I have no idea what this means.>

Bob of Jerusalem was a young man when Christ was preaching in the synagogues. Bob saw healings and casting out of demons, and believed in Christ.

After Pentecost, Bob of Jerusalem heard the apostles' teaching, and joined the early church, just weeks after Christ's ascension. He started recording the history of the church just a few months after the ascension.

Two years later, Bob got married and started a family. Five years after the day of Pentecost Bob's 3-year-old son found Bob's scrolls, and tore them into confetti to throw into the wind, for amusement, because sometimes little boys like to do such things.

We can neither prove, nor disprove, this. We cannot validate, nor can we invalidate, history.

Yes, it's a long tournament so I think it is not big deal to start here a little bit later.

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5273)

You responded immediately here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5274)

And I quote:

<OhioChessFan: Lame. Just like the Catholics, the Orthodox simply can't get past their circular reasoning, eg, Who says the Orthodox tradition is right? The Orthodox do. Wow, that's persuasive.

At 1:45, Trenham claims the nature of <<<Sola Scriptura>>> is related to the tradition of the church. Who says? Besides him, I mean.

He makes the point that because Protestantism is wrong, <<<Sola Scriptura>>> is wrong.>

I replied again, same day:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5276)

And I will quote from my reply:

<<<<Sola scriptura>>> doctrine does not encompass a great body of oral-only teaching. For example, St. Paul the Apostle taught the church at Thessaloniki for over a year. Yet his canonized writings to them consist of only 2 books, 8 chapters. So are we to believe that upon the death of St. Paul that all his oral teaching should be discarded??? And only the written part retained?>

Still on the same day, you replied here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5279)

And we were just getting started, as the number of posts from both of us multiplied rapidly, responding to each others' supporting points.

A bit more than 3 weeks later, after some lulls in the discussion, we got back into it, here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5408)

<thegoodanarchist: <<< OhioChessFan: This is your baby. Own it.>>>

Well, I've disavowed nothing and retracted nothing in this discussion, so I am not sure why you would reply like this, other than it is your habit to do so. Same applies to your "concession speech" approach.

Sola scriptura is an important topic, deserving of a dignified discussion. This is why I have criticized your most recent comments.>

You obviously didn't remember all the debate from 12/5/2020, since you posted this on the 29th:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5420)

< OhioChessFan:

<<<tga: Irrelevant to the topic of sola scriptura. >>>

Excuse me, who said that was the topic?>

And in reply I reminded you:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5423)

In summary, you engaged in the ss debate on 12/5/2020. Then you forgot, so I reminded you of the fact on 12/29/2020.

Then I reminded you again yesterday, 1/26/2021, and you accuse me of a falsehood??

Uh, no, you posted a link to a video. One part, not all of it, was about ss.

<You responded immediately here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5274)>

Yes, I responded to the entire video. One part of my response was about ss.

<And I quote:

<OhioChessFan: Lame. Just like the Catholics, the Orthodox simply can't get past their circular reasoning, eg, Who says the Orthodox tradition is right? The Orthodox do. Wow, that's persuasive.

At 1:45, Trenham claims the nature of <<<Sola Scriptura>>> is related to the tradition of the church. Who says? Besides him, I mean.

He makes the point that because Protestantism is wrong, <<<Sola Scriptura>>> is wrong.>>

Yep, that is one part of what I said. Is ss "the" topic yet? Yes or no will suffice. And I expect a yes or no, or I will drop this at this point.

<I replied again, same day:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5276)

And I will quote from my reply:

<<<<Sola scriptura>>> doctrine does not encompass a great body of oral-only teaching. For example, St. Paul the Apostle taught the church at Thessaloniki for over a year. Yet his canonized writings to them consist of only 2 books, 8 chapters. So are we to believe that upon the death of St. Paul that all his oral teaching should be discarded??? And only the written part retained?>

Still on the same day, you replied here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5279)

And we were just getting started, as the number of posts from both of us multiplied rapidly, responding to each others' supporting points.>

At what point did ss become "the" topic? That was only part of a longer response, my first response, to the video you posted. I remember all this.

<A bit more than 3 weeks later, after some lulls in the discussion, we got back into it, here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5408) >

<thegoodanarchist: <<< OhioChessFan: This is your baby. Own it.>>>

Well, I've disavowed nothing and retracted nothing in this discussion, so I am not sure why you would reply like this, other than it is your habit to do so. Same applies to your "concession speech" approach.

Sola scriptura is an important topic, deserving of a dignified discussion. This is why I have criticized your most recent comments.>

And again, who said, and when did, ss become "the" topic. You're inventing this after the fact. I notice you didn't address the specific point I raised. You don't respond for 13 days, and that's fine, you have an excuse, etc, but you accuse me of running when I don't respond for ____ (I forget how many, way less than 13) days.

<You obviously didn't remember all the debate from 12/5/2020, since you posted this on the 29th:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5420)>
< OhioChessFan:

<<<tga: Irrelevant to the topic of sola scriptura. >>>

Excuse me, who said that was the topic?>

I remembered all of that. WHO SAID THAT WAS <THE> TOPIC? Quit playing with this. I'm about to drop you like I have <opt>

<And in reply I reminded you:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5423)>

<In summary, you engaged in the ss debate on 12/5/2020.>

No. It's all I can do to not call this a lie. Maybe it's a "misunderstanding". It was not "the" ss debate. ss was part of a much bigger point.

< Then you forgot, so I reminded you of the fact on 12/29/2020.>

I forgot nothing. You have refused, and still refuse, to identify WHO SAID THAT ss WAS "THE" DEBATE POINT.

<Then I reminded you again yesterday, 1/26/2021, and you accuse me of a falsehood??>

Yep.

<Anyway, I am reminding you again today. The right thing to do would be to apologize for accusing me of lying.>

Uh, no, you posted a link to a video.>

I brought up the topic of sola scriptura by posting a link to a video ABOUT SOLA SCRIPTURA.

<One part, not all of it, was about ss.>

That is not going to fly. The <title> of the video is "Sola Scriptura vs. Holy Tradition".

How about that? I brought up a topic, ss, by posting a link to a video that was specifically focused on the topic of ss, versus holy tradition.

Let me ask you a question, in all sincerity, not trying to be flippant:

Did you read the title of the video when you watched it, on December 5th?

If you haven't heard it, you're in for a real treat!

Well, I am not really able to do that (watch a youtube video without reading the title), so at least this helps me to understand where the misunderstanding originated.

Well, I was Ihpeing that you were making up a new language.

I remembered all of that. WHO SAID THAT WAS <THE> TOPIC? Quit playing with this. I'm about to drop you like I have <opt>>

Somehow I missed this previously. How close I came to falling out of fellowship with you, if the Lord had not directed my replies.

Brothers, we cannot have this. <op> is a Christian, yet I confess I also dropped him (put him on ignore) previously. He is NOT on my ignore list now, and never will be again..

(And I think he currently has me on ignore.)

And I am certain both you and I, <OCF>, have had each other on ignore at various times.

Brothers in Christ, I implore you all! Let us stop this dissension, please.

I will post this also in my forum, and <BP>'s forum, although I don't think <BP> has ever put a Christian on "ignore", to his credit. It is just that I want to spread the idea, and I know <op> reads <BP>'s forum.

As a request, <BP>, could you please repost this so <op> can read it? (maybe I am still on his ignore list).

This is beyond debate, beyond politics, beyond philosophy.

This is about the unity of the body of Christ. Going forward, times will get tougher, most likely. I pray we can all set aside our differences enough to at least never use the "ignore" function against a fellow believer.

Michael Cleveland and Billy Strings-Sally Goodin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC0...