 |
| Patty Hunter |
Patty Hunter was once a follower of Benjamin Creme's message of "Maitreya the Christ." Since May, 1988 she has been a born again follower of Jesus, the one and only Christ. She is a dear friend of mine since August 1988. She and husband Bob Hunter, a long time Christian Research Institute employee, now live in Fort Wayne, Indiana after Bob left CRI to go study for the ministry there. The move was fortuitous as Fort Wayne, Indiana is my home town. Bob and Pat were both Toronto natives. For many years they worked for CRI in southern California and then Charlotte, North Carolina. Patty praises the Lord for delivering her from the New Age deception by writing gospel music lyrics and now she has been given her own cable television program to host in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
I am VERY PROUD of Patty and her continued walk with the Lord since her deliverance from the New Age Movement in May of 1988.
Patty Hunter will join us tonight on the air at 8 p.m. Eastern time, USA and 5 p.m. Pacific time. Please join us. Patty will be happy to answer your questions. If you have a loved one taken in the the Maitreya/Betraya deception, tonight is an important time for you to join us live at THEMICROEFFECT.COM.
CONSTANCE
212 comments:
1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»Good for her! I am from Ft. Wayne, too, and glad to hear she'll be giving the straight story to everyone there.
I will be sure to tune in tonight to listen.
SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE RED FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER!!!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news
/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-
first-time-ever/
Protests Over Cloned Animals in Food Chain
http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph
p?id=CNG.b37fd5839b03a119be53306d75
dbdcef.391&show_article=1
CNN poll: 6 out of 10 now doubt that Obama was born in the USA
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?
fa=PAGE.view&pageId=187781
Just a suggestion to those posting long URL's - could you pls go to www.tinyurl.com and tiny it.
Thank you kindly,
P.
My internet is running slow is there any way i can read the transcript thanks in advance
Amanda
I'm on the email list of Roger Oakland's Understand The Times and this came in:
"The following article which describes an "apparition of Jesus" that supposedly took place in a Catholic church in Nigeria recently, is exactly what authors Jim Tetlow and Roger Oakland predicted would be taking place in the future in their book Another Jesus: The Eucharistic and the New Evangelization. Jesus warned that "false appearances" would be taking place as one of the signs of the last days..." [See Matthew 24:23-26]
http://tinyurl.com/375hqks
Christ’s apparition attracts thousands
BENIN CITY- St Paul’s Catholic Church along Airport Road in Benin City, yesterday, turned into a mecca of sorts as people from all walks of life thronged the church to catch a glimpse of what has been literally described as an apparition of Jesus Christ.
The uncommon but holy phenomenon according to catholic faithful and enthusiasts present at the church premises, came up early Wednesday morning immediately after the offering of adoration at the church. It has however generated so much frenzy amongst catholic faithful and non-Catholics who jostled through the ever-busy Airport Road in the state capital to witness the rare spiritual occurrence.
According to Rev. Fr. John Edosomwan, a Catholic Priest in Edo State, the “apparition of Christ” to people serves to reinforce the faith of Christians in the presence of Christ while tending to reassure the present day followers of Christ that they should re-direct their steps to the faith as exemplified by Christ in the holy scriptures...
...Rev. Fr. Edosomwan further stressed that the appearance of Christ on the Blessed Sacrament through the monstrance would help re-direct the lives of Christians whose faith have been ebbing out owning to varying challenges of life.
The “apparition of Christ” according to the Priest,” was to remind Christians that through His presence they can draw support and increase their faith in God.”
He pointed out that as Christians we must always appeal for the presence of God in our lives in order to transform our lives and those around us.
Similarly, the spiritual significance of the “apparition of Christ” at the St Paul’s Catholic Church was further described to connote the signs of the end of time by Prince Ken Ebosele, a committed catholic faithful who was present at the church to catch a glimpse of the “apparition”.
Prince Ebosele revealed that it was a reassurance of the fact that the salvation in Christ which Christians profess was not in vain, adding that the appearance of Christ was a manifestation of the presence of Christ in our lives.
...A member of the Edo State House of Assembly representing Ikpoba Okha Constituency, Hon. Jude Ise-Idehen who was also in the Church described the occurrence as a re-affirmation that “Jesus Christ is real,” adding that, “this is the belief of Catholics and other Christians. It is our faith and belief.”
A woman, Mrs. Mary Omare, who disclosed that she is a member of the Church of God Mission and that she came from Warri to attend a programme in her denomination in Benin City, said she was passing by on a commercial motor-bike but out of curiosity she came to see what was actually happening in St Paul’s Catholic Church, Airport Road.
She confirmed that she saw Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament that was placed on the altar, stressing that “it is real and that with her coming to Jesus on the altar, all her hearts desires have been received by faith”...
Question to ponder: With no actual photograph of Jesus Christ, how does anyone know definitively what He looks like?
Just curious--What is the benefit of the smaller URL's other than the obvious fact that they are smaller? Sorry in advance for my stupid question if in fact I am missing a glaring given observation. Thanks-
Still unpacking things removed from office to home. House desperately needs recarpeting and so half of garage is filled with things that can't be moved in until that happens. Kindle editions of books look pretty good when moving time comes.
I have had precious little internet time this week; however, I just looked at the Nigerian press article on apparitions. Interesting and disturbing.
Constance
http://tinyurl.com/2wwkxg4
Nehemiah 4:
9Nevertheless we made our prayer unto our God, and set a watch against them day and night, because of them.
14And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the LORD, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.
From Scientfic American (08/06/10):
Genetically Modified Crop on the Loose and Evolving in the U.S. Midwest...
http://tinyurl.com/388uqcj
This ought to keep everyone busy for a while. This site was just called to my attention. While everyone's name is not in there yet, where they have supposedly documented an individual the information is extensive, and in many cases is incorrect. Apparently one can opt out by using a privacy button.
http://www.spokeo.com/
Dorothy
Craig and Constance,
Protestants often like to mock the Catholic Eucharist, but the same arguments can be used against you. When you're born again, how do you it's real. How do you know it's really the Holy Spirit, it's all too subjective. At least the Eucharist is objective matter.
I am sure the Catholic church is going to investigate this to see, if it's a hoax, until they do that and declare a verdict, I wouldn't worry about it.
Savvy
The only benefit to tiny url's is it is easier to copy. I never do it b/c it is not that hard to copy a line or two versus going to another website, pasting a path, clicking a button, copying a new link, then coming to this site to paste it. A lot of work for no real benefit.
tinyurl's are useful where a small area, if merely by reason of page aesthetics, would be better off without one of those very long urls that sometimes occur.
'Some urls are so long they have perspective'.
-apologies to Mark Twain.
--danR, Vancouver Canada
Concerning URLS, the only reason I would suggest tiny's is that often when one copies and pastes a long URL here a section will come up missing. Thus making it harder for others to follow up on stories some are posting. It may simply be a letter or dash, but I have had it happen when i post long ones and I know others have as well. The format of the comment section does not know how to handle big run on letters and numbers, so it doesn't recognize how to split them up, unlike long words which will simply get shifted to the next line. Tiny is just a quick and easy way to avoid the problem, so I often keep it open in a separate tab.
Does anyone know about the University of Phoenix? It seems it's all over the place. On the internet everywhere and in a lot of places. Any thoughts?
The "Spokeo" thing is funny. Two "Constance Cumbey's" including one "CONSTANCE G. CUMBEY" -- no such person! Myself, Constance E. Cumbey, "some college" -- evidently they don't know I have a law degree (juris doctor) -- accuracy, they lack.
Savvy,
I would never dream of mocking the Catholic Eucharist. John Chapter 6 and other biblical passages would prevent me from such an interpretation.
Constance
Constance,
I do apologize. I wasn't sure if you supported Jim Tetlow and Roger Oakland's book : The Eucharist and the New Evangelization.
Savvy
Spokeo is disturbing!!! I can get a street view of my house and find more personal information on me or my family than I have ever given to anyone here. There are a couple of errors, but insignificant in comparison to what is listed correctly. My daughter is just over a month old and it is already registering.
Spokeo is not accurate as people who check their own listings and the listings of their relatives can see. I posted it so that everyone can see what is being posted about them on the internet.
Sometimes the information can be quite humorous. I have a friend and her profession was listed as Decision Maker. She didn't know how that could have come up. Anyway I think it's a wonderful new profession. People who have trouble making up their minds can hire a Decision Maker.
Anyway, you can opt out of being listed by going to
http://www.spokeo.com/blog/help/ and following the instructions.
Dorothy
Dorothy,
Thanks, unfortunately most of the info on me was quite accurate with a couple very minor exceptions. The info on my wife on the other hand is a bit off, almost comically so. Maybe they got lucky guessing my stuff. Though the street level view of my house connected to that much info is still disturbing me. Thanks for letting me know how to opt out.
Savvy,
My intention was not to show support for Tetlow and Oakland's book. It was to show how I came across the article. Having said that, the only thing I know about the book is what I can deduce from the title itself. Obviously, the authors view the apparition of 'Jesus' as an example of what their book predicts.
I did not intend to get into a discussion regarding the Eucharist (again). The main point to me was that an "apparition of Jesus" appeared during the 'Blessed Sacrament.' Correct me if I'm wrong; but, my understanding is that while Catholics believe in the 'real Presence' they do not believe or expect to actually SEE Jesus. This is the reason I posted the last paragraph:
Question to ponder: With no actual photograph of Jesus Christ [and, I'd like to add - no actual painting showing how Jesus actually looked during His earthly ministry], how does anyone know definitively what He looks like?
Equally as disturbing is the significance the article put on this apparition.
I should point out that Todd Bentley [among others] claims to have seen Jesus. In a class I was attending at a local church we were given the supposed account of a young seminary student who was struggling with his faith and wanted to see and/or experience Jesus to solidify his faith. With the encouragment of his teacher, the student began chanting "Jesus" over and over. Soon this student had an open vision of "Jesus" and actually embraced Him. My belief is that what this student did was no different than chanting "om" and that the resulting vision was a demonic manifestation of "Jesus."
I was dumbfounded as I sat there in class with the teacher espousing Contemplative Prayer. The words used in the handout were "meditative prayer" and "seeking to center" among others. After class I sent a private email to him expressing my concerns. I eventually even took him to lunch. He saw it as no big deal.
Later when the teacher did a class on the book The Shack -- with its blasphemous depiction of the Trinity -- I decided that was enough for me.
You said:
I am sure the Catholic church is going to investigate this to see, if it's a hoax, until they do that and declare a verdict, I wouldn't worry about it.
Whether the Catholic church declares it a hoax or not, either real people were led astray and/or real people can be led astray by reading this article.
Here's more on this apparition from another Nigerian paper, the Nigerian Compass:
Pandemonium in Edo over sighting of 'Jesus' apparition
http://tinyurl.com/3y35mv9
Craig,
Here is a testimony concerning Contempative Prayer and how dangerous it is.
http://www.solasisters.blogspot.com/
http://solasisters.blogspot.com/2010/08/testimony-to-power-of-gods-written-word.html
good example of why to use tiny url
The rest of the link was cut off
Spokeo may be inaccurate now, but surely it won't be long before our internet system is integrated enough to be quite accurate. I noticed that the inaccuracy seemed to be more related to those that had more common names, while very uncommon names were less likely to be confused with the many details of overlapping information from a greater number of people with the same name. We need only to be numbered for this to take place. To reveal Sokeo now is surely to familiarize and desensitize the public to accept it as the norm (in the future) when ever more privacy and freedoms are taken. So speak now...or forever be silenced.
Craig,
Yes, Catholics normally do not expect Jesus to appear in the Blessed Sacrament. Unless he wants to for a particular reason. In this case it would be a miracle worthy of investigation. I think you need to understand that Catholics don't think like Protestants do. The ones not involved in the New Age that is. We don't run behind mystical experiences unless these things are backed up by dogmatic teaching, this helps keep both dogma and mysticism connected to each other.
Savvy
Anon 2:32pm:
Thanks for the link. While the testimony was sobering, these words in the prologue stand out:
Jesus exhorts believers over and over to not allow themselves to be deceived. These words are aimed at the Church, not the world - those in the world are already deceived!
In the Olivet discourse [Matthew 24], Jesus replies to the question of "...when will this happen, and what will be sign of your coming and of the end of age." with:
Watch out that no one deceives you.
This warning of deception is stated in verses 4-5, 11, & 23-24. In all but one of these verses the warning is in concert with false Christs.
Savvy said,
We don't run behind mystical experiences unless these things are backed up by dogmatic teaching, this helps keep both dogma and mysticism connected to each other.
Seriously? So if a mystical experience is backed up by dogmatic teaching, it becomes valid? Why can't New Agers take the same position with dogmatic teachings from Benjamen Creme? You say the NAM is unbiblical, well so are these apparitions of Jesus! Jesus said that in the last days men would be saying here is the Christ, no He is over there...Jesus said do not believe them (period).
I noticed you did not say, if it is backed up by God's Word, instead it only needs to be backed up by dogmatic teachings, what a dangerous precedent.
Catholics elevate their priests and Popes above God's Word which is to be our ONLY, FINAL AUTHORITY.
There doesn't seem to be too many protestants around to contradict this...what a screaming shame, I won't get in to a tit for tat, I don't have the time, nevertheless, I couldn't let that go unaddressed.
Constance, I admire your discernment as it pertains to the NAM, but I am bewildered by your tolerance (and sometimes defense) of Catholicism, it is just inexusable.
Both are contrary to God's Word.
Savvy,
You wrote:
We don't run behind mystical experiences unless these things are backed up by dogmatic teaching, this helps keep both dogma and mysticism connected to each other.
I'm assuming by dogma you are referring to the Bible, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and perhaps Patristic writings(?). Are there references of mysticism in these works which would justify an apparition of Jesus? Keep in mind my statement (which I've reiterated) that we do not know what Jesus looks like.
Just spent the last hour on Spokeo; fun looking up myself and others. I was shocked that my information (Pictures)from my old Facebook account were there since I deleated that account.
DT Morris
Craig,
I will have to go agnostic on this one, because so I really don't know. So many questions remained unanswered.
Savvy
Jaclyn,
The NAM uses scripture to justify their teachings too. Many churches are using scripture to justify abortion, homosexuality etc. Yes, I do not believe that scripture is the final authority because it's all based on interpretation, which could be wrong. I choose instead to trust in the 2,000 years of historic Christianity, and it's teachings to help me understand scripture better, rather than relying on my own intuition. We would just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Peace,
Savvy
Main Entry: dog·mat·ic
Pronunciation: \dȯg-ˈma-tik, däg-\
Variant(s): also dog·mat·i·cal \-ti-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1660
1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts - a dogmatic critic
2 : of or relating to dogma
synonyms see dictatorial
Anon @5:58,
What if dogma is fact? The Apostles Creed is Dogma, the instrument used to penetrate reality.
Jaclyn (6:17 PM)
You say that you 'won't get into a tit for tat' with Savvy?
Too late for that.
And just why does Constance need to justify her 'tolerance (and somethimes defense) of Catholicism' to you?
I checked out the Spokeo thing. Found mistakes but those will be fixed over time. As all the computers, collecting all our info. are combined it will be more correct and comprehensive. funny thing, tho'. could not find info on our dear leader, Barack H. at Spokeo.
some are lead by their intuition, some are lead by the Holy Spirit in all truth, the ones lead by the Holy Spirit are giants of faith, whereas those lead by their own intuition follow leaders...
I choose not to trust in the arms of flesh as they have turned and rent me every single time without fail ...
when following leaders try not to adopt any "wooden fathers" (wooden nickels), they couldn't buy you a single cup of coffee in heaven...
Susanna,I am interested in your thoughts on this matter. I go to an evangelical protestant church but my pastor quoted a somewhat controversial Catholic priest -Teilhard du Chardin. "You are not a human being having a spiritual experience, you are a spiritual being having a human experience." From what I've read he was a paleontologist as well as a priest and came up with a theory of how God used evolution in the creation.
Is Chardin thought to have been a new age influence?
Another Texan
Another Texan,
You are perceptive. For more information on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, read Constance books which are available free via the links on the blog page (on the right). She covers Chardin in A Planned Deception, chapter 13, pg. 124. She calls him the "patron saint of the New Age Movement".
I have heard numerous preachers quote the same. I didn't know it was attributed to Chardin. Can anyone confirm this? I am seeing some attribute it to Wayne Dyer. Not surprising, but he says "I love this quote..."
Anonymous 11:12,
You said,
What if dogma is fact? The Apostles Creed is Dogma, the instrument used to penetrate reality.
What do you mean by that????
Teilhard du Chardin was hardly a traditional Catholic priest, since many of his ideas came into direct conflict with church officals in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church - with several of his books being censured.
Therefore, Constance was correct in labeling him 'the Patron Saint of the New Age Movement.'
Texan,
I would hesitate to call Chardin a paleontologist either. His sole focus was to prove evolutionary theory in his work in this field. He was involved with some of the biggest frauds on this end. To say his beliefs were New Age is also putting it lightly. He promoted the idea that man was in a constant state of evolution, and that we were on a evolutionary path to a new level of spirituality. He also believed in the interconnected nature of all things, and that man was the director of his own evolution of consciousness.
http://tinyurl.com/2fqbx6u
http://teilharddechardin.org/
http://tinyurl.com/24xtm3u
http://tinyurl.com/2a9j288
http://tinyurl.com/2alulfn
Note: I have pulled this information from primarily pro sources. I did so to show that even those who go to bat for Chardin can not properly explain his association with such frauds as Piltdown. I also wanted to show how these sources go from raving about the relationship between Chardin and Raven, to trying to distance the two from one another.
YesNaSpanishTown
The incarnation is dogma made fact. God became man and dwelt amongst us. Hence the Apostles Creed are based on this fact, and tell us about God and what's real i.e. reality.
Craig,
About the jesus apparition in Nigeria. According to sources, the church was praying the divine mercy chaplet when Jesus appeared in the Blessed Sacrament. If you don't know about the divine mercy chaplet, you should look into it.
http://thedivinemercy.org/message/
Savvy
J.D.
The New Age often uses Jesus words in scripture . John 10:34 "Ye are gods" to justify their position.
I guess I'm too simplistic. I believe the incarnation is fact because God's Word says it is. John 1:1-14 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God....The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
I don't need a dogma, apostles creed or otherwise to "penetrate reality" to tell me so. To be honest, such verbiage sounds like esoteric gobbledy gook to me!
Keep It Simple Sweetie!
YesNaSpanishTown,
Yes, this is all in scripture. The thing is during the course of church history various heresies rose up, which needed to be combated by helping Christians understand the reasoning behind their theology, hence dogmas, councils, etc were established to combat these heresies. It's supporting faith with reason.
It's important because, when the New Age quotes scriptures and tells us what they mean like "ye are gods" we need to know the reasoning behind this verse, or we can be led astray.
Hope this explains things.
Savvy
Thank you YNST,JD and anonymous,for your info on Chardin. It was helpful. I have been trying to discern whether my pastor is incorporating New Age beliefs and dominionism into his sermons and this last sermon seems to confirm that he is.
Thanks again,
Another Texan
Anon 3:14,
I am well aware of the out of context use of this verse by New Agers as justification. This is actually one of many such verses used out of context to justify the beliefs to a Christian audience, but that is a different conversation all together.
Texan,
Glad it was helpful. Out of curiosity, what brand of dominionism are we talking about? There are several flavor variations, but typically fall into one of two brands. Though New Age influence runs rampant through all of them.
Another Texan,
A lot of times, scripture verses are taken out of context. "We are partakers in the divine nature", "ye are gods."
The New Age uses these verses to tell us how we are in charge of our divinity etc. But, what these verses imply is what St.Anastasius said "The son of God became man, so the sons of men, might become gods."
the son of God, is the route we need to take, not our own.
The New Age preaches all this but without the need for the incarnation of God.
It denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
Savvy
OIL GURU MATTHEW SIMMONS DIES IN MAINE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/2010080
9/us_nm/us_simmons_2
Another Texan 9:28 A.M.
Teilhard de Chardin was definitely a major New Age influence.
What Pierre Teilhard de Chardin espoused was a pseudo-mystical/gnostic "evolutionary pantheism" which is not in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church - or with that of most Biblical Protestant Christians for that matter.
For Teilhard, the ongoing spiritual evolution of our species is moving toward an Omega Point as the end-goal or divine destiny of human evolution on this planet. His theism maintains that God-Omega is one, personal, actual and transcendent. In the last analysis, God-Omega and the human Omega Point will become united in a mystical synthesis of spiritual unity....
http://www.theharbinger.org/
articles/rel_sci/birx.html
...On 12 August 1950, Pope Pius XII issued the Encyclical Letter Humani generis in which he gave priority to a Thomistic interpretation of Divine Revelation as contained in the Holy Scriptures over the growing empirical evidence of the special sciences concerning earth history and life forms upon it. In this document, he warned that opinions on the theory of evolution may be erroneous, i.e., fictitious or conjectural. Briefly, for him, evolution was held to be merely a questionable hypothesis and possibly even sterile speculation or only false science. Obviously, this Papal warning from the Vatican was (at least in part) a direct result of Teilhard's unsuccessful request for the publication of his slightly revised version of The Phenomenon of Man in 1948. ...
http://www.theharbinger.org/
articles/rel_sci/birx.html
1962, a Monitum decree issued by the Holy Office on Teilhard's works went as far as to warn bishops and heads of seminaries of the doctrinal errors said to be inherent in Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's interpretation of humankind within nature.
Matt Simmons is dead. Drowned in 2 feet of water. very weird. I wonder if BP had him killed.
Savvy,
Good points but i would add that not all deny that Jesus came in the flesh. Some admit it but divorce Him from the title of Christ. I know you are aware of this, but was a point missing from your statement.
Another Texan, 9:28 AM,
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a major New Age influence, and, as others have rightly pointed out, Chardin was hardly a traditional Catholic priest.
He embraced a pseudo-mystical/gnostic view of reality called "evolutionary pantheism" which is not only incompatible with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic teaching, but also Bible Protestant teachings as well insofar as his so-called "Omega Point" theory implies that man is somehow "evolving into God."
In fact, he was censured by the Vatican on more than one occasion
In 1925, Teilhard was ordered by the Jesuit Superior General Vladimir Ledochowski to leave his teaching position in France and to sign a statement withdrawing his controversial statements regarding the doctrine of original sin. Rather than leave the Jesuit order, Teilhard signed the statement and left for China.
This was the first of a series of condemnations by certain ecclesiastical officials that would continue until long after Teilhard's death. The climax of these condemnations was a 1962 monitum (reprimand) of the Holy Office denouncing his works. From the monitum:
"The above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine... For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers".[4]
Teilhard's writings, though, continued to circulate — not publicly, as he and the Jesuits observed their commitments to obedience, but in mimeographs that were circulated only privately, within the Jesuits, among theologians and scholars for discussion, debate and criticism.
As time passed, it seemed that the works of Teilhard were gradually becoming viewed more favourably within the Church. For example, on June 10, 1981, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli wrote on the front page of the Vatican newspaper, l'Osservatore Romano:
"What our contemporaries will undoubtedly remember, beyond the difficulties of conception and deficiencies of expression in this audacious attempt to reach a synthesis, is the testimomy of the coherent life of a man possessed by Christ in the depths of his soul. He was concerned with honoring both faith and reason, and anticipated the response to John Paul II's appeal: 'Be not afraid, open, open wide to Christ the doors of the immense domains of culture, civilization, and progress.
However, shortly thereafter the Holy See clarified that recent statements by members of the Church, in particular those made on the hundredth anniversary of Teilhard's birth, were not to be interpreted as a revision of previous stands taken by the Church officials. Thus the 1962 statement remains official Church policy to this day....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#
Controversy_with_Church_officials
So as you can see, those Catholics who promote the teachings of Pierre Teiilhard de Chardin are doing so on their own and in defiance of the Roman Catholic Church.
By the way, that quote ("You are not a human being having a spiritual experience, you are a spiritual being having a human experience") attributed to Chardin erroneously implies the gnostic belief in the preexistence of souls. Human beings by their very nature are composite creatures of soul and body. The traditional Christian belief is that the human soul and body are joined together from the moment of conception and only temporarily separated at the moment of death - but will be rejoined forever at the Resurrection when the Last Judgement will take place.
Chardin's statement can also be interpreted by some to imply reincarnation - which is also incompatible with both Catholic and Protestant Christianity.
I'm going to do the program tonight -- thanks to all for their patience with me throughout this move. Kelleigh Nelson called me last night on my cell phone -- we talked for upwards of an hour
Constance
Chardin had extremely close connections with the New Age / Theosophical networks.
Constance
We used to smoke out who were the straight Catholics vs. the New Age Catholics by walking into bookstores and saying "do you have any books by SAINT MATTHEW FOX or SAINT PIERRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN"?
If they would seriously go look for same, we would know we either had somebody serious uninformed or a convert to New Age causes. If they would cough and laugh and go, "saint?" "they're hardly saints!" we would know we had met a kindred spirit!
Constance
All,
I want to take a second to recommend a documentary I recently completed watching. It shows the convergence of New Age and Transhuman beliefs and how they are shaping the world we live in. It is 3 parts and in honesty is pretty long at almost 3 hours. For those interested in some technical and very heavy subject matter, I highly recommend watching.
http://tinyurl.com/yksk2ev
Note: This also fits with the recent discussions of Chardin, as his ideals are espoused within the film. There are also interviews with the Dalai Llama, Terrence Mckenna, and many many others.
FYI The August 3 entry of Herescope expounded on the NA interpretation of Jesus' saying, you are gods, and also (of course) gave a better explanation (which slightly puzzled me, but not to the point where I thought Jesus was an NA guru).
House gives needy states $26 billion for Medicaid, teachers
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Cash-strapped states are one signature away from getting $26 billion in federal funds to shore up their budgets.
The House voted 247-161 Tuesday, with support from the Democrats and overwhelming rejection from the Republicans, to send $16.1 billion in additional Medicaid money and $10 billion to prevent layoffs of teachers and first responders. In an unusual move, representatives returned from their August recess to approve the measure.
President Obama, who urged lawmakers to pass the bill, is expected to sign it later Tuesday.
Speaking from the Rose Garden earlier in the day, the president said the bill will "save hundreds of thousands of additional jobs in the coming year." He added that it will not add to the nation's deficit because it "is fully paid for, in part by closing tax loopholes that encourage corporations to ship American jobs overseas."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca., flanked by several teachers and PTA members during a press conference following the vote, called the measure "good news for children," as it saves over 300,000 jobs that are provide education and safer communities.
more at link
http://tinyurl.com/2f4qmh4
I hate to say this, but welcome to the bailout of the States. How much opposition can one expect from the States if they are reliant on the Feds to meet their needs? This will only get worse as budget deadlines across the nation begin to approach. Remember over 40 States are in the hole, with little chance of meeting their budgets over the coming two years.
Thank you again to JD, Susanna, Constance, Savvy and YNST, for info on Chardin.
JD,
I have been praying for discernment in knowing whether my pastor has been influenced by New Age or dominionist thinking. He definately incorporates positive thinking a la Zig Ziglar into his teaching, prosperity gospel, and a big emphasis is placed on leadership. We are to believe that God's way is better than our own and we are to lead ourselves,and become servant leaders (which will propel us to new levels of leadership and influence).
He is in a series right now on Image - how we are created in the image of God and how to be like God in an unlike God world. He is teaching that there are 3 Sprit Realms the spirit of Man , the spirit of the World, and the Sprit of God. I just found it interesting that he incorporated the Chardin quote into the sermon and spoke on the Spirit of God as giving Freedom, Blessing and DOMINION.
from Genesis 1:28. He described that we need to take dominion over all aspects of our lives (relationships, jobs, etc.).
On the face of it alot of what he teaches seems to be very inspiring and life changing but I have been somewhat uneasy because of some things that are taught seem to be Word of Faith influenced.
Another thing he said during the last service that set off an alarm was that God continues to reveal things to us through science and technology and - "for everything in the natural there is a supernatural correlation".
Sorry for the long post...
Thanks again
Another Texan
Constance, Dorothy, Susanna, David, Savvy, Hopper, Terri
Check your respective emails for "Allie at one month".
Texan,
You were definitely right to be leery. It sounds more like what is currently coming from the NAR camp to me than it does the Coe camp. Have you broached the subject with any leadership, or are you still pulling things together (which it sounds like you may be)?
Today's Herescope on the "Great Transfer of Wealth" bandied about by the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation including C. Peter Wagner, et al) includes quotes from Constance's book A Planned Deception. Specifically, the quote is from the words of Ernest Ramsey who referred to the Manifest Sons of God teaching of neo-pentecostalsim as New Age:
http://tinyurl.com/2um74j6
Another Texan,
it's not untrue that God continues to reveal things to us through the created world, I would have to agree with quantum theory on the subject that there is a field of non-material existence, however a lot of quantum theory is being hijacked by the New Age.
The issue of concern is how this effects the way science sees ethics. A Natural Law is that which is just, a positive law is a social construct designed for any given society.
Positive laws are not bad in themselves, but they often result in something is good or bad because it's legal or enforced by society through law.
The desire to be like God, without God often comes attached with moral relativism, where good and bad are relative to what one subjectively believes.
The Natural law is often confused with the law that governs the physical sciences, or the laws of nature.
When these discussions come up, I would make a point that the laws of nature cannot be applied to human beings, because atoms and animals do not violate their laws, only human beings violate the laws set up to govern them. Implying the existence of free will in human beings.
Authentic atheists deny the existence of free will, a bit like how the New Age sees everyone as part of some big evolutionary scheme where we are just moving along, the laws of nature.
Savvy
J.D.
Thanks for the correction about not all New Agers denying the physical body of Christ. It points once again to dualism of body/soul.
This results in either materialism or spiritualism, which converge with Evolutionary determinism. If you can get people to believe they are just another creature on earth, moving with the laws of nature, you can get them to do anything, because they are not likely to think.
Savvy
Savvy
JD Thanks agin for your response. I have tried to broach the leadership about some issues that have concerned me about the church but received no reply and had my email address put on the blocked list.
There does not seem to be alot of tolerance of dissent. The attitude is that if you express concerns you are complaining and not submitting to authority, and that you are being negative.
My husband is reluctant to leave the church as he feels it is unstable for our children for us to be switching churches.
Savvy, While I agree that God does reveal himself in his creation some of what is human knowledge is just that - the knowledge of man which is vanity if we try to equate it with the wisdom of God. What strikes me in the teaching at my church is that it seems like all of the recent advances in technology/ science are taken to mean that we have new revelation and that we can elevate our thinking and lives and truly reach the world for Christ (with the implication that our ancestors didn't truly know how to live the kingdom life).
I would like to know if there is a biblical reference to " Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation".
Another Texan
Another Texan,
Just a question.....if your rule of faith is the Bible only, then what right does anyone in your church have to accuse you of not "submitting to authority" if you question his teachings? I thought that the Bible was the only authority Protestant Christians acknowledged.
And please believe me, I am not saying this to get into an argument with you over whether or not the Bible only is the Christian rule of faith.
LOL Actually, my intention is to defend you by arguing that if the Bible only (Sola Scriptura) is your rule of faith, then why should you be put on a guilt trip for not submitting to an "authority" other than the Bible?
I think you are right to be very wary of anyone who does not allow you to question his/her religious "pronunciamentos." They are usually the kind of persons who tend to merely use religion to control people.
As for your comment:
I would like to know if there is a biblical reference to " Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation".
The closest biblical reference that I know of is that God is seen "in the things that are made." Romans 1:20
But that can never be taken to mean that "the things that are made" are - or ever will be - equal to or greater than their Maker.
Another Texan,
I do agree that human knowledge is not on par with God's knowledge.
On the other hand, I do see God's handiwork in creation. God did create the world and it is good.
With regards to a new revelation, there are no new revelations. Jesus was the final one. We can come to a greater understanding of what has been revealed over time, depending on what God wants us to understand , but can't create something that's entirely new. There's no new Gospel. There can be new ways of preaching the same Gospel to a new generation.
Savvy
Another Texan:
You wrote:
I have tried to broach the leadership about some issues that have concerned me about the church but received no reply and had my email address put on the blocked list.
This is a serious red flag to me. No one is above reproach:
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. [2 Timothy 3:16-17]
All leaders are called to be servant leaders and as such should be open to correction. The Holy Spirit can work through anyone; and, how would they know if the Holy Spirit is not perhaps working through you without hearing you out? To dismiss your email outright and put you on the blocked list is extremely disrespectful and inexcusable in my opinion.
There does not seem to be alot of tolerance of dissent. The attitude is that if you express concerns you are complaining and not submitting to authority, and that you are being negative.
It sounds to me like your church has been infected with the teachings of WoF/NAR/Prophetic/Latter Rain/etc. Question: does leadership teach that each person must have a "covering?" Have you ever heard "Touch not mine anointed" in reference to raising questions about leadership?
I would like to know if there is a biblical reference to " Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation".
I can think of no Biblical reference for this; but, I've heard those in the WoF use it. Yet another false dichotomy. However, it does sound like the misuse of "on earth as it is in heaven" which Eugene Peterson in The Message translation perverts it to the occult phrase "as above, so below" and I believe this is the real root of the phrase:
http://tinyurl.com/3r3kp2
It may be painful to leave; but, if the church has been infected with false teachers, it may be best to do so. And, better now than later.
Yet another Texan :-)
Susanna,
Just a question.....if your rule of faith is the Bible only, then what right does anyone in your church have to accuse you of not "submitting to authority" if you question his teachings? I thought that the Bible was the only authority Protestant Christians acknowledged.
The Book of 1st Timothy does discuss the role of leaders (deacons and elders) and 1st Corinthians 5 discusses church discipline; so, yes, Protestants should submit to leadership. However, those in charge should not be autocratic; and, they should practice servant leadership.
From my perspective, I do want to say that I do not like labels to begin with; and, I don't consider myself a "protestant" as I've never belonged to a Protestant denomination. All the churches I've been involved in have been unaffiliated - at least specifically -- with any protestant denomination.
I can say that all the denominations I've read about have some parts of their beliefs that I just do not accept Biblically.
One local non-denominational (actually "inter-denominational") requires each "member" to sign a 'covenant.' I will never 'join' this church as I believe Jesus meant what He said when He said to "let your yes be yes and your no be no" and not to swear to anyone or anything.
Unfortunately, many labels get redefined by the secular world and false teachers making it difficult to know just what someone is saying without really knowing the person. For example, a Bible-believing Christian when speaking with another individual who claims to be a "son of God" could be a New Ager instead of an assumed Christian.
Even the term "Christian" requires some scrutiny as, for example, many Americans self-identify as Christians because of culture -- they're not Buddhists, Muslims, etc. -- so they claim the tag of "Christian" by default.
Perhaps I'm nitpicking, though...
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is the foundational principle of gnosticism, and/or theosophy, take your pick.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below.
Most of the accepted translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
In Theosophy, the concept is:
"Heaven above, heaven below;
stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below;
understand this and be blessed."
[From Kircher, Prodrom. Copt., pp 193 and 275. The Theosophical Review, Vol 34, by G. R. S. Mead]
H.P. Blavatsky explained the concept thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. Concretion follows the lines of abstraction; corresponding to the highest must be the lowest; the material to the spiritual." (SDi177)
Indeed, Blavatsky used the phrase "as above, so below on so many occasions, the phrase can be used to define "theosophy" itself.
Here are some additional excerpts from Blavatsky's writings:
“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)
"Such are the questions often put to us, and they have to be considered from every aspect. To the first of the two queries the answer is: — We believe it because the first law in nature is uniformity in diversity, and the second — analogy. “As above, so below.”" (SDii699)
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"How analogous this theory is to the law of planetary motion, which causes the individual orbs to rotate on their axes; the several systems to move around their respective suns; and the whole stellar host to follow a common path around a common centre! Life and death, light and darkness, day and night on the planet, as it turns about its axis and traverses the zodiacal circle representing the lesser and the greater cycles.* Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
Blavatsky also took time to explain the three spiritual spheres. Sounds like your pastor is a devotee. I'm glad you smell a rat, or maybe sulfur.
omots
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is the foundational principle of gnosticism, and/or theosophy, take your pick.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below.
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
In Theosophy, the concept is:
"Heaven above, heaven below;
stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below;
understand this and be blessed."
[The Theosophical Review, Vol 34, by G. R. S. Mead]
H.P. Blavatsky explained the concept thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
Indeed, Blavatsky placed such importance on the concept of "as above, so below", it can be said to define theosophy itself.
Here are some additional excerpts from Blavatsky's writings:
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
"Such are the questions often put to us, and they have to be considered from every aspect. To the first of the two queries the answer is: — We believe it because the first law in nature is uniformity in diversity, and the second — analogy. “As above, so below.” (SDii699)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"How analogous this theory is to the law of planetary motion, which causes the individual orbs to rotate on their axes; the several systems to move around their respective suns; and the whole stellar host to follow a common path around a common centre! Life and death, light and darkness, day and night on the planet, as it turns about its axis and traverses the zodiacal circle representing the lesser and the greater cycles.* Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
In the Hermetic literature, (foundational to theosophy/gnosticism) an ancient book called the Emerald Tablet boldly proclaims this same concept in the opening lines:
"True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above"
Blavatsky's theosophic explanation of the three spiritual spheres (or realms) is also based on the Hermetic literature.
I'm glad you smell a rat, or maybe it's sulfur.
Praise God.
omots
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is the foundational principle of gnosticism, and/or theosophy, take your pick.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below."
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
In Theosophy, the concept is:
"Heaven above, heaven below;
stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below;
understand this and be blessed."
[The Theosophical Review, Vol 34, by G. R. S. Mead]
H.P. Blavatsky explained the concept thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
Indeed, Blavatsky placed such importance on the concept of "as above, so below", it can be said to define theosophy itself.
Here are some additional excerpts from Blavatsky's writings:
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
"... the first law in nature is uniformity in diversity, and the second — analogy. “As above, so below.” (SDii699)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"Life and death, light and darkness, day and night on the planet, as it turns about its axis and traverses the zodiacal circle representing the lesser and the greater cycles.* Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
In the Hermetic literature, (foundational to theosophy/gnosticism), the Emerald Tablet boldly proclaims this same concept in the opening lines:
"True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above"
You might want to note that Blavatsky's theosophic explanation of the three spiritual spheres (or realms) is also based on the Hermetic literature.
I'm glad you smell a rat, or maybe it's sulfur.
omots
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is the foundational principle of gnosticism, and/or theosophy, take your pick.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his wreckage of Matthew 6:10 (which we commonly know as "the Lord's prayer"):
"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below."
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
In Theosophy, the concept is:
"Heaven above, heaven below;
stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below;
understand this and be blessed."
[The Theosophical Review, Vol 34, by G. R. S. Mead]
H.P. Blavatsky explained the concept thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
Indeed, Blavatsky used the concept of "as above, so below" to define theosophy itself.
Here are some additional excerpts from Blavatsky's writings:
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
"... the first law in nature is uniformity in diversity, and the second — analogy. “As above, so below.” (SDii699)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"Life and death, light and darkness, day and night on the planet, as it turns about its axis and traverses the zodiacal circle representing the lesser and the greater cycles.* Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
The Hermetic literature is foundational to theosophy/gnosticism. The opening lines of the "Emerald Tablet" boldly proclaim this same concept:
"True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above"
Blavatsky's theosophic explanation of the three spiritual spheres (or realms) is also based on the Hermetic literature.
I'm glad you smell a rat, or maybe it's sulfur.
omots
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is the foundational principle of gnosticism, and/or theosophy, take your pick.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below."
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
In Theosophy, the concept is:
"Heaven above, heaven below;
stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below;
understand this and be blessed."
[The Theosophical Review, Vol 34, by G. R. S. Mead]
H.P. Blavatsky explained the concept thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
Indeed, Blavatsky placed such importance on "as above, so below", it can be said to define theosophy itself.
Here are some additional excerpts from Blavatsky's writings:
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
"... the first law in nature is uniformity in diversity, and the second — analogy. “As above, so below.” (SDii699)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"Life and death, light and darkness, day and night on the planet, as it turns about its axis and traverses the zodiacal circle representing the lesser and the greater cycles.* Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
The Hermetic literature is foundational to theosophy/gnosticism. The Emerald Tablet boldly proclaims this same concept in the opening lines:
"True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above."
I'm glad you smell a rat, or maybe sulfur.
omots
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is the foundational principle of gnosticism, and/or theosophy, take your pick.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below."
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
In Theosophy, the concept is:
"Heaven above, heaven below;
stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below;
understand this and be blessed."
[The Theosophical Review, Vol 34, by G. R. S. Mead]
H.P. Blavatsky used the concept to define theosophy:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
Here are some additional excerpts from Blavatsky's writings:
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
"... the first law in nature is uniformity in diversity, and the second — analogy. “As above, so below.” (SDii699)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"Life and death, light and darkness, day and night on the planet, as it turns about its axis and traverses the zodiacal circle representing the lesser and the greater cycles.* Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
Foundational to theosophy/gnosticism, this same concept is found in the Hermetic literature:
"True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above."
[Corpus Hermeticum- Emerald Tablet- opening line.]
omots
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is the foundational principle of gnosticism and/or theosophy.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below."
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
In Theosophy, the concept is:
"Heaven above, heaven below;
stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below;
understand this and be blessed."
[The Theosophical Review, Vol 34, G. R. S. Mead]
H.P. Blavatsky explained the concept thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
"... the first law in nature is uniformity in diversity, and the second — analogy. “As above, so below.” (SDii699)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
The Hermetic literature also contians the same concept: "True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above." [Corpus Hermeticum -Emerald Tablet- opening line.]
I'm glad you smell a rat, or maybe sulfur.
omots
Craig,
If you read my post addressed to "Another Texan" you would have seen that my intention was not to debate the merits of the Protestant rule of faith, but to defend "Another Texan" according to her own rule against a church leader who may be teaching New Age error disguised as Christianity.
Ergo, it wasn't your particular beliefs I was addressing, but the difficult situation being experienced by Another Texan at her church.
While only "Another Texan" can tell us which Rule of Faith she embraces, one thing is nevertheless certain. Either the "Bible only" is the Christian rule of faith or it is not.
If the "Bible only" is the Rule of faith, then by that very rule a Christian would not be required to submit to any authority outside the Bible.
Because according to the Private interpretation rule, there is no reason why "Another Texan" should believe that her church leader's "Holy Spirit guided" interpretation of Holy Writ is necessarily any more correct than hers.
In fact, it sounds to me like "Another Texan" could teach her "Church leader" a thing or two about authentic Christianity.
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is a the foundational principle of gnosticism and/or theosophy.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below."
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
In Theosophy, the concept is:
"Heaven above, heaven below;
stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below;
understand this and be blessed."
[The Theosophical Review, Vol 34, G. R. S. Mead]
H.P. Blavatsky explained the concept thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
"... the first law in nature is uniformity in diversity, and the second — analogy. “As above, so below.” (SDii699)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
Note: Blavatsky referenced the Hermetic literature: "True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above." [Corpus Hermeticum -Emerald Tablet- opening line.]
I'm glad you smell a rat, or maybe sulfur.
omots
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation"....
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below."
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
H.P. Blavatsky explained the theosophical concept thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
"... the first law in nature is uniformity in diversity, and the second — analogy. “As above, so below.” (SDii699)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
Blavatsky referenced the Hermetic literature: "True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above." [Corpus Hermeticum -Emerald Tablet- opening line.]
I'm glad you smell a rat, or maybe sulfur.
omots
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is the foundational principle of gnosticism and/or theosophy.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below."
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, say like, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
In Theosophy, the concept is:
"Heaven above, heaven below;
stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below;
understand this and be blessed."
[The Theosophical Review, Vol 34, G. R. S. Mead]
H.P. Blavatsky explained it thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
The Hermetic literature also contians the same concept: "True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above." [Corpus Hermeticum -Emerald Tablet- opening line.]
I'm glad you smell a rat, or maybe sulfur.
omots
Howdy Another Texan,
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is s foundational principle of gnosticism and/or theosophy.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below."
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
In Theosophy, the concept is:
"Heaven above, heaven below;
stars above, stars below;
all that is above, thus also below;
understand this and be blessed."
[The Theosophical Review, Vol 34, G. R. S. Mead]
H.P. Blavatsky explained the concept thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
"True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above." [Corpus Hermeticum -Emerald Tablet- opening line.]
I'm glad you smell a rat, or maybe sulfur.
omots
"Everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation" is the foundational principle of gnosticism and/or theosophy.
Eugene Peterson's Message Bible (aka "the mess") injects this concept in his obliteration of Matthew 6:10 (commonly known as "the Lord's prayer"):
"Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below."
Most accepted bible translations read something more familiar, like say, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
H.P. Blavatsky explained the concept thus:
"Everything in the Universe follows analogy. “As above, so below;” Man is the microcosm of the Universe. That which takes place on the spiritual plane repeats itself on the Cosmic plane. (SDi177)"
"“As above, so below”; harmony is the great law of nature. (IUi330)"
"... the first law in nature is uniformity in diversity, and the second — analogy. “As above, so below.” (SDii699)"
“As above so below”; this apparent dualism is quite in keeping with all esoteric systems. —“Daemon est Deus inversus.” (BCW Vol 13)
"Always argue on analogy and apply the old occult axiom “as above so below.”" (Transactions of Blavatsky Lodge)
"As above so below. Sidereal phenomena, and the behaviour of the celestial bodies in the heavens, were taken as a model, and the plan was carried out below, on earth. Thus, space, in its abstract sense, was called “the realm of divine knowledge,” and by the Chaldees or Initiates Ab Soo, the habitat (or Father, i.e., the source) of knowledge, because it is in space that dwell the intelligent Powers which invisibly rule the Universe.”" (SDii502)
"Remember the Hermetic axiom: — “As above, so below; as in heaven, so on earth.”" (IUi294)
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/as_above_so_below_part1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/39gwamu
"True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above." [Corpus Hermeticum -Emerald Tablet- opening line.]
omots
Criag,
You said
"From my perspective, I do want to say that I do not like labels to begin with; and, I don't consider myself a "protestant" as I've never belonged to a Protestant denomination. All the churches I've been involved in have been unaffiliated - at least specifically -- with any protestant denomination."
It's true that different denominations differ from each other, however the distinct feature that separates the 30,000+ Protestant and other unaffiliated denominations from the Catholic or Orthodox Churches is "Sola Scriptura".
Savvy
Where does the Communitarian Network stand on religion? (Update Oct 3, 2005)
"Pope John Paul's great vision of communitarianism and a New Global Order has yet to receive the recognition it deserves in furthering the understanding that humanity is built on religious values, without which transformations in totalitarian regimes would have been impossible. The essence of communitarianism, as put forth by the Vatican, consists of seeking middle ground between Marxist collectivism and rigid individualism and capitalism.
"Phillips traces the history of communitarianism through Aristotelian and Judeo-Christian writings, clarifying the proper function of the community in helping individuals help themselves by mobilizing church resources and countering anti-religious movements such as Nazism and communism. Communitarianism presents an encouraging universal notion of freedom, transcending the one-sided stances of Marxism and libertarian capitalism and promoting the vision of a unified human destiny."
"Communitarianism, the Vatican, and the New Global Order" by Robert L. Phillips, Carnegie Council.org.
Here's an interesting side to the Communitarian Network we at the ACL haven't spent much time looking into. The Relationship of Religion to Moral Education in the Public Schools(1) Prepared by Warren A. Nord and Charles C. Haynes.
It appears members of the Communitarian Network have come out in force against a group of Christians called The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools who designed a study course that actually uses the Bible as the textbook. Public School Bible Course Under Attack By Josh Montez, August 3, 2005. The Communitarian "religious-left" opponents don't disagree with the "religious-right" that the Bible can be legally studied in public schools (as long as it's not used to "indoctrinate"), the progressive communitarians just think that Bible students should study the Bible without using a Bible to study it. They also think they should be the ones to control the curriculum.
What interest does the Communitarian Network have in teaching their own version of a Bible Curriculum in American schools? What is the Texas Freedom Network, "a mainstream voice to counter the religious right"? Why does a keyword search for the term communitarian show nothing about it on their website? Their "about" page explains: "Founded in 1995, the Texas Freedom Network is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization of more than 23,000 religious and community leaders. Based in Austin, the Texas Freedom Network acts as the state's watchdog, monitoring far-right issues, organizations, money and leaders." Communitarianism is not nonpartisan (it's the Third Way) and as we've proven, it's definitely not "grassroots." So if they're not communitarians, why is the Communitarian Network featuring their research?
"Twisting Truth through Group Consensus: Using the Bible to promote interfaith dialogue and common ground" explores the connections between Charles Haynes and the United Nations and the tricky way the communitarians are enlisting Christian supporters. We'll be getting back to this whole religious aspect very shortly... it deserves a lot more attention. A lot of the links she used are gone but she provides some very easy to understand charts that compare the new global religion to the Bible." (Berit Kjos, 2001)
Where does the Communitarian Network stand on religion? (Update Oct 3, 2005)
"Pope John Paul's great vision of communitarianism and a New Global Order has yet to receive the recognition it deserves in furthering the understanding that humanity is built on religious values, without which transformations in totalitarian regimes would have been impossible. The essence of communitarianism, as put forth by the Vatican, consists of seeking middle ground between Marxist collectivism and rigid individualism and capitalism.
"Phillips traces the history of communitarianism through Aristotelian and Judeo-Christian writings, clarifying the proper function of the community in helping individuals help themselves by mobilizing church resources and countering anti-religious movements such as Nazism and communism. Communitarianism presents an encouraging universal notion of freedom, transcending the one-sided stances of Marxism and libertarian capitalism and promoting the vision of a unified human destiny."
"Communitarianism, the Vatican, and the New Global Order" by Robert L. Phillips, Carnegie Council.org.
Here's an interesting side to the Communitarian Network we at the ACL haven't spent much time looking into. The Relationship of Religion to Moral Education in the Public Schools(1) Prepared by Warren A. Nord and Charles C. Haynes.
It appears members of the Communitarian Network have come out in force against a group of Christians called The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools who designed a study course that actually uses the Bible as the textbook. Public School Bible Course Under Attack By Josh Montez, August 3, 2005. The Communitarian "religious-left" opponents don't disagree with the "religious-right" that the Bible can be legally studied in public schools (as long as it's not used to "indoctrinate"), the progressive communitarians just think that Bible students should study the Bible without using a Bible to study it. They also think they should be the ones to control the curriculum.
What interest does the Communitarian Network have in teaching their own version of a Bible Curriculum in American schools? What is the Texas Freedom Network, "a mainstream voice to counter the religious right"? Why does a keyword search for the term communitarian show nothing about it on their website? Their "about" page explains: "Founded in 1995, the Texas Freedom Network is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization of more than 23,000 religious and community leaders. Based in Austin, the Texas Freedom Network acts as the state's watchdog, monitoring far-right issues, organizations, money and leaders." Communitarianism is not nonpartisan (it's the Third Way) and as we've proven, it's definitely not "grassroots." So if they're not communitarians, why is the Communitarian Network featuring their research?
"Twisting Truth through Group Consensus: Using the Bible to promote interfaith dialogue and common ground" explores the connections between Charles Haynes and the United Nations and the tricky way the communitarians are enlisting Christian supporters. We'll be getting back to this whole religious aspect very shortly... it deserves a lot more attention. A lot of the links she used are gone but she provides some very easy to understand charts that compare the new global religion to the Bible." (Berit Kjos, 2001)
Where does the Communitarian Network stand on religion? (Update Oct 3, 2005)
"Pope John Paul's great vision of communitarianism and a New Global Order has yet to receive the recognition it deserves in furthering the understanding that humanity is built on religious values, without which transformations in totalitarian regimes would have been impossible. The essence of communitarianism, as put forth by the Vatican, consists of seeking middle ground between Marxist collectivism and rigid individualism and capitalism.
I see that my post duplicated. The first time I posted a message came up saying the URL was too large? so I tried again. Same message. So I cut the post down in size and it posted. Then I saw that multiples appeared.
Susanna,
Yes, I did read and understand your post to Another Texan. I largely agree with what you wrote. My intention was to clarify rather than be contentious.
You wrote:
If the "Bible only" is the Rule of faith, then by that very rule a Christian would not be required to submit to any authority outside the Bible.
This was my point of my post to you -- to help clarify "Sola Scriptura." Yes, "Bible only" is the rule of the "Protestant" and by this rule the protestant is to:
1) Obey God's rules first and foremost as laid out in Scripture
2) Submit to earthly leadership -- Church or secular as per the scripture I cited and other scriptural examples (eg Daniel)
3) If earthly leadership is at odds with God's rules, then, go back to 1!
The first few chapters of Daniel are a perfect example of how the Christian is to submit to earthly authority and what to do when this conflicts with God's authority.
Savvy,
You wrote:
It's true that different denominations differ from each other, however the distinct feature that separates the 30,000+ Protestant and other unaffiliated denominations from the Catholic or Orthodox Churches is "Sola Scriptura".
Yes, this is true. However, each "Protestant" denomination ends up in effect going beyond Sola Scriptura with some of their beliefs. This accounts for the denominational differences. Non-denoms are not immune from this same thing.
Texan, Susanna, Savvy, and others in on this conversation,
The bullying methods described by Texan are pretty typical in churches that get into Dominion Theology. Particularly those among the NAR cult. They believe they have a mandate to bring the kingdom to fruition and any dissenting view is to be cut out. They are willing to go to war with anyone who refuses to accept the mandate, so undermining a member who questions logically what they are presenting is small potatoes. Texan seems to be in a tough spot with a spouse unwilling to move.
This is usually not the type of advice I would give, but in the situation is the best I can come up with: MAKE EVERYONE UNCOMFORTABLE. If the church is teaching this and you are not able to leave, rebut the teaching to everyone there. Make sure everyone knows why you are not happy about it, including your spouse. You may become a social pariah, but it will serve a purpose. One these leaders will never be able to properly rebut your objections and under pressure they will slip up. Document everything and show it to every one. They are going to try whatever they can to get you to be quiet, this will probably include some unchristian tactics, turn it back on them by letting everyone know what they are doing.
You will probably get some heat from all ends for this, so it's up to you if you want to pursue such. I just know I couldn't sit there in the midst of it and be quiet. You may only help one person understand the error of the teachings, but you also may find a receptive congregation. There are many resources that refute these teachings Biblically that can be recommended if you choose to go this route.
Men should be the spiritual leaders of the family. I would caution "Another Texan" not to act in haste, but to be patient with her husband.
Granted, when men neglect their responsibility or continue to place their selves and family in danger, the women must step up and take responsibility. But this requires a great deal of sensitivity in order not to harm the relationship.
AT, gently help your husband see the error of what is being taught in your church. Let him come to the point of making the decision to try to change things, or stand up and make a big splash, or leave quietly. You may be surprised at the result.
Now, if, over time, he is unable or unwilling to see the danger of what is going on, then, as if he were standing on a train track oblivious to the oncoming train, you may have to push or pull him off those tracks. But that is the last resort.
Continue studying to show yourself approved, and that you know what you are talking about. Your husband will not be convinced or convicted because of "feelings".
There are two methods of recognizing falsehood. The first is the "Bank Teller" method. By handling authentic currency all day long, a fake is easily spotted. The other is the "Secret Service" method, which entails studying the fakes. Both methods are effective, but the "Bank Teller" method is by far the safer, wiser choice. The danger in spending too much time studying fakes is that it can be discouraging and oppressive.
omots
PS.
Sorry for the duplications above. My first post was rejected as too long, so edited it down and reposted. Doesn't seem to be a perfect system. Have to work with the tools at hand.
omots
Very wise, OMOTS!
I appreciate also, your previous post re: "everything in the natural has a supernatural correlation"
Interesting--your point about the "Bank Teller Method" and the "Secret Service".
I've been memorizing Scripture in a big way for more than a year now (entire books). WOW! Has that ever increased me in the "Bank Teller Method".
Your caution regarding the "Secret Service Method" is also important. We have seen associates of Constance's fall to the enemy who were lured by the enemy in this mode.
Thank you for your insights.
Craig,
If the rule of faith you sincerely live by is what you are comfortable with, and what you honestly believe in, then God bless you!
But if you are submitting to any authority outside the Bible, then your rule is NOT Sola Scriptura - whether you have been led to believe so or not. But then you did say that you do not necessarily consider yourself a "Protestant" in the sense that the term is commonly understood.
I am not trying to be contentious either, so please do not misunderstand me. I am just making the point that you can't have it both ways on the Sola Scriptura issue.
If non-Catholics believe that they are required to submit to an authority apart from the Sacred Scriptures, fine.
But they involve themselves in an abyss of self-contradiction when they accuse Catholics of being "unBiblical" because they obey the teaching Magisterium of the Church which consists of the Pope and the bishops in full loyal communion with the Pope.
Whereas non-Catholic Christians believe that private individuals who read the Bible are protected from erroneously interpreting the Bible by the Holy Spirit, we Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit specially protects the Pope from teaching error when he officially teaches "ex cathedra" (from the chair of Peter) in matters of faith and morals.
Ergo, I have to conclude that whether non-Catholics believe so or not, if they are submitting to an "authority" that is not the Bible, they too have the equivalent of a "pope" - albeit not one who happens to live in Rome at the Vatican.
My Address to "Another Texan" has to do with her suspicion that her church leader is slipping Teilhardian quotes into his preaching.
Her quote at 9:28 A.M. reads:
I go to an evangelical protestant church but my pastor quoted a somewhat controversial Catholic priest -Teilhard du Chardin. "You are not a human being having a spiritual experience, you are a spiritual being having a human experience." From what I've read he was a paleontologist as well as a priest and came up with a theory of how God used evolution in the creation.
Is Chardin thought to have been a new age influence?
In addressing Another Texan, it was not my intention to define her beliefs. Actually, she defined her own when she described herself as an evangelical Protestant.
Again, if you feel that your Christian beliefs require you to submit to an authority outside of the Bible, fine.
But not all non-Catholic Christians - possibly even including Another Texan - necessarily think and believe as you do, and according to the "private interpretation" rule there is no reason to think that their beliefs and/or their interpretation of the Bible are necessarily any more or less correct than yours or anyone else's.
One more thing. Contrary to what many people think, we Catholics are not required to park our brains at the door before we enter the Church. And the Pope does not have the authority to teach anything that contradicts the Bible.
I agree with JD's advice.
If a priest or bishop - or even the Pope - quoted Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to me, you can bet your boots I would start hollering.
St. Catherine of Siena pretty much "went nose to nose" with the pope in her time. She is most notably remembered for her extremely vocal and public critiques of then Pope Gregory XI–one of the Bishops of Rome who lived in exile in Avignon, France during the Great Western Schism of the fourteenth century.
St. Catherine of Siena is acknowledged by Catholics as a "Doctor of the Church."
"Another Texan" is to be commended for having the courage to stand up to a church leader who sounds like he needs to be stood up to.
OMOTS, Texan,
My point is not to go outside of your relationship with your husband. I don't want that to be misunderstood. In fact my first suggestion would have been for you both to shake the dust off and move on, but it was indicated this was not a option. I simply feel that to do nothing is a greater disrespect to your spouse, than to sit idly. Of course I would try everything in my power to work through things as one, even if it required completely educating them on the subject. Beyond this, to sit on your hands is disrespectful to the union of marriage, and is poisonous to your children.
P.S. Craig
Re:Even the term "Christian" requires some scrutiny as, for example, many Americans self-identify as Christians because of culture -- they're not Buddhists, Muslims, etc. -- so they claim the tag of "Christian" by default.
Perhaps I'm nitpicking, though...
I don't think you are "nitpicking."
Where I come from, the kind of religious "scrutinizing" you referred to is called "discernment." :-)
Susanna,
The way I understand it, is that the Pope is only the guardian of the faith, already handed down by the apostles. The early church fathers who compiled the Bible, had the same teachings that Catholics today do. I do understand that there can be a development of the same teachings, but not a new invention.
Savvy
Savvy,
That is correct.
Susanna
Anon at 4:01 p.m.
The whole purpose of democracy is to establish laws whose end is the common good of individuals and of society.
Rugged individualism places individual rights above the common good, an example would be gay marriage, adoptions, that deny children the right to a mother and a father, and to a stable committed relationship, the same could be argued of divorce and live-in-laws.
Collectivism on the other hand, is based on stealing from one person to give to another, or crushing individual rights as a whole.
The common good is a just distribution where each individual can share in a good, while letting others do the same. An example would be a family at breakfast. Eating with the family is a common good, but at the same time each individual consumes the amount what is good for them at breakfast.
So I would have to agree with Pope John Paul 2's views on the subject.
savvy
JD and others,
I follow Carl Teichrib's newsletter, Forcing Change. He has a new newsletter out that is the start of a series on "Technocracy".
Connections to RFID. Check it out!
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/09/9-vatican.htm
http://crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/010/7-technocracy-1.htm
Carl Teichrib has provided a well researched and thoughtful take on the Vatican's position regarding global governance and the rise of the World Political Authority. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews should take note.
Craig, Yes NA, Another Texan, Susanna, Savvy, JD, etc.
Another Texan wrote: ..."all of the recent advances in technology/ science are taken to mean that we have new revelation..."
Exactly! This is where FRACTAL THEORY comes into play. "As above, so below".
omots
Savvy, you wrote:
"The whole purpose of democracy is to establish laws whose end is the common good of individuals and of society."
You couldn't be more wrong!
A Republic is based on the over arching principle of laws, while a democracy is based on the whims of men. The following quotes define the difference:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
~ Benjamin Franklin
"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
~ Alexander Hamilton
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
~ John Adams
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
~ Thomas Jefferson
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
~ James Madison
"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
~ John Quincy Adams
"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
~ John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835
omots
omots.
Good point.
Especially considering the so-called "transhuman" creatures being engineered vis a vis direct interfacing between the human brain and computers.
How do you like this gem of a title?
TRANSHUMAN ART AND AESTHETICS
Simon Levy:
THE FRACTAL BEAUTY OF EMERGENCE: Re-envisioning Intelligent Behavior in Man and Machine”
George Dvorsky: "The Impact of Enhanced Humans on the Future of Art and Expression."
http://www.sentientdevelopments.
com/2004/06/tv04-sneak-preview.html
Rules for parenting set by international community.
An example of democracy at work:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70584
Susana 3:42,
Right, and don't forget, Obama promised to restore SCIENCE to it's proper place.
The whole idea provides the impetus for the creation of "a brotherhood of man", where a cadre of "elites" determine what they deem best for the "common good".
Indeed, we are at the point where "science and religion will be welded into a unified exponent of an overriding spiritual power."
[Henry C. Clausen, Emergence of the Mystical (Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry 1981, p.xi.), as quoted by Carl Teichrib]
I'll choose "rugged individualism" any day.
omots
omots,
Perhaps I got the definition of democracy wrong, but even even the Declaration of Rights in the U.S. constitution were based on natural law that gave rise to natural rights endowed by the creator. The whole purpose of the natural law is to seek the common good. Rugged individualism is exactly what's happening today. In California a judge overturned the ban on same sex marriage that 8 million Californians voted against, placing individual rights above the common good.
In Latin America the courts refused to let people vote on gay marriage/unions because they feared they might vote against them.
So in this case too rugged individualism of a special interest group/ gays/ feminists etc is being placed above the interests of the majority and above the common good of everyone.
And Christians who are the majority are being subject to minority laws. Time to start fighting back.
Savvy
omots,
To add Liberals confuse the common good with the collective good, which are two different things. The common good is based on fairness, the collective good on stealing from some to give to others.
Savvy
DEMOCRACY (as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary):
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
The American Form of Government:
An explanation of the various forms of government and political systems, and why America is not a democracy, but a republic.
http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm
http://tinyurl.com/77zt83
So, The USA is supposedly
a "Democratic Republic",
but is in fact an Oligarchy,
isn't that about right ?
omots, I disagree with you. Christians are not in the majority in America. Not even close.
From the Druge Report (08/13/10)
Pentagon: Next Wikileaks Dump Could Be Worse
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon says it believes the next document dump by WikiLeaks will be even more damaging to national security and the war effort than the organization's initial release of some 76,000 war files.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Thursday that the military believes it has identified the additional 15,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks has vowed to release.
Morrell declined to identify the documents other than to say that their exposure would be ever more damaging than the thousands already published.
Last month, WikiLeaks posted online some 76,000 secret files that described in gritty detail U.S. operations in Afghanistan.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/
20100812/D9HI4QGO0.html
We get information in so many little bits and pieces it is hard to see a total picture of what is going on to get us to One World Government. The following is an excellent piece to give us an overview of Agenda 21. It's a bit long, but worth every minute you spend reading it. This is what you are up against as you fight to keep your freedom. Agenda 21 is a package deal. You can attempt to break one part of it, but know that there will always be organizations to sew up the hole.
http://freemenow.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/artificial-paradise-inc-agenda-21/ or
http://tinyurl.com/25w87hj
Artificial Paradise, Inc. (Agenda 21)
Posted on August 7, 2010 by Savant Noir
Introduction
I have some good news for you. You have a life plan! Your idyllic paradise has been carefully conceived and is awaiting just a couple more laws and regulations to be hammered out before given to you. The bad news is that your life plan is being planned by someone else. Your paradise is not of your conception, nor perhaps even to your liking. It is artificial, imposed by the CEO’s of AP, Inc.
Although many years of planning have gone into constructing this paradise that awaits you, you were never invited to participate in the planning because no one ever told you about it. Chances are you may not have ever heard of Agenda 21; the blueprint for your paradise; so you might be shocked to learn that the 18th meeting of Agenda 21 just took place in NYC between May 3rd-14th of 2010 to discuss the next phase of constructing your Utopia. In attendance were the 179 signatory nations as well as representatives from 2,146 NGOs (non-government organizations) that have been diligently working to facilitate the realization of your paradise over these past 18 years. This is all for you, but you weren’t even invited! Maybe the heads of AP, Inc. just want to see the look of surprise on your face when they present you with your future. I hate to be a spoil-sport and ruin this surprise, but I just can’t keep a secret very well I suppose. According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (one of 58,000 subsidiaries of AP, Inc.):
More at the link.
Dorothy
PS AP Inc. stands for Artificial Paradise, Inc. a method the writer uses to make the article clearer.
There are 2,146 NGO's ?
Iy yi-yi !
That right there was enough to
make me cringe, even without
them all lined up to put lipstick
on the pig that is my man made
utopia
Thanks anyway Dorothy
I guess I'd rather know than not
know.
From the Washington Post (08/13/10)
FDA approves 'ella' - a controversial new form of emergency contraception...
http://tinyurl.com/2gy6l48
Fruit pulp in smoothies linked to rare U.S. Typhoid outbreak
http://tinyurl.com/25rolrg
Glenn Beck had a guest on his show today, Amity Schlae, if I have that last name spelled right. She is a SR Fellow of the Council on Foriegn Relations (CFR) and he endorsed 3 books she has written. Is there something wrong with that picture?
Here's a tiny piece of the interaction and interplay of "Earth Charter" and "Agenda 21":
http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/iowa_environment/iowa_un/Iowa_un.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/33g2woa
Will be MONTHS unpacking! Any local volunteers?
Constance
I recommend the website of Alan Watt at:
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/
He is very articulate and seems to be very insightful
concerning the agenda of the NWO. I think his work is important especially in light of the problem of the magnitude of their agenda in bringing us all into servitude. Reference in this regard Dorothy's comments about the problem of getting ". . . information in so many little bits and pieces. . . ." at her 3:14 post. Alan Watt seems to have as much of " . . . a total picture. . . " as anyone I have come across concerning the NWO and its M.O. Alan Watt can be heard Monday thru Friday on the Republic Broadcasting Network and over the Internet at 8:00 p.m., EDT. Even tho this interview of Alan Watt by Alex Jones is dated October 2008, it provides a good overview of the NWO agenda at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVMKs25aKFo
Finally, I end with Revelation 22:20-21.
Pathfinder Network is a Christian Network dealing with theology, eschatology, current events, prophecy, cults, the occult, spiritual warfare, new age movement, etc. Hope to see you there.
John Rupp,
What I found interesting is what Beck said after he introduced her and mentioned her being on the council. He said something like "and by the way I hate those guys"
The more I watch Beck the more I have to remember that the NAM must control both sides without us knowing that they are.
I still feel that Beck is giving us controlled information.
Agie 95 at 9:13 AM,
Where did you get that?
Though many claim otherwise, I certainly DO NOT believe America is a majority "christian" nation. If I wrote anything like that, (and I don't recall doing so), it was intended as sarcasm, an indictment of what people believe it means to be "christian".
Not only that, if anyone thinks America is, or ever was, a "christian" nation, they are sick in the head.
An interesting article in the WSJ, on the perils of cool Christianity, and how young Christians are rejecting this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355311122648100.html
Savvy
FR ashcroft care to give a link because pathfinder network in a search does not bring up anything like you describe
Susanna, @7:02am the other day:
Sorry it's taken so long to respond as I meant to do so earlier but got caught up in other things.
To be clear -- or as clear as I can be -- I don't consider myself a "Protestant; but, I do adhere to sola Scriptura. I recognize -- and the point I was trying to make -- is that by reading the full counsel of the Bible there are to be church leaders which must be submitted to in a given physical building we call a "church." Otherwise, this would be tantamount to anarchy. HOWEVER, these leaders are to be servant leaders (with other qualifications as outlined in Scripture); and, if they are truly servant leaders, they would have no trouble listening to the concerns of a congregant.
If leadership chooses to do what they do contrary to Scripture as in the case of Another Texan then the individual must then make a choice to stay and continue to fight and/or warn others of the false teaching or to leave instead and go to a different fellowship or perhaps, to fellowship at home if a suitable church cannot be found. (I have read accounts of individuals who were unable to find a church without the influence of false teachers.)
As to my self-described status as a non-Protestant: I don't feel that all non-Catholic Christians are by definition Protestant. Given that the Bible makes it clear that individuals are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, then one is not required to belong to a particular "church" to be truly saved.
You wrote:
...Ergo, I have to conclude that whether non-Catholics believe so or not, if they are submitting to an "authority" that is not the Bible, they too have the equivalent of a "pope" - albeit not one who happens to live in Rome at the Vatican.
To save space I didn't copy all your comments preceding this paragraph here. From the beginning I did not intend to get into a Protestant vs. Catholic discussion. However, I will say there is a difference regarding the views of "church" authority in that Protestants/non-Catholics do not believe in a papacy and the infallibility of the Pope as Catholics do.
One more thing. Contrary to what many people think, we Catholics are not required to park our brains at the door before we enter the Church. And the Pope does not have the authority to teach anything that contradicts the Bible.
I don't believe I had alluding to or outright stated the views of your first sentence above. Perhaps you meant this as a general statement to the general readership. I do understand the Pope has no authority to contradict the Bible. However, my opinion -- and, the opinion of Protestants -- is that the Papacy has contradicted Scripture in some of Doctrine of the Catholic Church. This was the reason for the Protestant Reformation. I fully understand, however, that your position as a Catholic is that the Papacy has not. We'll have to agree to disagree.
"Another Texan" is to be commended for having the courage to stand up to a church leader who sounds like he needs to be stood up to.
I agree 100%!
Dawn,
Beck has just come out in support of same sex marriage, when 8 million people in California voted against it and when a judge overturned it.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081315.html
To assume that it's not going to affect the freedom of church's like it has in Canada, is naive, as a Canadian I can tell you, they lied about gay marriage not affecting anybody else.
Savvy
Anon @3:06 pm,
America is not a Christian nation, but the majority of Americans have Judeo-Christian values, and not hollywood values.
An atheist has come out with a book on how the Liberal Media is attacking the values of most Americans.
http://shop.cbn.com/cbn/item.Losing-Our-Religion-The-Liberal-Medias-Attack-on-Christianit.9781439173169.htm
Savvy
My views regarding same sex marriage:
SORRY, GUYS. IT'S 'ADAM AND EVE.' IT IS NOT ADAM AND STEVE, NOR WAS IT MADAME AND EVE!
Does anybody remember reading any end time novels with themes quite as wild as "same sex marriage"? I don't. Frankly, given 'same sex marriage,' I can't get excited about polygamy any more!
Constance
Constance,
Most of the arguments for same-sex marriage comes from observing the behaviour of animals and atoms. Scientists think that the laws that govern the physical sciences, also apply to human beings, what they don't realize is that the latter is fixed, whereas human behaviour is not fixed. Atoms and animals don't violate their commandments, only human beings do.
Free-will is a big factor in this, one that determinists deny.
This same thinking is being transported into religion.
This is all going to end up as one big evolutionary game, where people whose minds don't adapt to this, will be seen as lesser creatures.
Savvy
I used to think wonder about Jesus' words in Matthew 24:38 about the end times being like the days of Noah, ie. "marrying and giving in marriage". It always struck me as odd because we should be marrying. Though the context does not imply homosexual marriage, it certainly applies to the status quo today.
Savvy 4:54,
You said that, "the majority of Americans have Judeo-Christian values, and not hollywood values."
We don't have television reception so we watch only videos. When I visit in homes of those with TV's (predominately active churched homes) I am amazed by the programing and advertising that is displayed. The marketers would not be promoting "Hollywood values" if it wasn't bringing in the $. When I watch some of the absolutely asinine stuff, I realize that the majority of people must be entertained by it and buying into it. It grieves me to see the number of Christians who do so.
The majority of Americans may give lip service to Judeo-Christian values, but you can't prove it by their entertainment fare.
YesNainSpanishTown,
There are a few Tv shows that I do watch and movies too. I don't they are bad in themselves. I just think that they reflect the culture around us , and I do agree that the majority of Christians either buy into it or complain about it, but few actually do anything to change it.
There's very little critical thinking taught in our schools, that's not based on what's popular.
Savvy
UK DAILY MAIL reports;
Fined £150 million for failing to fly the EU flag: Now British firms are told how to fight back
Business chiefs have issued advice to companies and public bodies on how to escape heavy penalties for failing to display European Union flags after British organisations were fined an astonishing £150 million for not giving the EU enough publicity.
Companies receiving European grants must display its logo on their buildings, posters and websites or face being forced to pay back some of the funding.
... The rules also require building and infrastructure projects to display billboards and plaques praising the EU for providing funds.
Each poster or plaque must set aside '25 per cent of the total area' for EU propaganda. They must also include the words: 'Investing in your future.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303229/Fined-150million-failing-fly-EU-flag-Now-British-firms-told-fight-back.html#ixzz0wdSuLlX6
Tiny url; http://tinyurl.com/27we5ka
~K~
Craig,
Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself by claiming to adhere to Sola Scriptura at the same time you claim that you have to submit to an ecclesial authority in addition to the Scriptures.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not faulting you for humbly submitting to ecclesial authority. You are to be comended for doing so.
But if you say that you are submitting to an ecclesial authority in addition to the Scriptures because the Scriptures tell you to do so, then you have just made my case for me that the Bible does NOT teach Sola Scriptura.
If it did, then the Bible should clearly state that the Bible alone is the Christian Rule of faith, but it does not.
Moreover, if the usual Sola Scriptura proof text - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - does not prove Sola Scriptura, it is because:
1.it does not say that the Bible is sufficient by itself and
2. the Scriptures being referred to are the Old Testament since the Gospels were still being preached orally. The Bible as we know it came from the Church - not the Church from the Bible.
But hey...if you are satisfied with your beliefs, then I think that's great. However, you will never be able to come up with the kind of sound logical arguments that would convince me that they are correct.
And for your information, I did not intend to get into a Protestant vs. Catholic discussion either.
The only reason we are having this discussion at all is because you jumped into a conversation I was having with Another Texan who specifically addressed me by name and asked ME a question......after which I proceded to do my best to defend her according to her own rule of faith, not mine.
Susanna,
You wrote:
But if you say that you are submitting to an ecclesial authority in addition to the Scriptures because the Scriptures tell you to do so, then you have just made my case for me that the Bible does NOT teach Sola Scriptura.
If it did, then the Bible should clearly state that the Bible alone is the Christian Rule of faith, but it does not.
Moreover, if the usual Sola Scriptura proof text - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - does not prove Sola Scriptura, it is because:
1.it does not say that the Bible is sufficient by itself and
2. the Scriptures being referred to are the Old Testament since the Gospels were still being preached orally. The Bible as we know it came from the Church - not the Church from the Bible.
Au contraire. The following is part of my own personal statement of faith taken directly from the Bible including both OT and NT:
The Holy Bible in its original languages is the Holy Spirit-inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God complete unto itself.
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [2 Peter 1:20-21]
5 "Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Proverbs 30:5]
The Bible will never be superseded or supplemented by any other teaching...
6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. [Proverbs 30:6]
...and nothing should be subtracted from it.
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. [Deuteronomy 4:2]
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [Matthew 5:17]
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. [Revelation 22:18-19] (Yes, I understand this particular verse is solely for the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse)
Its full counsel provides the way to live a complete Christian life [2 Timothy 3:16-17].
you wrote:
the Scriptures being referred to [in 2 Tim 3:16-17] are the Old Testament since the Gospels were still being preached orally. The Bible as we know it came from the Church - not the Church from the Bible.
The Apostle Peter's own words circa 65 to 68 AD affirm that Paul's writings were indeed Scripture:
16He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. [2 Peter 3:16]
While I do understand you were responding to a question regarding Teilhard de Chardin, you did follow up with this addressed to Another Texan:
Just a question.....if your rule of faith is the Bible only, then what right does anyone in your church have to accuse you of not "submitting to authority" if you question his teachings? I thought that the Bible was the only authority Protestant Christians acknowledged.
And please believe me, I am not saying this to get into an argument with you over whether or not the Bible only is the Christian rule of faith.
LOL Actually, my intention is to defend you by arguing that if the Bible only (Sola Scriptura) is your rule of faith, then why should you be put on a guilt trip for not submitting to an "authority" other than the Bible?
For this reason I felt it prudent to state the Protestant/non-Catholic position.
Susanna,
You wrote:
...The Bible as we know it came from the Church - not the Church from the Bible.
Not intending to split hairs; but, I wish to make a very important distinction. Taking the Apostle Peter's words again:
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit inspired all of Scripture and the Holy Spirit led the process of compiling of the Bible. Since Peter stated that Paul's writings were indeed Scripture and his own writings were nearly contemporaneous I think it fair to assume that Peter, himself regarding his own letters as Scripture and that those who read/heard this assumed the same.
Since you agree with me that there was an oral tradition in the 1st century, then I think it logical to believe that local congregations were hearing the words of Scripture from the pen of Paul and the other Apostles depending upon locale. Using just one example, the church at Ephesus obviously was the recipient of Paul's letter to the Ephesian church. Also, likely, the Ephesians heard parts of the Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and, perhaps, John) by actual eyewitness testimony and a budding oral tradition regarding Jesus' ministry.
Further, it was apparently practice for some of the Pauline letters to be "circular letters" in that they were to be distributed to other churches. I don't recall at the moment which of the letters were specifically intended for this purpose.
One other important thing regarding sola Scriptura. Jesus Himself is the Incarnate Word [John 1:1-18]; and, the Word of God:
12...is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. [Hebrews 4:12]
And, the Word of God/Jesus will subdue His enemies at the end:
15Out of his [Jesus] mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. [Rev 19:15]
All throughout the Scriptures the supremacy of the Word of God is illustrated especially given that Jesus Himself was the Incarnate Word!
And, throughout the Gospel accounts Jesus lambasted the Pharisees and Saduccees for teaching their own extra-biblical traditions at the expense of Biblical Truths.
Craig,
Sorry to intervene in this conversation, but adding and subtracting from the Bible is something Martin Luther did.
He took out the Deuterocanonical books, from the Bible, which existed in them, before the Reformation. And also added "alone" to faith in the Bible, in Romans 3:28 making justification by faith alone
The Gutenberg Bible of 1455 contained the Deuterocanonical books.
Luther added an extra word to his Bible:
"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith [ALONE] apart from observing the law.
When challenged about this Martin Luther responded:
"If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone'), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom."
(Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)
Savvy
Craig,
You said:
"And, throughout the Gospel accounts Jesus lambasted the Pharisees and Saduccees for teaching their own extra-biblical traditions at the expense of Biblical Truths."
Yet, the Bible tells us
"hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" 2 Thes 2:15.
This refers to oral tradition as well, not just written.
Jesus condemned the traditions of men, not apostolic tradition.
The Word of God became flesh, not paper.
Savvy
Savvy,
No need to apologize for intervening. As for Martin Luther -- I have no horse in that race.
You wrote:
Yet, the Bible tells us
"hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" 2 Thes 2:15.
This refers to oral tradition as well, not just written.
Since the NT was not fully written, Paul was instructing them to listen to the Apostles' spoken words in addition to the actual letters. In 1 Thes 3:1-7 Paul relates how Timothy was in Thessalonica; but, apparently his words were never written/recorded as Scripture. So, I don't disagree with you.
Savvy,
I just a second look at your post regarding Luther. I'm assuming you were just making the point that Luther apparently added to Scripture. I understand that. However, when putting this verse in its full context in the Roman letter Paul IS making the point that it's by faith alone that individuals are saved. Paul expounds on this in chapter 4 and the Book of Hebrews states this in a similar way in chapter 11. And the Book of James makes it clear that works are the outward manifestation of faith; yet, he does not say that works are a requirement of salvation.
Criag,
At the council of Jerusalem, when the NT was not yet fully written, it was the church that was given the final authority to discern things.
(Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3)
This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation.
The canon of the Bible, was not made official for a long time.
In 382 A.D.
Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
In 393 A.D.
the Council of Hippo, which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
In 397 A.D.
The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed.
In AD 787
The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.
In 1442 AD
At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon.
This is 100 years before the Reformation.
In 1536 A.D.
In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.
In 1546 A.D.
At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm
Savvy
Craig,
At the council of Jerusalem, when the NT was not yet fully written, it was the church that was given the final authority to discern things.
(Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3)
This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation.
The canon of the Bible, was not made official for a long time.
In 382 A.D.
Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
In 393 A.D.
the Council of Hippo, which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
In 397 A.D.
The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed.
In AD 787
The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.
In 1442 AD
At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon.
This is 100 years before the Reformation.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm
You are right in saying that works are a manifestation of our faith, but works also complete our faith.
The book of James says:
What good is it, my brothers if you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you. If a brother is naked and lacks daily food. If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill', and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:14-16)
Mat 7:16-20 Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evil doers.' Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock"
2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done.
James 5:20 "you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinners soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins"
Jer. 17:10; 32:19 God will evaluate every man according to his deeds.
Savvy
Craig,
At the council of Jerusalem, when the NT was not yet fully written, it was the church that was given the final authority to discern things.
(Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3)
This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation.
The canon of the Bible, was not made official for a long time.
In 382 A.D.
Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
In 393 A.D.
the Council of Hippo, which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
In 397 A.D.
The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed.
In AD 787
The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.
In 1442 AD
At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon.
This is 100 years before the Reformation.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm
You are right in saying that works are a manifestation of our faith, but works also complete our faith.
The book of James says:
What good is it, my brothers if you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you. If a brother is naked and lacks daily food. If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill', and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:14-16)
Mat 7:16-20 Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evil doers.' Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock"
2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done.
James 5:20 "you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinners soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins"
Jer. 17:10; 32:19 God will evaluate every man according to his deeds.
Savvy
Craig,
At the council of Jerusalem, when the NT was not yet fully written, it was the church that was given the final authority to discern things.
(Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3)
This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation.
The canon of the Bible, was not made official for a long time.
In 382 A.D.
Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
In 393 A.D.
the Council of Hippo, which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
In 397 A.D.
The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed.
In AD 787
The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.
In 1442 AD
At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon.
This is 100 years before the Reformation.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm
You are right in saying that works are a manifestation of our faith, but works also complete our faith.
The book of James says:
What good is it, my brothers if you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you. If a brother is naked and lacks daily food. If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill', and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:14-16)
Mat 7:16-20 Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evil doers.' Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock"
2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done.
James 5:20 "you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinners soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins"
Jer. 17:10; 32:19 God will evaluate every man according to his deeds.
Savvy
Craig,
At the council of Jerusalem, when the NT was not yet fully written, it was the church that was given the final authority to discern things.
(Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3)
This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation.
The canon of the Bible, was not made official for a long time.
In 382 A.D.
Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
In 393 A.D.
the Council of Hippo, which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
In 397 A.D.
The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed.
In AD 787
The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.
In 1442 AD
At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon.
This is 100 years before the Reformation.
http://tiny.cc/03e7y
You are right in saying that works are a manifestation of our faith, but works also complete our faith.
The book of James says:
What good is it, my brothers if you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you. If a brother is naked and lacks daily food. If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill', and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:14-16)
Mat 7:16-20 Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evil doers.' Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock"
2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done.
James 5:20 "you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinners soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins"
Jer. 17:10; 32:19 God will evaluate every man according to his deeds.
Savvy
Craig,
At the council of Jerusalem, when the NT was not yet fully written, it was the church that was given the final authority to discern things.
(Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3)
This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation.
The canon of the Bible, was not made official for a long time.
In 382 A.D.
Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
In 393 A.D.
the Council of Hippo, which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
In 397 A.D.
The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed.
In AD 787
The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.
In 1442 AD
At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon.
This is 100 years before the Reformation.
http://tiny.cc/03e7y
You are right in saying that works are a manifestation of our faith, but works also complete our faith.
The book of James says:
What good is it, my brothers if you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you. If a brother is naked and lacks daily food. If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill', and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:14-16)
Mat 7:16-20 Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evil doers.' Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock"
2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done.
James 5:20 "you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinners soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins"
Jer. 17:10; 32:19 God will evaluate every man according to his deeds.
Savvy
Sorry about the multiple posts. My post was not going through, so I had to refresh the page a couple of times.
Savvy
Savvy,
(Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3)
This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation.
Yes, it was the Apostles themselves -- those who were writing Scripture by the Holy Spirit -- who interpreted practical application.
The canon of the Bible, was not made official for a long time.
Yes, but, it was clear much earlier than that the Gospels, the Pauline letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation were recognized as Scripture.
Craig,
I agree with you that there was indeed an oral tradition but historically the written tradition came later. The Gospel was preached before it was written down.
I also agree with you that the Holy Spirit has inspired all of Scripture. The Holy Spirit taught the Apostles what to say....even to the point of enabling them to preach the Gospels in languages unknown to them.
My rule of faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition.(a.k.a.oral and written Tradition with a capital "T")
No matter how you cut it, the Church is historically older than the Bible.
The problems between Catholics and Protestants come with the issue of who has the authority to interpret the Sacred Scriptures.
I am not denying that the Catholic Church has had some "black popes." It was St. John Chrysostom who said that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.
Nevertheless, Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit has prevented them from officially teaching error.
In other words, our Catholic Christian faith doesn't depend upon the personal sanctity of those who are charged with the mission of preaching and teaching it. It depends upon our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
While I most certainly do respect your Christian beliefs and your Rule of Faith - especially since Scripture is included in my Rule of Faith - I am well aware that we disagree on our ecclesiology.
But hopefully, we agree on our Christology as embodied in the ancient Creeds of Chalcedon and/or Nicea - which state unequivocally that Jesus Christ is truly God and Truly Man.
Someone with the "spirit of the antichrist" is someone who "severs Christ" and denies either Christ's humanity or divinity. In fact, that is the test of the antichrist.
In terms of Catholic and Protestant arguments about who "added to" and/or "subtracted from" the Bible, the squabbling is overly simplistic, sometimes puerile and not exactly what happened from a historical perspective.
The difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is the consequence of Martin Luther's decision to replace the Septuagint translation of the Bible with the Hebrew Canon that was believed to have originated with a pharisaic school that rightly or wrongly came to be known as the "Council of Jamnia"(a.k.a. Yavne).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Council_of_Jamnia
Those in favor of the Hebrew Bible claim that Esdras (Ezra) "closed the Canon" after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity
The Catholic argument with regard to the Hebrew Bible is that there is no evidence that Esdras closed the Canon - or if he did, that he was authorized to do so.
Nevertheless, Protestants do not completely reject the books included in the Septuagint - but are not found in the Hebrew Bible. Protestants refer to them as "Apocrypha," whereas Roman and Orthodox Catholics refer to them as "deuterocanonical."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Deuterocanonical_books
One more thing. I agree with you about the "works" issue. Catholics regard "works" as
"faith in action" - since faith involves the whole person....body, mind and soul.
Only Christ saves us, but since we are given a free will our faith and good works are the means by which we are enabled to freely say "yes" to God.
To say our works alone save us is the heresy of Pelagianism which denies the necessity of God's grace. This heresy was refuted in the writings of St. Augustine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism
Peacebringer7...here you are:
http://www.apologia.spruz.com
Alternatively, clicking on my name will take you there as well.
Susanna,
I will make some further comments relative to yours above; but, in the interim I hope you concede that submitting to church authority does not violate sola Scriptura.
Following are the words of Pope Benedict XVI just today. For non-Catholics "assumed" is the same as raptured/translated:
Although Mary was assumed into heaven, she "has not abandoned her mission of intercession and salvation" on Earth, explained Pope Benedict, using the words of one of his predecessors...
"From East to West," he observed, "the 'Tuttasanta' (all holy) is invoked as the Heavenly Mother, who sustains the Son of God in her arms and under whose protection all of humanity finds refuge ..."
...Concluding, the Holy Father exhorted all people to entrust themselves to Mary, who, as Pope Paul VI said, despite being "assumed into heaven ... has not abandoned her mission of intercession and salvation.
"To Her, the guide of the Apostles, the support of the Martyrs, the light of the Saints, we turn our prayer, asking her to accompany us on this earthly life, to help us to look to Heaven and to receive us one day alongside Her Son Jesus."
So then Mary was and still is active in her "mission of salvation"?
http://tinyurl.com/2dxqbzk
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/benedict-xvi-at-angelus-marys-mission-of-salvation-and-intercession-continues-today/
Has anyone had any word from Mariel, SV, or DouginMi?
Craig,
Yes, it was the Apostles themselves who settled the issue at the council of Jerusalem. Today the churches that have Apostolic succession i.e. the Catholic and Orthodox churches do so.
Protestants claim that anyone who's inspired by the Holy Spirit can interpret scripture, but how do you tell Benny Hinn's spirit from Billy Graham's spirit.
You might say that you agree on the basics, but a lot of Protestant churches do not even agree on that.
As for Mary's role in salvation history, she was present at the most crucial events in Jesus's life, and at the cross, where Jesus entrusted her to John and to us.
She said "My soul magnifies the Lord"
A magnifying glass magnifies something other than itself. Her mission is to bring us closer to Christ.
This is what's called the communion of saints, one family on heaven and earth.
Mary and the saints, take us closer to Christ, not away from him.
What family does not have a mother?
Catholics also interpret Revelation 12: the woman clothed with the Sun as Mary.
She's about to give birth and the dragon sets out to make war on her.
In Genesis 3:15 - "And I will put Enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy Seed and her Seed, it shall bruise thy Head, and thou shalt bruise his Head."
Now the seed of woman is a term that's never used in the Bible, it's always the seed of man. It refers to the seed of Mary, Jesus in Genesis whom God tells the serpent he would place enemity with. In Revelation 12: we find the same battle between the woman and the dragon.
Mary is the New Eve.
A lot of Protestants argue it refers to the church, but then when there are so many churches, it would have to be more specific, esp when they see the church as just the body of believers.
Savvy
Savvy,
"Apostolic succession" cannot be shown in history.
you wrote:
Protestants claim that anyone who's inspired by the Holy Spirit can interpret scripture, but how do you tell Benny Hinn's spirit from Billy Graham's spirit.
A: By the fruit of the doctrine they teach.
You might say that you agree on the basics, but a lot of Protestant churches do not even agree on that.
I'm not defending any church that doesn't uphold the basics. Unitarians consider themselves "Christians" - they undoubtedly are not as they don't uphold proper Christology.
My main question in the last post was: how is Mary currently active in salvation? Biblically, here only role was as the mother of Jesus - an important role indeed but not one of salvation. Salvation is through Jesus alone.
Catholics also interpret Revelation 12: the woman clothed with the Sun as Mary...
I'm glad you stated this as could not ascertain if this the official Papal position.
The "woman" of Revelation 12 is clearly Israel (not the church) although, of course, Mary, as part of the Nation Israel was the one "about to give birth." Let me illustrate:
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman [Israel] clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. [v 1]
This verbiage is from Jacob's Dream of Genesis 37:9:
9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. "Listen," he said, "I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me."
Jacob was seeing 11 of the 12 Tribes; and, since he was part of 12th, he did not see himself.
Continuing in Rev 12:2:
2She [Israel] was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
This represents both Israel and Mary - the vehicle through which the Messiah would be born. Throughout the OT Israel was referred to as the LORD's bride and as having labor pains [Isaiah 66:7; Jer 4:31; Micah 4:9-10, 5:3]
...The dragon stood in front of the woman [Israel/Mary] who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. [v 4b]
This speaks again of the Nation Israel and, by extension, Mary.
5She [Israel/Mary] gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. [v 5]
Jesus Christ does not rule with an iron scepter until His 2nd coming. The last sentence speaks of Jesus Ascension to the right hand of the Father.
6The woman [Israel] fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.
The whole of verses 1-5 are a historical time capsule with verse 6 placed in the future as the latter half of Daniel's 70th week (still in future, of course).
cont.
cont:
Then the woman is picked up again in verse 13:
13When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman [Israel] who had given birth to the male child.
The dragon was not pursuing Mary but, rather the Nation Israel.
The woman [Israel] was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach. [v14]
This "time, times and half a time" is the same is the 1260 days in verse 6 -- 3.5 years.
15Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman [Israel] and sweep her away with the torrent. 16But the earth helped the woman [Israel] by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. [vv 15,16]
While I've no idea what this imagery means, it remains clear this is still speaking of the Nation Israel.
17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman [Israel] and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. [v 17]
Obviously, the latter part of the above refers to the church (made up of Gentiles and Jews) -- "the rest of her offspring."
Craig,
You wrote
"Apostolic succession" cannot be shown in history.
Have you read the writings of the early church fathers? History shows an unbroken succession of Popes from Peter onwards.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm
I'm not defending any church that doesn't uphold the basics. Unitarians consider themselves "Christians" - they undoubtedly are not as they don't uphold proper Christology.
Even among other Protestants who hold basic Christology differences of doctrine exist. Lutherans believe Mary was ever virgin, Baptism believe she had other children. one believes in infant baptism, the other in adult baptism. The Anglican church does not re-marry divorced people, other protestants do, baptist celebrate the sabbath on sunday, seventh day adventists on saturday. etc
"My main question in the last post was: how is Mary currently active in salvation? "
Salvation is through Jesus alone. Mary, however is the new Ark of the Covenant. The Israelites held the ark in high esteem, but did not worship it.
Chart comparing Mary to the Ark
The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut 10:1) The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Lk 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.
[The New Covenant] will not be like the covenant that... they broke though I was their husband (Jer 31:31) The Holy Spirit (God) is Mary's spouse (Lk 1:35)
"Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam 6:9) "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me" (Lk 1:43)
When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned "David was leaping and dancing before the Lord" (2 Sam 6:14) When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby leaped for joy in Elizabeth's womb (Lk 2 38)
The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam 6:11) Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Lk 1:56)
The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13) Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Mat 2:14)
The Ark of the Old Covenant disappears (Jer 3:16) never to return The Ark of the New Covenant appears as Mary (Rev 11:19)
The Ark was in God's Temple on earth (Ex. 30:26) Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant is in God's temple in Heaven (Rev 11:19)
Joshua summoned the twelve men carrying 12 stones representing the tribes of Israel. "Pass on before the ark of the Lord your God." (Josh 4:3-5) The Ark of the New Covenant, Mary with a crown of twelve stars representing the tribes of Israel. (Rev 12 :1, 11:19)
The Israelites circle Jericho with the Ark of the Covenant and blowing horns for seven days before their victory. (Joshua 6) The angels blow seven trumpets to herald the victory over Satan, (Rev. 8-11) before the introduction Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant (Rev. 12) which preceeds the final battle in Heaven.
The woman is both Mary and the Church, which is the new covenant in Christ. It's true that Israel is part of the new covenant too, but has yet to come into it, and will once the woman clothed with the sun Mary gives birth to a church both Jew and gentile, meaning at some point Israel is going to enter the church.
This is not replacement theology, because the church does predict the final marriage of Israel and the Church.
Savvy
Craig,
You asked "How is Mary currently active in Salvation?"
You did agree that the woman is both Mary and Israel. So if Israel still has a role to play, why can't Mary?
Savvy
Savvy,
you wrote:
Salvation is through Jesus alone. Mary, however is the new Ark of the Covenant. The Israelites held the ark in high esteem, but did not worship it.
...The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut 10:1) The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Lk 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.
The Tablets of Stone were the Ten Commandments -- only one small part of the Word/Scripture. This argument falls apart right there. Further, the Ark also contained Aaron's staff that budded and the gold jar of manna.
You asked "How is Mary currently active in Salvation?"
You did agree that the woman is both Mary and Israel. So if Israel still has a role to play, why can't Mary?
I stated the Woman is the Nation Israel. Mary's only part - as part of the Nation Israel - was that she was the vehicle through which Jesus was born.
You say Jesus is the only way to salvation; so, then how is Mary a part also? Either she is not a part; or, she is a part. You can't have it both ways.
Savvy,
Contrary to the info your link provides, history cannot substantiate a lineage of "popes." Further, if the Apostle Peter was really the first pope, then why didn't he write more of the NT and why didn't he make the decision at the Jerusalem Council among other things? None of the other Apostles deferred to him as their leader. They all had their foundational role to play -- the foundation of the church.
Craig,
"The Tablets of Stone were the Ten Commandments -- only one small part of the Word/Scripture. This argument falls apart right there. Further, the Ark also contained Aaron's staff that budded and the gold jar of manna. "
What you don't realize is that the Law at this time was the books of Moses or the Torah, that consisted of the entire law. Christians today see this as one small part, but the Jews saw them as the whole thing.
Jesus is the world made flesh, and Mary carried Jesus in her womb.
"I stated the Woman is the Nation Israel. Mary's only part - as part of the Nation Israel - was that she was the vehicle through which Jesus was born.
I disagree that Mary's role ended with the birth of Jesus.
Mary reinforces her eternal ministry by saying "all generations will call me blessed." If the Bible intended Mary's ministry to end with the birth of Jesus, or at his death, or even at Mary's death, it wouldn't use that language.
"You say Jesus is the only way to salvation; so, then how is Mary a part also? Either she is not a part; or, she is a part. You can't have it both ways.""
I never said Mary was the way to salvation, I would compare this with a person being in love, when you're are in love with another person, you don't tell them, "I want to love you, but I don't want anything to do with your family, I don't want to speak to your mother, your brothers and sisters etc, This is the Evangelical attitude towards Mary and the saints.
Or a person can say "You're mother can come and visit, your family is my family."
You're stilling forgetting the part about the communion of saints, one family in heaven and on earth.
This does not take away anything from Jesus being the saviour.
Savvy
Craig,
You said:
"Contrary to the info your link provides, history cannot substantiate a lineage of "popes." Further, if the Apostle Peter was really the first pope, then why didn't he write more of the NT and why didn't he make the decision at the Jerusalem Council among other things? None of the other Apostles deferred to him as their leader. They all had their foundational role to play -- the foundation of the church."
Next to Jesus, Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in Scripture (152 times).
James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, made that decision based on Peter's (Simeon's) discourse (Acts 15:14). His decision was a response to Peter's directive.
Examples of Peter's Authority among the Apostles
He stood up and spoke on behalf of the apostles (Mt 19:27, Acts 1:15, 2:14)
He stood up at the birth of the Church at the Pentecost to lead them. (Acts 2:14)
The disciples were referred to as Peter and the Apostles. (Acts 2:37, 5:29)
Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles. (Mat 16:18)
He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) -- sometimes it was only "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32);
John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)
Peter stepped out of the boat in the middle of the storm, even though they were all afraid they would die in the storm. (Mat 14:29)
Jesus told Peter to "feed my lambs...tend my sheep... feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15-17)
The difference between a sheep and a lamb might be significant. A lamb is a baby, a sheep is an adult. Perhaps Jesus was asking Peter to take care of both the general people (the lambs), and the apostles (sheep). Regardless of that interpretation of sheep and lambs, is is clear Jesus is asking Peter to feed and tend his flock. That is what a shepherd does. It appears to me that he is asking Peter to shepherd his Church on earth, on his behalf.
Savvy
Craig,
First of all, by your own admission, Sola Scriptura is your Rule of faith, not mine.
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. (oral and written tradition)
Historically, the Church is older than the Bible.
Historically, the Bible was handed down by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I do not concede that your submitting to authority that is not exclusively and explicitly the Bible does not violate sola Scriptura. If you are submitting to said authority in addition to the Bible, your rule of Faith is not Sola Scriptura - reams of Biblical proof texts interpreted by you notwithstanding.
In fact, the contradiction is so glaring, I cannot see how anyone would not pick up on it unless it is merely one of those things that is "hidden in plain sight."
Again, if you feel comfortable with your Rule of Faith, then by all means stick with it.
When it comes to engaging in religious polemics however, not even reprinting the whole Bible here will reveal any proof texts to credibly make your case that you are not contradicting your own "Sola Scriptura" rule of faith when submitting to an authority that is not explicitly and exclusively the Bible.
In any case, I am not going to allow you to further divert this discussion into a Catholic-Protestant debate since anyone reading this thread can see for themselves that I was not in any way trying to impose my beliefs on "Another Texan" to begin with.
You are the one who decided it would be "prudent" to intervene with YOUR interpretation of what a non-Catholic Christian should believe.
Why would you assume that "Another Texan's " beliefs are necessarily identical to yours when there are about 35,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations each with its own interpretation of the Bible and each claiming to be "guided by the Holy Spirit" in its Biblical interpretations.
At the end of the day, "Another Texan," who defines herself as an evangelical Protestant may very well beg to differ with your peculiar interpretation of Sola Scriptura.
Perhaps you should try asking her.
Anybody familiar with this player?
"Mary Evelyn Tucker is a Senior Lecturer and Senior Scholar at Yale University where she has appointments in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies as well as the Divinity School and the Department of Religious Studies. She is a co-founder and co-director with John Grim of the Forum on Religion and Ecology. Together they organized a series of ten conferences on World Religions and Ecology at the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School. They are series editors for the ten volumes from the conferences distributed by Harvard University Press. She is also Research Associate at the Reischauer Institute of Japanese Studies at Harvard. She is the author of Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Open Court Press, 2003), Moral and Spiritual Cultivation in Japanese Neo-Confucianism (SUNY, 1989) and The Philosophy of Qi.(Columbia University Press, 2007). She co-edited Worldviews and Ecology (Orbis, 1994), Buddhism and Ecology (Harvard, 1997), Confucianism and Ecology (Harvard, 1998), and Hinduism and Ecology (Harvard, 2000) and When Worlds Converge (Open Court, 2002). With Tu Weiming she edited two volumes on Confucian Spirituality (Crossroad, 2004). She also co-edited a Daedalus volume titled Religion and Ecology: Can the Climate Change? (2001). She edited several of Thomas Berry's books: Evening Thoughts (Sierra Club Books and University of California Press, 2006), The Sacred Universe (Columbia University Press, 2009), Christian Future and the Fate of Earth (Orbis Book, 2009). She is a member of the Interfaith Partnership for the Environment at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). She served on the International Earth Charter Drafting Committee from 1997-2000 and is a member of the Earth Charter International Council. B.A. Trinity College, M.A. SUNY Fredonia, M.A. Fordham University, PhD Columbia University."
Constance
Here's her partner in crime:
'John Grim is currently a Senior Lecturer and Scholar at Yale University
teaching courses that draw students from the School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies, Yale Divinity School, the Department of Religious
Studies, the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, and the Yale
Colleges. He is Coordinator of the Forum on Religion and Ecology with
Mary Evelyn Tucker, and series editor of "World Religions and Ecology,"
from Harvard Divinity School's Center for the Study of World Religions. In
that series he edited Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: the Interbeing of
Cosmology and Community (Harvard, 2001). He has been a Professor of
Religion at Bucknell University, and at Sarah Lawrence College where he
taught courses in Native American and Indigenous religions, World
Religions, and Religion and Ecology. His published works include: The
Shaman: Patterns of Religious Healing Among the Ojibway Indians
(University of Oklahoma Press, 1983) and edited a volume with Mary
Evelyn Tucker entitled Worldviews and Ecology (Orbis, 1994, 5th printing
2000), and a Daedalus volume (2001) entitled, "Religion and Ecology: Can
the Climate Change?" John is also President of the American Teilhard
Association."
Constance
Savvy,
Jesus Himself referred to the OT as "the Law and the Prophets." And, also, given that Jesus was the Word made flesh, wouldn't, at the very least, His own words by the 'Word'?
NORTH KOREA WARMS OF 'SEVEREST PUNISHMENT' OVER WAR GAMES
August 15, 2010
SEOUL (AFP) – North Korea's military threatened Sunday to launch the "severest punishment" against South Korea for staging massive joint war games with the United States this week.
The North's army and people will "deal a merciless counterblow" to the allies "as it had already resolved and declared at home and abroad", a spokesman for the country's army General Staff said in a statement published by state media.
"The military counteraction of (North Korea) will be the severest punishment no one has ever met in the world," he said.
http://tinyurl.com/2wz5sne
Speaking of Harvard (CC mentioned Harvard a few posts above)
http://www.globes.co.il/
serveen/globes/docview.asp?
did=1000581912
Harvard University fund sells all Israel holdings
This is from Drudge
Constance 7:29
Mary Evil'in Tucker's input at the World Parliament of Religions Youtube interview video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJdz4QJk5c0
Must see.
Craig,
You wrote ,
"Jesus Himself referred to the OT as "the Law and the Prophets." And, also, given that Jesus was the Word made flesh, wouldn't, at the very least, His own words by the 'Word'?"
We could judge Jesus's words in the Bible on his own words, but a lot of Protestants who claim to be Bible Christians, do a 180 degree turn, on what they think that Jesus said about divorce, re-marriage, eating his body and blood, being saved through water baptism, peter being the rock etc.
If it all comes down to interpretation, Susanna, has a valid question, why should your interpretation be any more valid than someone else's.
You can by all means have Sola Scriptura, as your rule of faith, we just beg to differ and find that to be a self-refuting theory.
Savvy
Savvy/Susanna,
Regarding sola Scriptura: I've answered Susanna's initial oppositions to the 2 Timothy 3:16-17 argument using "Bible only" in response yet that was dismissed out of hand. Perhaps it's the lens of Catholicism causing cognitive dissonance. I'm not trying to disrespectful; I'm just offering a possible reason for your inability to see this. Sola Scriptura came about by using sola Scriptura!
I could refute the 4 things you cite Biblically (divorce/remarriage, Peter as the rock, Baptism, eating Jesus body/blood); but, I'll just ask a question for reflection -- a response is unnecessary as we'll just go 'round and 'round:
Given that OT Jewish law forbids the drinking of blood (Lev 17:10-12) and that one of the Council of Jerusalem's four prohibitions was blood (Acts 15:20) why would Jesus have wanted us to take literally his words in John 6:55-56?
Criag,
You said
"Sola Scriptura came about by using sola Scriptura!"
This makes no sense. In a court of law a book can't prove a book. If you put the Bible on a stand, it would not say anything for a book does not talk. People are needed to interpret the book, just as judges and educated lawyers are needed to implement the U.S. constitution.
If I wanted to know more about a book someone wrote I would ask them myself, instead of relying on a thousand other people telling me what they think about it.
In the same way if who better to turn to that the church that complied the Bible, and the early church fathers who were eyewitnesses, since most of them were taught by the Apostles themselves.
Why should I go to someone who came a 1,000 years later, to tell me hey this is what the Bible really says.
Craig, the word is not cognitive dissonance it's an appeal to reason and common sense.
"Given that OT Jewish law forbids the drinking of blood (Lev 17:10-12) and that one of the Council of Jerusalem's four prohibitions was blood (Acts 15:20) why would Jesus have wanted us to take literally his words in John 6:55-56?"
Paul affirms the Real Presence in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:27-29.
"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?... Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord...For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."
If the Lords body and blood are not present, how can a wrong be committed against them?
If it's only symbolic, why is judgement being pronounced on something only symbolic.
Savvy
Savvy,
Your example of civil law is a good example to prove sola Scriptura. Courts must use the law in order to implement law. The must use/interpret the "book"/law in order to administer law -- they cannot go beyond it.
Paul affirms the Real Presence in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:27-29.
"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?... Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord...For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."
Paul is referring to the Cross -- Jesus' blood shed and his fleshly body given up which is exactly what Jesus Himself referred to in John 6:62-63. Yet Jesus knew there were those who did not understand because they did not believe in Him (verse 64) which is why He said (verse 65), "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." This was a reference to His earlier words in 6:44 which he used in the beginning of His discourse on Himself as the bread that "He will give for the life of the world." [v 51c]
Why did He ask the question in verse 62, "What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?" This was to let them know He was going to give up His body and blood in His death by crucifixion to atone for all the sins of the world. In verse 64, it's, "The Spirit" - the Holy Spirit that "gives life" -- meaning that in the words regarding the 'bread' He was speaking were of a Spiritual nature, not literal/physical. This is why He then says, "the flesh counts for nothing." He reiterates, "The words I have spoken to you are spirit (not literal) and life (life giving if you accept his atoning work on the Cross).
In the Lord's/Last Supper, Jesus was instructing them to "do this in remembrance of Me" -- that is to take the bread and wine and remember his sacrifice on the Cross.
Craig,
You said:
"Your example of civil law is a good example to prove sola Scriptura. Courts must use the law in order to implement law. The must use/interpret the "book"/law in order to administer law -- they cannot go beyond it."
The question is who then interprets the law/book. Who has the authority to interpret it and how?
"Paul is referring to the Cross -"
The Early Christians would disagree with you. They did not see this verse being referred to the Cross.
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist2b.htm
The Question once again is why should I trust your interpretations, anymore than that of the Early Church.?
Savvy
Biblical interpretation is provided by the indwelling Holy Spirit [John 14:15 to 16:15; 1 John 2:20-21, 24-27] -- the Spirit of Truth. The Bereans were commended for searching out Truth:
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. [Acts 17:11]
1226 results for "Fred Flintstone" and 143 for "Barney Rubble" on spokeo.
Oh that is wild. I never tried putting in other names. I just learned there are 197 Barack Obamas in the US. It reminds me of that old game show where three people would claim to be the same name, The Name's the Same.
Dorothy
From Yahoo (08/14/10)
Smile! Aerial images being used to enforce laws . . .
http://tinyurl.com/23zsnrl
That spokeo web site is just plain 'spooky' (LOL).
I still remember way back in 1974 when Oregon became the socialist experiment of the nation. Then president Nixon and governor Tom McCall of Oregon formed the LCDC (Lands Conservation Developement Commission). The was the first takeover of private property by the federal and state government. Oregon officially lost all its private property rights at that time. Just some interesting information for everyone. Food for thought.
Have you recently been switched to a lower cost drug?
From AOL News (08/16/10)...
Opinion: Fail first? Is this any way to practice medicine?
http://tinyurl.com/2bpfveo
John Rupp,
Private property rights in Oregon were completely usurped by 1967 with the passage of the Oregon Beach Bill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Beach_Bill
At the time there was a great amount of debate about the Constitutionality of the majority, (who argued for unrestricted free access), in effect taking away the rights of the minority, (who argued that they had the right to use their legally acquired private property as they saw fit).
Today there are very few who would argue against the merits of placing the entire coast line in the "public domain", aka "under state control", since it has resulted in the beaches remaining in a near pristine state while turning the Oregon coast into a premier tourist spot, an economic boon to the remaining land owners along the coast.
But government is insatiable, as this map clearly shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_in_Oregon
I do like being able to visit the beaches in Oregon, (although the state campground reservation system is an authoritarian nightmare!) At least people are free to walk along the shoreline for miles. Compare that freedom to what you would find in Malibu, where a handful of Hollywood snobs "own" much of the beachfront, their little pieces of paradise completely closed to the peasantry.
omots
Constance,
What are your thoughts on Barbara Aho? I found her site recently and noticed that she has all but fallen silent these near past two years. I have been trying to reach her with no success as she is not responding to the e-mail on her site and I cannot find any other contact info.
JC
OMOTS,
We have a similar situation with the Great Lakes shorelines. They are also very nice to walk along. Planning to be in South Haven next week.
Craig
If the Bible only is the Christian Rule of faith, then the Bible only must explicitly state that "Sola Scriptura" is the Christian Rule of Faith.
The Bible doesn't do this. To say otherwise is false - both Biblically and historically.
Moreover, to say that "Sola Scriptura came about by using Sola Scriptura" is patently false - also both from the point of view of the Bible AND from the point of view of history.
Historically, it was Martin Luther who developed "sola scriptura" as a reaction to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Fathers of the first centuries. Luther rejected the authority of the Church and the apostolic tradition and so was left with sola scriptura—the Bible alone.
As for the Bereans you mention, let’s take a look at Luke’s comment in its entirety about the noble-minded Bereans:
"The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men" (Acts 17:10–12).
If the "Berean passages" in the Bible are not a credible defense of Sola Scriptura, it is because all one has to do is to scratch beneath the surface in order to see how certain Protestants have tried to make these biblical passages say something they simply do not say.
When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they do not take into account the fact that the people in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred.
Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, (Torah-Mishnah) along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.
Savvy
Contd..
If one of the two groups mentioned in the "Berean passages" could be credibly described as believers in sola scriptura, it would obviously be the Thessalonians since they, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, but unlike the Bereans, rejected Paul's teaching. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."
The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded —not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians — with an open mind and generous courtesy (See I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).
The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a "tradition," it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an "extension" of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the "other Scriptures," which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).
From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have actually been more "noble-minded," since they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the pharisaical school that came to be known as the "Council of Jamnia," around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.
Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Was it because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No. It was to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like those converts in Thessalonica who did come to believed, the Bereans espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.
Dave Hunt is a rabidly anti-Catholic author who often uses the biblical passages about the Bereans as a proof-text to "prove" sola scriptura." Hunt has written a book entitled THE BEREAN CALL. Given what the Bible actually tells us, Hunt's book would be better entitled THE THESSALONIAN CALL.
Savvy
Anon at 4:43 pm,
has Barbara Aho been silenced? She wouldn't be the first one: John Todd, Fritz Springmeier, Randall Baer, and Bill Cooper to name a few...
I hope she has not been silenced and is o.k.
If anyone here has any information about her present state and how I might contact her- it would be greatly appreciated. It would indeed be a tragedy to think that she has been silenced. She and those co-laboring with her have been giants.
JC
I don't know about the others mentioned amoung Bill Cooper---but Cooper was definitely a double agent.
JC
FYI...
There are 10 listings for Barbara Aho here:
http://www.spokeo.com
Post a Comment