Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Well, contrast that to "I was in a trans and saw a vision....and wrote it down and claim it was from God."
Jesus never directed anyone to write anything down. The disciples didn't write anything down because they all expected the end of the world to be within their lifetime, so there was no need for it. Christianity was a messianic, apocalyptic movement, and everyone was rushed to give up wordily goods and embrace Christ as the end was near.
The writings came later when it became obvious that the Apostles, shall we say, "misunderstood" what Jesus meant when He said "some of you will not taste death" before I return (and they did so despite the Holy Spirit who will "teach you all things.").
If that is not correct, then what sort of revelation are you referring to?
Christianity, Judaism, Menacheanism, etc. are revealed faiths. People who were instrumental in establishing these religions claimed revelation as the source of their "knowledge." Some of it may be philosophical, and some may be even empirical.
For instance, we can say that this world is not merciful by nature and conclude that mercy must be from "another world."
Likewise, we can observe the universe around us and the earth and conclude that "something" created all this. And since there is structure and order and "rules" that this creation was intelligent, and therefore from a being higher than and greater and more powerful than we are.
The evidence of any structure suggests a builder and an architect. But that's again going back to your pets observing you as you leave your home every morning.
Their "theories" may abound as to why you do that, but your dogs, and cats and canaries, and even your toddlers, will never know why you leave the house every morning...that we can be certain of.
But as far as they are concerned, as long as your leaving is not followed by something fearful and unpleasant, they will simply "accept" it and any "theory" they may hold will be as good as any other.
Revelation Chapter 1 proves you wrong. You should read it.
And if the HS, which so many of you claim to be indwelling you..., "will teach you everything" you need to know, how does that explain 33,000 denominations and different beliefs?
Kosta: A story you read can be true but incomplete. If you hear there is a forest fire, but you are not told where, that doesn't make the story untrue. :)
FK: But Kosta, that is not the approach you take. Especially regarding the OT, you say that when there is a story of a forest fire that it is patently FALSE and a lie and that it never happened. You say there was never a forest fire and that the story was made up as myth in order to make some point. That makes the story untrue, and it also makes Jesus complicit in the untruth since He referred to these stories matter-of-factly, as though they were literally true
But I have already told you that Jesus chose to work within the framework of Judaism, or else He could have just as easily confederated everyone's hearts and be done with the whole thing, no blood, no suffering...and within that framework He spoke what the Jews believed and have believed for centuries. He did not come to discredit their faith.
Instead He came to reveal that God is not the Zeus-like God of the OT, but just the opposite. He also came to show us that the OT, depsite its perception of God, actually foreshaddows God's true revealtion in many ways.
We can ask, why did He even bother coming into this world as a Jew, since He must have known that, despite being sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel, the faith in Him was rejected by the very people He came for.
So, what difference does it make if He had challenged their beliefs or not, except that they would have rejected Him sooner!
But from what is written about His ministry, it is clear that God is not the cause of death, but is the source of life, and that passages in the OT that contradict Christ are not understood correctly.
Did a Great Flood occur? Very possibly. The Mediterranean was flooded by the Atlantic when the Atlas mountains broke, and the Black Sea was formed when the straight of Bosphorus was formed. And, imagine, many peoples indigenous to the Black Sea speak of the Flood too!
But did it involve the whole world, and did it drown everyone but Noah and a few people and animals with him, I seriously doubt it. The Jews adopted the Flood for their religious proposes and made a religious myth based probably on some factual event.
Did God kill all the Egyptian firstborn? If that is the same God we know in Christ, He didn't. And I think the Church would be hard pressed to show otherwise.
But did the story of Exodus fit the Jewish myth of having lived in Egypt for 450 years (and leaving no trace), or over one million Hebrew living in Sinai for 40 years (mostly in ONE place) and leaving no trace? Yes, by all means, it fits Jewish mythology and is, indeed, part of it.
All evidence shows that the Jews never left Canaan and that when the son of Rhamses II conquered it, he did not take special revenge against the Hebrews in the land of Canaan.
And Moses' birth is also part of the Babylonian legend, almost verbatim. So, did something like that ever happen? Quite possibly, FK, but was it part of God's revelation, I doubt it very, very seriously.
Holy is that which is from God; perfection is only in God. If we assign holiness only to perfection, then nothing would be holy, except God. If you want to use that as a criterion, I have no problem with that, as I don't believe anything is holy but God.
What we often mean by "holy" is blessed, anointed, or "touched by God." Those who have faith and love God are blessed; those who are merciful, and pure in heart, and poor in spirit, those who can love their enemies, etc. are "holy" in that they are "infected" with God's grace. But that doesn't make them worship or act or think in a perfect way; we are all sinners, and therefore unholy.
We also refer to the Bible as "Holy." For the same reason, it is a collection of books about what we know of Holiness in an imperfect way. Otherwise we would be doing what so many so-called Bible-believing Christians do: we would worship a book. Instead, we kiss the Gospels because they are precious to our faith and as an expression of our love for Christ without whom we would not have it.
We are more concerned what the message is than what the story is. The message is what we hear in homilies, the lesson we take home with us for that day, so that we may abide in the holiness of our Lord, and imitate Him in our hearts and deeds.
Revelation? The one that predicts "the things which must soon take place...?"
The story that borders on hallucination that took nine centuries for the East to grudgingly accept...in exchange for Hebrews (a horse-trade approach to Bible-building)?
The book that is never read in the Eastern Churches publicly?
The book that was just what Christianity needed at the time when all the Apostles (John of the Revelation is not necessarily John of the Gospels) were dead and Jesus didn't come back?
The book that doesn't fit anywhere in what the Gospels teach?
This is your "proof?"
Yes. No. No. No. No. Yes.
I like this.
There is the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Was there a real boy and a real wolf and did that story actually take place? Who knows? In the grand scheme of things, it really isn't that important. What is important is is the MESSAGE True? Sure it is - 100%.
Abraham was one of the OT righteous. Just another example that God can reveal Himself to pagans as well.
That's well and fine, but I don't see how it addresses my point. Do you believe that Abraham ever lived and that the stories written about him really happened? I would doubt it, so even if you say he ever lived, why would you call him righteous? IOW, why would you accept that one claim and reject all that supports it?
FK: Jesus said here that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:12)
Any work? For any reason?
Yes, any Godly work for any Godly reason. The verse says:
Matt 12:12 : How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Seems plain enough.
No He said it was good to do work to save man's life on a Sabbath.
Where does that come from??? The context was a man with a shriveled hand and its healing. The KJV translation also has nothing like you suggest.
FK: "God is multifaceted AND consistent. This is what the whole of scripture reveals. It is God's revelation."
Yet the Church teaches that God is simple and indivisible. Just another example that we don't share the same Christian faith.
Yes, I would agree that our respective faiths are much farther apart than I originally imagined possible when I first started posting here on FR. And, it would make perfect sense if the Church taught that God is simple as a Being, if the Church only accepts perhaps the Book of John and selected red letter selections from the other Gospels as the only true revelation. I don't think the Church actually does that but I HAVE seen Latin support for the idea that all scripture must be interpreted through the Gospels, MEANING that any perceived inconsistencies must result in the offending passages being for all intents and purposes declared LIES. In Apostolic theology I see no concept of the totality of scripture at all. I see only the concept of hierarchy of scripture determined by a hierarchy of men.
You are right GOML. Truth is expressed in abstract terms. In fact, truth is truth in principle that applies to any version of the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." It can be "The Man Wo Cried Wold" or "The Woman Who Cried Wolf," "The Monk Who Cried Wold," "The Cleaning Lady Who Cried Wolf," etc. Truth doesn't change. :)
YES (because the book was horse-traded for Hebrews. Yes, the book that is never read publicly in Eastern Churches)
YES (the book was badly needed to redefine what "soon" meant)
YES (the book is nothing like anything in the New Testament and, it wasn't written by John the Apostle)
NO (because you offer no proof, just a quote from a book. You have no proof that the book is anything more than just a book)
I have no idea if Abraham really existed or not. It's quite immaterial if he lived or not. He is the achtype of a man who would be "rigtheous." Like Job, or Jonah, he serves a purpose in the devlopment of Judaism and through Judaism of Christianity and Islam. He give it legitimacy of sorts.
I call him "righteous" because that's how his character is presented in the Bible. No different than Job.
Yes, any Godly work for any Godly reason. The verse says: Matt 12:12 : How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
So, does that means we can do a "little" on the Sabbath for creatures of "little value?" I think you are missing the point, FK: Jesus here is telling the Jews they got the whole thing wrong. He is redefining what Moses wrote. He is telling them that 1300 years of Judaism had it all wrong and that it's okay to do work on a Sabbath, even though the OT Bible says it isn't.
He is introducing ther new mindset. One that is not steeped into rules but one that is based on the heart, on mercy, and not the letter of the Law.
Where does that come from??? The context was a man with a shriveled hand and its healing
Mark 3:4 and Luke 6:9
And, it would make perfect sense if the Church taught that God is simple as a Being...In Apostolic theology I see no concept of the totality of scripture at all. I see only the concept of hierarchy of scripture determined by a hierarchy of men.
As St. John of Damascus, the last of the Desert Fathers, wrotes in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," Ch. IV
For how could that possess body which is infinite, and boundless, and formless, and intangible and invisible, in short, simple and not compound? How could that be immutable which is circumscribed and subject to passion? And how could that be passionless which is composed of elements and is resolved again into them?
For combination is the beginning of conflict, and conflict of separation, and separation of dissolution, and dissolution is altogether foreign to God."
Of course, the Refomed theology still has eons of years to evolve into a theological faith and understand why the Church teaches God is simple, indivisible, and incomprehensible. The Reformed are still on the Zeus-like level of deity, no offese meant. It's like comparing the story of the Red Riding Hood with Shakespeare, or Grimm's Fairytales with Tolstoy, if that close.
Indeed. Repentance means your desire for sin is gone and your sins are forgiven. If you continue to sin boldly where does repentance come in? Only Satan could devise such a theology, tailor-made for human nature.
Strong's definitions clash with several other sources. It's not one source.
From our point of view He is certainly multifaceted and complex
Oh boy! A "compound" God!
how do YOU answer the question "Did God want Jesus to die on the cross?" Yes or no.
The question is wrong. Christ died because He (Christ) willed it. Either He is fully God, or He is a lesser God or not even God.
Well, of course God's infiniteness is difficult for us to comprehend.
Just "difficult?"
The distinction I am drawing is between a static God who is just "frozen" since everything everywhere and everywhen is already done for Him, and a LIVING God who is active and doing things within time.
And what is He going to "do" after the End of Times?
God created us knowing that it would turn out to be a "package" deal, the good with the bad
Here we go again with "God is the source of good and evil."
The open theist would have us believe that God was grieved because He was surprised or didn't know the depths of sin to which the world would fall. But surely, even in Open Theism, God knew that people would sin. So, this verse can't be claimed to demonstrate that God didn't know the future choices of people.
Please, FK, this is childish imo. According to the Reformed "theology" God is the author of what happened, in which case there is no reason whatsoever for Him to grieve.
“Luther’s devilish “sin boldly” statement makes a mockery of God and His forgiveness”
“Indeed”
Amazing that without even reading the letter to Melenchthon you judge Luther based on a spurious phrase. For your edification, here is the paragraph from the letter from which the slander is made. The site for the entire letter is enclosed.
“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only maginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
On the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/letsinsbe.txt
If sin doesn't separate us from God, what does? Yup, you just confoirmed what sfassisi said. Only the devil would want us to believe that sin doesn't spearate us from God, so that we may commit adultery "thousands of times each day" and still be "saved."
Yes, God's only enemy is sin, embodied by satan. Remember, we are taught to love the person, but to HATE the sin. There IS a difference with us humans, but with satan it is one and the same. The love God has for His elect is an extraordinary type of love, the kind that saves. For comparative purposes we say that God does not love the non-elect, however, we all know that God gives "some" blessings/grace to all, the saved and the eternally lost. That is a "form" of love, but it is not "saving" love.
And what about Judah? Was he not deceived? And if he was, by whom? And if you tell me Satan, I ask you was Satan acting contrary to God's will?
The Bible says that Judas was deceived by satan, in fact satan entered into him. satan only acts according to his nature, pure evil. He doesn't obey anybody, he only does evil. God allowed him to do specific evil in specific places, and the final result, along with a million other occurrences, was the salvation of God's children. All of this was God's will.
It isn't EXACTLY the same, but there are strong similarities, before the age of majority. Likewise, the slaves were liberated in the year of jubilee, although that was only once every 50 years.
Adoption brings inheritance rights; slavery doesn't.
Irrelevant. The will determines inheritance rights. Washington willed that his slaves be set free and anyone can cut an adopted child out of his own will.
But, I would expect the so-called Bible-believing Christians to bend and twist in order to justify what's in the Bible, even if it is morally repugnant.
You are saying that what the Bible teaches is morally repugnant, that part of God's Holy word is morally repugnant. What, then, is the source for your morality? If not the Bible, is it instead the Church, or what you feel is moral yourself? Note that whatever your answer, it will be in contrast to the Bible. You will have to say that your source for morality disagrees with what the Bible says.
“If sin doesn’t separate us from God, what does?”
For the believer, I guess you would have to ask Paul. Luther seems to echo him. They both have I high view of the value of Christ’s sacrfice. Luther was telling Melenchthon that he should recognize what a sinner he was but that the sacrfice for sin was greater.
“It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”
Rom. 8:35-39, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Paul? Why, I would rather ask Christ. And what Paul says, Christ never said.
“Why, I would rather ask Christ”
Where in the gospels does Christ say anything about sin separating one from God or the Father?
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.