T
TULIPed
Guest
Now I get it. Sorry for my density. I thought that was odd coming from you of all people. Should’ve thought about it more before I wrote. As usual with me - shoot, then aim.
Last edited:
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Emojis do a wonderful job expressing sarcasm. For example:
Not Julius_Caesar:
See?Modern scholarship claims that there was no monarchial papacy in the first century A.D.?
Yeah… modern scholarship also agrees that the Gospels were products of the second century.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
You’re an educated person. Surely you can detect tone.
And I literally explained myself, as you neglected to show.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’m a person who’s been on the internet for decades. I know that ‘tone’ is the most misinterpreted part of internet discussion. Surely you’ve detected that.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
That’s a personal problem. Surely you detect that
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes, I can see that you’re having a personal problem that people misinterpreted your statement. Good luck with that.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Like how you and your compatriots share the personal problem of misinterpreting statements? :man_shrugging:t6:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Have a wonderful day, Julius.
M
mcq72
Guest
Fair point, but still only an assumption, and that of any new teaching, or one pertinent to the sufficiency of what was written, for our faith and salvation.
Some might also say that we are missing the point of figurative speech or hyperbole. Of course John did not write down every iota of any word muttered or thing done. But he may also be referring to the grandeur of His works, and the depth. John does not mean he could fill all the books if he wrote down what he saw or heard, rather what could be written and what will be seen of how just interwoven were His works with all who came into contact.
For example he spent only ten verses on the first miracle on Cana, and said it " manifested His glory", bringing the disciples to faith. Why John could have written a whole book on it probably and Holloywood could nake a movie on it “I suppose”. He did more than just change water into wine at Cana⁹
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
The sufficiency of what is written isn’t said in the document at all. That’s an assumption on your part.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
And so is any insufficiency.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
When the Bible doesn’t tout it’s suffiency?Julius_Caesar:
And so is any insufficiency.
M
mcq72
Guest
God puts things in writing, just as we do to dogmatize something.
Name me one dogma of the church that is not in writing?
Name me one dogma of the church that is not in writing?
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
M
mcq72
Guest
lol…we quibble…of course one doesn’t record then speak, not even for a wedding.( papers are signed after the ceremony).
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
That’s what your position neccrsitates.Julius_Caesar:
lol…we quibble…of course one doesn’t record then speak.
G
Gorgias
Guest
The argument will be a circular one: that which was said… which was binding… was later recorded. The subsequent writing is what is offered as evidence of the truth of the prior speech.
M
mcq72
Guest
what, quibbling? Hey, that is just the way it is. The writing does not do away with the Source, who is ever discerning, even thru us, in us.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
well what is the argument, for i think you described it pretty good.
M
mcq72
Guest
Good point. Scripture is explicit enough to establish Christology from Jewish perspective. Can we cite any non written explanation of a prophecy that changes everything? Did Jesus for example cite every single fulfilled prophecy up to that point of discussion with the two on way to Emmaus ?
I wonder if like the reason for speaking in parables, so to not all things are in plain sight but hidden a bit, there to be discovered by any thirsty soul.
Last edited:
- Status