Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[kosta50]

Others have self identified as being of an elite that are taking the limo ride to Heaven. Snooty, aren’t they?

Haughty, or if you wish to use the dictionary definition..."disdainfully proud; snobbish; scornfully arrogant; supercilious." :)

[kosta50]

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

The devil knew exactly what men like when he introduced "sola scriptura."

[aruanan]

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."

Yes, ignorance. And nothing illustrates it better than what you've done above: using a dictionary definition based on one taxonomic system to find fault with an instance of another taxonomic system and thinking that you've proved something about the other taxonomic system. Though it tangentially applies here, you should read "Horrid Red Things" by C.S. Lewis.

[kosta50]

Yes, ignorance. And nothing illustrates it better than what you've done above: using a dictionary definition based on one taxonomic system to find fault with an instance of another taxonomic system and thinking that you've proved something about the other taxonomic system.

I have shown you the definition of the word "fowl" in the English language. I have shown you the meaning of the Hebrew biblical word "ofe" and reminded you that KJV and NSV English language Bibles translate it either as "bird" or "fowl." Ignorance is ignoring these facts.

Beginning with Lev 11:13, and ending with verse 19, the Bible reads (read it carefully!)

"These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture,
the black vulture, the red kite,
any kind of black kite, any kind of raven,
the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl,
the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,
the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."

Every species mentioned here is a bird, except for the bat. Yet the bat is counted as a bird. Does it get any clearer than this that Moses believed bats were birds and not some "flying creatures?" Surely, you don't think God lied to Moses?

I mean, you will stop at nothing, inlcuding insults, just to "prove" that Moses could not have possibly been wrong! Why? because it throws out the whole literalistic "inerrant" bible superstition? You don't even know what "ignorance" means. Now, that's ignorance.

[Never mind the ignorance of the Bible too]

[Just mythoughts]

I am sorry to be slow in responding, I have not had time to spend at the computer since I received this response.

So are you saying that what the Heavenly Father said to Jeremiah was a LIE for the sole purpose to mislead people?

No. I have no clue what the Heavenly Father said to Jeremiah, or even if God said anything to Jeremiah. Mohammad claims that Allah dictated the whole book of the Koran to him, word-by-word. Does that mean it really happened? Sure, if you already believe it did! The point is: there is nothing intrinsically true about the Bible unless you already believe it!

First I need to say that I had no clue you are a preacher/priest or what ever title you carry. I will say that I have heard but never personally carried on a conversation with a person of your stature. That being said I will tell you I am but a mere student of and in the WORD. I was raised up in a 'cult' type religion and thanks be to the Heavenly Father through His only Begotten Son, had answer to my prayer that never again I would be in the position to go through another flesh being to gain that promise given that through Christ each individual has access to the Heavenly Father. So please do not take offense if I sound rebellious to the preacher/priest class.

Now just so you have a better idea where I have been, as result of my 'cult' type upbringing I totally and completely rejected the Bible as being the WORD, because I came observe the majority of people I encountered found the Bible as their personal 'tool' for their own posterity NOT as the instruction BOOK given to any who would seek life eternal as the instruction manual. See to let you know how far out there I went I read Shirley's book 'Out on a Limb' across the state of Kansas and Colorado as supposed higher learning on the way for a ski trip. A 'cult' is any religion that places themselves or their church in place of the WORD.

Regarding Jeremiah, and the fact that you have NO clue what the Heavenly Father said to him, is a rather odd thing for a man of the cloth to say. John 1:1 was not referring to just books in the action of being penned as John specifically refers back to 'In the Beginning' meaning Genesis 1:1. So how very sad for you to be preaching something that you could then claim there to be nothing intrinsically true unless one already believed it. Truth does not wait for believers.

So IF God chose him why would God pick somebody who was so totally wrong about what Jeremiah had already penned

If I had to provide some credibility to my sermons I would certainly hope to convince people that God chose me. St. Paul's function was to save the Church from certain annihilation in Israel.

Christ said 'feed my sheep' and He was not talking about literal physical food for physical nourishment. Now exactly how acceptable was Christ to the masses, or even Paul when he went on his travels. I would not be concerned with what the people think of your credibility but rather whether or not you have credibility in speaking for the Heavenly Father. If you are not speaking for Him .... the WORD ... then no big deal and since you have already said things only happen if you believe they did.

The Church did not go to the Gentiles because Christ taught it should (in fact he taught to the contrary), but out of desperation (Acts 13:46). And, while I am sure others tried, St. Paul was the man who was able to convince pagan Greeks to accept a Jewish sect in hopes of having eternal life. So, if God did choose St. Paul, it was not in order to prove Jeremiah spoke with God, but for Paul to show pagans that Jesus died for our sins.

Are you referring to Matthew 10:5- ..."Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: verse 6 But go rather to the *lost sheep* of the house of Israel. ???

This was the first instruction given to the disciples, and where did their work get taken? Then again "nothing is intrinsically true about the Bible unless you already believe it!"

Any church that ignores and clips out the words of Jeremiah are ignoring the voice of the Heavenly Father and even His saving Hands through His only begotten Son.

> The Church would exist with or without Jeremiah, Samuel and Jonah to name just a few. The Church is built on what Jesus said and did, what's in the Gospels. The rest of the Bible either conforms to the Gospels or doesn't. Without the Gospels there is no Christianity. I think we can't say the same about Jeremiah.

But of course churches all over this globe exist in spite of the fact they do not intrinsically consider the Bible, the WORD to be GOD. But now you bring in Jesus and what He said and did and what is in the Gospels. Now of course Jesus taught to the masses in parables... why? Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto Him, "Why speakest Thou unto them in parables?"

11 He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given....

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, (Isaiah 6:9, 10 ..) 'By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For *this* people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them'.

Now Christ just officially made Isaiah one and the same as the GOSPEL!!!

Then Christ says verse 18 *HEAR* ye therefore the parable of the sower.

19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.

This is he which received seed by the way side

I won't type the whole parable but we will get back to it later in a portion of your question ... in this post.

And the Gospels are at least narratives of eyewitness accounts, not some prophet having visions, visual and auditory hallucinations or taking dictations from God. Big difference.

Hey you got a problem with Christ quoting the prophets then you will get your opportunity to take that up with Him.

Moses pens not one word regarding the creation of the devil but yet the devil was there in the Garden and beguiled Eve with knowledge of good and evil..

You keep repeating this and I am telling you that there is no mention of any "devil" in the OT. The way you keep stressing "beguiled" I have a feleing you are one of those people who believes that Cain was the "product" of the serpent and Eve, an offspring of a sexual union between the serpent and Eve. Do you believe that?

Well what did Christ have to say??? Matthew 13:36 I won't type it all because I do not have much more time but you did say IF Christ said it or did it then it was 'real', so what did Christ say? Oh why is Cain not listed in Adam's genealogy? And why did Paul describe the Garden Party in IICorinthians as follows ...11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent *beguiled* (means holy seduced) Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

I did NOT pen what is Written, and I am NOT going to pretend it is NOT there to do so makes a mockery of Christ and what He did say and He did.

What kind of snake was the 'serpent'? Did I say it was a "snake?" Another place says that the title/role of the serpent is another name for the devil.

In the Old Testament? Numbers 21:6 says "The LORD sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died." Fiery serpents? Do you know of any "fiery snakes?" And if your theory is correct then God was sending demons to kill people.

The bite from a serpent/snake does cause a 'fiery' reaction to the flesh, so why would you assume this particular usage of serpents is describing unseen spirits. The 'serpent' in the Garden was very real, now what did God tell him his punishment would be Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, "Because thou hast done this thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruised thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.

Well her Seed has had His heel bruised but that serpent has not yet had it head chopped off.

The only place I can find where serpent and devil are used synonymously is in Revelation (12:9, 20:2). But Revelation hardly matches anything in the Gospels. I have no clue what that book is doing in the New Testament except to scare people into believeing.

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are what Christ said the things that need be ... John is taken in Spirit to the Lord's Day and describing what has gone one what is going on and what will go on. I won't disagree that the book is used to 'fear' monger but I suspect that the Heavenly Father knew this as well when He had John pen the Book.

t kind of mythology are you making this mythical snake that could beguile ... means 'holy seduce' Eve by whispering sweet nothings into her ear?

I guess the same mythology of the Old Testament that would have us believe in talking donkeys (Num 22:30), which is also believed by the author of 2 Peter (2:16) who says "But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness." So, if we have a talking ass, why not a beguiling serpent? And what about talking trees, as in Judges 9:8-11 picking their "leader?"

There is a bit of humor don't you think that God would make some preacher for hire own donkey speak for God to make that preacher do what God wanted him to do??? (I often wonder if this is not the reason the liberals picked a donkey as their animal of leadership ... 'you know' they got religion toooo.

The trees in Judges were NOT doing the talking but Jotham ... lifting up his voice crying saying... "Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God my hearken unto you." Then Jotham give what? a parable, then the parable is interpreted Judges 9:16-20. Now God Himself refers to Himself as a great fir tree, and note here in this parable that it is a bramble tree that is willing in truth to have their trust in his shadow, but if not let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

I do not have the time to go more into the allegory of the trees, but since you are familiar with the Bible I suppose start with every time the word 'fig' is used, after all Christ did say to learn the parable of the 'fig' tree. And the first allegory of trees in found in Genesis where there were two trees in the midst of the garden, the tree of life (Christ) and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (the devil, the serpent, etc....)

After all, does not the Bible say that men can live in a belly of a fish for three days and live to tell about it, or that bats are birds? What kind of mythology is it to say that the earth sits on four pillars and earthquakes happen when God shakes the pillars? I think it's best we leave the fairytale stuff out of this (for now) and concentrate on the good stuff.

Hey those people of Nivinah believed in Dagon the fish god, and so God prepared a 'fish' to spit Jonah out within their eyesight so these people would pay attention..... Did Christ have anything to say about Jonah????

re is a whole lot of deception made up about what that 'original' sin was

Why in quotation marks?

Because that is what a whole lot of people call that sin.

ending up in a fig grove sewing together *FIG* leaves to cover up nakedness.... Just hmmmmmm to much for some churches to deal with cover their eyes and plug their ears...

I was told from a small child it was an apple tree and when I began to read as Written I could not find an apple tree anywhere. Further I could not understand what kind of fruit I had ever eaten that made me aware I was naked.

So I will agree with you about the church making up a whole lot of pleasing to the ear junk to cover over what really took place....

But you don't, I suppose? But hey Christ did say these things need be and it is up to the Heavenly Father to tear off the blinders to whomever He elects.

Actually, the NT says the Father gave the Son all the power on earth to judge so I would imagine it would be Christ tearing off the blinders, except you seem to emphasize the "Heavenly Father" as some "higher" authority. Christ came to free us form the bondage of death by dying in exchange for us. He gave each and every one of us a second chance. God in His mercy gave everyone a ticket to heaven. That some won't use it is not God's choosing.

To Whom did Christ pray to? Certainly Mary was NEVER EVER involved in any of His prayers, He said Father which art in heaven....

the devil was well described by Moses through out the Torah, and even in the Book of Job, and then oh never mind toooo deep for some minds.

Try me.

I think I have.

Based upon my study a generation has not passed since Christ left this earth

Mark 9:1 says "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." This couldn't be clearer: some of those who were listening to Jesus wold not even die before He returned. But, given the reality on the ground, the "undying generation" theory was an absolute must and that's why 2 Peter is in the canon!

Now what is the subject.... seeing the kingdom of God; And what did Christ do next? He took Peter, (remember Peter the one you do not believe what he penned,) James and John and He was transfigured before them.... was NOT in a flesh body. Flesh would die but not the soul ... to be absent from the body is to be present with the LORD.... until judgment day then those that overcome are given life eternal and those that refuse are removed forever.

Christ said fear not them which kill the body, (flesh) but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him Which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell

Well, we will have to decide if the soul is eternal or not. The OT says it isn't ("the soul that sinneth shall die"), but then you have souls that sinned in Sheol, obviously not dead! And the purpose for the lake of fire was to roast the devil and his angels (who have no bodies), and resurrected reprobates who didn't use their ticket for all eternity, so where does this destruction of bodes and souls fit in?

Where do you get the notion that a soul has NO body after having the Mount of Transfiguration described? What part of to be absent from this flesh body is to be present with the Lord do you not understand. And where did you ever get the idea that the devil or angles do not have bodies? Is it because you have never literally with your flesh eyes observed you cannot believe...?

And at the pace you are going, there is not going to be much of the Bible... that anybody can pay attention to. Which most have been given the free will to make claims to protect their own system and call if of God. Nothing new there.

As I said earlier, everyone makes the Bible what they wish it to be. It goes both ways. That's why it's so popular. Every sect and cult can find itself in it.

Might me the case for the majority but I did NOT enter this phase of study wishing for anything but understanding. Once I found out that the majority use the Bible for their own wishes I became the ultimate skeptic. It is Written that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God,

and is profitable for doctrine,

for reproof,

for instruction in righteousness:

Even Jeremiah, Samuel and Jonah!!!!

Was not the purpose of the Mount of Transfiguration to demonstrate that body in 'spirit' loooooks just like the flesh body yet none were literally in flesh bodies.

It was a transfiguration of the existing body on Mt Tabor. Not a separate body. God created man body and soul. That is our natural state.

Ok I suppose this is one of those things that has to be experienced to understand.

[aruanan]

I mean, you will stop at nothing, inlcuding insults, just to "prove" that Moses could not have possibly been wrong! Why? because it throws out the whole literalistic "inerrant" bible superstition?

Thanks for coming clean about your motives that lead you to shuck and jive like a Jehovah's Witness on crank.

[kosta50]

Thanks for coming clean about your motives that lead you to shuck and jive like a Jehovah's Witness on crank

So, when faced with the truth that Moses calls bats birds, this is all the "substance" you can come up with?

[Forest Keeper]

Christ never says "I am God."

Not only does He imply it all over the place, He says it specifically in several Gospels:

Mark 14:60-62 : 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Matt 26:62-64 : 62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Luke 22:66-71 : 66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." 70 They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." 71 Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."

Yes, same story, but three times, all Gospel. If you say that Christ never claimed to be God, then why do you say He was crucified? He was crucified BECAUSE He claimed to be God.

FK: "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.

Then what is your conclusion? Are the Gospels lying when they say that Jesus prayed to the Father, etc.?

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?

Same as above, and His prayers were to the Father, a different Person of the Trinity. His prayers were real communion with the Father, just as they had in the Trinity from before creation.

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.

So for you in SOME cases, Biblical silence de facto means that a thing DID happen, such as all the Mariology stuff, but in other cases, Biblical silence means de facto that a thing DID NOT happen, such as prayer to Christ. I suppose I just find it more difficult to draw rock solid conclusions from what ISN'T there. :)

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.

If your test is that a simple sentence should be read literally, then what do you make of these?:

Matt 16:16 : Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Matt 13:55 : Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

John 10:30 : I and the Father are one ."

These are all simple sentences and you do not take any of them literally (per your arguments to me).

FK: "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.

I see. Well, then I'll agree with you that we should throw out the Consensus Patrum. :) What proof do they offer? What, the writings of dead men from the second century are true, but the writings of dead men from the first century are forgeries? Come on. :) In addition, the requirement for the laity to assent would also be moot. The laity offer no proof.

[kosta50]

First I need to say that I had no clue you are a preacher/priest or what ever title you carry

I am neither a preacher nor a priest, nor have I ever claimed I was. I am not even close. Where are you getting this from? My titles have nothing to do with religion.

So please do not take offense if I sound rebellious to the preacher/priest class.

The offenses of others offends us only if we allow them to offend us. You are entitled to your opinion and your faith, not matter what it is. It doesn't mean either is true, or that I have to agree with it.

As for the 'cult' type upbringing you mention, from what you are saying I don't see you having drifted away from cultism, in my opinion.

I came observe the majority of people I encountered found the Bible as their personal 'tool' for their own posterity NOT as the instruction BOOK given to any who would seek life eternal as the instruction manual

Most people use the Bible as a crutch or a weapon. Specifically, very few live according to the (four) Gospels, imitating Christ.

See to let you know how far out there I went I read Shirley's book 'Out on a Limb' across the state of Kansas and Colorado as supposed higher learning on the way for a ski trip. A 'cult' is any religion that places themselves or their church in place of the WORD.

I never heard of the book or the author. No, this is not the English meaning of the word "cult."

Regarding Jeremiah, and the fact that you have NO clue what the Heavenly Father said to him

That's right. I wasn't there, I didn't hear it and I can't vouch for it. It must be believed blindly. But in order to believe it blindly, you must already believe that everything you read in the Bible, no matter how inconsistent or weird or outright wrong, is true!

I have no desire to change or influence your beliefs. I was just asking to find out just how "cultist" your views were.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: “...the rulership of the Orthodox Church....”

The what??????????????

I'm not talking about physical oppression or anything, but just the claim of the highest church authority on earth. For example, you would rather a lost person in an Apostolic country remain lost if there was even a 0.0001% chance that he would ever meet and then follow an Orthodox priest than have me witness to him today. If that isn't a claim of the highest authority and rulership I don't know what is. :)

[Forest Keeper]

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.

No, I never claimed that the converse was true. Truth is truth irrespective of how many people get it. So, your above is not my argument.

Isa 52:13-53:12 : 13 See, my servant will act wisely...

Who is Isaiah's servant in context?

Jesus is the Lord's servant. The whole passage is about the suffering servant. By extension, Jesus is the servant of all believers. He did not come here for Him, He came here for us.

[Is. 52:15] 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 [need] eyes and ears in order to understand.

This isn't talking about becoming a believer, it is about recognizing what is obvious to the world. In the OT many lost people recognized the existence of the Jewish God, but did not believe on Him.

So, the Church is wrong but individual readers, who read gospels "faithfully," get it right? What evidence do you have for such a silly claim?

As always, I have God-breathed scriptures as my evidence. I realize not everyone accepts that evidence as true. A personal Holy Spirit has a personal relationship with personal believers.

[Forest Keeper]

I knew this wouldn't last too long.

Sure, but it was nice while it lasted. :)

[Forest Keeper]

And bats being considered part of a group of "flying creatures" isn't unscientific, mistaking mammals for birds. It's just a matter of different taxonomies.

Exactly right. A while ago I posted this to Kosta on another thread:

Now, as far as bats being fowl, .... My argument was that this does not offend science at ALL. Words like "fowl" or "bird" or "mammal" or "fish" are only scientific classifications, based on the whim of the scientists who make them whenever they do. They are simply a method of grouping, and establish convenient relationships. This has nothing to do with facts, because it is all based on choices. Scientists might have decided to put men and ducks in the same category because we both have two legs. That would have been fine too. Scientists decided, based on then current knowledge, what would be the most efficient way of grouping and went with that. All well and good.

Whoever was in charge of such things back then put bats into the grouping called "fowl". So what? It worked for them, then. Now, today's scientists have decided to reclassify them into a new group called "mammals". That's fine, but it says absolutely nothing about whether the former classification was "wrong". It is only "wrong" by today's standards, which were not in effect then. 100 years from now, bats may be in some brand new category. Are you going to say that would make today's scientists "wrong"? I would not.

Sounds like the same thing you are saying.

[Forest Keeper]

So, then you are telling me that you are conforming the Bible to your (a priori) belief? Talk about stuffing God into a box!

No, I'm just telling you that if God is perfect and without error, THEN, neither does His word contain error. How do you reconcile a perfect God inspiring an error-filled word? Your only answer can be that God had little or nothing to do with the Bible, which is the conclusion your arguments lead to. I cannot accept that.

As a matter of principle, as you suggesting now that God revealed His prophesies to someone who is not a prophet of God?!?

No, I don't know what you are referring to. The Bible says Enoch was a prophet.

What constitutes "scriptures," FK? What the Church says? What Luther says? What SBC says?

The original 66 books that God led men to canonize.

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!

Scripture is the word God wanted us to have. It does not describe everything God has ever said or done. There are millions of prophecies out there. I believe the ones that are in the Bible BECAUSE they're in the Bible. It is irrelevant if any other prophecies come true or not.

The scripture 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.

That is a good summation of Apostolic thought. The Church determines the faith, and then fills in all the holes with what the men of the Church want. The Bible is shaped and formed and interpreted to match what the men want, regardless of the actual words in the books. The will of men trumps the will of God. Man shapes God to match what man wants. It's classic Apostolicism.

First comes the faith, then the Bible, based on faith. The Bible does not give you faith; the faith gives the Bible.

God gives the faith, and God gave us the Bible. Without the Bible as an anchor, then faith quickly mutates into whatever men want to make of it.

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.

If you do not KNOW that they are true then you have no anchor. By using words like "myths" and "legends" it is evident that the Bible is no anchor for you.

[Forest Keeper]

God humbled Himself so that we can be saved. God is not a control freak.

Am I to take it that a "control freak" is any Being who dares to step on the sovereignty of man? :)

[HarleyD]

For example, you would rather a lost person in an Apostolic country remain lost if there was even a 0.0001% chance that he would ever meet and then follow an Orthodox priest than have me witness to him today. If that isn't a claim of the highest authority and rulership I don't know what is.

Good question FK. There is an interesting article called 3,000 Assyrians Received into the Catholic Church. Would the Orthodox simply dismiss Orthodox people moving to Catholicism? Not according to some posts I'm reading.

[aruanan]

Sounds like the same thing you are saying.

Yep. And on another note. The BIble never claims to give exhaustive knowledge of God or anything else. But it claims to give sufficient knowledge to know God and to live a holy life. Notice that no book of the Bible tries to engage in systematic theology. There are many things stated as being true statements about God, about man, about the world that aren't necessarily able to be fitted into a system. Trying to do so and attempting to fill in what we think are the gaps and then claiming Biblical authority for those extrapolations or inferences or apparent connections because they are connecting, in our mind, teachings which do carry Biblical authority is a mistake and can lead to much grief. But some people do not like the feeling of not knowing an answer to a question and resent being told to pay attention to those things that are absolutely required and leave the rest up to God to reveal in the fullness of time (if ever). I believe this desire to have everything charted out, fully defined, completely systematized, and under one's complete intellectual control, is itself a manifestation of that desire to be God that was the core of the original sin. We are creatures. We are dependent both in nature and in fact. If anything, the point of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in scripture is to remind us that he is the vine, we are the branches. Our life depends on being connected to him. We're children of God; we're servants. For the realization of our salvation we don't have to know everything the Father or the master knows. We just need to trust and obey in what we are told is sufficient for us to know. And we're told that if we do just that, we will know in our own experience that what Jesus has said is true. Some would scoff at this as being simply credulous, but this heart of trust lies at the center of a loving relationship: the child asks his father for fish to eat, trusting that he's going to give him something good to eat. He doesn't construct an elaborate mechanism of verification through which he can ascertain for any given thing the likelihood of it being granted him if he asks at this versus that degree of intensity of desire. In other words, he lives with his father as a trusting child, not as a possessor of a system (or magic lantern) to be finessed.

[stfassisi]

“”There is an interesting article called 3,000 Assyrians Received into the Catholic Church. Would the Orthodox simply dismiss Orthodox people moving to Catholicism?””

If the article read that 3000 Western Catholic's were received into the the Orthodox faith I would still rejoice in their faith in our Eucharistic Lord.

If it read that any Catholic, eastern or western left the church to become a protestant ,I would be willing to sacrifice for them to return to Eucharist in the Eastern or Western Catholic faith

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Are we to say it doesn't matter what the OT says, it only matters what SOME Jews may have believed?"

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.

That couldn't have been true for me, and I suspect virtually all other Bible-believing Protestants. I learned what my faith WAS by reading the Bible and adopting whatever its teachings turned out to be. I didn't have any church background when I started to really believe. So, there was nothing to mold the Bible TO. What I believe was molded by what the Bible says. That's what led me later to a Bible-believing church.

[Forest Keeper]

If Jesus created the Church, how does it seem reasonable to reject it, but claim to follow Him?

That's right, it would make no sense at all to do that, which is why I'm glad I don't. :) I am a firm believer in God's Church, and I claim to follow Him.