-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity
- Thread starter PaulF
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
I love to dance. Getting me to stop when the music fades is the tough part.
Glad, indeed. Merry CHRISTmas.
Yes I don't know his preferred bible though. DragonGunner would you mind sharing what version you prefer to use? Also, If you attend a Church, which one is it? That will help me tailor my responses.
Sadly, in many modern versions that rely an textual criticism, those verses are rendered as :
Those based on Majority Texts such as the Byzantine or Textus Receptus would include what you quoted.
We can agree that the word Trinity does not appear nor is explicitly taught in the Bible. That does not necessarily mean it is manmade or unbiblical.
There are several doctrines that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible or preached by Jesus or the Apostles: Baptism is only a symbol or an outward expression of an inward experience. As previously discussed, a sin nature is never mentioned in the bible, free will, predestination, the rapture, dispensationalism, cessationism, invisible Church, and I could keep going but I think that's enough to make my point.
Would you agree that a doctrine can be correct if supported by scripture even if it is not explicitly drawn out from a single passage but is rather by exegesis of several passages?
So let us try to start with what I think will be points of agreement.
“God is Spirit” is an explicit phrase in scripture in John 4, so we must agree on this surely.
Returning to the scripture, specifically, it is stated in John 4:
Now, for the Orthodox, we have a simple statement that outlines pretty much if not all our Beliefs called the Nicene Creed which can be found online but I will use some excerpts from it here.
In this creed as you can see below we also would agree that Jesus is God and became flesh and was crucified for us. Would you also agree that being crucified for us is only part of the picture. He also suffered, died, and was buried then rose again on the third day.
The Orthodox also believe that only God is to be worshipped, I think we would agree here?
So in the Creed, the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God for we worship all three as one God.
For the sake of brevity and familiarity for western Christians I used theologically imprecise terminology, person, which usually is ok when speaking to western Trinitarians but was a mistake for me here so I apologize.
In your research of the Trinity, I am not sure how it was approached so I will use more precise language now. Language that the Orthodox would use that may not be familiar but was used in the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] 4 centuries.
Technically speaking, for your first sentence, to make your first statement a true reflection of Trinitarian doctrine, it would need to say:
The Trinity puts God as one hypostasis, Jesus as one hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit as one hypostasis.
So to put the one God in 3 persons in technically correct terms. I include the Greek for you to research if desired.
We believe in God, 3 ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) in one οὐσία (ousia or essence).
When this is translated into Latin, there arises several misunderstandings because definitions of hypostasis and ousia are confused and some Latin theologians think their meaning is basically the same and accuse the Greeks of preaching 3 Gods. So the Latin term personae (person) is used to translate hypostasis and the 3 person language gains popularity.
However, in Greek, πρόσωπα (prosopa) strictly meaning face or mask is used for what we think of as person today. The confusion results because hypostasis and prosopa both get translated person.
In the development of Trinitarian doctrine though, the two terms must be understood in their distinctions not their similarities for the beliefs developed using using prosopa such as those of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius are later condemned as heresy.
It is your last sentence that offers a clue to your beliefs. Do you ascribe to modalism or Sabellianism, onesness Pentecostalism or have your heard your beliefs described in such terminology? Those titles, I believe are all from Scriptural references and if you wish to discuss them further I would be happy to do so. Could you provide the references for each title.
One example of the Trinity in the Bible occurs at Theophany. (Mt.3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22). This event is celebrated on Jan 6[SUP]th[/SUP] in the Orthodox Church where the following hymn is sung.
“When Thou, O Lord, wast baptized in the Jordan, worship of the Trinity wast made manifest; for the voice of the Father bore witness to Thee,
calling Thee His beloved Son. And the Spirit in the form of a dove confirmed the truth of His word. O Christ our God, Who hath appeared and enlightened the world, glory to Thee.”
I just watched this. I avoid the channels that play "christmas" music. Santa Baby, drummer boy, rudolph &al do nothing for me. One I have never heard before. Only one was "preformed" badly. Some of the orchestration was a little different than I am used to. This is very well done and uplifting.
[video=youtube;CHj_q7ttDCE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHj_q7ttDCE[/video]
[video=youtube;CHj_q7ttDCE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHj_q7ttDCE[/video]
Fozoe, I appreciate the explanation, however the verse I posted solves the entire problem by simply using One by it self.
I do not hold much to man made creeds and explanations of the Bible. Unless someone is illiterate or has no dictionary the King James Bible is not difficult to understand. It is translated from the Textus Receptus, (which you understand, but would be laborious to explain to uninitiate). I am not familiar with the Greek text that you use, however if it translates the verses the way you say, it seems to be close to thr TR.
We need to have a meal together some time.
I do not hold much to man made creeds and explanations of the Bible. Unless someone is illiterate or has no dictionary the King James Bible is not difficult to understand. It is translated from the Textus Receptus, (which you understand, but would be laborious to explain to uninitiate). I am not familiar with the Greek text that you use, however if it translates the verses the way you say, it seems to be close to thr TR.
We need to have a meal together some time.
Sigh...Jesus IS the Word, the Word took on flesh and came to earth. The "book" you`re talking about, the Holy Bible, IS the very Word of God. God the Father, God the Son, the Word, they`re all the same. To deny the authority of Scripture to to deny the Father Himself. I`ve got to get out of here, this is ridiculous.
While I agree with you if he doesn't accept that verse, its good to have a back up plan. Especially with so many variations out there anymore. Its not a translation issue as much as it is a textual criticism.
The TR and the Byzantine Majority Text (BMT) both relied on one basic principle. The way the scripture appears in the majority of the texts gets the most weight. Of the available Greek manuscripts, if a variation is found in just a few manuscripts, then it was discounted and rendered as it appeared in the majority of the texts.
As other textual criticism methods developed, there were some other changes made and bibles based on these methods do not always match up to the TR or the BMT.
The main difference between the BMT and the TR arise because when the KJV was translated, there were fewer manuscripts available to the translators than there were in the East. As you may recall, by the time the KJV was being translated, the crusades had failed, the Ottoman empire was in place, and the Orthodox Church which was still Greek speaking were isolated from the Latin West and the Protestant Reformation.
There are differences between the TR and the BMT.
Verses only in the TR but not in the BMT:
Luke 17:36 KJV: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Acts 8:37 KJV: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 15:34 KJV: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Again I want to stress both the TR and the BMT used the same majority criteria so the majority of texts available when compiling the TR contained these verses while the majority of the texts available when compiling the BMT did not. It wasn't a theological decision on the part of th compilers.
At that time, Bibles for distribution were made by one person reading the Bible allowed and having 50 people writing down the words as they were read aloud. Many of the differences in manuscripts show this. for example, if you were to read the following sentence to 50 people and have them write it down:
"The ears hear and their passages are filled with sounds." It is not hard to imagine that some variations would occur. such as
"The ears here and there passages are feeled with sounds" or any of a number of other variations.
Now these copies would be double checked but not every error was caught every time. This accounts for a number of variations.
If we also look where the wording changes, there are 2 differences in the gospel, one of which is Luke 17:36. There are 6 in Acts 2 of which i cited above. There is one in Romans that involves the order of the verses only not the wording. There are 3 in the general epistles, and finally 11 in the Revelation.
I offer one from Revelation to show that when I say variance it shouldn't have a theological impact. Several variations seem to be use of clarifying language.
Rev 1:8
TR: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
BMT: “I am the Alpha and the Omega” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
The Creed was written because the average person could not afford a bible. In the 4th century there were no printing presses. Bibles as we know them didn't exist. If you were lucky you might have a copy of one gospel for your family. Most likely Mark because it was the shortest so having some scribe make you a copy would be the cheapest.
The Creed, actually called Symbol in Greek, was written so that Christians would have a concise statement of belief to differentiate themselves from other religions and to protect against belief in early heresies. Every statement in it has a Biblical basis. I do think we all hold to certain explanations of the Bible. I would be amiss if I seemed to be saying all Orthodox agree with me although most if not all things I write in such threads as thise would be agreed to by all Orthodox.
Orthodoxy will tend to make statements about what not to believe instead of what to believe. The Creed is a notable exception.
For example, and hopefully this comes across in the manner intended.
We can say God is great while at the same time an Orthodox believer may say God is not great. Now that sounds contradictory but here is how it should be understood.
If I say X is great. Most people have a definition of great in their mind. However, we both would agree that whatever God is, He can not be contained in human language. A true experience of God's presence and grace is inexpressible or as the song says "Joy unspeakable and full of Glory"
So what the Orthodox is trying to say is God is great but his greatness is not confined to the definition of great as is constructed in our own minds. He is far "greater" than the greatest greatness we can fathom.
I hope that is clear. If not, forgive.
Would enjoy the chance to break bread some time.
Here is Creed in its entirety.
I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;
And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;
And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.
In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.
Amen.
You reach conclusions that I am not making. I have never denied the authority of Scripture. I have denied reading it as the Muslim would read the Koran but thats about it.
One can be a Christian and not have a Bible. One can not be a Christian without Jesus.
God the Father, God the Son, and the Word, by which you mean the bible I think, are not all the same.
God the Father eternally begets God the Son.
God the Son is eternally begotten by God the Father.
God the Son is not eternally begetting God the Father.
God the Father is not eternally begotten by the Son.
Jesus is the Word of God. Logos. John 1. In the beginning was the Word (Logos) when there was no Bible.
The Bible is the words of God, sure. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where it claims to be the Word of God. That's why personally I prefer to call it Holy Scripture (meaning writings) because it is tells the story, in writing, of God's revelation to mankind. It is a salvation history.
Sorry for the long delay. It's been a strange week. I'm not caught up on the thread, so I apologize for the untimely response for that as well.
I agree on your explanation on the concept of sin. It can be a deplorable act, but it really is the corruption of the perfection God designed. That is lost in contemporary society, and even in the Church.
So then man being made in the image of God falls from his perfection and is born into this imperfection. Being less than perfect through the curse of sin, he is hopeless. Now Paul describes this in a particular way, which I think has given rise to this idea of a sin nature:
Ephesians 2:2-3 KJV
[2] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: [3] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
So so while it is not the as-created state of man to be unholy, it is the as-born state for all men. So you might say it is natural, after a fashion. Paul did.
As to intermediary, I refer to an entity to whom prayers are directed en route to God. This has no New Testament precedent. In the Old Testament various offerings were made through an intermediary priest, or even the sin offering through the high priest. Nevertheless, people still prayed directly to God. Now on the New Testament, Christ having fulfilled all the ordinances and made the final sacrifice, He reigns as our eternal High Priest. Their have been some wonderful believers in the past, but I can't tell anywhere anyone, dead or alive, needs to talk to God as some sort of representative. Furthermore, we tread some idolatrous territory when we do anything in a prayerful manner to anyone beside God.
But the idea of an intercessor is replete throughout scripture. And in this I refer to someone who offers prayers on behalf of another. So you and I both pray to God directly for your need. And in fact this is commanded.
This is probably not a complete response, but I'm gonna get back to Christmas. I'll respond to any questions/clarifications.
No apologies necessary
I understand where you are coming from here. I was raised in a church you probably never heard of, Church of God (Holiness). The one based out of Overland Park, KS not Anderson, IN. I would say that they are closest to Wesleyan, Nazarene, then Free Methodist and finally United Methodist. In other words it is a Church which would trace its roots to Wesley.
In this family of churches, one becomes very familiar with a doctrine called sanctification as a second work of grace. In other words, a person gets saved (forgiven) then at some later point seeks sanctification which removes the carnal or sin nature freeing the believer from the inclination to sin. This is not a permanent state but could be lost by backsliding.
So anyway when I became Orthodox, this doctrine was one I had to reevaluate. There is another doctrine closely related to the sin nature and in Latin and subsequent Protestant theology in the west is termed original sin. This doctrine started with Augustine in an attempt to understand what happens during the fall. In the west this doctrine will lead to the belief that every person in personally guilty of the original sin and the reason given is because we have a sin nature and for Augustine, this sin nature is passed along through procreation. Sex then begins its slide to almost a “necessary evil” if you will. Orthodoxy would deny this teaching as an innovation. Orthodox, when writing in English will tend to use the term ancestral sin to refer to the fall to differentiate from the western teaching of Original Sin.
So let’s return briefly to the Genesis account. In Genesis 1, there is a pattern: Then God said…and it was so…and God saw that it was good. Then on the 6th day man is created and the pattern changes to “it was very good”.* So what we have is all of creation declared very good and God blesses all living things created on day 5 and day 6 or in other words everything is doing what it is supposed to be doing, including man. This is a powerful blow to dualism. Man is also given a job. Be fruitful and multiply so sex is good! Fill the earth and have dominion etc.
Then man is placed in a garden to work in, harvesting food etc. and man is given one commandment which involves a choice, the Tree of Life (everytime you see this in the scripture the Cross should immediately come to mind) or the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
So of course we know what happens, so lets examine some of the consequences
1. Spiritual and Physical Death. This is often thought of as a punishment, but I believe St Gregory the Theologian got it right when he said, “Yet here too He provides a benefit—namely death, which cuts off sin, so that evil may not be everlasting. Thus His punishment is changed into a mercy.
2. Mankind now has a propensity, a disposition, and inclination towards sin
3. Human nature remains inherently good after the Fall. People are still capable of doing good for they are created in the image and likeness of God which while tarnished are still present.
Those that believe in a sin nature will most likely take issue with 3 because they believe the sin nature from the original sin makes man incapable of doing any good. I do not know where you would fall on that scale.
So to return to where I started. Those 3 points are upheld by all early Christian writings up to the time of Augustine when 3 begins to be challenged and ultimately denied in the West. As such this doctrine fails the test of St Vincent of Lerins that I mentioned in an earlier post. I therefore do not believe Paul taught a doctrine of sin nature.
Prayer in its simplest meaning is to ask or entreat. So if I say “Woobie, I pray thee, ask God to help my sick mother!” You would probably have no issue with that.
I will admit, I am not sure I see the distinction between an intermediary and an intercessor. So I will refrain from commenting too much on this. It seems you are addressing asking saints for prayers but I am not sure.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I could read foszoe's posts for hours.
Well, that's partly because that's how long it takes to read them.
But seriously, rep inbound for your efforts at education.
Thanks for the kind words. I get long winded I know
. I read, edit, and reread these posts before submitting because I don’t want to be misunderstood nor sound in any way polemical. So it's probably surprising but I use as few words as I think necessary.Oh - without a doubt, you are succinct as compared to the amount of ink spilled (and ignored here on INGO) on these topics over the centuries.Thanks for the kind words. I get long winded I know
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
We pray to the Father, In Jesus` Name, thus making Jesus our intercessor.
This is my daily prayer. Guidance.
Several years ago, some things were happening that I did not understand. My prayer more often became, then, for the Lord to put my feet on the path He intends for me. Things have become much better (glory to Him), and I sometimes have to remind myself to repeat that prayer, but that is still the goal.
- Status
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here -
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator
Members online
- DoggyDaddy
- rabbit hunter mab
- 1nderbeard
- Wabatuckian
- triggerhappy00
- dieselrealtor
- Emerson Dambiggins
- Ark
- d.kaufman
- r3126
- Super Bee
- vibrationeng
- nellans57
- gottabeoutdoors
- ECS686
- caverjamie
- SolidDragon74
- jcj54
- blkblt412
- sparkmanrl
- Grim714
- ldaguns
- Yamadog35
- jonkertb
- Jmtbug21
- Midwestjimbo
- KRN123060
- ridetoslide
- singlesix
- crookcountygo
- stevezx2
- dougha5
- NHT3
- Creedmoor
- 00Buck
- Long Goose
- Indianajeff
- GodFearinGunTotin
- bobzilla
- barber613
- brdhntr37
- printcraft
- Microairman1
- gds
- sp3worker
- DFacres
- jbm1521
- ISP 5353
- piper
- jwamplerusa