|
Brennanite posted:The majority of people (especially non-elites) in Europe were illiterate, they couldn't have read the scriptures even if they had copies in their vernacular (which, as Bel Canto already pointed out, did exist). You seem to overlook the issue of *why* the institution of the Church existed. You had to go through the clergy to access the sacraments because they had the God-given authority (from Christ through Peter to the Church) to do so. Also, look at it from the Church's perspective. They believe they have the truth of the Gospel--why wouldn't they want to control who is allowed to teach, what they are allowed to teach, etc. in order to maintain its truthfulness? There were a few copies of manuscripts around that were in other languages. This is a long shot from copies being readily available in their vernacular. People were illiterate because they had nothing to read, they had nothing to read because the vast majority of the Bibles were not in a language they could understand.Granted I realize Gutenburg was not around yet and books were astronomically expensive. However the Catholic church did not start having mass in the peoples vernacular until the 1960's The common people would go to church, not understand a lick of what the priest was saying, and recieve sacraments. That is a long shot from what Jesus taught us in any shape or fashion. Also I do not agree that it was God given authority. When Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, he was not instructed so set up a line of temporal rulers to function in his names sake. Its not even clear it was really given to Peter, and even if it was, why would Peter himself relinquish the keys to a pope once he was alive on the other side after death? Wouldn't he still have the vested powers to bind things on heaven and earth, now that he is in heaven? It seems much more like a political ploy to power than anything else. Please understand that I did not intend for this to turn into a anti Catholic tangent because I realize they believe in Christ too and they are brothers and sisters in Christ and deserve respect. I just find that Catholic apologetics seem like an exercise of the mind without taking into account scripture in the least. I really don't want to talk about Catholicism anymore, because there is a fundamental difference between their worldview and mine, that I cannot and will not hold church traditions to the same level of authority as the Holy Bible which was given through prophets and Apostles. With that said, I believe in their missions efforts (except if they don't let Africans have condoms or something) and I do not even dislike them, but I don't mind being johnny rain cloud if it can possibly help the cause of Christ. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jun 28, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:So, is there a specific event or date when Christ's Church became the apostate Roman Catholic Church? Around the time that Gregory the Great became pope (590) did the Catholic church change its function drastically from the practices of the early church, which while was not flawless, it is the type of Church model that we have sought to return to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Wow, what is it with Liberty University students or whoever that they think they have anything to add to the world's theological conversation. jesus christ almighty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:Wow, what is it with Liberty University students or whoever that they think they have anything to add to the world's theological conversation. jesus christ almighty. Because the Great Commission tells us to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Our nations most prestigious universities were founded as Christian schools (no I don't go to Liberty but theres nothing wrong with that school ) God is no less real than He was then, even if people have been persuaded to go in different directions Harvard - Puritan Yale - Puritan Princeton - Presbyterian William and Mary - Anglican Brown - Baptist Penn - Anglican Columbia - Anglican
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
I mean, particularly regarding the criticism of Liberty, if you don't see the difference between colleges from the 1790s and a college from the 1970s, there's just no hope for this discussion. But I don't even think that was his point. The point was particularly about the theological conversation. I don't think it's a fair question to you particularly, because you're not studying to be a theologian, you're in seminary so you're presumably studying to be a pastor, and there's a big difference between a minister and a theologian. But that said, I think the point slap me silly was trying to make was about people going to schools that teach a specific agenda, such as Liberty which is specifically a fundamentalist Baptist university. That kind of education doesn't teach one to participate in the theological discussion. It doesn't prepare students to add anything new. It tells students, doctrinally, what is the case, and because it's sola scriptura Baptist stuff, it doesn't even equip the student to do real textual analysis or to engage in earnest debate. So I mean, it's fine that our nation's most prestigious universities were founded as Christian schools, there's nothing wrong with Christian schools per se, it's just that the only theology I expect to get out of Brigham Young University is straight up Mormon canon. I'm not expecting any contribution, anything new, except maybe in the field of Mormon apologetics. And that's because Mormonism is new and has apologetics to develop. Southern Baptist Convention is not new, and it's the least academically rigorous approach to theology possible. "Whatever the Bible says is the factual truth" is barely even an analysis at all. You straight up rejected the work of nearly 1800 years of Biblical scholarship because "obviously the Holy Ghost did it and it's perfect because it's God's word." So I don't think slap me silly is saying anything to impugn your school, Liberty, or any other Christian school. He's exactly asking what it is you think you bring to the discussion of theology that hasn't been thoroughly done to death. There is no room for innovation when the Bible is the literal word of God and whatever is said should be taken at exactly face value. If you can't get past the idea that maybe there won't be a literal lake of fire, how can you make any kind of new contribution to the field of theology, which is using a much richer Biblical tradition, with much more sophisticated modes of analysis, and much more room for debate to refine concepts?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, thank you for making a huge effortpost expressing my feelings about this thread in a much better way than my snarky-rear end griping. The one thing I would add is that an SBC seminary student, practically by definition, is just getting toes wet regarding a very large and complex international, multi-cultural conversation and isn't going to have much to contribute to people who have been living, reading, thinking about this stuff for years. And there are quite a few such people in here. And the OP's expressed purpose in most recent post is explicitly to spread the gospel, rather than to answer questions about SB seminaries. Which is a very very typical bait and switch that I see a lot from that neck of the religious woods. slap me silly fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I mean, particularly regarding the criticism of Liberty, if you don't see the difference between colleges from the 1790s and a college from the 1970s, there's just no hope for this discussion. But I don't even think that was his point. Thank you for clarifying. I don't think I ever intended to set out to make new contributions to the theological landscape. I still have a long way to go before I even get the degree I seek. Instead of seeking to establish new theological truths, I feel much more inclined to defend conservative Christianity against the tides of liberalism, and I feel there are very important reasons within the faith for doing so. So, if anyone has any questions about anything that might pertain to my worldview or my beliefs, how close minded I might be (or not close minded), how I would respond to typical questions outsiders might have about the southern baptists and their stigmas, ask away
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:
My mission as a believer in Christ is always great commission minded. I will never tell you otherwise. That doesn't mean that I intend to switch the agendas on you, but I don't completely separate the realms of questions about being a seminary student from talking about salvation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Very many of those who are the "tide of liberalism" when it comes to religion are that precisely because they have seen, lived, and understood the SBC and similar groups and consider their pursuits to be hollow, theologically and spiritually bereft, offensive to humanity and intellect. So you wouldn't have a lot to teach these people. As a student, perhaps you should consider approaching the world with a listening attitude instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:Very many of those who are the "tide of liberalism" when it comes to religion are that precisely because they have seen, lived, and understood the SBC and similar groups and consider their pursuits to be hollow, theologically and spiritually bereft, offensive to humanity and intellect. So you wouldn't have a lot to teach these people. As a student, perhaps you should consider approaching the world with a listening attitude instead. How is holding to biblical inerrancy theologically bereft? How is Christian salvation theologically hollow? How is loving your neighbor as yourself offensive to humanity?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Those are great questions. If you're actually interested in the answers, not just making a rhetorical point, you should start by figuring out what you mean by such things as "biblical inerrancy", "Christian salvation", and "loving your neighbor". A Southern Baptist seminary will give you one set of definitions, but will neglect to acquaint you with many many other very interesting thoughts about these things. If you believe these are simple or straightforward ideas you are being misled by the devil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:How is holding to biblical inerrancy theologically bereft? Because it discounts the work of every theologian who has ever written a thing, in favor of a superficial reading of the NKJV/NIV. quote:How is Christian salvation theologically hollow? Because it leaves unresolved questions and doesn't attempt to address them, but rather dismisses them. Faith and works versus faith alone is not a settled matter, for example, but you would consider it so and you would justify doing so by falling back to the bereft Biblical literalist interpretation I mentioned above. quote:How is loving your neighbor as yourself offensive to humanity? It's not, but for the sake of argument baiting people into a thread offering to let them to ask you about your experiences in seminary and then switching to proselytization is not the kind of respect I expect from someone who loves me as themselves. While I personally choose to take your posts in good faith and accept that you're a dude who is on fire with the Lord all up in you and just very excited, I suspect there are others who are more skeptical of your agenda. For example, your weak burns on the Roman Catholic Church, which holds the apostolic succession through the ordination by laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22) didn't do a lot to instill faith in me that you were actually interested in learning about Christianity. The optics on that kind of sectarianism in this thread and the Liturgical thread are that you are more interested in telling others about your flavor of Christianity than you are about learning about Christianity generally. Similarly, and back to slap me silly's point, the coursework you mentioned has good names that impressed me, but then it seems like your class on scriptural interpretation gave you a very biased impression, where you "respect" other interpretative methods (but they are wrong). This is fueling those ideas of you being "theologically bereft," because, again, if you're into Biblical inerrancy you're not willing to entertain any other ideas than what you were told the Bible intended in a given place. For example, when my mother was working on her MA Applied Theology, she had to learn enough Greek to be able to read the books written in Greek, she had to be passingly competent in Hebrew and Latin, and she had to be able to read French or German because of the rich theological traditions in those languages. You're talking about the inerrancy of the NIV or NKJV or whatever SBC uses, when actual Biblical scholars are learning the source languages exactly to get to the real point of what is actually being said. They then look at it within its cultural context and analyze it both textually as well as critically because we're talking about hand-copied books here and as a translator from ancient languages myself, I can tell you that mistakes creep in that can change entire meanings of sentences and they can be as simple as a missing dot. The concept of Biblical inerrancy is at its face theologically bereft because even if God did write every word via autodictation through the hands of the first dudes writing it down, it's insulting and demeaning to the translators and scholars who worked on translations to say that the Holy Ghost Did It. And in fact it contradicts a previous point you made - if God gives us free will and the capability to make mistakes, with the risk being our own eternal damnation to the hellfire lakes (he actually loses nothing in this scenario), then surely he's not going to assume direct control over the translators, interpreters, scholars (who you reject the authority of), priests (who you don't recognize the legitimacy of) and so on to make sure the translations are exactly correct, because surely he must respect all of their free agency? Anyhow, I have been enjoying this thread generally and am holding out to see a beautiful transformation of you into a classy theologian or at least respectable contributor to the religious community generally. I am thrilled that you went into the Liturgical thread and impressed that you visited us in the Buddhism thread. But at this point the most important thing you can do is continue to debate but do so in good faith so that when you're finding yourself asking "how is Christian salvation theologically hollow?" and receiving an answer, you're able to assess that answer honestly instead of retreating to your own dogma. Because none of us, not one of us, benefits from reciting from rote. Except the Catholics, I guess, that's how they get their reconciliation 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Regardless the scriptures were not given to the people to learn them; only the clergy were allowed to read the bible and the pope dictated the doctrine. Ordinary people were forced to go through the Roman church's hierarchy and could not get their Eucharist or other sacraments except by Roman Catholic approved clergy I'm sure you're aware of what it means that the Church is the Living Body of Christ, yes? Scripture is good, and the ongoing development of the Canon is also good. It refines the Church and allows it to develop and grow in modern times as a living body of faith. I mean, just to be fair here and see where you're coming from: Veneration of Mary: what do you know about this practice? Do you know what it means or how it is actually performed? Purgatory Doctrine: have you read the relevant chapters from the Canon to discuss this? This belief didn't spring wholly formed out of the mind of some Pope, you know. Do you know where this doctrine comes from and what it actually is about? Praying to Saints: do you recognize that praying for a saint's intercession is not the same as praying to a saint? Do you realize that any time you tell someone "hey I have a big test tomorrow, please pray for me" that you are literally just doing the same thing as Catholics do, except you're just asking some schmoe and not someone who has been identified as having had a close relationship with God? Forgiveness from only a Catholic priest: wow, so this is just plain wrong because only God can forgive your sins, that's literally part of the prayer. "God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His son, has reconciled the world to Himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." That bit about "I absolve you from your sins" doesn't stop there, the "in the name of. . . " bit is pretty critical. The priest, because he is duly ordained, is operating in persona Christi in this case, it's not a guy or the Church giving you forgiveness. It's also important to note the term "absolution" because that is a technical term and it is important. quote:The Roman Catholic Church upholds their traditions in equal respect to their scripture. Yet Mark 7:7-9 says Earlier in the thread, you mentioned that the hermeneutic method you use prefers to look at what was intended. You have taken a quote here and applied it to the Catholic Church, but Christ is talking very specifically to the Pharisees here, so what gives? How are you applying the literal words of Christ, inerrant and infallible, where he is being quoted as talking directly to the Pharisees, and then applying it instead to the Church Christ established? Now, you might argue that the intent is to say that about any or all delinquent faiths, but I think that would be a huge mistake. For one, Christ is clearly talking to Pharisees, who are ministers of the Old Covenant, and so he's categorically not speaking to anyone you could interpret as the Catholic Church, which maintains the New Covenant. Beyond that, however, we also can see that this is a critically important line because establishing the Old Covenant as delinquent is necessary to establish the purpose for creating the New Covenant. That is to say, within the Markan narrative, this chapter is critical for establishing why Christ had to become Christ in the first place. Had the Pharisees not fallen into the practice of tradition rather than the practice of religion, then there would have been no need to do away with the Old Covenant and replace it with the New. So I would argue that the intent is not a vague lesson about sola scriptura Biblical interpretation, but rather the intent is to establish the reasoning in the narrative for God to change the rules suddenly by bringing the New Covenant into play. So in fact it is completely unsupported by the Bible itself to use this particular passage when discussing the HRC Church. In Mark 7:7-9 Christ is definitely not talking to or about Catholics. So either you are interpreting the word of God in your own way (not the face-value truth as God intended) or you are just nitpicking quotes and using them without their context, or maybe sola scriptura Biblical literalism is an untenable position because it reduces the Bible to a list of facts, like an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader, rather than a complex and meaningful book that deserves better than to be regarded as little more than an Ikea instruction manual for assembling a nice afterlife. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Whoa we got a vindictive Buddhist here. Not sure that's supposed to happen, but it did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Whoa we got a vindictive Buddhist here. Manjushri has a sword that represents cutting through the ignorance of sentient beings. That doesn't have anything to do with me though, I just apparently heard the code words that activated my Catholic Apologia protocols like some kind of Latin speaking bedazzled Manchurian candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
I'm curious, what do you mean by "conservative Christianity" and "tides of liberalism?" When I think of conservative Christianity, I think of something like the Orthodox who are really big on never changing anything ever and claim they've maintained the original liturgies and traditions of the Early Church. You should check out a Divine Liturgy sometime, it is very cool and different from what American Protestants are used to. You seem to be defining conservatism specifically within the modern American political context. American Baptist theology (and many of the other unique aspects of American Protestantism) developed in the 18th through early 20th centuries. It really baffles me to dismiss church tradition or the two millennia of theological development as not having happened, and I say this as a Lutheran who is down with sola scriptura. Though I think your understanding of sola scriptura is pretty different from "orthodox" Protestantism and what Luther writes about. Edit: you can always pull out one of the Catholic arguments- the Bible nowhere states that it is the literal, infallible, divinely inspired Word of God etc. The doctrine of sola scriptura is mostly based on tradition and interpretation rather than actual Scripture. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
I appreciate it when like the buddhist you phrase things in the form of a question (ask thread) because general lamenting of evangelism and shots and my IQ are very tiring. Also, I admit my answers have not been as adequate lately, but I will go through the stuff you have posted and give you my response
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
You are inaccurate as you possibly could be in this situation. As I stated earlier, I must take 2 semesters of both Hebrew and Greek at a minimum (I start Hebrew next semester). The SBC does not simply use teh NIV and NKJV but also the ESV, NASB, HCSB, and the manuscripts in the original language heavily. I have said that textual variants do exist in the scriptures, largely due to the scribes copying the manuscripts, but the amount of textual variants present compared to the amount of manuscripts still leaves us with an accurate representation of the original document. As you see, when you ignore my earlier thorough post about my necessary study of original languages, it annoys me ok?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
That is basically one of the functions of Christian theology in regards to the SBC. What you consider unanswered questions does not mean that there are not answers. Earlier I recall I spoke of justification being used in two different senses with regards to Paul and James. Paul refers to justification by faith in regards of freedom from the letter of the law and being able to earn our salvation rightfully. James speaks of works as faith without works is vanity, and we should back up what we say we believe with our actions. They are not incompatible but merely paint a broader picture of Grace
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:You are inaccurate as you possibly could be in this situation. As I stated earlier, I must take 2 semesters of both Hebrew and Greek at a minimum (I start Hebrew next semester). The SBC does not simply use teh NIV and NKJV but also the ESV, NASB, HCSB, and the manuscripts in the original language heavily. I have said that textual variants do exist in the scriptures, largely due to the scribes copying the manuscripts, but the amount of textual variants present compared to the amount of manuscripts still leaves us with an accurate representation of the original document. As you see, when you ignore my earlier thorough post about my necessary study of original languages, it annoys me ok? I am sorry to have annoyed you, I didn't ignore your posts, but I got caught up in my feelings because my mind boggles a bit. I am glad you are looking at multiple versions of the Bible as well as looking at the original languages. That is super important. It doesn't address the issue of analyzing things both textually and critically, for reasons that I address in a later post (for example using Mark 7:7-9 to attack the Catholic Church despite Mark 7:7-9 having a context that explains that 7-9 are specifically referring to the Pharisees etc.), but I am sorry to have diminished your education here out of my own ignorance, and I am very glad to hear you have the opportunity to study those books in their original languages. Edit: I realize I come across as vindictive, or at least rather argumentative, in the last three posts I made. The first two, to be fair, were my trying to extrapolate on the views of others who were I think unclear in their own concerns. The third, my post up there involving Roman Catholic apologetics, was motivated again by way of clarifying the points of others - you had launched a kind of attack on the HRC Church, but when others debated you on that it appeared that you were throwing out some platitudes and general attacks on Catholicism that didn't seem particularly thoughtful. I want to apologize for coming across like a big dick in that post, as well. There are better ways I could have handled that. And, indeed, it's not as if the Catholic Church is beyond impugn itself - the same questions generally that I asked early on in this thread are equally critical of Catholicism and not just evangelicalism. And then there are some very strong critiques to be made about some bizarre practices within Catholicism - for example, venerate Mary all you want, but that perpetual virginity thing is bizarre. And there doesn't seem to be anything other than some weak-sauce Scriptural justifications and obvious cultural patriarchy to justify that only men can hold the priesthood. Anyhow, I got caught up a bit in the moment with the momentum of the thread and I apologize. While I would like to know how you do address some of the things I brought up, I do feel that I came across as unnecessarily hostile. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I'm sure you're aware of what it means that the Church is the Living Body of Christ, yes? Scripture is good, and the ongoing development of the Canon is also good. It refines the Church and allows it to develop and grow in modern times as a living body of faith. That is all well and good, but when you interpret the living body of Christ as refuting any accuracy of the scriptures even to the point of calling the author a liar in many instances under the guise of historical criticism that is not furthering the body of Christ but dismantling it. Ongoing development of Canon? NO! The canon is closed according to this definiation of Cannon: a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine there is nothing written in the New Testament about any new entries or covenants before the end times. edit for clarification: this does not mean we do not read theological works, in fact there are many many many great works both historical and contemporary that are awesome reads. They are not considered part of the cannon though Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:That is all well and good, but when you interpret the living body of Christ as refuting any accuracy of the scriptures even to the point of calling the author a liar in many instances under the guise of historical criticism that is not furthering the body of Christ but dismantling it. I disagree with this. The Bible can be true without being historical. I don't think Acts is historical, but I think it's still useful for teaching, and my belief that Acts is almost entirely ahistorical doesn't diminish my faith in any way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I am sorry to have annoyed you, I didn't ignore your posts, but I got caught up in my feelings because my mind boggles a bit. I am glad you are looking at multiple versions of the Bible as well as looking at the original languages. That is super important. You have not really annoyed me and I appreciate the questions and answers you have supplied. I have a newfound respect for understanding of saints as intercessors (though I hold that if we are addressing our prayers to heaven there is no need to go through a saint but you can address your prayers specifically to God and will be in no way diminished) Ok, talking about Mark 7: 7-9 yes in the immediate context Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. He accuses them of replacing the commandments of God (at this time the OT) with the traditions of men (washing hands 2293 times before eating, etc) It applies to them because they have replaced the scriptures of the Old Testament with their traditions that are not part of the cannon. In hermeneutics I was taught of a three stage process: observation ---interpretation ---- application So in interpreting this scripture we see that He is addressing the Pharisees, but in the application phase we see that the same rule can apply (replacing commandments of God with the traditions of men) does that make any since?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:That is all well and good, but when you interpret the living body of Christ as refuting any accuracy of the scriptures even to the point of calling the author a liar in many instances under the guise of historical criticism that is not furthering the body of Christ but dismantling it. My particular point there was not about the Bible being open or closed (it was defined as what it is by the Catholics, after all), but rather that when you're looking at Catholic doctrine it is not so important to look at the Bible as it is to look at the Catechism. The theologically meaty bits are laid plain with their definitions in the Catechism, and the Liturgy descends from this. Now, you may very well dismiss the RC Catechism as being heretical or apocryphal and not being Scriptural, but doing so misses out on the vast complexity of the theological world, in favor of dogma - one might even say that one is following their traditions rather than trying to learn about God's Word by doing something like that. Theology is about trying to learn about God, and it is an injustice to theologians generally for the last 1900 years to not look at broader questions. I think perhaps that is my biggest problem with the concept of Biblical literalism and Biblical inerrancy - it ends discussion and discourages contemplation. For example, Aquinas makes a great theological proof of God using Set Theory with the Proof from Degree, stating that in the Set of All Things there must necessarily be things that are more good and things that are less good, and that God can be defined as that thing which has nothing more good than itself - God is whatever is the most good. This is a very compelling argument because unlike the ontological argument, it does not presuppose anything. Instead, it encourages us to contemplate - what does it mean to be that which is most good? What are the properties of that thing? How can we approach that thing? And so on. If instead we resort to Biblican inerrancy and indeed dismiss or disregard any extra-Biblical information, then we've stifled that discussion, we've disregarded that kind of thinking, and I feel that this diminishes and limits rather than glorifies God. So again I will apologize for coming across as abrasive, but I hope if nothing else that we all come away from this thread, the Liturgical thread, the Buddhism thread, etc. having grown personally in our wisdom and benefited from shared discourse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:I disagree with this. The Bible can be true without being historical. I don't think Acts is historical, but I think it's still useful for teaching, and my belief that Acts is almost entirely ahistorical doesn't diminish my faith in any way. I respect your opinion on this, and that your faith is not diminished by the conclusion you have come to. So, I would talk about how we come to the conclusion of Acts being ahistorical. Lets take for example the abrupt ending of the book, it is a big cliffhanger! the neutral if not friendly presentation of the Roman Empire paints a picture of the situation before Neroinan persecution Also there is a lack of any mention of the Pauline Epistles as well as any mention of the Jewish wars So with that said, that points me towards an early date for authorship (Early 60's) and with an early date, it seems that Luke would have been an eyewitness to these events as being a close associate of Paul
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:You have not really annoyed me and I appreciate the questions and answers you have supplied. I have a newfound respect for understanding of saints as intercessors (though I hold that if we are addressing our prayers to heaven there is no need to go through a saint but you can address your prayers specifically to God and will be in no way diminished) Okay, that's good. I think Catholics would also likewise agree that God can hear our own prayers just as well, the idea of prayers for saintly intercession is simply the idea that for example if I call up the King and ask for some help, he might or might not have interest, but if I call up the King's best friend and ask the king to help me, he will be more likely to listen. I don't think that the assumption is that God won't or doesn't listen, more that it's just about trying to be sure. Catholics are nothing if not about trying to do everything they can, haha. quote:Ok, talking about Mark 7: 7-9 yes in the immediate context Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. He accuses them of replacing the commandments of God (at this time the OT) with the traditions of men (washing hands 2293 times before eating, etc) It applies to them because they have replaced the scriptures of the Old Testament with their traditions that are not part of the cannon. Sure, that makes good sense and does explain how we can look deeper than the literal words to find applications to our own lives. At that point, though, aren't we introducing the errant views of individuals, and how can that be done consistently without turning the Bible into a kind of interpretative jumble where we pick and choose the bits we think support our own (erroneous, human) views while discarding parts that don't support our own biases? For example with this Mark bit, I would hold that more important to the problem that they had deviated from Scripture (as Judaism has never codified canon, the Jewish scriptural tradition is very scholarly and the commentaries are considered very important), and more that they had just started relying on dogma rather than directly interfacing through prophecy with God in the Temple. I.e., the High Priest was supposed to be talking God up on the regular for instructions, but instead they were busy selling goats, going through the motions without striking to the meaning. Based on that interpretation, I would say that again the quote can't be applied to the Catholic Church because as far as I know the Catholic belief is also that the canon is closed in that there is no further need for revelation, it's just up to the scholars to figure out what everything means. Is that consistent with your own ideas, or would you argue that the meanings are pre-defined and all the correct conclusions are already known?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
I do need to look further into things like the Catechism for better understanding of these matters. I do maintain that if something in said Catechism contradicts an explicit teaching of the scriptures then that would nullify the validity of the secondary work, but a better understanding of their viewpoints is needed. What came to the surface earlier in response to Bel_Canto was some inner turmoil over Catholic traditions being held in equal regard to scriptures along with the emphasis on ceremony which seems contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. I agree that a better understanding on my part is needed of the inner workings of their beliefs, but I still have that big looming question about traditions and scripture being held equally Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
Well the pulpit is certainly not inerrant and I think any reasonable pastor would agree. Our application points are to be founded in scripture, but they do not become inerrant because we got the points from the Bible. This is a big reason why exegetical preaching is far more ethical that topical preaching. We can draw just about any conclusion we want if we set out to make a certain point, however the goal is to exposit what the word of God says about itself and show people the seams of the scripture, the larger contexts, try to understand the authors intended meaning, reveal things from the original languages that aid understanding, and also to give people application points to apply in their lives currently
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
I would encourage such contemplation as well as diving into extra Biblical resources in the form of Theology, Philosophy, History, and other genres of works. However we hold the Bible as the authority similar to how we in America hold the Constitution as the basis of our laws. Sure we study other things but we judge everything according to said authority ultimately
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:I would encourage such contemplation as well as diving into extra Biblical resources in the form of Theology, Philosophy, History, and other genres of works. However we hold the Bible as the authority similar to how we in America hold the Constitution as the basis of our laws. Sure we study other things but we judge everything according to said authority ultimately So tell me about the validity of the Old Testament then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So tell me about the validity of the Old Testament then? The Old Testament's stories are very old. So, we have the issue of the dates of the manuscripts. However the Dead Sea Scrolls were a awesome find by anyones estimation. The consensus is that the Qumran Caves Scrolls date from the last three centuries BCE and the first century CE. Bronze coins found at the same sites form a series beginning with John Hyrcanus (135–104 BCE) and continuing until the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), supporting the radiocarbon and paleographic dating of the scrolls. Manuscripts from additional Judean desert sites go back as far as the eighth century BCE to as late as the 11th century CE. Granted yes according to Biblical reckoning the Exodus took place somewhere in the 1446 B.C range depending on how you interpret "Ramses". So there is an long time gap there. Finding manuscripts from that long ago is extremely difficult because of obvious reasons. There is archaeological evidence in Israel dating back to the days of the kingdom though. Also there is significant consistency from the later manuscripts dating to around 1000 A.D. compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls that is evidence for the integrity of the scriptures being maintained, granted yes there are more variants found in OT scriptures than NT scriptures. Keep in mind I maintain that the truly inerrant scriptures are the autographs , the original copies, we have to take vairents into account in translation (and it does happen in modern translations). Also, you cant really have the New Testament without the old. They are intimately connected, and well, we have far more NT manuscripts because of the relative lateness of the time period Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:The Old Testament's stories are very old. So, we have the issue of the dates of the manuscripts. However the Dead Sea Scrolls were a awesome find by anyones estimation. Exodus was overplayed and likely twisted. Egyptians were pretty clear on what actually happened. Also: I was referring to Old Testament laws that are both inhumane, sexist, and cruel. If you accept that the Bible is inerrant, then so is the Global Flood (which goes directly against geological record, and would largely be considered a genocide), and so is god killing all the first born in Egypt and hardening the Pharaoh's heart. So, either god is a petty dick or a mass murderer. Because the Bible is inerrant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So, either god is a petty dick or a mass murderer. Because the Bible is inerrant. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Concerning the flood of the whole earth, killing of the Egyptians firstborn, killing the entire Assyrian army, etcYehoshua Eben posted:
You speak of the Egyptians saying what "really happened" during the Exodus. Are you considering the exodus to have occurred under Ramses II or Ahmenotep II? Because their are two different viable possibilities ( I ascribe to Ahmenotep II personally as a better fit) because "Ramses" in the Bible could have referred to other things besides that particular pharoah such as a location, etc. Inhumane - This was not a time period of rapid dissemination of information; they had to pass down the faith in a much more personal intimate way that was dependent on the unity of the peoples. Pagan religions had to be removed from the land of God's people to keep their practices from becoming intermingled with the Israelites. Keep in mind this happened in a very specific time period in a relatively small place, much different from something like a modern day Jihad of the entire world. Cruel - the people accepted the covenant in ratification ceremony (exodus 24) Joshua 1 Then they answered Joshua, “Whatever you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go. Just as we fully obeyed Moses, so we will obey you., I dont know what sexist passages you are referring to, if you can give me an example it would help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Questioning a Southern Baptist Seminary Student on Bible Inerrant makes me a /r/athiest. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Questioning a Southern Baptist Seminary Student on Bible Inerrant makes me a /r/athiest. Got it. Certainly does if you think "lol God's a dick" is somehow useful to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Certainly does if you think "lol God's a dick" is somehow useful to the conversation. It's not even an atheist position though? In Judaism for example, it's the entire basis of reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:It's not even an atheist position though? In Judaism for example, it's the entire basis of reality. I personally find God's dispensation in the Tanakh to be one of great compassion albeit with great responsibility to His people. I went through a long period of turmoil over the nature of God whether the New Testament was the truth. I finally came to the realization that the Father and Son dynamic was not one of rebellion against HaShem's Torah but as fulfilling its purposes and preserving its teachings for all mankind and that rather than opposition the relationship between Jesus and the God the Father is indicative of the types of relationships we have in the world he created (as a Father has a relationship to his Son) It also seems to me for the primary reason for God choosing the Jewish people over other ethnic groups, not because of their superiority but because of His plan and His foreknowledge of sending one of His own substance in their lineage edit: regardless of my own views, I don't think one could be an obedient Jewish person and think God is evil at the same time? Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:edit: regardless of my own views, I don't think one could be an obedient Jewish person and think God is evil at the same time? Not necessarily evil per se, but growing up Jewish I definitely had a picture of God as being wrathful and punishing if you openly defied him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:57
|
|
