Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Forest Keeper, I love that, I believe that, I live that. Thank you for stating it so beautifully.
No, but I have made sure that they are aware of how many millions of children their age actually live in this world. In addition, when I discipline they are trained to know that if I get any lip that I will double it or worse. That is partly intended to show them to be grateful that they are only losing some, not all. I am a huge believer in the correct perspective on approaching life.
Your children are blessed because of your perspective on life. If they don't know that now....they will.
.....Ping
Happy to help.
I’m pleased that we’re finding more common ground as we go on.
So, how can you reject that which you know nothing about? Do you even know whence came the Bible you so fervently believe in? It didn't come down, like manna, from the sky. Where do you get the authority to interpret what God says? The Bible? From a book that the Church (which you deny) put together for you?
But the spirit of the law is in the interpretation and this is where the trillion dollar question comes is: whose interpretation? Clearly speeding over the speed limit is against the law, even if it is one mile per hour if it is "just because." Clearly speeding in order to get a pregnant woman about to have a baby to the hospital on time is not condemnable because of "mitigating circumstances."
Christ's correction of the Pharisaical view was that the law is applied against the intent of an offence, and not against the act itself.
Throwing myself on a grenade to save my buddies is suicide by the letter of the law, but it is obviously not sinful by what Jesus said
People who throw themselves on the grenade don't do it with the intent to commit suicide, but to save others. Their resulting death is not the intended target of the act. I hope they do that hoping (even if the chance is remote) that somehow they will survive and save their buddies' lives. Those who commit suicide do so with the intent of killing themselves.
Is this another "lawyer question"? The synonym of to rest is stop, halt, standstill. Certainly it does not mean woodworking! Pleasure doesn't even come into the sabbath equation. That is an entirely personal innovation to treat the Lord's Day as one's personal day, a time we devote to us and not to God.
Think about it: if we say we love God with all our heart, mind and soul, and we pursue personal pleasure activities on His day, what message does that send? Out of, say 16 hours of waking time, we devote 1 hour to God in church and 15 hours on us, we can safely say that a Sunday is 93.75% our day and 6.25% the Lord's Day in our book. Pretty telling, isn't it?
In the Law, Israel was to do two things on sabbath; stay in their tents and feast. The priests were to offer the sacrifices. I could not find in the Law where Israel was to come to the tabernacle or the temple for bible study or worship. Perhaps you have a reference.
That is a very illustrative point.
I do know however, several Bears fans here that are religious in their observance of Sunday football.
From the Greek Archdiocese of America (emphasis added):
[T]he Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
In this sense, we can understand possible imperfections in the books of the Bible, since they are the result of the cooperation between the all-perfect and perfecting Divine Author, the Spirit, and the imperfect human author. Biblical textual criticism is completely normal and acceptable by the Orthodox, since they see the Bible in this light. Nothing human is perfect, including the Bible, which is the end product of human cooperation with the divine Spirit
If you mix clean clothes with soiled linen, you don't end up with clean linen, but with soiled clothes. That which is pristine, when mixed with the corrupt, itself becomes corrupt.
The Gospels represent direct quotes (although in ancient times even the practice of "quoting" did not follow modern rules; instead, writers would paraphrase what they heard or read as best as they could recollect or as they believed the person they "quote" would have said it!). So, while the Gospels are as close to direct quotes of God, their synergism (discarding plagiarism, which we do on an assumption more than fact) shows that they are the words spoken by Christ.
Our only corroborative authority is the written history of the Church practices and beliefs from as far back as posisble (Apostolic Fathers, +Ignatius, +Polycarp, etc.), and the earliest liturgical traditions (Didache, St. Justin Martyr, Liturgy of St. james [the Just]), etc. They are circumstantial evidence that what the Church believed and taught and practiced then si what it teaches, belies and practices today, which corroborate the Bible, collectivel called the Holy Tradition. Even that evidence is not always genuine as some writings of +Ingantius are known forgeries.
This places everything before and after the Gospels' time frame (Christ's minister on earth) on a different plane, because prophesies and visions cannot be distinguished from fantasy and hallucinations, FK.
You say that Mary was without sin. Wouldn't that make her God under this view?
This is the heart of Orthodox disagreement with Catholics regarding BEV Mary. She remained pure by following God, and not of her own. Is she was created unlike any one of us (Immaculate Conception) then her ability to resist sin was in her nature and not because she syngercistically cooperated with God's will in perfect obedience.
That doesn't follow. The Bible is FROM God THEREFORE it has no errors
Now, we know that not everyone who got hold of the Bible and made little changes was inspired. Like I said, the very fact that we add commas is corrupting, since different locations of commas affect the meaning of the verses, we cannot claim inerrency. Additions of vowels have a potentially even greater effect. Thus, it is naïve to treat the existing copies of the Bible as some pristine work of God.
We really don't know what is genuine and what was added in time through written or even verbal corruption. For instance, we know that Comma Johanneum and Pericope Adulterae were added to the NT. We also know that the Gospel of Mark has an addition of some 10 verses at the very end. Clearly, people were fashioning the Bible according to their own taste and agenda. We also know that various authors change style, language, vocabulary and even the nature of their writings. This is true of OT and NT authors. We also know that most of the books in the Bible are anonymous, yet they are ascribed with "certainty" to specific authors. We also know that some events in the Bible do not match the geography and history, etc. etc, etc.
But, there is always the option of sticking one's head into the sand and pretending the sun doesn't shine.
Taken from Ps. 40:7 and taught in Heb.10:7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God."
This is where we find Him Kosta, as He told us, In The Book. (It is written - Have you read - I have foretold you)
So, when you say that He said, "teach all nations..." do you believe by that that we should not read His Word too? His Word is the foundation of His teaching.
In fact, the Church did exactly that, for 30-60 years after Christ, without the New Testament, by word of mouth, and ever since then, and always in the true tradition of the Gospels
"without the New Testament" - Yes, but they had the Old Testament, that was the Book He referred to when He said, "I come in the volume of the Book".
We can be taught by our teachers, churches, etc. and if we can't read or study on our own that would have to be enough. But....We can read, we can study, we can compare what we are taught with what He said. It is written for us to do that.
I've pointed out a few places on this thread where some things are written but not taught. These aren't minor teachings, little inconsequential matters, to be ignored. If I am wrong in what I believe they clearly tell us, the 3 ages of earth, what really happened in the garden, etc., then why are they written? What can they mean if not what I believe they teach us?
That's right, because the Jews expected Messiah to be a mortal man.
That isn't why He said to "follow no man".
We know where the authority of our bishops comes from. It's in the Bible. But where does the authority of self-styles Protestant pastors and individuals come from? I don't see it in the Bible.
Kosta, this is becoming a battle on different religions and I don't want to go there. As I told MarkBsnr, I don't know enough about religion to enter a conversation about them, nor do I want to. My points are not based on who teaches, or doesn't teach but rather on what is written.
........Ping
Agreed, the Western church has been guilty of a non-Trinitarian approach to things at times and in places. Each of our churches has been imperfect in some regard or another, and even when we honour the Trinity with our mouths, we sometimes do not honour Him fully with our hearts. The work of the Holy Spirit in particular come to mind.
The triple baptism though, as your texts clearly show, are a human tradition. Scripturally, we are not told that Christ/God/Spirit requires it.
“You were conducted to a bath just as Christ was carried to the grave and were thrice immersed to signify the three days of His burial.” (Clement of Alexandria)
Note the word ‘signify’. We should be careful to separate those things which are tradition (even beneficial tradition), and those things which are for salvation.
The tradition is a lovely one, and many ‘Western’ churches use it as well... it is not however a requirement for salvation.
Christ's own revelation witnessed in the Gospels shows us that God does not order slaughters, that the Hebrew prophets did not receive full revelation, and that God's Justice is not human justice.
and given the greatest likelihood that all of those OT children would have grown up to oppose the one true God, then God DID actually show them mercy by killing them
If this is what Protestants believe, then we do not believe in the same God, FK. God, revealed fully in Christ, does not order or perform mercy killings of children.
There are plenty of examples. Here are some showing legal personhood in God's eyes, thus making it wrong to kill the unborn
There are many more examples of permissive cruelty ascribed to God in the OT than examples that would teach against aboriton, FK. Abortion was unknown. Obviously, killing memebrs of non-Hebrew tribes, whether they were born or unborn, was not considered murder but "righteous."
I think all of these go to show how God views an unborn baby. He or she exists as a person at conception, at which time all the OT rules against the murder of innocent life would apply
Except when God orders genocide against Canaanites and others in the OT, even smashing their babies against rocks, all of which—according to your earlier statements—are acts of "mercy" to "save" their souls. I mean, this is about as weird as I have seen some posters propose that Cain was conceived by Eve having sex with the serpent. It's dark, FK, it's really dark.
I'm not trying to reject it or deny it. I'm trying my best to not discuss it. The "church" may have put it together but they didn't write it. The Catholics didn't write it - the Protestants didn't write it. God did.
I am trying to discuss what is contained in that Book, not who did or did not teach it.
Where do you get the authority to interpret what God says?
What you call authority I call my understanding of what I read. If you disagree with it please let me know what you, or your church, believe those scriptues could possibly mean.
Kosta, I'm trying my best to steer completly clear of any type of discussion on churches. One, as I have said, I don't know enough about the different doctrines but I do have my opinions on some of them. That is all it would be, my opinion and those opinions could possible offend some. The scriptures I have quoted are not my opinion. They are written and therefore need to be discussed.
So, when you form your religious opinions based on English translation you are reading "I baptize you..." which doesn't even describe what that means, let alone the manner of such act.
And Greek reads the same passage and sees "I immerse you repeatedly ... " and the two of you do not read one and the same thing. And that carries a completely different meaning. This is also an excellent example of how one's theology cannot be formed properly by simply reading any version of the Bible because all translations are corrupt. Thus, to a Protestant who makes up his or her own rules based on reading some Bible, there is nothing wrong with just immersing once. In fact, more than once becomes a 'tradition of men' quite erroneously based on erroneous reading. Once the error is set, errors proliferate.
Now, I will agree that thrice is probably a tradition that the Church adopted as the meaning of baptiso based on the trinitarian concepts, God's three days of burial before resurrection, etc. quite in line with Gospels' witness and not as something arbitrary or, worse, as a result of misunderstanding.
Kosta,
There is a part your missing. There is no prohibition against killing *anywhere* in the bible but there is one against murder. God being holy and man being by nature sinful from conception means God has the absolute right to kill us, even here as I sit. Man does not...
First, He provided the inspiration and they wrote it in their own words. That's different from God "wrote" it. Second, the Bible, as it was written had no punctuation marks. the fact that we have commas and semicolons inserted at various places (by uninspired editors) corrupts the original (which we don't have) and puts in question the veracity of their choices.
The addition of vowels in the Hebrew text represents human corruption as different 'words" without vowels can be turned into a variety of unrelated words, the choice of vowels then becomes a human choice and none of the rabbis as far as I know were inspired.
Take for instance the vowel less 'word" shp. Add some vowels and see what happens: ship, shap, shop, etc...Hebrew is especially subject to many more word choices because it is a vowelless written language.
Other evidence of corruption is abundant. research Comma Johanneum for example (in 1 John), and Periciope Adulterae in the Gospel of John, or the addition of the last 10-plus verses at the end of the Gospel of Mark and you get the picture...
There is nothing pristine about the Bible.
God is Life. He gives life. Those who parish do so not because God kills them but because they do what God is not. God came on earth to save us, not to destroy us. But that becomes obvious in the Gospels, not in the OT.
It's the same reference that says it's okay to do woodworking because it's fun.
I didn't know feasts were part of the sabbath observance. And if they were, they were devoted to God, not hobbies.
The entire Bible was written by men. There were a great number of books, but the 72 books chosen to make up the entire Bible were chosen by the Church.
The writings were judged to be inspired by the Church; the Church was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But just as individuals nowadays invariably wander into error, so did many of the Church Fathers. And the Church as an institution made the correct judgements.
That is why the Bible tells us not to privately interpret it. Because, being human, we will inevitably err.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.