Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Crossless2.0]

Very good!

Sex outside of a sanctified marriage is a sin, sexuality in of itself is not.

So all of the biblical characters were sinners.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Well, the idea that we all (including the Biblical characters) sin is kind of the point behind the Christian salvation myth, no?

[Minimalist]

"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.  The sinners have much more fun."

--Billy Joel

[jenny1972]

So all of the biblical characters were sinners.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Well, the idea that we all (including the Biblical characters) sin is kind of the point behind the Christian salvation myth, no?

wouldve been more credible had jesus been aware of the salvation through faith in him myth

[Crossless2.0]

Well, the idea that we all (including the Biblical characters) sin is kind of the point behind the Christian salvation myth, no?

wouldve been more credible had jesus been aware of the salvation through faith in him myth

Jesus was a good Jewish boy. I don't blame him for Christianity. Of course, if he is one person of the Triune God, his not mentioning Pauline theology is a bit odd, but I don't expect credibility from the Bible.

[jenny1972]

God sanctifies (sets apart as holy) those who respond to his truth (John 17:17) in obedience to the gospel. One is sanctified when he is cleansed, which occurs when his faith leads him to demonstrate the death and resurrection of Christ in the washing of water (i.e., burial in water — Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12) by means of the instruction of “the word” (Ephesians 5:26; 1 Corinthians 6:11). The “water” is an allusion to baptism, as virtually all scholars concede.

so then if the gay couple are baptised and married their marriage is a sanctified marriage according to the bible

or should we go to the classical greek interpretation of the word? Basically, to be “sanctified,” carries the idea of “having been separated from (something), set apart.” In classical Greek the concept was that of something “sacred” that is not accessible to the general public.

Herodotus wrote concerning a “sacred grove of plane-trees” where a certain deity was worshipped only by the Carians (5.119), i.e., it was a segregated, separated area.

[Vincent]

Is it just me or does this entire thread seem to be begging the question? 



I haven't read the whole thread, but Drich seems to be relying on the assumption that everything in the Bible is the gospel truth. This is not proven and very very very unlikely. To jump to the conclusion that "Yes, it IS true, now let me explain what it's ACTUALLY saying", without even proving that it's all true in the first place, is logically fallacious.

[Drich]

God sanctifies (sets apart as holy) those who respond to his truth (John 17:17) in obedience to the gospel. One is sanctified when he is cleansed, which occurs when his faith leads him to demonstrate the death and resurrection of Christ in the washing of water (i.e., burial in water — Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12) by means of the instruction of “the word” (Ephesians 5:26; 1 Corinthians 6:11). The “water” is an allusion to baptism, as virtually all scholars concede.

so then if the gay couple are baptised and married their marriage is a sanctified marriage according to the bible

or should we go to the classical greek interpretation of the word? Basically, to be “sanctified,” carries the idea of “having been separated from (something), set apart.” In classical Greek the concept was that of something “sacred” that is not accessible to the general public.

Herodotus wrote concerning a “sacred grove of plane-trees” where a certain deity was worshipped only by the Carians (5.119), i.e., it was a segregated, separated area.

How can you speak of dishonesty when your still cutting up verses and misrepresenting them?

[Drich]

Is it just me or does this entire thread seem to be begging the question? 



I haven't read the whole thread, but Drich seems to be relying on the assumption that everything in the Bible is the gospel truth. This is not proven and very very very unlikely. To jump to the conclusion that "Yes, it IS true, now let me explain what it's ACTUALLY saying", without even proving that it's all true in the first place, is logically fallacious.

What is the title of the thread and how does that relate to what is being discussed?

[Drich]

Drich is now saying the translations are perfect? Huh?

yes he says they are PERFECT! translations but also 10-30% inaccurate as all translations are

Ah! I get it, you do not understand the word 'perfect'. You are using it as a verb when the context I provided tells you to use it as an adjective.

per·fect
adjective
adjective: perfect
ˈpərfikt/
1.

having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.
"she strove to be the perfect wife"


2.
absolute; complete (used for emphasis).
"a perfect stranger"

3.
Mathematics
(of a number) equal to the sum of its positive divisors, e.g., the number 6, whose divisors (1, 2, 3) also add up to 6.
4.
Grammar
(of a tense) denoting a completed action or a state or habitual action that began in the past. The perfect tense is formed in English with have or has and the past participle, as in they have eaten and they have been eating (since dawn) ( present perfect ), they had eaten ( past perfect ), and they will have eaten ( future perfect ).
5.
Botany
(of a flower) having both stamens and carpels present and functional.

• Botany
  denoting the stage or state of a fungus in which the sexually produced spores are formed.
  
• Entomology
  (of an insect) fully adult and (typically) winged.
  

verb
verb: perfect; 3rd person present: perfects; past tense: perfected; past participle: perfected; gerund or present participle: perfecting
pərˈfekt/
1.
make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or as close to such a condition as possible.

I think this is your problem across the board.

Your a fool and you don't know it, because you think your smart.

You think because you retain a high volume culturally strong facts (like your one sided definations) that, puts you in a position to judge. when in truth, this is the 4th or 5th example of you taking a word and ascribing only one definition to it (your usage of the word) then you formulate your argument on how you use the word, rather than what the word actually can mean. This is a very closed minded approach to everything not currently in your little world.

Your dig on me and my use of the word 'perfect' representing 70 to 90% accuracy in a translation matrix shows your ignorance in the definition of the word perfect, how translation works, and an unwillingness to challenge or check what it is you think you already know. You like so many other closed minded people assume what you know is with out error. This is the same kind of reasoning that said the world was flat for so long. (You toe the pop culture line rather than challenge it!)

When all one needed to do it check the definition of the words I used to see if they could be interpreted another way. Which again is a lesson about context. I chose my words super carfully, and I knew you did not. I wanted to prove the point of what I have been saying to you from the beginning in that context is key. that is why your understanding of not only the bible fails, but your basic comprehension of what I've written fails. While the bible has an absolute need for longer tracts of dialog to establish proper context, what I write does not, as it is not translated from anything. Yet you fail to understand or identify that the words we use, have more than one meaning to them/Or mean more than how you want to use them. This intellectual approach to the world around you is what kept us (The Church) in the dark ages for so long.

All of this should show an honest person the fault is not with the bible but how they perceive their own infalliblity. Because again you saw what you thought to be a contradiction in what I wrote, so rather than ask a question or quietly question/look up the key words I was using. you Assumed You Had the Right understanding and everything I said was in contradiction of itself. When in fact you and your supporters are all fools to assume you are the ones who are not in error, and then begin to unknowingly mock your own ignorance. By mocking the one who is actually correct.

[Minimalist]

I haven't read the whole thread, but Drich seems to be relying on the assumption that everything in the Bible is the gospel truth.

You are exactly correct, Laika.  The reason for that is that drippy is a fucking moron.