thereselittleflower Posted September 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2015 There are things you readily accept as true that you provide no proof of that cause me to question the foundation of your message.What things are these "things" I readily accept as true that I provide no proof of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdemoss Posted September 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 59 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,402 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 2,154 Days Won: 28 Joined: 02/10/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/26/1971 Share Posted September 22, 2015 There are things you readily accept as true that you provide no proof of that cause me to question the foundation of your message. What things are these "things" I readily accept as true that I provide no proof of? Hi Little Flower, in the very next line of the quote you pulled this out of it continues "for example". There is where I addressed it in that post. I laid the whole post out as a congruent thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted September 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2015 There are things you readily accept as true that you provide no proof of that cause me to question the foundation of your message. What things are these "things" I readily accept as true that I provide no proof of? Hi Little Flower, in the very next line of the quote you pulled this out of it continues "for example". There is where I addressed it in that post. I laid the whole post out as a congruent thought. How is that an example though? You said: For example, you point to the scripture to say that oral tradition are acceptable means of communicating the word of God to which I agree but where do you find in scripture that there will be oral traditions that go beyond that which is written? What do you mean by "beyond that which is written" ? What are you basing the question on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdemoss Posted September 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 59 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,402 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 2,154 Days Won: 28 Joined: 02/10/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/26/1971 Share Posted September 22, 2015 There are things you readily accept as true that you provide no proof of that cause me to question the foundation of your message. What things are these "things" I readily accept as true that I provide no proof of? Hi Little Flower, in the very next line of the quote you pulled this out of it continues "for example". There is where I addressed it in that post. I laid the whole post out as a congruent thought. How is that an example though? You said: For example, you point to the scripture to say that oral tradition are acceptable means of communicating the word of God to which I agree but where do you find in scripture that there will be oral traditions that go beyond that which is written? What do you mean by "beyond that which is written" ? What are you basing the question on? Maybe I am hearing you wrong then. Please allow me to rephrase. It was my perception that you declare that the bible alone is not enough but we are to go by the oral traditions passed down from the Apostles that are not found in scripture. Is that not what your saying? I keep hearing the bible is not enough repeatedly. Sola scriptura is false according to your belief I thought. What is it then? Is the bible enough or no? Thank you for being patient and forthright in questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted September 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) There are things you readily accept as true that you provide no proof of that cause me to question the foundation of your message. What things are these "things" I readily accept as true that I provide no proof of? Hi Little Flower, in the very next line of the quote you pulled this out of it continues "for example". There is where I addressed it in that post. I laid the whole post out as a congruent thought. How is that an example though? You said: For example, you point to the scripture to say that oral tradition are acceptable means of communicating the word of God to which I agree but where do you find in scripture that there will be oral traditions that go beyond that which is written? What do you mean by "beyond that which is written" ? What are you basing the question on? Maybe I am hearing you wrong then. Please allow me to rephrase. It was my perception that you declare that the bible alone is not enough but we are to go by the oral traditions passed down from the Apostles that are not found in scripture. Is that not what your saying? I keep hearing the bible is not enough repeatedly. Sola scriptura is false according to your belief I thought. What is it then? Is the bible enough or no? Thank you for being patient and forthright in questions. Yes, but how is that going beyond what is written when what is written tells us to stand fast and hold to the traditions the Apostles taught verbally? How is obeying what is written going beyond what is written? Edited September 22, 2015 by thereselittleflower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdemoss Posted September 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 59 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,402 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 2,154 Days Won: 28 Joined: 02/10/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/26/1971 Share Posted September 22, 2015 There are things you readily accept as true that you provide no proof of that cause me to question the foundation of your message. What things are these "things" I readily accept as true that I provide no proof of? Hi Little Flower, in the very next line of the quote you pulled this out of it continues "for example". There is where I addressed it in that post. I laid the whole post out as a congruent thought. How is that an example though? You said: For example, you point to the scripture to say that oral tradition are acceptable means of communicating the word of God to which I agree but where do you find in scripture that there will be oral traditions that go beyond that which is written? What do you mean by "beyond that which is written" ? What are you basing the question on? Maybe I am hearing you wrong then. Please allow me to rephrase. It was my perception that you declare that the bible alone is not enough but we are to go by the oral traditions passed down from the Apostles that are not found in scripture. Is that not what your saying? I keep hearing the bible is not enough repeatedly. Sola scriptura is false according to your belief I thought. What is it then? Is the bible enough or no? Thank you for being patient and forthright in questions. Yes, but how is that going beyond what is written when what is written tells us to stand fast and hold to the traditions the Apostles taught verbally? How is obeying what is written going beyond what is written? Thank you. I agree with you that the scriptures teach that oral tradition is an acceptable means of teaching what the scriptures teach. Where it seems we part ways is anywhere that those oral traditions are not found in the scriptures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted September 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) There are things you readily accept as true that you provide no proof of that cause me to question the foundation of your message. What things are these "things" I readily accept as true that I provide no proof of? Hi Little Flower, in the very next line of the quote you pulled this out of it continues "for example". There is where I addressed it in that post. I laid the whole post out as a congruent thought. How is that an example though? You said: For example, you point to the scripture to say that oral tradition are acceptable means of communicating the word of God to which I agree but where do you find in scripture that there will be oral traditions that go beyond that which is written? What do you mean by "beyond that which is written" ? What are you basing the question on? Maybe I am hearing you wrong then. Please allow me to rephrase. It was my perception that you declare that the bible alone is not enough but we are to go by the oral traditions passed down from the Apostles that are not found in scripture. Is that not what your saying? I keep hearing the bible is not enough repeatedly. Sola scriptura is false according to your belief I thought. What is it then? Is the bible enough or no? Thank you for being patient and forthright in questions. Yes, but how is that going beyond what is written when what is written tells us to stand fast and hold to the traditions the Apostles taught verbally? How is obeying what is written going beyond what is written? Thank you. I agree with you that the scriptures teach that oral tradition is an acceptable means of teaching what the scriptures teach. Where it seems we part ways is anywhere that those oral traditions are not found in the scriptures. Well that's not exactly what that verse says. It doesn't say that oral tradition is an acceptable means of teaching what the scriptures teach. It doesn't say to hold to what the scriptures teach, whether it is taught verbally or in writing. It says to hold to what THE APOSTLES taught, whether verbally or in writing. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. This signifies part of what the Apostles taught is in writing, and part of what they taught was delivered verbally. Edited September 22, 2015 by thereselittleflower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdemoss Posted September 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 59 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,402 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 2,154 Days Won: 28 Joined: 02/10/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/26/1971 Share Posted September 22, 2015 There are things you readily accept as true that you provide no proof of that cause me to question the foundation of your message. What things are these "things" I readily accept as true that I provide no proof of? Hi Little Flower, in the very next line of the quote you pulled this out of it continues "for example". There is where I addressed it in that post. I laid the whole post out as a congruent thought. How is that an example though? You said: For example, you point to the scripture to say that oral tradition are acceptable means of communicating the word of God to which I agree but where do you find in scripture that there will be oral traditions that go beyond that which is written? What do you mean by "beyond that which is written" ? What are you basing the question on? Maybe I am hearing you wrong then. Please allow me to rephrase. It was my perception that you declare that the bible alone is not enough but we are to go by the oral traditions passed down from the Apostles that are not found in scripture. Is that not what your saying? I keep hearing the bible is not enough repeatedly. Sola scriptura is false according to your belief I thought. What is it then? Is the bible enough or no? Thank you for being patient and forthright in questions. Yes, but how is that going beyond what is written when what is written tells us to stand fast and hold to the traditions the Apostles taught verbally? How is obeying what is written going beyond what is written? Thank you. I agree with you that the scriptures teach that oral tradition is an acceptable means of teaching what the scriptures teach. Where it seems we part ways is anywhere that those oral traditions are not found in the scriptures. Well that's not exactly what that verse says. It doesn't say that oral tradition is an acceptable means of teaching what the scriptures teach. It doesn't say to hold to what the scriptures teach, whether it is taught verbally or in writing. It says to hold to what THE APOSTLES taught, whether verbally or in writing. This signifies part of what the Apostles taught is in writing, and part of what they taught was delivered verbally. I understand that you believe that that is what it teaches. I unerstand that you believe that the complete message is in two parts, one scripture and the other oral tradition which you believe contained information not found in scripture. You deny that Paul said the Old Testament scriptures alone was enough to make one wise unto salvation in Jesus Christ. I cannot do that. I cannot go against that which is perfectly plain in his letter to Timothy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) God is an extremely giving and generous Lord. It would be nice if we were willing to give our all to Him, but He sincerely expects absolutely nothing in return (only that we believe in the genuine sacrifice of His Son, which is a really big deal!). And, as a side mention: He absolutely rules, whether He is used to us giving anything in return at all, and I love Him with all my heart! Edited September 22, 2015 by ethrayn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinM Posted September 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted September 22, 2015 It is a free gift, because God is our Creator/Father and He loves us. Fathers that love their children, bless them with gifts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts