The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

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

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

Previous Thread

[malakhi]

Please tell me you're not already waiting in line for LoTR:TT?

[SoothingDave]

As an aside, did you know that they used to sell houses in the Sears catalog? My grandparents lived in one (one of my uncles owns it now).

Yes, they did a feature on them only two weeks ago in the Sunday Real Estate section of the paper. But I had been aware of them before that.

Says they'd deliver all of the stuff to the nearest railrod station and you'd have to haul it (using a wheelbarrow, probably) to your site.

Last week they did a story on these postwar prefab metal homes.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Which is why I point out that if this man had been teaching falsehood in the name of Jesus, the Apostles surely would have stopped it. Because they are the recognized authority.

How would they have stopped it, considering that the men clearly didn't recognize their authority?

Maybe "stopped" isn't right. They would have made it clear to their flock that this man was teaching falsehood.

I mean, isn't a shepherd supposed to protect his sheep?

SD

[ksen]

Please tell me you're not already waiting in line for LoTR:TT?

Nah, I'm actually waiting until 1/1/03 to see TTT. I have been out of the office since last Thursday so I am trying to catch up and get some invoices ready for the bosses to look over.

[OLD REGGIE]

It says no such thing. It says that if we endeavour faithfully God will give us understanding. It says nothign about "not needing an authority."

Well your "authority" has already given you his answer.

POPE BONIFACE VIII Unam Sanctam (November 18, 1302 AD)

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

And we have seen how this compares with what Jesus said:

Luke 9:
[46] And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest.
[47] But when Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts, he took a child and put him by his side,
[48] and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great."

AND---

Matthew 23:

[1] Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
[2] "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
[4] They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
[5] They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,
[6] and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues,
[7] and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men.
[8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
[9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
[10] Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.
[11] He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;
[12] whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

The Pope has declared himself as the "greatest" and the words of Jesus has declared him as ??????????

[OLD REGGIE]

As an aside, did you know that they used to sell houses in the Sears catalog? My grandparents lived in one (one of my uncles owns it now).

They were called, I think, Craftsman houses. Very well built and still a viable house.

[OLD REGGIE]

(SD) Which is why I point out that if this man had been teaching falsehood in the name of Jesus, the Apostles surely would have stopped it. Because they are the recognized authority.

(angelo) How would they have stopped it, considering that the men clearly didn't recognize their authority?

Well, they thought they had authority until Jesus disabused them of the idea.

Luke 9:
[49] John answered, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us."
[50] But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

[SoothingDave]

Well, they thought they had authority until Jesus disabused them of the idea.

Maybe someday you'll get it. I'm not holding my breath.

The point is that they were doing no wrong, so there was no reason to stop them.

Do you read from this that Jesus thinks it's kosher to teach absolutely anything in His Name? Because either there is some control of the message or there is not.

I just can't see Jesus telling the disciples to approve of anything and anyone. The point is that not all those out there are evil, but one is off base to conclude that all those out there are necessarily not. And that God's chosen Apostles should remain mum when confronted with any old person claiming to work in God's Name.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Maybe someday you'll get it. I'm not holding my breath.

The point is that they were doing no wrong, so there was no reason to stop them.

Maybe someday you'll learn to read and discern Scripture. I'm not holding my breath.

Luke 9:
[49] John answered, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us."
[50] But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

They did wrong and Jesus stopped them.

[OLD REGGIE]

Do you read from this that Jesus thinks it's kosher to teach absolutely anything in His Name? Because either there is some control of the message or there is not.

Do you read from this that Jesus thinks it's kosher to teach absoloutely everything in His name from a single absoloute authority?

Did Jesus find it necessary to correct and/or admonish his apostles at times?

"Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

Does this say to you "only with your (the apostles) approval"?

[SoothingDave]

Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name

This is not wrong. They forbade a man to do something that was not wrong. So Jesus told them they were wrong to do that.

Now if they saw a man gathering his own private harem of underage sex slaves in Jesus' name and the Apostles forbade it, do you think Jesus would do the same thing?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

"I just can't see Jesus telling the disciples to approve of anything and anyone..."

Of course, it means nothing to you that no one said, or even implied, that this was so. Rather than flying off onto another of your wild flights of imagination, why don't you make a serious effort to stay on point.

What you "just can't see" means nothing to me.

You, one of the few people in the world who refers to himself as "we", should probably change doctors.

[SoothingDave]

Do you read from this that Jesus thinks it's kosher to teach absoloutely everything in His name from a single absoloute authority?

Duh. I read from Jesus setting up Apostles and a Church that He thought there would be an authority. I mean, why bother? Why didn't He just write the NT and then Ascend to Heaven?

It's obvious that Jesus meant the Apostles to teach, and to teach Truth, not a bunch of conflicting stuff.

Did Jesus find it necessary to correct and/or admonish his apostles at times?

Did and does. So what?

"Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

Right. Absolutely. And, consequently, those who are against you are against you. Don't stop your friends, in other words. Don't antagonize those working with you.

Now, those working against you can still be dealt with.

Does this say to you "only with your (the apostles) approval"?

But he did have the Apostles' approval. After they were corrected.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Now if they saw a man gathering his own private harem of underage sex slaves in Jesus' name and the Apostles forbade it, do you think Jesus would do the same thing?

Don't be rediculous.

[OLD REGGIE]

Now if they saw a man gathering his own private harem of underage sex slaves in Jesus' name and the Apostles forbade it, do you think Jesus would do the same thing?

Don't be rediculous.

[OLD REGGIE]

But he did have the Apostles' approval. After they were corrected.

Scripture?????????

[SoothingDave]

Now if they saw a man gathering his own private harem of underage sex slaves in Jesus' name and the Apostles forbade it, do you think Jesus would do the same thing?

Don't be rediculous.

Then we agree -- if someone is doing good in Jesus' Name, the Apostles are wrong to stop him.

And if someone is doign harm in Jesus' Name, then they should try to stop him, or make it clear he is not teaching authentic.

SD

[SoothingDave]

But he did have the Apostles' approval. After they were corrected.

Scripture?????????

You think when Jesus showed them they were wrong, they didn't try to correct their mistake?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Then we agree -- if someone is doing good in Jesus' Name, the Apostles are wrong to stop him.

#28468 "The point is that they were doing no wrong, so there was no reason to stop them."

Do you sometimes lose track of your "absoloute" pronouncements?

Consistency Dave, consistency? It will make you more believable.

[SoothingDave]

Then we agree -- if someone is doing good in Jesus' Name, the Apostles are wrong to stop him.

#28468 "The point is that they were doing no wrong, so there was no reason to stop them."

Do you sometimes lose track of your "absoloute" pronouncements?

Never.

Consistency Dave, consistency? It will make you more believable

Where am I inconsitent? I fear I may have lost you in too many "theys."

First I said that if "they" (meaning other unaffiliated do-gooders) were doing no wrong, that there was no reason for the Apostles to stop them. Which is what Jesus said.

Then I said if "someone is doing good" (a reasonable restating of my previous "doing no harm"), the Apostles are wrong to stop him.

So I said the exact same thing, more or less, twice. how is that "inconsistent?" Apart from the shades of difference between "doing no harm" and "doing good."

SD