Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Pure speculation. I could say the same in reverse when people try to rationalize any discrepancy just to prove what they already believe.
If Christ did not know the exact timing, then He is not omniscient and is not God
Christ never says "I am God." He does say that the knowledge of when Israel shall be restored is known but to the Father. He also, elsewhere, hints that the generation shall not pass before His return and that many of those who are living as he speaks shall not taste death before His return. So, in a way He is hinting that it is within a lifetime of some of His disciples, but He doesn't specify the date.
It obviously must be interpreted otherwise, such as from His human nature.
He had no problems knowing other things prophetically in His human nature. The Bible says, He had two natures and two wills, not two minds.
Jesus as man did things like pray to the Father
If you think about it, Jesus as man would also be praying to Himself, being God. You do admit that He knew He is God, or do you think Jesus the Man was unaware of that?
Assuming He knew, then in His human nature, He would rightly worship Himself as well as the Father, and the Holy Spirit. But He doesn't. Neither do the Apostles until the very end (Mat 28:17), and then only some. So, even His Apostles (the 11 remaining) doubted His divinity at the moment of the Great Commission (maybe that's why we don't have the writings of all eleven!).
To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance in the entire New Testament where the Apostles actually pray to Jesus! Even +John, who explicitly, unlike the rest, calls Him God, doesn't pray to the Resurrected Christ.
For someone who spends as much time as you do criticizing scripture as being mostly allegory (and therefore factually false), you sure also spend a lot of time taking everything literally when you want to prove theological inconsistencies in scripture
At least I read simple sentences literally. I read the story of Jonah living in the belly of a fish for three days allegorically. With Protestants, it seems just the reverse.
is OBVIOUSLY not asking for the Father to transform our essence into His own. He is asking that believers become one in the purity of faith, seeking to do God's work, all having full devotion to God, etc
Then He is not speaking in His human nature, as you claim, since human nature (essence) cannot be "one" with the divine nature of the Father.
And if He is speaking in His divine nature, than His saying that "the Father is greater than I" has unbelievable ramification!
You mean, that's how it reads from Greek as translated by someone you like.
No, that's how the original text was written; no punctuation marks. And the word "morphi" means "form," not "nature," as your NIV version says.
Most Christians, IMO, see Christ as God throughout the scriptures
And that makes it "right" by fiat? We need proof, not just mutual agreement. Patting ourselves on the back does not constitute proof, FK.
By your logic, when we establish that the vast majority of Jews and Muslims don't see Christ as God throughout the scriptures means they are right? Popular consensus is not a proof that something is factually true or untrue.
Yes, indeed. +Thomas Aquinas explains this very, very well!
Yes, they sure did miss Him. Should that tell us that the OT is wrong or that they are wrong? I don't think we can measure the truth of something by how many people DON'T get it. The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms that NO ONE will get any of it unless he has been given eyes to see and ears to hear by God.
The Gospels reveal God that we can grasp and see. It is more than God who covered Himself with flesh; it's something completely unexpected, unprecedented: it is God actually becoming flesh, lowering Himself, out of love for mankind, to our level and suffering and dying for our sins.
Yes, and the OT tells us about this:
Isa 52:13-53:12 : 13 See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. 14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him — his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness — 15 so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see,and what they have not heard, they will understand.
Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days,and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
IMO this OT passage perfectly describes what you are talking about. (And as an aside, note verse 10! :)
The truths of the Gospels, as a narrative of Jesus' ministry, holds true with or without the OT. Otherwise, Christ's work is insufficient. The Gospels by themselves are sufficient for Christianity, but the other books in the NT and those in the OT put it in perspective.
Ah, but since hundreds of millions of Christians read the Gospels very faithfully and see no need for the rulership of the Orthodox Church in them, then I suppose that your Church would be unneeded for Christianity, like the OT? :)
“...the rulership of the Orthodox Church....”
The what??????????????
Thank you for clarifying that. If that's what your side believes, then we are on the same sheet of music. :)
You're welcome, and that is good news. :) I would like to add that I think my side has been very consistent in preaching Christ crucified as the sole means of justification, and that since we believe the OT God is exactly the same as the NT God we believe the rules for salvation do not change from the OT to the NT. And, that is regardless of what the Jews or anyone else thought then, or think now.
But we can measure the truth by how many people claim they get something? Every sect and cult can (and does) use your argument, fallaciously I might add.
The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms that NO ONE will get any of it unless he has been given eyes to see and ears to hear by God
Again, an open argument for anyone to use. Everyone claims to have the "right" eyes and ears and inner knowledge (gnosis) others can't see or hear.
Isa 52:13-53:12 : 13 See, my servant will act wisely
Who is Isaiah's servant in context?
For what they were not told, they will see,and what they have not heard, they will understand.
For what they were not told, they will see,and what they have not heard, they will understand
Seems to me isaiah's is saying that one doesn't eyes and ears in order to understand.
IMO this OT passage perfectly describes what you are talking about. (And as an aside, note verse [Isa 53:]10!
Again, in context, who is Isaiah talking about?
Ah, but since hundreds of millions of Christians read the Gospels very faithfully and see no need for the rulership of the Orthodox Church in them, then I suppose that your Church would be unneeded for Christianity, like the OT?
So, the Church is wrong but inidvidual readers, who read gospels "faitfully," get it right? What evidence do you have for such a silly claim?
I knew this wouldn't last too long. Anyway, Christ's sacrifice is restoration, not justification. Even the OT righteous (the one's considered just in God's eyes) could not be restored until His resurrection; they were enslaved by death like everyone else.
Well, since I do not believe that God inspires error, I have to look at the context of the verse to see what it is really talking about. :)
FK: "Just as Aruanan rightly pointed out, quoting from an extra-scriptural work in no way authenticates the entire work."
Aruanan's example is comparing apples and oranges. Jude 14 quotes Enoch as a prophesy. Other NT references (which I listed in my reply to Aruanan) deal with popular (not even religious) phrases of Greek poets. Big difference.
What's the difference? God's inspired Scripture authenticates that particular prophecy to be true, but it does not authenticate the whole work. There is no rule that says a prophecy MUST first appear in scripture to be true (the Orthodox Church's view of what scripture IS notwithstanding). It just MUST appear in scripture to be sure it is true. Just because a book is not scripture does not mean that all of it is automatically false. Luther took that approach with the Apocrypha.
Historical context, dear friends, trump popular opinions.
But SOME popular historical Christians do NOT trump God. :)
This does not follow, because in this scenario God would have willed evil. It would be better for you to say that God wills us a FREE WILL and in turn WE are the CAUSE of evil to exist in the world. The same goes for the fall of lucifer.
I worded my comment carefully in case you answered like this. By definition then, according to your comment, God willed to empower man to be able to thwart His will, thus making man MORE powerful than God on at least some issues. You would have to say that God lessened His sovereignty and control by transferring it to man in order that man have his freedom (to decide his own destiny, etc.). That's what I see all over Catholicism, frankly. God must be made lesser so that man (or a group of men) can be made greater.
God allows evil to exist but is not the author of it.
That is true, not because man decided it and God is forced to go along, it is true because that is how God willed it to be in the first place. From what I can tell of the Catholic position from your post (and others from Catholics), God said "Let man be free to do whatever he thinks is best and I will allow it." :)
Thanks for the Aquinas passage. I'm glad to see that he accepts and understands the concept of absolutes, and I agree with him that God knows what evil is and does not author it.
The authors of the Bible believed that a whole preformed human being was in the "seed" and that the womb was "fertile soil" in which the "seed" grew, the way plants do. To even consider their notions of "science" as anything remotely credible takes a leap of faith, my friend. Once you do that, even bats can be considered "fowl," and the earth is standing of four pillars...
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are we to say it doesn't matter what the OT says, it only matters what SOME Jews may have believed? That would have error defining truth. Is that how it works? The verses say that GOD forms us in the womb. HOW He does that may or may not be explainable by good science at any given time. Regardless, the truth is that it is God's doing. I do not pat myself on the back for the great job I did in getting my wife pregnant. Instead, I give all thanks and glory to God for blessing us with children.
So, then you are telling me that you are conforming the Bible to your (a priori) belief? Talk about stuffing God into a box!
God's inspired Scripture authenticates that particular prophecy to be true, but it does not authenticate the whole work
As a matter of principle, as you suggetsing now that God revealed His prophesies to someone who is not a prophet of God?!?
What constitutes "scriptures," FK? What the Church says? What Luther says? What SBC says? Scripture is many things to many people with only the pre-existing individual or communal faith as the "authenticating" authority of what constitutes scripture.
There is no rule that says a prophecy MUST first appear in scripture to be true (the Orthodox Church's view of what scripture IS notwithstanding)
How consistent is it to believe that God would be revealing prophesies to anyone except those He considered His prophets? If the author of the Book of Enoch was revealed a prophesy from God, then he is God's prophet and, if you believe the prophesy, then it is scripture, FK!
The scriputre rule is very simple: if the Bible expresses what the Church believes, then it is scripture. In other words, the biblical canon are those books that reflect the faith, not the other way around, FK! That's how the Church decides. First comes the faith, then the Bible, based on faith. The Bible does not give you faith; the faith gives the Bible.
This is what I have been harping about for the longest time now: the Bible is a mixture of popular beliefs (myths, legends, narratives) and prophesies believed to be true.
But, as far as quoting the prophesy from the Book of Enoch in Jude is concerned, if prophesies are true in the absolute sense they could be true only if God revealed them, and if He revealed them to someone, that makes that person a prophet of God and His Apostle, whether we believe it or not.
God humbled Himself so that we can be saved. God is not a control freak.
No, it is your belief. Your belief doesn't authenticate anything as absolutely true. But it can authenticate spiritual pride.
Yes. Your individual faith decides what is "Bible." The Bible, in and of itself, is "valid" (true) to you only as long as it reflects your pre-existing faith. It's classic solipsism.
You are making up definitions of words. "Fowl" does not mean "flying creatures," because then flying insects would be "fowl" too. It means birds, hens, checkens.
To call bats "birds" or "fowl" is not a matter of "different taxonomies" but of sheer ignorance. And if every word in the Bible is God-inspired and inerrant, then such errors can not exist.
***God humbled Himself so that we can be saved. God is not a control freak.***
Some people are, though. Others have self identified as being of an elite that are taking the limo ride to Heaven.
Snooty, aren’t they?
***Ah, but since hundreds of millions of Christians read the Gospels very faithfully and see no need for the rulership of the Orthodox Church in them, then I suppose that your Church would be unneeded for Christianity, like the OT? :)***
My friend, it’s not about what individuals see any need for. It is about what God sees need for. God saw a need for His Church and Christ founded it and the Holy Spirit commissioned it.
On another thread, there was an individual who claimed that he is the Church of Christ. It is that level of hubris that motivates individual men to create their own theologies and their own churches. If Jesus created the Church, how does it seem reasonable to reject it, but claim to follow Him?
My ignorance? Dictionary.com defines "fowl" as "1. the domestic or barnyard hen or rooster; chicken. Compare domestic fowl. 2. any of several other, usually gallinaceous, birds that are barnyard, domesticated, or wild, as the duck, turkey, or pheasant. 3. (in market and household use) a full-grown domestic fowl for food purposes, as distinguished from a chicken or young fowl. 4. the flesh or meat of a domestic fowl. 5. any bird (used chiefly in combination): waterfowl; wildfowl."
The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Any of various birds of the order Galliformes, especially the common, widely domesticated chicken (Gallus gallus).
A bird, such as the duck, goose, turkey, or pheasant, that is used as food or hunted as game. The flesh of such birds used as food. A bird of any kind."
Now, where are you getting your definition from—that "fowl" means "a whole group of flying creatures?" The Hebrew word "ofe" means birds or insects! No mammals. Moses thought bats were birds!. The Septuagint (LXX) uses the word peteinon (peteinon) which has a broader meaning than the Hebrew word "ofe" (i.e. any winged creature). However EVERY English Bible translates "ofe" as bird or fowl. KJV, "bird" nine times, "fowl" 5; NAS "bird" 14 times.
I submit that you are making up your own definitions. Some are willing to use anything, any means, to show that biblical authors simply could not make a mistake.
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.