The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[malakhi]

Actually, the specific verse from the Christian scriptures I had in mind was:

be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well.
This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner.
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:10-12)

So..... who IS this LORD? .....this Lord? And what IS His Name?

This is EXACTLY the point I was going to bring up. Whenever you see 'LORD' in 'Old Testament' translations, it is a substitute for the divine name YHWH!.

Keeping this in mind...

Then Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, `What is his name?' what shall I say to them?"
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you.'"
God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, `YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you': this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. (Exodus 3:13-15)




Verse 15 is in the light blue. The key word is , YHWH.

Continuing with my citations from the Tanakh:

I, I am YHWH,
and besides Me there is no Savior (Isaiah 43:11)

How can this verse be reconciled with Acts 4:12?

For who is God, except YHWH?
And who is a rock, except our God? (2 Samuel 22:32)

For I will proclaim the name of YHWH.
Ascribe greatness to our God!
The Rock, his work is perfect;
for all his ways are justice...
For YHWH will vindicate his people
and have compassion on his servants,
when He sees that their power is gone,
and there is none remaining, bond or free.
Then He will say, `Where are their gods,
the rock in which they took refuge,
who ate the fat of their sacrifices,
and drank the wine of their drink offering?
Let them rise up and help you,
let them be your protection!
"`See now that I, even I, am He,
and there is no god beside me (Deuteronomy 32:3-4,38-41)

You shall walk after YHWH your God and fear him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and cleave to him. (Deuteronomy 13:4)

And YHWH will become king over all the earth; on that day YHWH will be One and His name one. (Zechariah 14:9)

He shall cry to me, `Thou art my Father,
my God, and the Rock of my salvation.' (Psalm 89:26)

The Father is the savior.

Let them know that Thou alone,
whose Name is YHWH,
art the Most High over all the earth. (Psalm 83:18)

Let them praise the Name of YHWH,
for His Name alone is exalted;
His glory is above earth and heaven. (Psalm 148:13)

I am YHWH, that is my name;
My glory I give to no other (Isaiah 42:8)

Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel
and his redeemer, YHWH Sabaoth:
"I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god...
Is there a God besides me? There is no other Rock; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:6,8)

Sorry, Peter.

But now thus says YHWH, He who created you, O Jacob,
He who formed you, O Israel...
You are my witnesses," says YHWH,
"and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am He.
Before me no god was formed,
nor shall there be any after me.
I, I am YHWH,
and besides me there is no savior.
I declared and saved and proclaimed,
when there was no strange god among you;
and you are my witnesses," says YHWH. (Isaiah 43:1,10-12)

Surely you are our Father, though Abraham did not know us,
and Israel does not acknowledge us.
You, O YHWH, are our Father, our Redeemer.
Your Name is everlasting. (Isaiah 63:16)

YHWH alone is our God. He is the only God; there is no other beside Him. He, the Father alone, is our Savior, our Redeemer. In the name of YHWH, and YHWH only, are we saved.

[Wordsmith]

The written word does not change, oral traditions and traditions made by men have a tendency to change over the years.

Unfortunately, as we've seen from our debates here over archaeological evidence and the oldest existing written versions of Scripture, the written word can change. Without God's miraculous intervention, the written word of Scripture would most likely have been corrupted. The difference between your perspective and the Orthodox perspective seems to be that we believe that God has also miraculously intervened to preserve the other, non-written aspects of Holy Tradition from corruption as well. This is why the Orthodox are convinced that the written Scripture and the other aspects of Holy Tradition form a seamless whole. They do not conflict, any more than one book of the Bible conflicts with another. They are together preserved inviolate by God. Thus any question about what to do when one aspect of Holy Tradition "conflicts" with another in nonsensical. If there is any conflict, it is not part of Holy Tradition. Christ Bless.

[SoothingDave]

Of course, YHWH is indeed what we mean when we say "in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit." One is baptised in this name, and this name only. Those who baptise in Jesus' name are doing somethign different.

I found this peculiar:

And YHWH will become king over all the earth; on that day YHWH will be One and His name one. (Zechariah 14:9)

On that day, He will be One? Is He not One before and after that day? Is this a poor translation into English?

SD

[Wordsmith]

I had been curious about the use of Greek or Russian or Antiochian or whatever. So you don't really use anything other than English in your Liturgies?

In the Antiochian archdiocese with which I am most familiar we use almost exclusively English, and have since at least the 1920's. We'll occassionally use Arabic or Greek or even Russian for a couple of verses of a particular hymn or for the response in an Ektenia. But that's it. The Greek Church is more "behind the times." Their current bishop has continued to mandate a certain amount of Greek in the Liturgy, but even there parishes have a certain amount of discretion. Only the most ethnic parishes would do more than half of the Liturgy in Greek, and many much less. I believe that the Russian-affiliated OCA and other jurisdictions are as English-centric as the Antiochians are. There are also some Orthodox parishes that use a Western rite rather than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that the rest use almost exclusively.

[RobbyS]

I don't think there was so much pent up urge among the laity. Totally right. If the "reformers" had held a vote, I doubt they would have found a majority who wished the mass in English and almost none who would have chosen to do more than translate the liturgy. Many older people were, as I recall, scandalized by the wholesale changes. It was like moving them out of their homes.

[Wordsmith]

"Lex orandi, lex credendi" (roughly, how you pray is how you believe).

Thanks, I like that!

[The_Reader_David]

But this is why traditional Christians use the word "heretic"--it means a Christian who has gone his or her own way, no longer believing rightly in Christ, but still believing in Him. Those who go the step further and cease to believe in Him are not Christians, and if they used to be Christians are called "apostates."

(In the East we regarded exile as the normal punishment for heresy, not burning. The Greek Fathers speak vehemently against denying heretics the chance for repentence by applying capital punishment, even for actual crimes--the East Roman penchant for blinding when other states whether Christian or Muslim would have applied capital punishment was not a gruesome barbarism, but a Christian mercy.)

[Havoc]

OK. So likewise, if a "homosexual" addresses the "spiritual problem" does he cease to be a homosexual?

Yep. Plain and simple. See how easy that is. One who is x no more is ex-x not x. Who'd a thunk it?

[Havoc]

After all that, Havoc returns to form and attacks again the Catholics.

LOL. If you call stating the facts an attack, then I'm most certainly attacking you. How viscious of me.

[Wordsmith]

Oh that is what I would like to do..If I call will they tell me ? Does the service have a special name?

Sure, I'd suggest just calling the pastor and saying you want to visit to get a sense for the worship is like. The forgiveness service that begins Lent can be pretty intense. A lot of the more "casual" Christians who only show up for Sunday morning Liturgy aren't there, and those who do are in my experience often the more devoted core. So the two services - morning Liturgy and the evening forgiveness service - can seem very different. The first will likely be more crowded and triumphant, the second smaller and focused on repentance. The priest should be able to answer any questions you have. I can't remember now if the service has a special name, it probably does - you can just ask if they have a prayer service on the evening of Forgiveness Sunday to begin Lent. God Bless.

[The_Reader_David]

But angelo, it is only the Westerners who identify the God of the Old Testament with the Father alone. Orthodox Christians regard all visible theophanies under the Old Covenant as being manifestations of the pre-Incarnate Son ("No one has seen the Father."), while the prophets are inspired by the Holy Spirit. The God of the Old Covenant is understood by the Orthodox to be the Holy Trinity, who has revealed His transcendence of even the duality between unity and multiplicity only in the Incarnation and gift of the Holy Spirit.

At the end of every Liturgy we sing "worshipping the Undivided Trinity, who has saved us," reflecting our understanding that all persons of the Trinity participate in our salvation.

[RnMomof7]

Now what is the date of that Word?

[Wordsmith]

Sunday, March 17. Orthodox Pascha (Easter) is May 5.

[DouglasKC]

So let me get this straight. I'm trying to understand your thought process. You say that Spirit of God and God are different,

No, they are not "different" the spirit of God IS God in our reality. It's only different in that the main bulk of God lies outside of the creation. Have you ever read "Flatland"? If you did, remember when the 3 dimensional sphere interfaced with a two dimensional world? The 2 dimensional beings couldn't perceive of the whole sphere because they coudn't percieve all the dimensions...they could only interact with the part of the sphere that bisected their dimension. The relationship between God and the Holy Spirit is the same. God intersects our dimension and we call that part of God the Holy Spirit. It's God, but it that part isn't in heaven anymore, it's in our dimension. Maybe that's an imperfect analogy too, but it's close.

but that the Spirit is not a separate entity. Your main justification for the Spirit not being a "person" is that He is not in Heaven.

See above.

So then was Jesus not a person when He was on the earth.

Jesus was fully a person on earth. If Jesus wasn't fully a person his sacrifice would mean nothing.

It seems to me that you are rejecting the Trinity based soley on your aversion to Catholicism. Since it is a supposed "Catholic" doctrine, then somehow it must be wrong. I am not a Catholic, but this doctrine is Biblically supported.

I am rejecting it because it doesn't pass the smell test in the bible, not because it's Catholicism. I actually have more respect on Catholics and Orthodox on this matter than protestents because they at least acknowledge that they are following a tradition that their organizations orginated. Protestants on the other hand are quick to bash Catholics on countless other issues but on this issue and others (the sabbath especially) they basically bow to the catholic authority.

You also mentioned convention of writing. So are you saying Jesus did not refer to the Holy Spirit as a He, that it was just a translational flaw as defined by your church?

The church has nothing to do with that. These are verifiable facts. Did you read what I wrote? Did you look up "autos" and see that it's a gender neutral term in Greek? Did you not see that many times where an english pronoun is used in the bible that there is not a corresponding greek pronoun? Do you think that that those non-existent greek pronouns magically became English pronouns? No, what happens is just like I said. English translators translate according to context, belief, and bias.

Also, on the other point, was His resurrected body Spiritual???

It must have been but with the ability to manifest itself in many ways and forms since he ate, appeared in locked rooms and altered his appearance to different people.

[vmatt]

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

[DouglasKC]

I know you didn't ask me, but here goes. From what I have heard it would seem that your repentence and baptism are valid. You are outside of the bounds of orthodox Christianity, but you already knew that. I would say that you are attempting by your best lights to discern Truth and follow Jesus.

Thanks for an honest assessment...

You are also demonstrating the folly (IMHO) of relying only upon oneself to judge the mysteries to be found in Revelation.

But I'm not and I'd be a liar if I said I was. It's God working in mysterious ways that lead me to it. I look at evidence and based on God's spirit in me I put faith in what makes sense spiritually, biblically and rationally.

[DouglasKC]

You said that Jesus was "physical" while He was on earth. From this I was wondering if you meant that He had no body now. I read "physical" to mean "having a body." If this is not what you meant, I apologize. It is generally understood that Jesus was Resurrected into a glorified, or perfect body. Much like we will some day also be resurrected into an incorruptible body.

Since he's in heaven, His physical body is now the church (small c) of God. His holy spirit resides in the members and together they make up his body.

[Havoc]

Havoc is so blinded by his hatred for the Catholics that he can't see we agree on this point.

Sorry, got better things to apply my energies to than hating people becuase of who or what they are. My war is not with the flesh. And I'm not about to make it one of the flesh. We don't agree on the point or the RCC would stop playing games and say that Homosexuality is a sin. But to do that would mean probably kicking a lot of priests out of the pulpit. Can't afford to do that....

[newberger]

Sure, I'd suggest just calling the pastor and saying you want to visit to get a sense for the worship is like. The forgiveness service that begins Lent can be pretty intense. A lot of the more "casual" Christians who only show up for Sunday morning Liturgy aren't there, and those who do are in my experience often the more devoted core. So the two services - morning Liturgy and the evening forgiveness service - can seem very different. The first will likely be more crowded and triumphant, the second smaller and focused on repentance. The priest should be able to answer any questions you have. I can't remember now if the service has a special name, it probably does - you can just ask if they have a prayer service on the evening of Forgiveness Sunday to begin Lent. God Bless.

Boy, I'm glad you clarified this.

In our parish the "rite of Forgiveness" is always done at the end of the Divine Liturgy (morning).
That way, everyone takes part. It's like a spiritual Spring house cleaning.

to RnMomOf7: Do call ahead. Then you can choose which service(s) to attend. Actually,
Vespers (the evening service) is simpler and easier to relate to than the Divine
Liturgy but the Liturgy is an extraordinarily beautiful service.

Paul

[ksen]

A strictly literal interpretation is rare. And the kinds of excesses seen in some of Origen's work represent the opposite extreme. There is much ground between these two extremes. All Christians who are not "young earth creationists" are deviating from a strictly literal interpretation. Our fleshly sensibility must be transformed by God for us to be able to rightly comprehend Scripture. To acknowledge this is not "spiritualization," if this term is intended as a criticism. I'm not sure of the background of this term, but it seems you have a particular definition in mind. If the "Spirit" involved in our "Spiritualization" is the Holy Spirit, how could this be bad? I doubt this is what you mean, and am assuming that your use of "spiritualization" is a jargon I'm not familiar with.

To read the Bible in a literal sense means to take the Scriptures at face value. We do not deny that God uses symbolism in the Scriptures. Where He does use symbolism it can be discerned by looking at the verse in context. Context meaning looking at the surrounding verses, the book the passage is in, the people being directly addressed, and the local customs and culture that were present at the time of the writing.

If the Holy Spirit were the “Spirit” in “Spiritualization” then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I don’t think that is the Spirit that is present though.

But in the case of the Baptists vs. the JW's, who is to say which group's interpretation lines up better with the whole of Scripture?

Case in point, there's been healthy debate between DouglasKC and others here the past few days. He seems to have as much "Scriptural support" for his position as others do for their's. Who arbitrates? If the written Scripture is the law, who is the judge? Christ, of course, but who speaks for Christ? Not all judges are revisionists.

This same argument can be used with any two groups of people whether they be Baptists, JW’s, Anglicans, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc.

Who would arbitrate in the Orthodox tradition? Do you have a real world example of when there have been conflicting views inside the Orthodox Church and how it was resolved? I know that if I had a different take on a certain Scripture than, say, my Pastor, I would go to him and we would sit down and discuss it. We would pray together and search the Scriptures together until we came to some sort of resolution.

Yes, He does. The fault is ours, and always has been. But even those who witnessed Christ in the flesh talked of His "hard sayings." It is not contradictory to say that God's Word is both true and difficult.

That is true.

On a tangent, do you only eat meat that is prepared kosher - if that's the right word for without blood? I didn't think that was a Baptist practice.

No, I don’t believe that the dietary laws are in effect any longer.

God Bless.

You too friend.

-ksen