OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[lvbuckeye]

good points.

can you, with your faith in Christianity accept that?

i guess this is the part that you don't really get about myself and Bgrad. we don't place our faith in Christianity, we place our faith in Christ. there's a difference.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Neither of the apostles founded the church in Rome. This can be seen from Paul's letter to the Romans, which was written in either 57 or 58 C.E. In it he clearly states that he desires to visit the church, but had been delayed from doing so up to that point in time.

As for Peter being the first Pope, that is what Catholic tradition will tell you, but history says something quite different. Although Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero around 66 or 67 C.E. there is no indication that he served as the sole leader of the church as its bishop.

In reality, the Bishop of Rome was not recognized as the leader of the "catholic" church until several centuries later. There are a lot of candidates who could be argued as the first first Pope, but it is difficult to accept anyone as such before Constantine. Even then, during the fourth century the bishops in other Christian centers like Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and eventually Constantinople held equal authority to the one in Rome.

Personally, I consider Leo I the first Pope. He reigned from 440 to 461 and was the one who asserted that the bishop of Rome spoke with the authority of Peter over the whole church. In 451 he was able to get the Council of Chalcedon to acknowledge this authority in his quest to gain more control over the eastern churches who primairly looked to the bishop of Constantinople for settling disputes.

Bgrad, thanks for the answer, and yes.. it is what Catholic tradition teaches

Makes sense, may i ask what denomination you follow?

LV, do you place you're faith in Christ.. or do you place it with in yourself ultimatley?

"Ye are gods." John 10:34

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

good points.


i guess this is the part that you don't really get about myself and Bgrad. we don't place our faith in Christianity, we place our faith in Christ. there's a difference.

OK... and your answer to my question is?

 

[buckeyegrad]

Bgrad, thanks for the answer, and yes.. it is what Catholic tradition teaches

Makes sense, may i ask what denomination you follow?

I grew up in a conservative Catholic family and church. In my early twenties I left Catholicism and explored several mainline, Protestant denominations before settling in a conservative Lutheran church for several years.

Today, non-denominational would best describe me, although I currently practice in a church identified with the Messianic Jewish movement. Although my church belongs to a confederation of other messianic congregations, there is no higher authority to which it must answer, therefore it is organized as a non-denominational one would be.

"Ye are gods." John 10:34

I know you were speaking to LV, but I wanted to explain this statement by Jesus. When he spoke "ye are gods" he was quoting Psalm 82:6, something that would have been immediately recognized by the Pharisees. In that verse, the Hebrew word for "god" is elohim. It is important that this name for God is used rather than Yahweh or El Shaddai to understand what the psalmist meant. Although elohim is used as one of God's names, it is also the word used to refer to false/pagan "gods", angels, and humans who act as judges within God's authority. Since Psalm 82 is addressing humans, the last meaning is what is being used here. The fact that Yahweh or El Shaddai is not used is important as these two names are never used to refer to anyone/anything but God as they speak to his essence.

With this background knowledge, we see that Jesus is saying to the Pharisees in John 10:34 that they have been called "gods" because they represent God's authority in judgment. Of course, what Jesus is also implying is that the Pharisees have not been just in their judgments and will be judged by God accordingly (this is the message of Psalm 82).

 

[lvbuckeye]

OK... and your answer to my question is?

to a degree yes, but ultimately, i have to say my answer is no. not necessarily for you i guess, but not for me...

 

[billmac91]

EXACTLY what I was getting to with www.hiddenmeanings.com . YOU would love this site! I wrote a paper on this subject in a Hebrew class that I took at Ohio State...I received an "A" for my work! It was called: Alternative Views and Concepts of the Holy Bible: Mythology, Astrology, and Science.

HAYN

Very interesting website, and it gives great detail into origins and root words....I think its very possible many religions were based off of previous mythologies, but tailored to fit different cultures/beliefs

I'd recommend everyone going to visit that site, if for nothing else to try and get a perspective on why some are very skeptical of modern religions

 

[jwinslow]

Very interesting website, and it gives great detail into origins and root words....I think its very possible many religions were based off of previous mythologies, but tailored to fit different cultures/beliefs

I'd recommend everyone going to visit that site, if for nothing else to try and get a perspective on why some are very skeptical of modern religions

Those of you referencing this website, would you care to point out a poignant writeup, perhaps one pertaining to the bible or its theology?

I'll admit that I skimmed, but a lot of the excerpts I read seemed to rip quotes out of context to form arguments that really didn't hold water.

I'm not sure one needs a detailed knowledge of the bible to expose these arguments:

[FONT=arial, helvetica]CHRISTIAN TEACHING: Jesus can do all things. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]THE BIBLE: Jesus says in John 5:30, " Of my own self, I can do nothing".[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]CHRISTIAN TEACHING: We are all worthless sinners. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]THE BIBLE: Matthew 5:14 Jesus says, " You are the light of the world".[/FONT]

 

[billmac91]

did you read the write-up on Easter and its origins?

 

[jwinslow]

did you read the write-up on Easter and its origins?

I just started, and they referred to the Crucifixion date, which in another article they claim never happened.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

to a degree yes, but ultimately, i have to say my answer is no. not necessarily for you i guess, but not for me...

OK. So, if I remember my question, you say you cannot accept that I would be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Does this have to do with because of what you know about what I think about religion it couldn't possibly be inspired by the Holy Spirit (in as much as what I say disagrees with what you say/believe) or is it more of a generalized people who claim they're being moved by spirits are of questionable sanity?

Obviously I've taken some overstated positions on this thread in hopes of illustrating various points I'm trying to make... but here, I'm not overstating it. I honestly do believe what I "find" religiously to be "guided" by what I learn in Prayer, etc. and to be from God, via what Christians would call the Holy Spirit (though, I just call it God). At it's essence, this belief of mine is precisely what the authors of the Bible would claim - inspiration via God himself (or Christ, I suppose) - is it not? Why the impulse to disbelieve me, then?

Of course, to be clear, I'm certainly NOT making the argument that people should believe what I have to say about Religion. I seek no converts, and don't fancy myself some sort of savior. I'm more interested in how one might reconcile a position that - BKB being moved by the Holy Spirit is psychosis, but Paul being moved by the Holy Spirit is not.

It seems to me, it comes down to "consistency" as between what one says and what those who came before already said. Leaving, of course, the question - was Paul really inspired by the Holy Spirit, or did he just know scripture well enough that his writings are consistent with the rest of the Bible (to the extent that they are)? When you are left with having to make this decision, why defer to Paul at all? Instead, why not find God's fingerprints in the natural universe around you? Instead, why not defer to your own reasoning and rationale to explain things. Instead, why not consider yourself the authority on the basis of your beliefs, rather than the ghosts of religion past?

 

[buckeyegrad]

did you read the write-up on Easter and its origins?

Has to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Yes, Romans mixed pagan beliefs with the original teachings of Christ and his disciples (hence, why my church still celebrates Christ's sacrifice and resurrection during Passover rather than Easter), but to make the baseless claims that site does is beyond all credible thinking. Perhaps if the creator of the site looked into Jesus' Jewishness such drivel would not be spewed forth.

One example of many: This site claims Jesus had to rise on the first day of the week because he is really a reinterpretation of a sun god and the first day of the week was dedicated to the sun. This of course completely ignores (perhaps they are unaware) that the day Jesus rose from the dead was the Jewish feast of First Fruits, which is always the first day of the week following Passover during the week long Feast of Unleavened Bread.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Has to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Yes, Romans mixed pagan beliefs with the original teachings of Christ and his disciples (hence, why my church still celebrates Christ's sacrifice and resurrection during Passover rather than Easter), but to make the baseless claims that site does is beyond all credible thinking. Perhaps if the creator of the site looked into Jesus' Jewishness such drivel would not be spewed forth.

Would you agree then, that every Church which endorses "Easter" is corrupt - endorsing the "worship" of some false idols (Rabbits and eggs, representing fertility and the "birth" of Spring (and therefore the planting of future harvests which, are "blessed" by "pagan ritual so as to be bountiful - (much the same way we might think of a Tribal Rain Dance is aimed at the same outcome))?

?Easter? is actually a pagan celebration for the goddess (demon) Ishtar/Astarte, which is held on the first Sunday following the Vernal Equinox (Spring planetary cycle). This day was fixed by apostate medieval churchianity and has nothing to do with Yeshua?s resurrection. It is rather, a lie and a blasphemy to celebrate it as Yeshua?s resurrection.
Believers who want to follow truth need to rethink their blind obedience to the tradition of men. Rather, we need to follow the commandment of God, which He is restoring in this hour.

(I highlight the point I've been trying to make.)
The question becomes, in that such an important event in Christianity - the sacrifice and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ - can, and has been, so easily perverted by "the Church," on what thinking should any man trust any church? Again, I say, it is better to consider the Lord with your own senses and mind, and not to trust the writings/traditions/rituals of other men. Do you, or do you not agree?

One example of many: This site claims Jesus had to rise on the first day of the week because he is really a reinterpretation of a sun god and the first day of the week was dedicated to the sun. This of course completely ignores (perhaps they are unaware) that the day Jesus rose from the dead was the Jewish feast of First Fruits, which is always the first day of the week following Passover during the week long Feast of Unleavened Bread.

This, of course, is two things... chicken and egg, and assuming the validity of that which is in question.

As may not be clear (though should be, I think) the Feast of Fruits you mention begins on a Sunday

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it. Leviticus 23:9-11

If we assume that Biblical Rituals are "codification" (if you will) of how to "ensure" bountiful harvests or to give thanks for the same (as seems to be the case with the First Fruits), isn't it also fair to assume the the New Covenant of Christ simply adopts the same ritual or observance? (and, as I'll adress below, at it's core Paul trying to make Christianity palatable to others... or, as I would say, "selling" his religion)

Now, we do know that Pagan man has a history of believing his activities please or displease gods who are in charge of important things, like sunlight and rain for the growing of grain, etc.. We can see examples of Man offering sacrifice to these gods in an aim to get the intended results.... Some cultures cut the heads of virgins, some invented various dances... and some... it seems... feasts. Each allegedly designed to honor thier gods for the purpose of future sustainance.... each to keep their god 'happy'

Why should we assume the embodiment of Jesus is any different? Chicken and Egg.... If I understand "hidden meanings" correctly, it doesn't much matter, for Jesus is to represent a host of prior rituals, each of which (or so it would seem, are in some way governed by Ra, or any number of Sungods.) What I'm saying is, saying Hiddin Meanings ignores the Feast of First Fruits is putting the cart before the horse, as it can be understood as the embodiment of a thanksgiving ritual.. which, of course, is what the resurrection is - thanksgiving for the sacrifice allegedly made by your Lord. There is no "implied meaning" inherent in the understanding that Jesus rose on a Sunday whether owing to the rationale argued on Hiddin Meanings, nor the rationale of the Feast of Fruits. There is no implied meaning because simply observing the tradition of man ignore the reason the ritual exists at all.

Now, you will probably bring up Paul, who efforted to establish that the risen Christ is the fulfilment of the Feast.

I Cor. 15:20-24 - But the fact is that the Messiah has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a man, also the resurrection of the dead has come through a man. For just as in connection with Adam all die, so in connection with the Messiah all will be made alive. But each in his own order; the Messiah is the firstfruits; then those who belong to the Messiah, at the time of his coming; then the culmination, when he hands over the Kingdom of God to the father after having put an end to every rulership, yes to every authority and power.

To me, it's not very hard to understand what Paul is doing here. What he's doing is - as I've tried to argue before - make his understanding of Jesus "accessible" to others. By giving recognition to the Feast, by arguing Christ is the fulfillment of it, he attempts to win converts. He takes the embodiment of Jesus and ads meaning (meaning, you would argue, inspired by the Holy Spirit)

Much as the thanksgiving of First Fruits has it's root in death (harvest of grain) and is guided towards pleasing the Lord for life (Next year's planting of wheat), a recognition of the signifigance of Jesus provides that those who die, will be given life for having pleased the Lord by believing.

But, as I said, it assumes the validity before hand, and does so without recognition that the Feast of First Fruits - as it is a ritual - is understood much the same as any number of Pagan rituals designed to ensure a pleased God and future bounty.

Understand, of course, I say these things as an indictment of ritual and "blind faith" but certainly not in an effort to disprove God. I also freely admit that I began this with my own assumption. (assuming the Bible is, at least in part, a codification of rituals) An assumption I believe has evidentiary support in an honest study of the history of man where the nature of rituals (especially those rituals we would agree are pagan and meaningless) are concerned.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Would you agree then, that every Church which endorses "Easter" is corrupt - endorsing the "worship" of some false idols (Rabbits and eggs, representing fertility and the "birth" of Spring (and therefore the planting of future harvests which, are "blessed" by "pagan ritual so as to be bountiful - (much the same way we might think of a Tribal Rain Dance is aimed at the same outcome))?

I wouldn't use the word "corrupt" to describe all churches that endorse Easter. Some I would, but many I would call ignorant or misguided because they do not know the history of how paganism was introduced into Christianity and how its Jewish roots were destroyed. If they knew their faith's history better, I believe they would mend their ways. For example, although they may still keep the same day of Easter, you will see many conservative evagelical churches use the term Resurrection Sunday instead of Easter and see the elimination of rabbits and eggs as part of celebration in order to focus more exclusively on Jesus.

The question becomes, in that such an important event in Christianity - the sacrifice and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ - can, and has been, so easily perverted by "the Church," on what thinking should any man trust any church? Again, I say, it is better to consider the Lord with your own senses and mind, and not to trust the ritings/traditions/rituals of other men. Do you, or do you not agree?

I've never said or argued that one should trust a church's doctrines or its leadership. My position has always been that the Bible is the sole guide to understanding God and our relationship with Him. I see relying on a church or its doctrines as doing the very same thing you argue to do: that it is best to use the senses and mind of men--you simply prefer your own to others. I reject both.

If we assume that Biblical Rituals are "codification" (if you will) of how to "ensure" bountiful harvests or to give thanks for the same (as seems to be the case with the First Fruits), isn't it also fair to assume the the New Covenant of Christ simply adopts the same ritual or observance? (and, as I'll adress below, at it's core Paul trying to make Christianity palatable to others... or, as I would say, "selling" his religion)

No, it does not work as such from a Biblical perspective for two reasons. First, because the Bible teaches the divinity of Jesus, He being the incarnation of God, this means that Jesus, as a part of the Godhead established the rituals and gave them to Moses. Therefore, it is not an adoption of Jewish rituals to a new covenant, but the fulfillment of the rituals through the new covenant. In other words, when the Godhead gave Torah to Moses, He forsaw His incarnation, sacrifice, and resurrection and therefore created rituals to serve as signposts for future generations in order that they might perceive Him. Second, if Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles (which he claims several times), why would he relate Jesus' resurrection to the Feast of First Fruits, a Jewish feast, if he was trying to make it palatable to non-Jews?

Why should we assume the embodiment of Jesus is any different? Chicken and Egg.... If I understand "hidden meanings" correctly, it doesn't much matter, for Jesus is to represent a host of prior rituals, each of which (or so it would seem, are in some way governed by Ra, or any number of Sungods.) What I'm saying is, saying Hiddin Meanings ignores the Feast of First Fruits is putting the cart before the horse, as it can be understood as the embodiment of a thanksgiving ritual.. which, of course, is what the resurrection is - thanksgiving for the sacrifice allegedly made by your Lord. There is no "implied meaning" inherent in the understanding that Jesus rose on a Sunday whether owing to the rationale argued on Hiddin Meanings, nor the rationale of the Feast of Fruits. There is no implied meaning because simply observing the tradition of man ignore the reason the ritual exists at all.

The problem with seeing First Fruits as only a feast of thanksgiving is that it misses the greater meaning of the festival. This greater meaning is lost when one tries to relate it to other pagan festivals that are similar, but not identifical to it. If you read Matthew 27:52-53, you see what First Fruits' greater meaning is:

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Here we see the first fruits of a harvest of souls. Just as Christ's return as shown in Revelation will be a fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles in that it will be the great harvest of souls as God comes to reside with the faitfull; at His resurrection, there was a first fruits harvest of souls.

 

[MaxBuck]

He is risen indeed! Hallelujah! Alleluia!

Whatever you prefer; today is the happiest day of the year for all of us who love Jesus Christ and celebrate His resurrection! God bless us all, every one! (With thanks to Charles Dickens for this most heartwarming of all benedictions.)

 

[lvbuckeye]

Would you agree then, that every Church which endorses "Easter" is corrupt - endorsing the "worship" of some false idols (Rabbits and eggs, representing fertility and the "birth" of Spring (and therefore the planting of future harvests which, are "blessed" by "pagan ritual so as to be bountiful - (much the same way we might think of a Tribal Rain Dance is aimed at the same outcome))?

i doesn't take too much homework to learn the pagan Phoenician roots for the fertility rites associated with worship of Astarte and the term "Easter." any Christian worth his salt realizes that what we are REALLY commemorating here is the ULTIMATE Passover Sacrifice.

(I highlight the point I've been trying to make.)
The question becomes, in that such an important event in Christianity - the sacrifice and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ - can, and has been, so easily perverted by "the Church," on what thinking should any man trust any church? Again, I say, it is better to consider the Lord with your own senses and mind, and not to trust the writings/traditions/rituals of other men. Do you, or do you not agree?

i agree. however, you again gloss over a point that i have consistently made. the Bible is pretty explicit in stating that the true church will NOT be mainstream. again. we are NOT to place our trust in a church. we are to place our trust in our LORD and Savior. no church can save any of us. only God Himself can save us. i'll try to address the rest later...