Some religion thoughts

19,844 Views | 259 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Redstone
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I grew up Southern Baptist dispensationalist and came to Catholicism through preterism, entering the Church nearly 20 years ago. These are some semi-organized thoughts, taken from a Discord discussion. Whatever your beliefs, I hope everyone has a blessed Christmas.

With the Council of Florence in mind, I use the term "Apostolic" (Catholic / Orthodox) - I won't argue against Orthodox.

I know this is heavily trod ground, but hey it's a forum, no?
______

The Bible is NOT the Word of God.

Jesus Christ the Logos is the literal Word of God.

He is the Reason and Order of all creation, and not only the fulfillment of Old Testament law, but the Law itself.

The Bible is a literal product of the Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox) Church, debated and prayed over for 3 centuries, in councils mostly from Rome.

Why is Enoch, quoted in St. Jude's letter, excluded?

Why is the once extremely controversial Hebrews, and Revealing (Revelation), included?

Because the Apostolic Church said so.

After 70 AD, when Titus decimated the Temple, we see the final culmination of the Sacramental fulfillment that began with the first Mass, the Last Supper, when the 11 were ordained priests, with St. Peter as the rock of the Church.

After 70:

Temple - body
Sacrifice - Mass
Ark - St. Mary
Priests - Apostolic priests
Circumcision - Baptism
Manna - Eucharist
Christ, Son of Man - Adam, fallen first priest of the Apostolic promise and founder of Jerusalem, over whose grave Christ was murdered

The "center" of Apostolic worship - the "source and summit" according to the Catechism - is the Sacrifice of the Mass. There is no true religion without a sacrifice. Death. Only by death and a love sacrifice is life given its true illumination, which is Love, which is a divine Person.

The purpose of life is to love and be loved, freely chosen in a subjugation of the will away from selfishness.

This is the Mass. Even if a priest is an awful homilist, which is likely, it doesn't matter that much. The center of the service is the Eucharist.

This is a very major contrast with so much Protestant worship, which is very stagey and often featuring Buddy Christ via a charismatic speaker.

All Protestants should convert.

70 AD is the second most important date in world religious history, after the days of the Holy Cross, from April 3, 33 AD.

And in those 34 years, Christ's predictions came true exactly: the Temple was torn down stone by stone. Within a generation.

Liturgy and Sacraments were universal Christian worship for nearly 1,500 years, including 1,000 years in England, the direct source of Western hospitals, hotels, and universities.

Consider an extreme but telling example of decline....a very direct line of decline.

Catholic - High Anglican - Low Anglican - Methodist (Wesley did NOT want to break, btw) - Seventh Day Adventist - Branch Davidians - Students of the Seven Seals (Koresh)

Mostly decent, intelligent people, reading the same verses, yet breaking away due to fundamental and irresolvable differences.

Does the Holy Spirit speak against Himself?

Obviously Protestants are not like Koresh - but the Bible does not interpret itself.

Our interpretation is not at all sovereign. So much is not evident.

We need to read with the Church.

Adventists, for example, have an impressive roster of people who know the Bible intimately. And yet.

This "meta" issue persists because the Bible is NOT like the Koran. It is not from God to us directly. It is a product, a holy product, that resulted from 3 centuries of quite heated debate.

Let me be clear: the Catholic Church is an awful mess, including massive infiltration by demons. Literally.

Core issue is Logos / anti-Logos

Christ in the Sacraments. Christ or Barabbas? Logos, or the churn of revolution?

After 70 AD, when Titus decimated the Temple, all must choose.

Christ is the Old Testament promise. Christ-followers are the people Israel.

The Nicene Creed, and the arguments thereof, indicates that God, the Supreme Being outside of time, and creator of space / time, stepped into history for an extraordinary act in a specific time and place - that was a universal action for ALL humanity, including those in death freed by it.

Therefore, the Order and Reason of all creation is unchanging and dynamic.

Logos moves in history.

God is Reason, and wishes for our reason to be subjugated to His, and not simply will.

This reality is why the pagan Greeks so readily adopted St. John's teaching - they had a concept of Logos already. Was it fire? Water? Earth? Winds?

St. John preached, God is universal Reason and Order, in the Person of the Nazarene. Why did St. Paul fail in Athens? Why was he laughed at? Because he (correctly!) argued like a Hebrew. Why was St. John so successful in Asia Minor?

Logos. Greeks got it.

It is essential to not be an admirer.

Lucifer, today, admires Christ.

Instead, we must be a follower.

This means to come to Christ - and to die.

We die literally, as all do.

We die to self.

We die to our solipsism, and to our carnal desires, so that we may live.

We carry our crosses because suffering is inherently redemptive, if united to Christ.

Your reason, which shares in the divine nature of Christ because you are created.

However, it must be purified by prayer, fasting, and worship, and the Bible.

The meaning of life is easy: love and be loved, as Christ loves the church.

You were given talents and abilities and interests for a reason: you did not "choose" these!

You were born of people in a time and place. You did not "choose."

Take this context, and unite your reason and will to Christ.

ALL of creation has a telos of the Logos.

The purpose of life is: telos (reason) of life is theosis (process of becoming) toward Logos (Reason, Order).

So, when a flower blooms, and bees come, this is part of the divine nature of its purpose.

It points directly to Logos.

Human purpose / reason is to love and be loved, toward the divinity of all creation, the Divine Person, the Nazarene.

Pain that is not transformed by Christ is transmitted, often to "others" who are the "enemy."

The telos of life, theosis to Logos, is a constant struggle. The struggle is subjugate the human will to the will of God, which is known by prayerful contemplation.

God has clearly spoken to everyone. Very clearly.

You were born to particular people in a particular time and place with particular interests, talents, abilities.

That is the first context.

Second, we know the commands of Christ.

When we reconcile these, we can understand the will of God.

If you talk to a materialist, and you wish to argue for the reality of God, tell them you can easily prove the existence of God by the very standards of materialism itself.

There are 2 solid proofs:

First, nothing has ever come from nothing.

So, a first Mover, a first Cause, exists.

Second, we have many thousands of cases, documented from hospitals, of clinically dead people "returning" and detailing conversations, objects on the roof, ect.

Many thousands of cases.

We humans are embodied spirits.

Jesus is the literal Word of God. All Christians are obligated to follow His instructions, as recorded in the product (not the literal word of God) of His Church, the Bible.

We are also obliged to believe in heaven and hell, as well as angels and demons, because Jesus did.

When you encounter a "Christian" who doesn't - tell them to stop being an admirer of Jesus. It is wrong to admire Jesus. That is too cheap and easy. We must follow Him.

Everyone is given a cross. Lust, disability, family problems, ect. Everyone.

This cross was given so that you would use your free will to choose God.

True love, and therefore salvation, is centered in choice. The will must be bent, everyday, toward Love, which is a Person. Coercion would be artificial, and false.

OT laws point to and anticipate Christ, who is Law itself.

Exorcists tell us demons are, amidst their mockery, quite legalistic. And we know how Jesus argued against this with Pharisees.

To elevate law above the Law, Love, Reason, Order - all of which are the Divine Person, the Logos Incarnate - is to fundamentally worship self instead of God.

If a law does not incarnate Law into the human heart, this empty ritual is for the worship of man.

Intention and will, toward their proper end (Logos), supersedes all written law. The written law must be understood in its context, which is theosis to Logos.

Regarding holidays, it is proper and just to appropriate them.

The pagan origins of Christmas, including its timeframe, contain elements of truth.

Many righteous pagans somewhat worshipped Christ (Logos) even before Jesus.

All of humanity participates, through conscience, in the divinity of God, because we embodied spirits were created by Him.

Pagan-type rituals and holidays could have degrees of holiness, such as the worship of the Magi. These (probably) Iranians worshipped the true God.

How blessed are we to know of Jesus?

It is just to appropriate all holidays toward His worship. And all true religion requires sacrifice, especially the source and summit of all Christian worship, the Mass, Christ in the Eucharist.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

This is a very major contrast with so much Protestant worship, which is very stagey and often featuring Buddy Christ via a charismatic speaker.

All Protestants should convert.



Stopped reading here. This is like me telling catholics they worship Mary.

Patriot101
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If they would let the Jansenists and Blaise Pascal back in, then we can work things out together. I would have to join.

The problem is that they kicked the Jansenists out because they held to what Augustine held to and so on. I don't place church tradition at the same level as the scriptures as Rome does for that reason. We've tried and weren't allowed in, even after the Reformation. And the reformed do not hold to nuda scriptura. Sola Scriptura means that we accept the wisdom of the church fathers. But we don't hold that church tradition and the scriptures are on equal footing.
FalconAg06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10/10 would retake Jerusalem with.

Protestants are not Christian, although I would go to war with the Southern Baptists and fundamentalists by my side.

They are the same people who during the bread of life discourse said "this teaching is hard who can accept it" and rather than carrying their cross defaulted to a more palatable secular understanding.

This is the same thing Protestant pastors do who rather than risk alienating those who fill their coffers, water down their message to something more marketable and palatable.

diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

This is the same thing Protestant pastors do who rather than risk alienating those who fill their coffers, water down their message to something more marketable and palatable.

This makes me laugh thinking about all the old crusty Catholics who think Vatican II did the same thing...
FalconAg06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03 said:

Quote:

This is the same thing Protestant pastors do who rather than risk alienating those who fill their coffers, water down their message to something more marketable and palatable.

This makes me laugh thinking about all the old crusty Catholics who think Vatican II did the same thing...


Thats literally what happened during Vatican II
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good, it's settled. Catholics aren't Christians either.
craigernaught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The cycle of proselytizing on this forum, now firmly in the Catholic and Orthodox phase, is so weird.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
craigernaught said:

The cycle of proselytizing on this forum, now firmly in the Catholic and Orthodox phase, is so weird.


Well, I don't know if it's a phase on this board. I can pretty much promise you if you move 1,000, 1,500 or 5,000 years from now the Apostolic Churches will still be around.

Those that went to some cool super hip husband/wife non-denominational church will be remembered as having attended some weird dead form of pseudo Christianity.

More likely than not they won't be remembered at all.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CrackerJackAg said:

craigernaught said:

The cycle of proselytizing on this forum, now firmly in the Catholic and Orthodox phase, is so weird.


Well, I don't know if it's a phase on this board. I can pretty much promise you if you move 1,000, 1,500 or 5,000 years from now the Apostolic Churches will still be around.

Those that went to some cool super hip husband/wife non-denominational church will be remembered as having attended some weird dead form of pseudo Christianity.

More likely than not they won't be remembered at all.
What Nth Great Awakening are we on now? His Church will persevere.

The earthly institutions that steward the Apostolic Church needs to get their bell rung every now and then, and other Christians will continue to do that off into the future. I don't begrudge them (or anyone) at all when they speak the truth.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CrackerJackAg said:

craigernaught said:

The cycle of proselytizing on this forum, now firmly in the Catholic and Orthodox phase, is so weird.


Well, I don't know if it's a phase on this board. I can pretty much promise you if you move 1,000, 1,500 or 5,000 years from now the Apostolic Churches will still be around.

Those that went to some cool super hip husband/wife non-denominational church will be remembered as having attended some weird dead form of pseudo Christianity.

More likely than not they won't be remembered at all.
Ya I don't see it lasting, or if it does it will be some really weird mesh with secular humanists. I mean that's kind of what it is already. I'm so glad I don't attend places like Austin Stone anymore. Christian rock worship is so lame. Places like Stone are even trying EDM worship music...LOL. It's so painful. I don't care that the founder was an Aggie, that place is fake as can be.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CrackerJackAg said:

craigernaught said:

The cycle of proselytizing on this forum, now firmly in the Catholic and Orthodox phase, is so weird.


Well, I don't know if it's a phase on this board. I can pretty much promise you if you move 1,000, 1,500 or 5,000 years from now the Apostolic Churches will still be around.

Those that went to some cool super hip husband/wife non-denominational church will be remembered as having attended some weird dead form of pseudo Christianity.

More likely than not they won't be remembered at all.
They said the same thing about Islam.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

CrackerJackAg said:

craigernaught said:

The cycle of proselytizing on this forum, now firmly in the Catholic and Orthodox phase, is so weird.


Well, I don't know if it's a phase on this board. I can pretty much promise you if you move 1,000, 1,500 or 5,000 years from now the Apostolic Churches will still be around.

Those that went to some cool super hip husband/wife non-denominational church will be remembered as having attended some weird dead form of pseudo Christianity.

More likely than not they won't be remembered at all.
They said the same thing about Islam.
Islam is far more powerful. They have a rigorous worship and sacramental life unlike here where you walk into church on Sunday with your coffee and a hipster ripping on a guitar.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
craigernaught said:

The cycle of proselytizing on this forum, now firmly in the Catholic and Orthodox phase, is so weird.
I mean it's kind of a sign of the times. This country is about to flipped upside down. Just be careful how you worship and make sure you know how the current culture is effecting your church.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Well, I don't know if it's a phase on this board. I can pretty much promise you if you move 1,000, 1,500 or 5,000 years from now the Apostolic Churches will still be around.

Those that went to some cool super hip husband/wife non-denominational church will be remembered as having attended some weird dead form of pseudo Christianity.

More likely than not they won't be remembered at all.

I don't know, will they? There are a lot of empty Apostolic churches too around the world.

I think everyone agrees with you that the "catering to pop culture senior pastor" churches will fall by the wayside.

But let's not pretend that there's nothing in between those.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
  • So thankful I am dispensationalist and
  • Evangelical and
  • Charismatic and
  • Protestant and
  • We saw what happened in majority Catholic countries in Latin America and I will take Protestant, evangelical America in a heartbeat despite all its contradictions and
  • That is all for now
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've always wanted to see one of these charismatic churches.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UTExan said:

  • We saw what happened in majority Catholic countries in Latin America and I will take Protestant, evangelical America in a heartbeat despite all its contradictions


I truly think that God wants us to unite in communion as we worship him, and I have found great comfort in the theology of the Apostolic church. I have found somewhat less comfort in the Ecclesiology of any of the claimants to the OHCAC and even less comfort in what happens when they are aligned with temporal power throughout history, though that last bit applies to every other faith out there.

Power hungry careerists and ideologues rise in the ranks because it means the most to them, they need men of good faith to keep them honest. I see Protestants as nearly indispensable in this regard as a practical matter. They've been around for 500 years now, at some point you have to ask how big the tent actually is against which the gates of hell will not prevail.

Maybe it's confirmation bias, but being in an Apostolic church in America seems the best place to land.
Bird Poo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great post OP!
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Bible is NOT the Word of God. (2 Tim. 3:16)
-Semantics: All Scripture is inspired by God (gk: inspired = breath of God)
-Question: Is all scripture true in your view?

Jesus Christ the Logos is the literal Word of God.
Ok

He is the Reason and Order of all creation, and not only the fulfillment of Old Testament law, but the Law itself.
Ok

The Bible is a literal product of the Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox) Church, debated and prayed over for 3 centuries, in councils mostly from Rome.
X - The Bible is the breath of God, written by the apostles in the 1 century. It's been debated since pen to parchment.

Why is Enoch, quoted in St. Jude's letter, excluded?
Excluded from the canon? I would have to dig into this research project however a NT author can quote from a non-canonical document in order to make a point. Paul did it here... Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His descendants.' Paul is not claiming their poets are authoritative

Why is the once extremely controversial Hebrews, and Revealing (Revelation), included?
They recognized there books as scripture. Early date, written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle..

Because the Apostolic Church said so.

After 70 AD, when Titus decimated the Temple, we see the final culmination of the Sacramental fulfillment that began with the first Mass, the Last Supper, when the 11 were ordained priests, with St. Peter as the rock of the Church.
Upon this rock I will built my church: Is that rock Peter or what Peter said? Jesus is the foundation of the church and not Peter.

Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Bible is not the "breathe" of God. The Bible is a book that contains letters which forms stories. It is infallible as long as it is translated properly. If you don't believe that I can point you in the direction of horribly translated Bibles.

Breathe is the same thing as wind or spirit in scripture. It's a repeating pattern of joining heaven and earth in Genesis. You can see breathe as heaven joining with dust (earth).
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll give Redstone credit for making it clear, what has generally been known. In his view (and maybe most of Romes), the Pope is greater than the scriptures to the point, we shouldn't even worry what the Scriptures say. If they aren't the word of god, why bother reading them at all.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Larry Lajitas said:

The Bible is not the "breathe" of God. The Bible is a book that contains letters which forms stories. It is infallible as long as it is translated properly. If you don't believe that I can point you in the direction of horribly translated Bibles.

Breathe is the same thing as wind or spirit in scripture. It's a repeating pattern of joining heaven and earth in Genesis. You can see breathe as heaven joining with dust (earth).

The Bible in infallible because it is the word of God delivered and kept pure by the Holy Spirit. Without this protection, it's just a collection of books by men.

Edit: To add, on another thread, you accused Protestants of being "Father, Son and Holy Scripture" yet seem content to Redstone revision of "Son and Church"...Interesting.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.
bigcat22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Larry Lajitas said:

The Bible is not the "breathe" of God. The Bible is a book that contains letters which forms stories. It is infallible as long as it is translated properly. If you don't believe that I can point you in the direction of horribly translated Bibles.

Breathe is the same thing as wind or spirit in scripture. It's a repeating pattern of joining heaven and earth in Genesis. You can see breathe as heaven joining with dust (earth).


2 Tim. 3:16 states that all scripture is theopneustos, which literally translates to God-breathed. It's also the only place in scripture that word is used.
Patriot101
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DirtDiver said:

The Bible is NOT the Word of God. (2 Tim. 3:16)
-Semantics: All Scripture is inspired by God (gk: inspired = breath of God)
-Question: Is all scripture true in your view?

Jesus Christ the Logos is the literal Word of God.
Ok

He is the Reason and Order of all creation, and not only the fulfillment of Old Testament law, but the Law itself.
Ok

The Bible is a literal product of the Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox) Church, debated and prayed over for 3 centuries, in councils mostly from Rome.
X - The Bible is the breath of God, written by the apostles in the 1 century. It's been debated since pen to parchment.

Why is Enoch, quoted in St. Jude's letter, excluded?
Excluded from the canon? I would have to dig into this research project however a NT author can quote from a non-canonical document in order to make a point. Paul did it here... Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His descendants.' Paul is not claiming their poets are authoritative

Why is the once extremely controversial Hebrews, and Revealing (Revelation), included?
They recognized there books as scripture. Early date, written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle..

Because the Apostolic Church said so.

After 70 AD, when Titus decimated the Temple, we see the final culmination of the Sacramental fulfillment that began with the first Mass, the Last Supper, when the 11 were ordained priests, with St. Peter as the rock of the Church.
Upon this rock I will built my church: Is that rock Peter or what Peter said? Jesus is the foundation of the church and not Peter.




Why is the apocrypha not added as well since Paul quotes from it in Romans 9 with the vessels of honor and dishonor thing? Why not the pseudepigrapha as well, since Paul likely borrowed from "tongues of men and of angels" likely meaning eloquent speech?

Look, I don't have a problem with reading Enoch or Maccabees, for instance. I have read them.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bigcat22 said:

Larry Lajitas said:

The Bible is not the "breathe" of God. The Bible is a book that contains letters which forms stories. It is infallible as long as it is translated properly. If you don't believe that I can point you in the direction of horribly translated Bibles.

Breathe is the same thing as wind or spirit in scripture. It's a repeating pattern of joining heaven and earth in Genesis. You can see breathe as heaven joining with dust (earth).


2 Tim. 3:16 states that all scripture is theopneustos, which literally translates to God-breathed. It's also the only place in scripture that word is used.
I'll try to rephrase this. It's from someone way smarter than me. I can't explain biblical symbology well -

The Scripture can be said to be "God-breathed" but it's not His "breathe" which would functionally refer to His uncreated energeia. This is also related to why calling the Bible "the Word" is problematic; if Word is a translation of Logos, the Bible isn't Christ. The Bible is a type of icon of God, as we are also icons of God, but we need clear distinction between created and uncreated.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Larry Lajitas said:

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.

Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.

I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.

The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .

The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Larry Lajitas said:

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.

Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.

I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.

The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .

The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."
This is probably where the convo ends. I don't know what else to say other than you can take arms up with Rome all you want. I get it but you still have to contend with the east and the first 1400 years that came with it.
FalconAg06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Larry Lajitas said:

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.

Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.

I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.

The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .

The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."


The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.

UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

I'll give Redstone credit for making it clear, what has generally been known. In his view (and maybe most of Romes), the Pope is greater than the scriptures to the point, we shouldn't even worry what the Scriptures say. If they aren't the word of god, why bother reading them at all.


Which is the ultimate form of idolatry. God's Word is Truth.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
FalconAg06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UTExan said:

AgLiving06 said:

I'll give Redstone credit for making it clear, what has generally been known. In his view (and maybe most of Romes), the Pope is greater than the scriptures to the point, we shouldn't even worry what the Scriptures say. If they aren't the word of god, why bother reading them at all.


Which is the ultimate form of idolatry. God's Word is Truth.


God's word is Jesus. We aren't Muslim, Gabriel didn't speak the words of the scriptures into the ears of the writers. The Catholic Church waded through hundreds of epistles, journal entries, etc etc and guided by the Holy Spirit discerned which were Canon.
bigcat22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Larry Lajitas said:

bigcat22 said:

Larry Lajitas said:

The Bible is not the "breathe" of God. The Bible is a book that contains letters which forms stories. It is infallible as long as it is translated properly. If you don't believe that I can point you in the direction of horribly translated Bibles.

Breathe is the same thing as wind or spirit in scripture. It's a repeating pattern of joining heaven and earth in Genesis. You can see breathe as heaven joining with dust (earth).


2 Tim. 3:16 states that all scripture is theopneustos, which literally translates to God-breathed. It's also the only place in scripture that word is used.
I'll try to rephrase this. It's from someone way smarter than me. I can't explain biblical symbology well -

The Scripture can be said to be "God-breathed" but it's not His "breathe" which would functionally refer to His uncreated energeia. This is also related to why calling the Bible "the Word" is problematic; if Word is a translation of Logos, the Bible isn't Christ. The Bible is a type of icon of God, as we are also icons of God, but we need clear distinction between created and uncreated.


I would disagree that it is symbolism and that by using the specific word, theopneustos, Paul is stating that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God (the Holy Spirit) and are in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is then on this Divine origin that all the high attributes of Scripture are built.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UTExan said:

AgLiving06 said:

I'll give Redstone credit for making it clear, what has generally been known. In his view (and maybe most of Romes), the Pope is greater than the scriptures to the point, we shouldn't even worry what the Scriptures say. If they aren't the word of god, why bother reading them at all.


Which is the ultimate form of idolatry. God's Word is Truth.
I see reformation Popes everywhere. The Bible became a book that could be dissected and translated by whoever saw fit. Luther made a bold and fantastic stand against papal abuses but provided no solid alternative than papalisim itself when it comes to issue of theological certainty.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bigcat22 said:

Larry Lajitas said:

bigcat22 said:

Larry Lajitas said:

The Bible is not the "breathe" of God. The Bible is a book that contains letters which forms stories. It is infallible as long as it is translated properly. If you don't believe that I can point you in the direction of horribly translated Bibles.

Breathe is the same thing as wind or spirit in scripture. It's a repeating pattern of joining heaven and earth in Genesis. You can see breathe as heaven joining with dust (earth).


2 Tim. 3:16 states that all scripture is theopneustos, which literally translates to God-breathed. It's also the only place in scripture that word is used.
I'll try to rephrase this. It's from someone way smarter than me. I can't explain biblical symbology well -

The Scripture can be said to be "God-breathed" but it's not His "breathe" which would functionally refer to His uncreated energeia. This is also related to why calling the Bible "the Word" is problematic; if Word is a translation of Logos, the Bible isn't Christ. The Bible is a type of icon of God, as we are also icons of God, but we need clear distinction between created and uncreated.


I would disagree that it is symbolism and that by using the specific word, theopneustos, Paul is stating that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God (the Holy Spirit) and are in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is then on this Divine origin that all the high attributes of Scripture are built.

Oh I'm sorry I mean symbolism in the biblical way not your modern version of symbolism. I won't get it into that because there's just no point.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.