it's the same thing though, they claim their pick inspired by God, do you believe it is? same as some claim the stories of the bible are....
1) you consistently accuse me of things I did not say or do so you have something to attack - in order to avoid the teachings of Jesus. I have not professed any Dogma - I can if you like but have not done so thusfar. I have simply pointed out that the teachings of Jesus contradict Sola Fide. 2) Bringing up Pauline scripture - and scripture that is universally disputed as written by Paul - is just another way for you to try and avoid the teachings of Jesus which contradict Sola Fide. 3) You can disagree with Kummel and the various other respected scholars all you like - this does not change the fact that the person you cited is a disingenuous clown for stating defacto - something that is highly disputed. This is academic fraud. Wright does not defacto state that the disputed texts were penned by Paul. What is laughable is that you try and claim that Kummel and others do not mention the traditional view .. of course he does .. he has to in order to argue against it. Your claim is desperate grasping at non existent straws. 4) Your claim of "majority opinion" is both unsupported and patently false. Almost all serious academics accept that the Pauline scripture in question was not penned by Paul - for the reasons given in the links provided. 5) That ideas that were around at the time - those expressed by Clement and penned by the author of Ephesians - does not mean that Paul penned them. 6) You then restate this gibberish as if I have not dealt with it previously - upon which you went running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial and avoidance. My answering the above questions will not change the teachings of Jesus which contradict Sola Fide. Whats laughable hypocrisy is that you claim that no one questioned the authenticity of the pseudo- Pauline texts until 1400 (at a time when one would burn at the stake for doing so) but then buy into Sola Fide - a doctrine which was not around till after the 1400's. 1) Jesus states that you have to be more righteous than the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law.- fortunately for us - this is a low bar as Jesus had no respect for these folks. 2) What if the moon is made of green cheese - Either you accept the standard given by Jesus or you don't. 3) We can get into the "dying God" myths if you like and how this is a parallel to the sacrifice as Jesus. - I am sure however that such a discussion will send you screaming into the playground once again. Regardless - such as discussion will not change the teachings of Jesus - one that you are desperately trying to avoid and ignore by asking such questions.
I agree with the RCC on the inspiration of Scripture, but not on the office of the papacy, even thought God can control that choice, for good or ill.
and for the same reason you disagree on the pick of the pope, many disagree on the words of the bible
Again, state your case. This thread is a waste of time, you don't believe the statements already presented by Jesus. It isn't universal, who is fraudulent? Oh brother, more name calling, that says a lot about how weak your position is. Excuse me, he pretty much did. There are a whole lot more serious scholars who would agree with me. That was a rhetorical statement, and my earlier link also mentioned the opposing view in order to argue against it. LOL, let me guess, an opposing scholar by definition isn't serious? I was rebutting your claim that I Clement was unfamiliar with Ephesians. You really need to read forum rules against juvenille name calling. And I'm still waiting for you to state your case, if you have what post? Addressed above. What? The only thing the early church could be burned for was being Christians. Nonsense, it was around since the NT was written, the fact doctrine was later corrupted doesn't change that. The church, like OT Israel is in a constant cycle of apostasy and faithfulness. So what are you saying, we have to be righteous to be saved or we don't? From what theological position are you coming? You look at the Bible in context of other passages. Here is one explanation: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/unless-your-righteousness-exceeds-pharisees/ I would say the same of you. More pearls of wisdom from critical theologians, huh? I'll save you the trouble and debunk it here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/gospels-borrow-pagan-myths/ Not that I think you'll read it, but others might. Pot, meet kettle.
You are in denial dude. Most of the stuff you posted has no relation to the actual post you are responding to - and you have still yet to address the teachings of Jesus that contradict sola fide.
The Jesus character said that you had to do some animal sacrifices. You need to kill some birds and goats to stay on his good side or he gets angry.
True. So VERY true. In fact, almost no "Christians" even know what Yeshua actually taught. They settle for the fairy tale about Jesus assuming personal responsibility for their misbehaviors, & offering salvation in spite of them, which are the opposite of Jesus' teaching that we must all walk the walk for ourselves, if we are to carve out our own place in Heaven. The traditional twisted version was offered by the original Church as a means to place the Church in a more powerful position in the daily lives of its members, at the expense of Jesus' assertion that we are all individually self-empowered to follow his example. Truth became a victim of the Church's quest for power & influence. Christianity became something its founder could never recognize.
Nonsense, there is no difference between Paul's theology and that of Jesus, Paul said he got his teachings from Jesus. There are different emphasis, as Jesus' audience was mainly Jewish and Paul's mainly gentile. Hence Paul discusses homosexuality and Jesus didn't, it was a non-issue to Jews.
IF what you say is true, then homosexuality was not an issue with Jews or with Jesus himself--which I would completely agree with. It should be no issue with us today either.
True believers or otherwise - it is from that ilk from where modern Christian doctrine and dogma originated.
There are many differences between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul. Your problem is that you cherry pick the teachings of Jesus you like (then ones which conform best to the Pauline dogma you were raised on) and ignore the ones you don't. Jesus does discuss homosexuality - "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" ... Judge not Let you be Judged. This was not the teaching of Paul - quite the opposite in fact.
Homosexuality was not even an issue in the community that Jesus addressed. When Paul went to the Gentiles it was most definitely an issue. Jesus did not come to do away with the law, he came to fulfill it. His words. Jesus also told the woman caught in the act of adultery, "go your way and sin no more". Adultery is sin and so is homosexual behavior as defined by the Mosaic law that Jesus came to fulfill.. So to homosexuals His message would be, "go your way and sin no more". Don't try and use the words of Jesus to condone your behavior.
Jesus himself violated Mosaic Law - and you are confusing the "Commands" Mosaic Law. I did not say Jesus condoned either homosexuality or adultery. What behavior of mind did I use Jesus words to condone ?
Typically, those that would water down the Gospel, point to the command "to not judge others" as one to not discern and judge ":behavior or actions taken". In Christian circles that is often referred to as "sloppy agape and greasy grace". If a behavior is non-edifying, it is the duty of Christian Culture to point that out. There are points in Leviticus and other places of Old Testament precepts where homosexuality was shown as abhorrent behavior. In Jesus's culture that was understood. There was a time in my own culture, that was understood. Apostle Paul pointed it out because in many Gentile circles the behavior was rampant.
It is unwise for any Christian to bring up Leviticus for many reasons....I would hope you know What I am referring to.