Posted on 01/28/2014 7:27:17 PM PST by NKP_Vet
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Yep, the stupidity of man can't be overestimated nor his ability to be deluded.
The VATICAN, what does IT know, says that there are approximately 1.18 billion Catholics in the world.
Well, the head honcho doesn't know much about economics for sure, but numbers don't mean you are correct. Otherwise, Democrats would be right.
How can SO many folks be so wrong?
Worldly concerns, deception by Satan, self-delusion, hardening of hearts etc.
No, and it wasn't Algore either. DARPA.
Well, the head honcho doesn't know much about economics for sure, but numbers don't mean you are correct. Otherwise, Democrats would be right.
The "head honcho"? I guess your disrespect would be the same for the heads of ANY faith, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or Mormon...or perhaps you save your disrespect for the Catholic Church only.
Papal education is probably 100 times better than yours. But, you wouldn't know about that, I guess. Otherwise you wouldn't make such a foolish statement.
>>>The “evil” RCC? My that is a sweeping condemnation of an institution that’s been around for almost 2000 years.<<<
If the shoe fits. BTW, the RCC has been around since about 400 AD.
>>>Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. He didn’t mean to start Lutheranism; he meant to correct his Church.<<<
He was lucky he escaped with his skin, and neck.
>>He was successful as the Church DID correct many of the at-the-time problems, such as purchasing indulgences. Today, indulgences are very few and VERY specific.<<<
LOL! That racket is still being practiced? God help us.
>>>But, then why would you know that when you consider the Church an “evil” institution?<<<
It is hard to ignore all the “Catholic is Christ’s True Church” threads. Funny thing, when I want to silence a Catholic, I simply ask them explain several specific instructions by Jesus and his apostles that the RCC completely ignores, or even mocks by doing the opposite.
>>>How could the Church that Jesus started have lasted so long, these last 2000 years? How could it have served SO many billions of people so long if it HADN’T been started by Jesus?<<<
Considering the obstacles the Church had to overcome (e.g., Pharisaic Jews, Roman Catholics, Bolshevik Jews, communists, and muslims, among others,) the fact that the Church is still around clearly demonstrates the power of Christ to work his wonderful will in the lives of those willing to hear him.
Philip
>>>You sure use a lot of non Scriptural sources and suppositions in your theories.<<<
I posted lots of scripture supporting my position the other day, and you discounted that, as well. In fact, I answered half-dozen, or so, of your specific questions; but instead of posting contradictory/rebuttal scripture, you complained that I was tying up the thread (you know, you could have done that before asking all those pointed questions.)
Why not post some rebuttal scripture or history? Certainly your doctrine has a solid scriptural and historical foundation, or you wouldn’t believe it.
Philip
>>>According to several on-line sites, from 2011, there are approximately 6.7 billion people on earth and a full one-third, about 2.2 billion of them are Catholics.<<
The believing remnant of the Jews and Israel was small, as well. The Revelation puts the total number in the first resurrection at 144,000, which includes the prophets and holy men of old. Therefore, the remnant was even less. Compare that to the 1.1 million Jews killed in Jerusalem, alone, and it is borderline insignificant.
Philip
If xone is anything like me, he has zero respect for someone dressed in a clown suit that pretends to be the "holy father," when Jesus gave us this instruction:
"Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven." (Mat 23:9 NAB)
Note that verse from Jesus is from one of your own Catholic bible versions! You don't even believe your own bible? No wonder the vicious R.C.C. kept the content of the bible from the masses for so many centuries!
Philip
First of all. Your theory contradicts Daniel’s prophecy. Second, to think that the destruction of Jerusalem was somehow the tribulation flies in the face of History. Damascus is still inhabited. Satan has not been chained and he is still the ruler of this world. As prophesied Israel is once again a nation. I could go on and on. Those and other consideration make your theory unworkable.
I am glad you are not a full prederist and do see a literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
Sure, if you start a thread I will participate. I would actually like to see your views presented instead of what I usually see from others that being trying to prove their points by using contrasts.
No, man blew it through sin. After the beginning man has been born into sin, you know, Original Sin. And yes, the longer he has been around the farther from perfection he has fallen.
The "head honcho"? I guess your disrespect would be the same for the heads of ANY faith, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or Mormon...or perhaps you save your disrespect for the Catholic Church only.
I wouldn't bow or kiss his ring either and I don't consider him to be the 'head of Christianity' that Christ's job hence the name. As for the rest:
Hindu: I don't think there is a 'head' Hindu.
Muslim: No, nothing but disdain for the leaders of Islam.
Jews: I don't think they have a 'head' of the faith, but would call Netanyahu "Mr President".
Mormon: I have no idea who the head honcho for the Mormons is.
Papal education is probably 100 times better than yours. But, you wouldn't know about that, I guess. Otherwise you wouldn't make such a foolish statement.
Obviously have skipped the threads about the latest papal statements. Even on the ones about religion, many Catholics would disagree with you re: his education and outlook.
My objection to the Pope (head honcho) has to do with his doctrine.
Thanks for the post. Yes the external evidence is interesting to say the least. But again, I never see a prederist present an alternate supposed date for Revelation. I only see positions that it must have been before AD 70.
More precisely if you look at Against Heresies Book V chapter 29, you will see Ireneaus saw the tribulation future and does mention the church caught up “at the end.” So at a minimum he saw 2 Thessalonians caught up at the end of the tribulation. I would say he takes Matthew 24 at face value and like many throughout history thought all could happen in his lifetime. So imminent futurist.
Yes I know about Ireneaus and his claim Jesus was in His 40s when crucified. He thought so based on a literal interpretation of “you are not yet 50.” However all historians make flubs. So did Josephus and others. We don’t throw out all of their observations do we? A contemporary of Ireneaus also puts John’s exile under Domitian. That would be Hegesippus. Eusebius quotes Hegesippus on John’s exile during the reign of Domitian:
With Eusebius now involved in the formula, we now have three very early accounts of a later date for Revelation. Should we throw them all out for making other unrelated mistakes? If so we conveniently arrive at discarding all the external evidence and the positions of conservative NT theologians (I note this list was compiled by an a-millennial and not Tim LaHaye:)
http://errantskeptics.org/DatingNT-ChronologicalOrder.htm
That is a general statement with no supporting scripture. Which prophecy does my "theory" contradict?
>>>Second, to think that the destruction of Jerusalem was somehow the tribulation flies in the face of History.<<<
Not at all. It is history. The great tribulation occurred during the seige of the city of Jerusalem, and lasted about forty and two months, beginning around 67 A.D. This was also exactly the time period in which Jesus said it would happen (Matt 24:34.) During the siege there was widespread starvation, and even cannibalism, fulfilling Moses' Deuteronomy 28 prophecy. Over 1.1 million were killed or starved to death during the siege. There was no one left to bury them, so the fowls of the air and wild beasts consumed them, as was also prophesied. These were the people, and sons of people. who killed the prophets, killed Christ, and killed many members of the early Church (New Jerusalem.) They paid dearly.
>>>Damascus is still inhabited.<<<
You are probably referring to this:
"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap. The cities of Aroer are forsaken: they shall be for flocks, which shall lie down, and none shall make them afraid. The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the Lord of hosts." (Isa 17:1-3)
It did not say Damascus would be a permanent ruin, but would be like the "glory of the children of Israel," which had been permanently diminished by that time. Note the presence of Ephraim and the cities of Aroer. Neither has been around for a long time, nor is Ephraim listed as one of the tribes of Israel in the Revelation. Therefore, claims of a future fulfillment is puzzling, to be kind.
It is more likely that Isaiah was referring to events during the reign of king Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah. Isaiah said his vision occurred during their days:
"The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." (Isa 1:1)
These are some of the events from 2 Kings 16:
"And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin. And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof." (2 Kin 16:9-10)
You can read more about it in 2 Kings 16, and Isaiah 7 & 17.
>>>Satan has not been chained and he is still the ruler of this world.<<<
Satan was released from prison a while back, after being chained for a long time, and is now wrecking havoc on the morals of the world. Look at what has happened to our once great Christian nation in only about a century? Currently there is no Christian service in the White House during Christmas (but there is a Hanukkah service.) There was a time, not too many decades past, when even a left-winger like FDR felt obliged to lead our entire nation in prayer during a joint session of the Congress. Satan goes after souls.
>>>As prophesied Israel is once again a nation.<<<
Where can I find that prophecy?
As before, you have provided no supporting documentation for your claims. If you are going to make such claims, you should at least provide something other than your opinion.
Philip
>>>My objection to the Pope (head honcho) has to do with his doctrine.<<<
LOL. I was being kind. The R.C.C’s doctrine contradicts or mocks Christ in many, if not most areas.
Philip
In 1933 about 45 million of Germany's 65 million or so people were Protestant, so there were a lot of them. Luther's recommendations in his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies for how Christians should treat the least of these my brethren, the Jews, was fully implemented and creatively enhanced.
Seventy weeks were prophesied for the nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem
Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
After the command to build the temple there will be seven weeks and 62 weeks.
Daniel 9: 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
After 62 weeks the Messiah would be killed and the city destroyed.
Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Notice it’s the people of the prince that will come and destroy the city. The prince is obviously Satan.
Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
We have just accounted for 69 of those 70 weeks and Christ has been crucified and the city of Jerusalem has been destroyed. There is still one week left allotted to the nation of Israel and the earthly city of Jerusalem.
Your contention that the destruction of temple in 70 AD was the tribulation and the resurrection cannot be true. It plainly states that all that happened at the end of the 69th week. There is still one week of years (seven years) left of that prophecy. Thus the re-gathering of the nation of Israel today.
The start of the seventieth week will be when he (the antichrist) will sign a peace treaty with the nation of Israel the temple will be rebuilt so that sacrifices can once again be offered but half way through the seven years will stop those sacrifices and set himself up in the temple and declare himself to be God.
Daniel 9: 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
So you see. Your theory contradicts Daniel’s prophecy.
>>Where can I find that prophecy?<<
Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Ezekiel 34:13 And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country.
Ezekiel 38 is still coming. The seven years left of Daniel’s prophecy are the seven year tribulation of Revelation.
I have seen many dates suggested by both the preterist types and the postmillennialists, like myself. Most all range from about 60 A.D. to 68 A.D. (some earlier.) I personally believe it was around 61 A.D., primarily for this reason: there were exactly seven churches in Asia in AD61. There was a very small window when there were exactly seven. There were nine prior to the 60 (or 61) AD earthquake, but three were destroyed. Laodicea was rebuilt within a year, leaving exactly seven:
"The same year, Laodicea, one of the capital cities of Asia, having been overthrown by an earthquake, rose again, by her own ability." [Tacitus, Annals, Book XIV]
Why do I think "seven churches" is such a big deal?
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." (Rev 1:10-11)
The seven churches were mentioned four times in the Revelation, but never as "seven churches;" always as "the seven churches." If there were more than seven, would it not be more appropriate to write something like, "write to seven churches in Asia," or "seven of the churches in Asia?"
There are many reasons to believe in early (pre AD70) dating of the Revelation; but this one narrows it down more than any other reason I have found.
Some of my background knowledge was obtained from the books of Dr. Ken Gentry, a reformed Presbyterian minister, and a serious researcher. I would recommend his book, Before Jerusalem Fell, as a great eye-opener to those of the futurist persuasion.
>>>More precisely if you look at Against Heresies Book V chapter 29, you will see Ireneaus saw the tribulation future and does mention the church caught up “at the end.” So at a minimum he saw 2 Thessalonians caught up at the end of the tribulation. I would say he takes Matthew 24 at face value and like many throughout history thought all could happen in his lifetime. So imminent futurist.<<<
I believe most, if not all expected to be resurrected (raptured, if you must) in the generation of the disciples. Jesus said some would be taken, the others left, so we don't know who was left; but we have a good idea who was resurrected. In any case, there was hardly a whisper written about the destruction of Jerusalem for decades after it happened. That leads me to believe that all who had the power of the Holy Spirit (the real Power, not seen since those days,) were resurrected, leaving no one behind to write from the Spirit.
I also doubt the fellow named John who was running around in the AD90's was the real John. Paul warned us about false apostles. There were also many false christs and false prophets running around prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, all trying to make a name for themselves.
It is also worth nothing that Irenaeus was not born until about 130AD, some 60 years after the destruction. Even his information on John was, at best, second hand.
>>>Yes I know about Ireneaus and his claim Jesus was in His 40s when crucified. He thought so based on a literal interpretation of “you are not yet 50.” However all historians make flubs. So did Josephus and others. We don’t throw out all of their observations do we? <<<
Irenaeus' major problem was clarity. He was, at times, lousy as presenting his work.
>>>A contemporary of Ireneaus also puts John’s exile under Domitian. That would be Hegesippus. Eusebius quotes Hegesippus on John’s exile during the reign of Domitian:<<<
We don't have Hegesippus work to analyze. But other historians believe Eusebius actually got the notion for a late date from an obscure comment by Origen; and then used Irenaeus as "proof." Also, many attribute the misunderstanding of all historians that followed him to Eusebius' misinterpretation.
One thing we do know is, if Eusebius was correct, John would have been pushing 100 years old when he did this:
"And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." (Rev 10:11)
Not likely. LOL!
>>>With Eusebius now involved in the formula, we now have three very early accounts of a later date for Revelation. Should we throw them all out for making other unrelated mistakes? If so we conveniently arrive at discarding all the external evidence and the positions of conservative NT theologians (I note this list was compiled by an a-millennial and not Tim LaHaye:)<<<
We should examine all the evidence, internal and external, and not rely on obscure passages by a single author that not only can be interpreted, logically, in different ways; but which seem to be contradicted by the same author two paragraphs previously.
>>>http://errantskeptics.org/DatingNT-ChronologicalOrder.htm<<<
I wouldn't put too much faith in that timeline until I had examined all the evidence; and there is a lot that is finally coming into the light. I would recommend the book I mentioned earlier, if you want to read one of the better researched books. It was the doctoral dissertation of Ken Gentry, and is loaded with footnotes. When you look up his references, they are always right on the money. His book is available several places online, including here:
http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm
Philip
Well reasoned post. I see now you are not a prederist at all. Again, perhaps a different thread is in order.
Not exactly. This is the prophecy:
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." (Daniel 9:24)
The Lord determined those six highlighted events would happen within the "70 weeks" (490 years,) and nothing else. There are six things that were determined, and the completion occurred 3.5 years (or, in the midst of the week, v. 27) after Christ was crucified. The punishment phase: the destruction of Jerusalem, was not part of the 70 weeks, but was rather a result of it.
>>>Notice it’s the people of the prince that will come and destroy the city. The prince is obviously Satan.<<<
Why is that obvious? I believe it was Titus, the Roman general who actually destroyed the city. Others, using grammatical logic, have determined it was Christ himself who sent "his" armies to destroy the city, in a manner similar to when he was "riding on a swift cloud" (the Assyrian army) against Egypt. Either way, the prophecy was fulfilled.
Everything you said after that is untenable since you projected 490 years of exact timing to equal thousands of years of inexact timing.
>>>Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.<<<
That is exactly what Jesus did. He sent his angels and gathered his elect (from the four winds) around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. But first he had to gather them into one fold, which he and his disciples did prior to the resurrection. Recall Jesus said this:
"... I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mat 15:24)
Why? To gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel into one fold, as was prophesied by, among others, Isaiah and Ezekiel:
"… other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16)
And he sent his disciples out to the cities of Israel for the same reason.
"And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease." (Mat 10:1)
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Mat 10:5-8)
But he also said this regarding the timing of his coming and their resurrection:
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:23)
Peter wrote of the lost sheep:
"For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." (1 Pet 2:25)
Paul wrote about how some of the natural branches were broken off; but declared they would be grafted back in and all Israel would be saved:
"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." (Rom 11:24-27)
Of course, "all Israel" was a small remnant of believers comprising all twelve tribes:
"In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, going and weeping: they shall go, and seek the Lord their God. They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten." (Jer 50:4-5)
The covenant mentioned in the last verse, and in Romans 11:27 above, is the New Covenant, also known as the New Testament.
Philip
>>>Well reasoned post. I see now you are not a prederist at all. Again, perhaps a different thread is in order.<<<
I would love to get a good debate going. There is so much to learn. Not a day goes by that I don’t either learn something new, or question something I thought I knew. LOL!
Philip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.