RV_Wizard Posted February 23 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 773 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 327 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/22/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/05/1962 Share Posted February 23 21 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. I am not Catholic. The pope is a man. He is the head of the Catholic church, but God's representative on earth is the Holy Spirit. That's why Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, not to any intercessors. The Holy Spirit is our intercessor. We pray to the Father. It is the Holy Spirit that teaches us the truth of the Bible when we read it. The Holy Spirit is God within us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Free Posted February 23 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.62 Reputation: 290 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/15/2018 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 23 (edited) 33 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said: Paul is referencing the new covenant Paul basically gave us the Christianity we have today. If it was up to James we would still be obligated to the Law. It is Paul's version of the new covenant that we are following. He derived this by declaring the Old Testament ways were the ministry of death and their prophecy was partial and incomplete associating the Torah with the reasoning of a child. Was is absolutely necessary for us to learn our ABC's? Yes Edited February 23 by Scott Free 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 23 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23 2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said: I am not Catholic. But you are still part of the church even if you don't accept God's word in all things. You are angry because you don't want to listen to the Holy Spirit, who with the Father and the Son is your maker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 23 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scott Free said: Paul basically gave us the Christianity we have today. If it was up to James we would still be obligated to the Law. The difference is in what The Law means. Judaism had, at that time, become legalistic and complex to the point that a normal man could not follow the law in all regards. The New Covenant was of the spirit. So Jesus pointed out that not all who followed the law would be saved, but those who did the will of the Father. That which is done in love of God and our fellow man, is in the Law. That which is not, is not of the Law. Edited February 23 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Free Posted February 23 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.62 Reputation: 290 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/15/2018 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 23 2 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: Judaism had, at that time, become legalistic and complex to the point that a normal man could not follow the law in all regards. Agreed. The Law does play an essential role in creating a stable civilization for the Jews. Could you imagine Christianity having a Sanhedrin dictating the application of the Law? Paul did the right thing by upstaging James in questioning the continued viability of the Torah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Free Posted February 23 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.62 Reputation: 290 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/15/2018 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 23 33 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: Judaism had, at that time, become legalistic and complex to the point that a normal man could not follow the law in all regards. The Jewish ultra-orthodoxy was more oppressive than Sharia law is today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 23 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 23 2 hours ago, Scott Free said: The Jewish ultra-orthodoxy was more oppressive than Sharia law is today? No, at least not the way it is where Islam is the established religion, because the Jews did not enforce it for everyone. The Pharisees kept the legalisms, but most people just did the best they could. So by Jesus' time, you didn't have religious police running about, punishing every little deviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Free Posted February 23 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.62 Reputation: 290 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/15/2018 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 23 30 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: No, at least not the way it is where Islam is the established religion, because the Jews did not enforce it for everyone. The Pharisees kept the legalisms, but most people just did the best they could. So by Jesus' time, you didn't have religious police running about, punishing every little deviation. That is true. I guess I am just talking about the difference in the complexity of law among fringe extremist groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RV_Wizard Posted February 24 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 773 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 327 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/22/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/05/1962 Share Posted February 24 11 hours ago, Scott Free said: He derived this by declaring the Old Testament ways were the ministry of death and their prophecy was partial and incomplete associating the Torah with the reasoning of a child. The Old Testament teaches us that the wages of sin are death, and that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. These truths are revisited in the New Testament. Until we understand that, we understand nothing. Nothing has changed. The wages of your sin are death. The gift of God, through grace, is eternal life. That grace comes from the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the lamb of God; perfect and without sin. His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin. Christ is the fulfilment of the Scriptures, not the correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RV_Wizard Posted February 24 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 773 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 327 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/22/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/05/1962 Share Posted February 24 9 hours ago, The Barbarian said: But you are still part of the church even if you don't accept God's word in all things. Everything I say I back up by posting God's word. My church is the Bible. If you preach that which is in the Bible, I may be a part of your church. If you teach differently, I will wipe my feet as I leave the door. If anyone can show an error using a complete passage of Scripture, I have no problem learning. When you post a partial quote out of context and pretends that it says that which it does not, I reject that as false teaching and an attack on the word of God. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts