The Difference Between Biblical and False Teaching

Anselm01

Active member
Then it would be helpful if you explained how language has multiple layers beyond the ones that include language.
Here are the layers I am referring to:
Linguistic
Translational-Interpretive
Hermeneutical-Philosophical
Historical-Cultural
Applicational
Mystical
Textual
Canonical
Traditional
Theological
The one being obtuse is the one that keeps asking the same question as if it hasn't been answered when it has already received direct answers. It is not like if you ask the question enough times the answer will somehow magically change.
I noticed you didn't actually answer the questions. It was a yes or no question.

So, again:

Does baptism save? Yes or no.

Is a person who believes in Jesus and not baptized in the same spiritual state as the person who believes in Jesus and is baptized? Yes or no.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
And you are left with nothing but childish emoji's.

You have been unable to refute anything I wrote and now act like a child because you have no response.
Hiding behind your hand when scripture is presented does not help your case either.

Do you care to challenge me on the 7 denominations referred to in the book of Revelation?
Perhaps you should do a study and see the differences between them. Or do you think they were all under the same Pope....
 

Anselm01

Active member
And you are left with nothing but childish emoji's.
Quando Romae
You have been unable to refute anything I wrote and now act like a child because you have no response.
🤦‍♂️
Hiding behind your hand when scripture is presented does not help your case either.
Correction: when scripture is presented INCORRECTLY.
Do you care to challenge me on the 7 denominations referred to in the book of Revelation?
There is nothing to "challenge" here. As always, you are taking things out of context to prove your point.
Perhaps you should do a study and see the differences between them. Or do you think they were all under the same Pope....
I understand them. It does not prove any point you are trying to make. Besides, why do you even "debate" others when you have direct revelation from God. All your beliefs, ever single one of them, are as if spoken from God Himself. Honestly, I think you should be pope. You are holy and you speak for God. You embody all the things you think a pope should be.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Here are the layers I am referring to:
Linguistic
Translational-Interpretive
Hermeneutical-Philosophical
Historical-Cultural
Applicational
Mystical
Textual
Canonical
Traditional
Theological
Putting the best construction on those means they are all dependent on the language. Looking at them realistically in practice several are pretexts for story telling as you demonstrated with the previous link re:Matt 16:18 in which you studiously avoided the pronouns used.

So how many of your categories above did you apply to avoid what Scripture says and means in Matt 16:18?
I noticed you didn't actually answer the questions. It was a yes or no question.

So, again:

Does baptism save? Yes or no.
You've already asked that question multiple times and received answers. Do you continue to ask to avoid addressing the wild eyed fanatical misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the Papacy?
Is a person who believes in Jesus and not baptized in the same spiritual state as the person who believes in Jesus and is baptized? Yes or no.
At least this is a different question, there is only one Judge and He doesn't post here. Be more specific about the numerous unstated variables in your scenario and you may receive a direct yes or no answer.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Quando Romae

🤦‍♂️

Correction: when scripture is presented INCORRECTLY.

There is nothing to "challenge" here. As always, you are taking things out of context to prove your point.

I understand them. It does not prove any point you are trying to make. Besides, why do you even "debate" others when you have direct revelation from God. All your beliefs, ever single one of them, are as if spoken from God Himself. Honestly, I think you should be pope. You are holy and you speak for God. You embody all the things you think a pope should be.
All Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and receive revelation from God.
You presume I thought I was special?

If you are not indwelt by the Spirit and walk by the Spirit then you are in the flesh and all scripture will remain folly to you.
By your own confession you are not indwelt by the Spirit, and you walk in the flesh and not in the Spirit
 

Anselm01

Active member
Putting the best construction on those means they are all dependent on the language. Looking at them realistically in practice several are pretexts for story telling as you demonstrated with the previous link re:Matt 16:18 in which you studiously avoided the pronouns used.
I answered it in that thread multiple times. You can read my responses there. Or you can ask the question there.
So how many of your categories above did you apply to avoid what Scripture says and means in Matt 16:18?
See above.
You've already asked that question multiple times and received answers. Do you continue to ask to avoid addressing the wild eyed fanatical misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the Papacy?
No. You are attempting to sidetrack the discussion to avoid a direct answer.
At least this is a different question, there is only one Judge and He doesn't post here. Be more specific about the numerous unstated variables in your scenario and you may receive a direct yes or no answer.
Why not answer what you think? Or is being more specific going to lead to disagreements among you Protestants and you are trying to avoid that?
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
I answered it in that thread multiple times. You can read my responses there. Or you can ask the question there.

See above.
You already gave it your best shot and there was nothing about the pronouns. The Papal misinterpretation of Matt 16:18 is by the scripturally illiterate and for the scripturally illiterate.
No. You are attempting to sidetrack the discussion to avoid a direct answer.
No, a direct answer has been given before. The reason I brought up Matt 16:18 was so that you would engage with and better understand what it is to interpret Scripture according to the God given perfect immediate context in which it was given.
Why not answer what you think?
The problem is the way you're asking the question requires knowledge of what you think.
Or is being more specific going to lead to disagreements among you Protestants and you are trying to avoid that?
No, apparently you are not familiar with our Symbols. When it comes to doctrine we are literally an open book. Our Symbols can be quite blunt and are not respecters of persons or denominations like the Papacy or what you term "Protestants." Anyone can read them at www.bookofconcord.org.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
This is a lie. I will not engage with you again.
"It does not prove any point you are trying to make. Besides, why do you even "debate" others when you have direct revelation from God. All your beliefs, ever single one of them, are as if spoken from God Himself."

Your words above!

I claim direct revelation from God through the indwelling Spirit and you accuse me of being wrong!
Therefore by your own claims, "believers" like yourself are not indwelt by the Spirit and cannot receive direct revelation from God!

So get with it. Either you are indwelt and receive direct revelation or not. You can't have it both ways.
 

Anselm01

Active member
You already gave it your best shot and there was nothing about the pronouns. The Papal misinterpretation of Matt 16:18 is by the scripturally illiterate and for the scripturally illiterate.

No, a direct answer has been given before. The reason I brought up Matt 16:18 was so that you would engage with and better understand what it is to interpret Scripture according to the God given perfect immediate context in which it was given.

The problem is the way you're asking the question requires knowledge of what you think.
I answered that issue in post #127.
Have you looking into the word Greek word "petros?" Petros is not the Greek word for "rock," petra is (and it is feminine). Petros is the masculine form of petra because Petros is male name. It takes this form because it is a name of a man. It reads: You are Petros (male form of petra) and upon this petra (the feminine form of "rock" that is the word for "rock") I will build My Church. Do you see how these two words are related? Again, why change his name to Petros? Why not call all the apostles "lithos" (small pebble), or call Simon Lithos, as this word is masculine?
No, apparently you are not familiar with our Symbols. When it comes to doctrine we are literally an open book. Our Symbols can be quite blunt and are not respecters of persons or denominations like the Papacy or what you term "Protestants." Anyone can read them at www.bookofconcord.org.
So, you are Lutheran. You believe in infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. You believe a person that professes faith in Christ and not baptized is in a different spiritual state than someone who is baptized. Thank you.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
I answered that issue in post #127.
Have you looking into the word Greek word "petros?" Petros is not the Greek word for "rock," petra is (and it is feminine). Petros is the masculine form of petra because Petros is male name. It takes this form because it is a name of a man. It reads: You are Petros (male form of petra) and upon this petra (the feminine form of "rock" that is the word for "rock") I will build My Church. Do you see how these two words are related? Again, why change his name to Petros? Why not call all the apostles "lithos" (small pebble), or call Simon Lithos, as this word is masculine?
You haven't answered the question at all. A name is a noun.

I didn't respond previously to kepa because although it is not a reason to misinterpret the passage in the Papal manner to do so would only drive the discussion even further afield.
So, you are Lutheran. You believe in infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. You believe a person that professes faith in Christ and not baptized is in a different spiritual state than someone who is baptized. Thank you.
Are you really not able to read what you want into a text? You're imposing an alien frame of thought which is common to the Papacy and at least a significant amount of what you call, "Protestants," upon the text.
 

Anselm01

Active member
You haven't answered the question at all. A name is a noun.
Yes, a Pronoun.
I didn't respond previously to kepa because although it is not a reason to misinterpret the passage in the Papal manner to do so would only drive the discussion even further afield.
Why change a name to "rock" and have it not mean "rock?" No relation?
Are you really not able to read what you want into a text? You're imposing an alien frame of thought which is common to the Papacy and at least a significant amount of what you call, "Protestants," upon the text.
I read it plainly in God's perfect immediate context.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Yes, a Pronoun.
Consider using a dictionary, and after that consider that there are multiple pronouns in the direct address of Jesus to Peter in Matt 16. Let us know when you have an on topic answer.
Why change a name to "rock" and have it not mean "rock?" No relation?
The only one imagining about kepa is you. Surely, you don't also imagine Simon to be the prophesied Kepa, do you?
I read it plainly in God's perfect immediate context.
Well, thanks for trying but our Symbols are not the word of God.
 

Anselm01

Active member
Consider using a dictionary, and after that consider that there are multiple pronouns in the direct address of Jesus to Peter in Matt 16. Let us know when you have an on topic answer.
I address the pronoun issue. Consider also the original language spoken was Aramaic. How does that work for you?
The only one imagining about kepa is you. Surely, you don't also imagine Simon to be the prophesied Kepa, do you?
Simon's name was changed to Cephas (masculine form of rock). I guess it was just a coincidence, right?
Well, thanks for trying but our Symbols are not the word of God.
This sentence makes no sense.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
I address the pronoun issue. Consider also the original language spoken was Aramaic. How does that work for you?
No, you did not address the pronouns. Knowing that the language was originally Aramaic only proves the false nature of your claim. It seems you haven't read or checked the Targumim nor understood the Greek of that section of Matthew 16.

It is obvious that your replies in this regard demonstrate the scripturally baseless claims of the Roman Catholic e-pologists. They are unable to demonstrate their misinterpretation from the text itself, what it actually says, in it's God given perfect immediate context.
Simon's name was changed to Cephas (masculine form of rock). I guess it was just a coincidence, right?
So? Let us know when you understand what the pronouns are in that section of Scripture and are able to address them.
This sentence makes no sense.
It was your reply that prompted the response.
 

Anselm01

Active member
No, you did not address the pronouns. Knowing that the language was originally Aramaic only proves the false nature of your claim. It seems you haven't read or checked the Targumim nor understood the Greek of that section of Matthew 16.
Totally addressed it. Peter is the rock refereed to in Matthew 16. His name was changed to "rock." It is pretty clear to anyone reading the text plainly.
It is obvious that your replies in this regard demonstrate the scripturally baseless claims of the Roman Catholic e-pologists. They are unable to demonstrate their misinterpretation from the text itself, what it actually says, in it's God given perfect immediate context.
I get it... BJ Bear's interpretation is "God given perfect immediate context." Dude, I understand this already...
So? Let us know when you understand what the pronouns are in that section of Scripture and are able to address them.
I understand them.
It was your reply that prompted the response.
Well, "our Symbols are not the word of God" is very obtuse and makes no sense.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Totally addressed it. Peter is the rock refereed to in Matthew 16. His name was changed to "rock." It is pretty clear to anyone reading the text plainly.

I get it... BJ Bear's interpretation is "God given perfect immediate context." Dude, I understand this already...

I understand them.

Well, "our Symbols are not the word of God" is very obtuse and makes no sense.
The above is only evidence which confirms that the Papal sometimes misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 was by the scripturally illiterate and for the scripturally illiterate. The difference between Biblical and false teaching is beyond the reach of such as those.
 

Anselm01

Active member
The above is only evidence which confirms that the Papal sometimes misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 was by the scripturally illiterate and for the scripturally illiterate. The difference between Biblical and false teaching is beyond the reach of such as those.
Yawn...
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Of course it is a yawn for those who are unable or unwilling to identify and address the pronouns in that section of Scripture, has no RC sectarian reference to refer to and cite in that case, posits imagination about the Aramaic, and whose sectarian rule, i.e., Vincent's Rule, especially given your interpretation of it in the other thread, excludes the RC sect's misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18.
 

Anselm01

Active member
Of course it is a yawn for those who are unable or unwilling to identify and address the pronouns in that section of Scripture, has no RC sectarian reference to refer to and cite in that case, posits imagination about the Aramaic, and whose sectarian rule, i.e., Vincent's Rule, especially given your interpretation of it in the other thread, excludes the RC sect's misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18.
RC sect... Funny. You are Lutheran, which broke off from the Roman Catholic Church. You are the sectarian. And I read Matthew 16:18 in God's perfect immediate context.
 
Top