Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

History of Christianity

  • 20-02-2010 6:59pm
    #1
    grrrrrrrrrr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭


    Programme on BBC2 tonight at 7:15pm.

    Titled "History of Christianity"

    Might be of interest to ye.


    Let us know how ye find it i.e. accurate etc
    Tagged:


Comments

  • #2
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    I missed it, but the one with Gerry Adams will be on tomorrow evening so I'll be looking forward to that one.

    How was the program?

    Pax Christi

    Stephen <3


  • #3
    grrrrrrrrrr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭grrrrrrrrrr


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    I missed it, but the one with Gerry Adams will be on tomorrow evening so I'll be looking forward to that one.

    How was the program?

    Pax Christi

    Stephen <3


    Could be on the BBC player but i know they dont put everything up on that


  • #4
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Could be on the BBC player but i know they dont put everything up on that

    You mean internet? I use one of those key things and its speed is so slow, I've to wait ages for youtube videos to load etc etc....what about BBC plus? I have sky will that work?


  • #5
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Programme on BBC2 tonight at 7:15pm.

    Titled "History of Christianity"

    Might be of interest to ye.


    Let us know how ye find it i.e. accurate etc

    Yeah, I heard the tag line earlier and it put me right off. "...with a bloody past and an uncertain history..."

    For one, the history of Christianity wasn't all bloody in fairness, and it actually started out with the Christian's blood being shed first, and that because they preached what they believed to be true. It would appear that people who are not Christian will invariably view Christianity with their very own rose tinted glasses, they only see the parts that fit nicely with their opinion of it. And as for the uncertain future, I would remind them that Jesus said: "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.", meaning that Christianity (real everyday faith in God Christianity) has a future most certain. Will try and catch a repeat of the prog anyway to see what its like.


  • #6
    grrrrrrrrrr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭grrrrrrrrrr


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    You mean internet? I use one of those key things and its speed is so slow, I've to wait ages for youtube videos to load etc etc....what about BBC plus? I have sky will that work?

    Just checked out the BBC watch back service for you,
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_two_england/


    BUT it doesnt work in Ireland!! Only in the UK!! Bit of a joke seeing as the Channel 4 player works in Ireland but that debate isnt ofr this thread as i will be told!! alright Fanny...

    It'll prob be repeated at some stage... its still on now



    EDIT: just checked it out some more and BBC say "Rights agreements mean that BBC iPlayer television programmes are only available to users to download or stream (Click to Play) in the UK. However, we are aware of demand for an international version."


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Yeah, I heard the tag line earlier and it put me right off. "...with a bloody past and an uncertain history..."

    For one, the history of Christianity wasn't all bloody in fairness, and it actually started out with the Christian's blood being shed first, and that because they preached what they believed to be true. It would appear that people who are not Christian will invariably view Christianity with their very own rose tinted glasses, they only see the parts that fit nicely with their opinion of it. And as for the uncertain future, I would remind them that Jesus said: "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.", meaning that Christianity (real everyday faith in God Christianity) has a future most certain. Will try and catch a repeat of the prog anyway to see what its like.

    except for the last part of your post, I disagree with, God built his Church upon the rock that is Peter, and told peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, this is his one Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, however I do not wish to sidetrack the thread.

    good post though, I find it strange that a secular programme would be nice to Christianity, so its no suprise that they are not and give us their own watered down interpretation of it.


  • #8
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Just checked out the BBC watch back service for you,
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_two_england/


    BUT it doesnt work in Ireland!! Only in the UK!! Bit of a joke seeing as the Channel 4 player works in Ireland but that debate isnt ofr this thread as i will be told!! alright Fanny...

    It'll prob be repeated at some stage... its still on now



    EDIT: just checked it out some more and BBC say "Rights agreements mean that BBC iPlayer television programmes are only available to users to download or stream (Click to Play) in the UK. However, we are aware of demand for an international version."

    well after seeing soul winners post I dont think I'm gonna stress meself too much over it lol :pac:


  • #9
    grrrrrrrrrr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭grrrrrrrrrr


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    well after seeing soul winners post I dont think I'm gonna stress meself too much over it lol :pac:


    meh just watch The passion of the Christ!!


  • #10
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »
    meh just watch The passion of the Christ!!

    Very good movie, I wish they'd make more Christian movies like that one, I'd say a good movie on the Acts of the apostles by mel gibson would be a cracker too.


  • #11
    grrrrrrrrrr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭grrrrrrrrrr


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    Very good movie, I wish they'd make more Christian movies like that one, I'd say a good movie on the Acts of the apostles by mel gibson would be a cracker too.



    Guessing The Da vinci code is just a pile of sh!t to ye?? that whole blood line thing....


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Guessing The Da vinci code is just a pile of sh!t to ye?? that whole blood line thing....

    aye, loada nonsense, just a load of fiction, I watched it prior to my conversion to the Catholic Church when I was hungover and to be honest it made my hangover a harder one to bear. My cousin ( who is an atheist/agnostic ) loved it because it made the Catholic church look horrible and he believes all the secular nonsense.


  • #13
    hivizman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭hivizman


    Just for info, the "History of Christianity" programme on BBC2 earlier this evening was a repeat of the Diarmaid MacCulloch programme originally on BBC4 last year. I think that this evening's episode was the last of the series. It's now out on DVD. See my post on a recent thread for links.


  • #14
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    except for the last part of your post, I disagree with, God built his Church upon the rock that is Peter, and told peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, this is his one Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church

    Well if we are going to take a literal reading of that verse as saying Peter is the rock and not his statement of faith which preceded Jesus' commendation (a statement which was revealed to Peter by the God to Peter in the first place), then we must also conclude that Peter is Satan. Why? Because Jesus calls him Satan just a couple of verse later. So if Peter is the rock and not his statement of faith then Peter is also Satan because of his other statement which came later which was a man serving statement that did not come from God.

    Here's are the verses in question:

    "Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mathew 16:17-18

    What rock was Jesus referring to? Peter? How so? It wasn't Peter at all, common sense tells you that, it was Peter's statement of faith which was the rock, the truth of which was revealed to him by the Father in Heaven. So it wasn't even Peter's statement to begin with, it was revealed to him. In anycase, just for argument's sake let us assume that the rock is Peter himself and not his statement.

    A few verses later this happens:

    "From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Mathew 16:21-23

    Now which is it? Is Peter the rock? If so then he is also Satan. Jesus did not just equate Peter to Satan, He actually called Peter Satan. Because he literally became Satan possessed at that very moment because he would have had Jesus avoid the cross. No, the rock commendation can only stand if the Satan rebuke stands too. I think the Scripture is very clear on this and only tradition makes people think otherwise, traditions which Jesus says make void the Word of God.


  • #15
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Well if we are going to take a literal reading of that verse as saying Peter is the rock and not his statement of faith which preceded Jesus' commendation (a statement which was revealed to Peter by the God to Peter in the first place), then we must also conclude that Peter is Satan. Why? Because Jesus calls him Satan just a couple of verse later. So if Peter is the rock and not his statement of faith then Peter is also Satan because of his other statement which came later which was a man serving statement that did not come from God.

    Here's are the verses in question:

    "Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mathew 16:17-18

    What rock was Jesus referring to? Peter? How so? It wasn't Peter at all, common sense tells you that, it was Peter's statement of faith which was the rock, the truth of which was revealed to him by the Father in Heaven. So it wasn't even Peter's statement to begin with, it was revealed to him. In anycase, just for argument's sake let us assume that the rock is Peter himself and not his statement.

    A few verses later this happens:

    "From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Mathew 16:21-23

    Now which is it? Is Peter the rock? If so then he is also Satan. Jesus did not just equate Peter to Satan, He actually called Peter Satan. Because he literally became Satan possessed at that very moment because he would have had Jesus avoid the cross. No, the rock commendation can only stand if the Satan rebuke stands too. I think the Scripture is very clear on this and only tradition makes people think otherwise, traditions which Jesus says make void the Word of God.


    ZZZZZZZ,

    all the above can be refuted here,

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

    I'm tired of teaching pigs how to sing, only wasting my time and it irritates the pig, if those who are protestant are open to the truth they will find it, but if their mind be already petrified then why bother. It is not our job to convince you of the truth, only to let those who hear hear and those who do not want to hear, not hear, thats what the disciples job was, going from place to place and letting people hear the truth, those who were obstinate they then remembered the words of Jesus which was as they left the town to shake the dust from their sandals, which is what I'm doing now, after all if your looking for the truth you'll e-mail John and debate with him, not me, for I know nothing and consider John more intelligent in that area. :)

    here are more debates for you relating to the authority of the Church.

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html

    if after reading it soul winner and discussing it with John and you still are not satisfied and remain incredulous in your thinkin, then it can be said that "We played the pipes for you and you wouldn't dance; we sang sad songs and you wouldn't cry." Matthew 11:17

    God bless and good night
    Stephen

    ( I have no idea why my writing is still in bold ):confused:


  • #16
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    ZZZZZZZ,

    all the above can be refuted here,

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

    I'm tired of teaching pigs how to sing, only wasting my time and it irritates the pig, if those who are protestant are open to the truth they will find it, but if their mind be already petrified then why bother. It is not our job to convince you of the truth, only to let those who hear hear and those who do not want to hear, not hear, thats what the disciples job was, going from place to place and letting people hear the truth, those who were obstinate they then remembered the words of Jesus which was as they left the town to shake the dust from their sandals, which is what I'm doing now, after all if your looking for the truth you'll e-mail John and debate with him, not me, afterall, I know nothing. :)

    here are more debates for you relating to the authority of the Church.

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html

    after reading it soul winner and discussing it with John and still arent satisfied and remain incredulous in your thinkin, then it can be said that "We played the pipes for you and you wouldn't dance; we sang sad songs and you wouldn't cry." Matthew 11:17

    God bless and good night
    Stephen

    ( I have no idea why my writing is still in bold ):confused:

    Now that's a great idea, link me to someone who thinks the same as you to support your argument. How constructive is that? Look just read the scripture and draw your conclusion based on it, not on what someone else wants you to believe it says. If God had left the building of the church up to Peter and the apostles at Jerusalem then that documentary would be titled: "A history of that obscure splinter sect off Judaism called Christianity that nobody ever heard of." Goodnight God bless etc etc..


  • #17
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Now that's a great idea, link me to someone who thinks the same as you to support your argument. How constructive is that? Look just read the scripture and draw your conclusion based on it, not on what someone else wants you to believe it says. If God had left the building of the church up to Peter and the apostles at Jerusalem then that documentary would be titled: "A history of that obscure splinter sect off Judaism called Christianity that nobody ever heard of." Goodnight God bless etc etc..

    well Soul winner if the following verse told me that the Bible was the pillar and bulwark of the truth then I'd be proclaiming it from the rooftops and be protestant, but unfortuntatley for you and your Bible alone theological buddies it says quite the opposite.

    "If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

    here is Johns website, www.scripturecatholic.com go on ahead and e-mail him if you looking for the truth, his exegesis is a fine one and one that comes from the church. should you reply to me now I wont respond, this post thus ends our correspondance.

    God bless soul winner,

    Stephen <3


  • #18
    chozometroid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    ZZZZZZZ,

    all the above can be refuted here,

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

    I'm tired of teaching pigs how to sing, only wasting my time and it irritates the pig, if those who are protestant are open to the truth they will find it, but if their mind be already petrified then why bother. It is not our job to convince you of the truth, only to let those who hear hear and those who do not want to hear, not hear,
    Do you realize how you sound? Protestants can say the exact same thing you said, with the addition of "read the Bible and see what it actually says" instead of "listen to what the Catholic Church says cuz they're right."

    I guess you wouldn't be tired of "teaching" if we weren't pigs, eh? The only one who isn't a pig is one who believes the same thing as you?


  • #19
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    I'm sure Christians can discuss things in this forum without referring to each other as pigs.


  • #20
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    my statement was meant as one leaning to a symbolic nature, who here can teach a pig how to sing? i'll give that man a dollar!!!

    my apologies if that caused offence and was taken the wrong way.

    yours in Christ

    Stephen


  • #21
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Now that's a great idea, link me to someone who thinks the same as you to support your argument. How constructive is that?

    Actually that is exactly how academic argument works! You CITE other people to support your argument.
    Look just read the scripture and draw your conclusion based on it, not on what someone else wants you to believe it says.

    so if you believe the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old then you are correct? Or should you look for something to inform your interpretation?

    Do you really reject the Early church fathers as all being wrong?
    You do know practically the entire New Testament can be recovered from Early church fathers writings?

    And what did Christians do for the first 400 or so years of Christianity when they had no actual written Bible to read? Mind you most probably couldn't read anyway. But the point is they didn't have a Bible to "draw their own conclusions" they relied on the early church fathers and others to maintain the unwritten tradition.
    If God had left the building of the church up to Peter and the apostles at Jerusalem then that documentary would be titled: "A history of that obscure splinter sect off Judaism called Christianity that nobody ever heard of." Goodnight God bless etc etc..

    In fact this is basically what Mc Cullogh says at the very end of the series! He quotes a Dominican friar I think who told him at Aquinas had said people who think God is the answer are wrong, God is the question. He refers to the ability of Christianity to adapt and to question as central to a world religion in order to explain how and obscure Jewish splinter sect grew and thrived.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    And what did Christians do for the first 400 or so years of Christianity when they had no actual written Bible to read? Mind you most probably couldn't read anyway. But the point is they didn't have a Bible to "draw their own conclusions" they relied on the early church fathers and others to maintain the unwritten tradition.

    They had the Jewish Scriptures (our Old Testament). Also, after the first 20 years or so, they has an increasing number of Epistles. Certainly, within 100 years, all the books that make up our New Testament were widely circulated and viewed by many churches as Scripture.


  • #23
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    well Soul winner if the following verse told me that the Bible was the pillar and bulwark of the truth then I'd be proclaiming it from the rooftops and be protestant, but unfortuntatley for you and your Bible alone theological buddies it says quite the opposite.

    "If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

    here is Johns website, www.scripturecatholic.com go on ahead and e-mail him if you looking for the truth, his exegesis is a fine one and one that comes from the church. should you reply to me now I wont respond, this post thus ends our correspondance.

    God bless soul winner,

    Stephen <3

    Hey NEWS flash: We are the Church. A people who belong to the Lord. The word is eclesia (ec-le-sia) out-called-ones. I'm not arguing with John, I'm arguing with you. I want to hear your arguments not John's. Tell me what you think. If you're too insecure to do that then I suggest you stop posting in this forum altogether. Popping in and out and referring to people who don't view reality the way you do as pigs is a tad immature and close minded. If you want to quote John then go ahead and quote him, tell me what he says and why you agree with it, don't just post a link and expect me to argue with that. I want what's in your mind not John's. Thank you.


  • #24
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    ISAW wrote: »
    Actually that is exactly how academic argument works! You CITE other people to support your argument.

    Yes please cite them. Support your citation with your own reasons for believing it. Plus it is even better to cite a source from the opposing camp whose official statement(s) happen to support your position rather than citing somebody who is already indoctrinated with the same doctrine as you, like what Moonsharp did in another thread when he quoted the Pope's official statement in support of the theory of evolution.

    ISAW wrote: »
    so if you believe the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old then you are correct? Or should you look for something to inform your interpretation?

    Where does the Bible say that the earth is 6000 years old?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Do you really reject the Early church fathers as all being wrong?

    Wrong about what exactly? Did I say that they were wrong about something?
    ISAW wrote: »
    You do know practically the entire New Testament can be recovered from Early church fathers writings?

    Yes I did know that, all except 11 verses. What's your point?
    ISAW wrote: »
    And what did Christians do for the first 400 or so years of Christianity when they had no actual written Bible to read?

    They read letters from the apostles and the Old Testament.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Mind you most probably couldn't read anyway.

    Most of them could and for those who couldn't books and letters were read out to them.
    ISAW wrote: »
    But the point is they didn't have a Bible to "draw their own conclusions" they relied on the early church fathers and others to maintain the unwritten tradition.

    Yes I know that but I still don't get your point?

    ISAW wrote: »
    In fact this is basically what Mc Cullogh says at the very end of the series! He quotes a Dominican friar I think who told him at Aquinas had said people who think God is the answer are wrong, God is the question. He refers to the ability of Christianity to adapt and to question as central to a world religion in order to explain how and obscure Jewish splinter sect grew and thrived.

    Like I said, rose tinted glasses. If he had done any kind of real research into the subject he would have concluded that Christians believe that God is the only answer, and that there is no other. Jesus Christ was His answer to the world and you either accept that or you don't. There is no other Christianity. That is either absolutely true or it is absolutely false.


  • #25
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I'm not arguing with John, I'm arguing with you. I want to hear your arguments not John's. Tell me what you think. If you're too insecure to do that then I suggest you stop posting in this forum altogether. Popping in and out and referring to people who don't view reality the way you do as pigs is a tad immature and close minded. If you want to quote John then go ahead and quote him, tell me what he says and why you agree with it, don't just post a link and expect me to argue with that. I want what's in your mind not John's. Thank you.


    I agree.


    These guidelines from another forum might be helpful for Stephen to consider applying to his own approach. The problem might not be that we are close minded or unteachable as he suggests (although I fail to see how someone could magic the doctrine of the RC Church = the Church from the paltry amount of scripture posited to support that notion). The problem might be that we can't be convinced by a non-presented argument. Nor by an argument ad sola weblinkum
    1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
    2. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
    3. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference.


  • #26
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    double post


  • #27
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    I watched the last in the series last night (after finding myself switching off half way through the first). For some reason I'd the impression that Dr. McCullough was a Christian and was a bit baffled about his investigation into the connected but quite separate issue of Christendom (without his apparently discerning the difference between the two).

    Then he mentioned that he was a "friend of Christianity" implying that he isn't a Christian but has benevolent feelings towards it. In which case he's a lost man, blind spiritually .. and his approach is perfectly explained.


  • #28
    grrrrrrrrrr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭grrrrrrrrrr


    Is there any part of Christianity than ye would agree on?? do ye all even believe there is a god?? that would be a good starting point


  • #29
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Is there any part of Christianity than ye would agree on?? do ye all even believe there is a god?? that would be a good starting point

    Yeah, that Jesus is LORD !!! What else do we need to agree on?


  • #30
    keano_afc
    Registered Users Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Yeah, that Jesus is LORD !!! What else do we need to agree on?

    AMEN to that!


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Glenster
    Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    he mentioned that he was a "friend of Christianity" implying that he isn't a Christian but has benevolent feelings towards it. In which case he's a lost man, blind spiritually .. and his approach is perfectly explained.

    I thought he was reasonably fair throughout the series. It's good to see a critical programme on Christianity that talks to the mainstream christians rather than focusing on the crazy fundamentalists.

    I particularly like the reverend from St. Martin in the Fields and his response to the homosexual question, he made an interesting point, one that makes a lot of the anti-gay stuff in the old testament not as relevant to the modern world.


  • #32
    Pink Boots
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭Pink Boots


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Hey NEWS flash: We are the Church. A people who belong to the Lord. The word is eclesia (ec-le-sia) out-called-ones. I'm not arguing with John, I'm arguing with you. I want to hear your arguments not John's. Tell me what you think. If you're too insecure to do that then I suggest you stop posting in this forum altogether. Popping in and out and referring to people who don't view reality the way you do as pigs is a tad immature and close minded. If you want to quote John then go ahead and quote him, tell me what he says and why you agree with it, don't just post a link and expect me to argue with that. I want what's in your mind not John's. Thank you.

    Eccelsia also means a religious congregation, a people called into one fold, not a denomination of 30,000 protestants loosely connected to one another through Sola scriptura and sola Fide. Jesus said may they be one not a denomination of 30,000.

    But regardless of your horrible rendering of the greek, you missed the point Stephen was trying to make, which I believe is, if St.Paul believed in Bible alone theology, then he would of told us that the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, but instead he tells us that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

    its a powerful passage from the Bible that destroys the Bible alone theology.


  • #33
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    They had the Jewish Scriptures (our Old Testament).

    Which fundamentalist Christians claim they didn't have to listen to since Christ revoked almost all the laws in them.
    Also, after the first 20 years or so, they has an increasing number of Epistles.

    Some of their LEADERS had. I would reckon even noblemen ( particularly not Greco Romans
    of orthodox tradition but those of The Roman western Church and later frqanks and Germans and the like) dint even read.
    Certainly, within 100 years, all the books that make up our New Testament were widely circulated and viewed by many churches as Scripture.

    Your evidence is?

    Not all together in a single New Testament! That didn't exist for another century or three.
    Also a lot of epistles and books which were NOT PART OF THE NEW TESTAMENT were also in circulation. Including heretical ones! So given these books didn't say what was in the New Testament and what was not in it and given the New Testament itself didnt say what books should go into it they relied as I have claimed on the PEOPLE and not the books to make up their own minds what books went in and the inspiration of God to guide them.

    So you have about FOUR CENTURIES of "No Bible" as far as the fundamentalist Christians of today would say. Which of course does not mean most of it could not be recovered from earlier remote later first and early second century sources. They went by a separate oral tradition and magisterium and what their leaders taught and prayed for the hand of God on those clergy. Just as they do today!


  • #34
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Yes please cite them. Support your citation with your own reasons for believing it.

    I did I cited YOU contradicting someone else for citing someone in supported of their argument and then i explained that is what citation is!

    Plus it is even better to cite a source from the opposing camp whose official statement(s) happen to support your position rather than citing somebody who is already indoctrinated with the same doctrine as you, like what Moonsharp did in another thread when he quoted the Pope's official statement in support of the theory of evolution.

    I did I cited YOU contradicting someone else for citing someone in supported of their argument!

    Where does the Bible say that the earth is 6000 years old?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
    Wrong about what exactly? Did I say that they were wrong about something?

    So you accept the Early Church fathers as sources equivalent to and to be considered in tandem with the Bible? You accept that a group of "leaders" in the church should inform others about Christian teaching?

    Yes I did know that, all except 11 verses. What's your point?


    That The Pre Nicean fathers also write about other things NOT in the Bible or about their interpretation of things that are in the Bible.
    They read letters from the apostles and the Old Testament.


    Not ALL of them they didn't. Yu can't claim that the Ephisians for example or the Corinthians who only had access to Paul's letter to them and no or few other New testament writings had the New Testament. So they were Christians without a whole copy of the New Testament! That means the book alone is not paramount!
    Most of them could and for those who couldn't books and letters were read out to them.

    Where is your evidence that most Christians were literate. Maybe greek ones but many were peasants and later on the Roman civilization was muss less learned and the learning aspect of Western Roman christians only came about when Charles the Great learned to read and asked monks to teach Europeans. Even then they lagged the Byzentines who in turn probably lagged the much more educated Arabs.
    Yes I know that but I still don't get your point?

    That the New Testament is not the only thing that matters. It isn't all about what is written in the Book.
    Like I said, rose tinted glasses. If he had done any kind of real research into the subject he would have concluded that Christians believe that God is the only answer, and that there is no other. Jesus Christ was His answer to the world and you either accept that or you don't. There is no other Christianity. That is either absolutely true or it is absolutely false.

    But he points out the elements of the main branches of the Catholic church those of the Book/word - protestants and fundamentalists , those of the Spirit - Orthodox and those of the Church as a body in Christ with a magesterium - Romans.

    Actually I found one of his earlier progs on protestantism ironic. He pointed out how what became fundamentalist rule ridden Protestants started out by contradicting the rule ridden church on whether one could eat a sausage during lent.


  • #35
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    Which fundamentalist Christians claim they didn't have to listen to since Christ revoked almost all the laws in them.
    Totally untrue.

    Fundamentalist Christians (of which I am not one) see the Old Testament as being the inspired and inerrant Word of God, which must be listened to and interpreted in the light of the New Testament.
    Some of their LEADERS had. I would reckon even noblemen ( particularly not Greco Romans
    of orthodox tradition but those of The Roman western Church and later frqanks and Germans and the like) dint even read.
    Churches had 'readers' who would read the Scriptures to the rest of the congregation.
    Your evidence is?
    One powerful piece of evidence is that they were quoted by early Church fathers, from various geographical areas, as Scripture and as authoritative in settling disputes.
    Also a lot of epistles and books which were NOT PART OF THE NEW TESTAMENT were also in circulation. Including heretical ones! So given these books didn't say what was in the New Testament and what was not in it and given the New Testament itself didnt say what books should go into it they relied as I have claimed on the PEOPLE and not the books to make up their own minds what books went in and the inspiration of God to guide them.
    So what? No-one is pretending that the only books going the rounds were the 27 we now have in our New Testament. :confused:

    The fact that people had other books as well as Scriptural books doesn't alter the fact that they had the Scriptural books.
    So you have about FOUR CENTURIES of "No Bible" as far as the fundamentalist Christians of today would say. Which of course does not mean most of it could not be recovered from earlier remote later first and early second century sources. They went by a separate oral tradition and magisterium and what their leaders taught and prayed for the hand of God on those clergy. Just as they do today!
    No. You have 400 years during which some Christians only had access to parts of the Bible.


  • #36
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Glenster wrote: »
    I thought he was reasonably fair throughout the series. It's good to see a critical programme on Christianity that talks to the mainstream christians rather than focusing on the crazy fundamentalists.

    I thought he was being fair too. But as an unbeliever, he displayed blindness, conflating Christendom (or cultural Christianity if you like) with Christianity.

    I particularly like the reverend from St. Martin in the Fields and his response to the homosexual question, he made an interesting point, one that makes a lot of the anti-gay stuff in the old testament not as relevant to the modern world.

    Did his point cover the "anti-gay" stuff in the New Testament?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Totally untrue.

    Fundamentalist Christians (of which I am not one) see the Old Testament as being the inspired and inerrant Word of God, which must be listened to and interpreted in the light of the New Testament.

    Oddly when I asked a fundamentalist creationist about old testament passages over in another thread (the longest on boards) about passages from the Bible

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64490161&postcount=21065

    the reply was

    ...as a Saved Christian, the Laws of Leviticus don't apply to me.
    Churches had 'readers' who would read the Scriptures to the rest of the congregation.

    Readers are not leaders. A NON mathAMATICIAN COULD READ equations which the audience does not understand.
    One powerful piece of evidence is that they were quoted by early Church fathers, from various geographical areas, as Scripture and as authoritative in settling disputes.

    Yes but not all in one place or time! Early faters cover a time period of centuries!
    So what? No-one is pretending that the only books going the rounds were the 27 we now have in our New Testament. :confused:
    so given the early Christians didn't have all the books in the same place at the same time
    It took CENTURIES for any one place to have the entire Bible!
    The fact that people had other books as well as Scriptural books doesn't alter the fact that they had the Scriptural books.
    You have 400 years during which some Christians only had access to parts of the Bible.


  • #38
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    Oddly when I asked a fundamentalist creationist about old testament passages over in another thread (the longest on boards) about passages from the Bible

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64490161&postcount=21065

    the reply was

    ...as a Saved Christian, the Laws of Leviticus don't apply to me.

    You seem to be confusing two very different issues.

    The laws of Leviticus don't apply to him. But Leviticus is still part of his Bible and is viewed as part of the inerrant and inspired Word of God.

    Paul's instruction in the New Testament to say hello on his behalf to the church that meets in Phoebe's house doesn't apply to me - but it's still part of my Bible.


  • #39
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    You seem to be confusing two very different issues.

    The laws of Leviticus don't apply to him. But Leviticus is still part of his Bible and is viewed as part of the inerrant and inspired Word of God.

    What do you mean by "inerrant" ?

    Are these passages inerrant?:
    "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

    "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

    "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

    "...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)


  • #40
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    What do you mean by "inerrant" ?

    Are these passages inerrant?:
    "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

    "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

    "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

    "...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

    By 'inerrant' I mean 'without error'.

    Yes, those passages are inerrant, IMHO, in that they accurately represent the instructions that God gave the Israelites to live by once they took possession of Canaan.

    The fact that they don't apply to non-Israelites living in Ireland thousands of years later does not affect the issue of inerrancy.

    You do seem to be conflating different concepts to an alarming degree. I hope you don't do this in every area of life, and in this case your confusion is simply caused by unfamiliarity with the subject matter.


  • #41
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    By 'inerrant' I mean 'without error'.

    Yes, those passages are inerrant, IMHO, in that they accurately represent the instructions that God gave the Israelites to live by once they took possession of Canaan.

    The fact that they don't apply to non-Israelites living in Ireland thousands of years later does not affect the issue of inerrancy.

    You do seem to be conflating different concepts to an alarming degree. I hope you don't do this in every area of life, and in this case your confusion is simply caused by unfamiliarity with the subject matter.

    So you agree that it was right in Cana in ancient times for anyone cursing their father to be killed or for slaves to be taken and that God saw this as something very important and told them so? And that God was highly interested in garments not being of two different materials , so much so he had it written into inerrant law?

    I only picked out a few "hard passages" here.

    Then you come back to "they don't apply today"
    Well that is just a contradicting yourself!
    But first it is saying that they DID apply then. I have just pointed out the problems with that.
    Second of all you are just echoing the point I originally raised about fundamentalists saying "laws of the Old Testament don't apply today"!

    Remember? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64588889&postcount=33
    PDN wrote:
    They had the Jewish Scriptures (our Old Testament).
    to which i stated
    Which fundamentalist Christians claim they didn't have to listen to since Christ revoked almost all the laws in them.

    and your direct reply was
    PDN wrote:
    Totally untrue.


    how is that totally untrue and yet
    PDN wrote:
    they don't apply to non-Israelites living in Ireland thousands of years later

    i point out fundamentalists claim they dont apply today. You claim that is totally untrue. I show you some laws from the Old Testament. You then state "they don't apply today"!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Pink Boots wrote: »
    Eccelsia also means a religious congregation, a people called into one fold, not a denomination of 30,000 protestants loosely connected to one another through Sola scriptura and sola Fide. Jesus said may they be one not a denomination of 30,000.

    Strawman argument. When did I say anything about a denomination of 30,000????
    Pink Boots wrote: »
    But regardless of your horrible rendering of the greek,

    Hello? You translated it practically the same as me???? I said it means out-called-one and you said that it translate a religious congregation. Mine is closer to the what the word actually means, yet you call it a horrible rendering? Weird??
    Pink Boots wrote: »
    you missed the point Stephen was trying to make,

    The point he was trying to make was that Catholics are right and everyone else is wrong. Simple really.
    Pink Boots wrote: »
    which I believe is, if St.Paul believed in Bible alone theology, then he would of told us that the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, but instead he tells us that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

    Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH FORTH FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD. Only a church that is nourished by God's Word can be called a real church. Churches that dine on paganism and idolatry will go into perdition. The Protestant reformation put God's Word center stage after centuries of concealment by the RCC.
    Pink Boots wrote: »
    its a powerful passage from the Bible that destroys the Bible alone theology.

    I just demolished your argument with the words of Jesus who quoted from the Old Testament. Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God. That is all we ever will need. We don't need any BS traditions brought in via idolatry and paganism to pollute the pure stream of God's Word.


  • #43
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH FORTH FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD.
    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

    When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

    "When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).

    If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

    "Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

    a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

    b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

    c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

    d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

    In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

    "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).

    In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).


  • #44
    Pink Boots
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭Pink Boots


    Hello? You translated it practically the same as me???? I said it means out-called-one and you said that it translate a religious congregation. Mine is closer to the what the word actually means, yet you call it a horrible rendering? Weird??

    No I didnt, here it is from my greek dictionary, you just hoovered up the words ''called out ones'' and forgot to add the rest hmmm:rolleyes:

    1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
    a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
    b) the assembly of the Israelites
    c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
    d) in a Christian sense
    Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH FORTH FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD. Only a church that is nourished by God's Word can be called a real church. Churches that dine on paganism and idolatry will go into perdition. The Protestant reformation put God's Word center stage after centuries of concealment by the RCC.

    Of course Catholics believe this piece of scripture also and we live by the word of God but the problem you have is showing me where the verse says that we should listen to the Bible aloneee, because it does not say that. Stephens quote still stands that if St.Paul believed in Bible alone theology he would of used it and called the Bible the pillar and bulwark of the truth, but he doesnt he calls the Church the pillar and bulwark of the truth, any other quote from the Bible to say otherwise would be calling St.paul a liar and since the words out of his mouth are the word of God, you'd be ultimately calling the Holy Spirit a liar and not living by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of the Lord yourself. this shows that Catholics do actually live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of the Lord, whilst people such as yourself do not.


  • #45
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Pink Boots wrote: »
    Of course Catholics believe this piece of scripture also and we live by the word of God but the problem you have is showing me where the verse says that we should listen to the Bible alone, because it does not say that.

    As a non-catholic I believe you are correct. However, like the Boreans did, and were commended by Paul for doing, we use the bible as the yardstick. If we believe the bible is from those closest to God, and an accurate record of his statutes and teachings, then it is of absolute benefit to our spiritual health to use it to decipher truth from lies, or bad teaching from good. If a prphet is sent to us in this age, we don't just say, 'Feck off, I have me bible'. Rather, the bible is what we would use to verify the prophet is from God. If the prophet taught in contradiction to biblical principals, we would likely turn from this prophet etc.
    Stephens quote still stands that if St.Paul believed in Bible alone theology he would of used it and called the Bible the pillar and bulwark of the truth, but he doesnt he calls the Church the pillar and bulwark of the truth, any other quote from the Bible to say otherwise would be calling St.paul a liar and since the words out of his mouth are the word of God, you'd be ultimately calling the Holy Spirit a liar and not living by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of the Lord yourself. this shows that Catholics do actually live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of the Lord, whilst people such as yourself do not.

    And herein lies the issue with the RCC. The RCC are simply Usurpers of the word 'Church'. They hijack it to mean the organisation of the RCC. The Church is indeed the bulwark and pillar of the truth. It declares Jesus. It gives the good news of the kingdom. It wrote and then preserved the writings of the apostles and the prophets. The Church is NOT the organisation known as the RCC, though there are, have been, and will be Roman Catholic members of the Church.

    The very unfortunate truth, is that the RCC put THEMSELVES, as the only true vessel of truth. They seized power, and placed themselves as mediator between God and man. Like most, if not all denominiations, they have bad teachings, abuses of power, corruption etc, within their walls. The great thing is though, that no man, no religious organisation, no world power, nor death nor hades shall prevail against the Church, which God has taken out of all the nations of the world. The Church is those faithful to God, simple. They can be Catholics, Lutherans, baptists, non-denominational etc. By their fruits yee shall know them.


  • #46
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Pink Boots wrote: »
    No I didnt, here it is from my greek dictionary, you just hoovered up the words ''called out ones'' and forgot to add the rest hmmm:rolleyes:

    Actually he 'hoovered up' the literal meaning of the word, all other meanings are subsequent and derivative.

    In Greek ek means 'out of' and kaleo means to 'call'. Therefore the literal, and primary meaning of ekklesia is 'the called out ones'.


  • #47
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    So you agree that it was right in Cana in ancient times for anyone cursing their father to be killed or for slaves to be taken and that God saw this as something very important and told them so? And that God was highly interested in garments not being of two different materials , so much so he had it written into inerrant law?
    Yes, I believe that God gave those instructions to the Israelites and that those were the correct courses of action to be taken at that time by those people.

    I also believe that God wanted to teach his people to be separate from the tribes that surrounded them and one of the ways he did that was to institute ceremonial commands that kept the Israelites from participating in magical practices that were part of the idolatry and religious systems of other tribes.

    Many archaeologists and ancient historians believe that the kind of things you mention (the fabrics used in garments, or hair styles) were frequently used by past civilisations to make religious statements. Of course if we read Leviticus millenia later then our ignorance of the pagan practices can make the rules for the Israelites seem petty. It would be like someone 3000 years in the future reading a school discipline manual and wondering why pupils in American high schools in 2010 weren't allowed to display swastikas on their clothing. Unless you know the symbolism that the swastika had, such a prohibition would seem as baffling as rules against polling your beards or having mixed fibres in clothing.

    For example, for centuries Christians wondered why on earth the Old Testament forbade the Israellites from seething a kid in its mother's milk (Deuteronomy 14:21). It seemed as pointless as worrying about beards and mixed fibres. However, in 1958 the Ras Shamra clay tablets were found in northern Syria. These Ugaritic texts date back to 1400 BC (roughly contemporary with Moses) and describe how cooking a kid in its mother's milk was considered to be a powerful magical ritual. So, the prohibition in Deuteronomy now becomes easily understandable as a warning for the Israelites not to get involved in their neighbours' occult practices.

    Btw, your use of the phrase 'inerrant law' suggests you haven't quite got the concept of inerrancy. Inerrancy posits that the Bible is an accurate record of the events it descibes. So, inerrancy would maintain that God did indeed give the commands of Leviticus to the Israelites. It also maintains that where events and speeches are recorded in Scripture, that those records are accurate. It does not mean that everything in those speeches is correct. So, for example, an inerrant Bible would report that the Roman soldiers spread the story that Jesus' disciples stole his body from the tomb, but the story spread by the soldiers was not inerrant. In this case (Leviticus) it is true that most Christians would see any instruction given by God as being good and perfect - but talking about an 'inerrant law' is likely to confuse any discussion even more.

    I only picked out a few "hard passages" here.

    Then you come back to "they don't apply today"


    Well that is just a contradicting yourself!
    I'm not contradicting myself at all.

    Bible-believing Christians hold that the 39 books of the Old Testament, including Leviticus, are Scripture and are the Word of God. As such we need to read them, and to learn from them. Leviticus shows us the history of Israel, and how God wanted them to be separate and distinct from the neighbouring tribes. Many of the sacrifices in Leviticus are instructive as they help us to understand the nature of the ultimate sacrifice towards which they pointed - the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.
    But first it is saying that they DID apply then. I have just pointed out the problems with that.
    No, you haven't pointed out any problems with believing that the laws of Leviticus did apply to the Israelites. The fact that you personally don't like, or don't understand, some of the laws does not invalidate the idea that they were given to the Israelites thousands of years ago.
    Second of all you are just echoing the point I originally raised about fundamentalists saying "laws of the Old Testament don't apply today"!
    While I am used to posters misquoting me, II think this is one of the first times I've heard a poster misquote themself!

    You did not raise a point about fundamentalists saying "laws of the Old Testament don't apply today". Read your own link. You raised a point about fundamentalists claiming they don't have to listen to the Old Testament. That is a totally different claim altogether.

    Fundamentalists believe that they have to listen very carefully to the Old Testament, and they have to interpret it in the light of the New Testament. Therefore the Old Testament teaches them much about the nature of God, much about the moral standards that are expected from people of every race and at every point in history, much about the history of the Jewish people and the laws that applied to them, much about how Christ came to fulfill those laws etc.
    i point out fundamentalists claim they dont apply today.
    No, you made the false statement that they claim they don't have to listen to the Old Testament.
    You claim that is totally untrue. I show you some laws from the Old Testament. You then state "they don't apply today"!
    Yes. It is totally untrue that fundamentalists think they don't have to listen to the Old Testament.

    It is also true that, if you listen to the Old Testament, you understand that some of the Old Testament laws were specific to the Israelites in Canaan and therefore don't apply today.

    Again, as a Christian I believe I need to listen to the New Testament - but there are some New Testament passages that do not apply to me.

    I can't welcome Phoebe from Cenchrea (Romans 16:1) because she's been dead for nearly 2000 years. Nor can I greet the church that meets at Priscilla And Aquila's house (Romans 16:3) because I don't actually know anyone called Priscilla or Aquila. Nor am I obliged to obey Paul's instruction to drink wine for my stomach's sake (1 Timothy 5:23) because I don't suffer from Timothy's stomach problems, and, while I enjoy a fine Merlot now and again, the filtered water from my fridge is perfectly healthy.

    So, while I do have to listen to both the Old and New Testaments, I also need to study them and to avail of all the available information (linguistic, historical, archaeological etc) to determine how to interpret it correctly and to know which passages apply to me in which ways.


  • #48
    Pink Boots
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭Pink Boots


    PDN wrote: »
    Actually he 'hoovered up' the literal meaning of the word, all other meanings are subsequent and derivative.

    In Greek ek means 'out of' and kaleo means to 'call'. Therefore the literal, and primary meaning of ekklesia is 'the called out ones'.

    Yes but the literal and first meaning of the words is called out ones into an assembly, and in Christs priestly prayer in John he says may they be one not a denomination of over 30,000 sects who claim to have the truth about Jesus.

    although the rest of the meanings are subsequent and derivative it still gives us no reason to dismiss them, they are still the meaning and interpretation of the word, regardless though, Paul said the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, not the Bible, and simply saying the word means ''called out ones'' does not refute that fact. again I say its a powerful passage that refutes the erroneous Bible alone theology.


  • #49
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, I believe that God gave those instructions to the Israelites and that those were the correct courses of action to be taken at that time by those people.

    So do you believe God could say whateve he wants ? Even something unreasonable? such as god telling people to worship idols to test their obedience?

    also do you actually believe God told people in the past to stone homosexuals, execute children for cursing and rape and enslave women?
    I also believe that God wanted to teach his people to be separate from the tribes that surrounded them and one of the ways he did that was to institute ceremonial commands that kept the Israelites from participating in magical practices that were part of the idolatry and religious systems of other tribes.
    Fair enough but how about Joshua 6:21 and Joshua 10:40-41 where every man woman and child were executed? and the following city of AI 8:24 where the same happened? You believe God told his people he wanted genocide in order to be different from other tribes?
    9 cites three whole peoples and two whole lands! Gos wanted them to wipe out all these people? Are acts of genocide condemned by all religions and secular groups and by the international community.
    2 Kings 2:23-24: Elisha, a Prophet, was ridiculed by some little children who called him a name. Elisha laid a curse on them in God's name. You believe God sent two bears out of the woods tore apart 42 of the children fopr their name calling?
    Btw, your use of the phrase 'inerrant law' suggests you haven't quite got the concept of inerrancy. Inerrancy posits that the Bible is an accurate record of the events it describes. So, inerrancy would maintain that God did indeed give the commands of Leviticus to the Israelites. It also maintains that where events and speeches are recorded in Scripture, that those records are accurate. It does not mean that everything in those speeches is correct. So, for example, an inerrant Bible would report that the Roman soldiers spread the story that Jesus' disciples stole his body from the tomb, but the story spread by the soldiers was not inerrant. In this case (Leviticus) it is true that most Christians would see any instruction given by God as being good and perfect - but talking about an 'inerrant law' is likely to confuse any discussion even more.

    So you now claim that if God is reported as having said something to a prophet he might have got what God said mixed up? How do you know anything the prophet said wasn't mixed up? and im not talking about thradition of garments. In talking about genocide, killing whole races of people, mass rape, stoning of homosexuals and women etc. And im talkiong about where not foreigners or roman soldiers but actual prophets do this and do it because reported as "God's will"?

    Numbers 31:1-18 http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3.htm#geno
    On God's instructions, Moses sent 12,000 soldiers against the Midianites. The army killed every adult Midianite male. This is in response to some of the Israelite men having had sex with some of the Midianite women. Moses then ordered them to slaughter in cold blood each captive, including all of the boys, saving only female virgins. The latter were apparently to be retained for purposes of rape. The Midianite mothers were thus punished by having to watch their male children murdered in front of them. Then, they were themselves killed. Verse 35 talks about 32,000 virgin captives; this implies that there were probably about 32,000 boys killed.
    Bible-believing Christians hold that the 39 books of the Old Testament, including Leviticus, are Scripture and are the Word of God.

    The contents of the Old Testment canon vary from church to church, with the Orthodox communion having 51 books. So you believe Orthodox christians - the Original eastern Christians are not Bible-believing?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
    Well you might be right to some degree in them not having the whole Bible since as i stated for about four centuries NOBODY had the whole lot! And I am referring to the New Testament here.
    In the first three centuries of the Christian church, Early Christianity, there seems not to have been a New Testament canon that was complete and universally recognized. Such non canonical gospels as the Gospel according to the Hebrews were widely read.
    Eusebius,Church History, (III xxv 5) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html
    No, you haven't pointed out any problems with believing that the laws of Leviticus did apply to the Israelites.

    I didn't say they DID or DIDN'T apply!
    I point out fundamentalists claim they don't apply today. You claimed that is totally untrue. I show you some laws from the Old Testament. You then state "they don't apply today"!

    The fact that you personally don't like, or don't understand, some of the laws does not invalidate the idea that they were given to the Israelites thousands of years ago.

    So what? I didn't say they were or weren't given!
    I point out fundamentalists claim they were and that the applied then but don't apply now. You claimed that is totally untrue. I show you some laws from the Old Testament. You then state "they don't apply today"!

    Im not suggesting they weren't. Im asking you if you really believe that you innerrant Bible
    is giving you a true account of god instructing his people to kill children and rape virgins?
    You did not raise a point about fundamentalists saying "laws of the Old Testament don't apply today". Read your own link. You raised a point about fundamentalists claiming they don't have to listen to the Old Testament.
    Don't have to obey the old testament laws! Because the old testament laws don't apply today because Christ revoked them!


    Your words:
    they [old testament laws] don't apply to non-Israelites living in Ireland thousands of years later
    you claimed they dont apply!

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64503231&postcount=21087
    JC claimed they dont apply
    ...as a Saved Christian, the Laws of Leviticus don't apply to me.
    No, you made the false statement that they claim they don't have to listen to the Old Testament.

    See above for examples where both you and a Biblical fundamentalist labled a "Wsaved christian" say the laws of Leviticus don't apply today.
    Yes. It is totally untrue that fundamentalists think they don't have to listen to the Old Testament.

    That the laws in the old testament like ones on garments, diet, cooking and other instructions on rape and stoning do not apply?
    It is also true that, if you listen to the Old Testament, you understand that some of the Old Testament laws were specific to the Israelites in Canaan and therefore don't apply today.

    And that justifies god instructing rape child abuse and genocide? It was only for then then so that makes it okay because you believe God told them?
    Again, as a Christian I believe I need to listen to the New Testament - but there are some New Testament passages that do not apply to me.

    I didn't suggest all law has to apply. I asked him and you whether you thing such instructions were right. Not wearing garments or two materials might not be so serious but killing witches and homosexuals, rape, genoicide? You think God had a sort of relative morality and said genocide was ok aND THEN LATER ONLY KILL SOMEONME IOF THEY DO SOMETHING BAD TO YOU BUT DON'T KILL THEIR whole city and then later - forgive them?

    So do you thing sex with children was always wrong or if God had allowed it then it would be ok until he changed his mind?
    So, while I do have to listen to both the Old and New Testaments, I also need to study them and to avail of all the available information (linguistic, historical, archaeological etc) to determine how to interpret it correctly and to know which passages apply to me in which ways.

    Im not asking what might apply to you. i aasking what laws definitely don't and whether you believe ALL instructions and laws recorded in the Bible were perfectly acceptable for the time that those laws or instructions applied! Do you believe rape and genocide and child abuse were acceptable and ordained by god as recorded in the inerrant Bible?


  • #50
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    So do you believe God could say whateve he wants ? Even something unreasonable? such as god telling people to worship idols to test their obedience?
    Who defines unreasonable? And where did God tell people to worship idols?
    also do you actually believe God told people in the past to stone homosexuals, execute children for cursing and rape and enslave women?

    I believe God told people to stone those who engaged in homosexual acts.

    I don't believe that God told anyone to execute 'children'. He did give laws that applied where youths or adults cursed their parents.

    I don't believe that God instructed anyone to be raped, but he did allow the Israelites to take as slaves those left widowed and orphaned in wars.

    Do I understand it all? No. But I don't actually expect God to fit into my understanding. I believe that man is made in the image of God, not vice versa.
    Fair enough but how about Joshua 6:21 and Joshua 10:40-41 where every man woman and child were executed? and the following city of AI 8:24 where the same happened? You believe God told his people he wanted genocide in order to be different from other tribes?
    9 cites three whole peoples and two whole lands! Gos wanted them to wipe out all these people? Are acts of genocide condemned by all religions and secular groups and by the international community.
    Yes, I believe God instructed the Israelites to commit those acts. I must say I don't understand why - but then again I don't pretend to understand everything.
    2 Kings 2:23-24: Elisha, a Prophet, was ridiculed by some little children who called him a name. Elisha laid a curse on them in God's name. You believe God sent two bears out of the woods tore apart 42 of the children fopr their name calling?
    No, I believe what the text says, that a crowd of youths were taunting and bullying an old man and they were attacked by a bear that scratched 42 of them.

    So you now claim that if God is reported as having said something to a prophet he might have got what God said mixed up?
    No, that isn't what I said. I was explaining to you why you were confusing the issue by using phrases such as "inerrant law".
    The contents of the Old Testment canon vary from church to church, with the Orthodox communion having 51 books. So you believe Orthodox christians - the Original eastern Christians are not Bible-believing?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
    They evidently believe the Bible plus a few other books as well.
    I didn't say they DID or DIDN'T apply!
    I point out fundamentalists claim they don't apply today. You claimed that is totally untrue. I show you some laws from the Old Testament. You then state "they don't apply today"!
    No, as I pointed out to you already, you said that they didn't need to listen to the Old Testament. You never said anything about them not applying to them. Why do you persist in treating these two separate concepts as if they were the same when they clearly aren't.
    That the laws in the old testament like ones on garments, diet, cooking and other instructions on rape and stoning do not apply?
    I'm putting you on ignore since I think you're just pretending to be stupid. You are deliberately treating 2 separate concepts as if they were the same - despite me clearly explaining the difference to you.


  • #51
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Who defines unreasonable? And where did God tell people to worship idols?

    Im think of the popes address on faith and reason on which he was targeted for offending Islam where he addressed these points.
    http://www.zenit.org/article-16955?l=english
    Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".[4]

    The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes:
    For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

    At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

    No, as I pointed out to you already, you said that they didn't need to listen to the Old Testament. You never said anything about them not applying to them.

    I have supplied you with referenced to JC for example who claimed he didn't need to listen to old testament laws because THEY DIDN'T APPLY TO SAVED CHRISTIANS LIKE HIM!

    Why do you persist in treating these two separate concepts as if they were the same when they clearly aren't.


    why did you ignore my last reply before you put me on ignore?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64503231&postcount=21087


    In which I point out
    where JC - a fundamentalist biblical creationist christian - stated
    ...as a Saved Christian, the Laws of Leviticus don't apply to me.

    I'm putting you on ignore since I think you're just pretending to be stupid. You are deliberately treating 2 separate concepts as if they were the same - despite me clearly explaining the difference to you.

    I clearly support my claim about a biblical fundamentalist linking the first part - not needing to listen - to the second part -the laws don't apply to him - and the reason being he doesn't have to listen to the laws in leviticus BECAUSE the laws in it don't apply to him.

    Leviticus is in fact the book of laws!

    On the one hand you seem to think what was the past was in the past and was acceptable and you don't understand it and can't justify it but you accept it. On the other hand when I point out about people saying that the past as the past and doesn't apply today you say not listening to rules with don't apply is a different concept to then not applying today. Especially when I point to a fundamentalist who says just that and your immediate reply is that fundamentalists do not say that and I am wrong!

    I am not mixing anything up!

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64588889&postcount=33
    In reply to you i stated fundamentalist Christians claim they didn't have to listen to [laws of leviticus and other Old testament rules] since Christ revoked almost all the laws in them.

    and you give the immediate reply
    Totally untrue.

    Fundamentalist Christians (of which I am not one) see the Old Testament as being the inspired and inerrant Word of God, which must be listened to and interpreted in the light of the New Testament.

    Now you seem to have some idea that there is a modern interpretation of a law which you claim does not apply today. A law which no longer applies but which must be listened to and interpreted? That is a paradox!

    Case Law is judges and jurors interpretation of laws WHICH APPLY! You cant interpret a law which no longer applies. I no on only one such case which MIGHT be construed in such a way in Irish law.

    [quote = Webb v. Ireland [1988] I.R. 353]
    On appeal, the Supreme Court varied the order.
    CJ (Henchy and Griffin JJ concurring) held that the plaintiffs did
    not have a prima facie title;that the landowners had a superior right to
    posession, to which the State had succeeded by agreement. On the question
    of whether the
    the Royal Prerogative of treasure trove survived the enactment
    of the Constitution, by which the defendant could claim title, and by which
    the plaintiff sought to claim a reward, he held that it did not so
    survive,(Byrne v. Ireland [1972] I.R. 241 applied) though an analogue was
    to be found in the Constitution (Article 10, on State dominion over mineral
    rights) which would ground the defendants' claim to title.
    [/quote]
    In other words royal perogatives no longer applies in Ireland since they had been repealed but the state had other laws which applied as if royal Perogatives did apply. So the Monarch could not claim to own the treasure but the state could.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement