Are you ready to rightly divide the word of truth?

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by John Zain, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. Hi B

    But it does beg the question (actually several) "Whose dogma, if anybodies, is the truth and whose is not"? It also begs the question "Why invent dogma when you have the word of the Lord Himself?" After all why do we rely on what this or that church or group tells us the Bible says when we can see with our OWN God given eyes what the Bible says? That different churches claim the Bible says different things means the only way you can tell which is speaking the truth and which is not is to test them ALL against what the Bible actually says. So why not cut out a whole lot of uneccessary work and make our "dogma" the Bible itself?

    As I often point out to people, you cannot know what is not the truth unless you first know what IS the truth.

    Just adding some thoughts to the mix.
     
    gemma likes this.
  2. "Dogma," as in what is clearly spelled out in Scripture is the truth because it comes directly from God.

    While I tend to be a great critic of churches, I also realize they exist for a purpose, as shown in the New Testament.

    I don't know why God made it so easy for the deceived to spout heresy in a way that often makes sense to the human mind, but He did. That doesn't mean we should each strike out solely on our own. We see here all the time people who depend on themselves (claiming to be led by the Spirit) coming up with various beliefs (doctrines).

    So, the answer is not to become a "Lone Ranger" If it were, the Apostles would have condemned the churches they encouraged! When they corrected error, they never told them to disban, but to come back to the truth.

    Ginger
     
  3. For one, #3 can be easily argued against. The trinity concept has plenty of verses that directly contradict and trample it, and it's all very simple and obvious to boot. Instead of having your verses ready, you may do well to rethink what you have overlooked because of the blinding concept.

    Another thing, with #2, is that God has no need to use signs and wonders outside of what is already prophesied, so if such a claim of miracles is presented, one should be real careful about the authenticity. Jesus is completion, and so therefore we need not have miracles bursting around us.

    #4, baptism does not conclude the sanctity of one's faith or salvation. Rather, it's a mark acknowledging that one is not ashamed and is a staple to help consolidate one's strength. Like the Sabbath, a baptism is not for God, but for man's necessity.
     
  4. And when two verses which are both known to be true, seem to contradict each other, obviously there is a misunderstanding of one or both on the part of the reading.

    You acknowledge that, but then insist your interpretation is correct by saying the verses which appear to contradict you are being misinterpreted according to what the verses that agree with you appear to say.

    Others could say the same thing to you.

    But there are some absolutes that are clear. such as: There is only One God, not two. YHWH (God the Father) created the universe - alone - no one was with Him! Yet, Jesus is declared the creator of all things and nothing was made without him.

    The Jews understood Jesus' claim: John 10:30-33 - Jesus answered them, “I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
    They didn't say Jesus claims to be a god, but it was Jesus' claim to be the One and Only God that made them wish to kill him. John 14:9-11

    These statements cannot be twisted and denied except with deliberate intend to justify one's own beliefs.

    Revelation 22:13- “I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”... 22:16 - “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches.” see also Rev 21:6
     
    Major, JG27_chili and Christine says Amen and like this.
  5. There is a difference between the fellowship of those who follow Christ and those who follow a particular church or denomination. NO church, NO denomination, NO religiuos organisation will stand before the judgement seat of Christ - only individuals. We will not be judged on what our churches do and say but on what we as INDIVIDUALS do and say.

    Contrary to popular belief the Apostles were always advocating division in the church, division based on teachings and doctrine and practices. From expelling the immoral brother to separating yourself from those who do not teach according to the Bible (the doctrine as presented by the Prophets and Apostles of the Lord). Note also how in Revelation the condemnation was of the churches, but the promises are to the individuals who stay true to the word of the Lord, not to the word of the churches. Some were actually praised for NOT following their churches into sin.

    If you look at the following passages as well as many others you will see a common recurring principle. Namely depart from fellowship with those who have departed from the word of the Lord and will not return. Our fellowship is in Christ or it is in nothing. How can we have fellowship with those who do not have fellowship with Christ Himself but to whom even Christ HIMSELF has said "depart from me, ye that work iniquity"?

    Fellowship must never be at the expense of departure from the word of the Lord. Fellowship with Christ must always come BEFORE and above fellowship with each other. If our fellowship is not in and through Christ it is meaningless.
     
  6. Science has something called 'empirical evidence'. It's evidence based on direct observation or experiment, being empirical because it is thus an affirmed fact. It does not always mean that the grand subject it is pointed to is fact, but under the given conditions of the observation and experiment, it is infallible.

    Now, apply it to Scripture, and you will see that there is nothing empirical with the trinity concept. Rather, it is subjective to it's own appeal.


    'I and the Father are one' + 'Forgive them (Father), for they know not what they do' = Son of God.

    “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” + "And the Father himself, who sent me, has borne witness of me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. = Jesus is not God Himself, but the Son of God.

    See, not only do I have a mountain of contrary, but I can even use evidence for a trinity against itself. That is pretty much a deathblow to the concept. It is empirical, and therefore subjective evidence must be reconciled.
    There are ways to competently explain other verses in which you prescribe in defense. In fact, I know most of them to be part of another concept, called infinite duality.

    I don't know what it is that keeps Christians clung to the idea, honestly. It's not true, and even it's origins are shady at best. My personal belief is that a Christian historian is more knowledgeable then any preacher. But that's just me ;)
     
  7. I have to agree with this as well.
     
  8. So you place your trust in science, over the Holy Scriptures!!!!

    Interesting....have you noticed how science changes over time as new information and discoveries arise? Yet, God never changes. :)
     
  9. and me, as well :)
     
  10. Come on, that's all you have? :rolleyes:. It is abundantly clear that I wa snot placing science over religion. I was using a process of elimination to show you firsthand the error of the trinity concept as supposedly outlined in Scripture.

    I'm a firm young Earth creationist, and yet I am inclined to science. That should be a good indication that I am not biased, but rather blessed to be able to hold both without contradiction to one another.
     
  11. You have indicated many times that you only accept what can be explained by human reason, that denies God's omnipotence and limits Him according to the limitations of His creation.
     
  12. God is not the author of confusion. Everything He set out for us can be reasoned, as we are imitators of God. Omnipotence can be reasoned simply by acknowledging the properties of an infinite being that had no beginning.
    Use that as a reference point, and we see that this reality had a beginning, so He created it. By extension, He is everything because He made all from Himself. Since he is infinite, He can separate Himself in infinite quantities without division, as infinite minus infinite is., infinite.
    So He can proportion a world of living beings away from Himself and be of them all the same. It's called an infinite duality complex.He gives us free will, and yet we live in a universe of cause and effect, in which our actions are just the natural coursing of the universe., neurons firing in the brain caused by interactions from particle matter colliding from the Beginning.
    It's a paradox, and nonetheless true. You may have seen debates on such between theists and atheists, and it's never ending and a complete stalemate. It takes God to make sense of it.
    I could go on and on with all this ;)

    See, science is just a branch of science. All wisdom starts with God.
     
  13. Can I take it that the "inactive" status of Sum1sGrug means there is no point responding to his posts? The status is not unexpected but I am just not sure what it actually indicates.
     
  14. He will not be returning.
     
  15.  
  16. Thanks for the clarification. I'll know what it means from now on. BTW good call I believe.
     
    Major likes this.
  17. (if you are already aware of the following just ignore it i am only saying it in case you are not aware of it)

    I had to look carefully to realize you had asked me a question because it ended up inside the quote of my post. As you are new to the site something you may not be aware of is how it identifies between what is a highlighted quote and what is your own words (not highlighted). It is an easy mistake to make and done it myself a number of times.

    Whenever you see the word "quote" in SQUARE brackets that is the start of a highlighted quote. Whenever you see "/quote" in square brackets that is the end of the highlighted quote. Everything inside these two points is highlighted as a quote.

    You can use these commands yourself to highlight quotes also. For example
    .

    OK now about that question. When somebody asks "what is THE truth?" they are asking you to explain what is it that you are claiming is true. But if somebody asks you "what is truth?" what they are asking is what do you mean when you use the word "truth". In other words what they are asking is "what does the word 'truth' mean to you?"

    Does this help clarify it.
     
  18. Except, that was written in Greek and does not follow the rules of English grammar. ;-)

    I had to say that, but I actually get your point. I have never quite thought of it in those terms, before.
     
    Jeremiah mosomi likes this.
  19. Every translation I have checked in records the translation of Pilate's words as "What is Truth?" never as "What is the truth"? Even the literal translations. It would seem all the language experts translate it the same specific way which would tend to indicate it is an accurate translation from the Greek in which it was recorded and which Pilate might have also used, as Greek was the then standard international language of the region when dealing with cross cultural communication.

    The problem with talking about "truth" these days is that, like they have done with so many words, the world is trying to redefine it to mean something else. But there is a reason why truth is always absolute and never relative or a matter of opinion. The reason is this - truth is FACTUAL reality. That which is REAL is true and that which is true is REAL, it is a FACT of reality.

    Once we get a grip on what truth is it clarifies many things and answers many questions. For example the truth of what the Bible says is the factual reality of what it actually says there on the page. The FACTUAL reality regarding evolution is that it is a theory unsupported by and contrary to factual reality.

    When you investigate factual reality you find that we have been taught and encouraged to believe a whole lot of things that are not true about the Bible and the reality we live in, but which accord with the factual reality of what the Lord has actually declared.
     
  20. Friends I have checked the definition of the word dogma and I fear the word dogma is not equivalent to the word truth; as Baraneth was suggesting that it is one and the same thing! Check the definitions for yourself below.If we base our salvation on church dogmas some of which might not be supported by scripture THEN we might be lost.


    thefreedictionary.com

    dog·ma (dôg[​IMG]m[​IMG], d[​IMG]g[​IMG]-)
    n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m[​IMG]-t[​IMG])
    1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
    2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
    3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).

    [Latin, from Greek, opinion, belief, from dokein, to seem, think; see dek- in Indo-European roots.]

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    dogma [ˈdɒgmə]
    n pl -mas, -mata [-mətə]
    1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a religious doctrine or system of doctrines proclaimed by ecclesiastical authority as true
    2. (Philosophy) a belief, principle, or doctrine or a code of beliefs, principles, or doctrines Marxist dogma
    [via Latin from Greek: opinion, belief, from dokein to seem good]
    Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
    ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

    Noun

    1.

    dogma - a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
    tenet
    article of faith, credendum - (Christianity) any of the sections into which a creed or other statement of doctrine is divided
    church doctrine, religious doctrine, creed, gospel - the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group

    2.

    dogma - a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"
    doctrine, ism, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought - a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

    Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

    dogma
    noun
    1. blind faith, certainty, unquestioning belief, arrogant conviction freeing the country from the grip of dogma
    2. doctrine, teachings, principle, opinion, article, belief, creed, tenet, precept, credo, article of faith, code of belief the dogma of the Immaculate Conception
    Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

    -----------------------

    dogma
    n dogma [ˈdogmə]
    opinions settled or fixed by an authority, eg the Church.
    Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary © 2006-2010 K Dictionaries Ltd.
     
    Ginger likes this.

Share This Page