It’s not a question of lying. You are a radical subjectivist, that’s just a consequence of it, it’s not necessary for you to be a liar.
“Whoever listens to you, listen to me”. Luke 10:16. Case closed. Also, if Scripture according to you doesn’t identify sound doctrine, how could it blame men for not “putting up” with it? Do you realize that, right? It would be absolutely demented for Scripture to prefigure a time where men will not put up with sound doctrine anymore if said sound doctrine couldn’t be identified, because at that point everybody (at, at the same time, nobody), could claim to teach sound doctrine.
Ecclesial (not in the sense that it overrides Scripture, in the sense that the correct interpretation of Scriptures is not for the individual to give but can be found in the apostolic churches, it cannot be scriptural in the strict sense because Scripture can be interpreted in thousand different ways by different people). . Which is the way Christians have thought of doctrine from the very beginning. And this isn’t my opinion, this is an historical fact. Which you already said in the past to matter diddly squat to you, but then again, that comes with begins radical subjectivist.
You even talked about “an obsession with eternity” when Jesus Himself talked about eternity more times that I can remember. You are a living cautionary tale against the dangers of radical subjectivism.
I’m not saying you are. To be a self-serving, glory seeking teacher you’d need to believe that there is something to teach to begin with. But how could you believe that, given your idea that sound doctrine and truth may exist but are beyond our reach?
Jesus spoke that to specific people at a specific time. Anything else is addig to the text.
Who said that it doesn’t? I only said that it is not necessarily what you are peddling.
OOh what a tangled web we weave. “Sound Doctrine” does not mean" singular doctrine."
Neither does it say that all the doctrine is sound. Or that you have it.
There is no Scrpitural backing for that assertion. it is pure dogma.
Says who!
Self verification is not verification.
And He also talked about Social Christianity and the Kingdom at hand in at least equal measure.
I never said that either.
I just said that no one has the authority to claim perfection (AKA sound) doctrine
And as Catholicism supports The Fall and Original Sin, they do not have it. Both of those doctrines are convoluted and misrepresentating Scripture.
Humanity s not fallen. it is just as God created. There was nothing to fall from. Humanity is just vane enough to think they are special despite a the evidence against it. Claiming one man could overturn God’s creation is vanity to the nth degree. And God Himself denied any notion of inherited Sin or being punished for someone else’s. That Ruels out Original Sin there and then
But, Oh dear, It is a historical doctrine .
Where in Scripture does it say that the first doctrine or understanding is the correct one or that the writers of Scripture are more inciteful (Deliberate misspell)
The Garden Narrative has little or nothing to do with God other than He is carachatured in it.
On the other hand it has everything to do with humanity’s self obsession and indignance that they are not living in a bed of roses (AKA Eden)
Basically all the Church fathers? I know, I know, they matter “diddly squat” (your words not mine) in front of your sovereign authority but yes, Christians in the first millenium, and the Church fathers, all believed like that. They were not as evolved as you so be understanding .
How so? If they don’t count when it comes to show what Christians believed before all the fragmentation (there were no such things as “denominations” in the undivided Church of the first millenium) then I don’t know what does.
Then the Bible claiming that people will not put up with sound doctrine would be a completely demented man-made book, because if not putting up with sound doctrine is identified as a sin in the Bible itself, and you claim that said sound doctrine cannot be identified by anyone, then everyone would have to figure out “sound doctrine” on his own, which would mean that there would be as many “sound doctrines” as there are Christians. Thus, criticizing criticizing future people for not putting up with sound doctrine, if what you are saying were true, would make the Bible an idiotic and demented book. Certainly not a sacred book by any means, unless we want to claim that God may have inspired an idiotic book, which would also make God Himself an idiot.
Also if I write “given your idea that sound doctrine and truth may exist but are beyond our reach?” And you reply
“I never said that either. I just said that no one has the authority to claim perfection (AKA sound) doctrine.”
Well that’s a little worrying, because it seems like you don’t realize that if nobody has the authority to claim sound doctrine, then sound doctrine itself would not be identifiable by anybody (which, again, would make the Bible a demented book for criticizing people for not “putting up” with something that, even if it exists, cannot be identified by anyone in the first place. And even if someone actually identified “sound doctrine” it would only be their words with no way to prove that their version of sound doctrine is more correct than the other millions of different versions).
This is false. I have explained the logic behind my assertions (and I had already refuted your claim that Luke 10:16 could be read in isolation , I have also proved that the Bible shows that apostolic authority is transmitted well beyond the apostles’s lives).
What does this even mean? How do you identify sound and unsound doctrine? With the “me thinks” rule?
Just asking, really. There are ten people in a room, ten Christians, all with different doctrines, all claiming that they have support from Scripture. Who decides which one of them (if any) possesses sound doctrine?
If the answer is “nobody” then the very notion of “sound doctrine” the Bible was talking about would be as relevant as a magical flying pink unicorn.
No, I have considered your assertions and refuted them. For example the idea that the authority established by Jesus when He said “whoever listens to you listen to me” was meant to die with the apostles, this is refuted by the Bible itself (not to mention what was happening just 32 years after Peter’s death). Here Was the serpent in Genesis real? - #34 by 1Cor15.54 I very much considered your assertion and refuted it, with biblical texts.
The fact that you don’t accept the refutation is completely irrelevant. You don’t even try to challenge my refutation because you can’t. And if I’m wrong and you can, go ahead. Show me why and how I’m wrong.
No, this is your prerogative. Which is why i was able to say that, while Luke 10:16 didn’t establish, by itself, the continuity of apostolic authority (the same authority established by Jesus with the whoever listens to you listens to me” words, the same Jesus Who established Peter as the rock upon which He will build His Church, going even as far as to change his name from Simon to Cephas, which means rock), and at the same time quote the other passages that indeed establish said continuity.
I didn’t need more proofs: you cannot refute my arguments so you won’t even touch them. You will instead place one or two false accusations here and there (for example that I take verses out of context ) and call it a day.
This Luke 16, from which you extracted one verse
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two[a] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. **2 **He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. **3 **Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. **4 **Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.
5 “When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ **6 **If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. **7 **Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.
8 “When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you. **9 **Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ **10 **But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ **12 **I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.
13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. **14 **But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. **15 **And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.[b]
16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
**17 **The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”
It is a specific sending out, of a specific group of people. There is nothing universal about this statement.
This is Matt 28 The Great Commission
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. **17 **When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. **18 **Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. **19 **Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, **20 **and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
The highlighted text has nothing to do with the message, it is personal to the Diciples.
Do I need to go through every one?
You quote 1 verse as if it stands alone and reinterpret it to confirm you own assertions. You are misusing Scripture and doing what you accuse me of.
