Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5694)

I especially like this part:

<They wanted to add a work <of the Mosaic Law>. THAT is what the NT is referring to at least 95% of the time it references "works".>

(Although I DON'T agree with <And after the cross, yes, the works of the Mosaic Law were of no value.> Paul makes it clear that the Law is still valuable for a number of reasons, one of which is to inform us what sin is.)

And I don't consider "having faith" in Christ to be a "work". Forgive my crude analogy, but calling "faith" a "work" is like saying "thinking about lifting weights" is a work similar to <actually> lifting weights.

"The word Protestantism had its origin when German princes and free cities at the Diet of Speyer (1529), petitioned or "protested" against the the imperial ban adopted by the Diet against Martin Luther and its stance against the Reformation"

Other than the Eastern Orthodox Churches, every non-Catholic Christian Church since 1529 is, by default, Protestant.

Just as the the Jews identify every non-Jew in the world as a gentile, so Catholics identify every non-Catholic or non-Orthodox Christian as a Protestant.

This includes those peripheral Christian Churches like Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, etc.

"Any Western Christian who is not an adherent of the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church is a Protestant. A Protestant is an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/P....

The issue is not one of cheating, but of occupation.>

Yes, I know.
Your "arguments" are starting to sound quite familiar.

<we acknowledge things are evil because they are detrimental to the good of humanity.>

...and under "freedom/liberty" you will be the almighty who decides <good of humanity>. The same way the left decided the poor should be owned by government, and fossil fuels are persona non grata. (Hey, while we're at it may as well throw in those Trump supporters, like poker players they've been deemed, dangerous and troubling)

All for the <good of humanity>.

Welcome to the left!

<Poker does not build wealth for the community.>

I guess you've never seen a casino, or Las Vegas?

<Your examples of casinos, guns, power tools and wine are ridiculous.>

Funny, you're making me feel like I've hit the nail right on the head.

<So because there are problems with everything, everything is okay?>

Of course not, Hitler showed us in spite of laws/freedom, one can do many things for the <good of humanity>.

<And the so-called gambling industry costs the community a great deal more in pain and suffering than any perceived benefits in useless jobs.>

Welcome AOC of the right!

But maybe you just think that's melodrama.>

The melodrama was this:

<They are lazy>

<taking advantage of some poor sucker>

<ripping off his life savings >

You see what you did there?

Just like the left you need victims.
To sell your hate you need to create poor/noble victims taken by evil.

Losing a bet here or there wasn't enough, so now Perf steals <life savings>.

<If you keep attempting to justify professional poker players >

Since I'm <one of those> you could take a page from the left, we could brand my forehead with the Scarlet Letters:

<LSD>

I would be forever known as a : Life Savings Denier

Just like the left, you make the victim the noble one, and what you don't like evil.

What noise?

What are you talking about?

If you want the rest of us to be quiet, okay then!

We won't post anything while you and Ohio are having your discussion.

<diceman> We'll continue our discussion after BP & Ohio have completed their theological debate.

Or you can open your forum and we'll talk over there.

BP can't concentrate on his theological exegesis while we're all babbling away on his forum.

Now shhhhhhh ... everybody quiet.

I'm questioning their integrity.>

Yes, Trump supporters get that all the time.

You don't decide by facts, you don't decide by knowing them, you decide by this:

<ripping off his life savings>

your perceptions of what's going on.

<You talk about skill, intelligence, discipline, emotional control, and so on>

Remember that when I brought that up it was related to the victim/loser. It is the victim/loser who is the problem.

My mom would take bus trips to Atlantic City to gamble. To make people go they actually offer more back than the cost of the trip.

The bus cost $15, you receive a coupon for $20.

Some of her casino friends put the extra $5 in slot machines to see if they'd win something. After that, they considered it a free bus ride to the shore, and spent the day walking the boardwalk, and visiting the beach.

They were able to do that because of, <intelligence, discipline, emotional control> they made the casino trip exactly what they wanted it to be.

The loser in the casino lacks: <skill, intelligence, discipline, emotional control>.

Why don't you open your forum?

<Big Pawn> is upset because our posts have interrupted his theological discussion with Ohio.

He can't concentrate on his biblical exegesis with our posts getting the way.

<OCF: They wanted to add a work <of the Mosaic Law>. THAT is what the NT is referring to at least 95% of the time it references "works".>

<(Although I DON'T agree with <And after the cross, yes, the works of the Mosaic Law were of no value.> Paul makes it clear that the Law is still valuable for a number of reasons, one of which is to inform us what sin is.)>

Well, in context of being saved, they have no value.

<And I don't consider "having faith" in Christ to be a "work". Forgive my crude analogy, but calling "faith" a "work" is like saying "thinking about lifting weights" is a work similar to <actually> lifting weights.>

I don't call faith a work of the Mosaic Law. But it's a work of some kind we must do to be saved.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

I understand "the work of God" to mean "a work God gave us to do."

<I also do not consider any of the sacraments to be works. Baptism, receiving the Eucharist, getting married, etc., are not works.>

Okay, now that <Big Pawn> has scurried away like a scared little rabbit down his burrow rather than face up to the heat of Ohio's interrogation, I would like to hear from Ohio regarding his proposition "that the entire gospel of Jesus was only supposed to be in effect for a couple decades".

The concept of having the bottom drive things is how the left operates.>

As an aside, this is <exactly> why writing "works" is antithetical to clarity. "Works" should make any Christian think "works of the Mosaic Law". When this is not the intention, I suggest adding clarification, e.g. "work of God" or some such.

<<<<>>>OCF: I don't call faith a work of the Mosaic Law. But it's a work of some kind we must do to be saved.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

I understand "the work of God" to mean "a work God gave us to do.">

I admit that I have never considered that implication and am eager to learn from Ohio what this means and the basis of this view.>

Protestant: The entire gospel of Jesus was only supposed to be in effect for a couple of decades.

Catholic: I have never considered that and am eager to learn what this means and the basis of this view.

Protestant: I don't have time at the moment, but I will examine that claim in the near future.

Catholic: Thank you. I'm keen to understand the implications of that idea.

Protestant: I changed my mind and won't address that.

Catholic: Oh, may I ask why?

Protestant: I am tired of dodging all the elephants you are hurling. If you can't stay on point, I won't chase.

Catholic: Ummm ... all I did was ask you to elaborate on something you said about the gospel.

Two days later ... no response?!>

I often don't understand <OCF>. Because whenever I am discussing a topic, I make my assertion and then I give my supporting argument in the same post.

When <OCF> makes an assertion, he often just lets it stand on its own. Sometimes he will say <I am prepared to defend my assertion that... (fill in assertion here)>.

So I will reply, "OK, go ahead and defend it." And that's when he drops the subject and moves on.

https://www.tmz.com/2021/01/20/wors...

A few years ago, Michael Goulder wrote a book titled "St. Paul Versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions".

Different missions is not the same as different gospels.

Paul's letters were all written before the Gospels, and focused on an urgency to conversion before an imminent end of the world.

Since the prevailing expectation in the years immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection was that the world was about to end, there was no need for any written biographies of Jesus and so everything about him was either orally taught or written down sporadically.

<the entire gospel of Jesus was only supposed to be in effect for a couple decades>

After Paul's death, and that of the apostles, and then the destruction of Jerusalem, it became clear that the anticipated Second Coming of Christ was not imminent and so the gospel accounts began to be compiled in order to tell the story of Jesus in a methodical way for future generations.

They were constructed liturgically with Mark being the earliest, setting out the narrative framework for the many miracles and teaching and parables of Jesus circulating at that time.

Peter's mission to the Jews and Paul's mission to the Gentiles effectively preached the same Gospel.

We agreed I'd name a list of topics I was willing to debate, so as to do one at a time. I named a list, in order, numbered, and was willing to debate any of them, one at a time. So you wanted me to debate one at a time, but list a bunch and begin discussing each one at the same time? Seriously, what is wrong with you?>

Wrong with me? Nothing. I see things clearly; you are the one who is confused.

We started a discussion on ONE topic: sola scriptura.

After some back and forth, <BP> jumped in and asked us both to list the main points in support of our arguments. And for some strange reason that I still haven't uncovered, you suddenly thought the sola scriptura [ss] discussion was over and that our lists of points in the ss discussion were somehow separate <topics> to be discussed independently!

Not trying to knock <BP> here, because he was trying to be helpful, but it seems his request for us to list the main points of our argument for/against ss appears to have distracted you.