Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
342

The Road Not Taken

[quote]“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”[/quote]
by Robert Frost

We can all interpret this poem in our own private manner. And although poetry is meant to be vague and affords us such an opportunity, the Holy Scriptures do not. If someone wanted to learn or interpret anything in the poem that Robert Frost is referring to, wouldn’t it be wise to ask Robert Frost himself (ie. for he is the one who produced the poem)? Likewise, if someone wanted to learn or interpret anything in the Holy Scriptures that the Apostles were referring to, wouldn’t it be wise to ask the Apostles themselves (ie. for they were the ones who produced the Holy Scriptures)?

And since Robert Frost is no longer alive but taught and interpreted this poem to his apprentices, wouldn’t it be wise to use their interpretation of anything in the poem? Similarly, since the Apostles are no longer alive but taught and interpreted the Holy Scriptures to their successors, wouldn’t it be wise to use their interpretation of anything in the Holy Scriptures?

Who are the successors to the Apostles?
The Orthodox Christian clergy.

As we can use any tradition to interpret Robert Frost’s poem, we can also use any tradition to interpret the Holy Scriptures - but it may mean the right one is not being implemented. Unlike the poem, it’s our duty to find and apply the correct tradition of interpretation regarding the Holy Scriptures. The question is what tradition of interpretation shall we use; the tradition of interpretation which the Apostles transmitted to the early Church in 33 AD? Or the tradition of interpretation formulated in the 16th century or the 17th century, or the 18th century, or the 19th century, or the 20th century, or the 21st century which has proven to deviate from the original?

I pose this question to all non-Orthodox Christians.
Peace be with you all.

343

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
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.
[/quote]

I won’t speak for the others, but this poster that worships with the “Methodists” doesn’t necessarily believe what all other UMC members believe, nor do I adhere 100% to the Wesleyan ideals.

I worship with a UMC congregation, but I consider myself a Christian first and foremost. This is much the same as considering myself a citizen of the USA above my (somewhat mixed?) heritage as a Scottsman.

I don’t go around calling myself a Methodist or Methodist-Christian, simply “a Christian” works for me.

Matthew

344

[quote]makkun wrote:

C’mon, it’s an honour to be called out by JeffR. At least that’s what I always thought, but I’m biased… :wink:

Makkun
[/quote]

I’ll relent on the other points, but this one…I don’t think I can!

J/k.

Matthew

345

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
It is realized …that the Bible is not a stand alone guide as many unwittingly claim. A teacher is needed. [/quote]

Some would argue that “the teacher” can be the Holy Spirit. Others would not.

Matthew

346

[quote]doogie wrote:
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.

Come on, Fishlips. Explain this to me.[/quote]

I hope you’ll appreciate it when this is cleared up for you and give serious thought to the fact that you thought you had a ‘lock’ on a contradiction here but looking a little bit deeper shows no such thing.

First, remember the point already established earlier concerning how the gospel writers did not simply copy each other and cover all the same details.

With that in mind let’s look a little at the timeline through these 3 accounts. Matthew mentions how Jesus cried out a second time but doesn’t mention what he said. Luke and John do. As we know the writers sometimes approached the same event somewhat differently, it is likely then Jesus said everything in those scriptures but the different apostles recorded different portions.

Keep in mind all the apostles were alive when their gospels were written. They didn’t have a problem with what each other wrote. If one thought another was wrong about something they certainly would have had opportunity to clear it up amongst themselves.

Another interesting POSSIBILITY is that Jesus speech at this agonizing, late point in his execution was indistinct. Note how some standing there(John 27:46,47) thought he was calling Elijah. The words he used, ‘Eli, Eli’, could have sounded like he was calling Elijah instead of ‘My God, my God’. Can’t know for sure but it seems very possible. What each apostle heard could have been different.
And what’s Jesus doing saying ‘My God’? Jesus has a God? Yes he does. Another Trinity destroyer.

347

For each item, please read specified verse(s) and then choose the correct response.

  1. Psalm 5:5-6. God hates:

a) the people who work iniquity.

b) iniquity only, not the people.

  1. Romans 9:11-13. God:

a) hated Esau unconditionally.

b) loved Esau but loved him less than He loved Jacob.

  1. Romans 9:15. God has compassion on:

(a) everyone.

(b) whom He chooses.

  1. Romans 9:18. God’s mercy is:

(a) common to all.

(b) particular to the elect.

  1. Psalm 2:4. God:

(a) laughs at the wicked.

(b) is sad that the wicked will not be saved.

  1. Psalm 11:5. God hates:

(a) the one who loves violence.

(b) the violence but loves the sinner.

  1. 2 Corinthians 2:14-16. The Truth is manifested to all:

(a) out of a gracious love of God for all, showing that He is willing to save all.

(b) to the good of the elect and the hardening of the reprobate.

  1. (Extra Credit) Matthew 7:23. Jesus will say to the reprobate:

(a) He loves them.

(b) He loved them at one time, but now He does not love them.

(c) He never loved them.

348

[quote]doogie wrote:
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]

doogie, according to your own extrapolation of this system, you reach your own conclusions; ie. lack of faith in Jesus Christ (or any god for that matter). People are free to implement their own systems in acknowledging the concept of one truth.

Second of all, you choose to apply your “beyond a shadow of a doubt” system which our legal structure functions within, while other structures do not. You are free to do so, but we are not forced to comply. It’s a no brainer that the dynamics of theology can neither be justified nor refuted by the system you endorse. If you read Protein Prejudice by Dr. Berardi you’d have noticed that his application of nutrition was NOT proven through scientific research but he continues to stick by these recommendations when counseling his athletes. According to you, just because his theories on protein intake haven’t been proven, then they shouldn’t be labeled truthful or applicable. There are many truths which have yet to be proven; the Divinity of Jesus Christ is one such example. In time though, everything shall be revealed.

349

[quote]doogie wrote:
The maggots will devour your flesh, as the demons drag your soul into the bowels of the abyss.

I’ll save you a seat.[/quote]

You can’t save me a seat. Where I’m struggling to go, a great gulf shall separate us.

350

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
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.

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.

[/quote]

Here’s another example of a monstrosity of an idea that people claim is in the bible but a little common sense blows apart.
Every human has complete free will to do whatsoever they please. And there are obviously consequences to every decision.

extol7extol it is not a choice if someone else has controlled it. This sounds as ridiculous to explain as the bread/wine into Jesus blood/flesh and the Trinity. Everyone ever notice how all these ideas that I expose as being unbiblical require a healthy pile of MYSTERY and CONFUSION in order to accept?

This one in particular is highly offensive and makes God look like a despot and a hypocrite. Why would God constantly tell people to make the right choices or suffer the consequences or enjoy the blessings if they didn’t really have a choice.

In addition, all wickedness and suffering on earth could then be attributable to God as he has set up the ‘game’. What you are saying then is that these poor little kids being abducted and raped on what seems like a sickening weekly basis are simply experiencing what God brings upon them because the criminal didn’t have a choice? You are truly sick to believe such a thing.

I already know the counter-points others will try to make so I’ll just wait for them then put them to rest.

351

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
doogie wrote:
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.

doogie, according to your own extrapolation of this system, you reach your own conclusions; ie. lack of faith in Jesus Christ (or any god for that matter). People are free to implement their own systems in acknowledging the concept of one truth.

Second of all, you choose to apply your “beyond a shadow of a doubt” system which our legal structure functions within, while other structures do not. You are free to do so, but we are not forced to comply. It’s a no brainer that the dynamics of theology can neither be justified nor refuted by the system you endorse. If you read Protein Prejudice by Dr. Berardi you’d have noticed that his application of nutrition was NOT proven through scientific research but he continues to stick by these recommendations when counseling his athletes. According to you, just because his theories on protein intake haven’t been proven, then they shouldn’t be labeled truthful or applicable. There are many truths which have yet to be proven; the Divinity of Jesus Christ is one such example. In time though, everything shall be revealed.[/quote]

I have beliefs, and I know they are beliefs. You think you have truths. Berardi wouldn’t hesistate to admit he is just making his best guess based on the evidence he sees. He certainly wouldn’t say that he is without a doubt correct, and anyone who had other theories would be drug down by demons to burn. You are insane because you think you know the answer to questions that can’t be answered.

352

[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
I won’t speak for the others, but this poster that worships with the “Methodists” doesn’t necessarily believe what all other UMC members believe, nor do I adhere 100% to the Wesleyan ideals.

I worship with a UMC congregation, but I consider myself a Christian first and foremost. This is much the same as considering myself a citizen of the USA above my (somewhat mixed?) heritage as a Scottsman.

I don’t go around calling myself a Methodist or Methodist-Christian, simply “a Christian” works for me.

Matthew[/quote]

Point taken. In NY people that describe themselves as such are called “non-denominationalists”. This is a 20th century phenomenon, never before witnessed in the world. They ascribe to the idea of an invisible Church of Christ instead of the very visible Orthodox Christian Church. They have no issues with floating about in different Protestant churches that may preach two or more conflicting beliefs, and it makes no difference where they worship and/or what one church witnesses in direct contradiction to their other. I assume this is why you rejected using the term “fundamentalist” when referring to yourself. Each man in this sense, becomes his own pope. He judges on his own accord what interpretations to apply on the Bible and what doctrines or dogmas he will continue to preach & practice.

I could personally never follow in the Christian Life knowing that I run the high risk of falling into heretical practices or heretical teachings (which the Bible reports is a cause for damnation). I once thought it was ok to follow doctrines of the wind as long as the congregation preached that Jesus Christ was God. Comparing then what I know now, I could not have been more wrong.

There are two basic principles that are derived from listening to “non-denominationalists”. They either consider themselves infallible (as the Pope of Rome does) since they believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them OR they readily admit to potentially worshipping/preaching/teaching Christianity in error. Out of curiosity, of which of these two are you?

Peace be with you.

353

It was never taught that way in the beginning. Good job using 21st century Bible interpretation to establish a heretical conclusion.
This is precisely the problem with Protestants/Jehovah’s Witnesses/Mormons and every other heretical group under the sun. They take Orthodox Christian writings and interpret them in heterodox ways. Oh the evils of men who rationalize away God’s Divine truths with their feeble minds.

It was emphasized long ago (and even before the Bible was written) that heretics will by no means enter the kingdom of God. You may all accept foreign doctrines and interpret the Bible by enemies of Truth, but I’ll stick with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which Jesus Christ established in 33 AD.

354

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
I hope you’ll appreciate it when this is cleared up for you and give serious thought to the fact that you thought you had a ‘lock’ on a contradiction here but looking a little bit deeper shows no such thing.[/quote]

What follows are your explanations for WHY they contradict each other, not evidence that they don’t.

Were they all sitting around a big table writing the scriptures at the same time so they knew what each was going to record? Wouldn’t each think it was important to cover all the details of the freaking crucifiction of Jesus rather than to hope someone else would fill in the gaps? It seems really unlikely that they would leave stuff out hoping someone else would cover it.

It probably wasn’t that important.

Ok. Maybe you’re right. Maybe Jesus said all of it: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit. It is finished.” If so, why do you think the apostles thought it was alright to pick and choose what they recorded? I mean,why not take the time to record your savior’s last 20 words? Just seems rude not to.

Kinda hard to write after death. Just kidding.

Is there evidence that they sat around comparing notes on each others gospels, fine tuning the story? I thought they sort of scattered after Jesus was killed.

Very possible. That would explain the CONTRADICTIONS.

355

Fishlips:

Give me a couple days-this is a busy week. I am glad that we all seem to be focusing on an actual TOPIC though.

356

[quote]doogie wrote:
You are insane because you think you know the answer to questions that can’t be answered.[/quote]

My faith is strong these days.

357

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
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.

Did Stella just say he doesn’t allow common sense to interfere with his dialogue? It all becomes clear…

John Whiteford
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm
“Perhaps the most daunting feature of Protestantism is the feature which has given it a reputation of stubborn resiliency in its numerous differences and contradictions… In order for one to understand the unique beliefs of each individual sect, it requires a knowledge of the history and development of Protestantism in general, a great deal of research into each major stripe of Protestant theology, worship, etc… Yet for all their differences there is one basic underlying assumption that unites the amorphous blob of these thousands of disparate groups into the general category of “Protestant.” All Protestant groups (with some minor qualifications) believe that their group has rightly understood the Bible, and though they all disagree as to what the Bible says, they generally do agree on how one is to interpret the Bible - apart from Church Tradition… Indeed, if you ever have an opportunity to see a Baptist and a Jehovah’s Witness argue over the Bible, you’ll notice that in the final analysis they simply quote different Scriptures back and forth at each other. If they’re equally matched intellectually, neither will get anywhere in the discussion because they both essentially agree on their own approach to the Bible… Neither can see that their mutually flawed approach to the Scriptures is the problem.”

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.[/quote]

I guess this scripture doesn’t mean much to you:
1 Cor 1:10 - “Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

You need to understand Stella, I in now way have said the Bible does not stand alone. It’s stands alone in having sole authority for Christians. Having a teacher for the scriptures doesn’t mean that teacher shall teach anything other than what is in the scriptures. A good teacher can add interesting sub-points, experiences etc. to help you but it doesn’t mean it belongs in the textbook, just like the apostles would have said many helpful things but it didn’t make those words inspired. If you wanted to be a doctor you can’t just go buy all the texts, read them and hope to become a doctor. A good teacher helps one understand the information in the text.

358

[quote]doogie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
I hope you’ll appreciate it when this is cleared up for you and give serious thought to the fact that you thought you had a ‘lock’ on a contradiction here but looking a little bit deeper shows no such thing.

What follows are your explanations for WHY they contradict each other, not evidence that they don’t.[/quote]

A quick thought doogie. It can only be a contradiction if one gospel says Jesus DIDN’T say what the other says he did. Because they don’t all say the exact same words doesn’t make it a contradiction.

[quote]First, remember the point already established earlier concerning how the gospel writers did not simply copy each other and cover all the same details.

Were they all sitting around a big table writing the scriptures at the same time so they knew what each was going to record? Wouldn’t each think it was important to cover all the details of the freaking crucifiction of Jesus rather than to hope someone else would fill in the gaps? It seems really unlikely that they would leave stuff out hoping someone else would cover it.[/quote]

Let’s not forget, God directed the writing of the bible. It was HE who would make sure nothing important was left out.

[quote]With that in mind let’s look a little at the timeline through these 3 accounts. Matthew mentions how Jesus cried out a second time but doesn’t mention what he said.

It probably wasn’t that important.

Luke and John do. As we know the writers sometimes approached the same event somewhat differently, it is likely then Jesus said everything in those scriptures but the different apostles recorded different portions.

Ok. Maybe you’re right. Maybe Jesus said all of it: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit. It is finished.” If so, why do you think the apostles thought it was alright to pick and choose what they recorded? I mean,why not take the time to record your savior’s last 20 words? Just seems rude not to.[/quote]

Sometimes we just don’t have every answer but the ones we don’t have would never be critical to developing solid faith. Refer to my point above about God’s direction on their writing. HE actually did the picking and choosing.

[quote]Keep in mind all the apostles were alive when their gospels were written.

Kinda hard to write after death. Just kidding.

They didn’t have a problem with what each other wrote. If one thought another was wrong about something they certainly would have had opportunity to clear it up amongst themselves.

Is there evidence that they sat around comparing notes on each others gospels, fine tuning the story? I thought they sort of scattered after Jesus was killed.[/quote]

Acts 8:1 “All except the apostles were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.”

[quote]Another interesting POSSIBILITY is that Jesus speech at this agonizing, late point in his execution was indistinct. Note how some standing there(John 27:46,47) thought he was calling Elijah. The words he used, ‘Eli, Eli’, could have sounded like he was calling Elijah instead of ‘My God, my God’. Can’t know for sure but it seems very possible. What each apostle heard could have been different.

Very possible. That would explain the CONTRADICTIONS.[/quote]

Why do you study the bible? My guess is academically/interest oriented. Good questions!

359

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips:

Give me a couple days-this is a busy week. I am glad that we all seem to be focusing on an actual TOPIC though.[/quote]

I would love some extra time. Haven’t been getting much done other than posting. This dialogue has an addictive quality to it.

I appreciate your respectful tone in your posts. But if I think your reasoning is wacked I’ll also tell you that with respect because it is so important to have a clear, correct understanding of God’s word.

360

For any non-Christians in the thread who have further questions/comments on Christianity, I’d just like to announce once again that what Fishlips teaches is in harsh disaccord with the teachings of the Orthodox Christian Church (est. 33 AD). If you actually care to study the true Christian Faith, don’t be fumbled by 21st century interpretation. Go back to the beginning. Read, as some have started doing, what the early Church taught and why. Discover the genuine interpretation of passages in the Bible, not offshoots of the original.

(1) So far, the practice of Apostolic succession (which the Orthodox Christian Church preserves) has been verified.

(2) Although the Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is a mystery accepted by faith, it’s critical to note that the Eucharist has always been recognized as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the Church since the beginning of Christianity and before the New Testament was ever written. Anyone who argues contrary to how the Church viewed the Eucharist during ancient times is making a blunder. This is not to say that atheists will agree with this mystery, but to settle the lofty ideas of those who hail the Bible as being divinely inspired yet no longer celebrate this practice.

(3) Last but not least, the concept of sola scriptura or Bible alone has been shown to be sheer folly. The question is not whether or not the Bible can be deciphered using common sense, but what tradition of interpretation man will continue to use. This point has also conclusively been brought home. It remains reasonable that to interpret an author’s work, we must go to the author himself. In this sense, if we are to interpret the Bible, we are to go to those who produced and compiled the Bible, ie. the Orthodox Christian Church.

I’m stressing these details to magnify the rift in teaching between Orthodox Christians versus people of Protestant or undisclosed faiths (of which Fishlips is one). Although the mysteries of God can not be proven, the practices and teachings of the early Church can. Here is where a person (like our opponent Fishlips) has been unable to defend his stance with any relevant counter-arguments. It’s important for you atheists to realize this before you get swept in the wrong direction.

Any further questions or comments can be posted to my attention or relayed with a private message.

361

[quote]Fishlips wrote:

Let’s not forget, God directed the writing of the bible. It was HE who would make sure nothing important was left out.
[/quote]

That quickly brings an end to this discussion. It’s hard to argue with,“It’s messed up only because God wants it that way.”

[quote]
Why do you study the bible? My guess is academically/interest oriented. Good questions![/quote]

Used to be a Christian. Then I had those questions that can’t be answered. Then I read THE AGE OF REASON.