Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas: Masters of Theology

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E

Elin

Banned
#241
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#241
Dan_473 said:
ahh, well we disagree there... I think there's wisdom and spiritual food in everything Jesus said.
Click to expand...
However, the assumption is that he did not say them at the end of the Lord's prayer and at the end of Mark.

So why would be important?
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#242
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#242
Elin said:
The issue is an alteration in the meaning of the NT for it to be material.
Click to expand...
yes, additional teachings would be an alteration to the teaching or meaning... or maybe we're using 'meaning' differently...
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#243
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#243
Elin said:
The issue is an alteration in the meaning of the NT for it to be material.
Click to expand...
can you say what the meaning of the nt is? I'm interested...
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#244
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#244
Elin said:
Where is the alteration in the meaning of the NT, causing it either not to mean or to mean other than what the NT means without the differences under discussion?
Click to expand...
if there is a singular meaning to the nt, and additional teachings are added to that, then, imo, the meaning has been altered.
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#245
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#245
Elin said:
Please show how the meaning of the NT is altered by these words--
starting with what the NT meaning on prayer is without them,
then what it would no longer mean or
what would be the new meaning based on the words in question.
Click to expand...
"...starting with what the NT meaning on prayer is without them..."

no can do... I can't distill what Jesus said and did, or the apostles, by the holy spirit... also, I think how Jesus said something is important, as well as what he said.
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#246
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#246
Elin said:
No disagreement there. . .but these particular words do not alter the meaning and import of the NT.
Click to expand...
well, imo, the meaning and import is related to the wisdom and spiritual food...

for me, they aren't separate...
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#247
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#247
Elin said:
However, the assumption is that he did not say them at the end of the Lord's prayer and at the end of Mark.

So why would be important?
Click to expand...
no, I wasn't asssuming that... I understood there were two related issues we were talking about at this point...

both ancient and modern copies of the nt have imperfections... I said some of the differences were important, I understood you to be saying they weren't

does one look only to the nt to understand the nt? if so, I say there are important questions that can't be answered (one example is which text to use)... again, I think you were saying they weren't important...
 
E

Elin

Banned
#248
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#248
Dan_473 said:
Elin said:
However, the assumption is that
he did not say them at the end of the Lord's prayer and at the end of Mark.

So why would they be important?
Click to expand...
no, I wasn't asssuming that... I understood there were two related issues we were talking about at this point...

both ancient and modern copies of the nt have imperfections...
I said some of the differences were important, I understood you to be saying they weren't
Click to expand...
Actually, my only point is material (altering the meaning of the NT) vs. immaterial,
my point is not importance vs. unimportance.

For I consider all Scripture important, excluding none.

But if the alleged differences do not alter the meaning of the NT, then the divine truth of the NT is not affected.
That is what is material--the divine truth of the NT.
Differences which do not alter the meaning of the NT are immaterial to its divine truth.

None of the differences you have presented alter the meaning of the divine truth of the NT.

does one look only to the nt to understand the nt? if so, I say there are
important questions that can't be answered (one example is which text to use)... again, I think you were saying they weren't important...
Click to expand...
And I say in the texts being used, there are no material differences which alter the meaning of the divine truth of the NT.

So what would make their immaterial differences so important to the divine truth of the NT?

Would those differences in any way lead me astray, or into heresy?

If not, what is the material problem with them?
 
E

Elin

Banned
#249
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#249
Dan_473 said:
yes, additional teachings would be an alteration to the teaching or meaning... or
maybe we're using 'meaning' differently...
Click to expand...
I think you do not understand the meaning of "material" in this area.

And the "meaning" is the meaning of the divine truth of the NT.
Is it altered in any way by these alleged differences?

Can these immaterial differences lead me astray or into heresy?
If not, they are no problem for the believer of the Bible.
 
E

Elin

Banned
#250
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#250
Dan_473 said:
Elin said:
The issue is an alteration in the meaning of the NT for it to be material.
Click to expand...
can you say what the meaning of the nt is? I'm interested...
Click to expand...
That would be its doctrines, derived from both teaching and events.

For example, if there were additions that presented reincarnation, those differences would be material, could lead astray and into heresy.

Such additions would present a serious problem.
 
Last edited:
jamie26301

jamie26301

Senior Member
#251
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
#251
John 5:39
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
 
E

Elin

Banned
#252
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#252
Dan_473 said:
if there is a singular meaning to the nt, and
additional teachings are added to that, then, imo,
the meaning has been altered.
Click to expand...
Agreed. . .but the alleged differences which you present do not alter the divine truth of the NT.

Perhaps, you could present an alleged difference which alters the divine truth of the NT in a
material way--leading astray or into heresy.
 
E

Elin

Banned
#253
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#253
Dan_473 said:
Elin said:
Please show how the meaning of the NT is altered by these words--
starting with what the NT meaning on prayer is without them,
then what it would no longer mean or
what would be the new meaning based on the words in question.
Click to expand...
"...starting with what the NT meaning on prayer is without them..."

no can do... I can't distill what Jesus said and did, or the apostles, by the holy spirit... also, I think how Jesus said something is important, as well as what he said.
Click to expand...
Well, that leaves you with only an unproven hypothetical.

I say that it's better to stick with what can be materially shown from the Scriptures
rather than entertaining iffy and immaterial hypotheticals.
 
E

Elin

Banned
#254
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#254
Dan_473 said:
really? things Jesus said don't matter, unless they affect a core teaching of the nt? if I got that right, we certainly have a different way of looking at the bible...

so, to you, is the bible pretty much just a collection of core teachings?

to me, the bible has so many layers to it... proverbs talks about giving subtilty to the simple... to me, if one is willing to take a 'subtle' approach to the scriptures, there are so many different kinds of riches there!
Click to expand...
Agreed. . .and the alleged differences which you present alter the meaning of none of that.

Please present an example of an alleged addition altering the meaning of the truth of Scripture as to lead astray or into heresy to support your assertion.
 
E

Elin

Banned
#255
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#255
Dan_473 said:
Elin said:
Is that a reference to everyone that believes?
Click to expand...
yes, that's how I read it... those signs would be common events in the lives of believers...
Click to expand...
The text does not state "all" believers, so I don't see it to mean such, but to mean those signs would appear only among those who believe, which the history of the church bears out.
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#256
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#256
Elin said:
Actually, my only point is material (altering the meaning of the NT) vs. immaterial,
my point is not importance vs. unimportance.

For I consider all Scripture important, excluding none.

But if the alleged differences do not alter the meaning of the NT, then the divine truth of the NT is not affected.
That is what is material--the divine truth of the NT.
Differences which do not alter the meaning of the NT are immaterial to its divine truth.

None of the differences you have presented alter the meaning of the divine truth of the NT.


And I say in the texts being used, there are no material differences which alter the meaning of the divine truth of the NT.

So what would make their immaterial differences so important to the divine truth of the NT?

Would those differences in any way lead me astray, or into heresy?

If not, what is the material problem with them?
Click to expand...
perhaps we're using the word 'material' differently... I'm using this Material | Define Material at Dictionary.com , #12

"None of the differences you have presented alter the meaning of the divine truth of the NT."
well, we disagree there... I think if something is an additional teaching, then it's an alteration in the meaning...
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#257
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#257
Elin said:
I think you do not understand the meaning of "material" in this area.

And the "meaning" is the meaning of the divine truth of the NT.
Is it altered in any way by these alleged differences?

Can these immaterial differences lead me astray or into heresy?
If not, they are no problem for the believer of the Bible.
Click to expand...
well, the divine truth of the nt would be its collective teachings... imo...
could the differences lead you astray? I don't know... do you see yourself as dependent on the scriptures only, or also on the ability of the spirit to guide you and Jesus to shepherd you?
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#258
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#258
Elin said:
That would be its doctrines, derived from both teaching and events.

For example, if there were additions that presented reincarnation, those differences would be material, could lead astray and into heresy.

Such additions would present a serious problem.
Click to expand...
yes, a change in teachings would be a change in doctrine Doctrine | Define Doctrine at Dictionary.com
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#259
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#259
Elin said:
Agreed. . .but the alleged differences which you present do not alter the divine truth of the NT.

Perhaps, you could present an alleged difference which alters the divine truth of the NT in a
material way--leading astray or into heresy.
Click to expand...
ahh, but now we have a stricter meaning for 'material'... it must lead astray or into heresy...
I was using 'material' as a synonym for 'important' which is in line with standard usage...
now, could an additional teaching be serious or important without leading to heresy? yes, a person could waste lots of time/energy on teachings not from God... imo...
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#260
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#260
Elin said:
Well, that leaves you with only an unproven hypothetical.

I say that it's better to stick with what can be materially shown from the Scriptures
rather than entertaining iffy and immaterial hypotheticals.
Click to expand...
you are correct that I can't prove it... I did say 'I think'...

now, imo, sticking with what can be materially shown, as I understand you here, would leave one in a place to miss out on a lot...

'To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.