born again and again
New Member
I wonder if has ever occurred to ascund that anyone who argues that his faith is superior to anyone elses is acting "self-righteous."
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact
- Thread starter born again and again
- Start date
Hey BA&A
The size and superiority of faith does not save. Even mustard seed sized faith saves if the object of that faith is Jesus.
When you add fickle human works of righteousness to Jesus' Cross, you have convoluted the gospel from hope to death.
Romans clear denounces human righteousness Rom 1:19-3;19. Isaiah says that even the best of righteous deeds are filthy rags (Isa 64:6).
So you misunderstand again! This is quite typical for blind people! Take your eyes of your own piety and look alone to Jesus.
My faith is grounded in Jesus - alone.
Dependence on works or baptism leads to a rather hot forcast.
Lloyd
The size and superiority of faith does not save. Even mustard seed sized faith saves if the object of that faith is Jesus.
When you add fickle human works of righteousness to Jesus' Cross, you have convoluted the gospel from hope to death.
Romans clear denounces human righteousness Rom 1:19-3;19. Isaiah says that even the best of righteous deeds are filthy rags (Isa 64:6).
So you misunderstand again! This is quite typical for blind people! Take your eyes of your own piety and look alone to Jesus.
My faith is grounded in Jesus - alone.
Dependence on works or baptism leads to a rather hot forcast.
Lloyd
Hey BA&A
Are you going to try a definition of justification? Bet you can't do it without pulling out your catechism.
How many Bible verses can you find that says "justification"? Sigh, any simpleton can go to a web search and copy the verses. I really want to know if you can organize them into a few summative statements. Try it. Let's see what you can do.
Justification is an EVENT.
Lloyd
Are you going to try a definition of justification? Bet you can't do it without pulling out your catechism.
How many Bible verses can you find that says "justification"? Sigh, any simpleton can go to a web search and copy the verses. I really want to know if you can organize them into a few summative statements. Try it. Let's see what you can do.
Justification is an EVENT.
Lloyd
Hey BA&A
I never said Catholic weren't Christians.
I said Catholic theology is corrupt.
Try not to let your personal bias misinterpret this easy fact.
You take everything so personal when the posts are aimed at corruption.
It is your choice to cling to corrupt human-centered dogma or the saving eternal gospel of Jesus Christ.
Choose wisely!
Lloyd
I never said Catholic weren't Christians.
I said Catholic theology is corrupt.
Try not to let your personal bias misinterpret this easy fact.
You take everything so personal when the posts are aimed at corruption.
It is your choice to cling to corrupt human-centered dogma or the saving eternal gospel of Jesus Christ.
Choose wisely!
Lloyd
born again and again
New Member
And I thought steaver missed the entire point of the initial premise.
I really must admit, one must stand in awe at ascund's complete ignorance of the premise of this topic.
I really must admit, one must stand in awe at ascund's complete ignorance of the premise of this topic.
Hey BA&A
Premise nothing! I was just following your lead!
Error of any type is sufficient on an open forum. When you spout error regarding a miscaraciture, then be prepared to either apologize or provide sufficient reason why you hold to such nonsense.
I do note your fear of doing a Bible study on the word "justification." It matches the depth of your posts.
Lloyd
Premise nothing! I was just following your lead!
Error of any type is sufficient on an open forum. When you spout error regarding a miscaraciture, then be prepared to either apologize or provide sufficient reason why you hold to such nonsense.
I do note your fear of doing a Bible study on the word "justification." It matches the depth of your posts.
Lloyd
born again and again
New Member
I don't know where you got your "fear" idea, but how bout if you try and respond to the initial posting; the subject of this entire topic.
He can't. The object of his faith is unbelief, and thus no faith at all.
For example, without John as the author of the Gospel, we don't have the gospel only doubt. Without the gospel we have no record of Jesus's words. Without Jesus's Words, we have no truth. Without truth there is no Jesus, for Jesus is the truth. Thus he has faith in a non-exitent Jeus, in non-existent truth.
Sad.
DHK
For example, without John as the author of the Gospel, we don't have the gospel only doubt. Without the gospel we have no record of Jesus's words. Without Jesus's Words, we have no truth. Without truth there is no Jesus, for Jesus is the truth. Thus he has faith in a non-exitent Jeus, in non-existent truth.
Sad.
DHK
If you go back to page one you will see that my very first post to you was questions pointed directly at one of your opening comments concerning the "topic of this post".
Now I am not an attorney and I only know the law as far as what I hear on TV, but doesn't a lawyer have the right to question any testimony given by the witness?
Go back and see. You said, "Always ask the question, "What is it about this particular text which tends to make the information contained therein reliable?"
I responded with, "Let's examine a part of the four gospels. These are testimonies written down about a man who declared he was from God, in fact the very Son of God, and the things he spoke. At the center of it all he declares that he will be crucified, buried and then be raised to life again the third day. The testimonies written declare that all he said had come to pass.
Can you tell me if it is true and why you believe this information is reliable?
As you can see, I asked you to show me using the gospels how you get the answer to this question that you said should always be asked!
So using the gospels as a text or texts in question, tell me why or why not they are reliable information? In other words, demonstrate to me how you answer your own question about these texts?
I am here to learn and participate, so start teaching!
God Bless!
born again and again
New Member
This topic was initially posted to indicate that no one knows for sure what Jesus said or, in fact, who actually wrote the book of John, except by faith, which is basically synonymous with belief. There was much discussion regarding the definintion of "faith", requiring the use of the word "belief", but in the end all those opposing that "faith" was "belief" gave up.
Although DHK argued strenuously that there are scientific facts which prove who wrote the book of John, he never produced a single one, but instead challenged me to produce authoritiy for the argument that no one really knows who wrote it. Once the authority was posted, he still failed to offer any scientific proof to the contrary.
Doesn't anyone here understand that this is all about religion and it is all based on faith, i.e. belief?
It is fine to have religious beliefs. But the credibility of such beliefs are undermined when the believer argues, without scientific facts, that such beliefs or faith is based on scientific facts.
The lack of scientific facts should not discourage the believer, because this is religion and not science. The two coexist but they exist separately. One is based on science and logic and one is based on feelings, a need to find answers to deeep questions, which thus far, science has not been able to answer. Religion fulfills our most basic need to deal effectively with the knowledge of our own eventual death.
Although DHK argued strenuously that there are scientific facts which prove who wrote the book of John, he never produced a single one, but instead challenged me to produce authoritiy for the argument that no one really knows who wrote it. Once the authority was posted, he still failed to offer any scientific proof to the contrary.
Doesn't anyone here understand that this is all about religion and it is all based on faith, i.e. belief?
It is fine to have religious beliefs. But the credibility of such beliefs are undermined when the believer argues, without scientific facts, that such beliefs or faith is based on scientific facts.
The lack of scientific facts should not discourage the believer, because this is religion and not science. The two coexist but they exist separately. One is based on science and logic and one is based on feelings, a need to find answers to deeep questions, which thus far, science has not been able to answer. Religion fulfills our most basic need to deal effectively with the knowledge of our own eventual death.
Here is why you cannot understand. "Belief/faith", while it can be of the unknown, can also be based on first hand knowledge of a fact.
When one becomes "born again" they recieve within their spirit the Spirit of Christ which then confirms in their heart that what they read in the bible concerning Jesus Christ is the absolute truth.
Can I prove it to you? No. Unless you become born of God you cannot accept the gospel of Jesus Christ as accurate and Truth.
By your beliefs you hold, it is proof that you have not the Spirit of Christ.
So in a Christian circle you have no chance to persuade anyone. There is no debate among Christians as to what Jesus said. There is much debate in interpreting what He said. Christians don't debate "if" He said this or that because we all have the Spirit of God which confirms the bible to each one of us.
But in spite of this perfect evidence given to us by God Himself, there is also a mountain of evidence in addition, which DHK has already touched upon. You simply ignore it and if he gave it all to you, you would ignore it some more. But like he said, you made the assertion so you are the one who needs to prove to a Christian that no one knows what Jesus said. Good luck on that one!
Sorry, but you need to call on Jesus Christ to save you.
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"
"And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"
"But they not all have obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"
So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:14-17)
So you see, your faith is not of the Christian persuasion. Christian faith comes only by the Word of God and you do not believe there is such a thing that anyone can read.
Nobody knows exactly what your faith is in. For some strange reason you are afraid to say, or I guess maybe don't know. You need to call on Jesus to help you.
God Bless!
born again and again
New Member
Thank you steaver for proving my point. It is all based on belief and belief equates to faith. Of course, when you have faith as to the identity of the author of the book of John, you need no scientific proof.
DHK did not post a single source of scientific proof as to the identity of the individual or individuals who wrote the book of John.
So you can choose to quote scritures or you can choose to debate facts. You choose to quote scriptures as your sole source of scientific proof as to who wrote the book of John, thus you have successfully completely avoided the debate.
DHK did not post a single source of scientific proof as to the identity of the individual or individuals who wrote the book of John.
So you can choose to quote scritures or you can choose to debate facts. You choose to quote scriptures as your sole source of scientific proof as to who wrote the book of John, thus you have successfully completely avoided the debate.
born again and again
New Member
Hallelujah and praise be to Jesus. The mighty steaver has faith!
born again and again
New Member
The lack of scientific facts should not discourage the believer, because this is religion and not science. The two coexist but they exist separately. One is based on science and logic and one is based on feelings, a need to find answers to deep questions, which thus far, science has not been able to answer. Religion fulfills our most basic need to deal effectively with the knowledge of our own eventual death.
born again and again
New Member
But hang on to your bibles and be prepared folks; while steaver looks up some more quotes.
Apparently you don't know what the definition of science is: knowledge gained by observation.
There are many branches of science. In your mind science is very limited: obviously. What scientific data did you wish me to post: from endocrinology, histology, cellular biology, pharmacology, etc. You didn't specify the science that you wanted the facts from. Be more specific in your demands.
DHK
Not just faith! Christianity is faith based on Truth. It is faith that saves. Jesus said that ye must be born again. Jesus said that He was the Son of God. I have enough evidence about Jesus Christ to logically conclude that He came down from heaven born from a virgin, was crucified, buried in a tomb, and rose again to life on the third day after.
I have 66 different writings from about 40 different authors from a period spaning about 3-4000 years. All of these together are overwhelming evidence for the Truth concerning faith in Jesus Christ .
I have the best of both worlds. I have faith based on overwhelming proofs. Not only is it from within through God's rebirth, but it is also grounded in a mountain of manuscripts which have been gathered together and called God's Word. Even if we didn't know who penned them we still cannot deny the evidence they present!
This is why you will be held accountable for your disbelief. You have rejected God's overwhelming evidence that He has provided for you to believe.
God Bless!
You know what these words do for you BA&A? They expose your unrepentant heart towards God. You have no knowledge of God. No knowledge of His word. And no knowledge of His grace through the work of Jesus Christ at Calvery.
Here is another quote from Jesus, I know why you don't like to hear them...some of the Jews didn't like hearing them either...
" He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God ". (John 8:47)
Your views come from this "world". Call on Jesus to save you!
God Bless!
born again and again
New Member
Steaver wrote:
"Even if we didn't know who penned them we still cannot deny the evidence they present!"
So even steaver acknowledges that we may not know who wrote them. My original posting never challenged the truth of Jesus, it only challenged the identity of who actually wrote the books.
And DHK, the man with all the degrees, should not be asking me for the definition of "science." But DHK also has a habit of quoting his "definitions" out of context and from obscure sources without citing the source. He did this with the definition of the word "faith". When it was pointed out that he obtained his definition from an obscure opinion site which links to another site for the definition, a site called "emotional literacy"; and it was further ponted out that even his definition from his source used the word "belief" to define "faith", he never responded to the issue again.
By the way, DHK, if you desire to used the science of endocrinology, pharmacology or biology to prove who wrote the book of John, go for it.
By the way, just so the record is clear, I am making no demands that DHK or steaver do anything. You have already demonstrated that you cannot prove who wrote the texts and have basically given up on the debate started with the original posting.
And finally, steaver, we all know you can quote scriptures, but that is not the subject of this debate. And you have made it very clear that you have faith and belief. So you might as well go ahead and do what you do, quote some more scriptures and ignore the debate.
"Even if we didn't know who penned them we still cannot deny the evidence they present!"
So even steaver acknowledges that we may not know who wrote them. My original posting never challenged the truth of Jesus, it only challenged the identity of who actually wrote the books.
And DHK, the man with all the degrees, should not be asking me for the definition of "science." But DHK also has a habit of quoting his "definitions" out of context and from obscure sources without citing the source. He did this with the definition of the word "faith". When it was pointed out that he obtained his definition from an obscure opinion site which links to another site for the definition, a site called "emotional literacy"; and it was further ponted out that even his definition from his source used the word "belief" to define "faith", he never responded to the issue again.
By the way, DHK, if you desire to used the science of endocrinology, pharmacology or biology to prove who wrote the book of John, go for it.
By the way, just so the record is clear, I am making no demands that DHK or steaver do anything. You have already demonstrated that you cannot prove who wrote the texts and have basically given up on the debate started with the original posting.
And finally, steaver, we all know you can quote scriptures, but that is not the subject of this debate. And you have made it very clear that you have faith and belief. So you might as well go ahead and do what you do, quote some more scriptures and ignore the debate.
born again and again
New Member
Oh steaver, as you stated earlier on this topic, your scriptures command you to challenge my faith. Do you actaully hear voices when you get these commands? Or do you acquire the commands through the communication of "speaking in tongues?"