A title is not a name. (Jesus Christ, priest, Moses, Earth)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by k4c

Hi James,

Thee reason why I asked if your were a LDS is because of your use of quotes outside of the cannon of Scripture to for doctrines.

After I sent my question to you I notice I was able to view your faith logo on the top so just disreagrd my question.

Do you think God had His hand in the cannonizing of the Scriptures or do you think we are still open to allow quotes from people outside of the Bible to form our doctrines?

What if I began quoting a local pastor and using his teachings to make the Bible say what he wants it to say even when we don't see the cannon of Scripture supprting his teachings?

Do we allow for this as seekers of truth?

Many blessings,
John

I don't believe that I used any quotes from outside of Scripture and I certainly wasn't forming any doctrines. All I did was point out that the authors of Scripture used non-Scriptural sources. Yes, I think that God had a hand in the Scriptural canon, because it was the Church that He promised to guide that created the canon. That canon was longer than the one currently used by most Protestants, however.

We can, however, use extra-Scriptural material because as I have already said we are not sola scripturalists. We can profitably refer to early documents of the Church such as the Didache, for instance, or the writings of Church Fathers. If, however, anything believed or taught by any of them contradicts Scripture or Holy Tradition, it is discarded. For this reason Bl. Augustine of Hippo's teachings are pretty much ignored in the east. No one man can change doctrine (so your local pastor idea is an impossibility) because we hold to the principles of the Vincentian Canon, that which was believed always, everywhere and by all.

James

[may]

Originally Posted by k4c

H

So with this, Jesus can be called God but not in a co-eternal and co-equal sense. Jesus is called God because His Father has given Him this title to rule with authority and act in His behalf.

Knowing this, let us be biblically sound in our beliefs of the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Let me know your thoughts...

Many blessings,
John

I have let you know my thoughts from the beliefs of a JW , but you do not seem to be answering me, i wonder why that is, as this is a JW thread? i have been a baptized JW for many years and NEVER do the faithful and discreet slave class , who Jesus is directing ,to feedthe domestics food at the proper time (matthew 24;45-47) . not once have this slave class told us that it is ok to callJesus GOD .so i can see what you are saying that he has great aurthority ,all JW know that , and yes Isaiah tells us that he is a mighty God
Or, "Mighty Divine One." Heb., ’El Gib·bohr´ (not ’El Shad·dai´ as in Ge 17:1, where see ftn); Sy, "Mighty God of times indefinite"; Lat., De´us for´tis

For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace ........isaiah 9;6- so it would be wrong to imply as you have in your post ,that it would be ok to call Jesus GOD as it wouldnt , just thought i would set that straight .There is only one true Almighty God and that is Jehovah he is the most high, and the Almighty one . psalm 83 ;18 tells us he is the most high

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,You alone are the most High over all the earth............... so Jehovah is the Almighty one, not Jesus ,there is a difference between Almighty and mighty , so you saying it is ok to call Jesus God is not right ,as it leaves Jehovah out of the picture , and we would not want to do that would we? saying that maybe i have completely missed your point, and you did not mean it that way , if so i am not sure why you are not informing me of that?

[k4c]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

I don't believe that I used any quotes from outside of Scripture and I certainly wasn't forming any doctrines. All I did was point out that the authors of Scripture used non-Scriptural sources. Yes, I think that God had a hand in the Scriptural canon, because it was the Church that He promised to guide that created the canon. That canon was longer than the one currently used by most Protestants, however.

We can, however, use extra-Scriptural material because as I have already said we are not sola scripturalists. We can profitably refer to early documents of the Church such as the Didache, for instance, or the writings of Church Fathers. If, however, anything believed or taught by any of them contradicts Scripture or Holy Tradition, it is discarded. For this reason Bl. Augustine of Hippo's teachings are pretty much ignored in the east. No one man can change doctrine (so your local pastor idea is an impossibility) because we hold to the principles of the Vincentian Canon, that which was believed always, everywhere and by all.

James

The only church fathers we turn to are those of the Scripture such as Abraham, Moses, Paul, John and so on. We don't look to Hippopotamus of Dork nor do we look to Pope John or Ellen G. White.

The Scriptures themselves interpret themselves otherwise where do we draw the line in who we listen to. You say your people have the truth while others say their people have the truth while others say Ellen G. White is the new convenant prophet for the church today.

Stick to sola scripturalists for all truth allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves through the direction of the Spirit of Christ.

Many blessings,
John

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by k4c

The only church fathers we turn to are those of the Scripture such as Abraham, Moses, Paul, John and so on. We don't look to Hippopotamus of Dork nor do we look to Pope John or Ellen G. White.

The Scriptures themselves interpret themselves otherwise where do we draw the line in who we listen to. You say your people have the truth while others say their people have the truth while others say Ellen G. White is the new convenant prophet for the church today.

Stick to sola scripturalists for all truth allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves through the direction of the Spirit of Christ.

Many blessings,
John

You seem to be labouring under two misapprehensions, firstly that when I talk of such things as the Church Fathers I am talking of individuals and secondly that sola scriptura is even possible. On the first point, it is the concensus of the Church (the pillar and ground of the Truth) not the opinion of one Father, as I attempted to show you by pointing out that we do not accept Augustine's teachings for he contradicts the concensus. You appear not to understand the point. On the scond point, it is impossible to approach any text, whether Scripture or Shakespeare, without some external tradition to guide you. No text exists in a vacuum, the only question is whether your tradition is of God or man. Sola scriptura is itself a tradition and a very recent one in Church history given that it's completely unheard of prior to the Reformation and it's apparent that it was not held to at all by the early Church. I'd argue that this late appearance of the tradition is good evidence that it is a tradition of men, which is ironic given the reason the approach was invented in the first place.

James

[k4c]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

You seem to be labouring under two misapprehensions, firstly that when I talk of such things as the Church Fathers I am talking of individuals and secondly that sola scriptura is even possible. On the first point, it is the concensus of the Church (the pillar and ground of the Truth) not the opinion of one Father, as I attempted to show you by pointing out that we do not accept Augustine's teachings for he contradicts the concensus. You appear not to understand the point. On the scond point, it is impossible to approach any text, whether Scripture or Shakespeare, without some external tradition to guide you. No text exists in a vacuum, the only question is whether your tradition is of God or man. Sola scriptura is itself a tradition and a very recent one in Church history given that it's completely unheard of prior to the Reformation and it's apparent that it was not held to at all by the early Church. I'd argue that this late appearance of the tradition is good evidence that it is a tradition of men, which is ironic given the reason the approach was invented in the first place.

James

Hi James,

I'll stick to the Scriptures themselves for they interpret themselves very nicely. God did a very nice job in bringing them all together for us. We also have the Spirit to guide and direct our studies.

1 Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1 Cr 2:3 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

We need not go any further than the Scriptures for instruction in righteousness and all truth.

Many blessings,
John

[sushannah]

Originally Posted by k4c

Hi Sushannah,

I can't think of their names right now because I'm not at my laptop but if you check websites such as messiah.com, or yeshuah.com, or yeshuahnet.com you will begin finding Jewish based faiths that teach Jesus and Michael as one and the same.

Many blessings,
John

Jews don't believe in Jesus at all. They don't believe he was Michael, they don't believe he was the Messiah, and many don't believe he ever existed at all. Groups that believe these things are not Jewish based faith, but Christian based faith.

[k4c]

Originally Posted by sushannah

Jews don't believe in Jesus at all. They don't believe he was Michael, they don't believe he was the Messiah, and many don't believe he ever existed at all. Groups that believe these things are not Jewish based faith, but Christian based faith.

Hi sushannah,

There are Jewish people with a Jewsi faith who believe Jesus is the Christ they're called Messianic Jews.

Many blessings,
John

[sushannah]

Originally Posted by k4c

Hi sushannah,

There are Jewish people with a Jewsi faith who believe Jesus is the Christ they're called Messianic Jews.

Many blessings,
John

There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew who believes that Jesus is their savior. That person has become a Christian. Many who call themselves Messianic jews main objective is to convert Jewish people to Christianity. If someone wants to be a Christian that's okay, but they should leave the Jewish people alone.

[may]

Originally Posted by k4c

The only church fathers we turn to are those of the Scripture such as Abraham, Moses, Paul, John and so on. We don't look to Hippopotamus of Dork nor do we look to Pope John or Ellen G. White.

The Scriptures themselves interpret themselves otherwise where do we draw the line in who we listen to. You say your people have the truth while others say their people have the truth while others say Ellen G. White is the new convenant prophet for the church today.

Stick to sola scripturalists for all truth allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves through the direction of the Spirit of Christ.

Many blessings,
John

"Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings matthew 24; -45-47 if we stick to the channel that Jesus is using in these last days we cant go wrong . Jesus has appointed that slave over all his belongings and that slave is very happy

(Matthew 25:21) His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’

(Luke 12:44) I tell YOU truthfully, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

(1 Corinthians 4:2) Besides, in this case, what is looked for in stewards is for a man to be found faithful.
And the Lord said: "Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? luke 12;42 yes JW are full of good spiritual food that Jesus is giving us through the faithful slaves and anyone who wants to know the correct thoughts of JW will go to that channel as it is the only one that Jesus is working through in these last days

[k4c]

Originally Posted by sushannah

There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew who believes that Jesus is their savior. That person has become a Christian. Many who call themselves Messianic jews main objective is to convert Jewish people to Christianity. If someone wants to be a Christian that's okay, but they should leave the Jewish people alone.

Hi sushannah,

The name (Christian) is a nick name that was first given to those who follow Jesus at Antioch. It's not a doctrinal name one needs to have to be a follower of Jesus. Messianic Jews is just as good as the name Christian.

Many blessings,
John