Sexual Orientation Regulation [Archive] - Arian Catholic Theological Society (ACTS) Forums

Explorer

9th January 2007, 01:32 AM

Dear all,

For those in the England. Apparently the proposed Sexual Orientation
Regulation is being proposed in the House of Lords on 9th Jan. This lengthy
document to the Government's consultation 'Getting Equal' which set out
proposals for introducing the substantive Part 3 of the Equality Act (2006)
dealing with discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the area of
provision of goods, facilities and services (Part 2 covered equivalent
discrimination on grounds of religion)" - some Christians view this as a
threat to making it unlawful for a Christian to refuse to promote homosexual
practice and will make it unlawful for our children to be taught the
importance of marriage in any schools above the importance of practising
homosexual relationships at UK.

See the website below - a petition is being drawn up by Christian Congress for Traditional Values.

You may also wish to read the Evangelical Alliance response to the regulation and how they respond to it: http://www.eauk.org/index.cfm
You may need to make your own informed decision on whether to be bothered by it. There is also a petition that can be signed for those interested - see:

a) To coincide with the debate in the Lords (which is due to begin at around
7:30pm) a PETITION will be presented to the Queen during the afternoon on the
9th January. The petition is available at
www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sorpetition.php (http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sorpetition.php)
www.theCCTV.org (http://www.theCCTV.org) for regular updates.

b) Sign the petition to the Queen by visiting this web site:
www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sorpetition.php (http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sorpetition.php)

c) Sign the petition to Tony Blair at:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NISexOrient/

God bless you all.

Danage

9th January 2007, 05:34 PM

Explorer

16th January 2007, 12:46 AM

Hi Danage,
Unfortunately, the attempt to block this legislation in the House of Lords (the upper house of the British Parliament) was defeated by a vote of approximately three to one. The BBC News story is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm).

Archbishop Michael-John

16th January 2007, 11:14 AM

This is unfortunate news as the “Homosexuality Rights” law will encourage these people to boast about their behaviour and legally intimidate the vulnerable. We may see legal challenges in future, but how can that law be applied to an age old religion upon which that law was principally based?

The enforcement of such a Law is unworkable in religion, the Law is created by a vote and yet a majority does not make it correct. The Church is irreformable, if homosexuality was wrong in the eyes of God 2000 years ago, it is still wrong today. A law that is correct should not change to suit the whims and fashions of society, Christ’s Church will not change, but it is society that has faltered!

Quotes from Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Leviticus 20:13If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

LeviathanNI

16th January 2007, 12:20 PM

I know this law is being challenged in Northern Ireland, as apparently, we will have it implemented here before the rest of the UK. I don't hold out too much hope for a success though. The PC brigade are well and truely on the ball, and the politicians here have grabbed onto it as yet another divisive topic.

Luckily, and I take no particular pride in saying this, Northern Ireland is still quite conservative, and church orientated, so it won't be taught in schools here without some big social kick up. Basically it will be acknowledged, but that it is. The rest of the UK on the other hand..well you have seen for yourselves what happens there when you dare challenge the system to uphold your indigenous and religious rights.

Jesus John

16th January 2007, 03:06 PM

In our believe homosexuality is forbidden and it is a big sin. In the Holy Quran there are several examples and information about prophet Lot and his destroyed nation Sodome. They had awful behaviour and acts such as Homosexuality. God destroyed them for this sin because they became wildness. They wanted to be with the angels and wished from Lot to give them to them. The angels (Gabriel, Michael and Israfael) came to Lot to give the good news about their survive and the destroy of his wildness nation.

The Al-Araf (TheHeights) Sura verse 80-84:

80. We also (sent) Lot: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?
81. "For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."
82. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"
83. But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind.
84. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!

The Al-Ankabut (The Spider) Sura verse 28-35:

28. And (remember) Lot: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you.
29. "Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practice wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth."
30. He said: "O my Lord! Help Thou me against people who do mischief!"
31. When Our Messengers (angels) came to Abraham with the good news, they said: "We are indeed going to destroy the people of this township: for truly they are wicked men."
32. He said: "But there is Lot there." They said: "We know well who is there : we will certainly save him and his following,- except his wife: she is of those who lag behind!"
33. And when Our Messengers (angels) came to Lot, he was grieved on their account, and felt himself powerless (to protect) them: but they said: "Fear thou not, nor grieve: we are (here) to save thee and thy following, except thy wife: she is of those who lag behind.
34. "For we are going to bring down on the people of this township a Punishment from heaven, because they have been wickedly rebellious."
35. And We have left thereof an evident Sign, for any people who (care to) understand.

Love,

Oguzhan

brotherkev

16th February 2007, 03:38 PM

This is unfortunate news as the “Homosexuality Rights” law will encourage these people to boast about their behaviour and legally intimidate the vulnerable. .

I agree with the whole post, but wanted to bring up this section above..

It's happeneing here in the US too, and it's quiet sad indeed...

Danage

16th February 2007, 08:28 PM

These things are not normal, but people treat them as such just because of 'political correctness'. This is 'political correctness' gone mad.

A few years ago Deaf and Hard of Hearing people had to be referred to as 'Hearing Impaired', and nothing else (thank you Prime Minister (!)). The Teachers of the Deaf were even called 'Teachers of the Hearing Impaired'. Now it is illegal to call any Deaf and Hard of Hearing people Hearing Impaired.

I wish the Government would make it's mind up, and stop changing laws, return to the Biblical laws and ban democracy, for democracy was not an ideology that pleased the Lord. Kingdoms with legitimate kings (with divine right) are the true ideologies that the Lord loves, if democracy does not rule there also (such as we used to be before the Magna Carta and English Parliament).

Postulare42

14th April 2007, 02:28 AM

Danage

15th April 2007, 06:27 PM

Male homosexuality was condemned by G-d, when He said it was a curse upon mankind. Female homosexuality was OK in Judaism I think (I do apologise if I am wrong).

I say that neither are acceptable due to no procreation and no children being the neccessary end.

Postulare42

16th April 2007, 04:02 AM

The Torah and Paul both state the same thing, but do not state any "reasons". The Gospels make no direct mention of the topic.

Jesus seemed to be most concerned with declaring "...freedom to the captives...". Just what he means by "captives" seems to be as far from literal captivity as was "...tear down this temple, and I shall rebuild it in three days...".

Jesus didn't mention or refer to sexual behavior as much as he did other things. Only five instances come to mind from the gospel acounts.

1) the woman taken in adultery
2) the Samaritan woman at the well
3) the Leverite law
4) two apparently contradictory accounts inre divorce
and
5) "...if a man looks back at a woman...he has already sinned with her in his heart..." mostly as a foil to hypocrisy.

In keeping with my liberation thesis, Jesus seems to portray the Father's intent as being a passionate desire for us to be freed from the chains of our passions, the captivity to sin, and the deadly alienation from the Father that it produces.

It should not be inappropriate for us to say that homosexuality (an oxymoron, really) or homosensuality, etc. is a normal aspect of the human experience. Human nature is in bondage . . . our "normal" state, as it were, just as it is "normal" for us to be slaves to our stomachs, passions and other appetites. All of these, produce an alienation from God, a "death". Concommitantly, these enslavements blind us to the truth of God's passionate love for us, and which He wants us to share . . .for ourselves, and each other.

"...Greater love than this has no man..."

Jesus demonstrated by his every act and word, that God's passionate, self-sacrificing desire is for our blindness to the truth to cease, our crippled spirits to be whole, our enslavement to mammalian imperatives to be loosed, our legalistic negativism be transformed into a positive, proactive and joyful action in perfect unity with His true nature and will.

In this light, Jesus is concerned with the inherent insane lies of our arrogance and hypocrasies, which keep us blind and resistant to the loving nature of the Father.

The truly liberating message of Jesus is a shift from PROscription to PREscription, a transformation which requires a radical shift in the ways humans are "normally" wont to think and feel.

"...for man it is impossible, but for God all things are possible...".

Yes, DONAGE, homosexuality IS normal. That's the problem.

As Christians, we are disciples, i.e. "under discipline". That discipline goes way beyond a list of rules "for and against". For that, we could all be Pharisees, Saducees, Scribes and Lawyers. No Christ is needed for THAT.

I believe that through the holy spirit (of truth) we are invited and enjoined to something so much more . . . alive.

Postulare42

16th April 2007, 04:33 AM

It wasn't God who wanted kings for Israel. It was the people. Through His prophet, God counselled vehemently against the whole office of "king", going so far as to outline and predict just what problems and horrors would result. Like a soft hearted father, He let His brats have their way and have a "king". Everything fell like dominoes, and the loving Father continued to find ways to work through it. Prior to this . . .federalist movement. . .issues were decided by councils, elders and judges, guided by the prophets.

Contrariwise, Christianity IS essentially democratic . . . the the holy spirit (of truth) as the Prime Minister/President/Speaker. The Gospels, Acts, and Epistles clearly indicate a "Collective Concensus" approach to the Christian Community.

I've always found it necessary to remind myself that as a person under discipline, I am resposible to my master for how well I learn His lessons, and that others not under discipline to my master . . .aren't.

As a citizen of a nation, what does my master instruct me to do?

"...render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's..."

"...be not conformed to this world..."

Personally, I don't need all of Wessex to agree with me before I give thanks for a "Big Mac", or rejoice in the Divine goodness of a Spring morning, or tend the sick, feed and clothe the needy, or comfort the bereaved or suffering, or plant a flower or smile where one could grow.

None of us do.

I will tend to a person in need regardless of their sinful state. Jesus did.

"...a kind word turns away wrath..."

"...little children, love one another..."

"...they will know you are My followers by your love..."

"...be always building one another up..."

Danage

16th April 2007, 09:06 AM

Homosexuality was not normal throughout history, it has only become PC, or normal, in the Modern Era.

Postulare42

16th April 2007, 09:16 AM

Research has shown that if you mean "most people" when you say "normal", you are perfectly correct, except perhaps among Athenians and Spartans of classic times.

"normal" , in the sense I was using it applies it differently.

What is "normal" for the human as mammal, IS NOT to be considered appropriate behavior for those under discipline as followers of Jesus.

If it was not prevelent in human cultures around the Hebrews, why was there a proscription against it ? One does not find regulations about not eating glass, for example.

Danage

16th April 2007, 11:29 AM

In a great deal of non-Jewish cultures, including the Greeks and Persians, yes it was prevalent, but no, it is not a discipline. If anything it is against ancient Biblical law, just as you pointed out it was non-Christian (and non-Jewish for male homosexuality) in it's approach.

In this case homosexuality could be seen as a non-religious or polytheistic, barbarian practice. The Romans, themselves 'civilised' believed that homosexuality was wrong. Despite the fact that they were barbaric and forgeiners (as the word 'barbarian' implies forgeiner, just as the 'pagan' originally implied country-dweller), the Romans had a point in making it taboo.

The Greeks had very strange customs and thus upheld many laws and practices which are not, and never were, the Lord's law.

Postulare42

16th April 2007, 12:24 PM

:confused: I never said that homosexuality was/is a discipline !!

I did write:

"Followers of Jesus are under discipline . . . a specific discipline which, we are taught by those who have come before us, is excludes certain actions from our behavioral options."

and,

"As Christians, we are disciples, i.e. "under discipline"."

and further,

"What is "normal" for the human as mammal, IS NOT to be considered appropriate behavior for those under discipline as followers of Jesus."

So, where did you get that I said that homosexuality was, or is, a discipline ????

I did say that according to current research, it falls within "normal" behavior patterns for the human and other species.

I also tried to communicate that because we are under discipline as followers of Jesus, that this is just one of many sets of behaviors we eliminate from our options.

My tone was, and remains, calculated to turn the focus from "finger-pointing", to one of a positive celebration of what we have rather than a castigation of what others do not.

Pax.:D

Danage

8th November 2007, 05:12 PM

On the article from BBC News that Explorer gave:

'[Lord Morrow of the Democratic Unionist Party in the House of Lords] had argued that the rules forced people to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state.'

This is very true for some people, but surely, especially here in Great Britain, we must put our faith in G-d and His morals and laws above all else. Loyalty to G-d comes above loyalty to the state, including the monarchy and premiership we are supposed to be loyal to. I'm not suggesting don't be loyal to your leaders, but loyalty to Adonai and His laws and morals must come first and foremost.

Another quote:
'The Sexual Orientation Regulations have been criticised by some religious groups who say people will not be allowed to act according to faith.'

Religion and faith once again come first, not our own laws. G-d's laws or Man's laws? The main question is so easy, it should be G-d's Laws, but of course the Prime Minister (ther present one, not Tony Blair, although he thinks exactly the same) almost thinks himself above G-d by keeping to Man's laws. G-d's Laws or Tradition? We must put our complete faith in G-d, not in tradition or Man's laws.

Yet more quotes:
'They also argue a Christian, Jewish or Muslim printer could be forced to print a flyer for a gay night club, or a teacher would have to break the law to promote heterosexual marriage over homosexual civil partnership. '

'Lord Morrow told peers: "The regulations make it possible for homosexual activists to sue people who disagree with a homosexual lifestyle because of their religious beliefs.
"They require religious organisations to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state." He added: "The regulations threaten to override the conscience and free speech of Christians and others who object to homosexual practice." '

Has the whole world gone mad? PC against G-d? The answer is so simple but it is always ignored, and frankly on all subjects and laws where Man's laws tower above (remember the Tower of Babel?) and change G-d's laws makes me so angry with the way our world is going. It's not just here is the UK, but also throughout the British-descended world, and the European Union.

Postulare42

8th November 2007, 07:49 PM

I listen to the BBC broadcasts, and those of other countries, with regularity, and am frequently bemused by the legal puzzles we humans create for ourselves. Sometimes we look like kittens tangled in the yarn we play with.

Of particular fascination for me was the British controversy about private adoption agencies. Because of our Constitutional doctrine on the separation of church and state, such problems don't usually arise. (That doctrine is not perfectly implemented, and so we get strange problems from time to time.) Here, a private institution needs to follow certain federal (or state, for that matter) statutes ONLY if it receives government funds or grants, this being a condition of the award. Similarly, governmental licensure in most cases requires adherence to certain statutes, i.e. Equal Opportunity Employment (EOE), Privacy Act, and some others. (Of course, everyone must follow the law) The whole adoption issue as it has manifested in Britain could not have happened here in exactly that way, with the right of the agency to operate at all removed.

Both public and private agencies need only satisfy the criterion of the amica curiae...in this case, social workers...that the adopting person(s) be sane, law abiding, self supporting, etc.. The agency, if receiving govt. funds, would only lose that funding. In most cases, this would hardly close them down.

Along the same lines, for another example, RCC-owned hospitals, and some others, will not perform abortions. Since the federal laws state that abortion is legal under certain cercumstances, and does not control the hospital system, it remains to each hospital and physician to decide upon what services they wish to provide . . . or not. In most cases these decisions do not effect the instutions accreditation, because such is not a governmental license, but rather an indepentent assessment and certification.

This system has allowed persons to pretty much find their own niche to live out their consciences according to their own lights. It's not perfect, but it does remove coercion from the worship of God.

How would you evaluate a gift that someone was compelled to give you?

pre-nicean berean

14th January 2008, 04:21 AM

I would say would should not hate any, and encourage those to repent and come into a right relationship with God. We should not push those away who are true seekers in our faith. But there is a point of course when a unrepentant sinner must be removed. We must not condone their behaivor. This is something that must be brought to light. We should show them in a loving manner why this behaviour is unacceptable in the sight of God. God has always planned for earth to be a perfect place. Family values are part of God's kingdom and Homosexual relations do not have a place in God's plan of the ages. We must rely on Biblical authority here and the witness of scripture. The scriptures are very clear this is not acceptable in the sight of Yahweh.

Grace and Peace be upon you all, Grey Yates.

Postulare42

28th January 2008, 03:57 AM

Quote: "...God has always planned for earth to be a perfect place..."

Wherever did you get this idea ? :eek:

pre-nicean berean

28th January 2008, 05:03 AM

This is the very essence of God's plan for his creation. You think God wanted a earth full of sin? God created earth a perfect place, and placed Adam into the garden. When God had finished his work he looked upon it and said it is very good. Man through his sin and greed has turned God's earth into a vile place. It is God's plan to restore this earth to it's Edenic paradise state. Jesus will return to establish his reign over the earth and make right what we have ruined. At this time the knowledge of Yahweh shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. Peace and harmony shall be restored. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom and the very central theme of God's message to mankind. Ps. 37:29 , Matt. 5:5, Is. 11:6-9 rev. 21:1-7, 10, 24 Rev. 22:1-3, Matt.6:10, Is. 55:8-13, Rev. 11:17,18, Is. 45:18, Gen. 1:27,28 Ps. 37:9,11, Mic. 4:3,4 Matt. 25:32-34, 2 Pt. 3:13 Dan. 7:13,14 and 17,18 The list could go on forever the theme is found from Gen. - Rev. There is no other message so fully supported by scripture then the purpose for this earth and the restoration of this earth. In fact to preach this very theme was the very purpose of Jesus' Ministry <TABLE><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=v-ref>Luk 4:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Luk&chapter=4&version=NASB#) </TD><TD class=v-body>But He said to them, "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose." </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Postulare42

28th January 2008, 05:48 AM

Postulare42

1st May 2009, 02:54 AM

I stumbled across a copy of this at my local used bookstore and just finished readin it. I'm wondering what you all think.

"The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe "

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marriage-Likeness-Same-sex-Unions-Pre-modern/dp/0002555085/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241145994&sr=1-2

Doing a websearch, I came across this about it:

http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

Hermes

1st May 2009, 12:52 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality

I think, after reading this and some of the quotes from the Church Fathers, that the article and Boswell's study is kind of prejudiced. I have never seen any early Christians to have been favorable to homosexual acts. The love between two men, on the other hand, isn't considered wrong - the union between them just isn't the same sexual union which is idolized in the "homosexual culture".

I wonder if anyone would take up on the adelphopoiesis rite though. I get the feeling that love without sexuality has become kind of a taboo in the modern culture. It's bizarre. With women it seems to be far more accepted, but men are stigmatized much easier.

Jesus John

1st May 2009, 01:33 PM

I think, after reading this and some of the quotes from the Church Fathers, that the article and Boswell's study is kind of prejudiced. I have never seen any early Christians to have been favorable to homosexual acts. The love between two men, on the other hand, isn't considered wrong - the union between them just isn't the same sexual union which is idolized in the "homosexual culture".

I wonder if anyone would take up on the adelphopoiesis rite though. I get the feeling that love without sexuality has become kind of a taboo in the modern culture. It's bizarre. With women it seems to be far more accepted, but men are stigmatized much easier.

I have to agree, thank you for your thoughts.

Please remember the words of Jesus at his last supper;

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:34-35)

If you will ask people especially in the Western world which created the taboo about "love without sexuality is bizarre", they will declare that they are Christians.

If so are they aware of that they are saying bizarre to Jesus?

Western world has got an understanding problem, they are reading the Gospel but dont understand the meaning of the words of Jesus what he wants to say.

Postulare42

1st May 2009, 01:35 PM

(I figured this topic might beat some grouse out of the shrubbery :jlol:)

My impression from Boswell is that these unions were intended to be chaste much as the original, higher culture Greek "pederastes" were supposed to be. In the Rite for Same-sex Union, the admonition to refrain from causing scandal is telling. In fact, the admonitions as a whole seem very classically Greek to me.

A good overview of that topic is found :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

Obviously, it was the active sexual component, as well as possibly the involvement of youth and it's prostitutive elements in many locales that must have given the platonist pharisee Saul/Paul the collywobbles.

I concur that the article is biased, but Boswell's work contains only those bias elements which are part and parcel of a don's latest pet work.

It certainly "stirs the pot" a bit, doesn't it?

Hermes

1st May 2009, 07:26 PM

(I figured this topic might beat some grouse out of the shrubbery :jlol:)

I normally don't reply to topics like this, but sometimes it's just too tempting. :p

(My impression from Boswell is that these unions were intended to be chaste much as the original, higher culture Greek "pederastes" were supposed to be. In the Rite for Same-sex Union, the admonition to refrain from causing scandal is telling. In fact, the admonitions as a whole seem very classically Greek to me.

A good overview of that topic is found :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

Obviously, it was the active sexual component, as well as possibly the involvement of youth and it's prostitutive elements in many locales that must have given the platonist pharisee Saul/Paul the collywobbles.

I concur that the article is biased, but Boswell's work contains only those bias elements which are part and parcel of a don's latest pet work.

It certainly "stirs the pot" a bit, doesn't it?

Yes, it's pretty interesting.

Check here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

I got a similar impression that you got on Paul when I was reading these quotes from some of the Church Fathers. Sometimes I was wondering "now where's the actual homosexuality in these quotes against which this collection of quotes is". The focus is in most of them very much on what you said, though there's still no accepting attitude which the writer "ThosPayne" seemed to imply in his article. It's like they are venting out in frustration what they see around them.

I feel that I get the same reaction as these writers do when I see "gay pride" and the focus which is in "carnal pleasures", as some people would say it, and losing the emphasis which Christ had. The society's oversexualization, of which I wrote before and on which Jesus John commented, is worrying. Then again it's not like we should all dress ourselves in sacks and put paper bags on our heads to be modest. I guess it's related to the struggle of personal freedom vs. social order. I see the ideal of the "Golden Middle Path" to be again a very good teaching. I am very much in support of freedom and I think it's wrong to have laws like imprisonment against homosexuals, which were still in place like 50 years ago, but then again the "trends" are very concerning. From a situation in which we had to demand rights to women and homosexuals we have ended up in a situation in which being a "white heterosexual male" is one of the worst things in the world, not to mention being a Christian (Postulare42: on this side of the Atlantic atleast :p). It's like going from one extreme end towards the other and losing the balanced middle path.

Postulare42

3rd May 2009, 08:45 AM

I checked the link you mentioned and signed up for their forum. I then did a Catholic Encyclopaedia search on the various elements of the topic and found little (not surprised). Nothing for "arastes" or "ped-arastes". There was some discussion in the forum threads.

I found it interesting that the page you linked did not address a translation of the words (also not surprised).

Postulare42

3rd May 2009, 08:50 AM

I normally don't reply to topics like this, but sometimes it's just too tempting. :p

Yes, it's pretty interesting.

Check here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

I got a similar impression that you got on Paul when I was reading these quotes from some of the Church Fathers. Sometimes I was wondering "now where's the actual homosexuality in these quotes against which this collection of quotes is". The focus is in most of them very much on what you said, though there's still no accepting attitude which the writer "ThosPayne" seemed to imply in his article. It's like they are venting out in frustration what they see around them.

I feel that I get the same reaction as these writers do when I see "gay pride" and the focus which is in "carnal pleasures", as some people would say it, and losing the emphasis which Christ had. The society's oversexualization, of which I wrote before and on which Jesus John commented, is worrying. Then again it's not like we should all dress ourselves in sacks and put paper bags on our heads to be modest. I guess it's related to the struggle of personal freedom vs. social order. I see the ideal of the "Golden Middle Path" to be again a very good teaching. I am very much in support of freedom and I think it's wrong to have laws like imprisonment against homosexuals, which were still in place like 50 years ago, but then again the "trends" are very concerning. From a situation in which we had to demand rights to women and homosexuals we have ended up in a situation in which being a "white heterosexual male" is one of the worst things in the world, not to mention being a Christian (Postulare42: on this side of the Atlantic atleast :p). It's like going from one extreme end towards the other and losing the balanced middle path.

Consider the Hegallian dialectic: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

In the U.S. extreme histrionics are sometimes necessary to pry the 300,000,000+ Americans away from their tellies. If that same approach has been transferred to the UK, then it is overkill indeed, and must be nigh oppressive and unbearable. :jlol:

Have a T-shirt printed "not a fundie". That should do the trick. lol

David Kone

4th May 2009, 01:50 AM

I tend to agree with Postulare on this one. I am also going to warn those who are worked up on this issue that railing against those who have radical political agendas connected with this issue in this age of media hype that you unfortunately play right into their hands. If you want to hold the high ground then be the most moral person you are capable of being and treat everyone with love and understanding. This is a complex issue. In an increasingly narcissistic society many folks are driven towards "alternative" lifestyles in an attempt to fill a void that is, in my opinion, created by the hypocrisy and lack of real caring demonstrated by those whose job it is to set the example. These newly created narcissistic personality types are the ones that those who are slaves to the flesh look to recruit to bolster their numbers, which is very sad as they are not helped by being used nor are they helped by being condemned. They need a loving, secure, and honest environment where they can work out their identity issues which the church could provide if it followed Jesus' example. When all the others were pointing out the wickedness of the adulterer Jesus was pointing into the dirt, writing with his finger. We do not know what he wrote but we do know that our creator created us from the dust and in the end we will return to dust. In our physicality we are no better than any other sinner. From my own perspective I would not be surprised to find out that the souls of many so called ‘straights’ are just as troubled as many ‘gays’.

An odd thing is that even though the passage in the Old Testament seems to clearly state that a homosexual man should be put to death there is no record of such a sentence actually being carried out even up until Jesus’ time. The Jews were very good record keepers. Jesus of course said nothing about the matter.

Hermes

4th May 2009, 12:10 PM

I agree with you David, complex issues require carefulness. I don't want to give this topic attention above other issues as some tend to, yet at the same time there is no need for "rainbow liturgies" or weddings for same sex couples, which is the other extreme end. And it's not only homosexuality that is on the rise. Pedophilia is raised more and more often as an archetype of everything evil in the world, and the media's witch hunt is insane. Bestiality hasn't gained that much attention yet, but it's another issue boiling under the surface.

Oh, and welcome to another "grouse". :p

Postulare42

5th May 2009, 07:07 AM

I just noticed something that I think needs to be avoided : the grouping of pedophilia and beastiality with pederasty and homoerotic behaviors.

(DRAT! This is going to sound like I am in favor of any one or more of them. It's not so)

Pederastes is not the same thing in Classical Greek times as pederasty and/or pedophilia in our time. The difference isn't just cultural, either, but psychological. Even though ped-erastes does involve a generational difference in both times, in Classical times it involved those youngsters who had achieved "hebe" status, and was supposed to be mostly a chaste relationship. Further study shows that there were variation from this "ideal" based upon locality and stage of cultural progression.

To actually engage in scriptural/textual analysis requires that we try to winkle-out these actual meanings, and come to a clear grasp of them in their original context. This is called the "sociologic" and "anthropologic" perspective. Only when this is accomplished to the best of our ability, can we then move on to application of the principles of moral theology and ecclesiology.

(Hmmm. I thought we could use a "Sweeps Week" topic to lure some of the august ones from their contemplations in the inner temple. With a derth of clay pigeons available, real game seemed in order. :jlol:)

Postulare42

5th May 2009, 07:20 AM

... An odd thing is that even though the passage in the Old Testament seems to clearly state that a homosexual man should be put to death there is no record of such a sentence actually being carried out even up until Jesus’ time. The Jews were very good record keepers. Jesus of course said nothing about the matter.

I have my doubts about that. There are few-to-no references about the death penalty actually being exacted upon disobedient children, adulterers, "witches", blasphemers, murderers, beastialists or false prophets, either. It seems certain that it occurred, though.

That Jesus is recorded as intervening in the stoning of an adulteress, and the stoning of Stephen and James all indicate that, despite the reservation by the Romans of capital punishment to themselves, it occurred anyway. How much more likely was it to have happened when Israel was not under someone else's thumb?

I fully agree with Brother David that pastoral understanding and compassion should be in the forefront of our thoughts and actions in offering our service to all who are troubled.

Pax et Bonum
Pax Intrantibus

GFT II (hons)
Beater or Domini-Cani (take your pick. lol)

miseretur

5th May 2009, 08:58 AM

Some clergymen argue in favor of homosexuality, claiming that Jesus never spoke against it. But is that really so?

Jesus Christ declared that God’s Word is truth. (John 17:17) That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality as described at Leviticus 18:22, which reads: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.

” Moreover, Jesus listed fornication and adultery among the “wicked things [that] issue forth from within and defile a man.” (Mark 7:21-23) The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that for adultery.

It describes all forms of sexual relations outside lawful marriage, including homosexuality. (Jude 7) Jesus Christ also warned his followers not to tolerate any professed Christian teacher who minimizes the seriousness of fornication.—Revelation 1:1; 2:14, 20.

When religious leaders campaign for the ordination of homosexuals and Lesbians, what effect does this have on members of their churches, especially the young people? Is it not an inducement to experiment with sex outside marriage? In contrast, God’s Word urges Christians to “flee from fornication.

” (1 Corinthians 6:18) If a fellow believer falls into such sin, loving help is given with a view to restoring the person to God’s favor.

(James 5:16, 19, 20) What if this help is rejected? The Bible states that unless such ones repent,
they ‘will not inherit God’s kingdom.’—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.

miseretur

5th May 2009, 01:20 PM

Our Creator Sets the Standard

Our Creator established rules governing marriage long before governments began regulating the institution. The opening book of the Bible tells us: “A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.”

(Genesis 2:24) The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “connotes one who is a female human being.” Jesus confirmed that those yoked together in marriage should be “male and female.”—Matthew 19:4.

Thus, God intended marriage to be a permanent and an intimate bond between a man and a woman. Men and women are designed to complement each other so they may be capable of satisfying each other’s emotional, spiritual, and sexual needs and desires.

The well-known Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah reveals God’s feelings about homosexuality.

God declared: “The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy.” (Genesis 18:20) The extent of their sinful depravity at that time was apparent when two guests visited the righteous man Lot. “The men of Sodom . . .
surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him:
‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.’”
(Genesis 19:4, 5) The Bible says: “The men of Sodom were bad and were gross sinners against Lord.”—Genesis 13:13.

The men became “violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males.” (Romans 1:27) They had “gone out after flesh for unnatural use.”
(Jude 7) In countries where homosexual rights campaigns are pervasive, some may object to using the word “unnatural” to describe homosexual behavior.

However, is not God the final arbiter when it comes to nature? He commanded his ancient people: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”—Leviticus 18:22.

Your Accountability to God

The Bible is clear: God does not approve of or condone homosexual practices. He also disapproves of people who “consent with those practicing them.”

(Romans 1:32) And “marriage” cannot give homosexuality a cloak of respectability. God’s direction that “marriage be honorable among all” precludes homosexual unions, which he considers detestable.—Hebrews 13:4.

Still, with God’s help, anyone can learn to “abstain from fornication,” which includes homosexual acts, and “get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor.” (1 Thessalonians 4:3, 4) Admittedly,

this is not always easy. Nathan, who formerly pursued a homosexual life-style, said: “I thought I could never stop.” But he did change with help from “the spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11)

As Nathan discovered, no problem is too big for Lord (Yahweh), who can provide the strength and help needed to meet His standards and receive His blessings.—Psalm 46:1.

:-)

Postulare42

7th May 2009, 12:25 AM

For centuries, alcohol addiction was approached with attitudes that ranged from characterologic and moral deficiencies to sin. As A.A. has amply demonstrated since the 1930s, progress was only made when such views were discarded.

miseretur

7th May 2009, 09:27 AM

David Kone

7th May 2009, 08:29 PM

[/LEFT][/QUOTE]

I just noticed something that I think needs to be avoided : the grouping of pedophilia and beastiality with pederasty and homoerotic behaviors.

(DRAT! This is going to sound like I am in favor of any one or more of them. It's not so)

This is a problem, for anyone willing to take an unorthodox stand is subject to being labeled and anathematized. Now I feel compelled to state a couple of things outright so I am understood in my position. First, I respect and support the right of any church to set standards for their clergy and for admittance of members to fully receive the sacraments which it dispenses. I am however quite suspicious of those who purport to speak for all Christians and I am openly opposed to those who would impose their interpretation of Biblical standards by way of secular law and regulation onto the populous at large.

Neither Christians nor the Jews invented marriage. It appears to have developed universally throughout the world in several common forms. Much of what we know as marriage is in fact the remnants of a royal system where we subjects were simply part of the royal estate. We, like the rocks and trees, were just part of the land deeded by royal decree or taken in battle. Wives were simply chattel. It is about ownership and royal rights. In a true sense of the term marriage, that is sacred marriage, “let no man put asunder what God hath joined”, it is not a function of king or clergy. Without clerical help swans join for life. If I went hunting and shot one of them leaving the other alone in life I would be committing a grievous sin. True marriage is not an act of man. It is seemingly biological. A priest only has the power before God to request His blessing on the union, a sacramental interaction that is part of his apostolic office. Any other power the priest may exercise comes from the power of the State which validates the contract for estate and tax purposes.

Now, I am for the purposes of making a point, going to declare my sexual orientation. Not so as to boast nor as to shock but to simply illustrate how foolish the arguments around this issue have become (not here, we have been discussing this with consideration and respect). If we had a measuring scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being entirely heterosexual I would be somewhere around a 9.5. Is that good? Does that make me a great “Christian”? Hardly, it is much more like a curse, especially for someone like me who was raised to be chaste. For me being in the presence of an attractive woman is like dangling juicy steak in front of the nose of a German Shepard. Like the well trained Shepard I control my behavior in accordance with the wishes of my master. Unlike the dog I am not even given the luxury to visualize eating the steak. Without the wonderful and ancient blessing of marriage I would have been lost long ago. Marriage has been both a shelter from the consequences of my appetites and a wonderful container in which to learn the meaning and importance of faithfulness.

Let us say that two male swans for what ever reason developed a deep and life long bond. Would it be less of a sin to shoot one of them? Would not the sorrow of the lone survivor still rise to the attention of our Creator just as if I had shot a hen? If you would deny nature’s odd ducks of the human race the great benefit of a marriage, that is, a recognized union with a mate that is received within the community, why not also deny them other cultural tools of great benefit? How about denying them driver’s licenses or the right to learn mathematics? That would be ridiculous, right? To some there is ample evidence that the early Christian church thought so also, for there is evidence that they may have performed same sex marriages.

Rites of so-called "same-sex union" (Boswell's proposed translation) occur in ancient prayer-books of both the western and eastern churches. They are rites of adelphopoiesis, literally Greek for the making of brothers. Boswell, despite the fact that the rites explicitly state that the union involved in adelphopoiesis is a "spiritual" and not a "carnal" one, argued that these should be regarded as sexual unions similar to marriage. This is a highly controversial point of Boswell's text, as other scholars have dissenting views of this interpretation, and believe that they were instead rites of becoming adopted brothers, or "blood brothers".[2][3][4] Boswell pointed out such evidence as an icon of two saints, Saints Sergius and Bacchus (at St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai), and drawings, such as one he interprets as depicting the wedding feast of Emperor Basil to his "partner", John. Boswell sees Jesus as fulfilling the role of the "pronubus" or in modern parallel, best man. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell

We as Christians have been misinformed by those we have depended on to tell the truth. Whether you agree with Boswell or not please, as stewards of Christ, do not perpetuate the falsehood that our Father in heaven hates homosexuals. Just because you think the truth is written in the KJB it does not mean it is true.

We have already been given a very good opinion about the root of this hysteria.

Now the question needs to be asked: "What is the sin of Sodom? In popular and rather bigotted manner, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have adopted a falsehood. They simply ignore the words of Scripture. When the Angels came to Abraham, they were treated as honored guests. G-d means to tell us that hospitality was practiced in the desert, in the wilderness. But when the same angels came to Sodom, they not treated with respect. In fact, the usual habit of offering ones wife to the guest was reversed and the townspeople wanted the guest for sexual activity. The sin of Sodom is inhospitality to strangers. Some of you will immediately claim that I stand against all of history in making this claim. But again, that is false. Yeshua says in Matthew 10:5-15 that his disciples are to go out to the cities of the Jews and when they arrive there ask to enter a house. What he means is that they are to ask for hospitality. He says that failure to give them hospitality will bring a curse on that town that is greater than the penalty of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is clear that Yeshua thought the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality to strangers. But the Scriptures go much further. The prophets say that the sin of Sodom was lying and cheating and many other acts which we know are the result of city life. In fact, the greatest problem in scripture is the failure of city dwellers to maintain the ancient civility that one had for the stranger. The sin of Sodom is the sins of the world. We all are less hospitable today that we should be. The homeless walk the streets and we do not help. We blame gay people for many crimes, but the crimes against the widow, the orphan, the poor and the stranger accumulate. It is these crimes that the Archangel saw in Sodom and for which it was destroyed. -RabbiBarry: http://forum.arian-catholic.org/showthread.php?t=136</quote>

Those who returned from captivity from Babylon came back with a huge chip on their shoulders. The interpretation of this story was changed at that time to reflect their distaste for Greek culture.

It is amusing that many Christian households served ham on their Easter tables a short time ago. The traditional ham and all the other wonderful foods that surrounded it were appreciatively presented to our Lord as He was asked to bless the provisions of that Easter feast. Yet, pig is unclean. The commandment is clear; it is not to be eaten. Should we condemn such practices? Surely God will punish them by striking them with brimstone. Of course that is ridiculous. For one, we are not Jews. It is not our proscription. As I have stated I support a church to set standards I just do not understand why we would admonish other churches for asking the Lord to bless odd ducks when we ourselves have presented unclean foods before Him asking for His approval and support. A church is best when it provides both a shelter for those who face the consequences of mortal existence and a secure place where they can learn about faithfulness.

Postulare42

8th May 2009, 03:42 AM

AA is not share Christian wievs, and it does not include tell members, otherwise the moral life, but, everything revolves around the addiction. Action starts from the premise that people have linked the strong community spirit that binds them to the rules.

AA Action believes that alcoholism is a disease, does not tend to be levied.

Satan also can help poeples, then peoples dont need Gods help, they have their own help and the community like AA.
But AA, is good for alcoholist, but we must remember that, the Lord is only who can really help us, in our troubles.
Human life is short, what we need is salvation not good moral life in here earth.

-Matt 16:26-

So, is it your ecclesiologic view that the role of the church is not so much to be leaven, but to turn everyone into yeast? Is there no place for a communal pastoral approach rather than a membership model? I'm sorry to say that I smell the smoke of burning books and flesh in your position. Worse, I hear a tone of non-compassion for any outside your confession.

"It is by satan that he casts out demons" ?

Historically, the ecclesiology of the Lutheran confession is that of "proclaim the word and administer the sacraments and continue till the return of Christ". This seems to be a serious constriction of the pastoral options of the Holy Spirit-filled eklesia.

N.B. - A.A. teaches honesty and humility; openess to the self-revelation of the "Higher Power" to direct one's life; honest assessment of failings and harm done to others; repentance in the form of true sorrow and active efforts to make amends to those injured; maintainence of an honest and humble relationship with onesself, others and the "higher power" as understood.

Brother Miseretur, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The blind see. The sick recover. Lives are healed.

I am sorry to have to say this but your stance appears more juridical and sectarian (exclusive) than pastoral and ecclesial.

:'(

miseretur

11th May 2009, 09:25 AM

Jesus John

11th May 2009, 11:50 AM

What I mean is that, the AA community,(anonym alcoholist)
get it´s power to a close community.
They have tight community spirit. That is part of human nature like in christian churches, like JW.
I dont mean that only way to win alcoholism, is find to the scriptures (bible)
I was saying that, only who can give us this power to win it is God.
We must give our broplems to the Lord, not workking our own power.
I know some peoples who are trying to win it whitout God, but when they was find Gods Love in the bible they have more success work whit Holy spirit not heir own Aadam flesh (inherit sin).

I am no fundamentalist christian, in deeds, but I do not trust eny organisations who are worrkking whitout Holy spirit.
Many alcoholist are fundamentalist too when thay get out alcoholism.
It is good that they win their batle but I must warn, no one dont get, christ mercy in their own deeds, only faith to christ, is way to Kingdom of God or heaven.

Some peoples think that, good life enough to salvation, but bible teach that only faith is important not deeds, thats why I write that satan lie peoples, and give too power to chainge they lives, like some ex prisoner, are nowadays budhist or theosofist belivers.

It is good that they dont do crimes, but is the real crime is that, we forgot Jesus christ in our lives, it is better to be bad beliver(christian) than a good hindu.

Dont forget that we all are been created by God. Everyone has a free will and everyone can believe in what he want, we have to respect.

Faith is a work of heart, nobody can believe by force, you can arrest him, punish him to change, but this will only change his words, the heart will resist, he will continue to believe what he helds in his heart. Faith is only an invite, who accept it have to practise it in his life.

Your opinion about the others is like hypocrites, is this following Jesus? What is your difference between racists? Does your faith teach you that people who arent Christian (!) are useless? Are they living for nothing?

I know lots of non-Muslim people around who are better than lots of us. Because they have got limitless love and forgiveness, always smile while they have serious pain and grief, share the problems of their society, are interested in presenting the good and to persuade the evil.

I cant compare a bad Christian/Muslim with a good Hindu, this isnt fair, I do believe that maybe his work can be more worth in God's sight than the others. The important part of believing is to trust what you read. Trusting is practising the things in your life what you claim and defend in the name of faith.

For me, faith is nothing without fruits which St.James said, for this reason I accept people as liers who only talk and do nothing for their faith.

Only faith in Jesus without deeds isnt enough, this isnt the message of Jesus, this is the message of Paul's converted Jesus.

Is Jesus a God that he shows mercy? Does Jesus create the life and death? Does Jesus feeds you everyday in your life? Does Jesus organize the harmony in the whole universe? Does Jesus make it rain? Does Jesus forgive your sins? Does Jesus accept the prayers?

By the way, who is God?

miseretur

11th May 2009, 03:49 PM

Hermes

11th May 2009, 04:51 PM

I wrote this mostly looking at what David wrote before, I would still like to raise this controversial question: if you replace the word "homosexual" with for example "bestialist", do you still agree with whatever it is you say? If you were a priest, would you marry both or neither to their "preferred" form of marriage? Our culture and the society have very much to do with how we perceive these forms of sexuality. Neither of these forms are illegal over here (they are in some countries), though both were 50 years ago, both are Biblically prohibited, yet the other has gained much more cultural acceptance, whereas the other hasn't to the same degree.

Like God doesn't hate homosexuals, God doesn't hate bestialists, or pedophiliacs, or goths (I don't mean our ancient kind, though hopefully they're not hated either :p), or liars, or thieves, or hypocrites, or racists, or lawyers, or trolls, or anyone.

I agree that all religious communities can set whatever standards they want, whether it is belief in polytheism or homosexual marriages. But if I'm asked what I think, I'm not going to lie. If I was a priest, I would teach monotheism. Yet still I'm not going to think that I am a better person than the polytheist - I most definitely am not. Being compassionate is of the utmost importance, yet being compassionate doesn't mean you have to agree with whatever it is that is the other person's stance.

---

miseretur: Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus has nothing to do with Gnosticism. I thought this was already discussed in the other thread. I don't agree with the view, and I will disagree with it. As a Christian, I find this forum to be a very good way to discuss in a calm manner. You are allowed to think outside the box and others' views are not forced on you. If, in the end, you disagree with them, or they disagree with you, let it be. Christians who don't think like you are still Christians, whether they happen to think that the Pope is the vicar of Christ or whether they think he's an antichrist. I don't praise Muhammed, yet I'm pretty sure Jesus John is fond of him as a Muslim. He can think his way and I think my way. As he said, faith is an invitation, it can never be forced. A wise, a loving and an understanding attitude can be a powerful incentive to accept the invitation, a judgemental attitude less so, though all should have the wise attitude for its own sake, not because of what you can get with it. If you need to vent in Finnish, then you can send me an IM.

And a Finnish translation: Maria Magdaleenan mahdollinen avioliitto Jeesuksen kanssa ei liity mitenkään gnostilaisuuteen. Luulin että tämä käytiin jo läpi siinä toisessa threadissa. En ole samaa mieltä sen näkemyksen kanssa, ja tulen olemaan eri mieltä siitä. Kristittynä koen tämän foorumin erittäin hyväksi rauhallisen keskustelun väyläksi. Saat ajatella tavallisesta poikkeavasti ja toisten näkemyksiä ei pakoteta omaksumaan. Jos, loppujen lopuksi, olet eri mieltä heidän kanssaan, tai he ovat eri mieltä kanssasi, anna olla. Kristityt, jotka eivät ajattele kuten sinä, ovat silti kristittyjä, ajattelivatpa he että paavi on Kristuksen vikaari tai että hän on antikristus. Minä en ylistä Muhammedia, mutta olen aika varma että Jesus John pitää hänestä muslimina. Hän saa ajatella omalla tavallaan ja minä ajattelen omallani. Kuten hän sanoi, usko on kutsu, sitä ei voi koskaan pakottaa. Viisas, rakastava ja ymmärtävä lähestymistapa voi olla vahva kannustin hyväksyä se kutsu, tuomitseva lähestymistapa ei niinkään, tosin kaikilla tulisi olla se viisas lähestymistapa sen itsensä vuoksi, ei sen takia mitä sillä voidaan saada. Jos sinun tarvitsee jakaa huoliasi suomeksi, voit lähettää minulle IM:n.

Jesus John

12th May 2009, 09:33 AM

I will not speak this subject eny more, because, it is nothing to say enymore, this forum is not right place for christian belivers, Muslims and hindu and other devil worshipper can speak what they want.

I trust Lord and the bible, I try to speak to my poor english, but i am wery sorry if I dont speak or write correctly.
Read bible verses.
there are some peoples in this forum, who dont even belive in bible, and budha is same that Jesus, yeah right, gnostic heresy, like st john divine church.

I am trying to find truth here, what I find is logic and reason, no faith not also fear of God, no Holy spirit. tell me what is my reason even be here?
You speak against trinity, and all other thinks, what is that you give me to replace these? budha or muhammed?

I do not belive trinity, but that is better doctrine than gnostic wiev about jesus, you claim that jesus was married whit maria?
I dont find it in the bible.
This forum praise muhammed, that is murder man and his fruits are hate and violence.
And india hindu worshipper, try kill all christian there, what is that Demon snake god what lives in india.
Theosofist also claim that, it is many ways to God, and all religions are same.

not to me...

I advise you to choose your words carefully, you have right to say what you think or believe but in a way of not to offend others. There are lots of people who are not Christian (and several sects in Christians) You cant blame me to be a devil worshipper! This is an insult, do not move with your feelings.

I dont believe in an outgoing inherit sin. I havent build my faith upon a sin which I have not done. I know that Abba is merciful and fair. This doesnt match with my believe in God.

Who do you think you are by deciding that some in this forum doesnt believe in the Bible? Can you see the hearts? Is there an order that we all have to believe in a same way? What is believing in the Bible, and how does this appear on a person?

Why are you seeking truth in a place which you call faithless, without God and the Holy Spirit? Does your faith teach you to believe in a way without questioning and searching?

Most of the people in this forum are seeking the real Jesus, the real message of him which isnt mixed with falsehood. We are living in the 21.th century today, we see that believing in a God or Jesus in public form doesnt help people anymore, it creates lots of Atheist.

A Jesus which moves like God, is a part of God, is the source of everything isnt acceptable anymore.

You are saying that you dont believe in the trinity, how? Do you think that believing in trinity is only saying that God is three? What about your life? What about Mammon?

Muhammad wasnt a barbarian, you have no idea about his life.

miseretur

12th May 2009, 09:59 AM

I still belive that homosexual sin is´n, worser sin than a murder or adultery.
practise of homosexual is sin like adultery, like pre marrige sex in hetero relationship.
I belive that bible tell us convert and repent our sins.
But I also belive that bible teach us to kinds of resurrection, better resurrection and the worst.
I do not belive in literally hell doctrine, that is no bible teaching.
Why then convert? because if we Love God, we dont want to do deeds what are wrong in eyes of God.
i belive also that, we dont bless the sin, what is in same sex marrige or relationship, that is one of the straight wiev of bible, homosexual relationship aren´t right. Thats I am very sure.
I still not hate homosexuals or other sinners, heh then I must hete my self too.
Sometimes I do it, when I see that, I am no better human than other,
although I am christian, I am still a sinner like peoples who dont hear the Jesus (pagans)
But still I trust God, I but hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, that is radical, because if I do not but my faith in him, I am not true beliver I am then,
Pharisee who trust only in Law and dont need Christ, in they own view.

What is the diffrent then, belivers and peoples who dont belive, what is question in then salvation.

Joh 3:18. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God's unique Son.

Gal 3:13-14.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written, "A curse on everyone who is hung on a tree!"

This happened in order that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

1Ti 4:10. To this end we work hard and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, that is, of those who believe.

Luk 17:10. That's the way it is with you. When you have done everything you were ordered to do, say, 'We are worthless servants. We have done only what we ought to have done.'"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not earn my salvation, nobody owns nothing here.
Bible still promise that beliver are eligible to God, trought Christ.
Christ him self, was radical, that is christ what we dont hear in churches nowadays, hi says:

Joh 12:25. The one who loves his life will destroy it, and the one who hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life.

Joh 17:14. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them, for they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world.

Joh 12:47-50.

If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save it.
The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has something to judge him:
The word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.
For I have not spoken on my own authority.

Instead, the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and how to speak.
And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me."
------------------------------------------------------------------

These bible verses show us, that follow the christ is lots of more that belong in church, and saying I belive I belive,
some homosexuals also belive, and that is good thing.
Christ have heal many homsexuals and give them strenght to follow him, and
they do not practise any more of sin of adultery,
see also what is adultery in bible language, poeples understand the moses law of adultery and long list of what is right and what is not. ( 3.Moos.18.)

miseretur

12th May 2009, 10:50 AM

koran teach eternal hell fire doctrine and salvation in deeds, what is the sharian law then?
Why muslims fight Jerusalem if their holy places are mecca and medina.
koran dont respect christians, why even bother, we christian are heretic.
muslims come here in western countrys and demand us, chaige our belives, we must understand culture, if you are visitors here, you must respect our countrys and be humble, and thank our countrys that, we have take care of you and your country mens.
Many of christian brothers are danger in muslim countrys, why?
because they belive in Christ more than mohammed.

many "Muslims" have dangerous political views about us, politic issues are important too in muslims.
Mohammed was also politic warrior.

When I say that other religions are false, I mean that.
There is good things other religions, but that is satans way show us, that we dont need Jesus, we are all ready living good life.
And Jesus Christ is more than Christedom, remember that, pope is not a "god".
I think hi is too anti christ like other religions.

Rev 6:9. When the lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the word of God and the testimony they had given.

Rev 17:6. I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. I was very surprised when I saw her.

Rev 18:24 The blood of prophets, saints, and all who had been murdered on earth was found in her."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

we found religion in book of revelation, the great babylon,
that is false religion, and also false christians too.
religion kill and murder, not Jesus Christ.
False faith leader is satan, and wrong prophet.

Postulare42

12th May 2009, 12:48 PM

Sheesh!

When I thought of a "sweeps week" topic to get things going, I was NOT imagining an episode of "Jerry Springer".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect

"I've more than half a mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it! " - Groucho Marx

miseretur

12th May 2009, 08:45 PM

You called me a racicst, because I dont share your belives?
I just wrote some biblical issues here, and some bible verses, and you attack against me, My belive stand in bible, I belive that homosexual is sin, and we have one Lord Jesus Christ.

If you are muslim, be a muslim, I dont care.
Yes I was a racist before, but when I find Jesus, I rejected those kind of thinking.

I found real Gods Love, and I repent my sins, and pray God to help me whit my problems.
You say that I hate homosexuals, and my faith is like pharisee.
If I tell secular peoples about jesus, they called me, just like you.
they say you hate us, and I am hypocrite in their eyes, why because I tell only what the bible tell us to say.
all holy mens in bible tell us repent and turn a way from the bad life.

If I say these word some modern peoples they, want allmost attack me.
I remember when I was that human too, before I become in faith.
I was in prison and hard time criminal.
I know when I hate and when I dont.
now I am just frustrated, because, my words understand wrong.
bible tell us live in peace, if it depends on us.
Then I must say, I am sorry, if I write something wrong.
God, please have mercy on us.

Postulare42

13th May 2009, 04:02 AM

Brother miseretur,

Since you are Pauline in your leanings, please consider :

Romans 2: 12-15

11For there is no partiality with God.

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Let's take a breath. :jlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY&feature=related

miseretur

13th May 2009, 09:27 AM

miseretur

13th May 2009, 09:40 AM

Rom. 5:1-21.

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we boast in our hope of sharing God's glory.

Not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,

endurance produces character, and character produces hope.

Now this hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.

For at just the right time, while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.

For it is rare for anyone to die for a righteous person, though somebody might be brave enough to die for a good person.

But God demonstrates his love for us by the fact that Christ died for us while we were still sinners.

Now that we have been justified by his blood, how much more will we be saved from wrath through him!

For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life!

Not only that, but we also continue to boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to everyone, because all have sinned.

Certainly sin was in the world before the law was given, but no record of sin is kept when there is no law.

Nevertheless, death ruled from the time of Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a type of the one who would come.

But God's free gift is not like Adam's offense. For if many people died as the result of one man's offense, how much more have God's grace and the free gift given through the kindness of one man, Jesus Christ, been showered on many people!

Nor can the free gift be compared to what came through the man who sinned. For the sentence that followed one man's offense brought condemnation, but the free gift brought justification, even after many offenses.

For if, through one man, death ruled because of that man's offense, how much more will those who receive such overflowing grace and the gift of righteousness rule in life because of one man, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as one offense resulted in condemnation for everyone, so one act of righteousness results in justification and life for everyone.

For just as through one man's disobedience many people were made sinners, so also through one man's obedience many people will be made righteous.

Now the law crept in so that the offense would increase. But where sin increased, grace increased even more,

so that, just as sin ruled by bringing death, so also grace might rule by bringing justification that results in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Hermes

13th May 2009, 02:19 PM

Yeah, it would be better to cool down a little. The topic's overheating a little bit. :p It's better to discuss in a civil manner, even though we think some or all other religions do not contain the whole truth.

It would be worth mentioning that miseretur's worry is valid in that I suggest avoiding the mention of racism as a comparison since it's being used by the media and politicians all the time to label opposition in the name of "political correctness" or "toleration", the agenda which is forcing churches to agree with homosexual marriages for example (see the first page of this thread), and frankly it's annoying.

Postulare42

14th May 2009, 10:30 AM

In drug counselling, we recognize a condition we call "white-knuckle-ing it". These persons have not yet learned trust in the "higher power", and so tend to be wound pretty tight. Their recovery is also very brittle, and they frequently relapse. They continue to do so until they learn to "Let go and let God", AND to do the 12 Steps in more than a shallow way. THis becomes easier as the physical effects of their substance abuse heal themselves with time.

The world is a dangerous place, especially so with the inner world . . . a place of great terror to person unaquainted with wrestling with the intangible.

For myself, many decades ago when I discovered that much of what I had been taught (as well-reasoned as it was) was both incorrect and the cause of many problems, I went through a period of instability . . . until I learned to look beyond it . . . to allow God to be greater than I had been taught, and far greater than I could ever imagine. I liken it to the astronomers' discoveries resulting from the Hubble telescope. The universe suddenly expanded beyond their wildest imaginings . . . grew to a place of such immensity, grandeur and nuclear violence that it made many tremble with awe. Such awe is terrifying. Is it any wonder that the church resisted the awareness that everything did not revolve around the earth as their interpretation of religious texts seemed to dictate. For this awareness, Gallileo spent the last years of his life imprisoned in his home, not allowed to write or teach. Fear, an intangible, is very hard to wrestle indeed.

With each new discovery that expanded my view of the universe and myself, I merely took God out of the little box I had placed Him in and let Him be free to be Himself, to reveal Himself forever. I will never confine God again, nor confuse Him with my concept of Him . . . nor anyone else's.

Pax et Bonum
Pax Intrantibus

David Kone

17th May 2009, 03:57 PM

The universe suddenly expanded beyond their wildest imaginings . . . grew to a place of such immensity, grandeur and nuclear violence that it made many tremble with awe. Such awe is terrifying. Is it any wonder that the church resisted the awareness that everything did not revolve around the earth as their interpretation of religious texts seemed to dictate.

This is what fear of God is all about. Compared to this realization all the petty debate, fear mongering, finger pointing, righteous theological posturing, etc., is meaningless. How can any one sinner no matter how horrible their sin have an effect on God? It is extremely grandiose to presume that my sins insult our Lord. Our Father in Heaven is a loving parent who suffers in His heart for our plight because He wants us to rise above the ensnaring aspects of the world. Let our hearts reflect His love which is without bounds.

There once was a Saint who was called to join his fellow monks to sit on judgment of another monk who had transgressed. At first he ignored the request. The second time he was summoned he tied a large basket of sand on his back which leaked all the way to where the council met. When he entered the chamber he said to the assembled monks, "My sins trail out behind me where I cannot see them but I have come here today to sit in judgment of a fellow monk." After the monks contemplated what this pious monk said they dismissed the charges. Maybe you have heard of this great Saint known for his power of forgiveness. This was Saint Moses the Black who first came to the monastery as a thief and a murderer. He was taken into the fellowship of the monastery and tolerated for many many years as he very slowly changed his sinful ways.

Be careful in sitting in judgment of another’s sins when your own spill out behind you where they cannot be seen.

Postulare42

18th May 2009, 03:56 AM

:-)() :-)() :-)()

" It's a high, fly ball . . . it's going . . . it's going . . . it's out of the park !"

miseretur

18th May 2009, 07:17 AM

secular modern man can not tolerate the Bible and certainly not if, it will be to raise the fact that man is sinful.
modern picture of Jesus is quite different what the Bible Jesus picture.
So we have a theological basis, tamed Jesus.
It is nice to talk about that no one gets hurt, can make abortion and have gay sex and they do not need to regret nothing.

Tolerance is a very relative at all times.
Satan has done love a trendy, such a nice thing today that Sodomy and pedophilia, it is finally all right acts and way of live, because It is a love.

2Co 11:14 And no wonder, since Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Postulare42

19th May 2009, 03:37 AM

Brother miseretur,

Could you please describe for me your understanding of what Paul was referring to in his time when he condemned παιδεραστία (παῖς + ἐραστής), and compare and contrast it with the modern term pedophilia ?

Could you also do the same for αρσενοκοιται ?

miseretur

19th May 2009, 09:38 AM

What i write, was a methaphora, usually the pedofilians say, that they just love childrens. secular peoples dont understand, what the love is meaning.

Jesus told also, leave everybody when you follow him.

Luk 9:59-62.
He told another man, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
But he told him, "Let the dead bury their own dead. But you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
Still another man said, "I will follow you, Lord, but first let me say goodbye to those at home."
Jesus told him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."

Moder human dont understand this, why jesus who told us love, tell us love him before others.
Jesus want, that love him is first thing to do if you are a beliver, these peoples love other humans more.
Question is, what is number one in your life, are it sin, or love a sinfull life.

When Jesus and paul are speking about adultery, they refer old testament, why, because most of peoples was jews.
We find that list in book of moses, what is adultery, and what Lord hates.

If some one try to find reason to defend hosexuality life style, and use bible in that, hi is far a way from christ teachings.
porneia is sin like worship the false gods too.

Col 3:5 So put to death your worldly impulses: sexual sin, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry).

miseretur

19th May 2009, 09:53 AM

Joh 12:25 The one who loves his life will destroy it, and the one who hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life.

1Jn 2:15-16
Stop loving the world and the things that are in the world. If anyone persists in loving the world, the Father's love is not in him.

For everything that is in the world-the desire for fleshly gratification, the desire for possessions, and worldly arrogance-is not from the Father but is from the world.

Mat 10:34-42
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword!

For I came to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

A person's enemies will be members of his own family.'

"The one who loves his father or mother more than me isn't worthy of me, and the one who loves a son or daughter more than me isn't worthy of me.

The one who doesn't take up his cross and follow me isn't worthy of me.

The one who finds his life will lose it, and the one who loses his life because of me will find it."

"The one who receives you receives me, and the one who receives me receives the one who sent me.

The one who receives a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and the one who receives a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward.

ruly I tell you, whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is a disciple will never lose his reward."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Some non belivers says these verses, that this is not real jesus saying, why?
because jesus here is telling what is real love.
Humans love others, homosexuals (love) other homosexuals, it is right then?
Lesbian have love too, have our emotions real metter of love?
I dont thinks so, if some one is deceive his wife, and have sexual relationship other women and hi is saying, i love that womwn, are it then real love?
If we follow our emotions, what are corrupted because adam(inherit sin)
we are lost then.
We must pray that Lord give us wisdom to follow him.

Postulare42

19th May 2009, 04:50 PM

Brother miseretur,

We have the same texts that you do, plus a few more it would seem.

Is there any possibility that we could minimize the kindergarten evangelization and get down to some serious analyses ?

What is your understanding (and supporting sources) of what Saul/Paul was actually condemning ? What was he actually seeing ? What are the linguistic sources used to translate the terms. Have the terms always been translated in the same way ?

Here is a portion of the text of one analytic discussion.

Q. "In 1 Corinthians 6:9, we find the two Greek words, ARSENOKOITAI and MALAKOI, which may or may not deal with the practice of homosexuality. Have their definitions been established from extra-biblical literature?

Q. "It would seem as though MALAKOS is in clear reference to a passive male homosexual as used in 1 Corinthians 6:9. In Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, he calls it a lust. And the only times MALAKOS is used in conjunction with lust in Greek texts, it refers to a passive male homosexual. Can anyone verify this?

Q. "Very rarely is ARSENOKOITES found outside the Bible. Is it possible that Paul made up this word? If so, what does it mean, and how is it used in Greek literature? I have often heard that it is used in reference to male temple prostitutes (or sometimes pederasts), but I have been unable to find any example in Greek texts where this is true."

Postulare42

19th May 2009, 05:10 PM

A. "I don't think it is clear at all that malakos refers to the passive male homosexual. I don't think there is any reference in the Greek literature where malakos clearly refers to a homosexual person. It is many times used in reference to known heterosexuals in sexual contexts. It could easily be translated as morally weak or lacking self-control.

"Arsenokoites is similarly not supported being translated as the active partner in a homosexual act. There is much evidence that arsenokoites refers to a dominant homosexual act, but one that is aggresive and degrading, not simply the "active partner." Take The Apology of Aristides 9 and 13. Zeus subdues and sexually takes Ganymede, and thus we learn that Greek gods act with moixia and arsenokoites. Then again in Hippolytus' Refutatio 5 we see that the Satan figure Naas subdues and sexually takes Adam, thus bringing arsenokoites into the world. In both of these two instances the person who commits arsenokoites is a sexual predator, powerful and unloving. This says nothing about non-subjugating homosexual relationships.

See also Dale Martin's analysis of arsenokoites in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality ed. Robert Brawley, 1996, Westminster Press. He shows that in all of the lists in which arsenokoites appears, it always appears in between the "economic" or "injustice sins" (thief, greedy, slave-trader, perjeror) and the sexual sins (fornication and adultery). This is an incomplete analysis, and tells us little, unless we had extra-list passages to guide our understanding. We see in the Sibylline Oracle 2 and the Acts of John 36 that arsenokoites is found in lists having nothing to do with sex. However we have strong reason to believe arsenokoites is a sexually oriented sin because of its placement in the other lists (which can be found in plethora in Thesaurus Lingua Grecae), and the prior two passages mentioned above. It is most likely that arsenokoites is some kind of homosexual predatory sin, which can take on meanings of slave-trading, homosexual rapist (as seen in the Sodom and Gommorah story), etc. A supporting source is Peterson in Studia Patristica 20, 1989, 283-88. Boswell's translation of homosexual prostitute has little foundation, and has been critiqued very well in numerous sources."

Source for the above discussion: Jeramy Townsley Indiana University http://php.iupui.edu/~jtownsle (http://php.iupui.edu/~jtownsle)

This discussion points out a common linguistic tool (that of using occurences of a word in multiple sources and the context of it's usage) to determine it's possible meaning.

You will note, that the respondent mentions critiques of Boswell's (the author I mentioned above in my "sweeps week" post) interpretation of "homosexual prostitute".

Understanding Boswell's (and others') views, and becoming versed in the various arguements, counterarguements, critiques and refutations is a very important part of the theologian's work. In applied christianity and pastoral theology, a firm grasp of the issues enhances effectiveness with those who most likely know the bible verses as well or better than you do.

It is best to be able to answer a questioner on their own terms, if possible. It is unwise to assume that a questioner or debating opponent doesn't know their material, or that they have been lacking in diligence in the formation of their positions and questions.

The current political issues surrounding the human rights of people with gay orientation, gay marriage, gay clergy and the pastoral approach to these must recognise that these and related topics are active points of discussion which ultimately influence the opinions and actions of the populace. Merely restating texts and doctrines with which everyone is already familiar is generally both ineffective and counterproductive. Frequently it is viewed as insulting and dismissive of the real concerns that a questioner brings to the discussion.

Of course, underlying even these questions are more personal and basic issues . . . issues which might be shared if the questioner is not merely dismissed with exhotations and condemnations. I think it reasonable to assume that with regard to this particular set of topical issues, any questioners will be far more familiar with rejection, castigation, criticism and exhortation (and far worse) than we are.

Pax et Bonum
Pax Intrantibus

miseretur

19th May 2009, 07:27 PM

miseretur

19th May 2009, 07:52 PM

[quote=Postulare42;4115]Brother miseretur,

We have the same texts that you do, plus a few more it would seem.

Is there any possibility that we could minimize the kindergarten evangelization and get down to some serious analyses

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.0 (Win32)"><meta name="CREATED" content="20090519;20480426"><meta name="CHANGED" content="16010101;0"><style>  </style> There is no such declaration, which could be called kindergarten Declaration.
Bible truths and to think of it not only succeeds in children more than adults.
Analysis and irrational use is permitted, but ultimately, it can shackle us to the little exact words.
God has given us his word, which we also can read in our native language.

The Pope was the one who wanted to ban its reading, for fear that we understand through, who is the real Antichrist.

We must have faith that the Lord is protecting his word of the Bible to us just like this.

Science is also powerless in the face of it, since the biblical text remains unchanged for hundreds of years,

without scientific proof, or archaeological discoveries.

Dead Sea scrolls showed us that the Bible was actually remained the same.
Although the text of the stores of God had used the complete mismatch of people, and also the basic biblical opponents

We do not have any so-well-preserved ancient writing, as the Bible.
I think it is a miracle, and we can only thank God for that.

People prefer to believe dan Brown than the Bible.
If you Dare you to say that the da vinci code is fiction,

it is better prepared to defend yourself. :D

<style>  </style>

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 04:30 AM

What is Sola Scriptura?
<DIR>"We believe in the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety as the sole rule of faith for the Christian!"
</DIR>You may have heard these words or something very similar to them from a Fundamentalist or Evangelical Protestant. They are, in essence, the meaning of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture alone," which alleges that the Bible – as interpreted by the individual believer – is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. By this doctrine, which is one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism, a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.
We, on the other hand, hold that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from the divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition." The teaching authority of the Church, although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or indirect rule of faith
Obviously these two views on what constitutes the Christian’s rule of faith are opposed to each other, and anyone who sincerely seeks to follow Christ must be sure that he follows the one that is true.

continued . . .

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 04:37 AM

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura foreshadowed by Wycliffe, truly originated with Martin Luther, the 16th cerntury German monk who, in criticising rampant abuses and corruptions in the Roman Catholic Church, started the Protestant "Reformation.(1) In response to some the that had been occurring within the Catholic Church, Luther became a vocal opponent of certain practices. As far as these abuses were concerned, they were real and Luther was justified in reacting. However, as a series of confrontations between him and the Church hierarchy developed, the issues became more centered on the question of Church authority and – from Luther’s perspective – whether or not the teaching of the RCC was a legitimate rule of faith for Christians.

As the confrontations between Luther and the RCC’s hierarchy ensued and tensions mounted, Luther accused the RCC of having corrupted Christian doctrine and having distorted Biblical truths, and he more and more came to believe that the Bible, as interpreted by the individual believer, was the only true religious authority for a Christian. He eventually rejected Tradition as well as the teaching authority of the RCC (with the Pope at its head) as having legitimate religious authority.

continued . . .

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 04:38 AM

An honest inquirer must ask, then, whether Luther’s doctrine of "Scripture alone" was a genuine restoration of a Biblical truth or rather the promulgation of an individual’s personal views on Christian authority. Luther was clearly passionate about his beliefs, and he was successful in spreading them, but these facts in and of themselves do not guarantee that what he taught was correct. Since one’s spiritual well-being, and even one’s eternal destiny, is at stake, the Christian believer needs to be absolutely sure in this matter.

Following are twenty-one considerations which will help the reader scrutinize Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura from Biblical, historical and logical bases and which show that it is not in fact a genuine Biblical truth, but rather a man-made doctrine.

continued . . .

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 05:10 AM

1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

Perhaps the most striking reason for rejecting this doctrine is that there is not one verse anywhere in the Bible in which it is taught, and it therefore becomes a self-refuting doctrine.

Fundamentalists often point to verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or The Apocalypse (Revelation)22:18-19 in defense of Sola Scriptura, but close examination of these two passages easily demonstrates that they do not support the doctrine at all.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:

a) The Greek word ophelimos ("profitable") used in verse 16 means "useful" not "sufficient." An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.

b) The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as "all," actually means "every," and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2) In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every "Scripture" is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.

c) The "Scripture" that Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from "infancy" (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term "scripture." If we take Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

Fundamentalists may respond to this issue by arguing that Paul is not here discussing the canon of the Bible (the authoritative list of which books are included in the Bible), but rather the nature of Scripture. While there is some validity to this assertion, the issue of canon is also relevant here, for the following reason: Before we can talk about the nature of Scripture as being theopneustos or "inspired" (literally, "God-breathed"), it is imperative that we identify with certainty those books we mean when we say "Scripture"; otherwise, the wrong writings may be labeled as "inspired." Paul’s words here obviously took on a new dimension when the New Testament was completed, as Christians eventually considered it, too, to be "Scripture." It can be argued, then, that the Biblical canon is also the issue here, as Paul – writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – emphasizes the fact that all (and not just some) Scripture is inspired. The question that begs to be asked, however, is this: "How can we be sure we have all the correct writings?" obviously, we can only know the answer if we know what the canon of the Bible is. Such a question poses a problem for the Fundamentalist Protestant.

continued . . .

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 05:14 AM

continuing....

d) The Greek word artios, here translated "perfect," may at first glance make it seem that the Scriptures are indeed all that is needed. "After all," one may ask, "if the Scriptures make the man of God perfect, what else could be needed? Doesn’t the very word ‘perfect’ imply that nothing is lacking?"

Well, the difficulty with such an interpretation is that the text here does not say that it is solely by means of the Scriptures that the man of God is made "perfect." The text – if anything – indicates precisely the opposite to be true, namely, that the Scriptures operate in conjunction with other things. Notice that it is not just anyone who is made perfect, but rather the "man of God" – which means a minister of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11), a clergyman. The fact that this individual is a minister of Christ presupposes that he has already had training and teaching which prepared him to assume his office. This being the case, the Scriptures would be merely one item in a series of items which make this man of God "perfect." The Scriptures may complete his list of necessary items or they may be one prominent item on the list, but surely they are not the only item on his list nor intended to be all that he needs.

By way of analogy, consider a medical doctor. In this context we might say something like, "The Physician’s Desk Reference [a standard medical reference book] makes our General Practitioner perfect, so that he may be ready to treat any medical situation." Obviously such a statement does not mean that all a doctor needs is his PDR. It is either the last item on his list or just one prominent item. The doctor also needs his stethoscope, his blood pressure gauge, his training, etc. These other items are presupposed by the fact that we are talking about a doctor rather than a non-medical person. So it would be incorrect to assume that if the PDR makes the doctor "perfect," it is the only thing which makes him so.

Also, taking this word "perfect" as meaning "the only necessary item" results in a biblical contradiction, for in James 1:4 we read that patience – rather than the Scriptures – makes one perfect: "And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing." Now it is true that a different Greek word (teleios) is used here for "perfect," but the fact remains that the basic meaning is the same. Now, if one rightly acknowledges that patience is clearly not the only thing a Christian needs in order to be perfect, then a consistent interpretive method would compel one to acknowledge likewise that the Scriptures are not the only thing a "man of God" needs in order to be perfect.

continued . . .

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 05:17 AM

continuing . . .

1.e) The Greek word exartizo in verse 17, here translated "furnished" (other Bible versions read something like "fully equipped" or "thoroughly furnished") is referred to by Protestants as "proof" of Sola Scriptura, since this word – again – may be taken as implying that nothing else is needed for the "man of God." However, even though the man of God may be "furnished" or "thoroughly equipped," this fact in and of itself does not guarantee that he knows how to interpret correctly and apply any given Scripture passage. The clergyman must also be taught how to correctly use the Scriptures, even though he may already be "furnished" with them.

Consider again a medical analogy. Picture a medical student at the beginning of internship. He might have at his disposal all the equipment necessary to perform an operation (i.e., he is "thoroughly equipped" or "furnished" for a surgical procedure), but until he spends time with the doctors, who are the resident authorities, observing their techniques, learning their skills, and practicing some procedures of his own, the surgical instruments at his disposal are essentially useless. In fact, if he does not learn how to use these instruments properly, they can actually become dangerous in his hands.

So it is with the "man of God" and the Scriptures. The Scriptures, like the surgical instruments, are life-giving only when properly used. When improperly used, the exact opposite results can occur. In one case they could bring physical ruin or even death; in the other case they could bring spiritual ruin or even spiritual death. Since the Bible admonishes us to handle rightly or rightly divide the word of truth (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), it is therefore possible to handle incorrectly or wrongly divide it – much like an untrained medical student who incorrectly wields his surgical instruments.

continuing . . .

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 05:22 AM

continuing . . .

Regarding The Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:18-19, there are TWO considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of these verses. The passage – almost the very last in the Bible – reads: "For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book..."

a) When these verses say that nothing is to be added to or taken from the "words of the prophecy of this book," they are not referring to Sacred Tradition being "added" to the Sacred Scripture. It is obvious from the context that the "book" being referred to here is Revelation or The Apocalypse and not the whole Bible. We know this because the author says that anyone who is guilty of adding to "this book" will be cursed with the plagues" written in this book," namely the plagues he described earlier in his own book, Revelation. To assert otherwise is to do violence to the text and to distort its plain meaning, especially since the Bible as we know it did not exist when this passage was written and therefore could not be what was meant. (3)

In defense of their interpretation of these verses, Fundamentalists will often contend that God knew in advance what the canon of Scripture would be, with Revelation being the last book of the Bible, and thus He "sealed" that canon with the words of verses 18-19. But this interpretation involves reading a meaning into the text. Furthermore, if such an assertion were true, how is it that the Christian knows unmistakably that Revelation 22:18-19 is "sealing" the canon unless an outside teaching authority assures him that this is the correct interpretation of that verse? But if such an outside authority exists, then the Sola Scriptura doctrine becomes ipso facto null and void.

b) The same admonition not to add or subtract words is used in Deuteronomy 4:2, which says, "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandment of the Lord your God which I command you." If we were to apply a parallel interpretation to this verse, then anything in the Bible beyond the decrees of the Old Testament law would be considered non-canonical or not authentic Scripture – including the New Testament! Once again, all Christians would reject this conclusion in no uncertain terms. The prohibition in Revelation 22:18-19 against "adding," therefore, cannot mean that Christians are forbidden to look to anything outside the Bible for guidance.

continued . . .

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 05:37 AM

2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.

Paul both commends and commands the keeping of oral tradition. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, for instance, we read, "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you." (4) Paul is obviously commending the keeping of oral tradition here, and it should be noted in particular that he extols the believers for having done so ("I praise you...."). Explicit in this passage is also the fact that the integrity of this Apostolic oral tradition has clearly been maintained, just as Our Lord promised it would be, through the safeguarding of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:3).

Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." This passage is significant in that a) it shows the existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching, b) it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and c) it clearly states that these traditions were both written and oral. Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions – authentic and Apostolic in origin – are to be "held" as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning or excuse do Fundamentalists dismiss them? By what authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of Paul?

Moreover, we must consider the text in this passage. The Greek word krateite, here translated "hold," means "to be strong, mighty, to prevail." (5) This language is rather emphatic, and it demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions. Of course one must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case "T") that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case "t") that, good or ill, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be Ordination; an example of a Church tradition would be clerical celibacy. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it is always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in researching the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the institutional Church’s worship.

It should be noted that Fundamentalists accuse the RCC, EOC (and sometimes each other, lol) of promoting "unbiblical" or "novel" doctrines based on Tradition, asserting that such Tradition contains doctrines which are foreign to the Bible. However, this assertion is wholly untrue. Sacred Tradition contains nothing whatsoever that is contrary to the Bible. Some Catholic thinkers would even go so far as to say that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is not also found in Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form. Certainly the two are at least in perfect harmony and always support each other. Admittedly, for some doctrines, the RCC and EOC, etc. draw more from Tradition than from Scripture for its understanding, but even those doctrines are often implied or hinted at in the Sacred Scripture. For example, the following are largely based on Sacred Tradition: infant Baptism, the canon of Scripture, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Sunday (rather than Saturday) as the Lord’s Day, etc.

Sacred Tradition complements (or at least informs) our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Church’s living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed and how to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages. (6) In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the reader of the Bible "You have been reading a very important book which contains God’s revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning."

continued . . .

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 05:52 AM

3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth."

It is very interesting to note that in I Timothy 3:15 we see, not the Bible, but the Church – that is, the living community of believers founded upon the Apostles and headed by their Spirit-selected successors – called "the pillar and ground of the truth." Of course, this passage is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the Bible, but it is intending to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authoritative and teaching Church which was commissioned to teach "all nations." (Matt. 28:19). Elsewhere this same Church received Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), that He would always be with it (Matt. 28:20), and that He would give it the Holy Spirit to teach it all truth. (John 16:13). Through Peter, Our Lord said: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19). It is plainly evident from these passages that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the Deposit of Faith.

It is also evident from these passages that this same Church would be infallible, for if at any time in its history it would definitively teach error to the Church as a whole in matters of faith or morals – even temporarily – it would cease being this "pillar and ground of the truth." Since a "ground" or foundation by its very nature is meant to be a permanent support, and since the above-mentioned passages do not allow for the possibility of the Church ever definitively teaching doctrinal or moral error, the only plausible conclusion is that Our Lord was very deliberate in establishing His Church and that He was referring to its infallibility when He called it the "pillar and ground of the truth." In this sense, the church is not so much a fixed institution, but rather a community of the Spirit-chosen and Spirit-guided.

The Fundamentalist, however, has a dilemma here by asserting the Bible to be the sole rule of faith for believers. In what capacity, then, is the Church the "pillar and ground of the truth" if it is not to serve as an infallible authority established by Christ? How can the Church be this "pillar and ground" if it has no tangible, practical ability to serve as an authority in the life of a Christian? The Fundamentalist would effectively deny that the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" by denying that the Church has the authority to teach.

Also, there are conflicting ecclesiologies between the various institutional Churches. For example, Protestants understand the term "church" to mean something different from what the Catholic Church understands it to mean. Protestants see "the church" as an invisible entity, and for them it refers collectively to all Christian believers around the world who are united by faith in Christ, despite major variations in doctrine and denominational allegiance. Catholics, on the other hand, understand it to mean not only those true believers who are united as Christ’s Mystical Body, but also understand it to refer to a visible, historical entity as well, namely, that one – and only that one – organization which can trace its lineage in an unbroken line back to the Apostles themselves: the Catholic Church. In their view, it is the RCC and the RCC alone which was established by Christ and which has maintained an absolute consistency in doctrine throughout its existence, and it is therefore this Church alone which can claim to be that very "pillar and ground of the truth." The EOCs believe similarly about their lineages.

Protestantism, by comparison, has known a history of doctrinal vacillations and changes, and no two denominations completely agree – even on major doctrinal issues. Such shifting and changing could not possibly be considered a foundation or "ground of the truth." When the foundation of a structure shifts or is improperly set, that structure’s very support is unreliable (cf. Matt. 7:26-27). Since in practice the beliefs of Protestantism have undergone change both within denominations and through the continued appearance of new denominations, these beliefs are like a foundation which shifts and moves. Such beliefs therefore cease to provide the support necessary to maintain the structure they uphold, and the integrity of that structure becomes compromised. Our Lord clearly did not intend for His followers to build their spiritual houses on such an unreliable foundation.

In very many ways, institutional ChristenDOM is a mess. Despite this confusion . . .

continued....

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 06:01 AM

4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church.

In Matthew 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. 18:17) – that is, as an outsider who is lost. Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group (7) (rather than just to Peter): "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18).

Of course there are instances in the Bible where Our Lord does appeal to Scripture, but in these cases He, as one having authority, was teaching the Scriptures; He was not allowing the Scriptures to teach themselves. For example, He would respond to the Scribes and the Pharisees by using Scripture precisely because they often tried to trip Him up by using Scripture. In these instances, Our Lord often demonstrates how the Scribes and Pharisees had wrong interpretations, and hence He corrects them by properly interpreting Scripture.

His actions do not argue that Scripture should be sola, or an authority in itself and, in fact, the only Christian authority. Quite the contrary; whenever Christ refers His hearers to the Scriptures, He also provides His infallible, authoritative interpretation of them, demonstrating that the Scriptures do not interpret themselves. The immediate rule of faith for the Christian is the teaching authority of the Church – an authority to teach and interpret both Scripture and Tradition, as Matt. 18:17-18 shows.

It should also be noted that implicit (perhaps even explicit) in this passage from Matthew is the fact that the "Church" must have been a visible, tangible entity established in both a communal and a Spirit-guided hierarchical fashion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred? If the Protestant definition of "church" were correct, then the wrongdoer would have to "hear" each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. The only way we can make sense of Our Lord’s statement here is to acknowledge that here was a definite organization, to which an appeal could be made and from which a decisive judgment could be had.

continued . . .

Postulare42

22nd May 2009, 06:05 AM

It's getting late, and I'm getting weary, so in a few days I'll continue with:

5. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

Pax et Bonum
Pax Intrantibus

miseretur

22nd May 2009, 03:08 PM

Tradition has been Christians always, but it is secondary primary written form in relation to the Bible.<o></o>
for example, oral tradition, ie, before the new testamantti was written, apostles maintained it were his own, dividing the new parish.<o></o>
Tradition, role, has also perfected the approach, which has not been written. As though to what the Apostle peter has been shown, or what a person has been Paul, for example. Never tradition has not announced anything which would be contrary to written text, and tradition has tended to be less vital faith life.<o></o>
<o></o>
That tradition against which Luther attacked, it was too loosely interpreted, and distorted, I think the content of what was, and the occurrence of a medieval Catholic Church.<o></o>
Purgatory tenets of non-Biblical beliefs are the root of this false tradition fruit. Stories and legends played Catholic piety of the People's substantial role as a saint cults, etc.<o></o>

Luther wanted to eliminate all that is not based on the Bible<o></o>
Some of the texts were not as great value, for example, apokryfiset writings, the so-called, later kanonisoidut writings, (deutero canon text<o></o>)
Apostles speaking was a more reliable, than a thousand years after outdated human.<o></o>
The apostles understood the importance of the reports and were a source of value, they was those who tell,
what Jesus was told them to do. <o></o>
To tradition, was worth the time, especially before written form.<o></o>
God has protected his written form.<o></o>
<o></o>
No Church, there should be no basis for any Person, for example, should not be a Lutheran or arian church.<o></o>
1Co 1:12-13. <o></o>
<o></o>
This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." <o></o>
Has Christ been divided? Paul wasn't crucified for you, was he? You weren't baptized in Paul's name, were you? <o></o>
<o></o>
It is clear that, luther or areios, didin´t found their doctrines from their self.<o></o>
These doctrine was all ready in bible.<o></o>
It is not right to raise any man, the above of bible.<o></o>
Therefore luther responded negatively pope and saint.<o></o>
<o></o>
The present time, not a single Church that would be absolutely right in everything.<o></o>
Here forum have bee claimed that, I am a fundamentalist, and persecutes those who do not agree with me.<o></o>
If this were the case, why then written agains own church (Lutheran)<o></o>
I have noticed the fact that Islam and Gnostic criticize is not accepted.<o></o>
Usually,
I have defended the traditional Christianity, against Gnostic heresy.

<o></o>

Postulare42

24th May 2009, 05:31 PM

5. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

The Bible says in 2 Tim. 3:17 that the man of God is "perfect, furnished to every good work." As we noted above, this verse means only that the man of God is fully supplied with Scripture; it is not a guarantee that he automatically knows how to interpret it properly. This verse at most argues only for the material sufficiency of Scripture, a position which is held by some christian thinkers today.

"Material sufficiency" would mean that the Bible in some way contains all the truths that are necessary for the believer to know; in other words, the "materials" would thus be all present or at least implied. "Formal sufficiency," on the other hand, would mean that the Bible would not only contain all the truths that are necessary, but that it would also present those truths in a perfectly clear and complete and readily understandable fashion. In other words, these truths would be in a useable form," and consequently there would be no need for Sacred Tradition to clarify and complete them or for any teaching authority to interpret them correctly or "rightly divide" God’s word.

Since the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it's writers naturally teach that it needs an interpreter. The reason the writers so taugh is twofold: first, because Christ established a living Church to teach with His authority. He did not simply give His disciples a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may. Second, the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.

Regarding the second point, we read in 2 Peter 3:16 that in St. Paul’s epistles there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

In this one verse we note three very important things about the Bible and its interpretation: a) the Bible contains passages which are not readily understandable or clear, a fact which demonstrates the need for an authoritative and infallible teacher to make the passages clear and understandable (8); b) it is not only possible that people could "wrest" or distort the meaning of Scripture, but this was, in fact, being done from the very earliest days of the Church; and c) to distort the meaning of Scripture can result in one’s "destruction," a disastrous fate indeed. It is obvious from these considerations that St. Peter did not believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. But there is more.

In Acts 8:26-40 we read the account of the deacon St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. In this scenario, the Holy Spirit leads Philip to approach the Ethiopian when Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaias, he asks him a very telling question: "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" Even more telling is the answer given by the Ethiopian: "And how can I, unless some man show me?"

to be continued . . .

Postulare42

24th May 2009, 05:34 PM

continuing . . .

Whereas this Philip (known as "the Evangelist") is not one of the twelve Apostles, he was nonetheless someone who was commissioned by the Apostles (cf. Acts 6:6) and who preached the Gospel with authority (cf. Acts 8:4-8). Consequently, his preaching would reflect legitimate Apostolic teaching. The point here is that the Ethiopian’s statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says. If the Bible were indeed sufficient of itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias.

There is also 2 Peter 1:20, which states that "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." Here we see the Bible itself stating in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. It is also most telling that this verse is preceded by a section on the Apostolic witness (verses 12-18) and followed by a section on false teachers (chapter 2, verses 1-10). Peter is obviously contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with false prophets and false teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the two. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.

Postulare42

24th May 2009, 05:42 PM

6. The first Christians did not have a Bible as it is traditionally viewed today.

Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D.(9) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is : "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?"

If the Fundamentalist Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church – particularly, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20) – not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades (not to mention the centuries that followed) of the Church’s existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian’s only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully written – much less settled in terms of its canon – until 65 years after Christ’s Ascension, how did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

to be continued . . .

Postulare42

24th May 2009, 05:54 PM

continuing . . .

Now the Fundamentalist may be tempted to offer two possible responses: 1) that the Apostles were temporarily the final authority while the New Testament was being written, and 2) that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and that His direct guidance is what bridged the time gap between Our Lord’s Ascension and the completion of the New Testament.

Regarding the first response, it is true that Jesus Christ invested the Apostles with His authority; however, the Bible nowhere indicates that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. Quite the contrary, the Bible record is quite clear in that a) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and b) the Apostles clearly chose successors who, in turn, possessed the same authority to "bind and loose." This is shown in the election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Cf. Acts 1:15-26) and in Paul’s passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6, and Titus 1:5). If anything, a Fundamentalist only gives credence to Apostolic authority and Tradition by insisting on the authority of the Apostles.

INRE the second response – that the Holy Spirit’s direct guidance bridged the time gap – the problem with such a position is that the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit through direct inspiration and through the prophets of the community is an extra-Biblical (That is, "outside of the Bible") source of authority. Naturally the Bible speaks very clearly of the Holy Spirit’s presence among the believers and His role in teaching the disciples "all truth," but if the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit were, in fact, the ultimate authority during those 65 years, then the history of the Church would have known two successive ultimate authorities: first the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets and Teachers with this guidance then being replaced by the Scriptures, which would have become sola, or the "only" ultimate authority. And if this situation of an extra-Biblical ultimate authority is permissible from a Fundamentalist/Protestant perspective, does this not open the door to the our position, which says that the teaching authority of the Church is the direct ultimate authority – deriving it's authority from Christ and teaching from Scripture and Tradition, guided by the active presence of Holy Spirit ?

The Holy Spirit was given to the Church by Jesus Christ, and it is exactly this same Spirit who protects the teaching authority of his Church, has always been present in the Church, teaching it all truth (John 16:13) and continually safeguarding its integrity. Thus the Gospel would still have been preached . . . even if not a single verse of the New Testament had ever been written.

to be continued . . .

Postulare42

24th May 2009, 05:57 PM

In a few days I'll continue with

7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

Pax et Bonum
Pax Intrantibus

Postulare42

27th May 2009, 05:14 PM

Just to take a break for a bit . . .

... I have defended the traditional Christianity, against Gnostic heresy.

Who's gnostic ?

Postulare42

30th May 2009, 02:17 AM

Continuing . . .

7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks – or at least grossly underemphasizes – the fact that the Church came before the Bible, and not the other way around. It was the Church, in effect, which wrote the Bible as accounts of Divine dictation of the words of the prophets, and by inspiration of the holy spirit for the record of the Israelites as the
eklesia of the old covenant; and the early communities as the eklesia of the new covenant, similarly.

In the pages of the New Testament we note that Our Lord gives a certain primacy to the teaching authority of His Church and its proclamation in His name. For instance, in Matthew 28:20 we see Our Lord commissioning the Apostles to go and teach in His name, making disciples of all nations. In Mark 16:15 we note that the Apostles are commanded to go and preach to all the world. And in Luke 10:16 we see that whoever hears the seventy-two hears Our Lord. These facts are most telling, as nowhere do we see Our Lord commissioning His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing in His name. The emphasis is always on preaching the Gospel, not on printing and distributing it, not to enshrine it as did the Pharisees of the synagogues.

Thus it follows that the leadership and teaching authority of the Church are indispensable elements in the means whereby the gospel message is to reach the ends of the earth. Since the Church produced the scriptures, it is quite biblical, logical and reasonable to say that the Church alone has the authority to properly interpret and apply them. And if this is so, then by reason of its origin and nature, the Bible cannot serve as the only rule of faith for Christian believers. In other words, by producing the scriptures, the Church does not eliminate the need for apostles, evangelists, prophets and teachers as interpreters of those writings as tools to carry out their commission.

Moreover, is it not unreasonable to say that simply by putting Apostolic and prophetic teaching into writing, the Church somehow made that written teaching superior to her oral teaching? Like the teaching organization Our Lord established, the written accounts of His Word are authoritative, but because the word is in one form rather than another does not mean one form is to be subjugated to the other. Since God’s one Revelation is threefold in form, to deny the authority of one form would be to deny the authority of the other forms as well. The forms of God’s Word are complementary, not competitive. Thus, if there is a need for the Scriptures, there is also a need for the prophetic and teaching authorities which produced them.

to be continued . . .

Postulare42

30th May 2009, 02:18 AM

coming next . . .

8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.

Postulare42

3rd June 2009, 06:49 AM

continuing . . .

8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.

If you look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, you will see references to the Apostolic Succession(10), to the bishops and other offices as guardians of the Deposit of Faith(11), and even some suggestion of the concept of primacy and the authority of Rome(12); an interpretation that many (including myself) would dispute. Regardless, the collective weight of these references makes clear the fact that the early Church understood itself has having a hierarchy which was central to maintaining the integrity of the Faith. Nowhere do we see any indication that the early followers of Christ disregarded those positions of authority and considered them invalid as a rule of faith. Quite the contrary, we see in those passages that the Church, from its very inception, saw its power to teach grounded in an inseparable combination of scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and prophetic guidance. This appears to have waned over time, with a shift in emphasis to the juridical hierarchic emphasis becoming dominant for most of history. Still, the original core remained, if attentuated and shouted down by the overweening dominance of the church as component of the Roman Empire.

To say that the early Church believed in the notion of "the Bible alone" would be analogous to saying that men and women today could entertain the thought that our civil laws could function without Congress to legislate them, without courts to interpret them and without police to enforce them. All we would need is a sufficient supply of legal volumes in every household so that each citizen could determine for himself how to understand and apply any given law. Such an assertion is absurd, of course, as no one could possibly expect civil laws to function in this manner. The consequence of such a state of affairs would undoubtedly be total anarchy.

How much more absurd, then, is it to contend that the Bible could function on its own and apart from the Church which wrote it? It is precisely that Church – and not just any Christian – who alone possesses the divinely given authority to interpret it correctly, as well as to legislate matters involving the conduct of its members. Were this not the case, the situation on any level – local, regional or global – would quickly devolve into doctrinal anarchy, wherein each and every Christian could formulate a theological system and develop a moral code based simply upon his own private interpretation of Scripture.

Has not history actually seen precisely this result since the 16th Century(13)? Luther himself bemoaned the fact that, "Unfortunately, it is our daily experience that now under the Gospel [his] the people entertain greater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice and money-grabbing than before under the Papacy."(14) Herein lies both bitter irony and a befuddling dilemma.

to be continued . . .

Postulare42

3rd June 2009, 06:52 AM

next time on "Prattles with Postulare42" . . .

9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Apostolic, Evangelic, Prophetic and Didactic Tradition.

LeviathanNI

10th June 2009, 10:39 AM

I dunno Grumpy fella, I like your prattles :)

Postulare42

11th June 2009, 12:39 AM

continuing . . .

9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Apostolic, Evangelic, Prophetic and Didactic Tradition.

If you look at the history of the early Church, you will see that it continually struggled against heresies and those who promoted them. We also see the Church responding to those threats again and again by convening Councils (15) to settle disputes in matters of doctrine and discipline, and certain overseers and elders were noted for settling disputes. For example, Clement intervened in a controversy in the Church at Corinth at the end of the 1st century and put an end to a schism there. In the 2nd century, the overseer of Rome, Victor, threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East because of a dispute about when Easter should be celebrated. In the earlier part of the 3rd century, Roman overseer Callistus pronounced the condemnation of the Sabellian heresy.

In the case of these heresies and/or conflicts in discipline that would arise, the people involved would defend their erroneous beliefs by their respective interpretations of Scripture, apart from the Apostolic Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. A good illustration of these conflicts is the case of Arius, the 4th century elder spokesman for the majority Apostolic Tradition (supported by scripture) that the son of God was a creature and was not co-equal with the Father, in the face of the minority Pauline trinitarians. The disputes and controversies which arose over his teachings became so great that the Pauline schismatics allied with the emperor Constantine called their first "Ecumenical Council" in Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle them. The Council, under the authority of the Pope, declared Arius’ teachings to be heretical and made some decisive declarations about the Person of Christ, and it did so based on what Pauline writings had to say regarding the Scripture verses in question.

The application is obvious. If you ask a Protestant whether or not Arius was correct in his belief that the Son was created, he will, of course, respond in the negative. They emphasize, then, that even though Arius presumably "compared Scripture with Scripture," he nonetheless arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If this were true for Arius, what guarantee does the Protestant have that it is not also true for his interpretation of a given Bible passage? The very fact that the Protestant "knows" Arius’ interpretations were heretical implies that an objectively true or "right" interpretation exists for the Biblical passages he used. The issue, then, becomes a question of how we can know what that true interpretation is. The only possible answer is that there must be, out of necessity, an Apostolic, Evangelic and Prophetic authority to tell us.

While the Constantinian Pauline hierarchs, based their arguments on the Bible and probably "compared Scripture with Scripture," the fact is that they arrived at heretical conclusions. It was the Apostolic, evangelic and prophetic teaching authority of the Church axpressed in Arius which stepped in and declared their views wrong . . . and in many cases, like Christ, paid the price for it.

It is evident, then, that using the Bible or tradition alone, is not a guarantee of arriving at doctrinal truth. The above-described result is what happens when the erroneous doctrine of Sola Scriptura is used as a guiding principle, and the history of christendom and the numerous heresies it has produced are undeniable testimony to this fact.

To be continued . . .

Postulare42

11th June 2009, 12:40 AM

next: The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.

miseretur

15th June 2009, 09:28 AM

New Testament writings, had already existed before the one hundred years
Following Christ.
Also apostolic tradition was also, apostolic faith and creed.
didache, 1.klemens, ignatius and many other fathers.
Why refer to writings if they are not, or they do not have any document.
new testament writters st paul write.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm, and cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you-how the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread,

miseretur

15th June 2009, 09:47 AM

1Co 15:3 For I passed on to you the most important points of what I received: Christ died for our sins in keeping with the Scriptures,

Gal 1:10-12.
Am I now trying to win the approval of people or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ's servant.

For I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin.

For I did not receive it from a man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

how someone could talk about the cross-points more, if it is not telling the truth. Many dont understand paul, there are no eny other antic text what speaks so sincerely to him self.
Why paul was christian?
if hi lies, why abandon the good life in jewish parish, and become persecuted parish member?
who belived man who had died so shamefull death?
If the resurrection were no truth.

hae (http://translate.google.com/translate_s?hl=fi&sl=fi&tl=en&q=uskontunnustus%0A%0A%0A&source=translation_link)

Postulare42

16th June 2009, 04:10 AM

continuing . . .

The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century

There's one historical fact which proves extremely inconvenient for the Protestant: the fact that the canon of the Bible – the authoritative list of exactly which books are part of inspired Scripture – was not settled and fixed until the end of the 4th century. Until that time, there was much disagreement over which writings were considered inspired and Apostolic in origin. The lists of writings varied from place to place: some lists contained books that were later defined as non-canonical, while other lists failed to include books which were later defined as canonical. For example, there were Early Christian writings which were considered by some to be inspired and Apostolic and which were actually read in Christian public worship, but which were later omitted from the New Testament canon.
These include "The Shepherd of Hermas", "The Epistle of Barnabas", and "The Didache", among many others(18).

Despite early efforts by some, among them Irenaeus, it was not until the post-Constantinian, Pauline sect councils of Rome (382) of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books(19). From this point on, in Pauline/Constantinian christendom there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the Protestants, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.

Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura: A) Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified? B) And if there was a final authority that the Protestant recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible’s canon was established?

to be continued . . .

Postulare42

16th June 2009, 04:12 AM

coming next :

"Extra-Scriptural" Authorities Identified the Canon of the Bible.

miseretur

17th June 2009, 01:24 PM

Beginning a Christian congregation is recognized from the outset, certain writings or scriptures, and over time they are in place, Nikea 325ad.
If you ask even if the English, what is his view, an English classic work of art, so he will probably answer, that William Shakespeare works. Similar to the Bible is, the number of letters have established themselves in history, and they have been read since the beginning.
The only who have attacked the Bible canon against gnostilaiset, such as markion 200ad.

miseretur

17th June 2009, 01:31 PM

Read or study any other ancient text, so it is clear that you can not find then in a better preserved and unchanged book, which should match the Bible.
For example, budhist books are written for hundreds of years of after his death.
Bible authors (New Testament)
They were not even written a letter in the east minds that they should be part of sacred writings.

Postulare42

25th June 2009, 04:08 AM

continuing . . .

11. "Extra-Scriptural" Authorities Identified the Canon of the Bible.

Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can one know with certainty which books belong in the Bible – specifically, in the New Testament? The simple fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority outside the Bible which can tell him. Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be absolute, definitive and self-authenticating, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the Bible(20) would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an authority, then again the tradition of Sola Scriptura crumbles.

Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the tradition of Sola Scriptura is that it was the Pauline/Constantinian Concilliar Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Roman Catholic Church gave its own final, definitive, definition of the Biblical canon at the Council of Trent in 1546 – naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century. If the Councils of christendom and the Roman Church are able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong in the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on other matters of faith and morals? We begin to see the conundrum inherent in the Prima Scriptura of Pauline Concilliar christendom AND the Prima Scriptura of the Protestants. One claims for themselves institutional authority in support of Prima Scriptura, while the other claims personal authority derived from Sola Scriptura.

Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the christendom (east and west) safeguarded and identified the Bible: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it."(21)

to be continued . . .

Postulare42

25th June 2009, 04:09 AM

next . . .

"The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination"

miseretur

26th June 2009, 12:59 PM

Although the New Testament collection was not immediately exist, so it does not mean that Christians would know what to believe. They had the Old Testament, apostoilit whom Christ had given direct all the data, and they had the spirit of truth which Jesus gave to them and blew.
Apostles taught orally followers, before the letters were incurred, and the followers held doctrine, it will be the bishops who have learned protectors and guardians.

But all must be checked in light word nowadays, when the writings were incurred as the apostles were alive, and the tradition was a strong sense of each. The Bible clearly gives itself to understand what are the stories and legends, as they are what is holy. There was no hold eny secret meeting what gnostic invented, which drove through a number of letters, or letters of self redeem true parishes.

Joh. 16:13 Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own accord, but will speak whatever he hears and will declare to you the things that are to come.

1Jn. 2:27 The anointing you received from him abides in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. Instead, because his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not a lie, abide in him, as he taught you to do.

:-)

David Kone

27th June 2009, 12:40 AM

Joh. 16:13 Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own accord, but will speak whatever he hears and will declare to you the things that are to come.

The spirit of truth comes from the heart; it is the yetser ha-tov, the voice of the good within our heart put there by God as the living torah. That voice is not some divining rod of scriptural validity. Many evils have been and continue to be blamed on scripture but the scriptures will not be weighed in judgment -but the heart of every man will be. We as followers of the teachings of the Master Jesus know those who are following the spirit of truth by their actions of compassion and by their charitable relationships. No one will be saved by their perfect beliefs. Slavery, oppression of women, persecution of Jews and intolerance of just about everyone but a select few can all be justified in “holy” scripture. Under scriptural interpretation a drunken son is to be stoned to death by the council but Jesus taught that the prodigal son is to be welcomed back with great joy. Jesus probably would teach you to listen to the voice of good within your heart and not that other one that is perhaps looking for justification for intolerance.

o:)

JStandeford

27th June 2009, 04:23 AM

Explorer, welcome to the forums. I have signed both the petition to the Queen and our Prime Minister.

To promote what was punishable in ancient Israel seems absurb. To accept it would be more appropriate, but to promote it is scandalous, in my opinion. Nothing against homosexuals, but the Church needs its values. I am sure there are other religions that accept, and even promote, homosexuality, but Christianity should not promote it.
I'm new here but not new to the Bible and on this subject God was adamant as he was about every SIN. We are not even to accept it. Christ said He would spew us out of His mouth for being lukewarm. To idly stand by and not take a stand is to be lukewarm.

JStandeford

27th June 2009, 05:08 AM

Down through the history of the development of human knowledge, humans have struggled with their own thought processes. From Socrates' favorite hammer, "define your terms", to Chomsky's "neural mind maps" and Jaynes' "Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind", we as a species still confuse "is" with "should".

Great strides in information have arisen from shifting from, for example, a definition of "health" as "an absence of disease" to an empirical examination and catalogueing of the spectrum of human conditions.

This has clearly concluded that homosexuality falls within the "normal" range of human behaviors, and that of many other species. It's sheer prevalence, despite varying meanings and motivations of the practitioners, clearly demonstrates this. It is within the varieties of human experience in sufficient numbers to not be considered extreme.

Followers of Jesus are under discipline . . . a specific discipline which, we are taught by those who have come before us, is excludes certain actions from our behavioral options.

N.B. The scripture cited before refers to "arsenokoites", lit. boy copulators.
I really like the way you described this phenomenon of our society. An example of the group consciousness is evident in the way our society will let people starve or freeze to DEATH for lack of paper or gold. It is justified as acceptable because we obviously cannot be expected to care for everyone when in fact, if it were expected that we all cared for each other and we lived outside the rule of the dollar, nobody would starve or freeze to death.

Likewise, if we follow the teachings of Christ, we will NOT sin. Christ said it was possible to not sin but because so many wish to live as though they must go along with the idea that we are incapable of living like Christ, they continue to ride the flow of lukewarm intentions and belief.

Christ was tempted. That meant he was capable of feeling the pull that we feel toward the dark side of life but He said no to that. He told us we could also say no. We CAN live outside the rule of Satan who is capitalizing on the pleasure points of God's creation.

miseretur

27th June 2009, 10:41 AM

The spirit of truth comes from the heart; it is the yetser ha-tov, the voice of the good within our heart put there by God as the living torah. That voice is not some divining rod of scriptural validity. Many evils have been and continue to be blamed on scripture but the scriptures will not be weighed in judgment -but the heart of every man will be. We as followers of the teachings of the Master Jesus know those who are following the spirit of truth by their actions of compassion and by their charitable relationships. No one will be saved by their perfect beliefs. Slavery, oppression of women, persecution of Jews and intolerance of just about everyone but a select few can all be justified in “holy” scripture. Under scriptural interpretation a drunken son is to be stoned to death by the council but Jesus taught that the prodigal son is to be welcomed back with great joy. Jesus probably would teach you to listen to the voice of good within your heart and not that other one that is perhaps looking for justification for intolerance.

o:)

Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Human rational mind is then the key of truth?
This forum, is so special...
If you try to speak or write some things about a faith or question about faith, some guy are telling you be silence if what you say, could get in his rational mind, just like JW.
yeah right, but still esoteric gnostic heresy is intresting and closer the truth than over 2000 years old tradition.
These
philosophical sophistry is same to mee almost what luther was thinking about catholic scolastic.
rational mind against living Faith, some day comes anti christ and tell, Jesus wasnt resurected, and all belived that, why, because that is the rational

Conclusion.

JStandeford

28th June 2009, 05:08 AM

All very good points, Brother, and a well articulated derived-doctrine.

My take is very different. The Hebrew word
טוֹב
"tov", can translate as "good", "healthy" or "functioning properly", as in working . . . "it works!" or "it'll work!". Another nuance to "tov" is "sufficient to the task at hand" or "good enough".

We are only called to "...be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect..." in His fullness of forgiveness. "He makes the rain to fall and the sun to shine on righteous and unrighteous alike".

We are enjoined to pray, " May Your will be done on earth as in heaven". But there is no clear suggestion that the earth or it's inhabitants ever were perfect, or are perfectable.

"Why do you call me 'good' ? Only God is 'good' ."

Even Adam and Eve in the Garden were not "perfect". Neither was the garden. But the love between them and their creator was . . . and the only perfection possible, for it partakes of God's very nature.

"Who told you that you were naked?" bespeaks a violation of the love "...that does not keep count of wrongs...", and that mutual communion in love which is not selfconscious in it's adoration.

Creation was/is only "good enough" to serve it's purpose. "It'll work!"

But that remains a very remarkable feat of obedient love, indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS0korzYm4g

:innocent:
It has caused me great sadness to continuously hear from those who read the Bible things like the following quote from The People's Bible "This does not teach such sanctification that we cannot sin, nor that we, here on earth, attain absolute perfection, but we have placed before us, as a model, the perfect ideal, and we will constantly ascend higher by striving to attain it."

When Christ so clearly said, "You MUST BE PERFECT, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.

This after saying earlier in the same chapter that not one iota will pass from the law and that he was not here to abolish it and after giving a whole list of things that we MUST do in order to reach Heaven.

Why must people be so weak that they cannot see that it IS possible to be perfect the way Christ said we were to be? He did not say unless you can't or unless life throws you a curve or unless you don't feel like it because He will forgive you.

He said to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

Adam and Eve had a choice to be perfect or not and they chose not to, they were not predestined to sin.

This doesn't mean we are to judge each other. It simply means that we are to do what He said to do. Maybe you don't get there until just before you die or maybe you are like the couple God could find no fault with for the bulk of your life. The point is to get there without allowing ones self an out with the justification of being forgiven.

I've been battling with this scenario in my own life and have just realized some of the things I have related here. It isn't easy. Sometimes I break out in a sweat with the desire to sin but I more frequently choose to ask God to take the battle for me and amazingly, the desire goes away until the next time. There will be a constant battle just like Christ had to battle temptation here. The point is to win the battle.

David Kone

29th June 2009, 08:13 PM

Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

I think you have made some very valuable points which deserves discussion. Even if I do not agree with them I am delighted that you are sharing your opinion and giving me the opportunity to clearify my own thoughts on these points.

To the ancient Hebrew the mind was located in the heart. When we exsufflate we use our lungs which are the companion organ to the hearts not our brains. Logic and rational thought are good things and are essential for our discernment of everyday life. The discernment of the heart is a spiritual discernment and it is essential for understanding spiritual life. Master Jesus taught his followers to understand the “weightier” parts of the law. He stood in direct opposition to those who believed that all they had to do to gain credit before God was to follow dogma and ritual. Jesus knew what we do not, that most of what was taught by the temple priests as essential was in fact “man’s law” passed off as coming from Moses and that their teachings were very much against the teachings of the intertestamental period prophets.

Promiscuity takes many forms and is a major impediment to anyone who seeks to follow a holy life even if they are married. Rape, to take an extreme example, is evil even if it takes place within a heterosexual marriage.

It is much easier to tell what is reasonable than to understand what is valuable. It is easy to rationalize the plight of the one who lies wounded at the side of the road and say to oneself, “he is there because he did not follow God’s law therefore he deserves what has befallen him”. The hard part is to recognize that none of us deserve better than to lie wounded at the side of the road; that we are all in this together; that God, our neighbor and ourselves are really one. It is definitely not logical that we should love all we meet as ourselves. It is much more logical to follow the old precept of “an eye for an eye”. The ancient law was chiseled in stone thousands of years ago. Still today stone hearted people follow dead instructions from stone. It is idol worship pure and simple. The Torah in your heart is the living word of our living God; it is a pearl of great price.

May the Lord fill our hearts with His love.
:innocent:

JStandeford

1st July 2009, 06:15 PM

To the ancient Hebrew the mind was located in the heart.

How exactly do we know this? I've heard this thought before but I cannot for the life of me understand why the Hebrews, who knew God's word, would mistake the mind/brain for the heart/feelings.
I rather believe that mankind of our current time have deduced that this would be the correct way of viewing the heart to justify the newer belief that love is action. I don't believe the Hebrews made that mistake. I think they realized that feeling is followed by action.
I think the Hebrews would have been able to feel their brains thinking and their hearts feeling just like we do.

David Kone

1st July 2009, 11:10 PM

How exactly do we know this?

The ancient Hebrew word for heart is leb. The ancient word for mind, lebab, uses the same root. When we think of a word like ‘mind’ today we think abstractly as our Greek cultural heritage has taught us to do so well. The ancient Hebrew language reveals a world view much different than our own. They almost never thought of things in abstract terms. Their language describes everything in concrete terms. The pictographic characters that made up the word ‘leb’ are lam and bet from which we got our ‘L’ and ‘B’. Lam is the Sheppard’s staff. It has a concrete meaning of authority as the staff was the tool of authority used by the Sheppard with his sheep. Bet was a picture of the floor plan of a tent. It later was extended to mean house. The heart is the dwelling place of our personal authority. This has nothing to do with IQ points and other such abstract nonsense. It is consciousness. Our consciousness may include thought, emotion, understanding etc.

We err when we speak of a parts of a person such as mind or emotion as if they are isolated factors. Our nephesh, our soul is whole. It includes all of us body, mind, emotions, consciousness … everything.
:eek::twisted:

Jesus John

2nd July 2009, 10:52 AM

Dear Brother David,

Reading your words was wonderful, it hit my heart, may our Heavenly Lord bless you in this life and next (Amen), thank you.

Dear Brother,

Please forgive me if I am cutting the issue, but I think this verse may be related with your explanation;

"Have they, then, never journeyed about the earth, letting their hearts gain wisdom, and causing their ears to hear? Yet, verily, it is not their eyes that have become blind - but blind have become the hearts that are in their breasts!" (22:46)

Postulare42

27th January 2010, 02:59 PM

. . . When Christ so clearly said, "You MUST BE PERFECT, as your Heavenly Father is perfect...

In context, that citation refers to the even-handedness we should demonstrate to all, and the openhandedness in forgiveness.

Postulare42

27th January 2010, 03:19 PM

After a hiatus,

To continue:

The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination

Lacking a satisfactory answer to the question of how the canon of the Bible was determined, protestants often resort to the notion that scripture is "self-authenticating," that is, the books of the bible witness to themselves that they are inspired of God. The major problem with such an assertion is simply that even a cursory examination of ecclesial history will demonstrate it to be utterly untrue.

For example, several books from the New Testament – James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation – were disputed in terms of their canonical status for some time. In certain places they were accepted, while simultaneously in others they were rejected. Even spiritual giants like St. Athanasius (297-373), St. Jerome (c. 342-420) and St. Augustine (354-430) had drawn up lists of New Testament books which witnessed to what was generally acknowledged as inspired in their times and places, but none of these lists corresponds exactly to the New Testament canon that was eventually identified by the post-Nicene hierarchy at the end of the 4th century, and which is identical to the canon that the RCC has today. (22)

If Scripture were actually "self-authenticating," why was there so much disagreement and uncertainty over these various books? Why was there any disagreement at all? Why was the canon of the Bible not identified much earlier if the books were allegedly so readily discernible? The answer that one is compelled to accept in this regard is simply that the Bible is not self-authenticating at all.

Even more interesting is the fact that some books in the Bible do not identify their authors. The idea of self-authentication – if it were true – might be more plausible if each and every Biblical author identified himself, as we could more easily examine that author’s credentials, so to speak, or at least determine who it was that claimed to be speaking for God. But in this regard the Bible leaves us ignorant in a few instances.

Take St. Matthew’s Gospel as one example; nowhere does the text indicate that it was Matthew, one of the twelve Apostles, who authored it. We are therefore left with only two possibilities for determining its authorship: 1) what Tradition has to say, 2) Biblical scholarship. In either case, the source of determination is an extra-Biblical source and would therefore fall under condemnation by the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura".

Now the Protestant may be saying at this point that it is unnecessary to know whether or not Matthew actually wrote this Gospel, as one’s salvation does not depend on knowing whether it was Matthew or someone else. But such a view presents quite a difficulty. What the Protestant is effectively saying is that while an authentic Gospel is God’s Word and is the means by which a person comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, the person has no way of knowing for certain in the case of Matthew’s Gospel whether it is Apostolic in origin and consequently has no way of knowing it if its genuine (i.e., God’s Word) or not. And if this Gospel’s authenticity is questionable, then why include it in the "bible" ? If its authenticity is certain, then how is this known in the absence of self-identification by Matthew? One can only conclude that the Bible is not self-authenticating.

The Protestant may wish to fall back on the Bible’s own assertion that it is inspired, citing a passage like 2 Timothy 3:16 – "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable..." However, a claim to inspiration is not in and of itself a guarantee of inspiration. Consider the fact that the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science sect, claim to be inspired. The writings of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon sect, claim to be inspired. These are but two of many possible examples which demonstrate the that any particular writing can claim just about anything. Obviously, in order for us to know with certainty whether or not a writing is genuinely inspired, we need more than a mere claim by that writing that it is inspired. The guarantee of inspiration must come from outside that writing. In the case of the "bible", the guarantee must come from a non-biblical source. But outside authentication is excluded by the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura".

To be continued . . .

miseretur

27th January 2010, 05:07 PM

Well written and very interesting question (Postulare 42) :)
This is a slightly problematic policy issues in some questions, sola scriptura.
But if we accept the so called tradition next to sola scriptura, we do not have so much problems. that is true that before the New Testament, church havent got eny writtings? what I know. But they have septuginta (old testament in greek).
Lutherans have some problem in this question? what Luther mean this sola scriptura? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
In fact, I believe Luther's conclusions in the fact that the Bible should be interpreted only in the Bible.
Here we also allow for the conclusion of Nicaea in what the problem was resolved. Since the term was imported from outside the Bible the same essence.
The Bible has not been declared for "the same essence, when we talk about Jesus our Lord.

Bible dont teach Sola scriptura...

Sola scriptura is certainly the biggest problem is that the Bible itself does not teach it at any point. Sola scriptura is, therefore, with himself in a desperate conflict. If we believe in the Bible alone, we can not believe in sola scriptura, because the Bible does not teach it. Sola scriptura is the Confessor accept both the Bible and Luther's (or their own parish) initial is not the biblical teaching assumption that the Bible is the Christian faith and morality, the only infallible teacher.

It is worth noting that while the Bible itself prove its own authority, the certificate would not be valid (Jn 5:31), because anyone could write a book that claims to be the only true word of God, and does not yet prove, that the case should be so in reality. The only way to know the Bible is true and inspired word of God is to accept it himself to be God in certifying the Church of Jesus founded by unmistakable unmistakable lesson.

Protestants, however, sometimes trying to prove sola scriptura by quoting some biblical points. The best known of these is the 2 Tim. 3:16-17, where Paul writes: "Every holy, God's inspiration for writing is useful for doctrine, nuhteeksi, Sorting and bringing to life under the will of God. This man of God comes every good and perfect fit. "This paragraph does not, however, several reasons to prove sola scriptura.

First, the text does not say scripture to be sufficient, but useful lessons, nuhteeksi etc. For example, the Constitution has been under state control, a useful but not sufficient - there needs to also be president, government, parliament, etc. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 does not argue that the Bible alone capable man of God may be all good. Previously, the same letter injustice purify people called astiaksi, which will be "useful, all the good deeds done" (2 Tim. 2:21). Jacoby writes:
"The patience of tuottakoon complete the act, that you would be complete and undamaged and not in any puuttuvaiset" (James 1:4).
Should we conclude that a simple Christian patience - sola patientia?

Third, Paul's words must be read in context. The previous two verses provide additional interesting information: "Keep you stick with what you've learned. But you are sure, as you know, from whom you learned it. You also knew from an early age the holy scriptures, which would make thee wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
"(2 Tim. 3:14-15), Protestant would point out here that the Scriptures are sufficient to provide enough wisdom to man's salvation, so the Christian Bible is sufficient. But Paul says that the Scriptures can give wisdom, salvation, and he mentions the criterion by which a Christian can know are in the right faith: the fact that the doctrine of the Apostles will (as you know, from whom you learned it ").
2. Tim. 3:14, therefore, to prove the apostolic tradition, because Paul did not read the Bible, but the security doctrine of the apostles teaching merit.

In addition to this, he does not tell Timothy to know which books are in the scriptures, but refers to her as a child learned the lore. In this final text reveals this problem: when a child Timothy New Testament had not yet been written, so Paul speaks of the Jewish scriptures or Old Testament.
If 2 Tim. 3:16-17 therefore prove something to the adequacy of the Bible, it is enough to prove the Old Testament.

Another similar case is John 20:31, which reads: "This has been written, therefore, that you may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that you have when you believe, life should his name's sake.
" If anything, this proves the sufficiency of the Bible, it merely proves the Gospel of John enough.
The same problem applies to all aspects of the Bible, sola scriptura which one could try to make on behalf of: they do not ever talk about the Bible as we know it.

Postulare42

27th January 2010, 05:24 PM

I lean towards what might be stated: "bible est prothoplastus institutio".

miseretur

27th January 2010, 09:52 PM

I lean towards what might be stated: "bible est prothoplastus institutio".

prothoplastus, protoplastus, first-created man (Adam).
This term gomes from Medieval Latin?
used by Orderic Vitalis in his Ecclesiastical History.

I think it means some thing like this, bible are like first born man, means adam.
Like sola scriptura, there is only bible, and there is only man.
requested group points as God created Adam, he created the Bible as a such whole as.
Perhaps in this case may also be some sort of a play on words, considering the word of institution.
This word protoplastus are in medieval genesis textbook (manual) but I dont find it from vulgata.

Postulare42

28th January 2010, 02:54 AM

"bible est nostrum primoris institutio."

The other phrase is a mess. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Time to bring out "Gaul" again, it seems.

miseretur

28th January 2010, 10:20 AM

"bible est nostrum primoris institutio."

The other phrase is a mess. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Time to bring out "Gaul" again, it seems.

noster nostra nostrum : our, ours.
primoris : first, foremost / most distinguished, first.
instituo : to establish, found, institute.
Bible are our foremost institution or foundation...
some thing like that?

Postulare42

28th January 2010, 11:41 AM

miseretur

28th January 2010, 12:47 PM

Actually, "the bible is our first tradition".

I was tempted to use "traditio", but it is not really the cognate it appears to be, in fact meaning "betrayal". In a subtle sense it would have worked, though, suggesting that rendering as much worship to a book as so many do is really a betrayal verging on idolatry. It seemed best to avoid such a strong statement.

Still, traditions can be a betrayal of reality, integrity and truth. Yeshua certainly thought that this was so in some instances.

The problem was that I really wanted to avoid variants of "primo", which connotes more than "first", but also "highest", which is not true.

We surely need more birds in our branches.

Thank you for your information, My Latin studies begin until February, so the Latin in this case showed the skill limitations :)
The Bible can not be the first of a tradition, because the patriarchs had a direct connection to God, without the writings.
But in this case, tradition is perhaps referring to a specific context, or more to the slogan.
During the Patriarchs were appreciated more oral information, as written.
as a man who was told to either trustworthy or not. This was also common in ancient times.
Today we should not understand such a perspective, because it is just the contrary, as it is today. We appreciate the further diversion written in the spoken word.

In this case the tradition of understanding can lead to wrong conclusions.Tradition is not anyone invented a way which is inherited in Bedouin camps.

Crawford2009

28th January 2010, 08:00 PM

I think there's an issue with choosing certain parts of the Old and New Testament we see as acceptable. For example, alot of Christians don't keep kosher yet will use Leviticus as an authority on homosexuality. It's a dangerous ground and one that needs alot of thought.

Postulare42

6th February 2010, 09:53 PM

"Sola Scriptura" cont'd...

None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant

A sobering consideration – and one which is fatal to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura – is that we do not possess a single original manuscript of any book of the Bible. Now it is true that there are thousands of manuscripts extant which are copies of the originals – and more likely than not they are copies of copies – but this fact does not help the Sola Scriptura position for the simple reason that without original manuscripts, one cannot know with certainty if he actually possesses the real Bible, whole and entire. (23) The original autographs may have been inspired, while copies of them are not.

The Protestant may want to assert that not having original Biblical manuscripts is immaterial, as God preserved the Bible by safeguarding its duplication down through the centuries.(24)
However, there are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that by maintaining God’s providence with regard to copying, a person claims something which is not written in Scripture, and therefore, by the very definition of Sola Scriptura, cannot serve as a rule of faith. In other words, if one cannot find passages in the Bible which patently state that God will protect the transmission of manuscripts, then the belief is not to be held. The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no such claim.

The second problem is that if you can maintain that God safeguarded the written transmission of His Word, then you can also rightly maintain that He safeguarded its oral transmission as well (recall 2 Thessalonians 2:14 (15) and the twofold form of God’s one revelation). After all, the preaching of the Gospel began as an oral tradition (cf. Luke 1:1-4 and Rom. 10:17). It was not until later on that some of the oral tradition was committed to writing – becoming Sacred Scripture – and it was later still that these writings were declared to be inspired and authoritative. Once you can maintain that God safeguarded the oral transmission of His teaching, you have demonstrated the basis for "Sacred Tradition" and have already begun supporting not only the Catholic position, but also that of the various Orthodoxies and even Judaism's continued traditions.

to be continued . . .

Postulare42

6th March 2010, 03:44 AM

cont'd....

The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations

It has just been noted that there are thousands of Biblical manuscripts in existence; these manuscripts contain thousands of variations in the text; one writer estimates that there are over 200,000 variations. (25)
Whereas the majority of these deal with minor concerns – such as spelling, word order and the like – there are also variations of a more important nature: a) the manuscript evidence shows that scribes sometimes modified the Biblical texts to harmonize passages, to accommodate them to historical fact, and to establish a doctrinal correctness;(26) and b) there are portions of verses (i.e., more than just a single word in question) for which there are several different manuscript readings, such as John 7:39, Acts 6:8, Colossians 2:2 and 1 Thessalonians 3:2. (27) These facts leave the Protestant in the position of not knowing if he possesses what the Biblical authors originally wrote. And if this is the case, then how can a Protestant profess to base his beliefs solely on the Bible when he cannot determine with certainty the textual authenticity of the Bible? (28)

More importantly, there are several more major textual variations among New Testament manuscripts. The following two examples will illustrate the point:

First, according to the manuscripts that we have, there are four possible endings for Mark’s Gospel: the short ending, which includes verses 1-8 of chapter 16; the longer ending, which includes verses 1-8 plus verses 9-20; the intermediate ending, which includes 2 to 3 lines of text between verse 8 and the longer ending; and the longer ending in expanded form, which includes several verses after verse 14 of the longer ending.(29)The best that can be said about these different endings is that we simply do not know for certain, from the Bible itself, where St. Mark’s Gospel concluded, and, depending on which ending(s) is/are included in a Protestant’s Bible, the publisher runs the risk of either adding verses to or omitting verses from the original text – thus violating the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which requires "the Bible alone and in its entirety" as the basis of faith. Even if a Protestant’s Bible includes all four endings with explanatory comments and/or footnotes, he still cannot be certain which of the four endings is genuine.

Second, there is manuscript evidence for alternate readings in some pivotal verses of the Bible, such as John 1:18, where there are two possible wordings.(30)
Some (such as the King James Version) read along the lines of the Douay-Rheims: "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Either wording is substantiated by manuscript evidence, and you will therefore find Biblical scholars relying on their best educated judgment as to which one is "correct." A similar situation occurs at Acts 20:28, where the manuscript evidence shows that Saint Paul could be referring to either the "church of the Lord" (Greek kuriou) or the "church of God" (Greek theou).(31)

Now this point may seem trivial at first, but suppose you are a Protestant trying to evangelize someone who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. While John 1:18 and Acts 20:28 are clearly not the only passages used in support of the tradition of Yeshua’s divinity, you still may be unable to utilize these verses with that person, depending on which manuscript tradition your Bible follows. That would leave you marginally less able to defend a major biblical doctrine of your sect, and the very nature of this fact becomes quite problematic from the perspective of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

to be continued...

Postulare42

7th March 2010, 03:46 AM

cont'd....

There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.

As mentioned above, there are thousands and thousands of variations in the Biblical manuscripts. This problem is compounded by the fact that history has known hundreds of Bible versions, which vary in translation as well as textual sources. The question which begs to be asked is, "Which version is the correct one?" or "Which version is closest to the original manuscripts?" One possible answer will depend on which side of the Catholic/Protestant issue you situate yourself. Another possible answer will depend upon which scholars you consider to be trustworthy and reputable.

The simple fact is that some versions are clearly inferior to others. Progress in the field of Biblical research made possible by archaeological discoveries (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) has vastly improved our knowledge of the ancient Biblical languages and settings. We know more today about the variables impacting upon Biblical studies than our counterparts of 100, 200, or 1,000 years ago. From this point of view, modern Bible versions may have a certain superiority to older Bible versions. On the other hand, Bibles based on the Latin Vulgate of Saint Jerome (4th century) – in English, this is the RCC's Douay-Rheims – are based on original texts which have since perished, and thus these traditional versions bypass 16 centuries of possible textual corruption. But this still includes Jerome's biases in favor of certain traditions of doctine and interpretation.

This fact causes a considerable problem, because it means that modern students may have in some respects a "better" or more accurate Bible than their forbears, while in other respects they may have a "poorer" or less accurate Bible – which in turn means that the modern readers have either a "more authoritative" final authority or a "less authoritative" final authority than their predecessors. But the existence of degrees of authoritativeness begins to undermine Sola Scirptura, because it would mean that one Bible is not as authentic a final authority as another one. And if it is not as authentic, then the possibility of transmitting erroneous doctrine increases, and the particular Bible version then fails to function as the final authority, since it is not actually final. If we recall that a prime postulate of the Sola Scriptura tradition requires that the Bible be retained inerrant through some special divine action, the self contradictions become increasingly obvious.

Another point to consider is that Bible translators, as human beings, are not completely objective and impartial. Some may be likely to render a given passage in a manner which corresponds more closely with one belief system rather than with another. An example of this tendency can be seen in Protestant Bibles where the Greek word paradoseis occurs. Since Protestants deny the existence of Sacred Tradition, some Protestant translations of the Bible render this word as "teachings" or "customs" rather than "tradition," as the latter would tend to give more weight to the Catholic position; while other citations from among the authentic ancient texts refute the "ex opere operato" assertion fundamental to the Sacred Tradition arguments.

Yet another consideration is the reality that some versions of the Bible are outright perversions of the Biblical texts, as in the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation. Here the "translators" render key passages in a manner which suits their biases.(32) Now unless there is an authority outside of the Bible to declare such translations unreliable and dangerous, by what authority could someone call them unsuited for use in teaching doctrine? If the Protestant responds by saying that this issue can be determined on the basis of Biblical scholarship, then he is ignorant of the fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses also cite sources of Biblical scholarship in support of their translation of these passages! The issue then devolves into a game of pitting one source of scholarship against another ... one human authority against another.

The proponents of Sacred Tradition (RCC, EOC, etc) assert that the problem can only be resolved through the intervention of an infallible teaching authority which speaks on behalf of Christ. To the Catholic, that authority is the Roman Catholic Church and its Magisterium or teaching authority. In an exercise of this authority, Catholic Bishops grant an imprimatur (meaning "Let it be printed") to be included on the opening pages of certain Bible versions and other spiritual literature to alert the reader that the book contains nothing contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles(33), but as has be discussed above, this too is problematic in that it violates certain principles that go back to the earliest authentic documents of the Yeshua movement.

Postulare42

10th March 2010, 09:08 AM

continuing . . .

The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century

Essential to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Holy Spirit will enlighten each believer as to the correct interpretation for a given Bible passage. This idea presupposes that each believer possesses a Bible or at least has access to a Bible. The difficulty with such a presumption is that the Bible was not able to be mass-produced and readily available to individual believers until the advent of the printing press in the 15th Century C.E.(34) Even then, it would have taken quite some time for large numbers of Bibles to be printed and disseminated to the general population.

The predicament caused by this state of affairs is that millions upon millions of Christians who lived prior to the 15th Century would have been left without a final authority, left to flounder spiritually, unless by chance they had access to a hand-copied Bible. Even a mere human understanding of such circumstances would make God out to be quite cruel, as He would have revealed the fullness of His Word to humanity in Christ, knowing that the means by which such information could be made readily available would not exist for another 15 centuries.

On the other hand, we know that God is not cruel at all, but in fact has infinite love for us. It is for this reason that He did not leave us in darkness.

It is the basis of Ecclesiology that He sent us His Son to teach us the way we should believe and act, and this Son established a Church to promote those teachings through preaching to both the learned and the illiterate. It has long been maintained that it is this preaching which eliminates the need for private ownership of the canon. Also in this view, Christ also gave to His Church His guarantee that He would always be with it, never allowing it to fall into error, apparently through semi-democratic councils of dubious representaion. By this means, it is asserted, God, did not abandon His people and make them rely upon the invention of the printing press to be the means whereby they would come to a saving knowledge of His Son. Instead, according to the traditiolists, He gave us divinely-established, infallible teachers, purportedly guided and inspired by the holy spirit of truth despite their calumnies, to provide us with the means to be informed of the Good News of the Gospel – and to be informed correctly. From this, you can begin to see the positions of the RCC and the EOC, as well as that of all for whom tradition and the idea of Apostolic Succession are a comfort.

There is, however another litmus test and another perspective on what Yeshua meant when he is recorded as speaking of a "church" to his close disciples. But this can be addessed in another thread.

To be continued...

Postulare42

11th March 2010, 04:03 AM

continuing...

The Tradition of Sola Scriptura (per se) Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.

As difficult a reality as it may be for some to face, this foundational tradition of Protestantism did not originate in it's fullblown Christian form until the 14th Century (though the seeds for it were sown in the 2nd Century, which were taken from a Judaic form refuted by Yeshua) and did not become widespread until the 16th century – a far, far cry time-wise from the teachings of Yeshua and His Apostles. This simple fact is conveniently overlooked or ignored by Protestants, but it can stand alone as sufficient reason to discard the tradition of Sola Scriptura. The truth that the tradition of Sola Scriptura did not exist before John Wycliffe (forerunner of Protestantism) in the 14th Century, and did not become widespread until Martin Luther came along in the 16th Century and began setting up his own "traditions of men" in place of "authentic" Christendom's traditions. According to the RCC, and the EOC severally, this tradition, not only lacks the historical continuity which marks legitimate Apostolic teaching, but it actually represents an abrupt change, a radical break with the Christian past. What we see are duelling traditions.

Protestants will assert that the Bible itself teaches Sola Scriptura and therefore that the tradition had its roots back with Yeshua. However, as we have seen above, the Bible teaches no such thing. The claim that the Bible teaches this doctrine is nothing more than a repeated effort to retroject this belief back into the pages of the records. Further, as has been shown elsewhere, the accounts record instances where Yeshua actually gave cases which invalidate the Judaic form of Sola Scriptura from which Christendom's variant has it's root . . . one aspect of the "leaven of the Pharisees". Also, a critical examination of historical continuity (or lack thereof) provides an indication whether or not a particular belief originated with Yeshua and the Apostles or whether it appeared somewhere much later in time. The fact is that apart from Yeshua's refutation of the Judaic variant, and the early politically motivated conflicts by the proponents of canonicity, the historical record appears utterly silent on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (per se) prior to the 14th Century.

to be continued...

Aurian555

12th October 2011, 11:32 PM

Everywhere one looks, abomination has been normalized. It began very subtly, almost innocently, with hidden messages and agendas in television shows, books, and movies, even masked as humor by comedians (if you can make something funny, it is no longer as offensive). Christian groups tried to protest, but the media branded them, in movies and shows, ignorant, hypocritical, and mean-spirited (which at times the faithful can be and thereby fall into the hands of their enemies). 

In example: I remember watching a show called, "Harper Valley PTA," as a kid. It seemed innocent enough, but now I see with older eyes, that even this silly movie, had a serious agenda... The normalization of divorce, out of wedlock pregnancy, and fornication, as well as the demonization of conservative moral values and the religious. 

Over and over in the media, the religious are portrayed badly, and the wicked are portrayed as cool or kind or sweet or sympathetic characters, until all becomes grey, or even reversed... good as become bad and bad has become good. Here in America, about a year ago, college students in Texas were offering pornography in exchange for Bibles and any religous books. 

We see very clearly that Babylon is riding the back of the Beast, and soon she must fall and be torn to pieces by the Beast. Spiritual and Literal Promiscuity abound, liberalistic/secular/humanist values march forward, and yet in response the other extreme rages and will eventually plunge us into global fascism (imo). 


7 You, LORD, will keep the needy safe
and will protect us forever from the wicked,
8 who freely strut about
when what is vile is honored by the human race.

Psalm 12:7-8

3 When the foundations are being destroyed,
what can the righteous do?”

Psalm 11:3

Danage

13th October 2011, 09:54 PM

Aurian555

13th October 2011, 11:16 PM

How very true are those words. Nicely put. :) Although it isn't good at all how liberal society in general has become. :(

Arian Catholic view of prophecy?

MY THOUGHTS:
I like what I saw on the website to be sure--but I don't see very many people being willing to consider that 666 might = www, even if it were true.

I am disturbed by the convergence of technologies designed to track, control and communicate with the people:

1) Verichip (The implantation of microchips into the flesh)

2) Eye & Print Scanners

3) Smart Cards (One Card with all your info on it)

4) Cameras Everywhere

5) Carnivore (A FBI program that constantly searches for key words being spoken on phones or written in emails or websites)

6) The Beast (European Union computer similar to Carnivore)

7) Virtual Reality Tech (false/illusory worlds in cyberspace)

The Internet: Like Babylon, a crossroads of commerce and banking (almost all commerce is electronic or connected to the grid or recorded therein) and a depository of all human knowledge. Since the rise of the internet, the moral standards of the West and the World have fallen into the toilet, and with it has come the birth of a million cults and occult sects. In Greek, 666 can also be expressed as XES, and perhaps this is a message sent down to a time when English would be the dominant global language... Words can appear backwards in dreams. Moreover, XES (Sex Reversed) is exactly what the internet and the liberal establishment is promoting and pushing on everyone---homosexuality is sexuality reversed.

The World Wide Mind: The next step in the evolution of the internet, which combines virtual reality, with implants of chips/electrodes into the brain and body, linking the brain and body to the internet and technology. This will create a global collective mind, linking brain to brain, via the www (digamma-digamma-digamma, waw-waw-waw).

A system of control has and is being created... Extreme liberalism is creating a backlash, giving power to an extreme conservatism, which despises the poor and the weak, and has elements of a Fascist Movement that demonizes the downtrodden and the meek (and anyone who is not a Born Again Evangelical Christian).

HERMAN CAIN (As a footnote for contemplation):

Her Man The Murderer
9-9-9 Plan (hmmmm)

Danage

13th October 2011, 11:31 PM

Arian Catholic view of prophecy?

I don't know, but I'm guessing their eschatology is futurist, which I disagree with, while some of the other prophecies are literal or metaphorical according to their context and meaning. The idea of literal vs. metaphorical is a very Qara'i way of thinking.

Aurian555

14th October 2011, 11:21 PM

I don't know, but I'm guessing their eschatology is futurist, which I disagree with, while some of the other prophecies are literal or metaphorical according to their context and meaning. The idea of literal vs. metaphorical is a very Qara'i way of thinking.

Could something be both, in part? I find that balance seems to be the truth, between the extremes. Perhaps some aspects of prophecy are literal, some are symbolic/metaphoric, some can only be understood historically and cultural context, etc...

Peace Brother

Aurian555

14th October 2011, 11:31 PM

One might see prophecy as being fulfilled over and over again.

Some theologians argue that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in Nero's time, and was encouragement for early Christians. Others believe it has not yet been fulfilled... Could it be both? Could it be fulfilled again and again, in different forms but always the same archetypes or similar patterns, from generation to generation?

If one examines near death experiences, it seems to be a very "rapture" like experience--that is to say, that people often see Jesus coming for them in the sky, or waiting for them at the end of the upwardly directed tunnel, and it is a feeling of ecstasy and awe.

Perhaps the 2nd Coming, the Great Tribulation, the Beast, Babylon, the 2nd Beast, the three toads, and the Dragon are reinvented or reinventing themselves over and over, era to era, generation to generation. Just a thought, not a conclusion (philosophers ponder ways to remove God from the picture, theologists try to figure out where God fits into everything).
(
There is a hell, but we put ourselves in it by our choices... Turn from the darkness and seek the Light of Yahweh in the way of Yeshua!

Just a thought

Danage

15th October 2011, 10:38 AM

One might see prophecy as being fulfilled over and over again.

I agree entirely. I think I base that belief on Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Some theologians argue that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in Nero's time, and was encouragement for early Christians. Others believe it has not yet been fulfilled... Could it be both? Could it be fulfilled again and again, in different forms but always the same archetypes or similar patterns, from generation to generation?

Sounds like Preterism (Nero is Antichrist) mixed with Futurism (Antichrist is yet future), or just plain Idealism (whereby each generation goes through the entirety of Revelation, if I remember correctly).

If one examines near death experiences, it seems to be a very "rapture" like experience--that is to say, that people often see Jesus coming for them in the sky, or waiting for them at the end of the upwardly directed tunnel, and it is a feeling of ecstasy and awe.

I personally don't believe in a 'rapture', but I can see where people are coming from. I think the word 'rapture' is derived from a Greek word in a proof text for the 'rapture'.

Perhaps the 2nd Coming, the Great Tribulation, the Beast, Babylon, the 2nd Beast, the three toads, and the Dragon are reinvented or reinventing themselves over and over, era to era, generation to generation. Just a thought, not a conclusion (philosophers ponder ways to remove God from the picture, theologists try to figure out where God fits into everything).

That's Idealism, whereby prophecy is repeated again, and again throughout the generations.

(
There is a hell, but we put ourselves in it by our choices... Turn from the darkness and seek the Light of Yahweh in the way of Yeshua!

Just a thought

Hell sounds, in the traditional sense, to be the action of a God Who does not love us. To me, hell is annihilation from God's universe, but that's just my belief.