Posted on 08/30/2009 2:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
Sez who?
It's actually not bad, but it's not a dead cert. Yet the section you quote presents it as a "duh!" or as somehow self-evident.
I can see a certain, to me artificial, internal consistency: "If we assume Scripture to be this way, we will find it is indeed this way." But then the proposition itself is removed from debate and instead the entire "system" and the proposition's place in the system is what needs to be examines.
Anyway, it now seems that the suggestion that with or without his contemplating that later Christians would consider those very words to be "Scripture", by the term γραφη in the phrase πασα γραφη Paul is saying this is a characteristic (a definition?) of Scripture.
So his advice to Timothy comes down to, "We don't know what actual books are Scripture, but if we ever figure that out, and you run across one of 'em, you can bet it's real good." I'm finding the interpretation of diminishing persuasiveness.
But stipulate it. Of course, the next question in this ancient dance is: who gets to say what's Scripture and what ain't, and by what authority, AND is that determintation God-breathed?
So the fundamental dispute about the Spirit's activity in the Church is just kicked back a step, I'm guessing.
BTW, I read a little Koine Greek. I know the adjective πας.
And so we come full circle. You entered this conversation with me posing as someone who rejected modern compromises with Biblical criticism, and hear you parrot the whole line.
Evidently you refuse to understand my whole point. If you "allegorize" the "creation stories" then you must allegorize every event related by the Torah as a non-historical didactic parable, or else be a hypocrite. And that's just what you are.
The Bible tells us again and again that it is about the relationship between God and man. Darwinism denies the meaningfulness of that relation. A theory of evolution does not require this, only one that incorporates a mechanistic philosophy.
It does? Wow. Where does it say that?
Darwinism denies the meaningfulness of that relation. A theory of evolution does not require this, only one that incorporates a mechanistic philosophy.
That may be why you're against Darwinism, but it isn't why I'm against it. I'm against it because it denies the literal historical sense of the early chapters of Genesis. I'm equally against every other theory that does the same--even if it is "anti-Darwinist."
I hope you enjoyed that atheist maniac piercing a consecrated host with a nail last year, because Catholic hypocrisy invites it. If it doesn't matter whether or not the beginning of Genesis is literally true, then it certainly doesn't matter whether John 6 is literally true.
No wonder Ted Kennedy was a member in good standing of the Catholic Church. He was just a little ahead of the rest of you. But you'll catch up eventually.
The problem with transubstantiation is quite a bit more than a late date for the word, or even the concept - it is the Catholic Encyclopedia that says “Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism.”
First, the idea that Jesus is continually being sacrificed in some sort of out of time experience is contrary to scripture. According to John 6, which Catholics apply to Eucharist, “54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
Taken literally, then once the priest has done whatever it is he is supposed to do, and the wine and bread literally (substantially) become the flesh and blood of Jesus, then a non-believer who partakes “has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day”. Perhaps Teddy Kennedy is saved after all...
It also contradicts the one time nature of Christ’s sacrifice. “27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” - Hebrews 7
Notice, it doesn’t say he continually offers himself in sacrifice, but that “he did this once for all”.
“24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” - Hebrews 9
Again, once for all. Not one time that exists forever as an ongoing sacrifice, but once for all. As He said on the cross, “It is FINISHED!”
” 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” - Hebrews 10
Again, the writer COULD have said the sacrifice continues forever since God is outside time, but that is contrary to what the text reads.
“Had offered” - past tense. He then “sat down” - a subsequent act still in the past. “Waiting until his enemies” - future tense, which doesn’t make sense if God is outside time, and both Christ’s sacrifice and future victory are continuous events to God.
“by a single offering he has perfected for all time” - past tense. Has perfected. How long? “for all time”. The NIV translates it “has made perfect forever”.
When you have been born again, you have been (past tense) made (past tense) perfect (as good as it is possible to be) forever (ongoing with no end).
And why is all this true? Jesus said, “18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” - John 3
Whoever believes (’eats his flesh’ in John 6) IS NOT CONDEMNED. The one who does NOT believe “is condemned already”.
As a matter of sanctification, “9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
As a matter of justification, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned”, having been “perfected for all time”.
The real problem with the Catholic approach to the Eucharist (thanksgiving) isn’t transubstantiation, it is the belief that the one sacrifice is offered repeatedly...
“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”190”
You can say re-presents, but the Catechism says, “the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner”. Christ is offered again, only in an unbloody manner.
There are words the writers of scripture could have used to convey what the Catholic Church teaches...but they did not. Instead, they made it extremely clear “once of all”! And we are justified forever. Truly, “It is finished!”
I didn't equate anything. You're creating strawmen and then having a ball knocking them down.
“So his advice to Timothy comes down to, “We don’t know what actual books are Scripture, but if we ever figure that out, and you run across one of ‘em, you can bet it’s real good.”
No, that is not what he wrote. ALL (every, the whole thing) scripture is God-breathed. The Pentateuch is God-breathed. The Psalms. The Prophets. By the time 2 Timothy was written, at least a couple of the Gospels, and probably some of Paul’s Epistles were already accepted as scripture.
As for the extent of the canon, feel free to review and participate on this thread:
How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2320483/posts
It includes a pretty good summation of the Protestant approach to the canon (and Orthodox, and Catholic).
Well, the Church fathers allegorized the Creation stories, but they did not deny they are history. Which brings me to the point that in the 18th century, history took on a new meaning. The, the Bible, the gospels are history but not as von Ranke understood history. The quest for the historical Jesus fails because they are trying to force the information the New Testament gives into the forms developed by modern historians. Even so, I do not see how the gospels are any less reliable than, say, Bill Herndon’s “Life of Lincoln.” which depended so much on eyewitnesses for Lincoln’s early life. Now as far as Genesis is concerned, so much of this is, in form, prologue to the story of Abraham, which is the real beginning of the story. I see many ellipses,the Creation stories being not allegories but sketches. The Bible as a history of the world narrowing eventually to the history of a people and finally of a widening as the Church begins to grow. No, I will take that back a bit. The Catholic Bible brings to story almost up to the time of Jesus. When the people begin to return from the exile, only some return. The exile has dispersed the people of Israel, and when in good time, our Lord comes, he sends his Church into the world,, following paths laid down by the Jews, to preach the Gospel. It is history, as much as-no, more than anything by Wells,
Your equating a legal prescription (the stoning of homosexuals) with a statement of historical fact (the universe was created in six days, Adam died at the age of 930), is most unfortunate.
I didn't equate anything. You're creating strawmen and then having a ball knocking them down.
You most certainly did. You likened the details in the Bible's account of creation to the stoning of homosexuals and even accused it of saying that bats are birds. You are the one knocking down straw men, not I.
I am very bitter right now. I have just learned that Catholic "anti-Darwinists" posit no more historical truth to Genesis than Catholic evolutionists. No wonder Catholics have never been any use--even when they attack Darwin, they still believe the Bible is mythology!
No wonder Ted Kennedy got such a huge Catholic funeral.
BTW - I do not. I studied French for 2 years, German for 4, lived in the Philippines for 4 (and married a Filipina) and lived in Korea a year - and if God required me to learn languages to save my soul, I'd be lost for certain. Nein is about my limit.
I sometimes use Strong's and a lexicon for insight, but prefer to find passages written by genuine scholars. From what I've read, Greek has many layers of meaning that aren't obvious to a word/word approach - one needs to thoroughly understand the grammar as well.
So you're saying that the events related in the gospels didn't necessarily happen either? You're consistent, got to give you that. Makes me wonder why you criticized modern Biblical scholarship in your first post to me though, since you seem to swallow it whole cloth.
Now as far as Genesis is concerned, so much of this is, in form, prologue to the story of Abraham, which is the real beginning of the story. I see many ellipses,the Creation stories being not allegories but sketches. The Bible as a history of the world narrowing eventually to the history of a people and finally of a widening as the Church begins to grow. No, I will take that back a bit. The Catholic Bible brings to story almost up to the time of Jesus. When the people begin to return from the exile, only some return. The exile has dispersed the people of Israel, and when in good time, our Lord comes, he sends his Church into the world,, following paths laid down by the Jews, to preach the Gospel. It is history, as much as-no, more than anything by Wells,
Now you're confusing me. The fact that the contents of the Torah are sketches (which they are) doesn't negate in the slightest that those sketches are literally true. Why you think that they do so is beyond me, other than that the Catholic Church since the Reformation has developed an animus against the Bible as a "Protestant" book.
Tell you what. Let me know when you're as literal as Robert Bellarmine. Till then, good night.
Well, if not about the relationship between man and God, what is it? It is a record of sin and redemption.God creates man in his own image. Man strays and soils that image, and suffers. God leave the Garden, gos into the desert to fetch him and pays the supreme price,cleansing man with blood and water.
And you seem to misrepresent the contents of the Torah. The part that deals with events before Abraham is very episodic and often is hardly more than a list of names. When we get to Abraham, all of a sudden the narrative becomes very focused. As to thinking like the good Cardinal, I am afraid I have the advantage of him. Like Pascal, I know more than this great scholar did about the Cosmos.
So? How does that de-historicize what little information is recorded there? What makes you think that the people listed could not have been real and could not have lived exactly the life-spans assigned to them?
As to thinking like the good Cardinal, I am afraid I have the advantage of him. Like Pascal, I know more than this great scholar did about the Cosmos.
You have just confirmed that your initial post to me on this thread was totally dishonest, as you represented yourself as one who rejects this type of thinking.
Since "we now know" that the universe "could not have" been created in six days 5770 years ago, I hope you have also rejected the virgin birth, the resurrection, the real presence, and all that other supernatural nonsense that simply couldn't have happened. The fact that the church fathers believed in them is of no consequence, as the great "gxd" science has the right to sit in judgment on all alleged supernatural phenomena.
Good night and good riddance.
Evidently you cannot find a single place where the Bible "over and over and over" claims to be about "the relationship between man and G-d."
You have not the slightest idea of what the Torah is and never will.
Since Zionist Conspirator has centered on the inerrancy of Scripture – to which I hold – I offer here my own testimony:
The Scriptures are the inerrant words of God. Period. But the words of God must be Spiritually discerned.
I see no conflict at all in the revelations of God the Father in (a) Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, (b) the indwelling Holy Spirit (c) Scriptures and (d) Creation, both spiritual and physical.
In sum, I aver that seven equivalent earth days from the inception space/time coordinates (big bang) is equal to roughly fifteen billion years from our space/time coordinates on earth. For more on this point, Scriptures vis-à-vis Inflationary Theory and Relativity see Age of the Universe by Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder.
IMHO, at the root of the theological differences over Creation Week we often find Romans 5:12–14 and I Corinthians 15:42–48 - one side saying that Adam was the first mortal man (YEC) and the other saying that Adam was the first ensouled man (OEC.)
But I also have no “dog” in that dispute because I see Adam as created in the spiritual realm, the first man to become a “living soul” (Genesis 2) and I do not see him becoming earth bound until he was banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3.
In other words, I assert that the first three chapters of Scripture deal with the creation not only of the physical realm but the spiritual as well (emphasis mine:)
These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. – Genesis 2:4-5
God created the plants and herbs before they were in the earth (Gen 2:4-5)
The intersection or “types” in the physical realm and spiritual realm: Temple, Ark, Tabernacle, Eden/Paradise.
My understanding of the time appointed to Adamic men is very similar to the Jewish understanding and that of the early Christians - namely, that Adamic man (after he was banished to mortality in Genesis 3) - is appointed 7,000 years (corresponding to Creation week) the last 1,000 years being the Sabbath reign of Christ on earth (Revelation 20.)
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Pet 3:8
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5
It was also the early Christian understanding. This, from the Epistle of Barnabas 15:3-5:
Returning to Scripture and evolution, God specifically mentions things He specially created – and He also leaves the door open to evolution theory here:
The Intelligent Design hypothesis is appealing to me and credible on the face. It simply states that “certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” And because animals are known to choose their mates, it is obvious that “certain features” are best explained by those choices.
I find most of the ID disputes to be theological, ideological or political – rarely on the merits on the hypothesis which I consider to be more of an observation.
My main dispute with evolution theory is the improper use of the word and concept of “random” when the correct word and concept is “unpredictable.” Stochastic methods apply to either. But a person cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is” – and science does not know – and can never know – the full dimensionality of space/time.
So the use of the word “random” overstates what is known and knowable by the scientific method.
I do however have a very strong objection to those scientists like Dawkins, Pinker, Singer and Lewontin who misappropriate the theory of evolution to proliferate anti-Christ and anti-God sentiment under the color of science.
The Christian or Jew looks at the depth and height of the physical creation – and sees a revelation of the Creator whereas others see a different context (e.g. Buddhism) or no context at all (atheism/agnosticism.)
Nevertheless, no matter what a Christian may see when he looks at Scriptures and the physical Creation, the bottom line is: to God be the glory!
Man is not the measure of God.
I am neither an Old Earth Creationist nor a Young Earth Creationist. Nor do I lean to the Gosse Omphalus Hypothesis which says that the universe only looks old, it could have been created last Thursday.
I'm sorry, but I have no patience for such an argument. What does "looks old" mean? When Adam was created with an adult body did he "look old?" When a fully formed universe was created 5770 years ago did it "look old?" It could not, because there was nothing "old" for anything to look like! Things only began "looking old" once the universe had been in existence long enough for things to age. Furthermore, the remark about "last thrsday" is completely uncalled for. It assumes the existence of "false memories," which is something anti-literalists have created whole cloth out of their imaginations in order to insist that Adam could not have been created as an adult (because he would allegedly have "remembered being a child").
The main thrust of your argument (that nothing matters except J*sus) is the cause of the whole problem, and it is why chr*stianity is a collapsing house of cards. But don't worry . . . the real Messiah will be here soon!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
You have not the slightest idea
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I don't have to "read" anyone's mind to know that no chr*stian has the slightest idea what the Torah is and never will so long as they remain chr*stian.
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.