CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[T.Lex]

Yes, Satan seeks to confuse and confound as many as he can. Pick up a King James Bible, and read it cover to cover. Only then can you say you`ve seen the Truth.

Yes, let me be extremely clear, as THIS is the ONE thing I WILL not waiver on. The Bible IS the infallible, Inspired Holy Word of God. The Bible IS to be taken literally, and IS and HAS all authority over man, because it IS the Holy Word of God.

Yes, there is division in the church, and that IS of and from Satan. The father of lies LOVES chaos, and deceit, and confusion. There is however, still a way to sort through the confusion and find the Truth. Get a King James Bible, and read it cover to cover. Pray as you read for the Holy Spirit to open your mind to His Truth and wisdom. I challenge you to cry out to God, and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. You may be surprised at what would happen...

So, is it your position that the Septuagint and Vulgate (among others) are heretical or not The Truth?

 

[gregr]

I don't recall exactly who said what.

I do disagree with some of what I have read here.

These disagreements may be on terminology or more substantial.

A couple of examples.

There is no such thing as a sin nature. Properly understood but in simple language , nature is natural. Sin is not natural. God created everything is the message of Genesis creation narrative. God said everything was good or in the case of humans very good.

The KJV is not the definitive text. It didn't take until the 16th century to get it right.

The Church Fathers say the literal reading of scripture is the lowest level of understanding.

The diligent outsider must start with the early church and trace that body of believers to see if they still exist. Only then can one say no group still carries the torch.

It's fairly simple to do. Only 2 groups make the claim, Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

The Bible states clearly that after the Garden, man fell when sin entered the world, and all of Adam`s descendants were born into sin. This also unleashed a change in natural order, causing women distress and pain in childbirth, etc. And the literal reading of Scripture is the lowest level of understanding? Unbelievable. The Scriptures are given us by God-Almighty so we may know Him, and come to fellowship with Him. Adding anything to, or taking anything away from the Scriptures is blasphemy. The Scriptures are pure and Holy, and nothing else is needed to be in fellowship with the Lord.

 

[gregr]

Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

Romans 3:10-12
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

 

[T.Lex]

The Bible states clearly that after the Garden....

So, in connection to your prior posts on the topic of versioning, you believe that the KJV is the single authoritative edition of the OT, too?

That strikes me as odd.

 

[gregr]

There is a fair amount of posturing here...that makes me uncomfortable. Some, want to nit pick, and debate, and challenge, and make points about things that may or may not be important in eternity. So long as one understands the truth of the Gospel, that is all one really needs to know. Beyond that, we really cannot grasp much anyway. I pray that those here who are really searching for Truth, will find the Lord, Jesus Christ. I pray those here being used by Satan to stir up and cause havoc will be made known so that others will cease the dance they`re doing with them. Satan loves to stir up chaos, and dissent, and confusion. Arguing about points that are really unimportant in relation to the Gospel is only that.

Merry Christmas everyone. Rejoice and be glad that unto us a child is born. A Son is given...

 

[T.Lex]

There is a fair amount of posturing here...that makes me uncomfortable. Some, want to nit pick, and debate, and challenge, and make points about things that may or may not be important in eternity. So long as one understands the truth of the Gospel, that is all one really needs to know.

See - I agree with that.

Its just that... well... that's not what you said earlier.

Have a Merry Christmas.

 

[foszoe]

Really, the harder part is not textual, but contextual. Situations were different; traditions were different. It is kinda a Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra problem. The wedding feast, for example - wedding traditions are different now, so an explanation of what things were like then is important to understand those passages.

Good stuff here. Another thing that presents difficulty is semantic change. The older the translation is the more difficult it becomes to understand.

Here is a link to "Sin Nature"…..now is "sin nature" words found in the Bible….well maybe not. The English language is weak when it come to sometimes bringing the meaning of scriptures written in hebrew or greek or whatever. However I don't see where the word "sin nature" as used perverts or changes the context of what is being said…..If one does not like the word "nature" and prefers to use something else to describe what is being said have at it. What basically is being describe is sin and its effect. 27 Bible verses about The Sin Nature

I also want to assure you that I read each verse so for evidence I will offer a couple of observations. Almost all of those verses speak of a change or involve a choice.

But some specific observations so you can know I read them

Psalm 51 reference is more correctly translated "sins" on "sin".

Ecclesiastes "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins." should not be taken too literally as applying to all times and all places for we know the story of Enoch in Genesis.


i want to make it clear that I am not saying there is no such thing as sin. I am saying that there is no such thing as a sin nature. I would like to expound on what definition of nature I am using because it appears that "sin nature" as a concept is held as an axiom by Christians in the west.

I am using nature as it was used in philosophy in ancient times when the Bible was being compiled. Lets consider two types of nature. For the Orthodox and Catholic Christian, we often recite the Nicene Creed. In the Creed we say "I believe in One God". We believe this God is Trinity. 3 Persons and one God. We also use the phrase, "one in essence". This is an important phrase. It is Key to a correct understanding of Trinity. Essence means in other words, essential properties. Essential properties are those attributes that, when absent, mean a loss of identity. Now plugging that back into nature.

The divine nature is said to be one in essence.

So now we have one God in 3 persons.

The divine nature is shared by all 3 persons. Nothing is shared by only 2 members of the Trinity for this would break the nature or essence. We don't speak of divine natures. We do however speak of divine persons. What makes a person? It is what identifies an individual who shares a nature with other individuals.

So what are the personal distinctions?

God the Father is the only person who eternally begets his Son.
God the Son is the only person who is eternally begotten by the Father.
God the Holy Spirit is the only person who eternally proceeds from the Father.

So we have a divine God made up of 3 persons.

Now whose image are we created in? God's!

So we have a human nature. It is shared by each individual member of humanity. Made in His image. That does not change. Each human has different characteristics that identify us specifically but we all share the human nature. We are not just made in his image, but in His image and likeness. The Church Fathers will key and this because no word in scripture is idle and say that we are made in his image to grow in his likeness.

They will apply this to Adam and Eve in a manner which is now lost among some western Christians. Adam and Eve were created pure but not in some perfect idyllic state as some imagine heaven to be for they were given a commandment and with a commandment comes an ability to fall. Something not possible in eternity.

So the fall occurs, all of creation is corrupted or tarnished. The divine image is marred in each person, sometimes beyond recognition but it is still there. Sin enters the world and corruption sets in and the consequences of sin, our death, is the ultimate ending of this corruption. This language is important because in the west it is Calvin, I believe, would start saying this divine image is obliterated which Orthodoxy would strongly disagree. Our calling is to be like Christ and recognize Christ in every other person we meet, Matt 25 sheep, goats. To recover this image and through Christ restore it to its original. This is the calling of the Christian. This is what makes Saints.

And the literal reading of Scripture is the lowest level of understanding? Unbelievable. The Scriptures are given us by God-Almighty so we may know Him, and come to fellowship with Him. Adding anything to, or taking anything away from the Scriptures is blasphemy. The Scriptures are pure and Holy, and nothing else is needed to be in fellowship with the Lord.

The issue with literalism is that those who espouse the view only do so when convenient. Genesis says God walked in the garden, Exodus says Moses saw God's back. The Psalmist says God has wings. Now neither you nor I probably take those verses literally.

What intrigues and perplexes me because I don't understand it, is how Protestantism takes the scriptures literally except for when they don't want to take it literally. I have been asked if i believe in a 6 day creation, and i respond I don't really know. This has got me in all kinds of hot water with some, yet if I read John 6 literally, that communion is His body and blood, I am told that's not really what it means or if I read As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and if I read know ye not that as many as baptized into Jesus Christ have been baptized into his death. Therefore we are baptized into his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father to walk in newness of life. If we die with him we will also reign with Him. I take that literally, but i am told that figurative language. Baptism is simply a symbol.I read about all those that have went before us in the great Chapter of Faith followed by therefore since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses but am those that have fallen asleep in the Lord can't hear or see. how does someone witness? With hearing and sight.


I am told the Church is the body of Christ and we are members of this body, but then I am told that members of the body are dead? in the body of the one who gives life? it doesn't make sense to me. Every part of the body serves a purpose and the Body doesn't function if members of the body aren't involved in the mainenance and upkeep of the body. I read about the prayers of the saints ascending up in the incense at the throne of God, but am told its not all the saints. Its really confusing sometimes trying to understand it all because protestants don't even agree with each other on several things. Free will or predestination? Salvation is a date or a process? Being saved isn't enough, one must also seek sanctification.

There are two basic approaches to hermeneutic: Exegesis and Eisegesis. As Christians we do not want to engage in Eisegesis.


Exegesis will ask what is the plain reading of the passage? What does the passage mean? How should this passage be understood when taken with scripture as a whole? And finally how does it apply to the Christian?


Eisegesis starts with what point am I trying to prove? What scriptures fit well with the point I am trying to make (and the corollary, discounting those that don’t).


For an Orthodox Christian, as I have said before, the OT is to be interpreted in light of the NT and the Epistles are to be interpreted in light of the Gospels, and Paul is to be interpreted in the light of Jesus, to confuse this order confuses the proper understanding

I can have fellowship with the Lord and not have Scripture in my hand as did Christians from 33 AD until the 1600s. Holding the view that the Scriptures are necessary for fellowship with the Lord severely limits God's ability to fellowship with you. Approached properly, I would say they are sufficient, but not necessary.

 

[indiucky]

Tom T Hall gives us something to ponder....Merry Christmas and God Bless you all this weekend!!!!!!!

[video=youtube;9n8O9cQruLE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n8O9cQruLE[/video]

 

[gregr]

Good stuff here. Another thing that presents difficulty is semantic change. The older the translation is the more difficult it becomes to understand.



I also want to assure you that I read each verse so for evidence I will offer a couple of observations. Almost all of those verses speak of a change or involve a choice.

But some specific observations so you can know I read them

Psalm 51 reference is more correctly translated "sins" on "sin".

Ecclesiastes "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins." should not be taken too literally as applying to all times and all places for we know the story of Enoch in Genesis.


i want to make it clear that I am not saying there is no such thing as sin. I am saying that there is no such thing as a sin nature. I would like to expound on what definition of nature I am using because it appears that "sin nature" as a concept is held as an axiom by Christians in the west.

I am using nature as it was used in philosophy in ancient times when the Bible was being compiled. Lets consider two types of nature. For the Orthodox and Catholic Christian, we often recite the Nicene Creed. In the Creed we say "I believe in One God". We believe this God is Trinity. 3 Persons and one God. We also use the phrase, "one in essence". This is an important phrase. It is Key to a correct understanding of Trinity. Essence means in other words, essential properties. Essential properties are those attributes that, when absent, mean a loss of identity. Now plugging that back into nature.

The divine nature is said to be one in essence.

So now we have one God in 3 persons.

The divine nature is shared by all 3 persons. Nothing is shared by only 2 members of the Trinity for this would break the nature or essence. We don't speak of divine natures. We do however speak of divine persons. What makes a person? It is what identifies an individual who shares a nature with other individuals.

So what are the personal distinctions?

God the Father is the only person who eternally begets his Son.
God the Son is the only person who is eternally begotten by the Father.
God the Holy Spirit is the only person who eternally proceeds from the Father.

So we have a divine God made up of 3 persons.

Now whose image are we created in? God's!

So we have a human nature. It is shared by each individual member of humanity. Made in His image. That does not change. Each human has different characteristics that identify us specifically but we all share the human nature. We are not just made in his image, but in His image and likeness. The Church Fathers will key and this because no word in scripture is idle and say that we are made in his image to grow in his likeness.

They will apply this to Adam and Eve in a manner which is now lost among some western Christians. Adam and Eve were created pure but not in some perfect idyllic state as some imagine heaven to be for they were given a commandment and with a commandment comes an ability to fall. Something not possible in eternity.

So the fall occurs, all of creation is corrupted or tarnished. The divine image is marred in each person, sometimes beyond recognition but it is still there. Sin enters the world and corruption sets in and the consequences of sin, our death, is the ultimate ending of this corruption. This language is important because in the west it is Calvin, I believe, would start saying this divine image is obliterated which Orthodoxy would strongly disagree. Our calling is to be like Christ and recognize Christ in every other person we meet, Matt 25 sheep, goats. To recover this image and through Christ restore it to its original. This is the calling of the Christian. This is what makes Saints.




The issue with literalism is that those who espouse the view only do so when convenient. Genesis says God walked in the garden, Exodus says Moses saw God's back. The Psalmist says God has wings. Now neither you nor I probably take those verses literally.

What intrigues and perplexes me because I don't understand it, is how Protestantism takes the scriptures literally except for when they don't want to take it literally. I have been asked if i believe in a 6 day creation, and i respond I don't really know. This has got me in all kinds of hot water with some, yet if I read John 6 literally, that communion is His body and blood, I am told that's not really what it means or if I read As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and if I read know ye not that as many as baptized into Jesus Christ have been baptized into his death. Therefore we are baptized into his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father to walk in newness of life. If we die with him we will also reign with Him. I take that literally, but i am told that figurative language. Baptism is simply a symbol.I read about all those that have went before us in the great Chapter of Faith followed by therefore since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses but am those that have fallen asleep in the Lord can't hear or see. how does someone witness? With hearing and sight.


I am told the Church is the body of Christ and we are members of this body, but then I am told that members of the body are dead? in the body of the one who gives life? it doesn't make sense to me. Every part of the body serves a purpose and the Body doesn't function if members of the body aren't involved in the mainenance and upkeep of the body. I read about the prayers of the saints ascending up in the incense at the throne of God, but am told its not all the saints. Its really confusing sometimes trying to understand it all because protestants don't even agree with each other on several things. Free will or predestination? Salvation is a date or a process? Being saved isn't enough, one must also seek sanctification.

There are two basic approaches to hermeneutic: Exegesis and Eisegesis. As Christians we do not want to engage in Eisegesis.


Exegesis will ask what is the plain reading of the passage? What does the passage mean? How should this passage be understood when taken with scripture as a whole? And finally how does it apply to the Christian?


Eisegesis starts with what point am I trying to prove? What scriptures fit well with the point I am trying to make (and the corollary, discounting those that don’t).


For an Orthodox Christian, as I have said before, the OT is to be interpreted in light of the NT and the Epistles are to be interpreted in light of the Gospels, and Paul is to be interpreted in the light of Jesus, to confuse this order confuses the proper understanding

I can have fellowship with the Lord and not have Scripture in my hand as did Christians from 33 AD until the 1600s. Holding the view that the Scriptures are necessary for fellowship with the Lord severely limits God's ability to fellowship with you. Approached properly, I would say they are sufficient, but not necessary.

This is YOUR take on things, I get that. But YOUR take on things is NOT necessarily truth...

 

[Alpo]

If you haven't learned anything from science or philosophy, perhaps you could understand that truth is relative to the observer in ALL cases. That should be simple, even for a literalist.

 

[gregr]

If you haven't learned anything from science or philosophy, perhaps you could understand that truth is relative to the observer in ALL cases. That should be simple, even for a literalist.

Oh my...uhhhhh...no. Truth by definition cannot be relative, or it wouldn`t be truth, now would it. Gods` Word IS Truth, and there is only ONE Truth, and that is Gods` Word.

 

[Alpo]

You're begging the question. Your statement is a belief, not a truth.

To you, your belief is true. To others, it may not be. That is not truth.

 

[foszoe]

Tom T Hall gives us something to ponder....Merry Christmas and God Bless you all this weekend!!!!!!!

In that vein, let me add....

[video=youtube;fHKA88C9r94]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHKA88C9r94&list=RDfHKA88C9r94&index=1[/video]

 

[gregr]

You're begging the question. Your statement is a belief, not a truth.

To you, your belief is true. To others, it may not be. That is not truth.

Nah, not at all. I am done with this thread however. You`ll find the Truth, or you won`t. It seems to me you`re determined not to seek truth, but to stir things up. Have at it my friend. See you on judgement day.

 

[T.Lex]

The ironic miracle is that people can find the Truth despite literalists AND because of them.

 

[foszoe]

This is YOUR take on things, I get that. But YOUR take on things is NOT necessarily truth...

I don't believe I stated any interpretive statements that are outside the ancient Christian understanding. If so please point it out.

I try to consistently point to other sources so that no one can assert it is my take on things. Where is the evidence for what you assert?

A problem with literalism is can set up each individual as his own Pope in that only the individual correctly interprets scripture. God does not speak with a forked tongue. There is one Truth ant that Truth is not a book it is a person. The Bible clearly states that Jesus makes that claim. You seem to be placing your faith in a book not a person.

 

[Alpo]

See you on judgement day.

Or not.

 

[DragonGunner]

Can someone find me where in the bible it says God is a "person"…..Mine says God is a Spirit, and in some scriptures a Invisable Spirit. Or that God is three "persons". Yet to fulfill the trinity, God must be a "person"……so are the scriptures all wrong…..God is a "person"…..not a invisible Spirit. "But what shall ye liken me unto", saith the Lord. If the scriptures say God is a Spirit……why do some say "person"….?

 

[foszoe]

Can someone find me where in the bible it says God is a "person"…..Mine says God is a Spirit, and in some scriptures a Invisable Spirit. Or that God is three "persons". Yet to fulfill the trinity, God must be a "person"……so are the scriptures all wrong…..God is a "person"…..not a invisible Spirit. "But what shall ye liken me unto", saith the Lord. If the scriptures say God is a Spirit……why do some say "person"….?

Simple question first to make sure I understand you.

You do not believe in the Trinity?

Also, please show me where any one claimed God is a Person.

Was Jesus God?

 

[DragonGunner]

Simple question first to make sure I understand you.

You do not believe in the Trinity?

Also, please show me where any one claimed God is a Person.

Was Jesus God?

Use to until I did studies and research of the history of the trinity…..which is a man made doctrine not preached by Jesus or any of the Apsostles. I now believe God is a Spirit, that became flesh so He could shed his blood upon the cross. You do believe that right?

The Trinity puts God as the first Person, Jesus as the second Person, and the Holy Spirit as the 3rd person……..yes? A person by definition is a human being by the way…..theres the trouble among other things wrong. You said this in post 867…didn't you?

Jesus is the flesh of God, called the Son of God, Son of Man, the Everlasting Father, Lord of Lords…….And as Christ as Lord, as the Psalms say…"Know ye not, that the Lord, he is God."