Who's Interested in Doctrine and Faith?

  • 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.
Artios1

Artios1

Born again to serve
#41
Dec 11, 2020
670
403
63
#41
Flannery said:
Yeah, but there's a scene in it where Saint Paul says, "Come let us reason together." Have you ever done that, either in your prayer life or your contractual religious life? Have you ever done that in your social or civic life? Because when it comes to religious law, the reasons are found in the history part of the Bible, as they relate to the life, actions and teachings of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Click to expand...
(Act 17:2)
Paul’s reasoning came primarily from the OT as pertaining to the promised seed and extending into the new covenant brought about by what Jesus accomplished… Paul had to reason or declare since most of the New Testament had not been written… and Paul was putting it together for them….. Act 17:3 states what Paul was declaring unto them.

But we now have the epistles (the Word of Truth) which is given by revelation from Jesus Christ. Anything that deviates from the written Truth is just mans hypothesis or religious babble influenced by human reasoning to decorate the alters of self-righteousness.
 
Flannery

Flannery

Active member
#42
Mar 20, 2023
270
70
28
48
#42
Artios1 said:
(Act 17:2)
Paul’s reasoning came primarily from the OT as pertaining to the promised seed and extending into the new covenant brought about by what Jesus accomplished… Paul had to reason or declare since most of the New Testament had not been written… and Paul was putting it together for them….. Act 17:3 states what Paul was declaring unto them.

But we now have the epistles (the Word of Truth) which is given by revelation from Jesus Christ. Anything that deviates from the written Truth is just mans hypothesis or religious babble influenced by human reasoning to decorate the alters of self-righteousness.
Click to expand...
Reason is supposed to all be a priori, from things before this time. Something that happened in the Old Testament, taken to be true by the believers, can be reasoned over. Reason requires more than one person so that it can be done, and it's only over stories of events in the past. A classic example is two people getting together and attempting to "reason" from the assumption that the moon is made of green cheese. Aside from the fact that it's not, and that people in the present know that from experience, that's not a point to reason from, because it isn't a priori. Nothing is a priori (prior to now, and the fact that it ended before the fact that we came together to reason) unless it is over.
 
G

Gideon300

Well-known member
#44
Mar 18, 2021
4,959
2,885
113
#44
Flannery said:
NIfty bifty. Which version do you use? Want to throw the quotation, citation and version up on the board so I can see it?
Click to expand...
I use Bible Hub, which has most versions listed, including many that I've not heard of. The reference is Matthew 18:20 (19 for context)

Again, I tell you truly that if two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three gather together in My name, there am I with them.
 
Artios1

Artios1

Born again to serve
#45
Dec 11, 2020
670
403
63
#45
Flannery said:
Reason is supposed to all be a priori, from things before this time. Something that happened in the Old Testament, taken to be true by the believers, can be reasoned over. Reason requires more than one person so that it can be done, and it's only over stories of events in the past. A classic example is two people getting together and attempting to "reason" from the assumption that the moon is made of green cheese. Aside from the fact that it's not, and that people in the present know that from experience, that's not a point to reason from, because it isn't a priori. Nothing is a priori (prior to now, and the fact that it ended before the fact that we came together to reason) unless it is over.
Click to expand...

You are dissecting the word reason(ed) within the confines of what you believe regarding “exegesis” and I have already given you my stand on that ……… And I have answered what and why Paul was doing in Act 17:3. You may not agree…. and that is fine.

As far as → “Reason is supposed to all be a priori, from things before this time”. ← ….Depending on what you mean by reason (which has various implications) I am incline to say that statement is not true. But…. it’s all kind of moot point since the Word defines itself in the context and is not determined by what you or I believe.
 
Flannery

Flannery

Active member
#46
Mar 20, 2023
270
70
28
48
#46
Artios1 said:
You are dissecting the word reason(ed) within the confines of what you believe regarding “exegesis” and I have already given you my stand on that ……… And I have answered what and why Paul was doing in Act 17:3. You may not agree…. and that is fine.

As far as → “Reason is supposed to all be a priori, from things before this time”. ← ….Depending on what you mean by reason (which has various implications) I am incline to say that statement is not true. But…. it’s all kind of moot point since the Word defines itself in the context and is not determined by what you or I believe.
Click to expand...
In legal terminology, "reason" means "precedent". A judicial case at law is decided with reference to relevant cases of the same species which were decided before. Don't forget that when Paul made his statement, he was embroiled in a case at law before Felix.
 
Flannery

Flannery

Active member
#47
Mar 20, 2023
270
70
28
48
#47
This Bulletin Borad has a really puny memory. A photograph of yourself is too large of a file to upload for introductions.
 
S

Shebrew

Member
#48
Mar 16, 2023
55
19
8
#48
Flannery said:
That's great. As far as canon law, it's a given that it's only canon law if it comes from the Bible. I'll forget the semantic linguistics quibble. Mind you, if we were crusaders, the cannon part would literally mean gun, and we'd be shot for treason if we committed blasphemy by violating a cannon law. But that was in Europe in the context of crusader armies during the dark ages.

Repent and be baptized is good. Tell me your opinion. Jesus was baptized by John, now He didn't need to repent? Where do you stand on the alleged sacrament of confession and penance?
Click to expand...
No, Yahshua did not need to repent.
The baptism had 2 purposes.
1. To fulfill scripture
2. To lead by example.
As far as confession, I don't need a priest to forgive me my sins.
Penance is individual, between you and Yahweh. I know people that will fast as penance, they believe it helps them, their struggles with sin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.