverted by MAD (here on ToL ) from being offered salvation through repentance and turning from sin to God by placing ones faith in Christ Jesus to bickering about what "new knowledge" some falsely claim to be of such momentous importance when in actuality EVERYTHING consists of and through Jesus the Christ in truth concerning God.

Wrong and made up.

Paul taught to follow Jesus as he himself followed Jesus.

Finally, some truth from Dodge.

 

[jsanford108]

Then feel free to demonstrate how one comes to "objective truth".


I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that this is self-evident. I realize that you do not understand the a priori nature of that faith.

You have yours and I have mine.


I do no such thing.


I do when such "reason and evidence" is appropriate.

Your claim that the RCC has established what the "Bible/Canon" is shows your bias and not your "logical reasoning".


Simply admit that you're an RCC shill.

I have never denied being Catholic. That was never a debate. Demonstrating that the RCC established what is accepted as canon is not "logical reasoning," but historical fact.

Thus far, you have provided only one piece of evidence for a claim, and that was the quote from the letter to Timothy.

I demonstrated, with historical evidence, that this quote did not support your claim, as you insisted it did (the evidence being what was defined as "Scripture" in the days of Paul). Apart from this single event, you have not brought forth any substantial evidence to support your claim, and to deny my own. Hence, my statement that you have done nothing but deny what I present, and dismiss it.

I also illustrated how your reasoning of "Scripture says it is true, therefore it is true" goes against basic logic and reason. I even alluded to how Islam utilizes the same defense (which is easy to find in a basic reading of the Qu'ran or conversation with a Muslim).

If one cannot defend a doctrinal belief with logic/reason, paired with evidence, then how can it be sound? This is how we disprove Islam, JW's, Mormons, Atheists, Pagans, etc. If any argument or claim cannot withstand its own criticisms of others, then it is null.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Danoh]

I would agree. But the things they had were oral in nature, or letter being passed/copied, such as the Gospels and NT letters. There was no established canon outside of the Old Testament. And letters were simply that: letters. Just because it may begin or end with "In Christ," did not make it the workings of the Holy Spirit. Many denominations today have statements of faith with the very same salutations; but that does not render them as Divine. See my point?

So yes, Peter, Paul, Apostles, etc did have more than the OT, but it was oral in nature, teachings by the Apostles, and as far as physical, letters at best.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

And yet, there all those supposedly oral things are...in writing.

We're at a stand still; you are going by the supposed history.

The internal evidence of the writings is not only that they were writings, but in multiple copies the various assemblies had a copy of, be they Old or New.

I would suggest you put down "the history" for a time, and actually study out the process of preservation of things not only through writings, but through multiple copies of same.

Otherwise you face a steep.uphill climb on here; some of us know what's what more than most might conclude.

For as the Apostle Paul put it concerning both the Old and the New...

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 15:17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: 15:21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

 

[Right Divider]

I have never denied being Catholic. That was never a debate. Demonstrating that the RCC established what is accepted as canon is not "logical reasoning," but historical fact.

That is absolute and utter nonsense. It is a FALSE claim made by a disgusting abomination that lays FALSE claim to authority (you and your RCC).

Thus far, you have provided only one piece of evidence for a claim, and that was the quote from the letter to Timothy.

1st and 2nd Timothy are the LAST two books that Paul wrote. His letters were already accepts as scripture by that time and NOT because the RCC said so.

I demonstrated, with historical evidence, that this quote did not support your claim, as you insisted it did (the evidence being what was defined as "Scripture" in the days of Paul). Apart from this single event, you have not brought forth any substantial evidence to support your claim, and to deny my own. Hence, my statement that you have done nothing but deny what I present, and dismiss it.

Your RCC arrogance can continue as long as you like; it will continue to be a lie.

I also illustrated how your reasoning of "Scripture says it is true, therefore it is true" goes against basic logic and reason. I even alluded to how Islam utilizes the same defense (which is easy to find in a basic reading of the Qu'ran or conversation with a Muslim).

There are many validations that the Bible is the Word of God. If you'd like to start another thread then we can get into all of those.

As I've pointed out, those books are INCONSISTENT and contain FALSEHOODS that deny their divine origin as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice.

If one cannot defend a doctrinal belief with logic/reason, paired with evidence, then how can it be sound? This is how we disprove Islam, JW's, Mormons, Atheists, Pagans, etc. If any argument or claim cannot withstand its own criticisms of others, then it is null.

Your RCC claims of superiority and "historical" evidence are a joke. Unfortunately that joke is not funny.

 

[jsanford108]

And yet, there all those supposedly oral things are...in writing.

We're at a stand still; you are going by the supposed history.

The internal evidence of the writings is not only that they were writings, but in multiple copies the various assemblies had a copy of, be they Old or New.

I would suggest you put down "the history" for a time, and actually study out the process of preservation of things not only through writings, but through multiple copies of same.

Otherwise you face a steep.uphill climb on here; some of us know what's what more than most might conclude.

For as the Apostle Paul put it concerning both the Old and the New...

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 15:17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: 15:21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

I don't think we are at an impasse. I am agreeing with you, friend. Just trying to clear that up.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Danoh]

I don't think we are at an impasse. I am agreeing with you, friend. Just trying to clear that up.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Nope; yours is the same old "well, ahem; the RCC established the Cannon."

Thus my advice to you.

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

And so on...

The more you puff other wise from the so called history, the more the internal evidence shows the very busy writing ministry back in the very day of the Twelve and The Apostle of the Gentiles.

Or as one of those writer's back then...wrote...

2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

Put the books away; get in The Book.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

[jsanford108]

What is the Gospel?

That is absolute and utter nonsense. It is a FALSE claim made by a disgusting abomination that lays FALSE claim to authority (you and your RCC).


1st and 2nd Timothy are the LAST two books that Paul wrote. His letters were already accepts as scripture by that time and NOT because the RCC said so.


Your RCC arrogance can continue as long as you like; it will continue to be a lie.


There are many validations that the Bible is the Word of God. If you'd like to start another thread then we can get into all of those.

As I've pointed out, those books are INCONSISTENT and contain FALSEHOODS that deny their divine origin as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice.


Your RCC claims of superiority and "historical" evidence are a joke. Unfortunately that joke is not funny.

Provide historical evidence and context for your claims, then. Demonstrate that the RCC is an abomination, with no authority.

Demonstrate that Paul's letters were already accepted as Scripture.

I am not saying that there are not validations that prove the Bible as divinely inspired. I am saying that your proposed validations are error and absent of reason and rationale.

At no point did I say "it is because the RCC says so." This is silly. Just because the RCC declares something, doesn't make it true. Which is my whole issue with your claim! You see?! Your own reasons criticize others for utilizing the very logic that yours uses!

Rather than make a thread on Biblical validations, which I have at least alluded to, make one on the RCC; since that is the real issue you are debating.

This whole tangent began because you questioned my defining of the Gospel. At that moment, I knew that you would question such trivialities, while having no logical base for your own doctrinal assertions. You argued about the titles of books being "inspired," when any lightly educated person would know that the titles are attributed to the context or attributed authors. Why not argue about the chapter numbering and verse numbers while you are at it? It was this tiny act of aggression which revealed the nature of your arguments.

So please, make the thread. Tag me, invite me, or block me. I assure you, I can defend my positions with logic, evidence, and Scripture.

(It is okay to be wrong. I was proven wrong on here once. I made an argument, with valid claims, and there was one bit of "fact" that I had never questioned. I had heard it as a Protestant and as a Catholic. It was never disputed. The person who saw this flaw, pointed it out, thus demolishing my entire argument. I thanked him for it. For he enlightened me and disputed what I myself never had. Just saying. We can always grow in knowledge.)


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

What is the Gospel?

Nope; yours is the same old "well, ahem; the RCC established the Cannon."

Thus my advice to you.

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

And so on...

The more you puff other wise from the so called history, the more the internal evidence shows the very busy writing ministry back in the very day of the Twelve and The Apostle of the Gentiles.

Or as one of those writer's back then...wrote...

2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

Put the books away; get in The Book.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Who established the canon, then?

Where did any Apostle say believe only what is written?

If only the Written Word is important, why the quote from Matthew 4? Why did Christ Himself not write the Bible, by His own Hand? He could have even spoke it into existence, no? Or even commanded His Apostles to do it.

I like your advice of "put the other books away; get in The Book." I would advise that to all. After all, reading the Bible is what made me Catholic.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

Provide historical evidence and context for your claims, then. Demonstrate that the RCC is an abomination, with no authority.

The RCC teaches false doctrine, like Mary as "co-mediatrix". :vomit:

Demonstrate that Paul's letters were already accepted as Scripture.

2Pet 3:15-16 (KJV)​

(3:15) And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (3:16) As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
​

Let the Bible interpret the Bible.

I am not saying that there are not validations that prove the Bible as divinely inspired. I am saying that your proposed validations are error and absent of reason and rationale.

At no point did I say "it is because the RCC says so." This is silly. Just because the RCC declares something, doesn't make it true. Which is my whole issue with your claim! You see?! Your own reasons criticize others for utilizing the very logic that yours uses!

Rather than make a thread on Biblical validations, which I have at least alluded to, make one on the RCC; since that is the real issue you are debating.

This whole tangent began because you questioned my defining of the Gospel.

You seemed to be trying to claim that the term "the gospel" was singularly true because of the book titles "The Gospel according to John", etc.

That is silly and does NOT prove anything. My POINT was that those were MAN-MADE titles.

The Bible declares many gospels.

 

[Right Divider]

Who established the canon, then?

God.

The Bible is discerned and not decided.

Where did any Apostle say believe only what is written?

Nowhere.

If only the Written Word is important, why the quote from Matthew 4? Why did Christ Himself not write the Bible, by His own Hand? He could have even spoke it into existence, no? Or even commanded His Apostles to do it.

The written Word is a protection against false doctrine, like that of the RCC.

I like your advice of "put the other books away; get in The Book." I would advise that to all. After all, reading the Bible is what made me Catholic.

:rotfl:

 

[jsanford108]

The RCC teaches false doctrine, like Mary as "co-mediatrix". :vomit:

2Pet 3:15-16 (KJV)​

(3:15) And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (3:16) As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
​

Let the Bible interpret the Bible.


You seemed to be trying to claim that the term "the gospel" was singularly true because of the book titles "The Gospel according to John", etc.

That is silly and does NOT prove anything. My POINT was that those were MAN-MADE titles.

The Bible declares many gospels.

You really have no support, do you? Just a lot of empty claims, contradictory logic, and misapplied "facts."

You can't prove any alternative history, because it doesn't exist. That's why you just throw out some random doctrine the RCC teaches. Because historical fact goes against your claims.

You can't prove your point about "inspired" Scripture, because it requires history denial. Thus, "let Scripture interpret Scripture." Circular reasoning is not rational.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

God.

The Bible is discerned and not decided.


Nowhere.


The written Word is a protection against false doctrine, like that of the RCC.


:rotfl:

Where and how did God establish the canon? Please provide.

So the apostles did not command anyone to believe only the Written Word, nor Christ. At least you concede on that. However, how then do you arrive at "Let Scripture interpret Scripture?" If Scripture is the sole source of truth, then how can a person know this? See the contradiction in logic that is present?

If the Written Word is protection against false doctrine, "like the RCC," then please provide a doctrine put forth by the RCC, and the Scripture that positively refutes it.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

You really have no support, do you? Just a lot of empty claims, contradictory logic, and misapplied "facts."

No more empty than your fake facts.

You can't prove any alternative history, because it doesn't exist. That's why you just throw out some random doctrine the RCC teaches. Because historical fact goes against your claims.

Historical fact does NOT support your RCC claims.

You can't prove your point about "inspired" Scripture, because it requires history denial. Thus, "let Scripture interpret Scripture." Circular reasoning is not rational.

These are all very cute claims.

Stick with your RCC if that makes you happy.

Scripture claims that scripture is inspired by God.
Jesus confirmed this long before your supposed authority existed.

 

[jsanford108]

No more empty than your fake facts.


Historical fact does NOT support your RCC claims.


These are all very cute claims.

Stick with your RCC if that makes you happy.

Scripture claims that scripture is inspired by God.
Jesus confirmed this long before your supposed authority existed.

Sure. You are just too wise for me. How naive of me to ever accept what the Scriptures actually say, what history supports, and logic enforces. I should definitely accept revised alternate histories, falsehoods, and man made doctrine (which can be traced back only 500 or so years).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL