Catholic Q&A Continues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
661

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]

If we’re going to be conservative I have to resort to prejudice and prescription of old: The early Church Fathers and other authoritative ecclesiastical writers.

I do not see your specific objection of using the word father for title or affection. It seems that St. Jerome ( reports that in the monasteries the brethren call each other, Father.

Jerome makes it plain further down in his writings:

On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”

If we look to the early homilies, we can even see further the intention about your verse in question, “And again, Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Call not, father,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??13 not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers” - Chrysostom, Homily 72

So using prejudice and prescription, that which is conservative, the objection is not the deed, in calling a man Father, we even see the early monks called each other Father. So, the objection is to something else, it seems.[/quote]
Sorry Chris, I don’t at all follow what you’re getting at in this post.[/quote]

You said be conservative, so I went and looked at what the Early Christians believed. They are all in line about Matthew 23:9. [/quote]

Chris, to be completely honest, I think you could use a little more nuance in your argument here. You are treating primary sources from the 4th century A.D. (yes, I know my church fathers :)) as if they are a priori exceptional guides to first century thought. A lot of Catholics do this and it is extremely frustrating for those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with our Catholic brethren but cannot stand their pervasive historical insensitivity. Doctrines, practices, rituals - all of these things developed over time. Treating a fourth century source as a reflection of Christian thought and practice in the New Testament era is irresponsible; it collapses history into a single epoch and denies the clear facts of development and change within the church in the first four centuries.

Moreover, when dealing with the church fathers, you have to realize that they are EXTREMELY HISTORICALLY INSENSITIVE. By that I mean they rarely recognize or admit the vast cultural and historical distance between their own late Greco-Roman milieu and the first century Palestinian Jewish context. Granted, you did choose, in addition to Jerome, Chrysostom, who came out of the rhetorical schools (which placed a much greater emphasis on what we call historical-critical concerns than the Alexandrian philosophical schools, which emphasized allegorical exegesis), but I would guess your choice was one of convenience rather than deriving from a desire to choose a more “modern-minded” ancient thinker. I could be wrong…

In any case, my point is that you aren’t going to convince Mr. Chen or any other Protestant about what a New Testament passage by using a 4th century source. For protestants, the “EARLY church” refers to the first century-VERY early second century church, i.e., prior to the death of the last of Jesus’ disciples. After that, the church’s reins were placed in the hands of Gentiles with little knowledge of Second Temple Judaism or 1st century Palestine, people who were BY DEFINITION ill-equipped to properly interpret the New Testament texts. [/quote]

So is the canonization of the bible also excluded? Sort of late in the game to claim the authority to know what book or epistle accurately reflects Christ.
[/quote]

That’s an absolutely fair question, one I have admitted most Protestants have no good answer for. However, I’ll offer myself up to public criticism by explaining how I answer that question.

Canonization was not a sudden or entirely unexpected event. Rather, it was a gradual process that began in the New Testament era itself, and though it reached its culmination in the 3rd-5th centuries, canonization was ultimately a recognition and codification of realizations that had taken place long before.

Let’s begin by distinguishing between Scripture and Canon. Scripture refers to a text possessing authority to govern faith and practice. Canon, on the other hand, refers to a closed corpus of authoritative texts (Scriptures) to which nothing can be added or subtracted. Depending on the time period in question, a text could be considered Scriptural without being canonical. You can have a Scriptural text without having a canon; a canon is ultimately a later organization of Scriptural texts.

Why is this relevant? Well, the majority of the New Testament texts were considered Scriptural before the end of the first century. Even though it is highly unlikely that the New Testament authors had any knowledge that their texts would eventually be included in a closed corpus, there is evidence that the New Testament authors already recognized many of each other’s texts as scriptural.

For example, scholars have long recognized that both Ignatius’ seven letters and the seven letters included in the Book of Revelation follow a precedent most likely established by the Pauline corpus - Paul wrote more than seven letters, but he wrote to seven churches total, and since seven was considered the number of perfection, Paul’s corpus of letters was assumed to be written for all Christians. The same thing occurs in Revelation - seven letters address seven particular, historical churches, but together they represent and apply to all churches. Based on certain other intertextual echoes, the evidence suggests that the Pauline corpus was already established and authoritative before the end of the first century AD. Moreover, the standard Pauline letter features, such as the uniquely Pauline greeting formula (“grace (chars) to you and peace,” rather than “greetings” (charein)), was already influential by the mid-first century (1 Peter 1:2).

The gospels provide another excellent example of this phenomenon. The early church Father Papias (c. 100 A.D.) referred to Mark’s gospel as containing Peter’s proclamations. Extensive studies on this issue have demonstrated the likelihood of Petrine influence in the composition of Mark’s gospel. A good case can be made for this history of composition - Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew. What is interesting is that, though there are some differences, each subsequent author felt bound to more or less use the text(s) preceding them as authoritative sources. In other words, the synoptic tradition itself demonstrates the early Scriptural status of at least the Synoptic gospels.

There are numerous other examples that substantiate the claim that most of the New Testament texts were already recognized as Scriptural by the first century, though I don’t have time to go into more now. The point is, there are good historical reasons for assuming that, within the period of the composition of the New Testament documents themselves, many texts were already Scriptural. In other words, for a significant number of core texts, we don’t actually need the church to demonstrate or even affirm their authority. The texts do that themselves.

This doesn’t work for all of the texts, however, which is why we have to get into discussions of apostolic authority (something that I also don’t have much time for). Suffice it to say that, following Scriptural precedent, I believe inspiration is closely tied to authorship. In other words, part of the reason why I trust that Deuteronomy is inspired is because of how closely tied it is within the canon to Moses. The same is true of Luke’s gospel, or James’ epistle. Authoritative figures within the early church have, in my opinion and for various reasons, special claims to inspiration. [/quote]

So, it is reasonable to assume that the phone game actually works in the Church, especially when dude’s write this stuff down? It’s safe to assume that when dudes agree almost unanimously it probably means that it is because that’s a definitive teaching?[/quote]

Another excellent and fair question. I would have to say- it depends. There are a whole host of problems that interfere with the transmission of ideas. First of all, there is a significant temporal and cultural gap between the original Christian milieu - Second Temple Palestinian Judaism of the first century A.D. - and Gentile-led church of the early second century and onward. By the time of Ignatius and Polycarp, almost all of the apostles are dead. In fact, I would say ALL of the apostles are dead, as I don’t believe John the Elder (writer of the gospel and the Johannine epistles) was John the son of Zebedee. In any case, the Jewish minds that had grown up knowing how to handle Old Testament Scripture, knowing the culture in which Jesus lived and in which Christian ideas were formed, were gone by the early second century. Though there were still Jewish Christians, the church became predominantly Gentile, with Gentile leadership. At that point, most of the vestiges of Second Temple Judaism had already been erased, and the Gentile leadership of the church wasn’t much interested in historical-critical exegesis. In other words, they didn’t show much concern (if any - again, I am trying to be generous) for situating either the New Testament or Old Testament texts in their original historical contexts.

Now Harry Gamble published a books several years ago called, “Books and Readers in the Early Church,” and one of the tremendous insights I gleaned from that book was the awareness of the role the ability to read played in the acquisition of leadership in the early church. Gamble demonstrates that church leaders were often chosen primarily because they possessed the ability to read. However, by the second century, the people who knew how to read in the church were all upper-class Gentiles, who had been trained to read in Hellenistic settings. Here’s the problem - they didn’t just learn to read Greek; they learned to appreciate and think in the categories of Greek philosophy. In other words, learning to read was only a part of their education. Consequently, they were raised on Homer and Hesiod, on Herodotus, on the Greek philosophers. They were taught to read so that they could be well-rounded, productive citizens. They were not taught to read so that they could one day interpret Jewish literature.

Why does any of this matter? Because one of the primary reading skills taught was allegorization. That’s why it was so prevalent in the early church - not because Paul SEEMS to do it that one time in Galatians, but rather because Greeks were taught to allegorize texts. That was the primary means by which classic, culturally significant texts were kept alive and viable. Followers of Plato, Aristotle, and other Greek philosophers had long recognized the ethical problems presented by the Homeric epics, but since these older texts possessed so much cultural clout, philosophers couldn’t openly condemn the texts. Instead, philosophers would allegorize the works of Homer and Hesiod in an attempt to demonstrate that the new philosophies were actually contained in works like the Iliad! In other words, allegorization was developed as an exegetical tool to make the text say what people wanted it to say.

Fast forward to the second century church - those in charge are those who can read, and they have learned to read in Hellenistic schools that taught them to make texts say what they want them to say. They do not submit to the biblical word; they presume to know what the biblical text already says. HERE IS MY FIRST CLEAR RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION - That would be fine if, from reading the texts of the early church fathers, we got the sense that the doctrines they were passing on were ALL derived from verbal transmission. However, the evidence from those texts suggests the opposite - the early church fathers OFTEN derive their supposedly “traditional beliefs” from the exegesis of Scripture, exegesis conducted with their shoddy allegorizing methods. Consequently, it is rarely a case of simple telephone; the church fathers often came to conclusions about the teaching of the church based on their own individual exegesis of Scripture. In other words, the telephone analogy isn’t an accurate account of how doctrines developed and were transmitted over time.

662

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]

If we’re going to be conservative I have to resort to prejudice and prescription of old: The early Church Fathers and other authoritative ecclesiastical writers.

I do not see your specific objection of using the word father for title or affection. It seems that St. Jerome ( reports that in the monasteries the brethren call each other, Father.

Jerome makes it plain further down in his writings:

On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”

If we look to the early homilies, we can even see further the intention about your verse in question, “And again, Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Call not, father,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??13 not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers” - Chrysostom, Homily 72

So using prejudice and prescription, that which is conservative, the objection is not the deed, in calling a man Father, we even see the early monks called each other Father. So, the objection is to something else, it seems.[/quote]
Sorry Chris, I don’t at all follow what you’re getting at in this post.[/quote]

You said be conservative, so I went and looked at what the Early Christians believed. They are all in line about Matthew 23:9. [/quote]

Chris, to be completely honest, I think you could use a little more nuance in your argument here. You are treating primary sources from the 4th century A.D. (yes, I know my church fathers :)) as if they are a priori exceptional guides to first century thought. A lot of Catholics do this and it is extremely frustrating for those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with our Catholic brethren but cannot stand their pervasive historical insensitivity. Doctrines, practices, rituals - all of these things developed over time. Treating a fourth century source as a reflection of Christian thought and practice in the New Testament era is irresponsible; it collapses history into a single epoch and denies the clear facts of development and change within the church in the first four centuries.

Moreover, when dealing with the church fathers, you have to realize that they are EXTREMELY HISTORICALLY INSENSITIVE. By that I mean they rarely recognize or admit the vast cultural and historical distance between their own late Greco-Roman milieu and the first century Palestinian Jewish context. Granted, you did choose, in addition to Jerome, Chrysostom, who came out of the rhetorical schools (which placed a much greater emphasis on what we call historical-critical concerns than the Alexandrian philosophical schools, which emphasized allegorical exegesis), but I would guess your choice was one of convenience rather than deriving from a desire to choose a more “modern-minded” ancient thinker. I could be wrong…

In any case, my point is that you aren’t going to convince Mr. Chen or any other Protestant about what a New Testament passage by using a 4th century source. For protestants, the “EARLY church” refers to the first century-VERY early second century church, i.e., prior to the death of the last of Jesus’ disciples. After that, the church’s reins were placed in the hands of Gentiles with little knowledge of Second Temple Judaism or 1st century Palestine, people who were BY DEFINITION ill-equipped to properly interpret the New Testament texts. [/quote]

So is the canonization of the bible also excluded? Sort of late in the game to claim the authority to know what book or epistle accurately reflects Christ.
[/quote]

That’s an absolutely fair question, one I have admitted most Protestants have no good answer for. However, I’ll offer myself up to public criticism by explaining how I answer that question.

Canonization was not a sudden or entirely unexpected event. Rather, it was a gradual process that began in the New Testament era itself, and though it reached its culmination in the 3rd-5th centuries, canonization was ultimately a recognition and codification of realizations that had taken place long before.

Let’s begin by distinguishing between Scripture and Canon. Scripture refers to a text possessing authority to govern faith and practice. Canon, on the other hand, refers to a closed corpus of authoritative texts (Scriptures) to which nothing can be added or subtracted. Depending on the time period in question, a text could be considered Scriptural without being canonical. You can have a Scriptural text without having a canon; a canon is ultimately a later organization of Scriptural texts.

Why is this relevant? Well, the majority of the New Testament texts were considered Scriptural before the end of the first century. Even though it is highly unlikely that the New Testament authors had any knowledge that their texts would eventually be included in a closed corpus, there is evidence that the New Testament authors already recognized many of each other’s texts as scriptural.

For example, scholars have long recognized that both Ignatius’ seven letters and the seven letters included in the Book of Revelation follow a precedent most likely established by the Pauline corpus - Paul wrote more than seven letters, but he wrote to seven churches total, and since seven was considered the number of perfection, Paul’s corpus of letters was assumed to be written for all Christians. The same thing occurs in Revelation - seven letters address seven particular, historical churches, but together they represent and apply to all churches. Based on certain other intertextual echoes, the evidence suggests that the Pauline corpus was already established and authoritative before the end of the first century AD. Moreover, the standard Pauline letter features, such as the uniquely Pauline greeting formula (“grace (chars) to you and peace,” rather than “greetings” (charein)), was already influential by the mid-first century (1 Peter 1:2).

The gospels provide another excellent example of this phenomenon. The early church Father Papias (c. 100 A.D.) referred to Mark’s gospel as containing Peter’s proclamations. Extensive studies on this issue have demonstrated the likelihood of Petrine influence in the composition of Mark’s gospel. A good case can be made for this history of composition - Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew. What is interesting is that, though there are some differences, each subsequent author felt bound to more or less use the text(s) preceding them as authoritative sources. In other words, the synoptic tradition itself demonstrates the early Scriptural status of at least the Synoptic gospels.

There are numerous other examples that substantiate the claim that most of the New Testament texts were already recognized as Scriptural by the first century, though I don’t have time to go into more now. The point is, there are good historical reasons for assuming that, within the period of the composition of the New Testament documents themselves, many texts were already Scriptural. In other words, for a significant number of core texts, we don’t actually need the church to demonstrate or even affirm their authority. The texts do that themselves.

This doesn’t work for all of the texts, however, which is why we have to get into discussions of apostolic authority (something that I also don’t have much time for). Suffice it to say that, following Scriptural precedent, I believe inspiration is closely tied to authorship. In other words, part of the reason why I trust that Deuteronomy is inspired is because of how closely tied it is within the canon to Moses. The same is true of Luke’s gospel, or James’ epistle. Authoritative figures within the early church have, in my opinion and for various reasons, special claims to inspiration. [/quote]

So, it is reasonable to assume that the phone game actually works in the Church, especially when dude’s write this stuff down? It’s safe to assume that when dudes agree almost unanimously it probably means that it is because that’s a definitive teaching?[/quote]

There is another issue of some import, and that is the fact that the early church fathers often lied. I know that seems like an inflammatory statement, but here me out. I don’t fault them one bit for it; they were trying to protect the gospel the best way they knew how.

The ancients didn’t think of lying in the ancient world the same way we do as Christians today. We assume that lying to anyone, Christian or unbeliever, for any reason is likely wrong. Some would say that it is ok to lie to protect a life (Holocaust scenarios, etc.), but in any other circumstance lying at all would be wrong. The problem is that the ancients thought in corporate terms, and group loyalty was paramount. For them, there was nothing wrong about lying to protect the group. Lying to insiders is wrong (Col. 3:9), but lying to outsiders for the safety and security of the group was often seen as fine.

When reacting to philosophical attacks from outside, you often see the church fathers making things up to bolster their own arguments. I intend to write a thesis on this phenomenon eventually, so I am not going to give away the fruits of all my research just yet :), but there are dozens of examples of church fathers coming up with ad hoc explanations for particular doctrines or church practices, explanations that have no historical basis but are the best that the church fathers could do at the time. This happens relatively frequently and was a necessary move, as the Christian leaders could not simply admit to those who would destroy the faith, “we don’t know the answer to your question.” Instead, they made up answers on the spot, and often creative ones. This phenomenon occurred generally in contexts where a particular author was arguing against outsiders, but since much of our literature from the early church IS polemical in nature, my argument is relevant.

663

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with______________ (KK said Catholics)[/quote]I do hereby exclude myself from this group. I am trying to FIND common spiritual or theological ground with absolutely nobody except Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Rome included. I have in common with ANYBODY, exactly that which they also have in common with Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I hasten to add, as you no doubt recognize, nothing I believe is in any way unique or original to myself, before anybody starts bayoneting that strawman. The truth as it is in Christ Jesus is what unites the saints and if you have to go digging, you’re already looking int he wrong places.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<<( a very long post in answer to dearest Christopher of which I read every single word) Another excellent and fair question. I would have to say- it depends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]So then along comes 20 and 21st century scholarship to return us to the long lost Jewish roots of the 1st and early 2nd century church?

664

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with______________ (KK said Catholics)[/quote]I do hereby exclude myself from this group. I am trying to FIND common spiritual or theological ground with absolutely nobody except Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Rome included. I have in common with ANYBODY, exactly that which they also have in common with Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I hasten to add, as you no doubt recognize, nothing I believe is in any way unique or original to myself, before anybody starts bayoneting that strawman. The truth as it is in Christ Jesus is what unites the saints and if you have to go digging your already looking int he wrong places.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<<( a very long post in answer to dearest Christopher of which I read every single word) Another excellent and fair question. I would have to say- it depends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]So then along comes 20 and 21st century scholarship to return us to the long lost Jewish roots of the 1st and early 2nd century church?
[/quote]

I know, it seems so arrogant, doesn’t it? But the reality is that this move didn’t start with 20th and 21st century scholarship; it began as early as the 4th century A.D. Again, people like John Chrysostom were trained in the Antiochene tradition of rhetorical analysis, which expressed many of the same concerns as modern scholarship (i.e., reading the texts in their original contexts). You also see Jerome arguing for this kind of method as well. Unfortunately, these were minority voices in their own time (Jerome had a HORRIBLE time trying to get support for basing the Vulgate off the Hebrew originals); they were not always as self-conscious about their own assumptions as modern scholarship has learned to be; and they didn’t have the wealth of material available to us.

Moreover, these are the same concerns you see in Luther and Calvin and Zwingli. These men often tried to read Scripture with new eyes, and generally exhibited tremendous historical sensitivity. God used the Renaissance, with its emphasis on returning to the sources, to pave the way for the Protestant Reformation.

So in reality, modern evangelical scholarship, with its emphasis on historical-grammatical exegesis, has significant precedent in church history. We also have a wealth of material discovered only in the last century, however, that has given us a wealth of insight into ancient cultures, material which was unavailable previously. That’s a fact. We also ask better questions of both the texts AND ourselves than many theologians and biblical scholars asked previously. That too is a fact. Modern evangelical scholarship doesn’t have all the answers, and that is actually one of its virtues. It doesn’t provide simple, ad hoc answers to difficult questions.

665

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with______________ (KK said Catholics)[/quote]I do hereby exclude myself from this group. I am trying to FIND common spiritual or theological ground with absolutely nobody except Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Rome included. I have in common with ANYBODY, exactly that which they also have in common with Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I hasten to add, as you no doubt recognize, nothing I believe is in any way unique or original to myself, before anybody starts bayoneting that strawman. The truth as it is in Christ Jesus is what unites the saints and if you have to go digging, you’re already looking int he wrong places.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<<( a very long post in answer to dearest Christopher of which I read every single word) Another excellent and fair question. I would have to say- it depends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]So then along comes 20 and 21st century scholarship to return us to the long lost Jewish roots of the 1st and early 2nd century church?
[/quote]

I think a better way to say it is - biblical scholarship has finally started to CARE about the Jewish roots of 1st and early 2nd century church. For most of church history, biblical scholars didn’t care at all about the link between Second Temple Judaism and Christianity. Theologians just assumed those “stupid first century Palestinians” simply didn’t know how to read.

666

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I do hereby exclude myself from this group.
[/quote]

Fine! We didn’t want you in our group anyway! You smell funny and have big ears…

667

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote: I do hereby exclude myself from this group.
[/quote]Fine! We didn’t want you in our group anyway! You smell funny and have big ears…[/quote]These are humongous topics and I DO see value in every relevant piece of data possible being brought to our sacred studies. I have to say though. You are dancing in a minefield of potentially naturalistic deception. No jab, just honest. And my Fundy#5 cologne and dumbo lobes have nuthin to do with this alright?

668

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote: I do hereby exclude myself from this group.
[/quote]Fine! We didn’t want you in our group anyway! You smell funny and have big ears…[/quote]These are humongous topics and I DO see value in every relevant piece of data possible being brought to our sacred studies. I have to say though. You are dancing in a minefield of potentially naturalistic deception. No jab, just honest. And my Fundy#5 cologne and dumbo lobes have nuthin to do with this alright?
[/quote]

Are you speaking to a particular issue I presented, or are you expressing a general distrust of modern biblical scholarship?

669

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote: I do hereby exclude myself from this group.
[/quote]Fine! We didn’t want you in our group anyway! You smell funny and have big ears…[/quote]These are humongous topics and I DO see value in every relevant piece of data possible being brought to our sacred studies. I have to say though. You are dancing in a minefield of potentially naturalistic deception. No jab, just honest. And my Fundy#5 cologne and dumbo lobes have nuthin to do with this alright?
[/quote]

Are you speaking to a particular issue I presented, or are you expressing a general distrust of modern biblical scholarship?
[/quote]I am expressing the impossibility of the God I know through the scriptures we’ve had since the first century, leaving His beloved church bride bereft of ANY essential truth for two thousand years. In other words anything that breaks that system we touched on in the other thread is instantly false in the most decidedly ipso facto fashion imaginable. Not on the table and never ever will be. By “system” I am NOT referring simply to TULIP Calvinism, but I’m at work and like always, very short on time. =[

I made a comment a short way down this http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/metaphysics_the_actual_key_to_everything?id=5156839&pageNo=12 page that you will have no problem finding and which I would like your response to if you would be so kind as to forgive my odor and ears momentarily.

670

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with______________ (KK said Catholics)[/quote]I do hereby exclude myself from this group. I am trying to FIND common spiritual or theological ground with absolutely nobody except Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Rome included. I have in common with ANYBODY, exactly that which they also have in common with Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I hasten to add, as you no doubt recognize, nothing I believe is in any way unique or original to myself, before anybody starts bayoneting that strawman. The truth as it is in Christ Jesus is what unites the saints and if you have to go digging, you’re already looking int he wrong places.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<<( a very long post in answer to dearest Christopher of which I read every single word) Another excellent and fair question. I would have to say- it depends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]So then along comes 20 and 21st century scholarship to return us to the long lost Jewish roots of the 1st and early 2nd century church?
[/quote]

Yes, we know. You didn’t make it all up, the Holy Ghost whispered it into your ear. Thanks.

671

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with______________ (KK said Catholics)[/quote]I do hereby exclude myself from this group. I am trying to FIND common spiritual or theological ground with absolutely nobody except Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Rome included. I have in common with ANYBODY, exactly that which they also have in common with Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I hasten to add, as you no doubt recognize, nothing I believe is in any way unique or original to myself, before anybody starts bayoneting that strawman. The truth as it is in Christ Jesus is what unites the saints and if you have to go digging, you’re already looking int he wrong places.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<<( a very long post in answer to dearest Christopher of which I read every single word) Another excellent and fair question. I would have to say- it depends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]So then along comes 20 and 21st century scholarship to return us to the long lost Jewish roots of the 1st and early 2nd century church?
[/quote]

I think a better way to say it is - biblical scholarship has finally started to CARE about the Jewish roots of 1st and early 2nd century church. For most of church history, biblical scholars didn’t care at all about the link between Second Temple Judaism and Christianity. Theologians just assumed those “stupid first century Palestinians” simply didn’t know how to read.[/quote]

1st Century Palestinians didn’t know how to read.

672

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote: I do hereby exclude myself from this group.
[/quote]Fine! We didn’t want you in our group anyway! You smell funny and have big ears…[/quote]These are humongous topics and I DO see value in every relevant piece of data possible being brought to our sacred studies. I have to say though. You are dancing in a minefield of potentially naturalistic deception. No jab, just honest. And my Fundy#5 cologne and dumbo lobes have nuthin to do with this alright?
[/quote]

Are you speaking to a particular issue I presented, or are you expressing a general distrust of modern biblical scholarship?
[/quote]I am expressing the impossibility of the God I know through the scriptures we’ve had since the first century, leaving His beloved church bride bereft of ANY essential truth for two thousand years. In other words anything that breaks that system we touched on in the other thread is instantly false in the most decidedly ipso facto fashion imaginable. Not on the table and never ever will be. By “system” I am NOT referring simply to TULIP Calvinism, but I’m at work and like always, very short on time. =[

I made a comment a short way down this http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/metaphysics_the_actual_key_to_everything?id=5156839&pageNo=12 page that you will have no problem finding and which I would like your response to if you would be so kind as to forgive my odor and ears momentarily.
[/quote]

Great, he’s getting back to his sophistry.

673

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]

If we’re going to be conservative I have to resort to prejudice and prescription of old: The early Church Fathers and other authoritative ecclesiastical writers.

I do not see your specific objection of using the word father for title or affection. It seems that St. Jerome ( reports that in the monasteries the brethren call each other, Father.

Jerome makes it plain further down in his writings:

On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”

If we look to the early homilies, we can even see further the intention about your verse in question, “And again, Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Call not, father,Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??13 not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers” - Chrysostom, Homily 72

So using prejudice and prescription, that which is conservative, the objection is not the deed, in calling a man Father, we even see the early monks called each other Father. So, the objection is to something else, it seems.[/quote]
Sorry Chris, I don’t at all follow what you’re getting at in this post.[/quote]

You said be conservative, so I went and looked at what the Early Christians believed. They are all in line about Matthew 23:9. [/quote]

Chris, to be completely honest, I think you could use a little more nuance in your argument here. You are treating primary sources from the 4th century A.D. (yes, I know my church fathers :)) as if they are a priori exceptional guides to first century thought. A lot of Catholics do this and it is extremely frustrating for those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with our Catholic brethren but cannot stand their pervasive historical insensitivity. Doctrines, practices, rituals - all of these things developed over time. Treating a fourth century source as a reflection of Christian thought and practice in the New Testament era is irresponsible; it collapses history into a single epoch and denies the clear facts of development and change within the church in the first four centuries.

Moreover, when dealing with the church fathers, you have to realize that they are EXTREMELY HISTORICALLY INSENSITIVE. By that I mean they rarely recognize or admit the vast cultural and historical distance between their own late Greco-Roman milieu and the first century Palestinian Jewish context. Granted, you did choose, in addition to Jerome, Chrysostom, who came out of the rhetorical schools (which placed a much greater emphasis on what we call historical-critical concerns than the Alexandrian philosophical schools, which emphasized allegorical exegesis), but I would guess your choice was one of convenience rather than deriving from a desire to choose a more “modern-minded” ancient thinker. I could be wrong…

In any case, my point is that you aren’t going to convince Mr. Chen or any other Protestant about what a New Testament passage by using a 4th century source. For protestants, the “EARLY church” refers to the first century-VERY early second century church, i.e., prior to the death of the last of Jesus’ disciples. After that, the church’s reins were placed in the hands of Gentiles with little knowledge of Second Temple Judaism or 1st century Palestine, people who were BY DEFINITION ill-equipped to properly interpret the New Testament texts. [/quote]

So is the canonization of the bible also excluded? Sort of late in the game to claim the authority to know what book or epistle accurately reflects Christ.
[/quote]

That’s an absolutely fair question, one I have admitted most Protestants have no good answer for. However, I’ll offer myself up to public criticism by explaining how I answer that question.

Canonization was not a sudden or entirely unexpected event. Rather, it was a gradual process that began in the New Testament era itself, and though it reached its culmination in the 3rd-5th centuries, canonization was ultimately a recognition and codification of realizations that had taken place long before.

Let’s begin by distinguishing between Scripture and Canon. Scripture refers to a text possessing authority to govern faith and practice. Canon, on the other hand, refers to a closed corpus of authoritative texts (Scriptures) to which nothing can be added or subtracted. Depending on the time period in question, a text could be considered Scriptural without being canonical. You can have a Scriptural text without having a canon; a canon is ultimately a later organization of Scriptural texts.

Why is this relevant? Well, the majority of the New Testament texts were considered Scriptural before the end of the first century. Even though it is highly unlikely that the New Testament authors had any knowledge that their texts would eventually be included in a closed corpus, there is evidence that the New Testament authors already recognized many of each other’s texts as scriptural.

For example, scholars have long recognized that both Ignatius’ seven letters and the seven letters included in the Book of Revelation follow a precedent most likely established by the Pauline corpus - Paul wrote more than seven letters, but he wrote to seven churches total, and since seven was considered the number of perfection, Paul’s corpus of letters was assumed to be written for all Christians. The same thing occurs in Revelation - seven letters address seven particular, historical churches, but together they represent and apply to all churches. Based on certain other intertextual echoes, the evidence suggests that the Pauline corpus was already established and authoritative before the end of the first century AD. Moreover, the standard Pauline letter features, such as the uniquely Pauline greeting formula (“grace (chars) to you and peace,” rather than “greetings” (charein)), was already influential by the mid-first century (1 Peter 1:2).

The gospels provide another excellent example of this phenomenon. The early church Father Papias (c. 100 A.D.) referred to Mark’s gospel as containing Peter’s proclamations. Extensive studies on this issue have demonstrated the likelihood of Petrine influence in the composition of Mark’s gospel. A good case can be made for this history of composition - Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew. What is interesting is that, though there are some differences, each subsequent author felt bound to more or less use the text(s) preceding them as authoritative sources. In other words, the synoptic tradition itself demonstrates the early Scriptural status of at least the Synoptic gospels.

There are numerous other examples that substantiate the claim that most of the New Testament texts were already recognized as Scriptural by the first century, though I don’t have time to go into more now. The point is, there are good historical reasons for assuming that, within the period of the composition of the New Testament documents themselves, many texts were already Scriptural. In other words, for a significant number of core texts, we don’t actually need the church to demonstrate or even affirm their authority. The texts do that themselves.

This doesn’t work for all of the texts, however, which is why we have to get into discussions of apostolic authority (something that I also don’t have much time for). Suffice it to say that, following Scriptural precedent, I believe inspiration is closely tied to authorship. In other words, part of the reason why I trust that Deuteronomy is inspired is because of how closely tied it is within the canon to Moses. The same is true of Luke’s gospel, or James’ epistle. Authoritative figures within the early church have, in my opinion and for various reasons, special claims to inspiration. [/quote]

So, it is reasonable to assume that the phone game actually works in the Church, especially when dude’s write this stuff down? It’s safe to assume that when dudes agree almost unanimously it probably means that it is because that’s a definitive teaching?[/quote]

There is another issue of some import, and that is the fact that the early church fathers often lied. I know that seems like an inflammatory statement, but here me out. I don’t fault them one bit for it; they were trying to protect the gospel the best way they knew how.

The ancients didn’t think of lying in the ancient world the same way we do as Christians today. We assume that lying to anyone, Christian or unbeliever, for any reason is likely wrong. Some would say that it is ok to lie to protect a life (Holocaust scenarios, etc.), but in any other circumstance lying at all would be wrong. The problem is that the ancients thought in corporate terms, and group loyalty was paramount. For them, there was nothing wrong about lying to protect the group. Lying to insiders is wrong (Col. 3:9), but lying to outsiders for the safety and security of the group was often seen as fine.

When reacting to philosophical attacks from outside, you often see the church fathers making things up to bolster their own arguments. I intend to write a thesis on this phenomenon eventually, so I am not going to give away the fruits of all my research just yet :), but there are dozens of examples of church fathers coming up with ad hoc explanations for particular doctrines or church practices, explanations that have no historical basis but are the best that the church fathers could do at the time. This happens relatively frequently and was a necessary move, as the Christian leaders could not simply admit to those who would destroy the faith, “we don’t know the answer to your question.” Instead, they made up answers on the spot, and often creative ones. This phenomenon occurred generally in contexts where a particular author was arguing against outsiders, but since much of our literature from the early church IS polemical in nature, my argument is relevant.[/quote]

You are a treasure trove of information KingKai…

674

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote: I do hereby exclude myself from this group.
[/quote]Fine! We didn’t want you in our group anyway! You smell funny and have big ears…[/quote]These are humongous topics and I DO see value in every relevant piece of data possible being brought to our sacred studies. I have to say though. You are dancing in a minefield of potentially naturalistic deception. No jab, just honest. And my Fundy#5 cologne and dumbo lobes have nuthin to do with this alright?
[/quote]

Are you speaking to a particular issue I presented, or are you expressing a general distrust of modern biblical scholarship?
[/quote]I am expressing the impossibility of the God I know through the scriptures we’ve had since the first century, leaving His beloved church bride bereft of ANY essential truth for two thousand years. In other words anything that breaks that system we touched on in the other thread is instantly false in the most decidedly ipso facto fashion imaginable. Not on the table and never ever will be. By “system” I am NOT referring simply to TULIP Calvinism, but I’m at work and like always, very short on time. =[

I made a comment a short way down this http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/metaphysics_the_actual_key_to_everything?id=5156839&pageNo=12 page that you will have no problem finding and which I would like your response to if you would be so kind as to forgive my odor and ears momentarily.
[/quote]

I can understand the feeling behind that argument, and maybe I assume too much, but I don’t really know how you can make such an argument based on your presuppositions. The New Testament authors modeled their talk about God’s love for his people on the statements in the Old Testament about God’s love for Israel. Was that all a sham? And yet (based on the reading of Paul I assume you hold), God left Israel, his beloved bride and adulterous wife, thinking for over a thousand years that she was actually capable of obeying his commandments, that the law was in fact something meant to be kept by them rather than a pointer to Christ. He left them without the notion of original sin transferred from Adam or even any clues to his Triune nature. I am not saying that such beliefs cannot be squared with (or in certain instances, inferred from) the Hebrew Scriptures, but I will say that the revelation given to Paul was highly innovative stuff, and the way he reads Scripture to get to his conclusions was anything but obvious. What makes us so special that God wouldn’t leave us in ignorance about some things?

I think my point is that God technically didn’t leave his people without a source of proper truth - he did, after all, provide the Scriptures - but he certainly didn’t guide every (or even the majority) of exegetes to arrive at that truth. If you are willing to say that God has good, LOVING reasons for why he chooses to save some and condemn others, why can you not extend the same benefit of the doubt to his supervision of biblical interpretation over the last 2,000 years? Indeed, aside from Augustine and a bare handful of others (most of whom would have had little direct influence on the beliefs of ordinary laity who were incapable of reading), the vast majority of Christians throughout the centuries have been synergistic soteriologically, and they lacked the capacities to access the truth for themselves. The simple fact is that God did not meticulously guide exegetes to read Scriptures the same way (i.e., faithfully), so what is to rule out the possibility that God has also allowed some truths to be buried, only to be rediscovered now?

675

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< those of us Protestants who want to find more common ground with______________ (KK said Catholics)[/quote]I do hereby exclude myself from this group. I am trying to FIND common spiritual or theological ground with absolutely nobody except Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Rome included. I have in common with ANYBODY, exactly that which they also have in common with Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I hasten to add, as you no doubt recognize, nothing I believe is in any way unique or original to myself, before anybody starts bayoneting that strawman. The truth as it is in Christ Jesus is what unites the saints and if you have to go digging, you’re already looking int he wrong places.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<<( a very long post in answer to dearest Christopher of which I read every single word) Another excellent and fair question. I would have to say- it depends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]So then along comes 20 and 21st century scholarship to return us to the long lost Jewish roots of the 1st and early 2nd century church?
[/quote]

I think a better way to say it is - biblical scholarship has finally started to CARE about the Jewish roots of 1st and early 2nd century church. For most of church history, biblical scholars didn’t care at all about the link between Second Temple Judaism and Christianity. Theologians just assumed those “stupid first century Palestinians” simply didn’t know how to read.[/quote]

1st Century Palestinians didn’t know how to read.[/quote]

First of all, I was alluding to a relatively common scholarly joke, which is that the early church fathers argued that the Jews didn’t know how to read (i.e., interpret) their own Scriptures. Secondly, that’s untrue. Most Jewish boys were trained to read some of their Scriptures. They may not have known Greek, but they were generally able to read some.

676

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< What makes us so special that God wouldn’t leave us in ignorance about some things? >>>[/quote][quote]“In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth”[/quote][quote]Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.[/quote]We are living in the last days, which it has been since the first century. The “fullness of the times”. The redemptive church age. The fulfillment of all as Paul and the writer of Hebrews especially make unmistakably clear. Further future progressive revelation was promised constantly throughout the history of Old Testament Israel and Hebrews one addresses how that ends in Christ. Jeremiah foretells the NEW COVENANT itself in the 31st chapter. Hebrews twelve tells us that WE HAVE what they died looking forward to. Please show me the New Testament equivalent whereby I am to be looking for more than has been made known already. David understood grace just fine in the the 51st Psalm btw. As a side note. I also don’t have to tell you that Paul told the Galatians that Abraham was a “believer” to whom “the gospel” was preached.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< so what is to rule out the possibility that God has also allowed some truths to be buried, only to be rediscovered now?[/quote]Like what? That’s what the cults say. I’m askin.

677

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Rarely could anyone rightly accuse you of misreading, dear Tirib, but this is one such occasion. First of all, I wasn’t talking about progressive revelation; I purposefully avoided using the term “progressive revelation” (not that you would know that, of course). I am not talking about truly NEW truths being revealed for the first time; I am talking about the possibility of the obfuscation (through poor reading habits, improper assumptions, wrong motives, etc.) of truths known to the apostles and reflected in their writings. There is a difference between a revelation that is new to you and a genuinely new revelation. For a small tribe in a far corner of the world that hears the gospel for the first time, the revelation certainly is new, but it is the same revelation revealed to the apostles 2000 years ago.

Now let’s go one step further. You butchered the last quote of mine that you put up there, omitting the oh-so important first clause, and then used the traditional fundamentalist scare tactic (though I know you aren’t really a fundamentalist) - “watch out, you sound like a cultist!” “Oh no,” says KingKai to himself, “I better start backtracking fast!” Haha No, that’s not what I thought. Instead I thought, “How do I make myself more clear?”

Here’s my best shot - if God, having once provided the revelation contained within the Scriptures, obviously (historically speaking) did not so govern the INTERPRETATION of the revelatory texts so as to lead every faithful, well-intentioned Christian exegete to the same conclusions about their meaning, what is to rule out the possibility that God would allow a significant amount of time to elapse before leading us back to a MORE correct interpretation of those texts? Fundamentally, that’s what Protestants have argued for the last five centuries, i.e., that aside from a bare handful of bright lights (who themselves rarely had more than a good insight or two), God allowed the church to misinterpret the Scriptures for 14 centuries. There is a degree of hypocrisy to Protestantism that is rarely highlighted, but should be - we don’t care if God allowed the church to misinterpret for centuries, so long as WE are now interpreting correctly, but if you question the correspondence between OUR teachings and those of the early church, we exclaim, “no, God wouldn’t allow us to wallow in ignorance for so long! 1400 years? Sure, but 1900?! No way, Jose!”

More importantly, I am not talking about any truths in particular. As far as I remember, I didn’t really bring up any specific research on Second Temple Judaism that conflicted with Protestant claims. As soon as I mentioned the possibility that (1) new tools (2) in the hands of more self-conscious interpreters (3) applied to new material (4) could actually lead to more faithful interpretation of the New Testament (i.e., by allowing us to better situate these texts in their original contexts), you started to bring up the dangers of scholarship. I hear your word and I respect it, brother, and I recognize that deception is always a possibility for any of us, especially when using tools originally developed by unbelievers (not all of them, however), but I can’t help thinking that your a priori distrust of modern biblical scholarship derives more from traditional fundamentalist caricatures of late 19th-early 20th century scholarship than genuine familiarity with the field today. Evangelical scholars have made tremendous inroads and have contributed greatly to strengthening the faith of believers living in a world that constantly questions their most fundamental assumptions. You just won’t see these scholars - Craig Keener, Daniel Block, Nicholas Perrin, John Walton - on the History channel come Easter or Christmas, because they will point out that solid, honest, self-critical biblical scholarship continues to support the veracity of the biblical accounts.

My point is that there is no reason why God had to guide the interpretation of SOME group perfectly. It is absolutely a possibility, not that the revelation isn’t there, but that you and I as Protestants in different traditions have equally misinterpreted it in different ways. This is why I said before that the coherence of a system does not prove the accuracy of a system. Calvinism is very coherent, and it can give an answer for everything (even if it has to assume a LOT to do so), but that does not guarantee that it reflects an accurate reading of Scripture.

And it is the interpretation of Scripture that is at issue here, not the possibility of new revelation. I am not saying that biblical scholars are modern day prophets; I am saying that modern biblical scholars may be used by God to get us back to our Jewish roots and to help us properly understand the New Testament. Such a development may even usher in Paul’s hoped for end-time mass Jewish conversion to Christianity (Romans 11).

678

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote: Oh so your passing judgement on me now? But them later you are going to lie and say you didn’t?
By what reason do you think I don’t study the bible? Why, because I did not go painstakingly peruse through the historical books to find an instance of a King changing his name? [/quote]

I have not denied what I’ve said to you, although it seems I often must clarify because you don’t seem to be able to read well. Did you notice Br. Chris didn’t have any trouble going back and finding the instance from Isaiah? I went back and looked at every use of “holy” before I wrote my last post. You would call it painstaking, I would call it ENJOYABLE.

You’re such whiner, and lazy to boot.
[/quote]

You passed judgement on me. You bragged about how much more you read the bible than me, as if you know anything about my prayer and scripture life. Why? Because you did not have an answer for what I said. You have been wrong about almost everything you said and it’s been proven. If we have no common ground it’s because you have filled your heart with hate against me. I am trying to reach out to you, but your pride won’t let you do it.
Pride is an awful lonely state.

Let’s put our money where are mouths are. Let’s get totally real. I wish to reconcile with you, but I am unable to do such a thing unless you wish the same thing. Are you willing to reconcile and move forward? [/quote]
Nothing to reconcile Pat. You think I hate you because I disagree with you. You claim to know why I’ve written what I’ve written. You accuse me of vitriol, yet pepper your posts with crass language. It’s just better if we skip it altogether. Besides, haven’t I been proven wrong already? Go bask in your victory for awhile. I’ll not bother you. We were not friends before, we are not enemies now. I in no degree feel harmed by you. Be relieved of your burden. If I have some free time, I want to answer
Kingkai’s last, rather than go back and forth with you.

679

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< More importantly, I am not talking about any truths in particular. As far as I remember, I didn’t really bring up any specific research on Second Temple Judaism that conflicted with Protestant claims. >>>[/quote]I worked for the last half hour on a response that I cannot finish now. It may be tomorrow night before I actually can. Not sure. For now can I ask you then for an example of where “specific research on Second Temple Judaism {has} conflicted with” this: [quote]God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote]“protestant claim”?
Of course I quoted it before and of course every last scintilla of my entire belief system is erupting from this short paragraph. Also what do you men by my not being a fundamentalist? To keep it clear, I am not even slightly agitated here. I am having a civil discussion with you near as I can discern. I am however supremely confident in what I believe and why. An internet forum is just a very very tough way to convey content at this level. We could tussle hours a day for months in person.

Maybe another thread would be in order too. I should get another LAMP server up and create another forum site altogether like I used to have.
For all the lurkers out there, thank God the saving Gospel itself can be faithfully expressed in a few sentences accessible to a small child. Nobody has to know all this stuff to go to heaven, but somebody does have to know it.

680

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< More importantly, I am not talking about any truths in particular. As far as I remember, I didn’t really bring up any specific research on Second Temple Judaism that conflicted with Protestant claims. >>>[/quote]I worked for the last half hour on a response that I cannot finish now. It may be tomorrow night before I actually can. Not sure. For now can I ask you then for an example of where “specific research on Second Temple Judaism {has} conflicted with” this: [quote]God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote]“protestant claim”?
Of course I quoted it before and of course every last scintilla of my entire belief system is erupting from this short paragraph. Also what do you men by my not being a fundamentalist? To keep it clear, I am not even slightly agitated here. I am having a civil discussion with you near as I can discern. I am however supremely confident in what I believe and why. An internet forum is just a very very tough way to convey content at this level. We could tussle hours a day for months in person.

Maybe another thread would be in order too. I should get another LAMP server up and create another forum site altogether like I used to have.
For all the lurkers out there, thank God the saving Gospel itself can be faithfully expressed in a few sentences accessible to a small child. Nobody has to know all this stuff to go to heaven, but somebody does have to know it.
[/quote]

No irritation on this end. Just to make sure we are on the same page, could you provide me with a quick account of how you read “and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them?” How is this functioning rhetorically within the section? What particular issue(s) were the authors addressing with this statement?