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

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Is Solomon a Bnai Elohim?

Only 3 places in the OT have "Sons of God" as Bnai Elohim. Genesis 6, Job 1 and in the Book of Daniel. Either the Lions den of the Fiery furnace situation. Too lazy to look it up.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

No. Ask Tiki and Sarradipity. :-)

I meant yes ask Tiki and Saradippity. Sheesh I'm going too fast.

[The_Reader_David]

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that the Patriarchate of Rome also violated the normative practice of the Church in not providing the Celtic peoples with Scriptures and services in a language they understood. There are you happy?

[The_Reader_David]

As I explained the uniform understanding of the East (heavens, even the Arian heretics identified the Yahweh of glory in the Old Testament with the Son!), I observed that only Westerners make the identification of Yahweh with the Father alone. (Citing scripturals support for the position of not doing so.) I trust that you do not, since the current catechism of your confession has relied heavily on the Greek Fathers. You will observe that I did not say "all Westerners", I only limited the error to the West.

[Elsie]

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.

They still stone Him today, for exactly the same reason: "God CANNOT make Himself into the form af a man - flesh."

---

Job and his friends had some pretty well entrenched ideas about what GOD could or could not do, likewise.

[DouglasKC]

Only 3 places in the OT have "Sons of God" as Bnai Elohim. Genesis 6, Job 1 and in the Book of Daniel. Either the Lions den of the Fiery furnace situation. Too lazy to look it up.

"Son of God" or "son of gods" depending on the translation is in Daniel 3:25, the fiery furnace...but it's not Bnai Elohim. It's "bar elahh" which is, as far as I can tell, the only instance that it occurs in the old testament. I find it interesting that Christ saved humanity through his sacrifice and if one wants to read that "bar elahh" as Christ then he also saved those three...

[malakhi]

Who said the following my Jewish friend? What is it's interpretation? O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Selah.

Psalm 4:2. I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of the verse.

[The_Reader_David]

Ah, but even in Hebrew, one of the words for God is plural, is it not? Elohim? Trinitarianism is not tri-theism, whatever its critics may say. The One God transcends all distinctions applicable to created things, of which the distinction between unity and multiplicity is but an example.

[Elsie]

Probably made me mad cuz I gave my heart to the Lord in 1971 over in Vietnam. The person God used to make me aware told me as soon as I got home to find a church. Well, I didn't know any better and what I found was one of those "wacked out" (lol) Benny Hinn type of churchs. I stayed there for about 7 years before I saw the error. I think there are many like me still bound up into all that. I will say that there's no question I loved the Lord and there's no question some that are deceived by him do as well.

---

I like this story. It gives me a bit more confidence to think that even in quite definite cultist groups: JW's, Mormons, etc. there may be some folks that are saved, even though they don't COMPLETELY understand what they are entangled with.

[malakhi]

This is great, I feel like I'm tap dancing. So then may I surmise that whenever we see the word "god" we may ask ourselves which one?

Well, if you keep in mind that Jews believe in only One God, then the context should determine usage. What I gave from Psalm 82 is not the only example. Consider this:

And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. (Exodus 7:1)

This does not mean that Moses was made divine.

[OLD REGGIE]

Well, well, now let's hear some of your inane wisecracks about one of the other quotations I posted. 'Smatter, cat got your tongue?

St. Irenaeus, (pupil of St. Polycarp, one of the disciples of the Apostle John) Against Heresies, A.D. 180. "For surely they (the Apostles) wished all those and their successors to be perfect and beyond reproach, to whom they handed on their authority....

"...The blessed Apostles, having founded and built up the Church, then handed over the episcopate to Linus. ...To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate." ...(Gives list of next 8 popes up to time of writing.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly, another of your "authorities" has a problem standing up to scrutiny.

"The most significant historical doubt affects Peter's second successor. After Linus, Cletus (80-92) or Clement could have been Pope, either between 68 and 76; or between 92 and 99. Therefore, one could have been Pope before the other."

Pontifical Yearbook 2001.

Corrections Made to Official List of Popes

In the future, please provide facts, not fiction, for your "proof".

[Elsie]

I think you're better off looking at the Hebrew and seeing what name it uses. What your professor suggests is an artificial distinction that doesn't exist in the Hebrew.

I agree, somewhat.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

"Son of God" or "son of gods" depending on the translation is in Daniel 3:25, the fiery furnace...but it's not Bnai Elohim. It's "bar elahh" which is, as far as I can tell, the only instance that it occurs in the old testament. I find it interesting that Christ saved humanity through his sacrifice and if one wants to read that "bar elahh" as Christ then he also saved those three...

Maybe "Bnai Elohim: is just the Genesis and Job "Sons of God". I thought I heard somewhere that the one in Daniel was too.

[malakhi]

So, are Allah and God the same person? : )

Given that Mohammud was influenced by both Christian and Jewish belief, and studied the Hebrew scriptures with the Jews in Medina, I would have to say yes. His Allah was One God who was Creator and Judge. Mohammud 'Islamized" some pagan Arab practices, but his concept of God is very similar to that of Judaism.

How modern muslims interpret their Koran and understand God's will for them today is an entirely different topic of discussion.

[eastsider]

You will observe that I did not say "all Westerners", I only limited the error to the West.

Thank you. Please forgive my misconstruction of your post. (In retrospect, I should have known better; if you had intended what I thought you did, I'm pretty sure you would have said "Latins," not "Westerners.")

[malakhi]

I'm a newbie compared to you guys...I didn't come in until nearly post 4000 on this thread...that was only about 4 months ago but it seems like so long because this thread has spurred me to study areas I never would have considered before.

That, and all the pizza you can eat!

Oh, wait...that's just for the old-timers. (Sorry, guys ;o)

[malakhi]

But our reading of the OT and our understanding of Messiah must be colored by our belief in the Resurrection.

Exactly.

[SoothingDave]

Prior to 1550 (approximately) generally the vernacular.

After 1550 (approximately) until Vatican II, (approximately 400 years) Latin.

This might be difficult for you to comprehend, but I'll try. The fact that Latin was used in some places doesn't make it the "official" language. It became "official" after the Council of Trent. Do the arithmetic.

Well, let's go to our trusty Catholic Encyclopdeia. At 1 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm, the entry for "Rites" we learn:

Greek was first used at Rome, too. About the third century the services were translated into the vulgar tongue, Latin (see MASS, LITURGY OF THE),

OK, Reggie, about the third century, Latin was first used. Not after Trent.

which has remained ever since. There was no possible rival language for many centuries. As the Western barbarians became civilized they accepted a Latin culture in everything, having no literatures of their own. Latin was the language of all educated people, so it was used in church, as it was for books or even letter-writing.

The barbarians had no literature, or culture, so they adopted the Latin one. Latin was used for any writing, and it was used in the Church.

The Romance people drifted from Latin to Italian, Spanish, French, etc., so gradually that no one can say when Latin became a dead language. The vulgar tongue was used by peasants and ignorant people only; but all books were written, lectures given, and solemn speeches made in Latin.

All books lectures, solemn speeches were given in Latin. Now what "Vernacular tongue do you imagine they performed Church services in?

Even Dante (d. 1321) thought it necessary to write an apology for Italian (De vulgari eloquentia).

In the 14th Century, Dante apologized for the crudeness of Italian!

So for centuries the Latin language was that, not of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman patriarchate. When people at last realized that it was dead, it was too late to change it. Around it had gathered the associations of Western Christendom; the music of the Roman Rite was composed and sung only to a Latin text; and it is even now the official tongue of he Roman Court.

It is this patrimony of the use of Latin in the Latin Rite that I expressed my fondness for. To set Trent as a date that Latin became official is crazy.

(To be fair there are other Rites, but I was not talking of them. If you were, please say so.)

SD

[The_Reader_David]

It is obvious that you have no conception of the history of either the Church or the canon of Holy Scripture. You seem to believe that St. Constantine has something to do with the "Roman Catholic Church", and institution which in its modern form has existed only since the 11th century: before that it was the Patriarchate of Rome, and part of the Church. You express complete ignorance of the fact that the Christian canon of Scripture was codified by the Church at a particular time, long after the Church was founded.

If you don't understand me, take my advice, and read Pelikan's history of the Church!

[SoothingDave]

I see your point. Still, though, Ha-Shem refers only to the Father.

Ha Shem refers to God, the Divine Being. If He is One in the Father to you, than that is to what it refers. If He is Triune to me, than that is to what it refers.

SD