Theological Opinions , PART II

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But if Truth is Eternal, and I, personally believe it is, then Man's judgement, even over a period of hundreds of years, or in large groups, or accompanied by incense and holy music, doesn't really count for much on this issue. Only God's Judgement does.

And the question of how we, failable as we are, get any kind of a handle at all on the nature of God's Judgement, does not seem to me as easily resolved as some of these posts seem to assume.

I'm a "Pray for mercy, not for justice" type from the get-go, but the tone of this, honestly, upsets me. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised, at judgement.

I don't think I could only "hope" and keep quiet. Yes, what man and what God think on "who" is a christian may differ, but certainly, for all intents and purposes of men, Mormons simply do not go into the "christian" category...there are probably some "christian" sects that are radical, and don't deserve the title as much as Mormons do etc...and I don't know how to resolve that.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

So Gwai, if calling the chief priest of another sect the ANTICHRIST isn't calling them unchristian, what is? Because I always thought following the orders of the antichrist would've been somewhat, I dunno, anti-christian? By definition?

The reason is because [hopefully] protestants don't REALLY believe the Pope is the anitchrist. Though I'm sure he is often considered just as bad...(perhaps as we go along, I'll say something more on that)...

By definition it would be, but since most protestant who call the Pope the antichrist don't even consider that aspect, it's kinda irrelevant.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Many Protestants exactly and specifically believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

Scary, but true.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The reason is because [hopefully] protestants don't REALLY believe the Pope is the anitchrist. Though I'm sure he is often considered just as bad...(perhaps as we go along, I'll say something more on that)...

By definition it would be, but since most protestant who call the Pope the antichrist don't even consider that aspect, it's kinda irrelevant.

In that case, so would a declaration that Catholics are not Christian be irrelevant. Because you could just as easily say "[hopefully] protestants don't REALLY believe" that. I mean, call the pope the antichrist for 400 years, I'm afraid at some point you've got to believe it.

[hectorberlioz]

Those protestants don't know what they're talkin about...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Those protestants don't know what they're talkin about...

I'm gathering that you think that.

[hectorberlioz]

Well of course I think that...how else would I transfer it to vBulletin messageboard format?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You are THINKING before posting?

See, I'd have lost money on THAT bet.

[hectorberlioz]

*clears throat*
So you've lost a lot of bets before, eh?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Many Protestants exactly and specifically believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

Scary, but true.

Then why have there been so many popes? you mean we get a new antichrist every 30 years?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

They have proof.

http://www.rsglh.org/is_the_pope_antichrist.htm

Nevertheless, the Pope is not the only Antichrist! As John tells us (I Jn. 2:18) there are always many antichrists. The cults and their founders and leaders, many leaders of the charismatic movement, the liberals, and all who deny the truth, are to one degree or another representatives of Antichrist. They show themselves to be "against Christ" when they contradict the doctrines of the Trinity, of the deity of Christ, of blood atonement, and when they claim for themselves power and position in the church that belongs only to Christ.

We must not, then, be so taken up with the idea that the Pope is Antichrist that we do not notice the evil work and influence of all these other antichrists, who do the same things and have the same destructive influence in the church. Rev. Ronald Hanko

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Then why have there been so many popes? you mean we get a new antichrist every 30 years?

The office, rohirrim, not the individual person (although probably each of them too, in their own special way)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Dr. Peter Stoner, from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stoner

Dr. Peter Stoner, from a dear friend and brother in Faith(bottom of page)
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/NewsL.../JUNJUL80.html

Dr. Stoner's emeritus "Science" credit Westmont, today.
http://www.westmont.edu/

Westmont's Statement of Faith
http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/p..._of_faith.html

I'm sure "Dr." Stoner was a good old man and a dedicated teacher. But I don't have any reason to suppose he was a skilled mathematician.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article you cited:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Peter Stoner (June 16, 1888 – March 21, 1980)[1][2] was Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College until 1953; Chairman of the science division, Westmont College, 1953-57; Professor Emeritus of Science, Westmont College; Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Astronomy, Pasadena City College.

Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy. That's a pretty good reason for thinking he's a mathematician . Remember that he also had his work carefully reviewed by other professionals (I cited that in the post you just responded to).

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And really, Lief,
in all seriousness.

I very much doubt that you came to your identity as a Christian as a result of American Protestantism's beautiful command of the Scientific Method.

Who cares whether or not the Church uses the Scientific Method? How does that relate to anything? The names of religions and denominations are human labels given to differentiate between different belief systems. The term "Christian" is just a label applied to me. If my beliefs were radically different from those of the Church, I wouldn't go by that name.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If you're talking about a direct relationship with ineffable immanence, other issues are, and should be, imo, secondary. After all, a miracle is something which CANNOT be explained by more mundane methods.

I'm afraid I really don't understand what you're trying to say, here.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

In that case, so would a declaration that Catholics are not Christian be irrelevant. Because you could just as easily say "[hopefully] protestants don't REALLY believe" that. I mean, call the pope the antichrist for 400 years, I'm afraid at some point you've got to believe it.

In the past, the Protestant Church as a whole strongly viewed the Catholic Church as pagan and viewed the Pope as the Anti-Christ. Catholics viewed Protestants as vile heretics. Both sides hated one another and slaughtered one another in what I view as the most tragic episode of Church history.

The Protestant Church in modern times isn't anywhere remotely close to what it was like back then, in terms of opposition to Catholicism. Now, as I have pointed out through the Ecumenical Organization I linked, reconciliation is developing and has been for a long time. There are still some Protestants who view the Catholics as pagan and the pope as the Anti-Christ, but I disagree with sisterandcousinandaunt that this number is "many." That is certainly not a view you hear expressed in mainstream Protestantism nowadays, and I think it's a rare one.

More commonly, you'll hear some people say that Catholics aren't Christian, and leave it at that comparatively mild statement. But the number that say that aren't a huge a percentage of the Christian population, I don't think. Else you can be sure that you'd hear the accusations flying on the major news headlines. Whenever something that sounds radical is spoken by a major group or is professed by a major group, it hits major headlines. The media loves to make fun of the church .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lief; on Psalm 110, those are two different words for Lord; one of them is the one that cannot be spoken (ie God's name), and thus is translated Lord, the other the actual word for a lord;

Hmm . . . I expect that you're right. My NIV text note points out that the word would have meant "my sovereign." And who, might I ask, was David referring to as his sovereign? As king of Israel, he should have had no sovereign but God.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

also, being at or aided by God's right hand is a trope for divine support throughout the Bible, not a literal description.

Being "aided by" God's hand, I definitely agree. Though offhand, I don't remember any of them referring to people being aided by God's right hand, specifically. Perhaps you can help me on that?

As for people being "at" God's right hand, that's another story. I don't remember any other passage in the Old Testament that refers to people being placed "at" God's right hand, which is very different from being "aided by" God's hand.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

As for Jesus as the Messiah, show me a genealogy in which he is actually of the branch of David. The only one the New Testament provides is through Joseph, who happens not to be Jesus' father if you accept the rest of the New Testament.

The genealogy from the Book of Matthew traces him through Joseph, though makes clear from the wording that he was not the father. Jesus was Joseph's legal son, and so a son of David.

Yet Jesus was not only a descendent of David legally. There also is strong reason to believe that he was a descendent of David physically, through Mary. Luke chapter 3 contains a genealogy of Jesus that has in it some differences from that which describes the ancestry of Joseph. It begins with a reference to the virgin birth, which suggests Mary's importance in Jesus' genealogy, and implies that this genealogy may well be referring to her ancestry. That genealogy also goes back to David.

Originally Posted by Luke 3:23-24, 31-32

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph [. . .] the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse [. . .]

The passage from Matthew that traces Jesus' legal bloodline through Joseph says clearly who the father of Joseph was. It says, "Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." The ancestry from Luke, in terms of language, could be referring to either Joseph or Jesus when it says, "the son of Heli," and it contains a differing set of ancestors afterward. But as the passage from Matthew is explicitly saying that the father of Joseph was Jacob, it makes sense that the other was saying Heli was the father of Jesus. Which could easily mean that we're seeing Jesus' ancestry through Mary's bloodline in Luke, and just as Jesus' legal ancestry goes back to David, so does his fleshly ancestry.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

As for being called, it's a typical Biblical poetic phrase - Jerusalem shall no longer be called desolate -

Yes, which would also imply that Jerusalem would no longer be desolate . Just as the Messiah's name being called "Mighty God" clearly implies that he also would be "Mighty God."

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

and phrase for changes of name only - Abram shall be called Abraham. It does not mean he is God.

I don't see how you got to that conclusion from the information you just gave .

Remember also that when Abram's name was changed to Abraham, the new name meant, "father of many," which clearly was a direct reference to who Abraham was destined to be. It directly described who he was in God's plan.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

EDIT: Also, el gibor (the hebrew in that Isaiah passage) can also be God IS mighty, being unhyphenated (unlike Shar-Shalom, prince of peace, which is hyphenated)

You may be right, but I'd like to know what your source on this one is. I can't find anything about it on Google (which obviously doesn't mean it isn't true, but it does leave me curious).

You haven't yet responded to my point about the name "Everlasting Father," either, I wish to remind you.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And what do you do with the child named "The spoil speedeth, the prey hasteth" in Isaiah chapter 8, right before chapter 9? Seems likely to me that both are metaphors, rather than actual children.

The context of that makes it strongly indicates a literal meaning. The other child you refer to was named what he was as a prophecy which predicted that Damascus and Samaria's wealth would be stolen by the king of Assyria (v. 4).

I would also refer you again to Jeremiah 23:5-6, a passage I cited and which you haven't yet responded to. There, the Messiah was called, "YHWH Tsidkenu," "The Lord our Righteousness," "Yahweh our Righteousness."

I also have spoken further on Genesis since your last response, and await your reply there too .

[Count Comfect]

Lief, it's hardly my fault you can't read Hebrew. Look up a Hebrew bible at some point, look at the passages in question. As for the LORD our righteousness, it's also not hyphenated (yhvh tzidkenu), and translated by Jews "the LORD is our righteousness" - meaning that people will celebrate the LORD when invoking the wonders he has done, not that he is the LORD himself. Same as you've got lots of Muslims nowadays lying around with names derived from Allahu Akbar, God is Great - doesn't mean they're God.

Just because two of your books (Matthew and Luke) can't agree on Joseph's lineage doesn't mean they aren't both trying to describe that lineage; there is no grammatical reason to read "being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli" and so on through all the "sons of" as anything but a list going back starting with Joseph, especially as the KJV has "Joseph, WHICH WAS the son of Heli" and so on.

I don't have any problem with someone calling the Messiah Abi-Ad, which is Eternal Father. It's a name. It's a highfalutin name. But it's not Avinu-Ad, which is OUR everlasting father, it's just Father in general.

The sentence in which you were completely confused about what I meant with Abraham is only confusing because you chopped my paragraph up. "He" in the 2nd sentence is Jesus, it's a conclusion of the paragraph.

As for right hand, let's start with Exodus 15:6 Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power

David did not necessarily write the psalm in question, nor if he did did he necessarily write it for his own singing. It is a psalm "l'david" which can translate as from David (ie by David) or about David. In the latter case, my sovereign is David.

As for names; I see, so there must be a literal child named the spoil speedeth, the prey hasteneth? Because every interpretation I know of takes that as a metaphor, introduced just to express how destroyed those nations will be; and I see no reason the next chapter can't be a metaphor for just how saved Israel will be. All actions trademark God Inc, YHVH sole proprietor.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You have not demonstrated skills in evaluating these sources.

This is how Peter Stoner (who did not have a doctorate) was described, in his professional life, by his friend. "At Pasadena City College Peter was Chairman of the Department of Mathematics, Astronomy, and Architecture. (which, by your logic, might make him an architect?)He taught there for 41 years. Roger Voskuyl, then president of Westmont College, pulled Peter back from the brink of a well-earned retirement to teach at Westmont. Teaching mathematics led to astronomy and then to head of the Science Department and building an observatory for Westmont's 16-inch reflecting telescope. In 1963 he left the haunting smell of chalkdust, having completed 50 years of teaching."

He was hired in 1913 to teach math at a community college, with a Master's degree. His computations were created, to his specifications, by students in his community college classes, and checked by his friends at the faith based ipse dixit "science" organization he founded.

This in no way makes him a "mathematician." At best it makes him a "math teacher." And being affirmed by your like-minded friends is not the same as being "peer reviewed." He is listed as the author of many books on Christ (all orginally published by the group he created to Spread the Word) but of no papers in the field of mathematics.

I say, therefore,

I have no reason to supposed he's a skilled mathematician.

His proteges and students are noted for their commitment to Christ, not their science and math skills, as well.

And here? I believe you fall into this category

If my beliefs were radically different from those of the Church, I wouldn't go by that name.

and yet you do call yourself a Christian.

And what that tells me is, we differ on the definition of Christian.

(I've enjoyed your posts, Count. Very interesting. I wish I read Hebrew.)

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The office, rohirrim, not the individual person (although probably each of them too, in their own special way)

Aha! The OFFICE! See, this is why the protestants started out such hypocrites. They condemn the Pope as the antichrist because of his office, and yet at the same time, they reject the Traditional formalities of Rome as "not important to salvation"!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Aha! The OFFICE! See, this is why the protestants started out such hypocrites. They condemn the Pope as the antichrist because of his office, and yet at the same time, they reject the Traditional formalities of Rome as "not important to salvation"!

The office of the Pope is considered "anti-Christian" by its very nature, because it places the Pope as 'God's representative on Earth" when only Christ Jesus can be that. They trace it back to the same place as people who worship idols and false gods. So, "anyone who'd set himself up as God's intermediary instead of Christ is AntiChrist". hth

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Aha! The OFFICE! See, this is why the protestants started out such hypocrites. They condemn the Pope as the antichrist because of his office, and yet at the same time, they reject the Traditional formalities of Rome as "not important to salvation"!

Oh, that's not true.

The formalities of the Church were considered very important to salvation.

Just as an opposite: very important NOT to have them

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So what?

You don't need to have a complete New Testament to have strong consistency evidence. Single books, or even fragments of books, can prove an early date for the writing, and are useful for demonstrating both distribution and consistency.

Of course, but the earliest complete versions of the gospels are (IIRC) from the second and third century. The fragments from before then show earlier dates for writing, but not consistency. Also, even if a text is dated earlier than another, contradicting, text, there is still the chance that the later one may have been copied from a more reliable original thanthe other, etc. The earliest Christian scribes were usually 'amatours', whose writing skills could vary considerably.

The huge numbers of variations that you've pointed out have been suggested are very misleading, for more than one reason. First of all, if one single word is misspelled in 2,000 manuscripts, according to Bruce Metzger, PHD, that's counted as 2,000 variants. So any tiny and completely inconsequential error in spelling in any manuscript means that that text will be presented as a variant. So huge numbers like that are incredibly misleading.

Another huge source of variations is involved in the differences between the Greek and English language. In Greek, the order of words in a sentence doesn't matter much. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it is in the sequence, so if the word order differs in different sentences from manuscript to manuscript, this doesn't alter the meaning of the sentence. Yet the linguistically irrelevant differences in the arrangement of the words isn't taken into account when variants are determined, so you get vast numbers of "variations" which make no difference when it comes down to the meaning of the text.

Real errors, in fact, are so rare that scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix concluded, "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book-a form that is 99.5 percent pure."

Since every text was scribed individually each version does, in a way, constitute a variant. Most of the errors are probably small and inconsequential, but there might be big ones floating around that are hard to uncover (I mentioned a few probably councious changes earlier). All the variations don't really vary in meaning, of course, but there are a few that do. Another difficult aspect can often be to decide which differences were errors and which were 'original'.

I'm not sure where they got the 99.5 percent-figure, but I suspect that the figure depends a lot on which translation of the Bible they're talking about. King James's, one of the as far as I have gathered most popular version up until recent times, is based on a translatation of a greek text made in the early 16th century from ca 100 randomly assembled greek texts (well, most of it anyway - some passages in John were simply translated back to greek from the Vulgata - also, most of the time the translator relied on one or two of the greek texts he had available), among which there later was found up to 30 000 - major but of course mostly minor - inconcistensies (that's excluding the differences in word ordering). The start of the Gospel of John is f.ex. not found in any of the earliest greek texts (the only place where the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is explicitly lain out, afaik), but derrived from the Vulgata.

This doesn't "disprove" the New Testament of course, and most of it, depending on the translation one uses, probably reflects the original manuscripts (how well they reflect the life of Jesus is a different matter, but one I think we've already been trough ). Much of the "main-stream" doctrine of today is still derrived from earlier times, though, before one had any real text-criticism, and some of it isn't even from the Bible (like most of Satan's 'biography', which has its own history: most protestant denominations accept the Catholic tradition - sola scriptura be damned). People will thus, IMO, interpret it in the light of what they've already learned is true, even though the early Christians might have thought them to mean something different. Also, since many passages can be interpreted in a lot of different ways depending on the translation of a Greek (or English, for that matter) word or what the word itself means in the relevant context...well, there's no wonder there has been so many different Christian denominations up through the ages.

A somewhat chaotic post, but I think I got at least some of my points across.