Crossing the Jordan into the Inner Meaning [New Church, Open]

Spirit and Life Bible Study ^ | Wed Nov 28, 2012 | Rev Dr Johnathon Rose

[DaveMSmith]

Everything in the Old Testament history leads up to the crossing of the Jordan, and yet the way the story is told in Joshua 3 and 4 has major inconsistencies and problems. Is there another way to read it?

Can the Bible be taken literally?

[Cronos]

And like as the Orthodox church at about 2% of the population cannot be said to best represent what Catholicism believes about the papal infallibility and jurisdiction, neither do these groups bet represent what evangelicals believe about the nature of God/Christ.

errr.. you do see the comparison is wrong. The nature of God/Christ is a fundamental dogma. P. I and Jurisdiction are nowhere near that level of core

Orthodox and Catholic believe in the same fundamental idea of the nature of God

Nicene Creed

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas. Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.  We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.  We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

There is no fundamental difference like the belief of the Oneness Pentecostals who disagree with the entire Trinity

[Cronos]

And the inclusion of the Seventh Day Adventists and Oneness Pentecostals in e.s can be taken if one keeps the same criteria of s.s. only as there is no core set of distinctive beliefs that identify which denomination can be included in the “e” umbrella term.

[daniel1212]

Sharp eyes thank you - mighty decent of you! I recently saw that spelling error (not typo) which i have made more that i want to count, but i missed it again.

[Natural Law]

"What was that about syllogisms again?"

Post #418 was not a syllogism. It was not an if, then statement. It was not a logical argument to discover a yet unknown or unrecognized truth or an attempt to persuade. It was two statements of fact between parties (Stfassisi and me) who share a common belief acknowledging that for those not interested in the revealing a truth logical arguments, such as syllogisms, are of no matter.

Peace be with you

[BlueDragon]

thank you for the data-dump arguments towards support for and demonstration of "the fuzzy infallibles".

Acts 7:48-51 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; ... I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. ... 4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the ...

According to Vatican II, we are all catholics now. Just trying to push for reform from within, you know. Wouldn't want to be a splitter or anything.

[Rashputin]

. . . the equivalent phrase “it is written” was used."

I don't recall the specific verse, but "it is written" is what first got me concerned about eight years ago over using the Luther Subset rather than the entire Bible. As I recall, I found six verses in the NT that used "it is written" or "is it not written", that sort of thing, and followed it with a quote from a book Luther threw in the trashcan. To me, that was enough to accept the books that were quoted in spite of Luther, and if those are valid Scripture, the others are as well because they were all validated for inclusion in the Septuagint.

You either accept all of the Septuagint or you might as well throw out what Luther didn't like in the NT as well because you're saying Martin "The Jews and Their Lies" Luther knew more than the Jewish scholars who put together the Septuagint or the New Testament as defined by The Catholic Church.

[BlueDragon]

Facts? Opinions more like it, with no room for the excluded middle as basis for justifying claimed "facts". My possible misuse of one word is neither here nor there.

Claiming "no", by one side is error. Claiming "all" and indisputable is yet another. Extreme polarity. Works good for polemicists.

[daniel1212]

Sippo, for all his pro papal prolixity, nor you and the attempt to move the goal posts and make a generally accepted canon into an infallible one, cannot do so, nor does he have the authority of such approved Catholic sources which affirm that Trent was the first infallible canon and that debate was allowed prior to that.

Posting reams of Romish responses will not change that FACT, and your idea that he utterly refuted Webster is absurd.

Sippo attacks Webster on the basis that documents by Church Fathers do not automatically raise it to magisterial status, and faced with weightier sources then Sippo that contradcit him, he pleads they were too strict and tries to make the Catholic Encyclopedia and others in error for not defining infallibility as broadly as he does as regards the canon.

When i come back latter i can do more of this analysis.

[Natural Law]

"Claiming "no", by one side is error. Claiming "all" and indisputable is yet another."

Please reread post# 418. I used neither "no" or "all" in my statement. It is only by projection, another tool of the polemicists, that one would see those in what I wrote.

Peace be with you

[metmom]

Yesterday was in the upper 60’s.

Today has been overcast and snowing.

UGH!!!!

[Elsie]

Heck!

We are STILL ‘debating’ the canon today!!

On FR!!!

[Elsie]

One first has to realize that the foundational precept of Protestantism is that the Church has no legitimate authority.

That's not so!

It merely does NOT have UNLIMITED authority!

[Elsie]

MEGO³⁷⁵⁹!

[Elsie]

MEGO³⁷⁵⁹!

[Elsie]

Which Mr. T said....

“I pity da fool that can only spell a word one way!”

[woofie]

I enjoyed your book...what was it about anyway?

[Elsie]

Would that surprise you?

No; for SOMEone in the dubious accounting of 14,000,000 +/- has to be actually following MORMON scripture!

[DaveMSmith]

and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty

Just another note, since this appears in Scripture so often and the literal sense might be misleading: Spiritual power is signified by the hand... all spiritual power and omnipotence by means of the Human which He assumed in the world is signified by the right hand of God.