This is why I like being Catholic, I don’t have to rely on my own intelligence (you know with Original Sin and all) to come up with doctrine…it was given to us…by God. I can spend my time scrutinizing every minute detail rather than wasting time making stuff up.
If his highness would please check his royal email account, I have sent him the fix for that truly painful bit of tag flubbing above. Your welcome.
A quick obvious question in the meantime then becomes: Do I smell the ghost of an unjustly treated Sabellius?
Christopher do you realize what you just said before I say it and you think I’m dissin you.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m going to go ahead and guess that I won’t be nearly as impressed as you are. “Sola scriptura” is one of the most consistently caricatured and misrepresented protestant doctrines of all. Here’s a tip from someone who has read works from dozens of various religious groups. Most of them can make a case that looks impressive to someone who is not grounded anywhere. That is not an insult Karado. You are simply not in a place to reliably evaluate something like this. If you hate me now I’ll feel bad, but I have feeling I’m not the only one who will think this.
Sola scriptura is not even necessary for a protestant campaign against Catholicism. I take that weapon away from them every time. I don’t believe that anything can be true that is contradicted by the scriptures. That’s not the same as saying that nothing can be true that is not in the scriptures. Which is usually what Catholics mistake “Sola Scriptura” to be advancing. [/quote]
Bingo. I have never once rejected tradition a priori as an inaccurate guide to the beliefs of the apostles; in theory, I am open to the possibility that the traditions we find in the early church fathers do in fact derive from the apostles. In other words, I believe it’s possible for some traditions to shed light on the apostolic teaching. [/quote]
The dangers of sola scriptura is that some people can really lose their way and with out a proper foundation may never find their way back. I think of Westboro when I write this. They lost their minds and have no core to come back to. They are as bible reading as it gets, and they are so far from the heart of God’s word that it’s not even measurable. They are lost, and they rely totally on the Bible alone.
[quote]Karado wrote:
Thanks for the BEST Bible Translations…so there are no better, clearer, no nonsense translations than the ESV and NRSV Versions eh?
How do those versions compare to the “Knox” Bible? Someone said that was one of the best.
I’ll get the ESV and NRSV versions soon I guess, if there are no better ones to choose from.[/quote]
If you are going to pick one, I would get the ESV study bible. The notations are immensely helpful and are focused on the word outside the paradigm of a sect of Christianity. Crossway makes some quality Bibles that can stand a lot of abuse. So check out the Crossway website. Just google Crossway. It also comes with online access which is really well done.
You can also get the free app on your phone. The free app is just the Bible, the paid app has all the study notes.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< The dangers of sola scriptura is that some people can really lose their way and with out a proper foundation may never find their way back. I think of Westboro when I write this. They lost their minds and have no core to come back to. They are as bible reading as it gets, and they are so far from the heart of God’s word that it’s not even measurable. They are lost, and they rely totally on the Bible alone.[/quote]Pat this is a good old fashioned non-sequitur my friend. Are Popes Stephen VI, Benedict IX, Urban VI, John XII, Alexander VI or Sergius III among many others in themselves proof of the illegitimacy of the papacy? I don’t think so. I measure the papacy against the scriptures. Period. I see popes that even Catholics wish they could disown as a symptom of the papacy. Not themselves deciding evidence of it’s divine institution or not. I’m simply being honest. There are not “30,000” different defining views among true protestants. There just aren’t.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There has been a perpetual disconnect here which I am not sure how to correct. I don’t question the intents of the authors, nor the inspiration how ever it occurred. I didn’t posit a dictation motif save for my example of note taking which was bad. The point of that wasn’t that I was taking notes, it was that I wrote things I didn’t totally understand.
So in reality we do not differ in the opinion of divine inspiration and writers intent. Where we differ is that I am on the side that says that the writers may not have fully understood what they were writing even if they thought they did. And you are on the side that they wrote what they meant and it only meant what they thought at the time of writing and further interpretation beyond that is impossible.
I humbly disagree. As the work evolved so did it’s meanings.
It really doesn’t matter how the divinity became invited.
[/quote]
THIS recognition on your part is why I’ve been laughing - I completely agree that there has been a seemingly impenetrable wall between us. THAT’S what I’m laughing at; I consistently feel like I’m explaining myself and you don’t understand, while you feel exactly the same way. Serves me right for trying to compose these responses in the breaks between classes (or sometimes during certain classes lol). No disrespect was intended - I hold you and your intellectual capabilities in high regard and would never use HH’s tactics with someone I call a friend. I’m sorry if I offended you, but it was inadvertent.
[/quote]
The disconnect seems to be that it seems you are answering questions I am not asking. That’s what I have been finding frustrating. It’s not that I don’t understand what you are saying, it’s that what you are saying isn’t necessarily related to what I am saying.
So for instance, the whole thing about divine inspiration. I am really not concerned with how it occurred. My point was simply that the divine intent isn’t necessarily the same as the human intent. That what God had in mind, was more (or perhaps) even less than what the writer had in mind.
It doesn’t matter if the writer took dictation, fell in a trance, God came down and guided his had, or if the human and divine thoughts were commingled in the authors head as a single cohesive thought. God using man as his instrument doesn’t portend that this divine inspiration took place a certain way.
Certainly in my life, God has taken me down paths were I thought I was in control and making the decisions, but really I was just an instrument of his will. He didn’t appear to me, he didn’t dictate to me, he just took me where I needed to be by his will.
I would argue the same for divine scripture. The author had his own thoughts and purposes and was in complete control over what he was writing, but the divine will in the end made it so much more than the author could have ever imagined.
And that’s really it.
I am not pushing for anything. I am not saying the word says something the author didn’t intend. The word actually says exactly what the author intended it to say. Now that doesn’t mean that the intent of God through these writings had more in mind. Certainly, the writer of Genesis, was not aware of John Chapter 1. But John felt very compelled that before all of creation was, Jesus was. That all things were created through him.
Now the author of Genesis did not know that, unless it was revealed to him. But that doesn’t mean that the intent of God was that John 1 has something to reveal about Genesis 1, that was not previously known.
I don’t buy that subsequent scriptures do not open up more about the prior simply because the author did not have that in mind.
It may be a writer’s hand, but it’s still God’s book and he had something to say to us. The author’s may or may not have been aware of God’s full intent.
Perhaps our theological backgrounds are in play, but I have read many protestant analysis that also agree with what I have expressed. But in Catholic Bibles, for instance, the references to Jesus and ‘I AM’ in the Gospels are always capitalized. The point was for the reader to make, that link. Now of course I don’t know if that was expressed that way in the original texts. But that also doesn’t mean the link isn’t there.
Well then, we can only take the text at it’s word alone. Any interpretation beyond that is speculation. It doesn’t matter if that happened in the First, Second temple or by Christian theologians.
We cannot say that one man’s interpretation is right and the other’s is pure speculation. Outside the texts themselves, it’s all speculation, or it’s interpretation, or it’s both. One it’s not purely wrong. I don’t think the argument can be made that any of these observations occur without prejudice.
[/quote]
I seriously don’t know how to respond to these sorts of broad, sweeping statements of yours without saying… well, take some classes on the history of modern (18th-21st century) biblical interpretation and literary theory. I’m not being snarky; I just seriously don’t have time to rehash the entire history of why scholars do what they do, and whether you realize it or not, that’s what a sufficient answer to your statements above requires.
[/quote]
I would love to take classes, but I cannot. The point is merely that human analysis and interpretation is always coloured in some sense. It’s no knock, it’s merely that people do the best they can with what they know and have studied, but there is always so much more that can be known that pure objectivity is impossible. The best we can do is learn the various interpretations and draw conclusions base on the analysis and the Word itself.
I am not saying interpretation is arbitrary, I am saying that various interpretations may not be perfect, but they all bring up points worth making. And that disregarding one’s life work because of perceived methodology is not really a fair thing to do because it doesn’t mean that the interpreter did not make good points that should be noted. This goes for new and old interpretations.
People can only function ultimately on what they know. And for instance, literary interpretation does not negate nominological deductive methodology. If anything they could and likely should be complimentary.
We don’t have perfect interpretation but we have a lot of various interpretations. Looking at the consistencies of these overlaid on one another, we can find consistent threads that are likely the truth itself.
But we do have informed speculation. We have the word, and we have reams of thoughts on the words. We don’t have to draw conclusions based on things that are not there. We have enough information to draw good conclusions based on the information that is there.
And we do have evidence that divine and author’s intents not being exactly the same. These authors could not have speculated that they were writing for a world wide audience, but by a function of the will of God, these texts are open and available for a world wide audience. And further that these texts have meaning to people beyond what the writer could have intended, without a good deal of divine revelation. Was the Pentateuch to have meaning for those outside of Israel? Well certainly a good deal of it deals with them specifically, but contained with in are nuggets that have truth and meaning for all of us.
How but by the will of God could these ancient texts not only be available, but have meaning for people thousands of years after they were written? That’s a divine intent, not a writer’s intent.
Well supposing that scholars of first/ second temple Judaism had to reconcile 3 different entities referred to as God it cannot be said that they would not have come to the same conclusion. The fact is that they didn’t have that, it was not reveal to them. If it were, it would have been a fact that they would have had to deal with, just like the Christians who came later had to deal with it. I don’t think they would have ignored the Deitific expression of Jesis and then the Holy Spirit as well as God the Father had it been revealed to them. They simply didn’t have the revelation to work with.
Had they had the revelation, it’s tough to say it would not have changed their interpretations. All they could do is deal with the information revealed to them at the time. Had they had to reconcile the three manifestations of God, then I am fairly confident they would have.
I don’t disagree that they probably didn’t ask these types of questions. But their analysis is no less valuable to understanding. They dealt with the texts and what they said and drew conclusions based on that. The fact that they used a more Aristotelian model for that, is not a bad thing either. It may be that they didn’t consider some contextual problems or linguisic twists, but they did reduce and deduce logically what certain things mean based on what is written in the text. Making sense out of data using a logic based model is not a bad thing. It’s not the only thing, but it’s not a bad thing. The logical models are able to tell us things and point out consistent threads and reduce the amount of noise that cloud various themes.
It’s not a bad method, it’s not the only method. Neither is linguistic and cultural analysis… It just tells me there is a lot more to learn and that the application of all the models will yield the best results, rather than one or to alone. Each tells us different things about the scriptures.
I am not saying you have a dart board with the Vatican’s picture on it. And I don’t think it’s a bad thing to reanalyze everything using different methods. But dismantling Catholic theology has been an impetus for some of the reanalysis and this is not anything new, it’s been going on pretty much since the reformation.
I think the analyses is best served up complimentary rather than contrary. Both have something to offer.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< The dangers of sola scriptura is that some people can really lose their way and with out a proper foundation may never find their way back. I think of Westboro when I write this. They lost their minds and have no core to come back to. They are as bible reading as it gets, and they are so far from the heart of God’s word that it’s not even measurable. They are lost, and they rely totally on the Bible alone.[/quote]Pat this is a good old fashioned non-sequitur my friend. Are Popes Stephen VI, Benedict IX, Urban VI, John XII, Alexander VI or Sergius III among many others in themselves proof of the illegitimacy of the papacy? I don’t think so. I measure the papacy against the scriptures. Period. I see popes that even Catholics wish they could disown as a symptom of the papacy. Not themselves deciding evidence of it’s divine institution or not. I’m simply being honest. There are not “30,000” different defining views among true protestants. There just aren’t.
[/quote]
If you measure your faith by the actions of man, you faith is misplaced. The RCC roots trace back to Matt 16:18 and that’s not a claim anybody else can make. It doesn’t mean that people haven’t tried to destroy it from with in or with out, but the church yet still stands, for the gates of hell will not prevail. Jesus didn’t say Hell wouldn’t try. And the church is about building faith in God, nothing more.
We teach reliance on God, repentance, humility and prayer. The ‘authority’ is servitude, not the other way around.
And it’s not a non-sequiter, because sola scriptura doesn’t offer anything to the Westboro’s of the world to change their ways. It’s because of sola scriptura that they drew the conclusions they drew. It’s sad that they bastardize the word of God in that way. And by no means do I mean that most protestants will follow such a path. It just lacks a central message and a core belief.
People will go astray not matter the faith. It’s just bad when a church does it, using the Bible as their sail heading strait for the water fall.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
What do y’all think about the Book of Wisdom? It has always been one of my favorites.[/quote]
Great book with TREMENDOUS value for the study of Second Temple Judaism (and potentially early Christianity). Given that Romans 1 is essentially a dialogue with and attack on some of the book’s central claims, however, I don’t see how someone who recognized Paul’s letters as Scripture could also recognize this book as Scripture.[/quote]
Love it. It’s one of those books you can just crack open to a page and get something out of it. Sometimes, that’s all you need to get you through.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< The dangers of sola scriptura is that some people can really lose their way and with out a proper foundation may never find their way back. I think of Westboro when I write this. They lost their minds and have no core to come back to. They are as bible reading as it gets, and they are so far from the heart of God’s word that it’s not even measurable. They are lost, and they rely totally on the Bible alone.[/quote]Pat this is a good old fashioned non-sequitur my friend. Are Popes Stephen VI, Benedict IX, Urban VI, John XII, Alexander VI or Sergius III among many others in themselves proof of the illegitimacy of the papacy? I don’t think so. I measure the papacy against the scriptures. Period. I see popes that even Catholics wish they could disown as a symptom of the papacy. Not themselves deciding evidence of it’s divine institution or not. I’m simply being honest. There are not “30,000” different defining views among true protestants. There just aren’t.
[/quote]
If you measure your faith by the actions of man, you faith is misplaced. The RCC roots trace back to Matt 16:18 and that’s not a claim anybody else can make. It doesn’t mean that people haven’t tried to destroy it from with in or with out, but the church yet still stands, for the gates of hell will not prevail. Jesus didn’t say Hell wouldn’t try. And the church is about building faith in God, nothing more.
We teach reliance on God, repentance, humility and prayer. The ‘authority’ is servitude, not the other way around.
And it’s not a non-sequiter, because sola scriptura doesn’t offer anything to the Westboro’s of the world to change their ways. It’s because of sola scriptura that they drew the conclusions they drew. It’s sad that they bastardize the word of God in that way. And by no means do I mean that most protestants will follow such a path. It just lacks a central message and a core belief.
People will go astray not matter the faith. It’s just bad when a church does it, using the Bible as their sail heading strait for the water fall.[/quote]
I could not help myself. So during the Inquisition the RCC was doing the right thing and in the name of the Lord? So when the RCC waged the Crusades in the name of the Lord it was ok? So when the RCC in Switzerland murdered all the Anabaptists in the name of the Lord it was ok? So when the RCC hunted Martin Luther like a wild animal trying to kill him in the name of the Lord that was ok? Not Sola Sciptura, but in the name of the Lord.
I am not saying that Westboro is correct by any stretch of the imagination, but the RCC calling them bad is like calling the kettle black.
You will know who my followers by their Love. I agree with this statement from Christ. Judge not lest you be judged. With the Holy Spirit’s help as followers of Christ we can make it. We are called to Love people, and not judge them. This is where Westboro lacks. Let the Holy Spirit change their hearts, because he is the only one who can.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< The dangers of sola scriptura is that some people can really lose their way and with out a proper foundation may never find their way back. I think of Westboro when I write this. They lost their minds and have no core to come back to. They are as bible reading as it gets, and they are so far from the heart of God’s word that it’s not even measurable. They are lost, and they rely totally on the Bible alone.[/quote]Pat this is a good old fashioned non-sequitur my friend. Are Popes Stephen VI, Benedict IX, Urban VI, John XII, Alexander VI or Sergius III among many others in themselves proof of the illegitimacy of the papacy? I don’t think so. I measure the papacy against the scriptures. Period. I see popes that even Catholics wish they could disown as a symptom of the papacy. Not themselves deciding evidence of it’s divine institution or not. I’m simply being honest. There are not “30,000” different defining views among true protestants. There just aren’t.
[/quote]
If you measure your faith by the actions of man, you faith is misplaced. The RCC roots trace back to Matt 16:18 and that’s not a claim anybody else can make. It doesn’t mean that people haven’t tried to destroy it from with in or with out, but the church yet still stands, for the gates of hell will not prevail. Jesus didn’t say Hell wouldn’t try. And the church is about building faith in God, nothing more.
We teach reliance on God, repentance, humility and prayer. The ‘authority’ is servitude, not the other way around.
And it’s not a non-sequiter, because sola scriptura doesn’t offer anything to the Westboro’s of the world to change their ways. It’s because of sola scriptura that they drew the conclusions they drew. It’s sad that they bastardize the word of God in that way. And by no means do I mean that most protestants will follow such a path. It just lacks a central message and a core belief.
People will go astray not matter the faith. It’s just bad when a church does it, using the Bible as their sail heading strait for the water fall.[/quote]
I could not help myself. So during the Inquisition the RCC was doing the right thing and in the name of the Lord? So when the RCC waged the Crusades in the name of the Lord it was ok? So when the RCC in Switzerland murdered all the Anabaptists in the name of the Lord it was ok? So when the RCC hunted Martin Luther like a wild animal trying to kill him in the name of the Lord that was ok? Not Sola Sciptura, but in the name of the Lord.
[/quote]
By Inquisition you mean the Spanish Inquisition, which was carried out by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel. By the time word reached Pope Sixtus about the brutality in which they were carried out he was powerless to stop it. Because of Pope Sixtus’s protests Spain threatened to pull their army out of the east, in Turkey where the Moorish invaders were trying, from a different angle to conquest Europe.
The Crusades are only remembered by which the brutality by which the people carried it out. What’s long (and conveniently) forgotten was that it started after the brutal and bloody Muslim conquests of Syria, North Africa and Spain, Jerusalem was the last straw that triggered the battles. It wasn’t just a church war, it was an all of Europe war in which the very fabric of European existence was being threatened. They were after all, already making fast headway up the Iberian peninsula.
Was it a Holy War? Well yes to a point it was because had the Moore’s succeeded in their conquests, Christianity would be no more. But it was more than that. A lot was at stake.
It’s always conveniently forgotten that first, the Muslim invaders started it, they were killing Christians and Jews with impunity and were just as brutal if not worse than the invading forces.
Had it not been for the Crusades, we might all be Muslims now.
Yes, the crusades were brutal and bloody. And opportunists took plenty of booty and made plenty of plunder, but it stopped the Muslim invasion of Europe. It likely saved Christianity as a whole. Feel free to judge it according to the facts. It wasn’t the work of the church alone. And like it or not, Christianity was under grave threat as was the rest of Europe and the Crusades saved it from that threat.
Wars are not bloodless of gentle by any means, even. Lest we forget the particular brutality by which Joshua took possession of Israel by the siege of Jericho and Ai? As he left no man, woman, child or animal left alive in those to cities, yet, no good Bible readin’ folk seem bothered by that? The book of Joshua has always bothered me.
[quote]
I am not saying that Westboro is correct by any stretch of the imagination, but the RCC calling them bad is like calling the kettle black.
You will know who my followers by their Love. I agree with this statement from Christ. Judge not lest you be judged. With the Holy Spirit’s help as followers of Christ we can make it. We are called to Love people, and not judge them. This is where Westboro lacks. Let the Holy Spirit change their hearts, because he is the only one who can. [/quote]
How shall we judge Joshua then?
[quote]pat wrote:<<< And it’s not a non-sequiter, because sola scriptura doesn’t offer anything to the Westboro’s of the world to change their ways. >>>[/quote]Yes it does. I have denounced them numerous times on biblical grounds. Their attitude is a grotesquely inconsistent self caricature of the theology they claim to believe. I only have a minute again. What I was saying by mentioning these abominable popes, was that if Westboro is to be advanced against the theology they hold, then consistency should demand that that same principle condemn Catholicism for the truly abhorrent human beings she has crowned as pope. I disagree in both cases. That is, in themselves. I don’t use thieving, murderous, adulterous. immoral and even by Catholic standards, heretical popes as evidence of the falsehood of Catholicism. Neither do I then allow that hateful, godless, self righteous, Pharisaical, unchristian Westboro Baptist Church to be exhibited as a condemnation of Calvinism. They are not Calvinists in practice. As much as I hate Catholicism, neither are the popes I cite fair specimens of what Rome holds as doctrine. There are other levels to this discussion that I just can’t get into, probably even in the near future. My problem with Catholicism is that to affirm it as true I MUST by definition embrace dogma, doctrine and practice that one would NEVER in one million years find in the scriptures UNLESS one were to simply allow the Vatican to dictate to them what they say.
I am truly sorry for being mean to you in the past. God really thumped me about that. On the other hand I MUST tell you my heart’s convictions. I have very well considered and studied reasons for not being able to accept the claims of the RCC.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If his highness would please check his royal email account, I have sent him the fix for that truly painful bit of tag flubbing above. Your welcome.
A quick obvious question in the meantime then becomes: Do I smell the ghost of an unjustly treated Sabellius?
[/quote]
Sorry - I’ve been busy the last few days and didn’t get a chance to fix that. It is fixed now. Thank you so much for that - my computer illiteracy strikes again.
Do you need to put a name on everything? 
No, no Sabellius here. Modalism is not really a viable option, as it treats the communication, relations, and distinctions between the persons portrayed in Scripture as mere farce.
It is my great pleasure to assist in the service of your crown.
Actually I knew you weren’t going to uphold Modalism as much for the reason you gave as the fact that it too is spawned from a framework of logic you say was not practiced by the 2nd temple Jews. I deny that btw. I also do hereby preempt any attempt on your part to boldly use 1st Corinthians 1 against reformed orthodoxy as if the Greek “wisdom of the world” therein denounced by the apostle includes the “formula” you have here rejected as an unjewish imposition going back even to Augustine. And beyond. This is a monstrosity of a topic. Go ahead and continue with Pat. I apologize Pat. I didn’t mean to lure KingKai away from you.
@KK is this close?
Well I watched the 1st episode of that bible program on the History channel. Let’s just say it was a hundred times better and 50 times worse than it could have been. Some of the stuff they changed was totally inexplicable after all the supernatural, generally accurate stuff they DID do fairly well. Of course Sodom was rewritten to be politically correct. Overall better than I would have predicted.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Well I watched the 1st episode of that bible program on the History channel. Let’s just say it was a hundred times better and 50 times worse than it could have been. Some of the stuff they changed was totally inexplicable after all the supernatural, generally accurate stuff they DID do fairly well. Of course Sodom was rewritten to be politically correct. Overall better than I would have predicted.[/quote]
Agree 100% with your assessment. They used some creative freedom to make some changes, either to fit time, or just be politically correct. Seeing all those male on female kissing in Sodom was not Biblically accurate.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
@KK is this close?[/quote]
Haha No Joab this wasn’t what I was talking about. That’s a really cute cartoon though.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It is my great pleasure to assist in the service of your crown.
Actually I knew you weren’t going to uphold Modalism as much for the reason you gave as the fact that it too is spawned from a framework of logic you say was not practiced by the 2nd temple Jews. I deny that btw. I also do hereby preempt any attempt on your part to boldly use 1st Corinthians 1 against reformed orthodoxy as if the Greek “wisdom of the world” therein denounced by the apostle includes the “formula” you have here rejected as an unjewish imposition going back even to Augustine. And beyond. This is a monstrosity of a topic. Go ahead and continue with Pat. I apologize Pat. I didn’t mean to lure KingKai away from you. [/quote]
It’s a lot more complex than the simple question, “how did ST Jews feel about Greek philosophy?” And why would I use 1 Corinthians 1-4 - Paul’s indictment of popular sophistry and the values it represents - in this discussion? See what I did there… 
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Seeing all those male on female kissing in Sodom was not Biblically accurate.[/quote]
Haven’t seen it yet, just thought this was funny.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It is my great pleasure to assist in the service of your crown.
Actually I knew you weren’t going to uphold Modalism as much for the reason you gave as the fact that it too is spawned from a framework of logic you say was not practiced by the 2nd temple Jews. I deny that btw. I also do hereby preempt any attempt on your part to boldly use 1st Corinthians 1 against reformed orthodoxy as if the Greek “wisdom of the world” therein denounced by the apostle includes the “formula” you have here rejected as an unjewish imposition going back even to Augustine. And beyond. This is a monstrosity of a topic. Go ahead and continue with Pat. I apologize Pat. I didn’t mean to lure KingKai away from you. [/quote]
It’s a lot more complex than the simple question, “how did ST Jews feel about Greek philosophy?” And why would I use 1 Corinthians 1-4 - Paul’s indictment of popular sophistry and the values it represents - in this discussion? See what I did there… ;)[/quote]I did say it was a monstrosity of a topic, did I not? I would personally credit the Greeks with quite a bit more than popular sophistry.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:[quote]dmaddox wrote:Seeing all those male on female kissing in Sodom was not Biblically accurate.[/quote]Haven’t seen it yet, just thought this was funny.[/quote]Well, with all due respect to D, I suspect there was a bit of heterosexual action goin on there as well or the population would have thinned out after a while unless they had immigration like ours. They actually did have one male male couple there. They were trying to give the impression the more that I think about it that general debauchery was God’s charge against Sodom and not homosexuality in particular which is a growing but disastrously erroneous view. Of course there WAS general debauchery in Sodom as well I’m sure.