OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[MaxBuck]

I sat down and watched the video - very well done and appears to be very well researched. Basically, through scripture and history Dave Hunt explains how the Holy Roman Church fits the description of the great whore in Revelations.

Lonnng video, very well done.

YouTube - A Woman Rides the Beast - Dave Hunt

Revelation (no "s") - the most dangerous book in the Bible when put into the hands of idiots (much like a submachine gun in that regard). This video looks like yet another anti-Catholic rant to me (and no, I'm not RC).

My own view of the "end time" is that it is personal, relating to each one of us uniquely. But can I back up that view with Scripture? Not so much; it has come to me through prayer (which can be a pretty unreliable way for theology to develop, I acknowledge).

Oh, and by the way, aren't there seven hills in Seattle? I think the great whore is probably Starbucks. They trample all competition in their way.

 

[Bleed S & G]

But, could you answer this for me (and don't feel obligated) how does the "end times," the battle between Good and Evil, make a lick of sense? Why should there be any such time? It seems to me to be a completely arbitrary thing for an all powerful G-d to do.

Allow me to answer your question, with a question

How does any of this make sense? Us creatures walking around, thinking, talking, writing down the future thousands of years ago and talking about it on an internet message board make sense? This is a crazy world, where I can turn on the discovery channel in HD and watch stuff, where I can drink a beverage to alter my consciousness... I'm a young guy who is feeling out reality and trying to figure out what the hell is going on. I haven't given up quite yet, but I do take a step back frequently and think that all this stuff is beyond my comprehension and look at the world and all it's complex systems in awe.

In terms of it being an arbitrary thing for an all powerful God to do..

I find this a hard question to answer. Let me ask other Christians why they think God had to manifest Himself into human form and die for our sins? If he was an all powerful God as you describe, he could have simply waved his wand and said 'forgiven.' Why is their evil, sin, pain?

Perhaps the only 'sane' answer to that question is - because it's all made up. But see, thats where this faith thing comes into play, and it feels too real to be make believe.

 

[Gatorubet]

I believe that revelation was Christians talking allegorically about the Roman Empire and the Emperor, and not about literal seals, horses, beasts, and so forth.

But if they are correct, I'll be happy to get with the program on the second chance part they tell about.

 

[muffler dragon]

Completely disagree.

Christendom is not about worshipping Mary. Christendom is not about a man being 'infalliable' or having gold phones. Christendom is not about pagan holidays. The Holy Church is the great deception.

Those are a few quick examples off the top of my head that the teachings of God and Christ through scripture denounce.

These, IMO, are minor points.

How about we discuss the Christian canon, the trinity, personal vicarious atonement, the doctrine of eternal heaven/hell, and things that are more central to all of Christendom?

In terms of giving the cannons and core beliefs.. maybe you misread the part about the whore being the mother of all harlots. Preverting the word of God for power and money - naaw that couldn't be the work of Satan. ;-)

If this is how you believe; then you have no foundation. Your book and the core beliefs of Christianity are from the RCC.

Btw, just something for you to chew on: in Judaism, HaSatan (the adversary) is an agent of G-d Almighty. He/It is not an agent of free will that is the counter part to G-d Almighty. FWIW, this doctrine regarding Satan is also from the RCC. Truth be told, while you may attempt to kick against the goads and feel better about it, the RCC has affected your belief structure more than you can understand at this point in time.

Christianity is ultimatley very simple and easy to follow: Thou shall have no other gods before Him. Treat your neighbor as yourself. That is Christendom's true cannon IMO.

Actually, no, that's not the case. The mantra you pose above is Judaism's; not Christianity's. Significant difference. Christendom is distinctly "saviour"-oriented. All doctrines regarding that are found in basis from RCC.

Edit: I should clarify that I am affording the RCC the opportunity to claim apostolic descendency. Thus, the traditions, beliefs, and Christian Scriptures go back to the time they say they did.

 

[muffler dragon]

I believe that revelation was Christians talking allegorically about the Roman Empire and the Emperor, and not about literal seals, horses, beasts, and so forth.

But if they are correct, I'll be happy to get with the program on the second chance part they tell about.

I stand in agreement with you on this.

 

[Bleed S & G]

These, IMO, are minor points.

I don't think the way Mary is used in Catholicism is a 'minor point.' But I agree with you in that there are tons of examples as you go on to show.

If this is how you believe; then you have no foundation. Your book and the core beliefs of Christianity are from the RCC.

Uhh, obviously they are from the RCC.. again, "the mother of all the harlots" meaning all the forms of christianity that sprung from the RCC are flawed as well.

Which leads me to this point..

Actually, no, that's not the case. The mantra you pose above is Judaism's; not Christianity's.

How is that 'mantra' jewish?

Matthew 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

This isn't a baptist or RCC 'mantra' but it is the mantra of what Christianity should be. It is the 'mantra' of Christ is the better way to put it I guess. I consider "Christianity" following the word of Christ - not what doctrine or a pastor says.

Btw, just something for you to chew on: in Judaism, HaSatan (the adversary) is an agent of G-d Almighty. He/It is not an agent of free will that is the counter part to G-d Almighty. FWIW, this doctrine regarding Satan is also from the RCC.

Understood. In judaism, Satan is looked at like a presecutor, as God would be the judge.

However, according to the Torah - HaSatan is the source of the people inclinations to build a golden calf.

Also, in the story of Job: God points out Job's piety.. at this point Ha-satan asks for permission to test the faith of Job. Job losses his family, property, and health but remains faithful. God then restores everything - but the point is: Ha-satan has these horrible things happen to Job.

Interesting side-note, where "Christendom" sites the devil as the Morning Star and Lucifer - who do scholars say Isaiah is really referring to? The King of Babylon.

Truth be told, while you may attempt to kick against the goads and feel better about it, the RCC has affected your belief structure more than you can understand at this point in time.

Kick against the goads and feel better about it?

Luke 18:10 ?Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ?God, I thank you that I am not like other men?robbers, evildoers, adulterers?or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.? 13 ?But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ?God, have mercy on me, a sinner.? 14 ?I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

S & G,
I agree there are a lot of problems with Roman Catholic Doctrine, but I don't believe Roman Catholics can't be true Christians. The Harlot religion is not one that can produce Christians. I'm not sure what doctrinal eschatology you fall under so I won't go further.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I believe that revelation was Christians talking allegorically about the Roman Empire and the Emperor, and not about literal seals, horses, beasts, and so forth.

But if they are correct, I'll be happy to get with the program on the second chance part they tell about.

GatorUbet,
I am a pretribulational premillennialist. I believe you've stated before that you're a Christian. If you truely are, and pretribulational premillennialist happen to be correct then you wouldn't have to wait on the second chance part.

 

[Bleed S & G]

S & G,
I agree there are a lot of problems with Roman Catholic Doctrine, but I don't believe Roman Catholics can't be true Christians. The Harlot religion is not one that can produce Christians. I'm not sure what doctrinal eschatology you fall under so I won't go further.

Perhaps the Harlot religion is not producing Christians then..

"When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

I'm not sure what doctrinal eschatology I fall under either - so feel free to elaborate.. what happens in the theology thread - stays.

 

[OCBuckWife]

I am a pretribulational premillennialist.

Which of these 4 is true for you?

1.
Christ cannot come at any moment as these signs have clearly not all occurred

2.
Christ could come at any moment as the signs will occur between this and another coming of Christ

3.
Christ could come at any moment as these signs have already occurred

4.
Christ could come at any moment as these signs may have already occurred

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Are you and I really able to judge whether someone else has been saved? While I disagree with much Catholic doctrine I do believe that a Catholic could still believe Jesus is the one and only God who died for our sins, and by His grace alone we are saved. A Catholic could very well live that faith out. That Catholic would be saved. But this is the same for almost any denomination. Does believing in papal infallibility damn one to hell? Does believing that Salvation requires one to be baptized warrant heresy? Does believing that one must speak in tongues as evidence of being baptized in the spirit enough to damn one? How about being wrong about eschatology? None of these things are damning. We all struggle in heart to get these things right.

On Luke 18:8, I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at. If you're asking me, I think the statement might have been Rhetorical given the context of the parable, but that is not said with any authority.

I really don't believe the Harlot is here, yet. I'm one that believes the chapters from Revelation 4 on are all future events to include the Harlot. I do believe Catholics left behind ( as well as many others) from a rapture would be prime candidates to start said Harlotry.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Which of these 4 is true for you?

1.
Christ cannot come at any moment as these signs have clearly not all occurred

2.
Christ could come at any moment as the signs will occur between this and another coming of Christ

3.
Christ could come at any moment as these signs have already occurred

4.
Christ could come at any moment as these signs may have already occurred

Likely 4 I guess. I do believe the Bible teaches Christians to be expectantly and vigilantly watching and preparing for His return. Do I believe that many of the signs have happened? Absolutely. Does that necessarily mean much, no. One example is the war in Ezekial 39. I don't believe that it has to happen before or after the rapture. I do believe that it will likely come near it.

With that I'm off to class. I'll be back later.

 

[Gatorubet]

GatorUbet,
I am a pretribulational premillennialist. I believe you've stated before that you're a Christian. If you truely are, and pretribulational premillennialist happen to be correct then you wouldn't have to wait on the second chance part.

Not trying to be flip, but as I have been told by many different flavor Christians that if I do not adhere to their doctrine, I am not "Christian", so I am hedging my bets that my Presbyterian self will be looked upon with favor. If not, the second go round will find me getting with the program.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Ah, I am not of any of the major denominations. Despite what other denominations may say the Bible is clear: you are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ, the one and only God who died for your sins and rose again. That is merely Christian as CS Lewis would say. Everything else(i.e. doctrine, obedience) you try to get right because of that faith, but those things won't save you or damn you. Anyone who teaches otherwise is wrong but as long as the person has the first part he/she is still saved. So as my pastor says if you don't believe in a pretribulation rapture, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[muffler dragon]

I don't think the way Mary is used in Catholicism is a 'minor point.' But I agree with you in that there are tons of examples as you go on to show.

Okay.

Uhh, obviously they are from the RCC.. again, "the mother of all the harlots" meaning all the forms of christianity that sprung from the RCC are flawed as well.

I find very few denominations in Christendom that did NOT spring from the RCC. These would be (among a few others):

SDA
Mormon
JW
Various Cult groups
Christafari
etc.

The major denominations of Christendom (i.e. RCC, EO, and Reformation/Protestant) all have sprung from the RCC (pre-EO split).

How is that 'mantra' jewish?

They are taken from the Tanakh (a.k.a Jewish Bible). They didn't start with Christianity.

This isn't a baptist or RCC 'mantra' but it is the mantra of what Christianity should be. It is the 'mantra' of Christ is the better way to put it I guess. I consider "Christianity" following the word of Christ - not what doctrine or a pastor says.

Those verses are found in the Jewish Tanakh. It wasn't a novel concept.

I have to ask: do you believe that you need to "accept" Jesus to be "saved"?

Understood. In judaism, Satan is looked at like a presecutor, as God would be the judge.

However, according to the Torah - HaSatan is the source of the people inclinations to build a golden calf.

Also, in the story of Job: God points out Job's piety.. at this point Ha-satan asks for permission to test the faith of Job. Job losses his family, property, and health but remains faithful. God then restores everything - but the point is: Ha-satan has these horrible things happen to Job.

I'm not sure what you're attempting to show me here. Nowhere in the Jewish Bible is there a presentation where HaSatan is an agent of free will.

Interesting side-note, where "Christendom" sites the devil as the Morning Star and Lucifer - who do scholars say Isaiah is really referring to? The King of Babylon.

Yup.

Kick against the goads and feel better about it?

Yes. It appears that you have a major anti-RCC bent when it all actuality the majority of your beliefs come from it. How am I wrong?

Luke 18:10 ?Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ?God, I thank you that I am not like other men?robbers, evildoers, adulterers?or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.? 13 ?But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ?God, have mercy on me, a sinner.? 14 ?I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.?

And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?