You can resolve the issue of ambiguity by affirming that your question related to the truth as consistent with facts and reason, and wasn't a matter of religious opinion.There was no ambiguity.
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!You can resolve the issue of ambiguity by affirming that your question related to the truth as consistent with facts and reason, and wasn't a matter of religious opinion.There was no ambiguity.
Theo...You KNOW that if it's in the Book, it's scripture. What a question! :smile:Who gets to decide what is scripture and what is not?
No, I don't know that. What do you think the essential element of scripture is, consistency or being regarded as canonical?Theo...You KNOW that if it's in the Book, it's scripture. What a question!
Neither!No, I don't know that. What do you think the essential element of scripture is, consistency or being regarded as canonical?
You can resolve the issue of ambiguity by affirming that your question related to the truth as consistent with facts and reason, and wasn't a matter of religious opinion.
Well, if scripture is inconsistent then how do you interpret "scripture cannot be broken" from the following verse?Neither!
There is ambiguity because of Paul's focus on belief and the Messiah's focus on truth and knowledge.There was no ambiguity.
What is it that you find inconsistent?Well, if scripture is inconsistent then how do you interpret "scripture cannot be broken" from the following verse?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:35
There is ambiguity because of Paul's focus on belief and the Messiah's focus on truth and knowledge.
For example:
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Acts 28:18
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11
There are many inconsistencies. The point is that you don't seem to have a rational basis for identifying scripture.What is it that you find inconsistent?
Here's another example of the ambiguity of faith and truth:There was no ambiguity.
Here's another example of the ambiguity of faith and truth:
Psalms 91
4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth [shall be thy] shield and buckler.
Ephesians 6
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
The ambiguity results from the context in which the question was made, i.e this forum deals with issues relating to Christianity, in which the Pauline focus on faith contrasts with the Messianic focus on truth or knowledge.There was no ambiguity in my question to you.
Gal 1:11-12 isn't the answer. You're cherry picking to suit your religious prejudice.There is no ambiguity in (Gal. 1:11-12) for the answer.
The ambiguity results from the context in which the question was made, i.e this forum deals with issues relating to Christianity, in which the Pauline focus on faith contrasts with the Messianic focus on truth or knowledge.
Gal 1:11-12 isn't the answer. You're cherry picking to suit your religious prejudice.
What do you think that I'm ignorant of?You use 'cherry pickin' like you use 'ambiguity'. Another way to cloak your ignorance of Scripture.
I have no idea. Be more specific about your accusations. If you can't do that then is pretty obvious that your failed collateral attack was just an attempt to divert from the fact that you have no explanation for the origin of Paul's gospel.What did I say?