Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.
Is this true or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church believes "in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life" (Nicene Creed). The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, Who proceeds from the Father only (cf. John 15:26). The Church firmly opposed the opinion that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son, and it pronounced the correct belief in the Nicene Creed at the Second Ecumenical Synod. The Orthodox Church does not use the phrase filioque, "and of the Son." According to the Scriptures, the Son Jesus Christ only sends the Holy Spirit in time, saying: "I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father" (John 15:26). https://www.goarch.org/-/the-fundamental-teachings-of-the-eastern-orthodox-church
Do you agree with this statement?
If so, do you take the view that the Western Church believes that the Son "created" the Holy Spirit? And if so do you also believe the West Church believes that the Father "created" the Son? And also is that the view of the Orthodox, given that they don't seem to have an issue with the Son proceeding from the Father? And moreover, does the Orthodox church believe that the Father created the Holy Spirit, given that the Spirit proceeds from the Father?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
St Augustine didn't start his own church.
Calvin did not start his own church either.
But besides, no church father is accepted without qualifications or considered infallible. St Augustine himself wrote retractions.
And that is correct because all humans, are infallible and make mistakes. And no council is infallible either. Nor is any church.
St Augustine had very little influence in the East. In fact, no one church father dominates in the east quite like how st. Augustine dominates in the west. St. John Cassian would be a healthy balance to St Augustine in the west.
is that the case? And did he retract his work in respect of predestination? Augustine does not dominate in the West. He is one of the early church fathers. A recognized leader in the church. As is Athanasius. And as are many others. John Cassius seems to be semi-Pelagian. And his students even more so.
I'd also like to note that when I first took it on myself to read Augustine's great volume of work, I was not orthodox. One of the first things that came as a revelation to me while reading st Augustine is that he believed in free will, and certainly didn't teach double predestination as I was taught(I hung out with a lot of Calvinists who certainly believed in double predestination and rejected free will). Rather, st Augustine's viewpoint was closer to "there is a way that is predestined to salvation and a way predestined to damnnation" rather than "people are predestined to salvation or predestined to damnnation". This is closer to what orthodoxy accepts.
Calvinists do not believe in double predestination. Yes, there are some people called "hyper-Calvinists" but these are not Calvinists as understood in the nature of Augustine of Calvin. And Calvinists DO NOT reject free will. I am a Calvinist and I believe in Free will. It seems you were misinformed or rather simply did not understand what you were being taught.
Not really interested in getting into a debate on Augustine, I had not read him in years. But what is important to note is that I do know what the church teaches, and St Augustine is not the ultimate authority.
Yes. Probably not wise to do so since you are uniformed. I agree Augustine is not the final authority - God is through his Word, the Bible.
But the Roman Catholics who did elevate st Augustine to a very high authority during the middle ages even then never accepted these doctrinal innovations of Calvin. What does that say? It is not unlikely that Calvin misinterpreted st Augustine.
The Roman Catholics rejected Calvin because Calvin rightly called them to account and denied Papal Authority. He legitimately, through the teachings of Scripture was able to demonstrate that the pope was not infallible. And that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen into error. The Roman Church attempted to elevate Augustine's position in respect of church government - and it never denied Augustine's teaching. Calvin was not an innovator. His teachings flow from Paul through Augustine. It is incorrect to say he was an innovator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You missed another opportunity to ask a question.
Please pretty please.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Is that the echo of Hari - your master I hear? Of course it is. Good to see you have been a good little white boy and practiced your spamming.
We are so proud of you.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So asking you and others uncomfortable questions or responding to your own comments or questions is "trolling" now is it?You just cannot keep up with your own bullshit can you Reverend.
I don't recall you asking me one even uncomfortable question. Perhaps you had better remind me.
Some of your questions don't deserve an answer. Others - you can go and do your own homework. Certainly you don't need me to help you - you have all the skills necessary to find answers to your questions.
If I choose to answer a question - it is not because I feel comfortable answering it.
And oh yes, despite your constant harping - I am not a reverend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The Bible is a book. It can't cause anythingHYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!
Ad hominin.
You know damn well it can.
Assumption,
Or you have to agree with me
Bully tactics.
that it was >>>>> Christianity<<<<<< that caused millions of deaths and not the New Testament as I have been telling you for a long time now.
I never said Christianity killed people - and I never said the NT has killed anyone. If you say I have please provide the links to the quotes.
And just to be clear. Christianity per se has not caused millions of deaths. Christianity is not the same as people in the church using the church to kill people unlawfully or even lawfully in the name of a king - such as the crusades. That would be equivalent to saying atheism in the form of Communism has killled more people in the 20th and 21st century than all of the rest of history.
Would you say the same about the "book" called the Quran that actually instructs followers of Islam to convert the world to Allah/Islam and by the sword if necessary.
Yes. I would say that the Quran is a book. It cannot cause anyone to do anything. People can read it and evaluate it and make their own decisions. I don't take the view that Islam causes people to murder people. People within Islam exploit people to do things over and above what the religion itself teaches.
Quran8:39Andfight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all ofit, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing ofwhat they do.
A literalistic reading of the text - taken out of context will always inspire people. Yet the book itself has no power to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I would think that the Roman Catholics practice such style of thought. Yet the Protestant Church has never been into the Scholastic thinking of Acquinan. Yes a brilliant man - but not a biblical man. He was caught in the greek thinking vein - of Aristotle and Plato.
Sometimes Presbyterians are accused of Scottish common logic of Hume et al. But the fact is - this misrepresents our thinking patterns as well.
I think the best way to understand the Reformed view is by understanding the covenants of the Bible. Reformed thinkers use what is called covenant theology - which incidentally is the way the Christians understood the bible and God's relationship not just with himself - but with humans. God covenanted with his people. And God used the framework of the covenant to form his relationships. State, Church, Family, individual.
Back in the early days of the church, the covenant played a larger part in their understanding of the church and the scriptures. Nowadays, and in most denominations - people have little understanding of the framework of covenants - let alone the fact that God relates to us via covenant.
I have started listening to your podcast - survival course - I have not found it helpful yet. It repeats itself - and is unable to look at its own faults. It is also very patronizing - the computer voice does not help of course - and it is also very long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Catholic Church accepts the teachings of Augustine. As does the Orthodox Church.
Calvin's teachings are Augustine's teaching. If Calvin is a heretic, then so is Augustine. And if Augustine is not a heretic but is only in error in some parts of his teaching, then this is consistently the same for Calvin. Calvin did not go beyond Augustine's teaching.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I never said my church does not have apostolic succession.
I take the view that apostolic succession is superstitious.
It is distinct from the apostolic teaching and records.
The church if it maintains the apostolic teaching will ensure it is safeguarded. Yet there is no safeguard simply by laying hands on someone.
What is important is the apostolic teaching which is handed down in the NT. Although there is benefit in the laying on of hands- it is not in the safeguard of the doctrine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
We don't agree with unity for the sake of unity. But nor do we agree with schism because someone did not agree with us.
I think unity requires truth. But in Christ, it primarily requires us to be his children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Both the East and the West thought that they were right and that the other was wrong. Both acted in the spirit of Anti-Christ and not out of love for each other. Even almost 1000 years later neither are able to work through reconciliation because both seek the other to repent. And the fact is - because both are arrogant they will never repent because they think it is the other church at fault.We will never accept papal supremacy, which from the start was the main issue. We saw from the get go that to elevate one man into being supreme head of the church was a forerunner to The anti-christ.Their errors lead to protestantism. The errors of protestantism created the modern atheistic and anti-christ worldview. You protestants who have not learned your lesson are using the same reasonings that created the modern atheistic worldview to begin with. You are using these arguments against atheists!You, who are wishing to gloss over all these various major and significant differences in order to achieve a false unity do not understand how this type of thinking is a threat to the church itself.I point to all the protestant churches in Austin, with their rainbow flags and "we stand with muslims" signs. That is where your ecclessiology leads.
If your argument is sound then no Orthodox Priest would ever fall into sin - nor would such members - but there are those who have left https://orthodoxandgay.com/
I agree with the Orthodox position in relation to Papal Supremacy. But having said that, I also disagree with dissention and division.
I think it is inaccurate to say that Catholicism lead to Protestantism. I think this omits to remember that since the Church has begun it has always been reforming. And will always continue to do so until the Lord Jesus Christ returns for his bride. Protestantism did not lead to atheism and the modern world. The Renaissance - and a dead church with a fixation on greed, and power, and a lack of transparency led to the modern worldview. This movement actually looked back to the Greek philosophies for illumination and was in direct conflict with the Reformation on many fronts.
The Reformation did not lead to an anti-biblical or anti-church movement. The Reformation was directed towards reform of the church and the clear errors within its halls, and in particular papal supremacy.
You should clarify what you mean by the protestants using similar arguments against the atheist.
America has a culture of anti-authoritarian sentiment. It is truly a Baptism generation - and if you knew your history - you would know that Baptists are not and never were Protestants - they are dissidents. They were our original Nestorians and have lived in the world since the time of Paul.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hi BDT,
as always it is a pleasure to read your words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Calvin was trained in theology by the Roman Catholic Church. His teachings reflect the Bible as understood by the great doctor of the Church, Augustine.
When we read Augustine' view on predestination and Calvin's they are identical. And both I would argue flow from Paul's teaching in Ephesians and Romans, which themselves flowed from the teachings in the Psalms in the OT and Isaiah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Accepted theologians.Which was exactly my point.You presume to have a special club.So Stephen asks direct questions of the Bible and you and your clubmates interpret or misinterpret biblical scripture to suit.Stephen clearly studies biblical scripture as you do..... So you are both theologians but in different clubs.Respect, not kudos....To you both.
Stephen asks questions because he has an agenda not because he wants the truth The questions he asks of the bible have been answered on many occasions. He just does not like the answers - so he tries to pose the same questions in different ways. If he simply put his position across it would be one thing. But he does not - he just says that is not correct or he calls people liars. Or he says that the questions are not answered.
As for misinterpreting the scriptures - my point is the exact opposite.
I do read and translate and interpret the Scriptures. My point is that the conclusions I draw are found within the same range as other people who are doing it as well. This is a safeguard against novel interpretations and ensures that a reasonably objective standard is being adhered too. the methodology is sound. We start with the original texts and translate. We look at the contexts. We identify the particular difficulties in the language and the cultural idioms of the time. And in doing so we are asking questions of the text. Asking questions is a good thing. But everyone asks questions depending upon where they are coming from and this is understandable. Yet the same answers will fall within a particular range.
Stephen asks questions - no problem with that. But he refuses to accept answers when they don't fit with his agenda. It is a bit like Trump. He has his own agenda. When a media person asks a question - another person with an agenda - the way Trump answers and the way the media listens - are quite different. What is required is other people who are objective in their views.
If I answer a question because I have reached a certain conclusion. And then go and find it fits within the range of conclusions that others have done in asking the same question - it can bring some satisfaction. If my conclusion is not within the same range - then I need to examine my methodology again. If It is correct and I am still not within range - then I will need to examine others who have come to different conclusions to see why the difference. If at the end of those studies I still am at odds - then either my conclusion is wrong or right and the others are right or wrong. I would submit my work for them to peruse and seek clarification as to whether they or I had moved away from a proper methodology and why I had arrived at a particular conclusion.
The problem with Stephen's interpretational method is he does it all by himself without any checks and balances. And that is not a problem per se - except when he attempts to pass it off as the correct interpretation of the text while dismissing what others have spent years working on. The other thing which is significant is this - even if what Stephen ends up concluding is correct - it will in the end be for his own benefit without the satisfaction of assisting anyone else. It will be posted on this site and then within a couple of months will be lost in the ether of the internet.
But it is not a club. Anyone who wants to do the work and the studies are welcome.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hi Brother,
the number two troll on this site.
Keep going and you will become number one. Well maybe not. You don't have the class.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You seem to think that your constant trolling matters. LOL!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Perhaps the reason he cannot land a blow is because of your state of continual "running away".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Maybe you should elaborate specifically on these disagreements so that we can examine what is different. I also do not know what church uou are a part of.If you were to become orthodox, and even go for the priesthood, you would be sent to a seminary. It wouldn't just be to teach you how to swing a censor or sing properly either!We are supposed to show charity to protestants, but the truth of the matter is the greatest consensus even across the ages is that they aren't with the church, and are even heretics. We aren't even supposed to pray with them. Even stepping into a protestant church is strongly discouraged as being defiling to all but those most mature in the faith. We certainly cannot take communion with protestants, as it isn't even a real eucharist.It is no thing at all for you to consider us Christians, as you don't believe in the church.Protestant ecclesiology, the branch theory, and all these different heterodox ideas concerning the nature of the church come from anti-christ. For us to put the protestants on equal footing with the true church would be to sell out the church to anti-christ. We don't consider ANY protestant church to be orthodox, nor can we.
I assumed from what you said previously that you could tell just from my words that we were in disagreement and that I had no understanding of your church. I have indicated that I do understand and disagree. That was the difference. Since you have falsely accused me of not understanding it is up to you to show where I did not understand.
I have no plans to join with the Orthodox Denomination. I also understand that if I did - it is not a quick journey but requires lot of training and experience inter alia . Even when protestant pastors go from denomination to another there is more to it than simply walking in with a piece of paper. Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, all require that any new pastor is not just academically qualified, but is well aware and understands the entire culture of the denomination. It has learned from the Catholic and Orthodox positions that just accepting someone or anyone is not the wisest course of action because unless they are prepared to leave their baggage behind and to commence completely loyal to the new denomination then it causes division. In other words, there is much weeding out before new growth takes places.
Showing charity is good and well said. Nevertheless, despite your words in theory, your words in action do not show such charity. I take it from your words in general that you are a person of good moral fortitude. I observe that you do not run into a fight unnecessarily. You hold strongly to your faith and do now wish to compromise and for all those things I commend you warmly. Yet your words in relation to the protestant church is hateful and spiteful.
This is one of the reasons that the Protestants desired to see the Catholic Church reform. The Catholic Church had within it the same seeds as the Orthodox church which together caused the division of the Church, at least those congregations consisting of the West and the East. IT did not take into account other Churches functioning and existing at the same time. Both the East and the West thought that they were right and that the other was wrong. Both acted in the spirit of Anti-Christ and not out of love for each other. Even almost 1000 years later neither are able to work through reconciliation because both seek the other to repent. And the fact is - because both are arrogant they will never repent because they think it is the other church at fault.
Since the Protestant Church in some ways is the child of the Western Church, the Orthodox congregation is naturally curious about it - yet would see it as illegitimate and clearly the inevitable result of the Western's Church's heresy. The truth of the matter is irrelevant to the Orthodox church. Yet thankfully, many within the OC have removed the shackles of their dead traditions and embraced Jesus and in doing so have been able to embrace his people where ever they are.
In one of the main seminaries in Moscow, A Dr James Jordan is embraced warmly as a lecturer and academic. This despite his protestant background. His presence where he is warmly accepted - reveals that the Orthodox Church is not as closed as you make it out to be. Many visitors from Russia attend at his church in USA and worship together.
I consider you a brother in the sense that Christ calls us all his brothers. Yet, your constant denial of the same does concern me.
Your last paragraph does not deserve a response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Totally irrelevant and none of your business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
If I were you, I would be worried about Fauxlaw as well. He dances around you - like a butterfly and a bee. And It is beautiful to watch.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Again I read through your dribble. And find no questions.
Nothing to respond to.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Within the context of the silly question, the obviously better choice would be something loosely referred to as GOD or BOB or DAVE or BIG BANGO or whatever.Though it would be foolish to think that this proved anything other than acceptance of something.Something is something and nothing is nothing.As I said, the question is silly. And simply states the obvious..... That is to say, something from nothing.
Do you mean this one?
And you also asked or stated ignorance is bliss.
Firstly, it is not a silly question. It was just attempting to put the question of God into a more even keeled discussion. At the moment if God gets a mention then the ungodly position is that theists need to prove God exists. Obviously and mischievously doing so because they know it is impossible to prove and likewise knowing it is impossible to disprove. Hence the atheist does the cowardly thing - and ALWAYS expects the theist to have the burden of proof. This of course is how the atheist sleeps at night. They dispense with honesty or integrity and try to justify or rationalize this lack of integrity with their so called rules of engagement.
This question put forward an acknowledgment that the question cannot be simply dismissed by such rationalization. It attempted to set the problem in a framework whereby the burden was placed equally on both sides of the theist discussion. And provided an opportunity for both to put forward their evidences for their so called positions.
Your attempt to ridicule the God with various names - is sad. You mock what you do not understand and would I imagine (although I could be wrong) be equally upset with theists who mocked the atheist position. Hence - your comment about me suggesting something from nothing.
and yet this is what the atheist believes. Despite it being an absurdity.
The atheistic position is absurd. It is a faith worldview which is too scared to face what it really is. You talk about ignorance being bliss. I propose that in all the world the atheist is always in the blissful condition -through choosing intentionally to be ignorant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Put forth your best arguments for the existence of a God. I will define God as Maximal Great Being, that is omnipotence(all powerful), omniscience, (all knowing) and omnipresence (all loving).I will not be responding to your arguments, since this a forum, and if I wanted o debate, I would have created a debate. I just want to see how you think
Thanks for your topic. I would have joined in but once I saw your definition I found myself ruled out. I could not provide evidence for one who is obviously a strawman god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I read your post - but could not even find one question. If there is one there - I missed it.
Could you be so kind dear Brother and just cut out the fat and go straight to the meat?
Please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your church would not recognize me as a pastor. This is true. But they do not reject my qualifications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't believe for a second you understand orthodoxy as your prior statements have made that clear.But make no mistake, there is One Church, and to accept heretical churches as being a part of that One Church only serves to pollute The Church.The type of ecumenism you are professing here is considered heretical by us. Not simply my opinion, but the teaching of the church.
I am not an ecumenicalist. I take the view that only Christian denominations belong to the church. Hence, I would not subscribe to the JWs or to the Mormons, nor to many other so called branches or denominations within the so called Christian branch.
Which statements in particular would you say I did not understand? I hope you understand that me understanding and agreeing are two different things. I understand for instance why you refuse to use the term denomination within the Orthodox Context and I understand why this is important for you. But I disagree fundamentally with that position of yours. I understand the mysticism you observe in Holy Communion. Yet I disagree fundamentally with this view. I understand your church's reasoning in relation to the apostolic succession. Yet I disagree with it. I understand your church's position on the authority and interpretation of the bible. Yet, I disagree with it. Disagreeing with something is not the same as not understanding it. Similarly, if I happen to pose a picture of your doctrine in a different light to that which you like, it does not mean that I do not understand nor that I do not comprehend. It simply means that I am not going to put a particular spin on it - that you would prefer.
I also know from first hand experience that some of your priests take a different take than you do on some of these things. This does not mean that you are not necessarily in accord with the teachings in your church, but it might well reveal that not everyone including the priests in your church are not as consistent as you.
My teaching on the church here may well be inconsistent with your church's view of things, but it is not inconsistent with the majority of the church in the world.
I accept the Orthodoxy of the Orthodox church. I even accept them as a real church. But not because I agree 100% with them. But because the Lord Jesus accepts them as part of his body. For the record, I could not in good conscious have someone from either the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church, or even the Anglican Church lead Holy Communion in our church. I would permit you to attend. And even to participate. Yet not to lead. I would accept people from your communion to be admitted to membership - as indeed we do and have in the past. There are many people who leave the Orthodox church because of its lack of nourishment. Yet this does not prevent it from being orthodox.
You are loyal to your denomination and that is a good thing. You must act in accord with your conscience. I would not ask you to do otherwise. I trust you have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Some Christians claim the bible to be inspired by God. I agree that it is breathed out by God.(A) And your proof for that claim is where?
2 Timothy 3:16.
Most Christians claim there is a God. I agree with most Christians there is a God.(B) And your proof for that claim is where?
I believe there is a God. Or are you asking for proof that most Christians claim that there is a God?
The burden of proof falls on the person making an assertion which is contrary to the default position.
A lawyer attempting to shift the goal posts, in this case where , and who with, the Burden of Proof. actaully lays.You won't forget (a) & (b) above now will you, our resident lawyer ?
Please back up your assertion that I attempted to shift the burden or the goal posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So am I to assume that your source is not necessarily the Christian Bible...But more so the diverse views/interpretations of other theologians?...Never really thinking for yourself.I would suggest that in terms of his questioning literally, Stephen is as much a theologian as any academic is.Isn't it just simply a case of who you prefer to listen to and who you would rather ignore?
I never said that did I? So your assumption is incorrect. What I said was that I translate the passage from the original texts and interpret it according to the culture and context. I do the work and I form my own questions and answers. My conclusions are then found to be in the same range as others. Stephen is not a theologian.
His interpretations do not fall within the range of accepted theologians from the wide range of theologians accepted. As I said he is a pseudo - theologian.
It would be like me pretending to be a scientist simply because I read a few textbooks - and could do a few tricks. But go ahead and give him his cudos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Some Christians claim the bible to be inspired by God. I agree that it is breathed out by God.
Most Christians claim there is a God. I agree with most Christians there is a God.
Atheists don't claim anything about anything. This includes who has the burden of proof for proving God exists.
As far as I know and have been advised by every atheist on this site the only thing Atheist's believe or rather not believe is that there is no evidence for God. Of course you can feel free to contradict all of your fellow atheists. Hence what the atheist claims or not claims about the bible is irrelevant.
The burden of proof falls on the person making an assertion which is contrary to the default position. The default position does not need to prove their position because it is the default position. The person who makes an assertion against that position is free to do so - so far as they make their case.
I take the view that existence of God is the default position. You can disagree with this if you like. I can hardly care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The point is God chose his people - his people did not choose him. It is God's prerogative -not ours who belong to him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Sorry tradesecret, the truth of the matter is that you belong to a heretical church. Even if your churches act as some stepping stone to Orthodoxy for some, it doesn't change the fact that you are not with us. Your understanding of what The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does not match with what the church fathers teach.You don't really understand orthodoxy, but if you want to talk about an issue at a time, I could clarify what it is we actually teach for you.For starters, there are not denominations within orthodoxy. Every church is properly catholic.
Mopac, I feel sorry for you. I really do. I reject your opinion that my church is heretical and will rely instead upon the teaching of GOD in the bible over your opinion.
I can't see why you continue to think we are on different sides - I think you will find that we agree on much more than we disagree. And that when compared to the actual enemies of the church, that we fight them on the same terms.
I do understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church.
I know the Orthodox Church refuses to consider itself a denomination. I understand you see every OC as properly catholic. Protestant Churches believe the same thing - but accept the term denomination as well. I think you are being a pedant. And that is your prerogative.
But to call people who the Lord Jesus has accepted as his people - heretical is sad and pathetic and not worthy of any who has been washed by the blood of the Lamb.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And I assume that Stephens' source is the Christian Bible and his interpretation thereof...Just as yours is.
There you would be incorrect.
My interpretation is not my own per se. Yes, I am able to translate it from the original languages and interpret it according to it context and cultural nuances. My interpretation is in accord with scholars and academics and theologians. I do not put a unique spin on it. In fact one of the checks and balances of - especially older literature is when the there is a general consensus of interpretation.
Novel interpretations generally don't go very far, especially by people who have not been trained in the literature, but if such appear as they invariably do, then there is much discussion by peers - I am sure you have heard of peer group reviews. This occurs within biblical language studies as well.
Stephen is self acknowledged in his interpretation. He is aware that he chooses to read and ask questions of passages himself. Fine, so far as it goes. But when his interpretations are novel as they generally are, and inconsistent with anyone over the years in academia studies then it is well to be wary of it. Theologians are quite diverse in their views. They range from atheists to fundamentalists. They are liberal, conservative, and everywhere between. They take in people from different religions. Yet most of Stephen's notions do not fit within any of these ranges. His are outside of what is considered balanced.
My views accord within the normal and acceptable ranges. In other words, if we were speaking science, my views are within the establishment and Stephens' would be the pseudo-scientist. I would be the evolutionist and he would be the creationist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I don't need your respect. Nor do I actually want it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I admire your loyalty to your denomination. And yes I will continue to call it that. Although strictly speaking there are several orthodox denominations.
There is only one true CHURCH. Yet it has many members. And if the hand says to the foot I have no need of you, as you seem to be saying to me and to every other denomination, then you are dishonoring Christ and his Church.
It is Christ who calls his people to himself. It is Christ who gives his people love for each other. It is the Spirit who unites us with Christ. It is the Spirit who enables his people to call him Lord.
It is your kind of thinking (with respect) that Jesus calls his disciples out on. They saw other believers, but who were not part of their select group, and asked Jesus to judge them. And Jesus' judgment was that "since they are not opposed to me, they are with us". I think you really need to consider his words more closely.
It is completely unloving and unbiblical to say that neither the RC or the Protestant Churches are not part of the true church. This is also to disregard the covenant of God and is clearly in error.
If you understood the bible, and its covenant position, then you would see that it is GOD who brings about life. And it is God who initiates covenants and institutions. The community we live in has numerous institutions - State, Church, and Family. And also individuals.
The Apostle Paul could write that the Roman Empire was a State ordained and put into place by God. And this was despite its anti-God sentiments and its anti-Christian sentiments. Using your current logic in relation to the church, this would not and could not be the case. You would say that Paul was wrong.
The church was formed at Pentecost. The Spirit of God fell on the people of God as the preaching of the gospel by the Apostle Peter spoke and indeed as the other disciples spoke. The disciples and the many thousand who became Christians on that date after Pentecost went home to their many places in the world and the gospel spread. The NT reveals that the church spread and spread all around the world. The letter to the Colossians indicates that the gospel was preached to every creature under the sun.
Since you do not know much of church history save and except in the very narrow books of OC, you will not have heard that the gospel penetrated to England before the end of the first century. The Roman church finds this hard to believe and yet the council records right back to the earliest fathers show there were bishops and elders who came from the British Islands at the earliest councils.
Protestants as we know them know - did not start with the Luthers and the Knox's and the Calvins. They started right back in the very earliest days of the church. Even the Apostle Paul was one who wanted to keep the church pure and often railed against the traditions in the churches that were springing up in the NT. Sin corrupts even the most holy of Christians and their churches. And it is ALWAYS in a need of REFORMING. In the West we call this part of the sanctification process.
The OC has unfortunately lost its way. It really has. It does not believe it needs to change. It thinks it has already become perfected and has no need of reforming. It is much like the Jewish religious system at the time of Christ, it knows everything. It knows the truth and it is the only true church and everyone else is wrong.
While I have no desire to call the OC heretical, it is fair to say that it is in error on many counts. And while I might also indicate that I prefer to the OC to the RC, they are very similar in many respects as well. Both reject the basic tenants of Christianity in favor of tradition - and not the tradition of the bible, but their own traditions. And both reject the authority of God in the word of God, making it subject to the teachings and authority of the church.
The OC did not write the bible. The OT is Hebrew in origin. And compiled by the Jews. Not by the Church. The NT was written by Christians in the early days of the church and sent to various churches where the people of God in those local churches or denominations recognized the Word of God and then sent it on. The NT at best may have been compiled together at some stage by the Church, recognised in the councils. Yet, the words, themselves, and the letters, were not put together by the church. The Spirit of God revealed to his people - all over the world what his words were. The church has no right to interpret them anyway it likes.
It was one of the sins of the church to hide the word of God from the people of God. And to put it in language they could not read. Each person is not allowed to interpret the scriptures anyway they like. Yet there is a way of interpretation that both the RC, the OC, and other churches together can honor God and each other.
There is unity within the church. There are factions within the church because there are various parts of the body who are different. It is unfortunate that the OC has taken a axe and cut of all other parts of the body - leaving itself as only a finger. The church is not just a finger.
Created:
Posted in:
Atheists tend to suggest that there is no evidence the existence of God. Ok. Or perhaps they put it more crudely "they have found no evidence for the existence of God".
For me as a theist, I always find this a rather ignorant suggestion. Atheists also tend to believe that the BoP is on the theist to provide the evidence for the existence of God.
Yet this too for the theist is an absurd suggestion as well. Yes, it is fair for a person making an assertion to demonstrate why they are making that assertion. And it is certainly fair for the opposing side to require that the assertion is demonstrated satisfactorily.
Yet, in the God issue, this is not straightforward and is complicated by many things.
When asked to produce evidence for God's existence, I am actually limited by nothing because everything is evidence for God's existence. Yet, the atheist takes each piece of evidence, not the total of course, and says "sorry that is not evidence". Their most used argument is "that this can be explained by something else". I really do not see how that argument is actually used since it does not refute God or his existence.
What would be helpful in the discussion is this. For an atheist to produce any evidence that GOD does not exist.
And if they did this, then perhaps it might narrow the type of evidence that they tell us they are looking for?
After all, for an atheist to assert they have seen no evidence for the existence of God, implies and asserts that they have been looking for evidence. The question I have is what type of evidence are you looking for? Philosophical? Biological? Geological? Rational? Revelation? Magical? Supernatural? If the atheist refuses to narrow it down, then they are implicitly saying "I shut my eyes to any and all evidence". If you aim at nothing - you hit it everytime.
Now hopefully many of you will see this is sort of reversing the burden of proof - but not really. What I am attempting to do here is to narrow the issues. Currently, the BoP can go nowhere because the atheist refuses to provide the kind of evidence that they say they have not seen. This is an assertion which needs to be satisfied before the theist can actually begin to produce evidence for God.
And it is a fair thing to request. And not unreasonable - at least for people who want to reasonably pursue truth.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
If that is supposed to mean something - please explain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Quick answer. The Bible is a book. It can't cause anything. People can look at a book, evaluate its ideas and add these to ideas they already have or don't have.
Of Course Mises might take a different view.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If no God exists then what evidence would be sufficient to prove God exists? None. And no one would be able to come up with the sort of evidence they require.This is assuming that atheists are begging the question, which is false, no the position of an atheist is that no evidence presented thus far (thus far referring to the current state of affairs) has been valid. If one can demonstrate valid proof that god exists, I would change my mind.Thus far, there has been none I find convincing.
Hi Theweakeredge, thanks for your thoughtful response.
I disagree with your reasoning and therefore your conclusion. It stands to reason that in a system created by God that everything per se would be evidence for God's reality. It also stands to reason in a system without God, that there could be no evidence for God's existence. The former is a truism just as the latter is. The difficulty with this of course is that no matter what the reality is - the theist is convinced by all of reality and the atheist is convinced there is no evidence. Hence - both are either lying to themselves, deluded, or unwilling to examine the evidence properly - and that means without prejudice.
For the record, I take the view that atheists have assumed a position not because they see a lack of evidence but for other reasons. Along the way, evidence may have become part of their reasoning, but never the starting point. What this means is that despite your sincerity that you would change your mind if evidence was presented - I actually find that hard to believe - not because of you personally, but by the fact that it is not lack of evidence which is the problem but the interpretation of the same. This is evidenced in part by the way that people perceive God in the Bible. I see for instance that God is perfectly holy, good and just. But many on this site see only an evil God. I personally cannot see the Biblical God as anything but perfectly just and good. Hence -we are looking at the same evidence -yet we interpret it differently. I think this reasoning extends to all of life in the question of God.
On the other hand if God exists then everything they observe is evidence for the fact that God exists.Now you are quite literally begging the question, you are presuming your conclusion in your premise. There is a fundamental flaw in the way you see the burden of proof and how evidence should change our mind.Essentially: I do not discount evidence for god because I am an atheist, I examine each piece of evidence to see if it is valid, sound, logically consistent, etc... That is exactly how theists should look through the evidence for a god, not presume one's existence, but check to see if any evidence established is sound, valid, logically consistent, etc..
I am not assuming a conclusion within my premise. That is not true. It also has nothing to do with the burden of proof. I think the burden of proof by the way is with the atheist, not with the theist. The question is not about God - it is about reality. And what explains it better. If it were about God per se - then perhaps an argument might be made - although personally I think the argument is thin.
You can only assume a piece of evidence from the position you are in. And if you commence a question by asking if God exists, it implies implicitly that God does not exist. That is where a conclusion is found within its premises. The issue of God is not about questions - it is about axioms.
As I have said on many other occasions - everything I see is evidence for God. I say humanity is proof. I say evil is proof. I say atheists are proof.1, 2, 3, 4, assertions have been made. That means you have necessarily adopted a burden of proof. Please demonstrate how a god exists, how humans are proof of god, how evil is proof of god, and how atheists are proof of god.For your note: An atheist is simply one who does not believe in god. Take that as you will.
I have an axiomatic position on God. This is by its very nature a circular argument. It is the same as an axiomatic position on logic or reason. Reason or logic can be proved logically - but it would also assume an axiom that logic is logically. Every person in the world has an axiomatic position. We all start at different places. Yet we all fall back to our axioms.
Thank you for your note. It means little to me as I don't believe in the god that the atheist does not believe in. This logically probably makes me an atheist and yet it would not be true. Think about this for a moment. The atheist looks at the bible and can only see an evil God. He or she chooses to try and find this god, or evidence for this evil god's existence. Where ever they look they cannot find it. The Theist - or me in particular looks at the bible and only sees a good God. I see evidence for this God everywhere. But is the God that the Atheist sees in the bible the same one that I see? I think not. What makes the difference? What is it that makes me see that God is good, created the world good, that humanity rebelled - and that God punished this rebellion with death. What is it that makes me see that this God then sent his son to this earth to die on a cross for the sins and rebellion of humanity as a good thing? What is it that makes me see that God is good and that humanity is sinful - but also deserving of punishment? On the other hand what is it that makes atheists not only not see any evidence for the good God in the Bible, but only injustice, unfairness, brutality, genocide, homophobia, and every other evil thing?
If billions of people can read the bible and see the Good God and millions of people can read the Bible and only see the evil God, then what is going on here? Surely it is absurd to suggest it is because one entire group has looked at the evidence wrongly. Something else must be going on.
Yet, none of these are evidences for the atheist. Hence the axiomatic position of what the bible says is more plausible than what the atheist says.You, yourself admitted that whenever you looked at the evidence, you were committing a logical fallacy! How then, could one come to the conclusion that your proofs are at all evidential or valid?
I never admitted the same. You drew the false inference and then took it to your own conclusion.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The problem is that if God/Creator exists, you're looking right at evidence every day. Wouldn't you agree?
That is a profound statement RoderickSpode.
If no God exists then what evidence would be sufficient to prove God exists? None. And no one would be able to come up with the sort of evidence they require.
On the other hand if God exists then everything they observe is evidence for the fact that God exists.
As I have said on many other occasions - everything I see is evidence for God. I say humanity is proof. I say evil is proof. I say atheists are proof.
Yet, none of these are evidences for the atheist. Hence the axiomatic position of what the bible says is more plausible than what the atheist says.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is a blatant strawman, and it misrepresents the scientific model of the universe without god supports. We are not sure why the big bang happened, but that does not mean that god did it. Declaring that is a god of the gaps fallacy
That is a weak response. I am not asking you to suggest that God did it. I am asking you to prove what you think happened. And the burden of proof is on you to prove that position. It is an absurdity to fall into a heap everytime someone raises it and cry out "god of the gaps fallacy'.
We are here. That is a fact. It did not just happen in a testtube. Please give a reasonable explanation as to how it happened?
I don't even agree with the god of the gaps fallacy. It is a strawman ALWAYS put up by atheists against theists. It is a dumb one.
Created:
Here is a question for all. It places the BoP on any who seek to address it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
OH, and because I am so generous to you. It is similar to another biblical concept - of which I don't need to remind you of - but will because I know how desperate you are - since you can't see it.
When people ask "why do you do choose this God?" - what is the Biblical answer? I know you know the answer. But a little clue for you, when you know the answer - the above contradiction stops being a contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
Hmmm - so you don't want to do homework when I ask you a question but you expect me to do it for you. And here I was thinking that you had "proved" yourself superior and me a fraud.
Still, people vote with their feet. Or as in your case - you keep asking questions and expecting an answer. LOL!
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I hardly care. As it is - you have already produced a link before - indeed as Harikrish has. If I could be bothered I would go and make the link myself.
Anyone reading the links can read the context and see what was said. And they read my denials as well.
Anyone who puts any substance into Harikrish's allegations is as warped as he is - spamming away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Over to you Reverend>I am sure you can wriggle out of this little dilemma with all of your qualifications as a Criminal lawyer not to mention in your religious capacities as both a qualified Pastor & Chaplin.
I have told you I am not a reverend. I am not. Yes, I know how the titles are given in our church.
What is there to wriggle out of here?
King David was anointed. Solomon was anointed. Messiah means anointed. The Greek transliteration is Christ. This means anointed.
Messiah means "anointed one". But not all anointed are the messiah. If you knew the difference between a participle, an adjective, an adverb, and a noun, this might help or assist you more.
By the way - you mention my qualifications more that I ever have. In fact I resisted for a long time giving any information about myself - because I thought it was neither yours nor the Brothers business and I knew - and I have been proved right - that if I ever simply gave into your demands - that you and the Brother would use them in such as way as to diminish who I was.
In relation to David and Solomon - neither are referred to as the Messiah - in the sense of the Messiah who would come and restore the kingdom or indeed any other kind of sense. David was in a covenant with God - relating specifically to his sons remaining on the throne forever. Obviously, if it was David's son - it was not David. David had considered that any of his son's might have been the messiah, Absalom, etc, and Solomon. Solomon was the first Son of David to be king over all Israel. He was also the last as far as the literal kingdom was concerned. And is kingdom is described as wealthy and great - even the amount of gold was labeled - as the ultimate earthly kingdom - with the interesting number 666 tonnes.
After his death - the kingdom split into two. David no longer had heirs on the throne of Israel - only in Jerusalem - the southern kingdom of Israel. This line coming to an end in Babylon. Not the line of David, but line of David's son sitting on a throne in Israel or Jerusalem. Of course that causes an issue with the promise that David will always have a son forever on his throne. But that is a different question and not relevant here.
The answer to Rosends' question is the difference between an anointed and "the anointed". The difference is an article. Jesus was not just a carpenter in Nazareth. He was THE carpenter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
rosend, thanks for your response.
Much of what you wrote, interesting though it is, is steeped in a theology I happen to reject, based on texts to which I cede no authority. I shan't argue at cross purposes -- I wouldn't ask you to adopt my belief system and (no offense) I don't intend to adopt yours. Just a couple of notes, though:
It is not for me to tell you how to live your own life. I accept you do not accept texts that I do accept. Nevertheless, for me they are relevant because they form part of my tradition even as yours form yours. No offence is taken.
Saul was from Benjamin, because the Davidic line (and the promise that the Judah-based monarchy) had not started yet. So later kings had to be from Judah/David.
Partly correct. Saul was from Benjamin. Agreed. David's royal line had not commenced when Samuel anointed Saul. As I recall and God did not want a human king at all. God did not Israel to be like all the others nations that had a king. God gave the people what they wanted - perhaps what they deserved. However, Saul did not want to obey God, so God took his throne away from him and his line - although, technically at least David was his Son in Law. (at least until Saul gave David's wife to another) And interestingly, Saul's Son became one of David's closest friends, almost a brother, although he was probably most likely the age of David's father or grandfather. But they covenanted together.
After David was anointed king and then eventually crowned king, his line became the royal line. But certainly there was no expectation that all kings of Israel would be of David's line. Hence why Israel after Solomon has no Davidic kings - and why David's line continued in Jerusalem. Was it a command that only David's line be king? It would be nice to see the reference and command for this.
You wrote "I agree that both King and Priest ought not be mixed up and combined again because of the problems associated with what the bible calls the sin nature. As is often said - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why David could not be the messiah and why the son of David, Solomon could not either. "Except that both David and Solomon WERE messiahs! The term "messiah" is just the anglicized "mashiach" -- one who was anointed. Both the high priest and the king were anointed (with one exception, unimportant right now) so there have been many "messiahs" in that there have been many anointed people. The future messiah, in Jewish thought, will be a king of the Davidic line and he will be anointed as such. He will not be a priest.
Yes. I disagree with you here. I do not take the view that just because David and Solomon were anointed that this made them the Messiah. Yes, the Hebrew word for messiah is the one you mentioned. Yet there is a difference between anointed and "the anointed one". All of the priests of Israel were anointed. As were all of the kings of both Israel and Judah. Indeed even the people of Israel themselves at various times were anointed. Yet, if all anointed are the messiah, then the promise of a future messiah would become redundant. It is a bit like saying to someone "you are special, but you know we are all special". It actually makes "special" non-special.
I do take the view as well that David and Solomon were in some ways more than just anointed. I think that they were types of the Messiah to come. Not the messiah per se - but such shadows of the one to come that people would look at them and recognize some special quality about them that not only inspires them but points them to the real Messiah. In some ways they are like John the Baptist. He too was not the messiah - but he pointed to the messiah. The OT promises that the Messiah would one day come to rescue his people.
Many in John the Baptist's time even as others before him, such as Nehemiah and Ezra, thought the Messiah was going to save them from their captives. Either the Persians, or the Romans, or the Greeks - but God's picture was much bigger than any of these plans. And when we look through the history of Israel - we can see this picture, can't we? God from the beginning was not just looking to rescue his people from some kind of economic system, or some kind of political system, or some kind of religious system, but from that which is at the heart of humanity and had been since the Garden of Eden. This is one of the reasons why most people missed the Messiah when he did come - they were looking for a different kind of Messiah. One who would free them from the Romans. Today people are still looking for a superman - this is one reason the Marvel Movies are such a hit - we want a messiah to save us from the capitalists - or from the Aliens, or from the evil in the world, or from those wanting to exploit the environment or those wanting to exploit children.
But none of us want to confront the real issue of the heart. Sin. And while that is the case - people will continue to look for a superman figure. But God is not Superman. And that is all the difference in the world.
Can you by the way - find for me in the OT where the future king in David's line will not be a priest? Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You seem to have the answers - tell us - don't leave us in suspense.
No. I have questions and you keep avoiding them or you simply do not know of any other function John may served , which is it?
Stephen, yes you have questions. This is good. Please continue to ask them. But please do your own homework.
If you want me to speculate I will. But as far as I can tell you are taking huge leaps of faith here in relation to your version of what John came to earth for.
He was the forerunner to Christ. He prepared his way. That probably has to do with both preparing people and their hearts for the coming messiah, but also in preparing Jesus in his ministry as well - such as his anointing in his various guises. His death may well have signaled a particular sign to Jesus that he ought to step up his program.
Did John for instance cure any lepers? Did he walk on water? Did he feed a multitude with just a fish/s and a few loaves of bread?
I don't recall John in relation to any miracles - save and except the voice from Heaven.
Or should we just assume that he did all the things that Jesus went on to do?
I don't think there is any assumption necessary. His role was to point people to Jesus. This he did. And once achieved - what happened was a matter for God.
You do not value preaching, therefore you do not see how this is "great". John preached the gospel - emphatically, a call to repentance. This is the primary purpose of prophecy to tell forth the truth of God which is to produce an ethical response in the hearer. It is not necessarily a prediction of the future, although he did prophecy about Jesus the messiah coming.
There was no reason for him to go about doing miracles. John was not a messiah. Even though he was probably anointed as a priest. He was not the anointed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. ... Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God". Imagine if Moses had a smart phone. Now that would be evidence.
Evidence of what? And moreover in accordance with the topic - what sort of evidence? Would a photo of a burning bush not being burnt be accepted as reliable evidence? Especially in our day and age of fake news?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
- Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion
Coma idea is implausible. Imagine the Romans were bad at killing people - not very plausible at all. The most plausible position is that what the evidence leads us to conclude. The grave was empty. The eyewitness accounts of his resurrection - and the exponential growth of the early church. Each leads to the unavoidable conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead.
- Jesus was born of a virgin
The bible indicates that Mary was the mother before she had sexual relationships with a person. Facts indicate that a baby born came from somewhere, despite her having no sexual relations.
- God created the universe
The universe is in existence. It did not just start from nothing. Improbable from statistical point of view to just arise and then brought everything into existence by itself.
- the book if Genesis is to be interpreted literally/not literally
The book of Genesis is to be interpreted in accordance to the different languages it uses in its various parts. Some is historical narrative. Some is poetry. Some is metaphorical. Some is prophetic. Some is musical. There is no one set way of interpreting language.
- There was a Global flood, as described in the Bible
This obviously depends upon the way it is interpreted. I take it that it is most plausibly a global flood from the Bible.
-The earth is young(6,000-10,000 old) years/old ( about 4.5 billion years old)
I think the bible is at least 6000 years old and anywhere up from there. I am however not a scientist. I do not know how age of an object over the age of a human can ever be tested and verified. I certainly do not know how anything can be verified within millions or even billions of years. It can be be believed by faith. Faith in our scientists and that the methodology they use is accurate.
- The bible is the source of all truth. (meaning humans cannot reach truth without it, and the bible is necessary)
I think the bible is the revelation of God. It is special revelation that tells us who God is and what humanity has done requiring God's forgiveness. Yet, general revelation also exists in the evidence before our eyes in the world around us, the humans around us, and the brains we have that reveals that God exists. General revelation leaves us all without excuse of the existence of God. Special Revelation leads us to Christ. There is truth in all parts of the world. It is found in the atheist. It is found in the Muslim religion and any other religion in the world. It is found in science. It is found in philosophy. Truth is not exclusive to the Bible.
Nevertheless, the truth NEVER contradicts the Bible.
Created: