The Church or The Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

So you don’t believe that Manichaeism is a false teaching?
[/quote]

I will admit, I don’t know the specifics of it. Does it disagree with the Bible?[/quote]

Well, not exactly. Let me explain briefly.

First, Manichaenism is a perennial and hardy weed (and a false teaching; a heresy) that keeps cropping up - you’ll find it today in the Neo-gnostics. It’s just the sort of thing that appeals to post-modern Americans.

Second, it’s extremely important that all of us remain vigilant for gnostic tendencies in ourselves and others.

Third, St. Augustine started as a Manichaen - and worked 10 years to weed it out from his mind and wrote one of the great books in the Western tradition on how and why he did so (see his Confessions - a truly wonderful book; I wish everyone would read it). His theology is considered to be one of the prime refutations of the Manichaen heresy; however…

Fourth, in doing so, while of course St. Augustine refers to Scripture, much of it is really based instead in extremely well-reasoned theology/philosophy. I haven’t personally ever seen a refutation that is based solely in Scripture; I don’t believe it’s possible.

@Brother Chris - regarding Aquinas and purgatory; let me get back to you.

[/quote]

The thing is, reasoning and theology should be based on the Bible. Otherwise it is just reasoning about what we think should be true.

If something doesn’t agree with scripture it is not a teaching of Christ or God, it is as easy as that.

Think about it this way. People that study counterfeit money, they do not look at all the different ways people could counterfeit it. They study the original very very well and thereby they know by default which one is counterfeit and which one is true. Same thing with the teachings of the Bible. Find out what the true teachings are, and then you will know which ones do not agree, and thus are counterfeit.

102

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

So you don’t believe that Manichaeism is a false teaching?
[/quote]

I will admit, I don’t know the specifics of it. Does it disagree with the Bible?[/quote]

Well, not exactly. Let me explain briefly.

First, Manichaenism is a perennial and hardy weed (and a false teaching; a heresy) that keeps cropping up - you’ll find it today in the Neo-gnostics. It’s just the sort of thing that appeals to post-modern Americans.

Second, it’s extremely important that all of us remain vigilant for gnostic tendencies in ourselves and others.

Third, St. Augustine started as a Manichaen - and worked 10 years to weed it out from his mind and wrote one of the great books in the Western tradition on how and why he did so (see his Confessions - a truly wonderful book; I wish everyone would read it). His theology is considered to be one of the prime refutations of the Manichaen heresy; however…

Fourth, in doing so, while of course St. Augustine refers to Scripture, much of it is really based instead in extremely well-reasoned theology/philosophy. I haven’t personally ever seen a refutation that is based solely in Scripture; I don’t believe it’s possible.

@Brother Chris - regarding Aquinas and purgatory; let me get back to you.

[/quote]

I was given a copy of Confessions from a Baptist Preacher no doubt. I am going to have to pick that back up. I was an undergraduate at at Baptist University in a preaching class. This was one of the required readings. My undergraduate so you know was in Business and Christianity. Christianity degree was not manditory at this University. My plan was to be a preacher, but I was really bad at it. There are some other things that happened and so the preaching route was haulted. Some of the things I did would have gotten me excommunicated from the Catholic Church, but I am glad that Jesus gave me grace. To this day I still can not believe he still Loves me for the things that I did. He believes in me and I will do whatever it takes to tell everyone what Jesus has done for me, and He will do it for them too.[/quote]

Yes! - do pick it up; it’s worth spending a lot of time with IMO.

Well, I know some Baptist preachers who have done some pretty evil things in their past; it seems almost the rule in being called; look at St. Augustine; so why not consider it again?

He does believe in you and is always calling you. Even right at this very moment.

103

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

So you don’t believe that Manichaeism is a false teaching?
[/quote]

I will admit, I don’t know the specifics of it. Does it disagree with the Bible?[/quote]

Well, not exactly. Let me explain briefly.

First, Manichaenism is a perennial and hardy weed (and a false teaching; a heresy) that keeps cropping up - you’ll find it today in the Neo-gnostics. It’s just the sort of thing that appeals to post-modern Americans.

Second, it’s extremely important that all of us remain vigilant for gnostic tendencies in ourselves and others.

Third, St. Augustine started as a Manichaen - and worked 10 years to weed it out from his mind and wrote one of the great books in the Western tradition on how and why he did so (see his Confessions - a truly wonderful book; I wish everyone would read it). His theology is considered to be one of the prime refutations of the Manichaen heresy; however…

Fourth, in doing so, while of course St. Augustine refers to Scripture, much of it is really based instead in extremely well-reasoned theology/philosophy. I haven’t personally ever seen a refutation that is based solely in Scripture; I don’t believe it’s possible.

@Brother Chris - regarding Aquinas and purgatory; let me get back to you.

[/quote]

The thing is, reasoning and theology should be based on the Bible. Otherwise it is just reasoning about what we think should be true.

If something doesn’t agree with scripture it is not a teaching of Christ or God, it is as easy as that.

Think about it this way. People that study counterfeit money, they do not look at all the different ways people could counterfeit it. They study the original very very well and thereby they know by default which one is counterfeit and which one is true. Same thing with the teachings of the Bible. Find out what the true teachings are, and then you will know which ones do not agree, and thus are counterfeit.[/quote]

The Manichees nearly co-opted Christianity by interpreting Scripture in light of their teachings. Really. But it was not discredited by a close reading of Scripture. It was refuted and defeated via some pretty high theology.

BTW, I disagree with your understanding of reasoning: Reason is an attribute of our souls and a Divine gift. Truth can be apprehended by Reason. That is why so many Ancient Greek thinkers anticipated a great deal of orthodox theology.

104

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

So you don’t believe that Manichaeism is a false teaching?
[/quote]

I will admit, I don’t know the specifics of it. Does it disagree with the Bible?[/quote]

Well, not exactly. Let me explain briefly.

First, Manichaenism is a perennial and hardy weed (and a false teaching; a heresy) that keeps cropping up - you’ll find it today in the Neo-gnostics. It’s just the sort of thing that appeals to post-modern Americans.

Second, it’s extremely important that all of us remain vigilant for gnostic tendencies in ourselves and others.

Third, St. Augustine started as a Manichaen - and worked 10 years to weed it out from his mind and wrote one of the great books in the Western tradition on how and why he did so (see his Confessions - a truly wonderful book; I wish everyone would read it). His theology is considered to be one of the prime refutations of the Manichaen heresy; however…

Fourth, in doing so, while of course St. Augustine refers to Scripture, much of it is really based instead in extremely well-reasoned theology/philosophy. I haven’t personally ever seen a refutation that is based solely in Scripture; I don’t believe it’s possible.

@Brother Chris - regarding Aquinas and purgatory; let me get back to you.

[/quote]

The thing is, reasoning and theology should be based on the Bible. Otherwise it is just reasoning about what we think should be true.

If something doesn’t agree with scripture it is not a teaching of Christ or God, it is as easy as that.

Think about it this way. People that study counterfeit money, they do not look at all the different ways people could counterfeit it. They study the original very very well and thereby they know by default which one is counterfeit and which one is true. Same thing with the teachings of the Bible. Find out what the true teachings are, and then you will know which ones do not agree, and thus are counterfeit.[/quote]

The Manichees nearly co-opted Christianity by interpreting Scripture in light of their teachings. Really. But it was not discredited by a close reading of Scripture. It was refuted and defeated via some pretty high theology.

BTW, I disagree with your understanding of reasoning: Reason is an attribute of our souls and a Divine gift. Truth can be apprehended by Reason. That is why so many Ancient Greek thinkers anticipated a great deal of orthodox theology.

[/quote]

And I respect that. However, it isn’t my reasoning, it is the Bible’s.

105

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

BTW, I disagree with your understanding of reasoning: Reason is an attribute of our souls and a Divine gift. Truth can be apprehended by Reason. That is why so many Ancient Greek thinkers anticipated a great deal of orthodox theology.
[/quote]

Does this mean you agree with individual Bible interpretation?

106

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

So you don’t believe that Manichaeism is a false teaching?
[/quote]

I will admit, I don’t know the specifics of it. Does it disagree with the Bible?[/quote]

Well, not exactly. Let me explain briefly.

First, Manichaenism is a perennial and hardy weed (and a false teaching; a heresy) that keeps cropping up - you’ll find it today in the Neo-gnostics. It’s just the sort of thing that appeals to post-modern Americans.

Second, it’s extremely important that all of us remain vigilant for gnostic tendencies in ourselves and others.

Third, St. Augustine started as a Manichaen - and worked 10 years to weed it out from his mind and wrote one of the great books in the Western tradition on how and why he did so (see his Confessions - a truly wonderful book; I wish everyone would read it). His theology is considered to be one of the prime refutations of the Manichaen heresy; however…

Fourth, in doing so, while of course St. Augustine refers to Scripture, much of it is really based instead in extremely well-reasoned theology/philosophy. I haven’t personally ever seen a refutation that is based solely in Scripture; I don’t believe it’s possible.

@Brother Chris - regarding Aquinas and purgatory; let me get back to you.

[/quote]

The thing is, reasoning and theology should be based on the Bible. Otherwise it is just reasoning about what we think should be true.

If something doesn’t agree with scripture it is not a teaching of Christ or God, it is as easy as that.

Think about it this way. People that study counterfeit money, they do not look at all the different ways people could counterfeit it. They study the original very very well and thereby they know by default which one is counterfeit and which one is true. Same thing with the teachings of the Bible. Find out what the true teachings are, and then you will know which ones do not agree, and thus are counterfeit.[/quote]

The Manichees nearly co-opted Christianity by interpreting Scripture in light of their teachings. Really. But it was not discredited by a close reading of Scripture. It was refuted and defeated via some pretty high theology.

BTW, I disagree with your understanding of reasoning: Reason is an attribute of our souls and a Divine gift. Truth can be apprehended by Reason. That is why so many Ancient Greek thinkers anticipated a great deal of orthodox theology.

[/quote]

And I respect that. However, it isn’t my reasoning, it is the Bible’s.[/quote]

You respect what?

I think you’re misunderstanding my meaning: how would you refute Manichaeism via Scripture alone?

107

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

I think you’re misunderstanding my meaning: how would you refute Manichaeism via Scripture alone?
[/quote]

Well, as I mentioned before, I am not well versed in Manichaeism, but I am versed in Scripture. If you have a particular teaching as an example, I will share if the Bible agrees and scriptural backing for it.

108

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]ckallander wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]

Really? This is complete news to me. As you know, it is somewhat of a common misconception then that hell is quite a painful place. So, are you saying it’s more like a purgatory?
[/quote]

I have personally not found any evidence of a purgatory in the Bible. “Hell” is just the grave. plain and simple. when you die, no matter what you did, you go to the grave, just like Adam and Eve did.

Romans 6:23

“For the wages sin pays is death.”

Once you die, that is complete payment for the sin that you inherited.[/quote]

Well instead of saying you have not found evidence in the Bible of purgatory, go to the folks that have been spreading this word for over 1900 years and that do say there is purgatory and ask them to show you. The proof is there, the Catholic Church has come to terms that some people will not listen (at least outside of the Church) unless it comes from the Bible and elaborated on in the past.

What I think most people misunderstand and cannot grasp is that the first Catholic Bishops wrote the New Testament. It was determined to be divinely written. However, when this was established we did not know everything about our religion. Through the years we have learned more and more about our religion and thus writing our doctrine on Catholic wisdom and Biblical knowledge. So the Church created the Bible it also created other doctrine, so why would we not listen to the other Doctrine if Jesus tells us to listen to the doctrine of the Church. All doctrine is, is what the Apostles have passed down onto future generations about the religion and how it should be done.[/quote]

If doctrine is not based on the Bible, which was written by the apostles, then the Catholic Church is not listening to the Apostles. Doctrines can be used as political power and Jesus never wanted Political Power. Look at the Doctrine of Endulgences does the Catholic Church still believe that? Well the Popes of that time period set it as Doctrine, and if you do not follow that then you are a Heretic by your own rules. God gave us a brain to think about these things. He also gave us a guide in the Bible. Most Protestants follow the New Testament, and as I see the New Testament is the same in both the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible. The differences are in the Old Testament which was before Jesus. I am not saying we should not look at the Old Testament or follow its teachings, but we are more alike than you are giving credit. The Protestants are your friends, and if someone is telling you that you will go to hell because you are Catholic, then they are wrong. Look at the Apostles Creed. That is what we base our hopes, and faith in. That is no different from being Catholic or Protestant. We are splitting hairs on all the other stuff. The Apostles Creed is the definition of a Christian.

The catholic chruch includes both Catholic and Protestant.[/quote]

I would like you to explain your idea of the catholic church vs. The Catholic Church.
[/quote]

The definition of "c"atholic church is the universal christian church including both Catholics and Protestants. The "C"atholic Chruch refers to the Roman Catholic Church with the Pope as the head of the church. I am not trying to convert you to be a Protestant, I just want you to understand where we come from. I really hope you are not saying that if you are not Roman Catholic you are going to hell. I understand the doctrine of baby baptisms and the removal of original sin, usually our contengency is that the act of baptistism does not save you from Hell. It is an act of obedience to God. What saves you from Hell is your faith in Jesus Christ and that he died for your sins, and everythin in the Apostles Creed.

All Catholics love to put a Capital C in the Apostles creed, but to my knowledge the original was a little c. At the time there was only one church and it was known as the catholic church. It was changed after the Reformation so that the Roman Catholic Church could claim ownership of it. This is hard to proove or disproove.[/quote]

Uh huh, no I am not saying that if you are not part of the Roman Catholic Church you are going to hell, I am saying if you are not part of the Roman Catholic Church you are a heretic. I view you guys as separated Brethren, not the enemy.

109

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

How can this be? How can Jesus be God’s SON and be God at the same time?[/quote]

Because Jesus came from God, yet is God as well as man. Since there needed to be a sacrifice that was completely Holy and pure, the only person to do it was God. He however could not come down as God, because humans have no power to do anything to God. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, in order to come down to our level, feel the temptations and the tests yet still be pure and be sacrificed.[/quote]

Can you show me some scriptural reference for this please?[/quote]

Um at the current I cannot I am on a phone, but I can explain it you. If you learn how the Jewish sacrifices works, then you look at what Jesus is, Lamb of God. As well it clearly states in the Bible, God begot his Son with the Virgin Mary.

110

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
1 Corinthians 4:6

Now, brothers, these things I have transferred so as to apply to myself and Apolos for YOUR good, that in our case YOU may learn the [rule]: “Do not go beyond the things that are written.”

What is contained in the Bible is the final word. If something is written that disagrees with it, you must go to the Bible for the Authority on the answer.

[/quote]

I think to say the Bible is the final word is heavy to say at the least. If it was the Final word, then no further knowledge of our religion would be necessary and against the rules. However, with doctrine you can teach further about the religion and still stay with what Jesus gave us. I am not saying that doctrine can contradict the Bible, I am however saying that doctrine expands further with theology, etc.
[/quote]

that we can both agree on then. But things like an eternal torment is not in line with the Bible.[/quote]

It is not against it, Jesus explains that the Holy Ghost will give us Divine revelations.[/quote]

And what scriptural basis is the fact that hell is a place of torment based off of that needed further revelations?[/quote]

Here is Thomas Aquinas on Fire in Hell and Purgatory. Hell is not just fire, but extremes however fire could be there.

111

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Jesus defeated Death, he already did that. He does not need to go to Hell for another three days to defeat death again. We just need to ride his coat tails if you know what I mean.[/quote]

We may agree, so let me expound and find out.

Jesus opened up a way for LIFE for us by being the permanent sacrifice for our sins. However, people still die, so death is not gone. Death will be gone in future, when he wipes it out by throwing it into the lake of fire.

Do we agree?[/quote]

No, before Jesus there was no way to Heaven since no one could keep even one command (Myth of Adam and Eve) let a lone 10 basic and 613 total commandments (well there was a few people but not many, but they understood something more than the general people). With that, Jesus defeated death by making it possible for people to go to Heaven. He defeated death, not as we know death in the secular world of our physical bodies dying, but of our souls going to Hell.

112

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

I think you’re misunderstanding my meaning: how would you refute Manichaeism via Scripture alone?
[/quote]

Well, as I mentioned before, I am not well versed in Manichaeism, but I am versed in Scripture. If you have a particular teaching as an example, I will share if the Bible agrees and scriptural backing for it.[/quote]

Like Purgatory? Trinity? But what translation are you using? This could get tricky.

113

There is a lot going on here with these questions. I think some assumptions are being made here. First and foremost, we need to go back and prove all these things that we are using as “assumed facts”. Things such as hell fire, purgatory, trinity, etc.

I will share my personal beliefs with you on these topics:

I believe that when people die, they go back to the ground. They do not go to hell.

I do not believe in purgatory.

I do not believe in the trinity. Jesus was God’s only begotten Son, meaning the only creation that He created personally.

I do not believe in an immortal soul. That the body IS the soul and when the body dies, so does the soul.

The translation that I use is THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

http://www.conservapedia.com/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

114

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I do not believe in an immortal soul. That the body IS the soul and when the body dies, so does the soul.
[/quote]

I disagree profoundly with your post; however, let me focus on this ^^

To begin with, why would God create human souls if they are destined merely to rot in the ground?

115

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
There is a lot going on here with these questions. I think some assumptions are being made here. First and foremost, we need to go back and prove all these things that we are using as “assumed facts”. Things such as hell fire, purgatory, trinity, etc.

I will share my personal beliefs with you on these topics:

I believe that when people die, they go back to the ground. They do not go to hell.
[/quote]

Where in scripture does it say they just go to ground and stay?

How would someone be able to enter with “sins that do not bring death?”

So you just skip the Holy Ghost (or Spirit), actually God created a lot of stuff “personally,” however he did not create Jesus, Jesus has always been just like the Father. However Jesus did transcend from the Father. Since Jesus was not made, that can mean the Holy Ghost was not made, there for three characters in one Deity, and that is the Trinity.

Scripture please.

Why is your translation all in capital letters?

[quote]

http://www.conservapedia.com/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures[/quote]

116

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I do not believe in an immortal soul. That the body IS the soul and when the body dies, so does the soul.
[/quote]

I disagree profoundly with your post; however, let me focus on this ^^

To begin with, why would God create human souls if they are destined merely to rot in the ground?

[/quote]

He created human bodies, just like he created, through Jesus, animal bodies.

What happened to Adam and Eve when they died?

Further reference:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: 'Nepes [neâ?²phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man-man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)."-1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”-Edition published by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970.

Nephesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense nephesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and Baumgartnerâ??s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X). . . soul = living being, individual, person.”
As for the Greek word psy·kheâ?², Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as â??life,â?? and â??the conscious self or personality as centre of emotions, desires, and affections,â?? â??a living being,â?? and they show that even in non-Biblical Greek works the term was used â??of animals.â?? Of course, such sources, treating as they do primarily of classical Greek writings, include all the meanings that the pagan Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of â??departed spirit,â?? â??the immaterial and immortal soul,â?? â??the spirit of the universe,â?? and â??the immaterial principle of movement and life.â?? Evidently because some of the pagan philosophers taught that the soul emerged from the body at death, the term psy·kheâ?² was also applied to the â??butterfly or moth,â?? which creatures go through a metamorphosis, changing from caterpillar to winged creature.â??Liddell and Scottâ??s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donneganâ??s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.

117

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I agree that the dick headed “church leaders” of the time did not have a clue. Pope John Paul II really brought the Catholic Church back to what the early church was intended to be.

Being Protestant and those “church leaders” of the time are long gone, and the church needs to heal. I am not saying we all should go to the same church, but we need to combine our strengths to do God’s will. I am Southern Baptist, and I want the church to come back together. We are stronger combined than divided. Jesus even said that about Satan. Go figure. I want to talk more about the Catholic Faith, and why you all believe how you all believe, and I am more than happy to answer questions about the Southern Baptists, even though I do not sign on to everything that they do.
[/quote]

I am at your service. But since you welcomed questions I have a couple. My understanding is that each Baptist Church is autonomous, but each also subscribe to the SBC. What influence does the SBC have?
My second question, and I am having an on going discussion with honest_lifter about this also. What is your take on the salvation of non-Christians?
My take is that Jesus gave us many ways to “know” him in the gospels and such assertions are supported in the letters as well. So that even if one does not “know” him by name, he stills knows Christ. So all people of good will and good faith are acceptable. What I cannot accept is that God would put even one person in a situation where he be damned no matter what. The church does share this assertion, though they word it more carefully.
[/quote]

Each Church manages their own gifts, and has its own leaders, but the individual church has to give 10% of total tithes and offerings to the SBC which is used to support Missionaries. The Preachers or Head Leaders, have to be taught at some sort of SBC Seminary/School. This makes sure there are some guides to the interpretation of the Bible, and you dont get an off the wall leader. There are some churches that might get an off the wall leader, and the church being autonomous has the right to vote out the preacher or fire him. The SBC tries to determine what the Denomination believes so to speak. This gets pretty political and this part of the church, IMO, gets away from what the church is suppose to do in bringing people to Christ.

I probably should get more information from you on what “good will” and “good faith” means, but I am going to assume some things so this might come back to bite me. The Southern Baptist Believe that there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one may come unto the Father except through me.” John 14:6. I feel that is pretty black and white. I see what you are saying about ways to know him, because In Romans 1:20, pharaphrased, states that through creation you can see that there is a God. This in and of itself points you to God, but does not save you. Paul states in Ephesians 2:8-9, that is is by Grace through Faith that we are saved. I would say that even the Devil “knows” who Jesus is, but do you think Satan is going to be in heaven?

The issue most people have with Salvation is that it is black and white. There really is no gray. If you are saved you go to heaven, if you are not saved you are damned. I really have no clue what Hell is like, but to be separated from God is Hell enough for me.

I hope this helps and I am in no ways a scholar, but this is how I see it.

[/quote]

Of course we believe that Jesus the only way to salvation, but we see the 'I am the way, truth and the light…" as Jesus being the ultimate judge and jury.
Basically, I think these scriptures are for us. We know so we must follow and to not could be our detriment, but I don’t believe that to be true for those who do not know. How could it? God would not be who he says he is if that were true. Further there is plenty of evidence that in the scripture. Heck, take the “Good Samaritan” parable. He himself used an example of someone who is typically an enemy to Jews and did not believe as them, a he used that as an example of somebody who did the will of God by acting mercifully.

In the end we don’t know who he will call into his kingdom. Only God knows hearts and only he can judge. Most of us fall in between Himmler and Mother Teresa.

118

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The thing is, reasoning and theology should be based on the Bible. Otherwise it is just reasoning about what we think should be true.

If something doesn’t agree with scripture it is not a teaching of Christ or God, it is as easy as that.

Think about it this way. People that study counterfeit money, they do not look at all the different ways people could counterfeit it. They study the original very very well and thereby they know by default which one is counterfeit and which one is true. Same thing with the teachings of the Bible. Find out what the true teachings are, and then you will know which ones do not agree, and thus are counterfeit.[/quote]

Agreed, but all of the dogma of the Catholic Church has scriptural reference. So it is in agreement with Scripture. Further, Pope JP 2, was a big proponent of this. He even changed the Stations of the Cross, to be directly scripture base, but I actually like the traditional ones better.

119

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I do not believe in an immortal soul. That the body IS the soul and when the body dies, so does the soul.
[/quote]

I disagree profoundly with your post; however, let me focus on this ^^

To begin with, why would God create human souls if they are destined merely to rot in the ground?

[/quote]

He created human bodies, just like he created, through Jesus, animal bodies.

What happened to Adam and Eve when they died?

Further reference:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: 'Nepes [neâ?²phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man-man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15,Ã? 17; 13.37)."-1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”-Edition published by P.Ã? J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970.

Nephesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense nephesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and Baumgartnerâ??s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17,Ã? 11 Dt 12,Ã? 23: (249 X). . . soul = living being, individual, person.”
As for the Greek word psy�·kheâ?², Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as â??life,â?? and â??the conscious self or personality as centre of emotions, desires, and affections,â?? â??a living being,â?? and they show that even in non-Biblical Greek works the term was used â??of animals.â?? Of course, such sources, treating as they do primarily of classical Greek writings, include all the meanings that the pagan Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of â??departed spirit,â?? â??the immaterial and immortal soul,â?? â??the spirit of the universe,â?? and â??the immaterial principle of movement and life.â?? Evidently because some of the pagan philosophers taught that the soul emerged from the body at death, the term psy�·kheâ?² was also applied to the â??butterfly or moth,â?? which creatures go through a metamorphosis, changing from caterpillar to winged creature.â??Liddell and Scottâ??s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H.� Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donneganâ??s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.
[/quote]

I think you’re confusing some things.

The idea that soul is somehow “a separate thing” from body, interestingly, is one of the gnostic tendencies that I was referring to above. That notion is mostly Greek-pagan in origin.

Be that as it may, Catholics do not posit some division between soul and body; I’m not sure how you go from this to asserting that human beings are therefore cosmic trash.

I’m not sure if that answers your post; but your argument wasn’t that clear to me - I do read Homeric Greek (NT Greek being a great deal easier) so if you’d like to discuss further, I’d be glad to oblige.

120

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I do not believe in an immortal soul. That the body IS the soul and when the body dies, so does the soul.
[/quote]

I disagree profoundly with your post; however, let me focus on this ^^

To begin with, why would God create human souls if they are destined merely to rot in the ground?

[/quote]

He created human bodies, just like he created, through Jesus, animal bodies.

What happened to Adam and Eve when they died?

Further reference:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: 'Nepes [neÃ?¢?Ã?²phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man-man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15,Ã??Ã? 17; 13.37)."-1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”-Edition published by P.Ã??Ã? J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970.

Nephesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense nephesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and BaumgartnerÃ?¢??s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17,Ã??Ã? 11 Dt 12,Ã??Ã? 23: (249 X). . . soul = living being, individual, person.”
As for the Greek word psy�?�·khe�¢?�², Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as �¢??life,�¢?? and �¢??the conscious self or personality as centre of emotions, desires, and affections,�¢?? �¢??a living being,�¢?? and they show that even in non-Biblical Greek works the term was used �¢??of animals.�¢?? Of course, such sources, treating as they do primarily of classical Greek writings, include all the meanings that the pagan Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of �¢??departed spirit,�¢?? �¢??the immaterial and immortal soul,�¢?? �¢??the spirit of the universe,�¢?? and �¢??the immaterial principle of movement and life.�¢?? Evidently because some of the pagan philosophers taught that the soul emerged from the body at death, the term psy�?�·khe�¢?�² was also applied to the �¢??butterfly or moth,�¢?? which creatures go through a metamorphosis, changing from caterpillar to winged creature.�¢??Liddell and Scott�¢??s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H.�?� Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegan�¢??s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.
[/quote]

I think you’re confusing some things.

The idea that soul is somehow “a separate thing” from body, interestingly, is one of the gnostic tendencies that I was referring to above. That notion is mostly Greek-pagan in origin.

Be that as it may, Catholics do not posit some division between soul and body; I’m not sure how you go from this to asserting that human beings are therefore cosmic trash.

I’m not sure if that answers your post; but your argument wasn’t that clear to me - I do read Homeric Greek (NT Greek being a great deal easier) so if you’d like to discuss further, I’d be glad to oblige.

[/quote]

Sure we can discuss. So, you don’t believe the soul is seperate from the body? That when we die, it goes to heaven, hell, or purgatory?