User Profile: snooop1e


Member Since: January 13, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • September 15, 2014 at 8:07pm


    According to scripture Jesus Christ established a visible church (not a bible) and according to scripture that church is the pillar and foundation of truth, spotless without wrinkle, blameless and holy and that church gave us a bible with 73 books and the gates of hell will never prevail against that same church.

    Not because of the Pope and the sinful men who make up her members, because of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not a liar and Jesus Christ does not make mistakes.

    This is a fundamental principle many do not understand The church isn’t infallible because of the Pope and the Bishops, the church is infallible because of Jesus Christ DESPITE the Pope and the Bishops who are sinful men just like you and me. The Pope sits in Peters seat and Jesus promised that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth, blamelss and holy. Not because the church says so, because God says so. That is assurance, glory to God alleluiah!!!

    Much love brother, we don’t always agree but theological differences aside I have no doubt that you sincerely love Jesus Christ and I appreciate the opportunity to help spread the good news via our dialogue. Hope all is well my friend.

    God Bless

  • September 15, 2014 at 7:59pm

    Sola Scriptura without an authoritative, pillar and foundation of truth that is blameless and holy is really nothing more than sinful men recreating God according their own intellect and being tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

    Lastly your entire description/explanation of how the canon was determined proves my point precisely.

    Nowhere in the bible is there any explanation or description of “critical texts” or the methods/principles used to determine “critical texts” and there is no explanation at all of what belongs in the bible.

    ALL of the information used to determine what belongs in the bible comes from sources OUTSIDE of the bible.

    This simple fact alone refutes “sola scriptura”. Sola scriptura only works AFTER you have totally violated sola scriptura and compiled a list of books that make up a bible. Once you have done so THEN you can institute the principle of sola scriptura, not before.

    This is why R.C. Sproul calls the bible a “fallible list of infallible books” because even he has to admit that the list of books comes from a fallible source outside of the bible. So the bible does not tell us which writings are scripture and without an infallible source to authoritatively tell you which writings are “scripture” it’s all a wash.

    cont’d below

  • September 15, 2014 at 7:54pm

    ” I am not sure you fully understand what a “critical text” is”

    How do you know that YOU fully understand what a “critical text” is If the bible does not define what a “critical text” is?. If you go by scripture alone you should speak where scripture speaks and remain silent where scripture remains silent.

    Protestants who removed 7 books from the bible violated their own first principle of sola scriptura by removing “critical texts” from the bible. I find it rather odd (hypocritical actually) when Protestants who removed 7 books from the bible lecture others about the importance of “critical texts”, it’s rather presumptuous wouldn’t you agree?

    Let’s be honest here, a person could spend 500 years (or even a lifetime) trying to decide what are “critical texts” and still not agree resuting in over 35,000 different interpretations of who God is and what is essential or “critical” for salvation. sound familiar? It doesn’t take a biblical scholar to recognize that the principle of “sola scriptura” as a means for determining what is and is not “critical” (whether it be a text or an essential doctrine) has only resulted in division and confusion, and now we have gay clergy and gay marriages.

    cont’d below

  • September 15, 2014 at 7:44pm

    “I know better than any that I don’t know it all, but this I do know”

    Your statement is a practical impossibility, if you don’t know it ALL then you cannot definitively know anything. This is the same mistake that atheists make when they say “there is no absolute truth” if there is not absolute truth that includes the statement that there are not absolute truths. Again the principle of self-defeating logic. It’s like a snake swallowing it’s tail.

    So you can HOPE you are right but you cannot KNOW with absolutely certainty that you are right because you don’t “know it all”. So a true statement (based on your fallibility) is ‘I don’t know it all but I believe that what I believe produces the results that the Word says I should have and that is good enough for me’

    cont’d below

  • September 15, 2014 at 7:43pm

    “You RC’s that post here all are certain you have it all nailed down, all the while mocking Protestants with epithets such as ‘sola scriptura…”

    Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) is not an ‘epithet” according to scholars it is the foundational doctrinal principle of Protestantism that emerged from the Protestant reformation. The fact that you consider it an ‘epithet’ suggests that you are not very comfortable with (or confident in) the principle.

    “but you will never admit that you just might have a few things off base.”

    Please understand I did not create the church, Jesus Christ created the church and scripture tells us that,

    1. The gates of hell will never prevail against her. [Matt 16:18]
    2. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth. [1 Tim 3:15]
    3. The church is without spot or wrinkle, holy and blameless [Eph 5:27]

    So you rely soley on your personal, fallible, interpretation of a bible that is missing 7 books and I rely on the church and the bible tells me that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, without spot or wrinkle, holy and blameless. So if you think about it, the Protestant method for discerning truth violates it’s own first principle of sola scriptura. That being said who realistically has some things off base?

    cont’d below

  • September 15, 2014 at 7:22pm


    You wrote,

    “The Bible as originally given is infallible”

    But then you also wrote.

    “You may have a point worth considering re: the omission of the Apocrypha”

    Anything seem wrong with those 2 competing (contradictory) statements? If the bible as originally given is infallible then why did Protestants remove 7 books from an infallible bible? Those 7 books were contained in the Codex, Septuagint, 1611 KJV, Geneva, Gutenburg (and every single bible published prior to 1666) Again, according to your own words, the Bible as originally given is infallible, so why did fallible men remove 7 books from an infallible bible? Let me guess, it wasn’t infallible until AFTER they altered it.

    CAVEAT: “infallibility” is a human trait. The Bible is an inanimate object that cannot have human characteristics, so the Bible is not “infallible” the bible is inerrant.

    you wrote

    “but it takes a person willing to accept that they may not have had it ‘right’ and therefore must change what they believe”

    Absolutely. Again, the catholic church did not remove those 7 books from the bible, the ones who removed those 7 books from the bible (and those who agree with that decision) must be willing to accept that they may not have had it right and therefore must change what they believe.

    cont’d below

  • September 15, 2014 at 4:53pm


    And with your spirit

    ; )

  • [1] September 15, 2014 at 4:21pm

    Actually zapparules you raise a very good point.

    A year or 2 ago a very prominent Atheist blogger shocked the atheist world when she suddenly announced that she believed in God and was becomming a catholic and the haters unleashed the hate, there were tons of comments about how she wasn’t really a “christian” etc etc.

    So yeah I have to agree with you on this one point, initially it’s hugs all around but then the theological debates ensue and before you know it people are declaring that he isn’t “truly saved”….

    God Bless

  • [22] September 15, 2014 at 3:17pm


    “PERHAPS he was motivated (to find god) out of need”

    That is definitely a possibility but there is another possibility.

    it’s possible that the act of sacrificing his life for another (imitating Christ) brought him face to face with God in an undeniable and life changing way.

    It’s not always what happens to us that brings us face to face with God, sometimes its what we do for others that brings us face to face with God.

    God Bless

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] September 15, 2014 at 2:33pm

    If he had made the trip on a Suzuki DR-650 (instead of a KLR-650) he coud have kept going when the road “ran out” Dohhhhhhhhhh, sorry couldn’t help myself…..

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] September 15, 2014 at 2:23am

    AAAAAAMEN! 808PATRIOT. We need to turn our lives completely over to Jesus, repent of our sins and fast and pray. Unfortunately there are Christians who sincerely believe that salvation is by faith alone apart from obedience to God. They believe that turning from God and serving sin only results in “less rewards” in heaven. So sadly there will be a significant number of Christians who will not persevere until the end. When the time comes we will see who is willing to lay down their life for another (just as Jesus did)

    Unfortunately I think many will lose heart and choose to settle for “less rewards” in heaven….I hope I am wrong…….

    God Bless

  • September 15, 2014 at 1:24am

    I have to admit, that made me laugh outloud, thanks for giving me something to laugh about, it was over 87 degrees INSIDE our house for most of the day today and with 4 little ones still in diapers it was brutal. Note to self, in the future buy house with AC.

    God Bless

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] September 14, 2014 at 6:54pm

    One final note, Protestants removed 7 books from the original KJV when the Bible does not say to do so. Either the original KJV was not a true Bible (which doesn’t bode well for all of the Christians who were using it prior to 1666 or Protestants violated the word of God by removing things from the Bible when the Bible no where says to do so.

    You can’t have it both ways, you can’t declare that the Bible is your ONLY authority AFTER you alter it and remove 7 books from it. Fallible men made the decision to remove those 7 books from the original KJV (7 books that were contained in the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Geneva Bible and the Gutenburg Bible) and the Bible NO WHERE says to remove those books. Going back to JGRAHAMIII main point, fallible men (not scripture) decided for themselves which texts were “critical” and which were not.

    Also fascinating (sad) is the fact that those who reject the churches role (and authority) in declaring the canon have no problem accepting the role/authority of those fallible men who took it upon themselves to remove 7 books from the Bible – when the Bible does not say to do so.

    God Bless

  • [1] September 14, 2014 at 6:43pm


    You are spot on. TBM and others who follow Luthers doctrine of sola scriptura necessarily must downplay and brush aside issues that call into question sola scriptura.

    The fact that men (not scripture) determined what belongs in the Bible in and of itself refutes this false doctrine. Scripture Alone cannot be the only authority for Christians because men (not scripture) told us which writings are in fact “scripture”

    Not a single writing, letter or book in the Bible claims to be the word of God.. This was determined by the church. The church gave us the Bible the Bible didn’t give us the church.

    The reason that the bible has any authority at all is because the church declared the canon. Muslims declare the Kuran to be the inspired word of God but Christians eject the Kuran as being the word of God..

    To accept the canon of scripture while rejecting the authority of the church who declared that canon is like holding an egg while denying that chickens exist – and then the second your egg hatches you suddenly announce that chickens NOW exist.

    God Bless.

  • [1] September 14, 2014 at 6:15pm


    “There is a scholarly practice used today, from which virtually all new versions/translations are taken and that is the use of “critical texts” 

    The bible does not tell us which texts are “critical”. Are the individuals who decide this infallible? Where does the bible tell us which texts are “critical”?

    If the bible is your only authority and the bible does not tell you which texts are “critical” (belong in it) but fallible men tell you this then you are putting the authority of fallible men over the bible?

    just trying to see how the bible alone can be the only authority when the bible doesnt tell men which texts are “critical” but men tell the bible which texts are critical and this decision made by men detemines not only what goes in the bible but how it is written and what it means. Can/does the bible say anything in return? The bible cannot protest what men put in the bible.

    Are the 7 books that were in the codex, the septuagint , the Latin Vulgate, the original 1611 KJV, the Geneva Bible and the Gutenburg Bible “critical” texts? Why were they removed?

    How can a book be infallible when its contents is determined by fallible men?

    How can Christians accept the authority of scripture while rejecting/denying the authority of (the) men who determined which writings are scripture? If men do not have any authority then why do Christians believe the writings (that men of no authority) declared to be inspired …….are truly inspired?

    God Bless

  • [1] September 14, 2014 at 4:42pm


    Thanks for the response but you didnt the question. If ALL versions are correct then the original 1611 KJV and the New World Translation and the RSV which are quite different are all correct. It seems as though you havent really given this much thought.

    God Bless

  • [1] September 12, 2014 at 8:05pm


    You wrote,

    “My church teaches that sin is all the same”

    According to Jesus (and the Bible) all sins are not the same, some sins are greater than others.

    John 19:11
    “the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin”


    1 John 5:16
    If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.


    Your own example of “struggling” to not sin proves that all sins are not equal.

    You say that the gay person who struggles to not commit a homosexal act but occasionally fails is saved but the gay person who does not struggle against committng a homosexual act is not saved.

    In your example BOTH people end up sinning but only one (the one who did not struggle to not sin) is not saved.

    That being the case, not struggling against sin is a greater sin than committing the homosexal act.

    One sin (not struggling against the sin) is “unto death” (the person is not saved) and the other sin (struggling yet still committing the homosexual act) is “not unto death” (the person is still saved)

    God Bless

  • [1] September 12, 2014 at 6:22pm


    Where in the Bible does it tell us the only books and writings that are supposed to be in the Bible?

    When you finish with your research you will see that your claim above is not only untrue but quite sad.

    God Bless

  • [1] September 12, 2014 at 5:55pm

    At first your post made me chuckle but then it occurred to me that you just might be serious.

    You know there are MANY different versions/translatons of th “Bible” yes/no?

    That being said I am very curious which version/translation of the Bible is from Jesus Christ and where in the Bible does it tell you which version/translation is the one Jesus intended us to have?

    God Bless

    Responses (20) +
  • [1] September 12, 2014 at 5:46pm

    I don’ care what anyone says, that was funny….

123 To page: Go