Yoga was made as a bunch of poses done in service to false gods. Whether you believe they are bad or not, you are still practicing something dangerous to yourself, and weird. Yoga = YOKE-a. Don't let demonic "yokes" get put on your back!
"but muh excerises!!" Don't be lazy. Invent new and useful positions that have NO occult/pagan meaning. Try different excersises. Eat right.
Does anyone wish to elaborate? Or prove me wrong on any of my statements?
So basically, the text is self evident and needs no interpretation. How come there are thousands of different interpretations of the same text and how do you know yours is the correct interpretation? Because John Wesley said so 17 centuries later? Do you realize that the early Christians weren't "born again", were organized in synodal structured Church, had divine liturgy, apostolic succession and sacraments, including baptism? All this before the Bible you appeal to was compiled. This is all in Acts and Epistles.
Revelation is not self evident, but this teaching is quite clear.
Jesus said you must be "born again" so you only question then remains how that is achieved. We should also look at scripture for that.
Note, "by the Spirit of our God".
Now for John the Baptist prophesying of Jesus
We are to be born again in the spirit with an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus stated:
"The Indwelling Spirit Fully and Forever Satisfying." https://biblehub.com/library/torrey/the_person_and_work_of_the_holy_spirit/chapter_x_the_indwelling_spirit.htm
By Jesus own words, you would be saying the early Christians were not heaven bound. This makes no sense and of course cannot be true. Jesus told Nicodemus what must happen in order to get into heaven.
and of course the centrality of faith is emphasized with respect to salvation
By that I meant they had a different tradition, held different dogmatic beliefs and worshipped in a different manner. They were all part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church established by Christ at Pentecost.
Those who contradicted the Church and had different teachings were declared heretics. That was my original point - heresy only makes sense in a dogmatic context, where the correct teaching is under the authority of the Church.
Then your words didn't make much sense and were very misleading. I think it speaks to the logic of your argument breaking down.
Regarding heresy, who is the authority, man or God? If a born again believer makes an argument against C.S. Lewis based on scripture, and I can plainly see the truth of it, why do I need to also ask some "papa" wearing robes who claims authority?
Jesus was very skeptical of religious traditions chastising the beared "papas" of his day. "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men" [Mark 7:8].
Where do we find the commandment? Scripture! Where do we find the tradition? In a (not the) church.
Sure it does. Whatever makes you feel like you got me.
It's Christ and His Church, who He is a head of. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.
Come on dude. Jesus worshipped according to the hebrew tradition (went to the Temple and synagoges). He constantly made references to the OT. He's literally the anointed one, which is a hebrew tradition instituted by God in the book of Kings with Saul. He fulfilled all the prophecies which were part of that tradition. He was fully within the tradition of Abraham, Moses and David (lineage included) because He was the one who spoke to the prophets and gave them the commandments.
The quote is about Jesus chastising the pharisees (future rabbis in judaism) for making up their own traditions and not following the true God-revealed tradition of Abraham and the prophets. It's not a condemnation of tradition itself, that would be contradictory and retarded because the whole Biblical narrative is describing a millenia year old tradition that was passed down for thousands of years before it was written down. Same thing happened with the NT - again, the Bible you appeal to was compiled hundreds of years after Christ and yet the tradition and the Church functioned without the Bible in that period. This is such a low tier argument. Why do prots think that quote mining can prove anything? You disregard the whole context of the Bible to produce your heretical interpretation.
Btw isn't your interpretation of Scripture man-made tradition itself (even if it's only you within that tradition)? Aren't you your own "pope" when you go along your interpretation as dogmatically correct? No one escapes the problem of interpretation. The only difference between you and the Pope of Rome is that he has a few billions followers and you're on your own, reading your Bible in your closet. This was the whole point of the revolutionary Reformation - to topple Church authority and to make everyone the equal authority of interpretation (granted that Roman Catholicism was already corrupted and outside the Body of Christ - it was the first protestant sect and the pope was the first protestant).
The argument was about what's heresy. You don't even have a Church that can condemn something as heresy. Do you have anathemas? No. So once more, you just go by your interpretation and authority and declare heresy everything you deem not to be the true word of God.
You don't have to reply me. Just think about those arguments with an open heart and a critical mind. I truly want to help you see the problems of your position and it's not about owning you. The only thing I care about is the true faith which is salvific.