[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
The maggots will devour your flesh, as the demons drag your soul into the bowels of the abyss.[/quote]
I’ll save you a seat.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.
(Clearly the word is Jesus, I mean is there anyone who wants to debate that? Now tell me what this verse means if not God became man.)
[/quote]
The word is Jesus.
But of course an erroneus translation is quoted yet again. I will allow you to peruse a couple references to the proper understanding and translation of that scripture.
The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, by Count Leo Tolstoy:
“If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God.”
The Four Gospels, by C. C. Torrey, shows the difference between the?s with ho (the definite article) and the?s without ho by printing his translation as follows: ?And the Word was with God, and the Word was god.? (Second edition of 1947) (SMALL “g”)
The Bishop(Westcott co-producer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures) says that the omission of the definite article ‘the’ before the Greek word the?s makes the word the?s like an adjective that ?describes the NATURE OF THE WORD? rather than identify his person. This fact accounts for it that some translators render it: ?And the Word was divine.?
Some translations say ‘the word was divine’ or ‘the word was a god’ or ‘the word was god’.
You can’t be WITH someone and also be them.
Now I’ve found a number of mert’s posts and replied.
Your turn to go back to one of my posts on pg. 11. You made no reply to it and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed it as the whole stupid things except for the last line was in grey lettering.
It was primarily questions for Stella based on one of his posts but mert you are welcome to have input.
I avoid no subject and/or no post I am aware of.
I would especially enjoy your input on this doozey:
First Timothy 1:3, 4 records Paul?s warning to ?certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to false stories and to GENEALOGIES which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith.? The force of this warning is more appreciated when we know of the scrupulous accuracy with which the Jews kept the genealogies, and how minutely they investigated any possible discrepancy. But when Paul wrote First Timothy such controversies were pointless. It was no longer vital to have the genealogical records maintained, since God no longer recognized in the ?body of Christ? Jew or Gentile anyway, and the genealogical records already established the descent of Christ through the line of David. So the genealogies were of no importance to Christian teaching, and Christians should not be sidetracked into such quarrels that contribute nothing to Christian faith.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
No the Pharisees were not authorized interpretors.
Consider this reference:
?The nature of the difference [between Jesus and the Pharisees] is made clear only in the light of the two opposing understandings of God. For the Pharisees, God is primarily one who makes demands; for Jesus he is gracious and compassionate. The Pharisee does not, of course, deny God?s goodness and love, but for him these were expressed in the gift of the Torah [Law] and in the possibility of fulfilling what is there demanded. .?.?. Adherence to the oral tradition, with its rules for interpreting the law, was seen by the Pharisee as the way to the fulfilment of the Torah. .?.?. Jesus? elevation of the double command of love (Matt. 22:34-40) to the level of a norm of interpretation and his rejection of the binding nature of the oral tradition .?.?. led him into conflict with Pharisaic casuistry.??The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.
[/quote]
Matthew 23:2 is a direct quotation from Jesus QUOTE:“The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are authorized interpretors of Moses’ Law.”
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
No the Pharisees were not authorized interpretors.
Consider this reference:
?The nature of the difference [between Jesus and the Pharisees] is made clear only in the light of the two opposing understandings of God. For the Pharisees, God is primarily one who makes demands; for Jesus he is gracious and compassionate. The Pharisee does not, of course, deny God?s goodness and love, but for him these were expressed in the gift of the Torah [Law] and in the possibility of fulfilling what is there demanded. .?.?. Adherence to the oral tradition, with its rules for interpreting the law, was seen by the Pharisee as the way to the fulfilment of the Torah. .?.?. Jesus? elevation of the double command of love (Matt. 22:34-40) to the level of a norm of interpretation and his rejection of the binding nature of the oral tradition .?.?. led him into conflict with Pharisaic casuistry.??The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.
Matthew 23:2 is a direct quotation from Jesus QUOTE:“The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are authorized interpretors of Moses’ Law.”
[/quote]
Think about it mert…Jesus spent the rest of this chapter lambasting the Pharisees. Now why would he be calling them authorized interpreters? “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses.” is a direct, much more accurate quote. Now in context with the rest of the chapter, which fits? Jesus was denouncing how they’ve set themselves up as authorities.
I feel sorry for the T-Nationers who gave up reading this thread in the middle, and are now missing the One True Comedy that this thread has become.
Jeffy, doogs and pookie are my new heroes, and shall now attain sainthood in my sun cult I founded back in the Pope Benedict thread. And the cool thing about being a sun saint is you don’t have to die first. You get to be alive to enjoy the perks of sainthood, like the one free handjob from the nice girls down at the Camel Toe Club, or a coupon for one free beer from Sal’s Package Liquors on the corner of Bradford and 5th in lovely Tallahassee, Florida (bus fare not included). Congratulations guys, I’m also sending you each one of our handsome “World’s #1 Sun Cult Saint” mugs by Federal Express.
As for the faithful who have been keeping this thread alive, I thank you from the bottom of my rotted, black, heathen heart. You guys are the best.
XOXO
–The Nerf Gun
[quote]pookie wrote:
I call upon all Atheists, Heathens, Heretics, Blasphemers, Doubters and Pagans. Hell, bring along a few Fornicators for good measure! Heed my words!
Verily I say unto thee, the simple-minded dolts of faith are beating a hasty retreat!! But we shall not let them escape in such a cowardly fashion! The seeds of doubt are mightier than any dogma. They work slowly, but surely; corrupting the shackles of blind faith until finally reason is allowed to emerge and shine through the darkness of ancient doctrine.
Primitive scripture cannot withstand the assaults of logic and critical thought; like a seeding dandelion in a hurricane it is blown away like so much dust.
Only through reason and thought will Man discover the ultimate truth of the universe. The mind wasting methods of the ancients have held sway to this day; but their time is up!
…just kidding. You can go back to arguing who’s fairy tale is the mostest best one now.[/quote]
Pookster: run away from what? What’s the question? If you haven’t been following along, the ONLY question we’re dealing with is if the Bible requires interpretation-which the Orthodox Church (and I believe you just) have stated, or whether it is a STAND ALONE vessel of truth that can be understood w/o interpretation as Fishlips posits. We can deal with who should do the interpreting LATER, but that’s the only question out there at the moment. Why should I leave the debate? Because your arguing my side and yet believing that you are in diametric opposition to me. Who’s paying attention, and or being logical?
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Think about it mert…Jesus spent the rest of this chapter lambasting the Pharisees. Now why would he be calling them authorized interpreters? “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses.” is a direct, much more accurate quote. Now in context with the rest of the chapter, which fits? Jesus was denouncing how they’ve set themselves up as authorities.[/quote]
Can we agree for starters the the only real question is whether the Bible requires interpretation? (I am not against looking at accurate translations as you have proposed of course) The issue of Christ’s mode of presence in the Eucharist and the Trinity is secondary because once we set up the need for interpretation, these become at least POSSIBLE interpretations.
I am bound to my agreement to use scripture as the evidence that the bible needs interpretation, so I will accept this handicap, but I only need to find 1 verse that shows the need for interpretation because no matter haow many would stand against it, the mere presence of 1 uninterpreted verse would at least show the bible to have a question that requires interpretation. Likewise would showing 1 clearly ambiguous verse, or 2 which appear to contradict one another without some interpretation (again not translation or contextualization which is wholly fair).
Now Matthew 23:3 says: “So you must obey and follow everything that they tell you to do.” Does this not mean that they have been given authority from God. If God did not authorize them, would not Jesus say “abandon their flawed teachings?” He is saying that even in their flawed and sinful state, they have authority. You must submit to this authority.
Also please tell me, as I’ve asked before, what is the difference between Jesus being Divine and being God.
Also, what is meant in Genesis and John by the phrase “In the beginning”
Not to hide anything, I am seeking to show that you need to interpret, not just accurately translate these terms: Divine and In the Beginning to understand them.
Thanks.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Pookster: run away from what? What’s the question?[/quote]
Don’t mind me, I was simply parodying cellar_horizon’s Machine Gun/Sniper homily. From the “other” side for good measure…
I’ve read a few posts here and there sporadically. I find that this thread gives me a great neck workout, as I tend to shake my head in disbelief a lot.
[quote]the ONLY question we’re dealing with is if the Bible requires interpretation-which the Orthodox Church (and I believe you just) have stated, or whether it is a STAND ALONE vessel of truth that can be understood w/o interpretation as Fishlips posits. We can deal with who should do the interpreting LATER, but that’s the only question out there at the moment. Why should I leave the debate? Because your arguing my side and yet believing that you are in diametric opposition to me. Who’s paying attention, and or being logical?
[/quote]
My previous question was serious; I was questioning the phisophical validity of the “One Truth” assertion.
As for the rest, experience shows that any debate that includes religion (or worse, religionS) and the Bible will only end when all participants die of old age or from spontaneous massive neuronal apoptosis.
I can condense the whole thread to a few lines:
“My Dogma beats your Dogma. Does not! Does so! Does not you heretic! Does so you heathen!” Repeat 'til Judgment Day.
For you to claim to know the ONE TRUTH, you’d have to first prove beyond a shadow of the doubt that there is a God. Then you’d have to prove that there is only ONE god. Then you’d have to prove that that one god is the Christian God. Then you’d have to prove that Jesus was either the son of god/or god himself (ya’ll can fight that one out). THEN and ONLY then could you even start making the assinine arguements that are on this thread. Back up and start with step 1.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
You have most certainly misunderstood the thrust of this second half of John 1:18. The proper translation was to say ‘only-begotten god’ and not ‘Son’ at all, certainly not both expressions. The Expositor?s Greek Testament admits: ?The MS. [manuscript] authority favours the reading ???(the actual Greek letters won’t copy over) [god]; while the versions and the [Church] Fathers weigh rather in the opposite scale.? Why did the ‘Church Fathers’ (who believed Jesus was God) say ‘Son’ instead of ‘only-begotten god’? Because they feared anti-Trinitarians for whom ?this appellation [?only-begotten god?] happily distinguished Him [the Son] from the Father.?
Otherwise there is a striking contradiction from saying no one has seen God to saying Jesus is God whom many did see, moments later. Again, what is the point, then, of the first part of this scripture?
The Jews knew that no one had seen God, likewise the Greek concept of Logos was useeable. The contrast seems to me to be saying: Before Jesus, God was never seen by anyone, but now he is revealed in his incarnate form-Jesus. The term “never” refers to Chronological time, and Chronologically no one had ever seen God before Jesus came. As prophesied, God would destroy the curse of death in the flesh As Isaiah cried: Hell was embittered when it met you face to face![/quote]
OK you say before Jesus no one has seen God/the Father(John 14:9). Why then do we have Jesus himself talking to his followers about the Father saying ‘you have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his figure’?(John 5:37) There his followers were looking at him and Jesus STILL said they haven’t seen the Father. Even with Jesus there before them they had not seen the Father. Point clear?
[quote]Remember, others were called ‘gods’ in the bible too. When read correctly the scripture is harmonious: No one has seen God, the only-begotten god(Jesus in his divine nature) revealed (instructed others about) Him. Why is that? Because a human would instantaneously die at seeing God so he sent his Son to tell others about him.
Simple and clear
So what does it mean to call Jesus the only Begotten god? You say that Jesus has a divine nature, what do you mean by this. And what is meant by the Holy Spirit? It sounds like you believe in (at least 2 Gods) but not the idea of them being united as 1 true God.[/quote]
I dealt with Jesus nature in another recent post. Jesus is god-like in form. I believe the bible when it says Jesus is actually God’s son, a separate being inferior to his Father. The Holy Spirit is not a person at all. It is the force God uses to ‘get things done’ so to speak. That’s why Acts 2:17 says “And in the last days,” God says, “I shall pour out some of MY SPIRIT upon every sort of flesh.” It belongs to God.
The Scriptures speak of ?the only-begotten son? of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus? ?only-begotten daughter,? and of a man?s ?only-begotten? son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Lu 7:11,?12; 8:41,?42; 9:38) Paul referred to Isaac as Abraham?s ?only-begotten son? (Heb 11:17), even though Abraham also fathered Ishmael by Hagar as well as several sons by Keturah. (Ge 16:15; 25:1, 2; 1Ch 1:28, 32)Jesus is only-begotten in that he is the only DIRECT creation by God. He is the ‘firstborn of all creation’.(Col. 1:15) After that the Father used Jesus(not called that yet) to create everything else.
The properly inspired books of the bible were simply collected together at that time as there were many other spurious apocryphal writings they needed to be differentiated from.
Note these references.
Internal evidence confirms the clear division made between the inspired and the spurious works. The apocryphal writings are much inferior and often fanciful and childish. They are frequently inaccurate. Note the following statements by scholars on these noncanonical books:
“There is no question of any one’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.”?M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. xii.
“We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realise how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical.”?G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, p. 228.
“Much of the Gospel of Thomas is plainly later and untrustworthy tradition . . . of no use for determining what Jesus said and did.”?F. V. Filson, The Biblical Archaeologist, 1961, p. 18.
“There is no known extra-cononical Gospel material which is not (when it can be tested at all) in some way subject to suspicion for its genuineness or orthodoxy.”?C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, p. 192.
“It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added today to the Canon.”?K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, p. 24.
The Trinity is a complete falsehood never taught in the Bible. Why do you think it took nearly 300 years after Christ’s death for people to make up the teaching of the Trinity?
[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Pookster: run away from what? What’s the question?
Don’t mind me, I was simply parodying cellar_horizon’s Machine Gun/Sniper homily. From the “other” side for good measure…
If you haven’t been following along
I’ve read a few posts here and there sporadically. I find that this thread gives me a great neck workout, as I tend to shake my head in disbelief a lot.
the ONLY question we’re dealing with is if the Bible requires interpretation-which the Orthodox Church (and I believe you just) have stated, or whether it is a STAND ALONE vessel of truth that can be understood w/o interpretation as Fishlips posits. We can deal with who should do the interpreting LATER, but that’s the only question out there at the moment. Why should I leave the debate? Because your arguing my side and yet believing that you are in diametric opposition to me. Who’s paying attention, and or being logical?
My previous question was serious; I was questioning the phisophical validity of the “One Truth” assertion.
As for the rest, experience shows that any debate that includes religion (or worse, religionS) and the Bible will only end when all participants die of old age or from spontaneous massive neuronal apoptosis.
I can condense the whole thread to a few lines:
“My Dogma beats your Dogma. Does not! Does so! Does not you heretic! Does so you heathen!” Repeat 'til Judgment Day.
[/quote]
Boy you made me laugh with this one. Almost blew my tortellini out ma nose!
doogs, all of that is easily provable if you believe what is in the bible is true. You can go to the book and point out passages and whatnot which answer all of your questions. The proof is right there… that’s what they’ve been trying to tell us the whole time.
I can’t believe how stupid I’ve been all these years thinking that there is no God when it’s spelled out quite obviously for me.
Must… go to church… prove I believe and belong to the club by titheing a portion of my income… I am now special… must… go to church… prove I believe…
Alright. However there are a heck of a lot more points of mine you and Stella have made no mention of. Don’t wanna be hypocrites now and avoid my arguments.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Think about it mert…Jesus spent the rest of this chapter lambasting the Pharisees. Now why would he be calling them authorized interpreters? “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses.” is a direct, much more accurate quote. Now in context with the rest of the chapter, which fits? Jesus was denouncing how they’ve set themselves up as authorities.
Can we agree for starters the the only real question is whether the Bible requires interpretation? (I am not against looking at accurate translations as you have proposed of course) The issue of Christ’s mode of presence in the Eucharist and the Trinity is secondary because once we set up the need for interpretation, these become at least POSSIBLE interpretations.[/quote]
But then I just know it will become a stupid conversation about interpreting what interpreting means. You and Stella’s literalist take on everything makes for a very tedious interaction.
I equate your views that everything needs to be spelled out in the bible or it’s incomplete to an alcoholic going for treatment. He’s been told not to drink. However, he reasons, the doctor didn’t say I couldn’t inject the alcohol right into my veins! Any intelligent person could see the doctors instructions, though mentioning nothing about vein injections of alcohol, would certainly include that in his prohibition. You could REASON that out.
I invite you to throw any scripture you want out there. There will never be a required interpretation where the meaning requires someone with ‘extra-special’ knowledge.
Can you honestly not read the rest of that verse and see the point? They were simply repeating the authorized Law, not their own teachings. Jesus finished that thought with ‘do not do according to their deeds, for they say but do not perform.’ So it’s just like a Satanist that tells you to ‘love your neighbor’. Are you not going to love your neighbor cuz it was a Satanist that told you too? Jesus was telling people not to reject the proper observation of the Law(and learn from it) just because the ones who claimed authority to teach it were hypocrites.
The idea is embodied well in this promise to Christians who would go to heaven.
“Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature.” 2 Pet. 1:4 One does not have to be God to have divine nature as even some humans will have it.
[quote]Also, what is meant in Genesis and John by the phrase “In the beginning”
Not to hide anything, I am seeking to show that you need to interpret, not just accurately translate these terms: Divine and In the Beginning to understand them.
Thanks.[/quote]
When John states that “in the beginning the Word was,” it means that the Word was the beginning of God’s creative works, “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14)
Regarding Genesis. You no doubt agree God had no beginning so what do the words ‘in the beginning’ mean(applies above also)? This is somewhat different than John’s reference in that it would refer to the beginning of when God started creating ‘physical’ things (heavens and the earth)but now using Jesus. John 1:3 says “All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.” Notice it says ‘through’ him. As he was created himself this would be speaking of everything BUT him. It’s like going to my shed and me telling you I made everything in this shed with this saw. Obviously though that wouldn’t include the saw itself, now would it?
So John refers right back to the creation of Jesus then Genesis speaks of Jesus creating the rest.(like a contractor(Jesus) commissioned by a company(God), Jesus built the ‘building’ but the company can also say they built it, but only the company ‘caused’ it to be built.)
[quote]doogie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
The important point is they don’t contadict each other.
Jesus’ last words
Matt.27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”
Luke23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”
John19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
Seems like they could have at least agree upon the guy’s last words.
[/quote]
Come on, Fishlips. Explain this to me.
SH was hardly being “aggressive” by asking if the guy was Jewish and then sticking with the point of the thread by stating that if they don’t believe in Jesus as the Christ, he wasn’t going to post to that person again.
My point was that if simply asking another person’s belief is Jewish, then his response will be to stop responding is considered “anti-Semetic”, then you have plenty of people on your side to say “cut that out” to, as they are MUCH more aggressive towards the Christians on this thread.
And JeffR, grow up. I’ve barely had anything to do with this thread and you keep calling me out. I’m not an Orthodox Christian (w/a capital “O”, that is), so leave me out of your nonsense.
Matthew
[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
SH was hardly being “aggressive” by asking if the guy was Jewish and then sticking with the point of the thread by stating that if they don’t believe in Jesus as the Christ, he wasn’t going to post to that person again.[/quote]
I thought he was. If you read the whole post I have stated my views already. He told me he didn’t mean it that way and that is good enough for me. I apologised for misunderstanding him - that should be good enough for him. Why open it up again?
Nope. Don’t agree with you. I think the “religies” are more aggressive in this thread than the “non-religies”. And using someone’s religion/race/gender/sexual orientation as a reason not to communicate with them is discriminative behaviour. But again, SH told me he didn’t mean it this way, and that is good enough for me. I might not agree with him on … any … issues, but we are T-men here…
[quote]And JeffR, grow up. I’ve barely had anything to do with this thread and you keep calling me out. I’m not an Orthodox Christian (w/a capital “O”, that is), so leave me out of your nonsense.
Matthew [/quote]
C’mon, it’s an honour to be called out by JeffR. At least that’s what I always thought, but I’m biased… 
Makkun
[quote]hedo wrote:
I think at some level religion is the fallacy of man trying to explian the concept of God in a way we can understand. God, having the supreme being’s sense of humor, created free will so he can watch the fun as we sort this religion thing out.
[/quote]
A few comments on your comments:
You said that “at some level religion is the fallacy of man trying to explain the concept of God in a way we can understand.”
Okay. But when you said that God has “created free will”, aren’t you trying to explain your concept of God in a way we can understand?
BTW, There is no such monstrosity as free will. You will not find it in
Scripture. God controls every action of every man. That doesn’t mean that man is unable to think or unable to choose. It’s just that God controls what every man thinks and chooses.
here is another truth, the fed decided to raise interest rates by 25 basis points. then they come out saying that long term inflation is under control sending the market up at the end of the day. I figure i’d talk about stuff that is in people’s faces today considering the other topic was way over people’s heads. laters pk
As I’ve already emphasized, I have no will to debate those who lack faith in the Lord & Savior Jesus Christ. My next post is specifically addressed to Christians who also believe that the Bible is divinely inspired.
Before I posted on this thread, I knew Christians would attempt to disarm the doctrines & dogmas of Christians from other sects by submitting various passages from the Bible to one another and interpreting these passages in different manners. The reason different doctrines & dogmas exist today is precisely because of the tradition various sects use to interpret Holy Scriptures. Common sense, (contrary to your assertion Fishlips) does nothing to assist the dialogue. The concept of sola scriptura or Bible alone proves ineffective in restoring unity to the Christian faithful.
John Whiteford
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm
It’s no sheer coincidence that a Baptist believes what all other Baptists believe, or that a Jehovah’s Witness believes what all other Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, or that a Methodist believes what all other Methodists believe. Herein exists the dilemma to Bible interpretation; it seems clear to everyone what the Bible says, but everyone’s been guided to interpret Holy Scripture according to their particular church tradition, regardless if the minister of the congregation fails to admit this. Thus the question is not how to interpret the Bible, but which tradition of interpretation we continue to use. It is realized (and you’ve even conceded this Fishlips) that the Bible is not a stand alone guide as many unwittingly claim. A teacher is needed. The underlying point is that whatever tradition of interpretation that minister teaches us will most likely be the tradition of interpretation we inherit and preach to others.