Cross Reference
New member
Grow up! Make it say whatever floats your boat. Stay wilfully stupid but not with me anymore.
ECT Romans 4:3 What saith the scripture?
- Thread starter oatmeal
- Start date
Grow up! Make it say whatever floats your boat. Stay wilfully stupid but not with me anymore.
oatmeal
Well-known member
II Timothy 2:15 says we are to rightly divide the word of truth.
When someone with a non truthful agenda inserts their errors into the word of truth, we must remove those insertions.
We must know is the word of truth and what is not the word of truth.
We are to rightly divide the word of truth, so that we can live by truth, not by someone's favorite theology.
The Devil is a liar and the father of it. Are you so naive? The Devil works hard to corrupt the word of truth, the devil has convinced some believers that God is three, not one as He states, Deut 6:4
You need to know that God is one, not three in one.
Are Catholic scholars willfully stupid about 1 John 5:7?
No Syriac manuscript of any family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate.
So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.
The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.
Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis (q) of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum (m), an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.
Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.
There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.
(newadvent.org / Catholic Encyclopedia / Epistles of St. John)
So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.
The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.
Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis (q) of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum (m), an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.
Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.
There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.
(newadvent.org / Catholic Encyclopedia / Epistles of St. John)
oatmeal
Well-known member
Thank you for that additional evidence.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Another wonderful truth I had to learn it that not all truths are learned quickly.
We have to renew our minds to think what God would have us to think.
Renew meaning to make new in quality, not in time.
If stealing was an issue for me, then I must correct my mind, by thinking Ephesians 4:28 and similar truths and act accordingly, instead of stealing, I work the thing which is good so I may have to give to him that needeth.
Likewise with being spiritually minded vs. carnally minded. I have to learn scripture about what it is to be spiritually minded and act accordingly.
We have to renew our minds to think what God would have us to think.
Renew meaning to make new in quality, not in time.
If stealing was an issue for me, then I must correct my mind, by thinking Ephesians 4:28 and similar truths and act accordingly, instead of stealing, I work the thing which is good so I may have to give to him that needeth.
Likewise with being spiritually minded vs. carnally minded. I have to learn scripture about what it is to be spiritually minded and act accordingly.
So how you do you know when its not someone's tradition, or private interpretation, Oatmeal? Sure Paul spoke in tongues, so did other Bible characters:
1) Folk still do not discern Romans 9:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, that Paul was talking about the Shelanite descendants of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9), via his Canaanite wife (Genesis 38:1, 2, 1Chronicles 2:3 KJV, Numbers 26:20 KJV). The Shelanites, who were "not all Israel, which are of Israel," who Paul vicariously illuminated in Romans 9:6, were impostor 'Jews' (Revelation 2:9, 3:9) who instigated the crucifixion (John 8:37 KJV) being "Abraham's seed", but not "Abraham's children" (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). So, since those instigators were "Abraham's seed and were never in bondage" in Egypt (John 8:33 KJV), who do you think those alleged 'Jews' were who instigated the crucifixion? Here's an OT clue, Genesis 3:15 KJV that correlates with John 8:44 KJV, John 8:47 KJV.
2) Lamech, a descendant of Cain (Genesis 4:17, 18) spoke in tongues in Genesis 4:23 KJV: Who did Lamech kill, why, and was he remorseful? Did he name his son Tubal-cain (Genesis 4:22 KJV), in memoriam to the man he killed? How did Cain die? How long did he live (Genesis 5:8 KJV)? Was that some random, drive by shooting in God's Word? Lamech also spoke in tongues in Genesis 4:24 KJV: What is the significance of "sevenfold" and "seventy and sevenfold"? Lamech prophesied the arrival generation of Messiah ("seventy and sevenfold") in 77 fold 'generations': Go to Luke 3:38 and being counting God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3... and so forth. So, what's the significance of "sevenfold" in Genesis 4:15 KJV?
3) Jesus spoke in parables, not tongues. But, He might has well have considering John 8:17, 18 as Jesus prepared to illuminate His Divine paternity (John 8:12 KJV) before those Canaanite Shelanite (Numbers 26:20) alleged 'Jews' (Revelation 2:9, 3:9) who rebuked Him (John 8:13 KJV), and were plotting His crucifixion (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV). Witnesses do testify, do they not, Oatmeal (John 8:17, 18)? Then how about explaining these two divine testimonies of these two witnesses captured between John 8:18 and John 8:47 KJV.
I really don't think we have a shortage of tongue speakers, Oatmeal. We have a shortage of interpreters. So, if you'd like to edify your Holy Ghost connection... how about interpreting those two divine testimonies to Jesus' divinity as Jesus said in John 8:17, 18. If you can't, please don't feel alone... neither can Mdiv and PhD theologians who are not Pentecostal. So, if your speaking in tongues (as evidence the Holy Ghost resides within) sets you above the great unwashed... here's your chance!
kayaker
Last edited:
oatmeal
Well-known member
Paul did indeed speak in tongues as did the twelve and the about 3000 on the day of Pentecost and those that believed later.
Jesus Christ foretold of the day when believers would speak in tongues, yet he did not do it himself.
For that matter, Jesus did not do the greater than his own works of John 14:12, but believers do them now.
Speaking in tongues was not available until the day of Pentecost. There is no record of anyone before Pentecost speaking in tongues, they most certainly spoke languages they themselves knew, but not languages they did not know.
The interpretation of tongues as written in I Corinthians 12:7-11 is not referring to interpreting scripture, but to interpreting tongues as in the manifestation of speaking in tongues.
We are not to interpret scripture, II Peter 1:20-21, we did author scripture, II Timothy 3:16, God did, there fore we have no right to interpret it.
Our responsibility is to simply learn what God had written to us and for us and believe it.
The children of Abraham always had two choices, either to believe God or not to believe God.
As do all people today.
There are no genetic boundaries or attributes that keep people from believing or cause them to believe
People believe God because they choose to, or they do not believe God because they choose not to.
John 8:17-18
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
God told the man Moses and other prophets what to write about the coming prophet, His son Jesus Christ.
Luke 16:29
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luke 16:31
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
The prophets witnessed of the coming redeemer because they believed God who told them of his coming.
Have a nice day!
Can you please explain what the sam daylights Ham was doing in Noah's tent when Noah was passed out blind drunk? What wrong with Noah being butt-naked in his own tent, anyway? Do you think Noah's wife might have been passed out, blind-drunk, and butt-naked too? Do you think Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV shine a little light on the subject? You don't suppose Ham was gay, and doing his mother's hair? But, we're not to interpret Scripture... that's a job for the HOLY Ghost, right? And, you have the Holy Ghost evidenced by your speaking in tongues... Well, please interpret Genesis 9:22 KJV. You don't think Noah and sons ever stripped off naked and hit the creek after a long day working on the ark?
I appreciate the nobel attempt, Oatmeal. But, you've not explained the two testimonies of these two witnesses... found between John 8:18, and John 8:47. Jesus told His believers to listen up ("continue in my word") in John 8:31 KJV... See, Oatmeal... maybe that's a job for the Holy Spirit, and I've asked the explanation from Mdiv and PhD theologians who cannot render those two testimonies. I'm not hearing it from you, either, respectfully. I'm not hearing your tongues helping me out in the least. But, if it floats your ark... I tend to hold the notion the proof is in the pudding. Yet, what I am hearing is that only Pentecostals have exclusive rights space-docking with God... just like Catholics have theirs.
Consider Matthew 8:20 KJV... tongues, like Catechism, is just another nest. That is, unless you can render those two testimonies... the Catholics can't either, btw.
kayaker
oatmeal
Well-known member
Naked could mean without the outer garment, but probably not in this case
Did you take pleasure in seeing your father naked? Did you have some desire to see your father naked?
Although had not been written at that time, (God had not yet given the law to Moses, not even Abraham was born yet.) there was a sense of right and wrong.
Oh, there is more that could be said about John 8.
It was not a nobel attempt, nor was it a noble attempt, that is all you are going to get for now.
Quit with the negative attitude and maybe you'll get some more.
Acts 2:22
I said
Does this help?
Luke 2:7-21
7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid.
10 Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people.
11 "For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
12 "And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger."
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying:
14 "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!"
15 So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, "Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us."
16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger.
17 Now when they had seen Him, they made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child.
18 And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
19 But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.
20 Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them.
21 And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
(NKJ)
oatmeal
Well-known member
You have a wide assortment of questions, which one do you want answered first?
What specifically is the tradition you speak of?
You seem to have your mind made up already, if so, then you don't want my input, except for a platform to suggest that my answers failed your criteria.
What is your criteria?
How do you determine what is truth vs what is error?
that is one long question. Who is that willingly took responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion? The answer is in the gospels. hint they willingly took responsibility, by continuing to cry, "Crucify him"...
You have plenty of references, you know how to look up scripture, you can find it.
oatmeal
Well-known member
oatmeal
Well-known member
The event with the shepherds occurred shortly after Jesus was born and occurred in the stable.
The wise men showed up at a house when Jesus was already a young child.
Two different events separated time and place.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Other wonderful truths I learned from scripture is that I could speak in tongues like the apostles did on the day of Pentecost.
When I first heard Acts 2:1-4, I wanted that.
But it took another 14 years before I learned the additional scripture I needed to believe to manifest.
What a wonderful joy it is to know that scripture tells me all that is necessary for me to know to believe to speak in tongues like the apostles and other first century believers did.
What God did for them, He will do for anyone who learns and believes.
When I first heard Acts 2:1-4, I wanted that.
But it took another 14 years before I learned the additional scripture I needed to believe to manifest.
What a wonderful joy it is to know that scripture tells me all that is necessary for me to know to believe to speak in tongues like the apostles and other first century believers did.
What God did for them, He will do for anyone who learns and believes.
1Corinthians 13:11 KJV "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
And, you didn't babble as a child? Sure, I can vaguely recall my mother's privates when she affectionally bathed me with her. Did your mom run you through the car wash?
Isn't God the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? Then, the Laws of Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV applied to Shem, Japheth, AND Ham (Genesis 9:22 KJV). Paul even talked about the 'Japhethite'-Gentile natural sense of the Law in Romans 3:14, 15, with particular emphasis on 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV. So, while the tongue speakers are so busy edifying themselves (Genesis 3:4, 5, 6)... a blind wild hawg like me, among the great unwashed, can toss a little scripture on the table, and you regress into childhood Freudian reflections. What was Ham doing in Noah's tent with his blind drunk, passed out parents, Oatmeal? You don't reckon Ham was naked too, do you? Get caught with your knickers 'round your knees on that one? How about putting away childhood Sunday School Bible stories, and shine a little Holy Spirit in Noah's tent, instead of the mirror.
From one of your previous posts, here:
Jesus walked on water, Oatmeal. Tongue speakers levitate... or, did I miss that part in Acts? Has the Holy Spirit connected any dots from Paul's words spoken in tongues in Romans 9:6, 7, 8, 9, 10? Paul did say Abraham had two SONS (Isaac and Ishmael) in Galatians 4:22 KJV... what sayeth the scripture about Abraham's progeny via Keturah in Genesis 25:4? Moses in the Scripture said those were "the children of Keturah," and not Abraham! Jesus said those who instigated the crucifixion were "Abraham's SEED", they just weren't "Abraham's CHILDREN" (John 8:37 KJV). For some reason mysterious to you... those dots do seem to connect among the great unwashed.
Sure, Oatmeal... you keep edifying yourself, and I'll keep searching what the Scripture sayeth. What I've offered here, as a blind wild non-tongues hawg, is corroborated in the Scriptures, when one readily connects the 'utterly' obvious dots. Clearly I'm speaking in tongues to you... And, your tongues diversion obviously hasn't edified the truth on these pivotal issues.
kayaker
oatmeal
Well-known member
God commands that you speak in tongues, I Corinthians 14:5
He has no such commandment regarding babbling.
You confuse the noises a baby makes with a manifestation of the gift of holy spirit given to all who have done Romans 10:9-10
It takes an accurate and practical knowledge of scripture to make that distinction.
Paul was sent to the Gentiles, primarily, Oatmeal. Unlike Jesus' disciples, Paul was quite fluent in the OT, a very educated dude. It's readily apparent there would be multiple tongues issues, as in language issues, considering Genesis 10:5 KJV as related to conversion of the Gentiles. So, those who have done Romans 10:9-10 begin the journey, and considering Paul's desire to reach the Gentiles, Paul didn't have time to start language classes. Thus: 1Corinthians 14:5 KJV. Language translation was undoubtedly highly desired by Paul to fulfill his mission. I think Paul was emphasizing the importance and necessity of language translation, but not higher than prophesying. Just because one can translate, doesn't inherently mean one can prophesy via those translations.
Meanwhile, you totally circumvent the origin of the Gentiles via Noah's son, Japheth (Genesis 9:22, 10:1, 2, 3, 4 Genesis 10:5 KJV). Highly likely, such is a new concept in your theology. Nonetheless, I suspect you haven't previously examined the 'meat' of those verses that would confound your rendering of 1Corinthians 14:5 KJV. "Feed my sheep" was a command, that's OT knowledge, and it's not your fault such was evidently unfamiliar to you prior to the rendering of Corinthians you proffer... I've never heard anyone who had interest in the ancestry of the Gentiles... it's just like, they were just there. But, it is your choice to overlook the origin of the Gentiles (Genesis 10:5 KJV) that would confound your rendering of Corinthians being such is a cornerstone, to say the least, in your faith paradigm.
I'm confident you achieved Romans 10:9-10, Oatmeal. I also proffer you got caught up in some self-exalting rendering of Corinthians. So... tell you what, Oatmeal... How about asking the one or ones who led you to your notion of the tongues rendering of Corinthians, just ask them off the cuff: Who is the 'father' of the Gentiles? If their impromptu response isn't Japheth... Houston, we have a problem. You at least owe yourself the resolve, Oatmeal. Whether or not you have the faith to be a Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV follower of Jesus will be determined in your reaction to their answer. I'll not hold my breath... Your undoubtedly extensive, historical evangelist endeavors focusing on your rendering of Corinthians would involve a LOT of back-paddling. I know from experience, back-paddling isn't always easy. There's a lot of individual humility involved... and, there's not a lot of room for individual humility among tongue speakers.
kayaker