Law Matt Gaetz to become Attorney General

[PainIsLIfe]

Where in the Bible does it tell you to only use the Bible for information about Christ?? If you have it as a hard fast rule there must be somewhere you can quote for that.

I ask this n light of the fact that many books emerged within the Christian community alongside and before the scriptures and were considered authoritative by all of the early church and that's never really changed. These commentaries, one of which was written by Peter's own disciple amplify the gospels and tell you what the verbal and written traditions were that were passed on to explain what the scriptures meant.

You are holding to a doctrine that we can only read the New testament and none of the commentary Even when it's written by Peter's own disciple and I'm wondering how you justify that.


I've asked this many times but you seem unwilling to answer this question but it's the only dispute that we have and would reduce every single discussion we've had to one simple topic.

If you are interested in honest discussion, you simply must answer this question.

The Bible doesn't say that you can only use scripture. It does say not to add or take away from it.

But why would I follow a teaching from a human that teaches anything that is contrary to what is in the Bible? Also, you would surely agree that the early Catholic church just became another form of the pharisees, no?

Commentary? Are we talking about John Mark or am I missing something?


You ignored every question I've asked, but since you have a simple answer now
Why don't you tell us where Jesus said Love the Lord with all your heart and follow these other teachings that I've never mentioned?

more importantly explain why the popes that covered up child diddling can't be cut off from the body of Christ, but I can. And explain it in a way that doesn't include "because the church/Pope said"

 

[Deleted member 577981]

The Bible doesn't say that you can only use scripture. It does say not to add or take away from it.

But why would I follow a teaching from a human that teaches anything that is contrary to what is in the Bible? Also, you would surely agree that the early Catholic church just became another form of the pharisees, no?

Commentary? Are we talking about John Mark or am I missing something?


You ignored every question I've asked, but since you have a simple answer now
Why don't you tell us where Jesus said Love the Lord with all your heart and follow these other teachings that I've never mentioned?

more importantly explain why the popes that covered up child diddling can't be cut off from the body of Christ, but I can. And explain it in a way that doesn't include "because the church/Pope said"

Our entire discussion rests upon an a priori assumption you hold about not referencing early Christian literature like the Didache which was written by PETERS direct disciple...

settling that will clarify nearly every single disagreement we have had here.

Actually the bible DOES say to follow the traditions handed down to you weather written or verbal AND at the time that was written we already had extra biblical literature to reference.

In addition to the New testament telling us directly to read and follow verbal and written extra biblical information. We also have the Old testament referencing apocryphal gospels and considering them authoritative even though they're not strictly gospel.

There is no tradition anywhere in Christianity that suggests to only use the New testament. That notion is completely fabricated from nowhere at all

But more than that there is not a single place in the New testament that tells you to only read the New testament and there's not a single place in the Old testament that says the so either.

Your case has absolutely no foundation whatsoever. It is completely made up.

But if you're interested in having an honest discussion, you will actually address this singular point, which I already know is our entire point of contention.


But I want you to know that if you refuse to read extra biblical literature, I don't think that disqualifies you as a Christian in any way and I don't think it means you're not saved either. In fact, I think any person who really believes in Christ and invites him into their life is saved as long as they see him as savior and as God incarnate.


It would just mean that you are not availing yourself of the deep spirituality that was passed on through the extra biblical literature.

 

[Andy Capp]

Where in the Bible does it tell you to only use the Bible for information about Christ?? If you have it as a hard fast rule there must be somewhere you can quote for that.

I ask this n light of the fact that many books emerged within the Christian community alongside and before the scriptures and were considered authoritative by all of the early church and that's never really changed. These commentaries, one of which was written by Peter's own disciple amplify the gospels and tell you what the verbal and written traditions were that were passed on to explain what the scriptures meant.

You are holding to a doctrine that we can only read the New testament and none of the commentary Even when it's written by Peter's own disciple and I'm wondering how you justify that.


I've asked this many times but you seem unwilling to answer this question but it's the only dispute that we have and would reduce every single discussion we've had to one simple topic.

If you are interested in honest discussion, you simply must answer this question.

Your first sentence clearly shows you're not interested in an honest discussion.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Your first sentence clearly shows you're not interested in an honest discussion.

Why? Be specific.

 

[Andy Capp]

Why? Be specific.

See the bold text. No one made that claim. Just like no one claimed all the popes who've ever signed off on canonising someone were pdfs, either you knew that and chose to say it anyway, so you're dishonest, or you can't understand what you are commenting upon. I don't care which. I'm not playing this stupid game with you.

You've repeatedly tried to shoehorn in false equivalences by misstating what people have said and then attacking your own phoney claim instead. So, here's me gently pointing out, for a second time no less, that what you said was wrong and why, to offer you the opportunity to retract it and continue the discussion from a more honest place.

"But more than that there is not a single place in the New testament that tells you to only read the New testament and there's not a single place in the Old testament that says the so either."

No one made this claim either. I can't help people who don't want to be helped. Don't reply to me. Just do better or shut up.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

See the bold text. No one made that claim. Just like no one claimed all the popes who've ever signed off on canonising someone were pdfs, either you knew that and chose to say it anyway, so you're dishonest, or you can't understand what you are commenting upon. I don't care which. I'm not playing this stupid game with you.

You've repeatedly tried to shoehorn in false equivalences by misstating what people have said and then attacking your own phoney claim instead. So, here's me gently pointing out, for a second time no less, that what you said was wrong and why, to offer you the opportunity to retract it and continue the discussion from a more honest place.

"But more than that there is not a single place in the New testament that tells you to only read the New testament and there's not a single place in the Old testament that says the so either."

No one made this claim either. I can't help people who don't want to be helped. Don't reply to me. Just do better or shut up.

I don't think you're following very closely... that's exactly what the poster in question is claiming. His entire argument is based on asking me "where does it say that in the Bible?.". He has asked that in nearly every exchange we've had when I've brought up anything that comes from extra biblical literature.

Obviously he is implying that if it isn't in the Bible, it doesn't hold any weight in Christian tradition and that is demonstrably false from every single front possible.

No one has ever thought it from the entirety of Christian tradition until Luther and the idea itself has to be imported into the Bible.

Basically his entire argument that you can only use the Bible to learn about the Bible is not itself in the Bible.

There's nothing disingenuous about my position at all.

 

[JBJisGOAT14]

You have it wrong. The man in prison, who is trying to get out using Gaetz is the person that supplied the Fake ID to the minor. That same man has a relationship with her and he's done this before to people. He's a criminal scumbag sitting in prison as we speak and he tried to set up Gaetz to get out. That's why the FBI / DOJ won't touch this case.

Continue to strip any dignity you have left. Good lord, you people have no shame defending an absolute piece of shit human being.

 

[JBJisGOAT14]

Both Greenberg and Gaetz are on film together getting those fake ID's. And Gaetz still payed the 17-year old for.......reasons. And a fake ID still isn't a defense for statutory rape.

You've done a terrible job Whippy. This isn't as bad as the time you started posting pictures of yourself, but it's getting there.

Show these pics, I need a good laugh.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Our entire discussion rests upon an a priori assumption you hold about not referencing early Christian literature like the Didache which was written by PETERS direct disciple...

settling that will clarify nearly every single disagreement we have had here.

Actually the bible DOES say to follow the traditions handed down to you weather written or verbal AND at the time that was written we already had extra biblical literature to reference.

In addition to the New testament telling us directly to read and follow verbal and written extra biblical information. We also have the Old testament referencing apocryphal gospels and considering them authoritative even though they're not strictly gospel.

There is no tradition anywhere in Christianity that suggests to only use the New testament. That notion is completely fabricated from nowhere at all

But more than that there is not a single place in the New testament that tells you to only read the New testament and there's not a single place in the Old testament that says the so either.

Your case has absolutely no foundation whatsoever. It is completely made up.

But if you're interested in having an honest discussion, you will actually address this singular point, which I already know is our entire point of contention.


But I want you to know that if you refuse to read extra biblical literature, I don't think that disqualifies you as a Christian in any way and I don't think it means you're not saved either. In fact, I think any person who really believes in Christ and invites him into their life is saved as long as they see him as savior and as God incarnate.


It would just mean that you are not availing yourself of the deep spirituality that was passed on through the extra biblical literature.

The Didache was written by multiple people (and doesn't mention sainthood; much less prayers to them, or a Pope for that matter). No infallability. But it does say: a prophet who fails to act as he preaches is a false prophet - which brings us back to those church leaders that covered up the kiddie diddling.

The Bible didn't say to start new traditions to follow. It said to follow the traditions handed down and then the Didache turned around and moved the feast days. Tsk tsk ask.

Rejecting Papal teaching doesn't mean that we exclude the OT or extra Biblical text.

The whole idea of following these new traditions made by the Catholic church is what has no foundation.

And I consider Catholics to be saved. I just believe you miss out on a personal relationship with Christ.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

The Didache was written by multiple people (and doesn't mention sainthood; much less prayers to them, or a Pope for that matter). No infallability. But it does say: a prophet who fails to act as he preaches is a false prophet - which brings us back to those church leaders that covered up the kiddie diddling.

The Bible didn't say to start new traditions to follow. It said to follow the traditions handed down and then the Didache turned around and moved the feast days. Tsk tsk ask.

Rejecting Papal teaching doesn't mean that we exclude the OT or extra Biblical text.

The whole idea of following these new traditions made by the Catholic church is what has no foundation.

And I consider Catholics to be saved. I just believe you miss out on a personal relationship with Christ.

So to be very clear here you are stating now that Sola Scripture is a false doctrine and that extra biblical literature is a part of and has always been part of Christianity.

Once we establish this principle, we can evaluate any disagreements that we have had. But until we establish this principle there is no possibility of speaking even the same language.

Even the recent retreat of many Protestants to the sufficiency of scripture is not found anywhere in the scriptures. So even though they've retreated to this sufficiency of scripture to avoid the arguments against Sola scripture, they've essentially found themselves in the exact same place in that there is no scripture anywhere in the old or new testament that says you only listen to scripture or that it is sufficient itself.

 

[Darkballs]

Show these pics, I need a good laugh.

I think they are in this thread somewhere. Happy hunting!

 

[SurferH2O]

Birds of a feather, amigo. If you take what each man has admitted to, it’s not hard to imagine they were companioneros in this whole thing

Ohhhh... now we have to "imagine" in order to get the desired Left Cult results. It's no wonder the DOJ dropped this case like it was cancer.

 

[SurferH2O]

Continue to strip any dignity you have left. Good lord, you people have no shame defending an absolute piece of shit human being.

You defended Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama for years... don't fall off your high horse.

I'm attacking the Congressional Report, not defending the man. It's Left Cult clowns like you that can't tell the difference.

 

[JBJisGOAT14]

You defended Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama for years... don't fall off your high horse.

I'm attacking the Congressional Report, not defending the man. It's Left Cult clowns like you that can't tell the difference.

I didn’t vote for any of the people that you listed above retard. You think because I dislike draft dodger, I’m a liberal or “left cult clown” as you would say. In all honesty, I have more traditional conservative values, much more than you and the rapist, youth traffickers you defend. Keep stripping any integrity you have left (which isn’t much) to support these rich, elite peds you motherfucking retard.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I think that is where we will fundamentally disagree. The statutory rape is only a part of the reports findings. They also found he obstructed congress as well as received impermissible gifts. I find that troubling for a public official. In my opinion that would make him unfit for public office.

Yeah but if the statutory rapist off the libs, then he’s cool with him getting a promotion to AG. That’s how moral-less that psycho @SKYNET is

 

[PainIsLIfe]

So to be very clear here you are stating now that Sola Scripture is a false doctrine and that extra biblical literature is a part of and has always been part of Christianity.

Once we establish this principle, we can evaluate any disagreements that we have had. But until we establish this principle there is no possibility of speaking even the same language.

Even the recent retreat of many Protestants to the sufficiency of scripture is not found anywhere in the scriptures. So even though they've retreated to this sufficiency of scripture to avoid the arguments against Sola scripture, they've essentially found themselves in the exact same place in that there is no scripture anywhere in the old or new testament that says you only listen to scripture or that it is sufficient itself.

No; I'm not stating that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. I'm stating that you can't argue that all extra biblical text and decrees are scripture/valid because a fallible human said they are. Unless you are ready to except Mormonism on the same basis then you must accept this as true.

Now the fact is that if prayers to saints was a thing we would have examples of Jesus asking John, Moses, and Elijah to pray for him. Instead we only have examples of praying directly to God.

Did you download that last paragraph from an apologetics site? It's circular reasoning. You accept saints because 900 years after Christ lived a pope told you that veneration was always a thing - even though he did that because churches start collecting relics. Guess what, Mormons follow the Book of Mormon because about 900 years after that Joseph Smith told them that it was always a thing and had just been lost. Do you accept his claim?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

No; I'm not stating that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. I'm stating that you can't argue that all extra biblical text and decrees are scripture/valid because a fallible human said they are. Unless you are ready to except Mormonism on the same basis then you must accept this as true.

Now the fact is that if prayers to saints was a thing we would have examples of Jesus asking John, Moses, and Elijah to pray for him. Instead we only have examples of praying directly to God.

Did you download that last paragraph from an apologetics site? It's circular reasoning. You accept saints because 900 years after Christ lived a pope told you that veneration was always a thing - even though he did that because churches start collecting relics. Guess what, Mormons follow the Book of Mormon because about 900 years after that Joseph Smith told them that it was always a thing and had just been lost. Do you accept his claim?

Okay so we have to stay on sola scriptura because it will solve all of our disagreements. I am assuming you were arguing for Sola scriptura instead of the sufficiency of scripture. That's a much harder stance for you to take and harder to justify, but let's see what you have.

Your entire premise is that everything must be taken from scripture. You can't import an idea that important that isn't based on scripture. So let's see your justification for sola scriptura.

I can defend the Mormon statement but I'm going to wait because it's post sola scriptura .

You must defend sola scriptura in order for this discussion to move forward as it is the central principle of all of your criticisms of my positions.

@PainIsLIfe

I can steel man a position against the Catholic Church but I do not believe it is possible to do so from sola scriptura or the sufficiency of scripture. I'm reasonably very well versed in this topic and I've never seen a coherent argument that holds up for Sola Scripture or the sufficiency of scripture.


I want you to know that I don't think accepting that fact justifies everything the Catholic church says or does. That's a different discussion, but you have to move past only scripture to get to that discussion.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Okay so we have to stay on sola scriptura because it will solve all of our disagreements. I am assuming you were arguing for Sola scriptura instead of the sufficiency of scripture. That's a much harder stance for you to take and harder to justify, but let's see what you have.

Your entire premise is that everything must be taken from scripture. You can't import an idea that important that isn't based on scripture. So let's see your justification for sola scriptura.

I can defend the Mormon statement but I'm going to wait because it's post sola scriptura .

You must defend sola scriptura in order for this discussion to move forward as it is the central principle of all of your criticisms of my positions.

@PainIsLIfe

I can steel man a position against the Catholic Church but I do not believe it is possible to do so from sola scriptura or the sufficiency of scripture. I'm reasonably very well versed in this topic and I've never seen a coherent argument that holds up for Sola Scripture or the sufficiency of scripture.


I want you to know that I don't think accepting that fact justifies everything the Catholic church says or does. That's a different discussion, but you have to move past only scripture to get to that discussion.

That isn't what I said at all.

But, I find it pretty easy to disregard any doctrine that is counter to anything written in the Bible.

And again, if you want to have this discussion then start the thread (I promise to join the discussion) and quit posting/derailing in this one.

I'll not reply in this thread about this subject again. So make the new thread ir PM me.

 

[CatchnShoot]

So you can be a rapist president, but a rapist AG is a bridge to far.

Keep up the good work America!

 

[Deleted member 577981]

That isn't what I said at all.

But, I find it pretty easy to disregard any doctrine that is counter to anything written in the Bible.

And again, if you want to have this discussion then start the thread (I promise to join the discussion) and quit posting/derailing in this one.

I'll not reply in this thread about this subject again. So make the new thread ir PM me.

You have been willing to engage in arguments endlessly as long as we don't center in on the one actual dispute we have.

You have attacked my position on five or six different fronts and every single one of them boils down to sola scriptura.

We are now at the point where you have to defend sola scriptura because all of your positions are based on it.

I would also like to remind you that you came at me pretty hard in this way... and you're the one who pressed these discussions with me.. and not the other way around. Why leave when we get down to the core disagreement we have?


What scriptural argument do you have for Sola Scriptura since you've based nearly every criticism of me on that?

I would think as a Christian you would want to make sure that the interpretive lens that you use is not based on something that is itself not scriptural or supported in any way through Christian tradition.