Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[Forest Keeper]

[Continuing:]

The world as we know it (this planet earth) was given to us according to our faith. Your eyes and ears and your senses detect the world and interpret it. Of course it "starts" from us; where else can we begin to see and hear from? And what we see and hear and feel affects what we think and believe.

Ah, if you believed in and trusted the Holy Scriptures, then you would have a complete answer to your question. The Renaissance men could not begin to answer it either, so you are not alone at all. The problem with your (and their) view is that you have no answer at all to the problem of unifying the universals with the particulars. It can't be done if you start with man. Leonardo, as brilliant as he was, died a broken man trying. But he couldn't let go either. Man always had to come first.

Under your (and their) view you have no hope of ever answering the eternal questions that give meaning to a man's life, to his very existence. That's because man wasn't around when all that happened. One can NEVER reach eternal truth by starting with finite man.

FK: And it was because of this thinking that they were never able to find unity between God and man.

Mankind never claimed to have all the answers.

I never said anything about ALL the answers. I'm only talking about the most important ones. :)

Our mind simply cannot comprehend beyond a certain point. Finding unity with God would mean we have resolved the mystery of Creation.

No, I believe you make the mistake of assuming that unity only means nothing or EQUALITY. It doesn't. Unity means according to God's purpose. Our knowledge of God cannot be exhaustive, but it can nevertheless be very meaningful. This was beyond the comprehension of Renaissance philosophers because they were so focused on man. When the focus is turned to God, then our place in the universe becomes apparent, and it is good.

No Renaissance man will ever say that mankind created the world.

That's right, they will say what you say, that some unknowable "thing" did it. And, that we can never understand anything about that thing, which we will call "God". Therefore, for answers we must start from what we do know, man. Thus, the cycle of futility begins.

What we know is that all this exists. How some things evolves or resulted is revealed by various methods discovered by mankind, by connecting the dots. It doesn't really explain the ultimate Cause, but only the secondary ones. No one ever claimed to know how it all began.

Reformed and other Bible-believing Christians DO. :) We always have.

Logic tells us that before there was something, there was nothing (but our logic is not necessarily universal!). Science stops at that point, but we (believers) don't. We say God "existed" before existence but we have no explanation for it. Our belief is not objective reality.

If we start with man, you're right, there is no explanation. However, if we start with God then we know that for a thing to exist it must have been ultimately created by something. So, since God is uncreated and is the Creator of all things, that your use of the word "existence" must refer to everything outside of God. He existed before anything (else) existed as humans perceive existence. The person who starts with man says this is made up fantasy because it can't be proved by man's standards. No man was there before existence, therefore there is no witness, therefore it cannot be true, therefore there is no answer.

FK: The OT massacres (carried out righteously by humans) were always IN OBEDIENCE to God according to the scriptures.

Sounds like something straight out of the Koran.

Once again, I could not possibly care less what the Koran does or doesn't say. It doesn't affect what the word of God says. In that word I trust completely.

For the rest if us from the Apostolic side, we will fervently pray for the everyone's souls and hope that God will remember us in His Kingdom.

You can wish for and we will trust in.

[kosta50]

The Son is glorified by God the Holy Spirit in His work. His work includes the provision of His Word in Scripture

No. The Spirit and the Son come from the Father, who is the only one without a cause; He is the source and cause of everything and all that is. The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father.

The Word/Wisdom (Logos) is the The Expression of God's glory in the Creation. The Creation is the visible evidence of God's Word, the Expression of God's Wisdom, the way a house is a visible evidence, or expression (hence a "word") of an architect's mind.

The Gospels were written by men about, and not by, that Logos. The Word (Logos) is not the Scripture.

Mercy and love are easily misunderstood concepts,

How so?

[kosta50]

There are two main interpretations of this MS: one is that it refers to Q[uintilius]. Varus (placing Quirinius as a procurator during the birth of Christ), and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself.

First, Luke 2:1 says KyrhnioV (pron. Kyrenios), which means Quirenius in Latin. No confusion there.

Second, the NT tells us that Jesus was born during the life of Herod the Great. This Herod died in 4 BC.

Third, another Herod (Arhelaus), succeeded Herod the Great (Archelaus' father) and ruled as an etnarch of Samaria, Judea and Edom between 4 BC and 6 AD, when he was exiled to Gaul and Judea was turned into a Roman province, and Quinirius was tasked with compiling a census of the region.

Luke clearly states that it was under Quinirius (not Quintilius!) "everyone was traveling" (v. 2:3) in order to register for the census ordered by Quintilius. It then says (verse 2:4) literally "Now went up also Joseph...and Mary, the one having been engaged to him, was pregnant [εγκυω]," in order to register.

There can be no doubt when this happened. There was no census in that aprt of the region untl 6 AD.

Yet Matthew 2:13-23 speaks of Jesus being alive when Herod (the Great) was still living (before 4 BC). The problem is that Luke contradicts himself (1:5) and is agreeing with Matthew!

Fourth, according to Matthew, Herod ordered the slaughter of the Innocents. Tere is no record of any kind that this happened, not even by Jospehus who wa sin a habit of describing thing about Herod in great detail.

Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census There would have been no need for census until Judea was made a Roman province, and this happened in 6 AD. Matthew's accounts says Jospeh and Mary and her Son went to Egypt but were told to go to Nazareth after Herod died.

Accoridng to Luke (2:1), however, they went to Nazareth to be registered because everyone went to their respective cities. No angel calling them out of Egypt!

Accrding to Luke 1:5 a completely different sotry develops. We have a clear inter-author and inter-bible contradiction or, to use a PC term, disagreement.

[kosta50]

Typo: KyrhnioV should read KurhnioV

[Forest Keeper]

I guess if Paul says it it must be true. Talk about placing your faith in a man!

Well, if he says it in scriptures then YES, it must be true. It's God's Holy word.

We have to assume it is hearsay. How else can we account for the exact quotes of what Pontius Pilate allegedly said? One way is to say "God told Mark (or Luke, etc.)" or we can go by the objective evidence of historical writing habits of the time and conclude that they are made up by the author, as was the practice. The additional problem with the first possibility is that there is no explanation why the accounts given to the authors by God would differ as much as they differ among them.

God-breathed means the authors were not making anything up. Some accounts differ in focus, but they never present an impossibility problem. If you and I witness the same car accident and you say the hit and run car was a blue pick-up and I say it was a gray Mercedes, then we have an impossibility problem. If, however, you say it was a blue-pick-up and I say the license plate was "XYZ-123" then there is no conflict in our respective accounts of the same event.

All you have to do is compare the "exact" quotes among the four and you. This can only mean one thing, no less shocking, and that is that so much of what we take for granted even the "red letter" verses were made up by the authors as to what they believed was said. So, why would I believe Paul?

If you believe the former, then you have no reason to believe Paul. Or, anything else in the scriptures for that matter. That is a shame to say the least.

Again, you are missing the point: it's the message, the lesson that we read in the Gospels, in particular, and the Bible in general where it is Chirst-like, that is our guide, and not objective truth of the story.

I think I understand your point alright, and I disagree with it. If you throw out the truth of it, and rely only on what you perceive as "the message", THEN the message is whatever you want it to be. You demonstrate this by reducing all scripture to either being false or complying with your personal concept of what you think God should be like (in this case ONLY the verses in the Gospels that you like). If you accepted the historicity of scriptures you would not have the freedom to do that.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Ah, if you believed in and trusted the Holy Scriptures, then you would have a complete answer to your question. The Renaissance men could not begin to answer it either, so you are not alone at all. The problem with your (and their) view is that you have no answer at all to the problem of unifying the universals with the particulars. It can't be done if you start with man. Leonardo, as brilliant as he was, died a broken man trying. But he couldn't let go either. Man always had to come first.

Under your (and their) view you have no hope of ever answering the eternal questions that give meaning to a man's life, to his very existence. That's because man wasn't around when all that happened. One can NEVER reach eternal truth by starting with finite man.

AMEN! Beautifully said.

That's one reason I really enjoy Van Til. Through the Scriptures, he kept stepping back farther and farther as he contemplated the sovereignty of God. Yes, creation is by God. Yes, all life is by God. Yes, breathing is by God. Yes, thinking is by God. Yes, believing is by God. Until he came to the realization that everything is by and for and through the eternal Triune God. We think God's thoughts after Him. This life which appears rational and ordered to our temporal minds is so much less than we imagine while the spiritual realm is so much greater than we can ever know.

"Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." -- James 4:13-14

Sometimes it takes a radical discontinuity to really impress us with the precariousness of this earthly life and how much we depend on God for everything. We were in a bad earthquake a few years ago and our house was destroyed. Just before dawn the earth shook and the walls of our home began to collapse onto my family; I thought we were all dead.

I had never experienced that feeling before; it was unlike anything else. Though it lasted for only seconds, it was pure dread. It was black and hopeless and final. And most of all, it was a feeling of fragility. Everything I knew and was supported by and lived through evaporated in an instant. Life became almost brittle at that moment, sucked dry of everything I thought sustained me. Instead, life was about to shatter into a million pieces under the weight of cement and concrete and wood and plaster, and my family and I were about to be extinguished.

It happened so quickly, you didn't even have time to think about God or Christ or faith or predestination or any of the things you think will fortify you in times of trouble. It was almost existential. It was a flash of instantaneous terror with just enough time to understand you were about to die, and everything about us would be finished forever.

By the grace of God, we were alright and we got through it. For months afterward, I could conjure up that dark feeling again by just putting my head in that momentary place of dread. It was a very physical recollection and it was like experiencing the quake all over again. And every time I remembered that moment, I was then overcome with awe that we had survived, and gratitude for our second chance.

I assumed I would always be able to recall that same feeling, but I was wrong. The ability to re-experience that moment faded until now, I can't do it at all. I can intellectually remember the event; but I cannot work up that feeling of death and finality and fragility.

But I've come to realize those 20 seconds of utter helplessness in the face of black death was more "real" than anything I experience on a daily basis. Our physical lives are a shadow-play, ephemeral and fleeting. We live by the will of another. And everything physical surrounding that one monumental fact is a parade of smoke and vapour and illusions and pretense and our own vain strivings.

We live and breath and have our being by and for and through Jesus Christ. We are spiritual beings, temporarily taking up residence on earth.

"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." -- 2 Corinthians 4:16-18

We are certain of this fact by the word of God, confirmed by the Holy Spirit who attests to this "other" reality in our hearts and minds. Therefore, James concludes...

"For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that." -- James 4:15

Or not. It is all of Him.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Meant to ping you to 6,586, too.

6,586!?!

[kosta50]

The Bible is God's revelation to all believers.

So is the Koran. Your dogmatic statements do not make the Bible objectively God's revelation, FK. You are placing yourself in the position to dictate what is and what isn't from God.

It seems to me that those who believe the Bible was only meant for the cloistered few have no interest in a personal relationship with God

The Bible tells us that the Church elders were tasked to teach about God. The Church collected books written by men , books believed to contain revealed moral lessons from God and made a canon from which to teach. 

Nowhere in the Bible, OT or NT, do we have anyone tasking the believers in general to read or interpret the Scriptures. That is a Protestant myth. The NT specifically warns against private interpretations of the Scriptures.

The issue with Bereans is also a Protestant deformation. Paul taught in a synagogue. The people who were and are authority (elders) in the synagogue are the rabbis, and they would have, I am sure, checked to see of Paul's teachings were in line with what was in the Scriptures (because it's their job!).

And when they did, some believed him, and some didn't!  The synagogue had scrolls and not everyone could open a scroll and read. Nowhere does it say the whole congregation was busily leafing through the Bible because there was no Bible as a book. 

Now, everyone can read up on illnesses from medical books, or the law from legal books, or for that matter about any profession, but it is  not necessarily everyone's responsibility to know medicine or law or engineering.

And the Bible which you worship specifically tells you that (not everyone is appointed to be an apostle, teacher, etc), but you choose to disregard that because it was pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

“We are spiritual beings, temporarily taking up residence on earth.”

Many times I’ve heard preachers make this observation. It is, post salvation, perhaps the most important reminder we who are in Christ need. For we cannot keep our focus on “whatsover things be of good report” if our focus is on this soon-to-be-destroyed temporal globe.

A.W. Tozer said that a man’s view of God determines how the man lives his life. A man who lives for the world and what it has to offer has the world for his god.

[Forest Keeper]

Would you say that only those who are baptized can repent?

If you mean baptized by the Spirit, then YES. If you mean water baptism, then NO. No one has the ability to repent without having first been baptized in the Spirit. However, whether one was water baptized before or after that happens is irrelevant. Baptists believe that water baptism is a sign of the repentance that has already taken place.

[kosta50]

Jesus said: Matt 4:4 ... 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" Notice that it says MAN, not PRIESTS. A man LIVES on the word of God. A priest cannot eat for you, you can only eat for yourself. So, if one wants his life to be nourished by God, he MUST know the scriptures himself.

First, this is Christ being "quoted" while He is alone in the wilderness for 40 days. Was Matthew there? Was Luke there? No, neither was there. So neither is an eyewitness account. Rather it is a moral narrative written by a human being expressing a moral lesson to follow.

Second, Matthew is quoting from the Septuagint. If you check the Hebrew Bible, it says every thing (not every word). It is the Greek Septuagint that introduces the "word," but not the Hebrew version. The Hebrew version says nothing about a "word of God." It says every thing that wells from God.

This alleged "quote" was taken from Deuteronomy 8:3, and in the context of the OT chapter that follows it is clear that we are not speaking of "words" of God, but of God being a source (orifice from which proceeds everything  of what) we need.

More importantly, Christ's "quote" is Matthew's (LXX) version is in the future (shall live), whereas the Hebrew version simply uses the present ( "does live"). KJV opted to keep the Septuagint version (so much for Hebrew version of the OT! Mixing and matching and cherry-picking, he?) in this case because it expresses the Christian belief that we will physically die and bread alone will not sustain in life, but those who obey God will continue to live even after we die. The Hebrew OT makes no such implication.

The Greek version with the "word" also fits neatly with the Protestant idea of Scriptures being the "word of God." So, this is how manipulative KJV is! NIV marches right in step. NAB says "everything." The Septuagint is making an anthropomorphic statement which someone took literally and ran away with it!

The second part of your post here says "So, if one wants his life to be nourished by God, he MUST [sic] know the scriptures himself." It sure sounds like the man is deciding. Was this a slip? Or is it your inner conscience telling you the truth? Is it not the Bible which you worship, by your own admission, that says the Holy Spirit will teach you everything you need to know? So, where are you getting 'if one wants..." stuff? Since when is the faith man's prerogative?

And do you not think that God will nourish you spiritually if you simply pray? Is it not Jesus who is quoted as saying that whatever we ask (in good faith) will be granted? Is it not the same Bible you worship that says in the OT that those who obey God's commandments will be taken care of? Where does it say that anyone "must" know the Scriptures in order to believe or to be spiritually sustained?

I suppose you could come back and say what about illiterates and such, but that is not your situation

No I wouldn't, because the illiterates can go to church and hear about God if they want to,  but all they really have to do is pray and praise God for His blessings to be sustained. They don't have to read a single word in the Bible. It seems to me, you place  the Bible before prayers and seem to think that one cannot pray without knowing the Bible.

Our connection to God is through prayer FK. It can be even without words! If God is the Comforter, what words are "necessary" to feel His love?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank God for you! And thank you for sharing your testimony and insight and those beautiful Scriptures!

Truly everything in life - both the things which are pleasant to us as well as the things which cause us pain - all work together for the good for we love God and have been called according to His purpose.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. - Romans 8:28

To God be the glory!

[kosta50]

Kosta: There is no sola scriptura in the Scriptures!

FK: But it's not your job to know that. The best you should be able to do is to tell me that your clergy do not believe in the Biblical teaching of Sola Scriptura.

No it's not my job, but I happen to know. :)  And the clergy certainly know that too. In fact, it was the clergy that called my attention to the nonexistence of "sola scriptura" in the Scriptures.

One CANNOT love God without knowing something of His word

One more dogmatic truism that has no basis in reality.

While one CAN certainly come to true faith without having read a word for himself, especially if it is unavailable to him, the danger is in whether the human teacher actually has it right

And there is no danger in private interpretation of the Scriptures?

If one DOES have the scriptures available he would be irresponsible for not reading them for himself. This is exactly what Paul was talking about with the Bereans.

Again, Paul was speaking in a synagogue and the rabbis (elders) checked the scrolls against his words. And some were not convinced!

He was PROUD of them for not taking his word for it on anything.

No, he was simply reporting that they didn't take his word for it.

They searched the scriptures themselves.

 Of course, who also was there to search  it for the rabbis! Little context please...

Paul implied with his praise that it was the responsible thing to do

You mean, he though it was their job? I agree, that's what the rabbis are for. People don't go behind the curtain and  pull out the sacred Torah scrolls every time they want to check something. Even those who read it can only touch it with a pointer (picture)

  

You think there was your average Berean man (and certainly not women) who "checked" to see if Paul was right? That's about as credible as pink unicorns on Jupiter. That betrays complete lack of knowledge of historical context and cultural and religious practises of the Jews.

[kosta50]

Kosta: One believes the message of the Bible, then, because it speaks of God we recognize in our hearts.

FK: Of all the hundreds or low thousands of Christian testimonies I have ever heard or read, not a single one goes anything like that

Isn't that what the "indwelling Spirit" does? The Spirit did not come to you because you read the Bible, but before you did, so that you may recognize the Bible as speaking the message of truth, as you know it.

You have argued a hundred times that the Holy Spirit does not lead the individual because how could anyone be sure that it was not secretly satan doing the leading

No, FK, I have simply asked those who claim to be "guided" by the Holy Spirit to provide some evidence of such a claim. Of course, they couldn't. So the whole issue is moot.

Yes, there can be no other source of faith but God.

God is the source of faith but the Bible is not. Your side equates the two.

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, so if biblolatry is the devotion to the word of God, then I am guilty as charged

Duly noted, FK, with my emphasis.

[kosta50]

Kosta: Where have you been all these years, FK? The Latin North African Council of Cartage was a local Council. It was never binding to the whole Church. The first "Ecumenical" Council that canonized the Bible was at Trent, and the Orthodox weren't there!

FK: Well, I deal a lot with Latins too, and I know they would STRENUOUSLY disagree with what you say here

Then they can show me that the North African Council of Cartage was "ecumenical." It wasn't. Period.

I said that we Bible-believing Christians use that term to refer to each other, and that we know each other when we come across each other. My experience has been that the term works well across denominational lines.

Works well? Last time I checked, Joel Osteen preaches there's no hell! You find him in your theological camp as a "Bible-believer?" Being a "Bible-believer" says nothing of the private theology each and every such self-styled believer conjures. That's like using the universal "Christian" label. There are all sorts of sects and  cults that call themselves "Christian," but what does that really mean. It's nonsense. Some of these groups believe things the other groups consider satanic.

God either intended to communicate MEANINGFULLY to His children, OR, He intended to communicate in secret code only to a few elite

Love is meaningful only if it is returned. Not because it "makes sense." Or because "it's logical." The Church Christ established and left to the Apostles and their successors simply believes that God in His infinite love offers the same blessings to all. Some who call themselves Christians say He offered it only to the "elite," select, elect, chosen. So, before you point the finger at anyone, I would consider pointing the finger at myself first.

If the Apostolic interpretation is correct, then by definition a man cannot know God from the Bible. He can only know God through other men. I will never accept that because I am absolutely convinced that God does, in fact, love ME as more than a downline serf.

I,  too, am convinced He loves you, FK. And, yes, we can recognize God's love in other people. That's what makes it real instead of just theoretical, something we read about.

Kosta: By rejecting the OT of the Apostles (Septuagint), who never questioned its canon, the Protestants decided by their human authority to accept the Christ-hating Jamnia formula calling in essence all the non-Pharisaical Jews non-Jews!

FK: We don't see anything "Christ-hating" in our OT. Christ is all over our OT and there are no contradictions. Where do you see Christ-hating in our OT that does not appear in the OT that you use? That is, to such a degree that you feel justified in making the generalization that ours IS Christ-hating and yours is not.

Jamnia resulted in throwing out all the books written by Christians, including the Gospels. They rejected the Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. You call that Christ-friendly? Little context, situational awareness, etc.  help put things in proper perspective.

[Forest Keeper]

God is present everywhere and always, so we are always "immersed" in God.

No, that cannot be true for you because you believe that water baptism saves. Therefore, you would have to say that everyone is saved and you know that isn't true. IOW, for you if everyone is always immersed in God, then water baptism would have no meaning.

When the Orthodox mean Baptism, we understand that it is both water and oil/Spirit.

Of course that is contrary to what Jesus said:

Acts 1:5 : For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

They are separate things. Being baptized in the Spirit involves faith. Infants cannot have faith, and no one can have it for them. The Bible does not speak of surrogate believers.

[Cvengr]

If you had read the studies with a fair heart, it will become abvious that Quintilius ruled in various capacities over that region for about 20 years prior to him being formally assigned as potentate. In many of those capacities he was a coruler without much impediment. I see no significant compromise.

[kosta50]

The point I was making is that Judea was not under his juridiction until 6 AD. Matthew claims Jesus was born (before 4 BC) while Herod the Great was still alive. Luke claims Mary was still pregnant in 6 AD. No matter how you look at it, the story doesn’t fit.

[kosta50]

It was the same way every other Bible believing Christian has received it. After the last of the Bible manuscripts had been written, God moved certain men to form a Canon of scriptures, 66 books. These are the same books that God's Church had already accepted and was using. Other books were added later by a group of men not led by God, but the original 66 are still in use today by Bible believing Christians

A group of men added books to the Old Testament which the Apostles used as part of the Scriptures? I don't think so. It was one man, Luther, who decided what is scripture and what is not.

[kosta50]

You describe the revelation of men. I follow the revelation of God

More dogmatic statements will not make it a fact, FK.

I give the glory to God. Those men could have had many errant beliefs, but that does not affect what God Himself did.

And you somehow know with some "inner knowledge" what God did as if the Bible is not full of errors!?! Just because you believe something doesn't make it true, FK.