The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

You got mail.

BigMack

[the808bass]

If it weren't for a few minor theological differences

The devil is in the details... :-)

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Is there such a thing as a 'Baptist mystic'?

On the SBC side they are.

Or are IFBBs more focused on scripture and doctrine than on the experiential side of religion?

Book chapter and verse, but were not cold.

My uninformed take is that Baptists are more interested in right belief than in 'spirituality'. But then again there are many flavors of mysticism.

The IFBBs are very interested in a right belief and seek it out, no mysticism just the facts.

In what way do Baptists encounter the Presence of the Living God?

Thru faith in Jesus Christ, resulting in a changed life, and that done thru the power of Jesus Christ, not ourselfs, I've had Christ change things in me that only a true God could change, I really tried for years and could not over come some things in my life, untill I gave up (pride and all, and that ain't easy bud) and turned them over to Christ and He made the change. Thats why I love Him, He became real to me when I could not help myself and he did. Hes the best friend I ever had. :)

BigMack

[IMRight]

Sigh.

I hope my kids don't try this when they get older.

If you had said "The Rams won the superbowl because they have the better offense" you would be wrong. When it is proven to you that, in fact, the Pats won the game, you could then come back and claim victory by saying that nobody could prove that you were wrong about the "better offense" point. But everyone here would know that you were wrong and you would just be making yourself look foolish.

You are doing precisely the same thing despite multiple posts from people who do not agree with the RCC on very much. You point was not that "tokos" meant "usury" it was :

Per Strong's Concordance Greek Dictionary P72:

"Theoteko" means "God + bearer".[#5088] "Theotokos" means "God + usury" [#5110]

You get no points for showing that Strong's says something that nobody has denied it says. Just like you get no points for now proving that the Rams have the better offense. They (and you) lost anyway. Strongs does not say "'Theotokos' means 'God + usury'" does it?

But I didn't make up the word or the definition. It comes from a most reliable source: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance -- not from the imagination station or thin air.

Ah. But that's precisely what you did do. You didn't make up the definition for "tokos", but you did make up a definition for "theotokos".

Now you can stand in the casino yelling at the top of your lungs "but the Rams do have the better offense! I was right! It says it right here in 'Lindy's Guide'! Why is everybody so stupid?"

But you still won't be able to cash in your bet... because you lost.

Angelo - Thanks for the earlier post (the link you gave him may be lost in the renumbering problem here, but he may be able to figure it out. I apologize for the "casino" reference to this thread. By the time I realized where the post lead I didn't want to retype the whole thing.

[Woodkirk]

Oh, I apologize. I forgot about your special assignment to find evidence that Peter was in Rome == sort of a Council of Freerepublic to try to put those bones of his to rest.

I understand that the Vatican is very excited about this issue being opened up after all those assumptions, decretals, and ex cathedras. I hear that the fabricators are working overtime to come up with something new of something old -- perhaps a MasterCharge slip at a local hotel, a picture of he and Mark outside the Coliseum, testimonies of those who saw Peter on papyrus even.

Perhaps those "preserved footprints of Peter from the Appian Way" that we saw in grade school until one second grader noticed the slight imprint of the word "Michelin" in it. I always liked those.

And perhaps you could find out how big Peter was. He must have been a giant , what with all those bones. How could one man have so many bones and how could his bones be buried in so many places in Rome?

You certainly have work ahead of you. I wish you the best.

[Fury]

Oh, I apologize. I forgot about your special assignment to find evidence that Peter was in Rome == sort of a Council of Freerepublic to try to put those bones of his to rest.

I understand that the Vatican is very excited about this issue being opened up after all those assumptions, decretals, and ex cathedras. I hear that the fabricators are working overtime to come up with something new of something old -- perhaps a MasterCharge slip at a local hotel, a picture of he and Mark outside the Coliseum, testimonies of those who saw Peter on papyrus even.

Perhaps those "preserved footprints of Peter from the Appian Way" that we saw in grade school until one second grader noticed the slight imprint of the word "Michelin" in it. I always liked those.

And perhaps you could find out how big Peter was. He must have been a giant , what with all those bones. How could one man have so many bones and how could his bones be buried in so many places in Rome?

You certainly have work ahead of you. I wish you the best.

Guess what? You're rude and mocking. And this is not the first time, eh? If someone brings up a point that do not have an answer based in FLR+F, you ignore them, and eventually, you will make trite comments about their faith - usually, it's only about the Roman Catholics.

You stated in a previous message that you had years of experience in research. Now take those years of experience as a person - act try to act mature.

[Fury]

You get no points for showing that Strong's says something that nobody has denied it says. Just like you get no points for now proving that the Rams have the better offense. They (and you) lost anyway. Strongs does not say "'Theotokos' means 'God + usury'" does it?

I believe Woodkirk knows what Theotokos means and is just trying to do whatever Woodkirk is trying to do. Thanks for you (and others) statements on this.

[trad_anglican]

First of all Paul says himself that by laying his hands on Timothy he was stirring up a gift.

I disagree. Look at verse 6 again:

Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands

Note thou stir up. Paul is not saying the gift was stirred up by the putting on of his hands. Paul is telling Timothy to stir up the gift that is in you by the putting on of my hands

The gift got there by the putting on of hands. Now that may sound like a work to some people, but I don't see how the verse can be interpreted any other way. It is, I believe, a reference to the sacrament of Holy Orders. A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. The outward sign is the putting on of hands and the saying of words. The inward grace is the grace to perform the office of (in this case) a bishop.

The office and the grace to perform it are conferred together. Here is what is said in my church when a bishop is consecrated (or made a bishop):

RECEIVE the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is given thee by this Imposition of our hands; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness.

In my mind there is no separation of the office and the spiritual gift.

[DouglasKC]

Those living at the time of the rapture will also be given their immortal, resurrected bodies. In the rapture the Jesus will not set foot on earth but will rather call us up to Himself in the clouds to meet Him there. This is contrasted with His second coming when He will set foot on earth at the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem at the battle of Armageddon. At that time everyone saved and lost will see Him return. However at the rapture only blood bought Spirit reborn Christians will see the Lord Jesus Christ. We clearly have two separate events 1) The rapture when Jesus meets the Church in the air and takes them to heaven and 2) The Second Coming which occurs at the climax of the battle of Armageddon. Here The Lord Jesus comes back to earth at the mount of Olives in Jerusalem and sets up His Kingdom.

I would disagree that these are two seperate events. Notice when this event takes place:

1Co 15:52 in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.

It takes place at the "last trumpet". This seems to correspond to the seventh angel sounding the last trumpet in Revelation:

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded. And there were great voices in Heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ. And He will reign forever and ever.

The great voices proclaiming God's kingdom also correspond nicely with:

1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first.

Reading the rest of Revelation chapter 11 seems to make it clear that this is the time that Christ is returning to the earth.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

In my mind there is no separation of the office and the spiritual gift.

Its scriptural that Christians can lay their hands on anyone and pray that God would stir up the gift inside them. Its scriptural that any believer can possess one, some, or all of the gifts of the Spirit. Its scriptural that Paul was preparing Timothy for duties in some kind of office. However, the scripture is not at all clear in II Timothy that Paul's laying on of hands is a ceremony making Timothy a bishop. That is something you choose to read into it.

[Woodkirk]

How do you know what the other words in that sentence mean? How did you come up with their meanings without a context? By your philosophy without a context a Greek word has no meaning.

How can there be Greek dictionaries in the world? How can they do that -- what being out of context and all of that? Do the meanings of the words determine the meaning of a sentence or not? Without the meaning of words, you can never find the context .

How did Webster's Dictionary come up with the meaning of the words: "philososophy and theosophy". Did they lift those word meanings out of context?. How can they say that those words mean anything without a context?

What makes you think that "tokos" shouldn't be interpreted in that passage to mean "gold , silver, drachmas, shekels, stocks, bonds, mammon, trees, houses, grapes, or anything else? Be honest, did you not look the word up in a Strong's or other Concordance to verify?

If Webster's lists "philosophy" as coming from the Greek meaning literally "love of wisdom", and "theosophy" as "god of wisdom", how can you disagree with "theotokos" as meaning literally "god of usury or god of interest on money loaned", since you finally admit that "tokos" means "usury ...". ?

"Theotokos" means literally "God of usury, or God of interest on money loaned" or by extension "God of moneylenders or moneychangers" -- and which one of those three meanings a person chooses depends on the context?

Thank you for your philosophy. .

[DouglasKC]

2) we shall all be changed. This literally means we shall be transformed. All born again, blood bought Christians will be given a new body. It will be a body of flesh and bones...a heavenly body just like the Lord Jesus had after His resurrection.

This would seem to contradict scripture. While I don't doubt that some will get bodies of flesh and blood, believers certainly will not:

1Co 15:50 And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

I believe that the bodies we get are spiritual, but we will be capable of manifesting as flesh and bone as Christ did, but Christ also was able to materialize inside closed rooms (John 20:19), apparently alter his appearance (John 20:14), and to appear to Paul on the road to Damascus as a spiritual being.

[trad_anglican]

Its scriptural that Christians can lay their hands on anyone and pray that God would stir up the gift inside them.

But that's not what this particular verse is talking about. In this specific verse that we're discussing, the gift was imparted by the laying on of hands. That is the clear reading of this verse. You may disagree with me that Paul is referring to Timothy's ordination, but do you disagree that Paul is clearly stating that the gift was imparted by the laying on of hands? If so, what do you believe "which is in thee by the putting on of my hands" means?

[trad_anglican]

Its scriptural that Paul was preparing Timothy for duties in some kind of office.

What kind of office do you think it was?

[IMRight]

Oh this is fun. You seem to be doing a better job of making a fool of yourself than if you just disappeared on the subject. Could you rephrase that whole post? I'd love to see more of your "thoughts" on the subject.

But please do clarify one thing for us. When the RCC went out to pick a Greek term to mean "God bearer" (like Christopher means "Christ bearer" perhaps), did they just pick the wrong words? Or is it your claim that the church worships mammon and is hidding it from everyone by mixing it up with Mary?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

But that's not what this particular verse is talking about. In this specific verse that we're discussing, the gift was imparted by the laying on of hands. That is the clear reading of this verse.

Ok here's the entire verse in question. It begins with "Wherefore I put thee in rememberance". I doubt what is being said is "I now remind you that you are a bishop". He is laying his hands on Timothy to remind him to stir up a gift he possesses. Why would he have to be reminded to stir up a recollection that he is a bishop? Here it is:

II Timothy 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

[DouglasKC]

But that's not what this particular verse is talking about. In this specific verse that we're discussing, the gift was imparted by the laying on of hands. That is the clear reading of this verse. You may disagree with me that Paul is referring to Timothy's ordination, but do you disagree that Paul is clearly stating that the gift was imparted by the laying on of hands? If so, what do you believe "which is in thee by the putting on of my hands" means?

Isn't the "gift" the Holy Spirit? Reading the scriptures, the Holy Spirit only comes upon one after baptism and the laying on of hands:

Act 8:15 who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
Act 8:16 For as yet He had not fallen on any of them, they were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,

Or:

Act 19:5 And hearing, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

With that in mind, then:

1 Tim 4:14 Do not neglect the gift in you, which was given you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the body of elders.

This verse only seems to mean that the Holy spirit was given to Timothy and that he was to stir it up, not neglect it, as everyone who receives it should.

[IMRight]

Oh. And are you the first person to "discover" this error? Can you post any supporting claims from any other "scholars" on the subject.

[Wordsmith]

No, each individual believer must read the scriptures and test those who are teaching if they are following those scriptures.

If this is true, why isn't recorded in Scripture that Christ commanded his Apostles and followers to teach people how to read? If its true that "each individual believer must read the scriptures" does this mean that illiterate people can never be believers?

[al_c]

I seldom have more that four or five drinks in a year

Bad Catholic ... bad!!! You should drink much more than that! ;o) just kidding, folks!