'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

I do defend the fact that they are beloved by God and were led by God to develop a Canon of Scripture long before the council of Jamnia - a canon that did NOT contain the Apocrypha.

Again, you are incorrect. Different sects of Judaism did not agree on the Canon of Scriptures. Again, the Septuagint was used BEFORE Christ by the Diaspora.
Again, the Bible itself tells us that the Sadducees only believed in the Torah (first five books) as the Word of God.
Where does it say this? They didn't believe in the Resurrection (they were Sad-You-See). But I do not recall the Bible anywhere saying they only believed in the Torah. Jerome and Origen asserted this.

See http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/mk.htm

"Here is the evidence. The early church fathers Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and Jerome said the Sadducees only believed in the Torah. However, The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.884-885 says they were in error, because

1) Josephus does not mention this
2) In the Talmud Sadducees use arguments from other books of the Old Testament,
3) They probably would not have been allowed on the Sanhedrin if they had not regarded the other books as canonical.
However against this are three points:
1r) Josephus wrote of the Sadducees, "…nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins…" in Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.4. (about 93-94 A.D.)
2r) Furthermore, even if the Sadducees did not totally reject the rest of the Old Testament, they might have only accepted the rest of the Old Testament books as less authoritative. This is similar to the view of some Christians as the apocrypha being godly writings that belong in Scripture, but having lesser authority than the rest of the Old Testament. Perhaps the Sadducees left open the question of just how authoritative the non-Torah books were.
3r) According to Josephus, Ananias (the younger) was a Sadducee who was appointed high priest by the Romans. It would detract from the Sanhedrin’s authority if they excluded the high priest. Also, Josephus writes in Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.4, that when the Sadducees became magistrates, they adhered to what the Pharisees said, because otherwise the multitudes could not endure them. It is analogous to today, when many liberal "Christian" pastors, who themselves deny that Jesus died to pay for our sins, still celebrate the Lord’s Supper every month, repeating the words "This is my blood shed for the forgiveness of sins", because otherwise the church members would not accept them as pastors.
Where did the early church fathers get their information? Since the Sadducees died out around 70 A.D., they did not get it from the Sadducees themselves. Perhaps they got the information from many early writings we do not have today. For example, Papias, a disciple of John the Apostle and the first extra-Biblical premillennialist, wrote a number of volumes which have been lost.
Therefore, while there is nothing to prove the early church writers wrong, there are arguments on both sides as to whether the Sadducees outright reject the rest of the Old Testament, or else just held these books as of lesser authority. "

The Jews before Jamnia were not concerned with solidifying a canon. This did not occur until AFTER Jerusalem was destroyed and the Pharisaical sect that was left decided to set the canon so as to maintain their separateness from the competing sect of Christianity, which obviously had a DIFFERENT OT that they used. Proof of this is when the OT is quoted, over 80% of the quotes are taken from the Greek OT, not the Masoretic Hebrew OT.
So? I specifically stated I wasn't talking about Jamnia.

The Targums did not contain the extra books.

So what, the Targums don't contain the Prophets, either...
From Wikipedia: "These two targumim are mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud as targum didan ("our Targum"), giving them official status. In the synagogues of talmudic times, Targum Onkelos was read alternately with the Torah, verse by verse, and Targum Jonathan was read alternately with the selection from Nevi'im (i.e. the Haftarah). This custom continues today in Yemenite Jewish synagogues. The Yemenite Jews are the only Jewish community to continue the use of Targum as liturgical text, as well as to preserve a living tradition of pronunciation for the Aramaic of the targumim (according to a Babylonian dialect)."

The Peshitta Syriac did not contain them.

Wherever Christianity spread, translations of the Hebrew Scriptures were made based on the LXX. Thus, it became the basis for translations made into Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Latin, Coptic, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic. (It was not the basis either for the Syriac version [known as the Peshitta], which is a pre-Christian translation based directly upon the Hebrew, or for St. Jerome's Latin translation, which is also based on the Hebrew.). Since Jerome's aversion of the Greek OT is well-known, it is not surprising that the Syriac version does not include the Deuts.
So, we have someone besides Jerome again that doesn't include the "Deuts." The compilers of the Peshitta Syriac.

We find some Greek Church Fathers quoting the same Old Testament texts, but in very different forms. There is no indication, however, that this troubled to Church leadership. The insistence on letter-for-letter, word-for-word accuracy in the Scriptures was a feature that was not to emerge in Christian thought for many centuries, and then in imitation of Jewish and Islamic models.
It should have bothered them - and you. The Jewish Model was meticulous. It is simply unfathomable (and without evidentiary support) that the Jews would have removed books from their Testament that were considered canonical.

Jesus Himself stated what the Canon was Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " Nothing about the inter-testamental books there.

Oh brother... And where does the Bible tell us what consisted of the "prophets and psalms"?
Not the point. The fact that there was a settled set of books that were considered Scripture at the time of Christ is clear from Jesus' own testimony on the subject.

Does this include the historical books, like Joshua or Chronicles? Probably. There were the former prophets and the latter prophets in Jewish culture. Joshua, Judges, Samuel/ Kings were considered former prophets. Daniel, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and Trei Asar (12 minor prophets) were considered the Latter Prophets. Jesus well may have understood this the same way and it appears that he did.

And how could there be "inter-testamental" books BEFORE the NT was even written???
Uh, if the the Apocryphal books were in the Septuagint and were written at a time in between the last of the Hebrew Scriptures was written but BEFORE the first New Testament book was written, then they are "inter-testamental." In between the Testaments.

Jerome and Origen rejected the books as canonical.

Jerome did. And he is the ONLY one I could find in my study on this subject. Origen did not reject them. Dealt with in other posts.

"You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel. (Origen,To Africanus, 5)
I don't see a defense of Susanna or Bel, I see a mentioning that they are found in every Christian church. He says he doesn't know what to do with them. In his list of Canonical books, they are not mentioned.

Later, in this same passage, he will defend the Catholic version of Daniel 3 and the Song of the 3 children. Notice that Origen also defends the use of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as found in Daniel 13 and 14 of the Catholic Bible. He says that Bel and the Dragon and Susanna, Daniel 13 and 14 and only found in the Catholic Bible, is found in every single Church of Christ.
1)'every single church of Christ' is an overstatement. They were not found in churches using the Syriac Peshitta for example. 2)The fact that this is being discussed again underscores the fact that it was not UNIVERSALLY held that these books were canonical and Jerome wasn't the only one.

Origen himself acknowledges that all Churches use these books. And in which way? He notes that he refers to them as Scripture. His opponent said it was a forgery. He corrects his opponent. It is not a forgery, but he notes his own use of them as Scripture
Again, they are not in his listing.

And what else did Origen find as Scripture?

But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12
Does not indicate that Sirach is Canonical. I could say "Let all who wish to live according to the teaching of Scripture understand the saying of Bill Clinton..." I use a baser individual to make a point. Jerome felt the books were instructive. He did NOT consider them Scripture. Origen does not say that Sirach IS Scripture. He listed the Canon. Sirach was not of the canon.

Oh, now Sirach is ALSO Scriptures, according to Origen...
No. But nice try.

To save time, I will note that he also sees Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom as Scriptures. Thus, your claim about Origen are totally false.
I saw his explicit lists. His quotations of books that even Jerome felt were instructive do not indicate that they are canonical. Unless you have a statement by Origen that says that "Judith, Tobit, Wisdom are canonical Scriptures" then don't bother.

...Athanasius did the same

You and your sources are confused with the term "canon" as used by Athanasius, misunderstanding his use in his 39th Festal letter, no doubt.
No we don't. Since the Deuteros were contested by some, Athanasius, in an effort to protect his flock from spurious writings, felt it necessary to exclude even those books accepted by other churches. Now, did Athanasius himself think the Deuteros were Scriptures? Yes...

Okay, let me get this argument straight. Athanasius believed that the Deuteros were Scripture so to protect his flock from spurious writings he omitted them from his list. Makes sense.

"[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2
Baruch is the only book named such. He rejected Wisd. Tobit Judith & Maccabees as well as Esther and Ecclesiastes. Again, he states concerning the Deuteros :"[they are]not received as canonical but having been appointed by the Fathers to be read to those just beginning in the faith and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness." In short, non-canonical but instructive reading.

"And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians
He refers to several people here. 1) The sacred writers in Hebrews. 2)Isaiah. 3) Susanna 4) Baruch. Quoting from books one finds instructional is not establishing their canonicity. Paul, in witnessing to the pagans at Mars Hill quoted Greek Authors "“For in him we live and move and have our being”- Epimenides, Cretica; "For we are also his offspring"- Aratus Phaenomena and he later quotes Menander's Thais :"Evil company corrupts good habits." Did he consider them Scripture? No. He considered them instructional. In the Origen quote, only Hebrews is associated with "Sacred Writers". The rest is instructional but is not meant to be a commentary on what the Canon is.

Daniel 13 is Scripture ... Wisdom and Sirach are Scriptures for the same reason. Judith...yadayadayada...
Again, read what Athanasius said about the Apocryphal books ""But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded." Regardless of his quoting from them because they were appointed to be read- they were NOT considered canonical by Athanasius or by the Fathers per his own quote.

Maybe you should get the facts straight before you spout off such nonsense. I have given plenty of evidence that you are wrong and merely mimicing some Protestant apologist who hadn't done his homework...
Maybe you will read Athanasius' actual words rather than reading INTO his words based upon YOUR own presuppositions. He listed the books. He specifically denied the canonicity of the extra books while retaining their usefulness.

The rest has nothing to do with our conversation, as I have not said anything hateful towards the Jews. I am merely giving you the historical facts of what the Church believed was Scripture and that the Jews did NOT have a fixed Canon until after the Destruction of Jerusalem and felt the need to consolidate and fight against whom they saw as a wayward sect, the Christians.
The conversation stemmed from the antisemitism on the thread - so yes, it is relevant. Second, you have dismissed Christ's own words as to an established Canon. The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. That was the Canon. We can argue about what was in those sections of the Tanach, but the fact remains that Jesus knew what was the established Canon passed down through the Jews - and Jesus lived BEFORE Jamnia in case you didn't notice.

Regards

Kawaii, I believe that my Protestant Scripture contains the only books God preserved as Canonical. The others were added to the CANON at Trent and were disputed by the early church - included in but not limited to Jerome's Vulgate.

The books are of inferior quality and pedigree from the accepted Hebrew Scriptures.

JESUS named the canon of his day as the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. Peter included the epistles and the gospels are mentioned as well in the testimony of Scripture.

As Sola Scripturaists, we try to stick with that which is Scriptural. Purgatory certainly isn't scriptural; but it really and honestly has little if nothing to do with my personal rejection of the Apocrypha.

Find me one where He says GO therefore to the Gentiles. Again, Matthew 28 is matter of interpretation. Ethnos can mean a variety of things. Just as American Indians speak of "nations" coming together (meaning Native American), this is a common anthropological phenomenon among tribal peoples.

And on that interpretation hinges whether Christ commanded Gentiles to witness to others. Let's look at it from your POV. What does the consensus patrum say about someone witnessing to you, or you witnessing to other Gentiles? Full support, right? So, must this not be the will of Christ? How could it not be?

The reason I am saying this the fact that Jesus was a Jew and as a Jew He could not associate closely with the Gentiles. Activities such as eating together and fraternizing in a general way was strictly forbidden, never mind praying together!

As a Jew, could Jesus do work on the Sabbath? We know what happened there, so I would think that Jesus had no problem in associating with the Gentile riffraff. One of the big parts of Jesus' New Covenant was to officially bring in the Gentiles. I can't believe Jesus didn't lay any groundwork. (I already think He did in some of the verses you earlier rejected as to interpretation.)

Christ never advocated anything but Judaism. And Judaism He could preach only to the lost tribes of Israel (Jews do not proselytize).

I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Did Christ NOT advocate Christianity as we know it? If He didn't then we all have a problem.

He merely restated what the Jews believed, namely that through the messiah (meshiyah), who will establish peace and rule as a king on earth, the world will get to know (know about) the God of Abraham, not necessarily that the world will believe.

If He only came to restate, then He could not have fulfilled. In fact, if all He did was restate, then there would have been no movement to kill Him.

The Gospels were written when Christianity had only a one way ticket out of Israel. +Matthew wrote his between 70 and 100 AD. By then +Paul was already dead, and so was +James, along with the Church in Jerusalem (which was shut down in 69 AD). In view of that, +Matthew's Gospel's ending makes sense, a lot of sense!

Was it God's inspired word or not? Was all of this exactly according to God's original plan or not? Sure, the ending of Matthew makes a lot of sense, but not because of unforeseen circumstances, but because it was exactly as God designed.

FK: "... if you really believe that Christ did not want them to preach to Gentiles, then the only way you are saved is because Paul DISOBEYED Christ."

I don't think he disobeyed Christ. I don't think he ever saw Christ. I think +Paul was a very zealous convert. He saw Christians dying with joy and without fear. Many were impressed by that. He could have learned a great deal about Christianity in his line of work.

Do you believe what the Bible says happened on the road to Damascus? This is critical to any opinion of Paul. If that was just a story to buck up his street cred. then Paul was a fraud. He made very bold claims about that experience, which the other Apostles seemed to fully accept. I don't see much room for a middle of the road view here.

you mean the ones that jews who deny christ consider canonical.

What does the consensus patrum say

I have no leg to stand on when it comes to concensus patrum, FK. But I don't see any evidence that the whole thing was intended for the gentiles from the get-go.

I would think that Jesus had no problem in associating with the Gentile riffraff

Do we have references to that, other than an occasional Canaan woman?

I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Did Christ NOT advocate Christianity as we know it?

What He taught was Judaism. He was a Jew. A Jew cannot believe in another religion and be a Jew.

He never advocated anything but obedience to the Law. He never advocated dispensing with dietary laws, or circumcision; He never advocated 'grafting' gentiles to Israel.

In fact, if all He did was restate, then there would have been no movement to kill Him

He was not killed because He came to restate but because He was rumored to have claimed that was the Son of God. That was a capital offense in Israel.

Do you believe what the Bible says happened on the road to Damascus?

I don't know what happened. In 1 Cor 9:1 +Paul says "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" but in Acts 9:8 it says "And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms.

If they are going to keep one custom or law of a desert nomadic tribe, they should keep them all.

Amen. And we know that ain't happening.

FK: "... one cannot repent without faith."

That's absurd. Anyone can repent for any reason whatsoever, even an atheist. Repentance merely means change of mind (metanoia in Greek). Anyone can regret something and resolve never to do it again. No faith needed there.

Given the flow of the conversation, I took it for granted that "repentance" referred to "repentance to God for sins against God". In that sense, it requires faith.

Of course, in the case of king David faith was the factor for his metanoia, but I am willing to bet there are people of faith who don't repent of everything, even though they have faith.

That must be the case the vast majority of the time. I would imagine that if one's last act is NOT one of repentance that there are some skeletons that have not been dealt with, in all Christian faiths. However, I am not familiar with what level of confessional particularity your priests would require to constitute "coverage". :)

Clearly western Protestantism is the source of this 'abolition' of scriptural prohibition for women to preach in church/public places.

You had to get in a shot, didn't you. :) I'm not positive, but I think it's correct that you can't look to any Reformed posters you know on this thread about this issue. I can only "unofficially" speak for SBC, and to date I'm unaware of any women senior pastors anywhere.

I agree with you that none of our churches passes every test of "the rules" perfectly. That's why I don't think it's right to make a federal case out of Reformed churches not mandating that women be covered artificially (i.e. with a veil), the way Kawaii has been. That verse isn't even crystal clear as to interpretation anyway, as 1000 S has demonstrated.

God gave us life as well. We don't call it 'free gift (of life).' God gives us faith; we don't call it 'free gift (of faith).' Life and faith are something we actually have, grace is a pardon (unwarranted mercy) that we benefit from but don't have.

What? Putting the "life" part aside for a moment, you don't think faith is a free gift? Faith is just something we "have"? If faith isn't a gift from God then we must have ginned it up independently of God. Is this how you see it? Besides the obvious Eph. 2:8-9, see also:

Rom 12:3 : 3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.

1 Tim 1:13-14 : 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

No, we owe all of any faith we have to God. We don't simply "have" it.

[Grace is] not a state like freedom (which we don't call 'free gift' but an 'inalienable right').

Well, it's clear you can't be talking about spiritual freedom because the Bible is clear that it is a gift, unless one believes that salvation is earned. But even with physical freedom, calling it a right as opposed to a gift belies the Founders intentions, assuming that's what you were referring to. :

[Declaration of Independence:] ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Founders were absolutely correct. Any "rights" that we have which are unalienable are God-gifted rights. We did nothing to earn these rights, they were given by God in His sovereignty. It is the same with grace, and it is the same with faith (and it is the same with life itself).

A gift of a diamond ring would be a gift only if it were given to someone for no reason whatsoever. An engagement ring is a 'promissory item' usually but not always without a legal contract. It is given because someone wants something in return for it. It is therefore not a gift.

You wanna sell that to your wife? :) I would be injured if I tried. To avoid injury I would tell my wife that I loved her so much that all I wanted in the world was to marry her. Even in my youthful poverty, it was by God's grace that I scraped enough cash together to buy her the most beautiful ring I could as a small token of the love I had for her. Even if I didn't have the means for a ring, I still would have asked her to marry me. That makes it a gift, and nobody gets hurt. :)

He has this idea that you can go to WAR(in chess) and not lose a single man. Typical naive democrat. I should feel guilty whacking him 9 out of 10 games but true FRers should ALWAYS whack pelosi demonrats wherever they may be found.

Amen. I sure hope America wakes up and realizes what she did in putting these unpatriotic, anti-American leftists in power. I can't believe these liberals voting unanimously to confirm General Petraeus, and their next act is to vote against everything he told them he intended to do. I can't wait to see what happens when the actual funding bill comes up. I just DARE them to back Murtha or cut it outright. Suicide.

Ah well, we architects are both artists AND engineers, natural chess players; but we play with BIGGER THINGS than chess men on an 8x8 board. What's your profession?

I'm a lawyer. Most of my career has been in corporate legal departments handling contracts and miscellaneous business law issues. Drafting contracts is sort of like chess. You have to arrange all the words to work together to achieve your goal. Sacrifices must be made during negotiations, etc., etc. I just know that the same thing that attracted me to chess also attracted me to the law.

Not the same, because we are taught not to bring our baggage into the scripture. We are told to check with what the Catholic Church as a whole teaches.

And what the Catholic Church teaches doesn't count as baggage??? :) "Baggage" doesn't have to be a bad thing. It just means a bias that is carried. I carry conservative Christian baggage to my political analysis. No big deal. All I'm saying is that we are all the same in this department, just from different sources. For example, when I look at one scripture, I carry with me the baggage of other scripture on the same subject. :)

FK: "[Does] the RCC support the Gideons?"

I don't know for a fact either way. I would not be surprised if we do, as it is sometime a useful thing, but I also would not be surprised if we don't because it is a truncated Bible.

Well, would you really say that a lost person given a Bible without the Dueterocanonicals would be worse off than with no Bible at all? What are the critical scriptural tenants of Christianity found only in the Dueterocanicals?

then salvation for us would be God pushing the boat all the way across, protecting it all the way

No offense, FK, but that sounds very naïve to me.

I don't see how it could refer to only demons. The analogy would fall apart because it is so clear that sheep refers to people

Well, then the Bible is not telling us the truth; then the eternal lake of fire was not created for the devil and his angels, but for some 'goats' in addition to that. It is clear from another part of the NT that Christ considered some who are among us not to have been created by the Father, but by the devil. (cf John 8:44)

To the extent we are both Christians, we ARE on the same page of music

I must disagree, FK. A couple of years ago I would have been more inclined to agree, but after having learned more about what encompasses "Christian" since then, that notion evaporated.

The Apostolics and the Protestants, as well as the LDS, and all sorts of other groups, all call on Christ, but our theologies, soteriologies, Christologies, etc. are like night and day. Even our "core concepts" that we share (in name at least), such as the Holy Trinity are not the same. When Kolo said that we worship a different God, he pretty much spoke my mind.

The Jews believed in Messiah

The messiah of Judaism is not a savior of man's souls. He is a mortal human being, a real king, who will bring peace and rule the world (this is where many anti-semitic groups get their conspiracy theories), this world. The Hebrew expression 'the world to come' does not refer to the heavenly world we think of. These terms are of course found in the OT but they had a different meaning before the Christians re-defined them.

The Apostles clearly expected such a man when they asked Christ if he was ready to establish the kingdom of Israel in the Book of Acts.

I really do not believe that the Apostles thought of Him as God (all Gospel verse notwithstanding) before the Resurrection, and that even after that +Thomas still had to put his fingers in His wounds in order to believe.

Of course that's not how it works, and I'm surprised that you still think Protestants "figure" that way at all.

Okay, then tell me if the Protestants do not believe that Christ paid for all our sins, past, present and future. Are we not just a pile of dung covered with a white sheet (Luther's words)? There is no cleansing required; just put on some clean clothes on our dirty bodies! Shove that dirt under the rug.

Do Protestants no believe that those who are saved are saved because God 'saved' them before they were even created? That nothing can change that? That everything they do is what God wills? Our works are not salvific; but then they are not damning either, correct? No matter what we do, we cannot be 'snatched,' correct?

Do the Protestants not believe that all your future sins are already 'covered?' So, why worry; be happy, right? Cozy, easy. Just sing 'hallelujah' and let god 'splash away' those 'perfect storms.' Easy, cozy, 'feel good,' that requires absolutely nothing of an individual's own doing. Nothing.

Was this God adjusting on the fly? :) God made a New Covenant because it was time for the Incarnation, planned from the beginning, and Christ was to bring it

Actually, yes! Just the way He 'repented' in the Old Testament for having made man and decided to drown everything alive — "on the fly." Otherwise we have to assume He created man wicked in order to drown Him.

Your theory doesn't match the scripture, FK. In Hebrews, the scribe specifically states that the Old Covenant was made 'imperfect' by the unbelieving Jews (cf Heb 8:9), and that God decided to start from scratch, erasing the iniquities of the Jews and staring with a clean slate, once again (cf Heb 8:12).

I had the impression that you were saying that the Reformed interpretation of Paul was closer to the actual words of Paul, and that was different from what Christ taught

FK, the Church and the Protestants cannot teach +Paul the same way and be ad different as night and day as they are. The divide comes in the perspectives and selectivity. The Church concentrates on those parts of +Paul which agree with the Church; the Protestants do the same except they look for agreement with them. Both sides claim that +Paul taught what Christ taught.

Christ did not teach to abandon circumcision or drop dietary laws or to create a new religion. That much is certain. So, +Paul did teach things Christ never taught — unless, of course, we are to make a leap and say that Christ was really speaking through +Paul. But, then, everything else is up for grabs!

It's the interpretation that causes the problems, not the reliance on scripture

But we rely on the interpretation, FK, not on the scripture itself! The scriputre is not clear and definitive enough to tell us straight and narrow what the meaning is. To the contrary!

The scirputre is full of anecdotes, stories, parables, cultural specificities known only to the locals, time gap, you name it.

That's why my love for Tolstoy's Three Little Hermits and Christ's Two Commandments from the OT are my guiding formula to faith: glorify God and leave the rest to Him.

All the rest is human interpretation, i.e. legalisms, rules, judging, prejudices, and cultural bias.

Different interpretations by different men will lead to different answers

That hardly qualifies as the truth. Trouble is, people make decisions, sometimes decisions of life and death, based on those interpretations. Again, we use religion as a weapon and not as a means to simply acknowledge God's glory and be at peace. No, we must 'interpret' and be 'right.'

The key is not interpretation, FK, but worship. The less we concentrate on interpreting the scriputre 'just right,' and more on worship, the less sinful our lives will be.

Yes, we have hope in God's mercy, but we can be sure of this hope.

That's nonsense, FK.

However, I am not familiar with what level of confessional particularity your priests would require to constitute "coverage". :)

The preist doesn't require anything. Your confession starts with "I confess to God, before you (priest, your witness)..." The only one you are cheating is the priest if you don't tell him everything. He will bless you and ask God to forgive you assuming you told God everything God already knows, and have resolved noever to repeat the same.

As you say, that's hardly the case, so we all tried to cheat God. But in many instances, we really don't see our sin because of arrogance and pride and have "nothing to confess."

I can only "unofficially" speak for SBC, and to date I'm unaware of any women senior pastors anywhere.

Seniority is not part of the formula, FK. It's something a lawyer would throw in to obfuscate the issue faced with a lack of any real argument. :)

I agree with you that none of our churches passes every test of "the rules" perfectly. That's why I don't think it's right to make a federal case out of Reformed churches not mandating that women be covered artificially (i.e. with a veil), the way Kawaii has been

By all means, I couldn't agree more! But it's important to understand where the 'tide comes from' so to say. certainly, the non-compliance in Apostolic churches did not come from within those churches, but from western influence, based on Protestant individualism, pride, hatred for authority, etc. all the things we cherrish in secular life and mistakenly bring into our spiritual life.

It is even more hypocritical that it should come from the Protestant side since the Protestants 'live by the Bible.'

Artificial or not, +Paul is very clear when it comes to 'being covered.' There is nothing ambiguous about his commandments, FK. Let's face it, women find it 'offensive' to be excluded. They feel that they are somehow 'demeaned' when they are covered. Those ideas don't come from the Bible. They don't come from the Church, either.

What? Putting the "life" part aside for a moment, you don't think faith is a free gift?

It's a blessing, a gift if you will; you were given eyes and ears and a brain; do you call them 'free' as well? The absurdity of the construct 'free gift' couldn't be more obvious. Every true gift is free.

No, we owe all of any faith we have to God. We don't simply "have" it

So, now then you admit that our faith is not 'free?' It is attached to a condition that we owe to God? Then it's not a gift!

What God gave us freely is what we have; it is ours. When you give a gift, it is still yours?

Not unless it is freely given back to you! (here is where our free will comes in and why God gave us free will; if we can't give God back freely what He gave us freely, there is no true love)

The old saying says: if you let your bird free and he comes back to you, then he is yours. If he doesn't, he never was.

Faith is no different than our ears and our eyes. God gave them to us; they are ours to have and to use as we please. The same is with the faith: He inscribes it in our hearts; some use it; others don't.

Well, it's clear you can't be talking about spiritual freedom because the Bible is clear that it is a gift, unless one believes that salvation is earned

Grace is God's decision. It's different from the faith you carry in your heart and either come to God or reject Him. It's different from your eyes and ears which you have. Grace is a state: either you are graced or you are not. Either you are blessed or you are not. Either you are talented or you are not. Either you are alive or you are dead.

The "state" is your existence: you exist as a free soul, or you are a captive soul; you are awake or you are asleep. Your faith and your body parts are not a 'state.' They have a lot to do with you and your will. They are yours. They were given to you to keep and use. Your grace is independent of your will. It is not a gift. Your birth, your life, is independent of your will.

You wanna sell that to your wife? :) I would be injured if I tried. Even in my youthful poverty, it was by God's grace that I scraped enough cash together to buy her the most beautiful ring I could as a small token of the love I had for her

And, what did she buy you as a 'token' of her love? Did she also scrape enough of her youthful cash to buy you the most beautiful token of love she could? If she did, that's unusual. The 'token buying' (which is a major purchase and hardly a 'token,' yet another oxymoron we use so freely) is a one-way street, FK.

In many many societies in the world, it's the father of the bride who brings gifts to the groom (dowry). Somewhere along the line, the roles got reversed. :)

Not the same, because we are taught not to bring our baggage into the scripture. We are told to check with what the Catholic Church as a whole teaches.

And what the Catholic Church teaches doesn't count as baggage???

LOL. INDEED! Though, to be candid, ALL groups . . . just as ALL individuals . . . carry baggage that is antethetical to God's Highest Truth, Will, Plan.

Today, here, now, on this issue, the group may level out the individual askew biases and bring a more Biblical, more Spirit led whole to bear. Tomorrow, there, then, on that issue, the SAME group may multiply the individual satan influenced biases toward an increase in the collective rebellion against God's Highest Truth, Will, Plan. Happens in ALL groups more or less all the time to greater or lesser degree.

When it's sufficiently horrid long enough, we have an Inquisition, papal orgies, "religious wars" for personal power mongering conquest. Most of the time, the horror is an outrageous "merely" multiplication of the preening 'before men' PLAYING CHURCH--habits, customs, traditions, values, priorities.

The notion that the magesterical; the built-up traditions; the spurious 'Apastolic' succession has somehow protected one group of mortals toward a more perfect union of Christian saintliness is beyond utter balderdash.

That sickening silliness UTTERLY IGNORES:
. . .
1) HUMAN NATURE
2) COLLECTIVE HUMAN NATURE
3) BIBLICAL HISTORY OF SUCH with God's CHOSEN people IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
4) THE HEART OF MAN--WHO CAN KNOW ITS DECEITFUL WICKEDNESS
5) PSYCHODYNAMICS
6) SOCIOLOGICAL FORCES AND DYNAMICS
7) SATAN'S SKILL AT PLAYING COMPLICIT HUMANS LIKE A VERY OFF KEY PIANO

There is NO automatic magIC-sterical to the magisterical any more than Holy Spirit FORCES every Pentecostal to be a super saint.

CHURCHIOLOTRY is and has been alive and far too well in every era and every group. The older the group, the worse it has gotten, in at least several respects

The Gospels read like Christ--not the reformer--Christ the turner-of-the-institutions inside out; upside down and everywhich way but loose. And, His prime candidate to carry the biggest baton--Paul--went through about every hardship, suffering and indignancy known to man of the era. He did not fit the mold of A BUILDER OF EDIFICES.

He fit the mold of . . . well . . . of Jesus. TRUTH AND LOVE--RUTHLESS TRUTH--NO HOLDS BARRED LOVE--AND NOT A SHRED OF LENIENCY TOWARD INDIVIDUAL, GROUP OR ORGANIZATIONAL IDIOCY.

HIS MISSION WAS CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED. The churches he left were led of Holy Spirit wherein NO INDIVIDUAL was to usurp power over anyone else. Leadership was to be by utter servanthood and by example of Christ perfected in the individual's life. There was Not a hint of any sort of positional lineage. Get the humble wise old codgers to decide tricky questions and go on with The Gospel--was the pattern. Local groups were expected to be charitable toward poor distant groups NOT because they were part of some magicsterically sanctioned organizational structure, edifice but because they loved Jesus.

Well, would you really say that a lost person given a Bible without the Dueterocanonicals would be worse off than with no Bible at all? What are the critical scriptural tenants of Christianity found only in the Dueterocanicals?

LOL. NOW YA GONE TO SPEAKING THE RAW TRUTH! Just keep in mind for your own sanity, Forest, that it's NOT RATIONAL. It's NOT historically accurate. It's NOT Biblical.

It's CHURCHOLOTRY and !!!!TRADITION!!!!

so called sanctified
so called holi-fied
fossilized
calcified
petrified
cold
hard

!!!!TRADITION!!!!

For too many . . . at some level . . . Christ came into the world that they might have an edifice, a structure, a cradle-to-grave many handed organization and script to lead them instead of the Word and Holy Spirit leading them.

It's very addictive . . . the EDIFICE provides 100's if not thousands of cues that one is doing the right thing; that one is kosher; that one is good; that one will MAKE IT. There's lots of
. . .
1) RITUAL
2) !!!!TRADITION!!!!
3) CUSTOMS
4) DEEDS TO PERFORM JUST SO
5) CONFIRMING ORGANIZATIONAL/STRUCTURAL PATS ON THE BACK
6) HOOPS TO JUMP THROUGH WITH SUITABLE APPLAUSE
7) COMFORTING BENCHMARKS THAT ONE IS 'DOING IT RIGHT.'
8) CRADLE TO GRAVE WARMLY SOOTHING SMOTHERING IN THE MOTHER CHURCH'S UHHHH NURTURING BREAST.

Alternately we are to work out our own Salvation with fear and trembling--the individual, The Word, Holy Spirit. That's awesome. Scary. So many chances to blow it. Where's the security? Where's the constant affirmation that one's walking in the boundaries? Where's the cradle to grave leading by the hand of the edifice?

Trust HOLY SPIRIT??? I can't see HIM! Be sensitive to HIS MOMENT BY MOMENT LEADING? But His still small voice is too soft. My cravings and biases are so much louder. Naw, the structure's pats on the back and 100's of cues that I'm jumping through all the hoops correctly is much more comforting. Holy Spirit can well . . . cool His jets. The edifice does it soooooo much better.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's the old tent of meeting terror all over again. Layers of edifice, custom, !!!!TRADITION!!!! must comfort and insulate from GOD ALMIGHTY wishing to have a face to face at the tent of meeting with every individual--moment by moment through every day.

Yeah, Pastor, you're probably right . . . He probably wishes He had of redeemed monkies instead.

That's why my love for Tolstoy's Three Little Hermits and Christ's Two Commandments from the OT are my guiding formula to faith: glorify God and leave the rest to Him.

All the rest is human interpretation, i.e. legalisms, rules, judging, prejudices, and cultural bias.

Different interpretations by different men will lead to different answers

That hardly qualifies as the truth. Trouble is, people make decisions, sometimes decisions of life and death, based on those interpretations. Again, we use religion as a weapon and not as a means to simply acknowledge God's glory and be at peace. No, we must 'interpret' and be 'right.'

The key is not interpretation, FK, but worship. The less we concentrate on interpreting the scriputre 'just right,' and more on worship, the less sinful our lives will be.

= = = =

FWIW, I liked the above.

Quix,
Worship and right understanding are inseperable to a point. The Jehovah's Witnesses could claim worship but do not have a right understanding of who Christ is. As such, their worship is of a false God. On the essentials, we have to get it right. Otherwise, our 'worship' is no better than pagan worship.
B.