Thursday, May 10, 2007

"Incarnational" means "we are clueless"

Having hijacked the post (w/ my permission; it's OK), Lucian has been avoiding my questions related to praying to the dead. It never hurts to deal w/ those questions again.

In "response" to this question from me:

Scenario: an Israelite has been calling up a dead believing ancestor and has been caught and brought before Moses for judgment.
His defense: "our God is a God of the living, not one of the dead"

Is it your position that he would be exonerated? Should he be?
Lucian cited an article referring to Jewish practice in the Middle Ages. Thanks but no thanks - I was asking about the time during or close to the Wanderings in the Desert and the giving of the OT Mosaic Law.

I responded by critiquing the article anyway ('cause I'm a courteous sort), and then moved on to dealing w/ the question he posed to me, whose follow-ups are fascinating and very illustrative. Keep in mind that Lucian has claimed to be a Romanian Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodoxy prides itself on being highly "Incarnational". Well, maybe, but it apparently didn't take w/ Lucian.
His question:
An Israelite has been caught and has been brought before the ones sitting in the chair of Moses. He's OWN words accuse him bitterly for calling himself to be one with God, Who is only One, and besides Whom there are no other Gods. (Deuteronomy 5:7; 6:4; 11:16; 11:28; 28:14; 29:26-28; 30:17-18).

Is it your position that he would be exonerated? Should he be?
My answer (after an initial misfire due to my own misapprehension of his question):
It depends. Is this guy Jesus Christ? If so, He should be exonerated (but that is impossible since God predestined to put him to death).

If this guy is anyone else, he should and would be executed.
The substantive parts of his response:
the Jews who don't believe in Jesus ... because, not only do they have no reason to, but also because it goes against some 5500 yrs of God-to-man relationship ... I mean God stroke their ancestors dead whenever they even as much as counted their own people, even much more so when they winked at, or even worse, bowed down to other Gods... -- and to this problem You very serenely answered with a smile -- like that was gonna cut it...
Yeah... right... it depends on what? I failed to see any of these 'dependencies' in the Shema, or in the 1st Commandment].
Why (should he be exonerated if he were Jesus Christ)??
My replies:
You are ignorant of the Scriptures to a very high degree. (So much for EO-xy being "highly Incarnational".)
As the Epistle to the Hebrews makes plain, the Incarnation is not AGAINST that established relationship; it is the FULFILLMENT thereof, w/o which the OT Laws are empty and pointless.

(It depends) On whether that guy is God incarnate or not, as I explained.

(Re: the Shema and 1st Cmdmt) As if the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is contrary to the Shema or 1st Commandment.
I am 100% serious - you should be ashamed of your ignorance of the Scriptures. This is just basic stuff. Why should I take you seriously?
(Re: why would Jesus Christ be exonerated?) B/c then He would actually be God.
The claim is that Eastern Orthodoxy is supposed to be a serious contender for The Church of The Apostles of Jesus Christ.
...
I'm done.

27 comments:

Salva said...

That was certainly to the point. So... now you want to talk about Calvinism, right ;-)

I also find it vaguely amusing that we keep adding words to your blog at virtually the same instant.

Lucian said...

Nope. It's also pre-Christian.

Rhology said...

What is pre-Christian?

Lucian said...

(Read my comment on the post with 40+ comments).

P.S.: It's A-O-K to "steal", "borrow", quote anything from me. (It's not like I've got 'author rights' and 'TradeMarks' on this ... otherwise, I wouldn't post them for everyone to read, now, would I?)

Rhology said...

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani", some of those standing by thought he was calling upon Elijah.

OK, that's a fair point.
But...
1) they were not supposed to do that
2) you cited the article to answer my question and it dealt w/ Middle Age practices. You should've cited something else.
3) The Jews that said "He's calling for Elijah" were not believers - Elijah had already come and they missed his coming as well.

And...
4) No surprise, you still haven't answered my question.

The tension is building.

Lucian said...

Middle Age practices found in the N.T. :|

I've already answered Your question more than once, and more than enough.
I will address Your reading of Deuteronomy when You'll address mine in a meaningful manner. Up until now, You've terribly failed at doing that. ("Preaching to the choir" doesn't count as a valid answer -- I'm Christian as well, but my reading of the OT won't impress any Jew ... Just like my reading of OT, NT, Jewish Tradition, and Church Fathers didn't "impress" You). -- It's lame, but it's true. :|

I've already told You this once, but it seems it doesn't "stick" with You: I really don't appreciate it when people play it "smart" ... I have full of this sort of bull**** here in Romania, I really don't need to get it from the Americans also.

Rhology said...

-Middle Age practices found in the N.T.
I just addressed that.

-I've already answered Your question more than once, and more than enough.
Look, it's fine w/ me if you don't want to answer my question. If you did, it would show your ignorance of the Scripture. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
And let's be clear - I think you a fool on several levels.

So play your game as you like. My question stands, as do my answers to your questionS.

Lucian said...

And let's be clear - I think you a fool on several levels.

This is an insult by any standards, and on any level. (I'm sorry it has come down to this).

We've debated civilly up until now, but to my knowledge, we've never insulted each-other (maybe Salva will disgree with this conclusion, since for him the simple fact that someone disagrees with him is considered by him to be an insult).

I'm sorry.

Rhology said...

You think it an insult from ME b/c you are ignorant of the biblical precedent for calling someone a fool.

I remain open to a change of mind. You know what to do to change my mind and redeem yourself.

Lucian said...

As the Epistle to the Hebrews makes plain, the Incarnation is not AGAINST that established relationship; it is the FULFILLMENT thereof, w/o which the OT Laws are empty and pointless.

... ??? (You were plannin' an goin' with THIS to the Jews?) /:)

P.S.: A simple "sorry" would have been OK. (BTW, are You also aware of the Scriptural warrant to kill people? I think the Hexateuch is full with such illuminating examples -- should I also give You my address, so that You'll know where to send the "boys" to do the "job").

Rhology said...

1) Yes. So what if they don't believe the Ep to the Hebrews is the Word of God? It is whether they want to believe it or not, kind of like Jesus is the Jewish Messiah whether they like it or not, believe it or not.
2) Besides, I'm not debating a Jew here; I'm debating an Eastern Orthodox person. I never said I would cite Hebrews to them (though I might, depending on the situation); I was using it to explain to you why your argument is empty.

As for the Scr warrant to kill people:
1) You are evidently allergic to context.
2) Those were commands given to specific people at a specific time to wipe out other specific people.
3) An example of a wider command would be here. Or the 6th Commandment.
4) Have you ever attended an EO Catechism (or the equivalent if it goes by another name)? When?
5) Have you ever asked these questions of your priest? I don't mean the question I asked - you won't touch it so I don't expect you to bring it your priest. I mean the questions you are asking me.

Lucian said...

- You were citing Deuteronomy LOUD and CLEAR on me, the ignorant little 'infidel' that I am :) .
- I cited Deuteronomy LOUD and CLEAR on You.
- You refused to accept the 'plain', literal meaning of the text. (The Shema and the 1st Commandment -- so You can't say I came up with unseen & unheard of, or 'original' arguments).
- I likewise refused to read Your interpretation of the text [the one about dead people] into the text itself.
- Why are You not a Jew?
- Why am I not a Protestant?

Questions, questions, questions ...

- Why won't Your 'very clear' and 'oh-so-obvious' OT passages about Jesus and The Trinity make any sense to a Jew?
- Why don't my arguments [which for me make perfect sense] from both Jewish & Christian Traditions seem to have any impact on You?

-----
P.S.: Don't worry about me and the Priests: You can even ask Your friend, with whom You've talked about "James and Paul, faith and works" recently, and he'll clearly tell You that all the OT passages regarded as prophecies are actually TYPOLOGICAL interpretations of said passages:

"God created man in its own image" -- literal: Adam; typological: Jesus

"the virgin will bear a Son and will give birth, and they shall call Him Emanuel" -- literal: Isaiah's son [ch. 8]; typological: Christ

"from Egypt I shall call [out] My Son" -- literal: Israel; typologcal: The God-Man.

Here is a link, to a Priest's blog, so You know I'm not making this up:

fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/398/#comments

I suggest to You to read the WHOLE posts, including comments, ESPECIALLY Roland's comment. OK?

(See Galatians 4:24)

Lucian said...

fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/398/

Rhology said...

Lucian,

Yes. Why did I cite Deuteronomy? B/c you suggested I call up the dead. I pointed out that action is forbidden by the Law of God.

You came back w/ "well then why wouldn't Jesus be condemned by the Law? He blasphemed, after all, broke the Shema and 1st Cmdmt."

I pointed out to you that it's not blasphemy if it's true, as Hebrews explains.

You said:
-You refused to accept the 'plain', literal meaning of the text. (The Shema and the 1st Commandment)
I must have missed the part where the Shema and 1st Cmdmt say that God can't clothe Himself in flesh.

You said:
-I likewise refused to read Your interpretation of the text [the one about dead people] into the text itself.
You must mean the part where it says:

"There shall not be found among you anyone...who calls up the dead"

Yes, anyone can see that I just read that into the text.

You said:
-Why are you not a Jew?
B/c I can interpret Holy Scripture in its context.

You said:
-Why am I not a Protestant?
B/c you can't.

You said:
-Why won't Your 'very clear' and 'oh-so-obvious' OT passages about Jesus and The Trinity make any sense to a Jew?
Hmm, for the same reason that yours won't. Romans 11 might help too.

You said:
-Why don't my arguments [which for me make perfect sense] from both Jewish & Christian Traditions seem to have any impact on You?
B/c they are irrational.


You then recommended I read up on some EO priest's blog about OT Typology.
This from a guy who can't decide whether the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ violates the Shema and the 1st Commandment.


Peace,
ALAN

Lucian said...

Thanks. It seems now we're really leveling with each-other, and the discussion is finally getting somewhere.

You then recommended I read up on some EO priest's blog about OT Typology.

I suggested; now I'm telling You: READ IT !

-Why are you not a Jew?
B/c I can interpret Holy Scripture in its context.


If this were 'truly true', then You WOULD be a Jew :) . (It takes a little bit of insanity to make it to be a Christian ;) -- 1 Corinthians 1:18-21 ).

"There shall not be found among you anyone...who calls up the dead" -- Yes, anyone can see that I just read that into the text.

For a Jehovah's Witness, it's extremely clear that the passage that says "don't eat/drink blood" is also applicable to blood-transfusions. But for the majority of Protestants, it's not.

For You, it's clear that the above passage is forbiding prayers to Saints. But for half of the Christians world-wide [myself included], it's not.
It is this that I was refering to when I said You were reading this into the text.

Lucian said...

I must have missed the part where the Shema and 1st Cmdmt say that God can't clothe Himself in flesh.

Numbers 23:19;
1 Samuel 15:29
Job 9:32

Though, as You've said, it's not The Shema ;)

Rhology said...

I read Father Stephen's post. He has some good points, but what he's referring to is but a section of the grammatico-historical method of interpreting the Scripture. So it's fine as far as it goes, but it's not all there is.

You know, it's funny - I go and read stuff you send me, and then you pay me back by NOT reading 3-verse sections of Holy Scr and then you come back and throw comments at me.
Let me spell it out to you. God has placed a veil on the Jews so that most of them will not believe until the fulness of the Gentiles has come into the Body of Christ. A veil = they are blinded. They are blinded = they cannot understand their own Scripture. Even Fr Stephen referred to it in his article.
The insanity spoken of in 1 Cor 1 is the insanity of believing Scripture for what it says. It does not mean either
1) using "I'm crazy" as an excuse to not interpret, believe, and live out the Scripture (which is what you do)
2) making use of the "wisdom of the world", which God makes into foolishness (which is also what you do).

You said:
-For a Jehovah's Witness, it's extremely clear that the passage that says "don't eat/drink blood" is also applicable to blood-transfusions. But for the majority of Protestants, it's not.
It may seem clear to the JW, but the JW is a natural, unredeemed man (1 Cor 2:14). He can't understand the Scr well at all b/c he lacks the Holy Spirit's illumination. Thus, he gives himself to the authority of the Watchtower who tells him "blood transfusion = eating or drinking".

It's kind of like how your Ultimate Authority, the EOdox church says "it's OK to call up the dead" when the Scripture says "Don't call up the dead".

You said:
Numbers 23
1 Sam 15
Job 9
These indicate that Jesus could not be Incarnate.

I seriously don't know what to do w/ you. You say you're a Romanian Orthodox Christian yet you come here and act like a believer in Judaism.
So...where do these psgs say that God can't become Incarnate? They all say He's not a man, no argument there. I've never claimed He IS a man; my claim is that God took on flesh and came in the form of a man, taking on a human nature in the Incarnation. That's the position of the EOC too.

Are you just posing rhetorical questions? What's the point here?

Lucian said...

It's kind of like how your Ultimate Authority, the EOdox church says "it's OK to call up the dead" when the Scripture says "Don't call up the dead".

Not the same! :) The EOdox Church doesn't say "it's OK to call up the dead". :) I think the rigurous, mathematical equation behind that phenomenon would be:

Prayers_to_Sts != Calling_the_dead

You know, it's funny - I go and read stuff you send me, and then you pay me back by NOT reading 3-verse sections of Holy Scr and then you come back and throw comments at me.

Must've been that "Doxe" effect everyone's talking 'bout these days, huh? ;) [Or was it The AXE effect? Hmmm...] -- Are You also a gifted mind-reader, (besides being a wonderful father, a good husband, and a witty blogger) ?

I've never claimed He IS a man -- 'Ecce Homo!'? It seems Pilate, the pagan, not only claimed it, but EXclaimed it! (talking 'bout "not being incarnational" -- sheesh!). :D

I seriously don't know what to do w/ you. You say you're a Romanian Orthodox Christian yet you come here and act like a believer in Judaism.

My whole point with the [obviously erroneous, not to meation heretical] counter-use of the Book of Deuteronomy is part of what mathematicians like to call "a reduction to the absurd".

Rhology said...

The EOdox Church doesn't say "it's OK to call up the dead"

So were you being disobedient to the EOC when you suggested I call up John Chrysostom and ask him the question I asked you? You cited Mark 12, "God is not the God of the dead but of the living," as if that makes communicating w/ dead people A-OK.
You're making very disingenuous equivocations here. The fact is that you suggested I call up a dead man. You could at least stand up like a man and defend that action.


Prayers_to_Sts != Calling_the_dead

What is the difference?


Are You also a gifted mind-reader

No, and I don't have to be to know that you are either
1) not reading the Bible psgs I'm citing, or
2) not paying attention to them, or
3) refusing to take them into account when you respond to me.

I'm trying to be charitable and have thus attributed the least culpable of those 3 to you.


'Ecce Homo!'? It seems Pilate, the pagan, not only claimed it, but EXclaimed it! (talking 'bout "not being incarnational" -- sheesh!)

We're talking past each other, and it's your fault for playing this ludicrous game of "Lucian trying to get Rhology to overcome objections to the position that is held (or at least should be held) by both Lucian and Rhology." It's a waste of time.
You were referring to God's NATURE not being a man. I pointed out He is not a man, as the Bible psgs you cited say.
Yet have I not also repeatedly asserted that Jesus Christ took the form of a man?
Your responses have been: "But Jewish people won't believe that mess!"

My response has been and remains this: It doesn't matter whether they believe it. The Scripture makes it plain. And if you complain that my citations of Scripture are insufficient, I will just point out that you are basing your (bizarre) argument on 3 psgs from the Scripture - Num 23, 1 Sam 15, and Job 9. If the Scr is unclear and impossible to interp correctly, then so are those 3 psgs.
Incidentally, I hope you will consider that argument well, b/c it serves as a defeater for a large amount of EO-dox apologetics as well as Jewish.


"a reduction to the absurd"
But you are being very sloppy in your application of the reductio ad absurdum. One example of that is neglecting to answer me when I say "where do those psgs say that God cannot take on flesh?"
Also, it is completely beside the point of the question about praying to dead people (which you have still not answered).


Peace,
ALAN

Lucian said...

What is the difference?

Exactly. You've dotted the 'I'.

Why shouldn't we take the commandment forbiding to eat the limb(s) of a living animal to mean interdiction of organ transplant?

Why shouldn't we take the commandment forbiding to eat or drink blood to mean interdiction of blood transfusions?

Why shouldn't we take all the passages of Holy Scripture that talk about God not being man, and about being no other God beside Him as a negation of the Incarnation, or of the Holy Trinity?

And why shouldn't we take the commandment forbiding the calling of the dead as an interdiction to pray to the Saints?

Rhology said...

Lucian,

Good deal, I guess I'm getting there, huh?

Why shouldn't we take the commandment forbiding to eat the limb(s) of a living animal to mean interdiction of organ transplant?
Why shouldn't we take the commandment forbiding to eat or drink blood to mean interdiction of blood transfusions?

I know you don't answer questions (like the Vile Blasphemer) but I'll answer your questions w/ questions.
Why shouldn't we take the commandment forbidding the eating the limb(s) of a living animal to mean that we shouldn't watch pornography on TV?
Why shouldn't we take the commandment forbidding the eating the limb(s) of a living animal to mean that we shouldn't assassinate political leaders?
Why shouldn't we take the commandment forbidding the eating the limb(s) of a living animal to mean that we shouldn't do drugs?


Why shouldn't we take all the passages of Holy Scripture that talk about God not being man, and about being no other God beside Him as a negation of the Incarnation, or of the Holy Trinity?
1) The Scr is the Word of God.
2) God is not an idiot and He is not confused.
3) The Scr teaches that the Father is God, that the Son is God, that the Holy Spirit is God.
4) The Scr teaches that there is one God.
5) The Scr also teaches that God is not a man.

Take all those together and I think we're good.


And why shouldn't we take the commandment forbiding the calling of the dead as an interdiction to pray to the Saints?

I think you mean: And why should we take the commandment forbiding the calling of the dead as an interdiction to pray to the Saints?
Your question is nothing new. It equates to:
1) What authority do you have, you silly Protestant, to interpret the Bible?
2) What makes your interpretation correct?

For #1 - the Lord Jesus held men acctable to put the Scr above their own traditions. If I take your position, that is impossible.
For #2 - it's b/c I base it on the context, grammar, and history. Conversely, you do not.

More specifically, the Deut 18 psg says "don't call up the dead." The saints are dead.

But Alan, they're alive to God!

Yes they are, but God knew that when He commanded people not to call up the dead. "Dead" for the Deuteronomic commandment=having departed from this earth, the spirit leaving the body, etc.
You keep equivocating on what "dead" means, but it's not hard. Everyone knows what it means to be dead, and everyone knows what it means to call up the dead. But your Ultimate Authority, the EOC, has proclaimed that it is actually OK to call up the dead. So you have to defend it or change your traditions. B/c you won't change your traditions in the face of Scriptural condemnation, you stand condemned by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. I am fearful for you.

Peace,
ALAN

Lucian said...

The saints are dead. Long live the Saints! :)

Everyone knows ... and everyone knows -- are You a Leonard Cohen fan? [How good for everyONE, then! -- and "everyONE" also knows what ONE means ... don't they?]

But your Ultimate Authority, the EOC, has proclaimed that it is actually OK to call up the dead.

And Your ultimate authority has declared that it's actually OK to think that ONE equals THREE, and that blood-drinking and living-limb-eating are OK. So you have to defend it or change your traditions. B/c you won't change your traditions in the face of Scriptural condemnation, you stand condemned by the Lord Himself. I am fearful for you.

-----
you silly Protestant -- I've never thought of You this way, :| nor did I call You this way, neither by word of mouth, nor by epistles :|

Lucian said...

(I really don't -and can't- get mad, or angry, or upset on anyone for difference of religious opinion -- I'm incapable of doing this, and You should know and understand this thing about me. AT NO POINT in our 70+ comments back and forth did I say or feel anything bad, or ill towards You: neither in my mind, nor in my mouth, nor in my writing).

And, Yes, it is a matter of interpretation -- on this I heartly agree; for instance: Judaism relies on the literal interpretation of the Massoretic Text: that's why they have no Messiah. Period. In order to 'obtain' a Messiah (Christ, in our case), You'll have to look at the OT through a typological prism, while wearing Jesus-friendly glasses. Also, Hellenism did play its part -- otherwise, there would've been no 'Great Comission' (since Jews aren't usually that 'crazy' about making converts[*]: it is Hellenism that gave Christianity its 'universal', 'ecumenical', and 'catholic' sense); nor would we have any 'Logos'-, or 'Face'-doctrine either.

[*] actually, they're quite thrilled at being God's chosen people, and as dinstinct as can be from the Gentiles -- if they would bring the Nations in, then there's no point for them to feel special.

-Why are you not a Jew?
B/c I can interpret Holy Scripture in its context.


I've been tryin' to show You exactly that: there's NOTHING in the context of the O.T. to make You a Christian; IT WAS Christ that was the 1st One who said to anyone that "these are written about Me"!

There is no inerrant, immediate, intrinsic interpretation to Holy Writ, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT THE LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT OF A MAN IS NOT "IN" [THE MATTER THAT MAKES UP] HIS BODY, NO MATTER HOW HARD SCIENTISTS TRY TO PROVE THAT!

There is no "Bible" without Tradition, "Faith" without Works, body without spirit -- except for corpses.

That's what THE LEAP OF FAITH is all about: whom shall you trust about this? [the word-sequence "private intrepretation" appears in a single verse of Scripture: 2 Peter 1:20]; [And the phrase "faith only" appears also in a single verse of Scripture: James 2:24].

Matthew 18:17  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. ... this probably because: 1 Timothy 3:15  But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth..

-- and sorry for the pathos of this post.

Rhology said...

Long live the Saints! :)

Non-response #1.

are You a Leonard Cohen fan? [How good for everyONE, then! -- and "everyONE" also knows what ONE means ... don't they?]

Non-response #2.

And Your ultimate authority has declared that it's actually OK to think that ONE equals THREE, and that blood-drinking and living-limb-eating are OK

One does not equal three according to the Bible. You're constantly reinforcing my characterisation of you as nearly completely biblically illiterate.
Blood-drinking is OK according to the words of Jesus Himself in Mark 7. Not to mention the figurative drinking of His blood at the Lord's Table.
Living limb eating is not OK. This is just ridiculous.

AT NO POINT in our 70+ comments back and forth did I say or feel anything bad, or ill towards You

Ditto. I have in fact just prayed a fairly long time for you and your EO brethren.

Judaism relies on the literal interpretation of the Massoretic Text: that's why they have no Messiah

Way off. They have no Messiah b/c they have NOT interpreted the OT (or the Masoretic Text, as you prefer) (the same could be said of the LXX) correctly at all. But I've already told you why they don't accept it. This is one of those examples of you either not reading or not caring about the biblical psgs I've already cited. And why should you? Your Ultimate Authority has already laid out your own position - you can do nothing but obey blindly.

You'll have to look at the OT through a typological prism, while wearing Jesus-friendly glasses.

Jesus-friendly glasses, yes, b/c no man seeks God by himself.
Typological prism - partly.

Also, Hellenism did play its part -- otherwise, there would've been no 'Great Comission'

It is ludicrous to assert that Jesus was substantively influenced by some worldly philosophy. The Great Commission came from the very lips of the Risen Christ.
Are you sure you're Eastern Orthodox? You're starting to sound very different from what you should be if you were EO.

it is Hellenism that gave Christianity its 'universal', 'ecumenical', and 'catholic' sense); nor would we have any 'Logos'-, or 'Face'-doctrine either.

Or, it's the Bible that gave those things to Xtianity.

actually, they're quite thrilled at being God's chosen people, and as dinstinct as can be from the Gentiles -- if they would bring the Nations in, then there's no point for them to feel special.

Your quarrel is w/ the Apostle Paul, not me.

there's NOTHING in the context of the O.T. to make You a Christian; IT WAS Christ that was the 1st One who said to anyone that "these are written about Me"!

Your quarrel is w/ the author of Hebrews, not me.
And in fact w/ the very Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
You are ignorant of the quantity, nature, and quality of OT prophecy as well. I'm not surprised.

There is no inerrant, immediate, intrinsic interpretation to Holy Writ, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT THE LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT OF A MAN IS NOT "IN" [THE MATTER THAT MAKES UP] HIS BODY, NO MATTER HOW HARD SCIENTISTS TRY TO PROVE THAT!

Yes, it just couldn't be that Scripture wasn't speaking of a physical location encompassing a spiritual entity!

There is no "Bible" without Tradition, "Faith" without Works, body without spirit -- except for corpses.

These are just bare assertions, all unbiblical.

That's what THE LEAP OF FAITH is all about: whom shall you trust about this?

It is as sure as Hell that I won't put my faith in the organisation that either taught you all this garbage or failed to correct you on it.

[And the phrase "faith only" appears also in a single verse of Scripture: James 2:24].

Anyone can see how well this particular denial of sola fide is doing here and here.

Peace,
ALAN

Lucian said...

Blood-drinking is OK according to the words of Jesus Himself in Mark 7

Answer 1: No, since it's in the Bible, and not just in an oral, or Pharisaical interpretation of it.

Answer 2: Then, by way of simple logic, it would be OK to call up the dead also.

-----
Your quarrel is w/ the Apostle Paul, not me.
Your quarrel is w/ the author of Hebrews, not me.
You are ignorant of the quantity, nature, and quality of OT prophecy as well. I'm not surprised.


Your inability to make a STRONG case for accepting Jesus as the Christ of God using only the OT is pretty clear to me. When Jesus & His Holy Apostles said: "He fullfilled the Scriptures", they're NOT talking 'bout the NT.

BTW : The Book Of Hebews is NOT in the Hebrew Bible, in case You haven't noticed that already.

[1]. To say that John coined the 'Logos' doctrine, and to ignore the negative counter-reaction that he's Holy Gospel got precisely because of it, by the Alogoi, means to have the "eyes wide shut". (How about poor little Philo and a few preceding centuries of Greek thought regarding that particular subject? ... Or did they all just vanish into thin air?)

[2] Paul says "I was as a Jew to the Jews and as a Gentile to the Gentiles, so that being all for all I might save [at least] a few". -- so much for "It is ludicrous to assert that Jesus was substantively influenced by some worldly philosophy. " or: "Or, it's the Bible that gave those things to Xtianity.". (as if the Scriptures were written by men from the Moon, or as if Christ or His Holy Apostles had any 'shame' in speaking the people's "language" -- and I don't mean just the words, but also the concepts they carried).

-----
These are just bare assertions, all unbiblical.

Are they really?
(And please stop it with the "You don't even read what I link" line -- it's getting tiresome ... except, of course, You think we should all just proclaim You Pope and bow down to Your infallible view of things...)

Rhology said...

Answer 1: No, since it's in the Bible, and not just in an oral, or Pharisaical interpretation of it.
Right, that's what I said.

Answer 2: Then, by way of simple logic, it would be OK to call up the dead also.
That makes no sense.

Your inability to make a STRONG case for accepting Jesus as the Christ of God using only the OT is pretty clear to me.
I haven't even tried and I don't plan to here. Here's a good place to start.

When Jesus & His Holy Apostles said: "He fullfilled the Scriptures", they're NOT talking 'bout the NT...
The Book Of Hebews is NOT in the Hebrew Bible, in case You haven't noticed that already.


The irony of this is striking.


To say that John coined the 'Logos' doctrine, and to ignore the negative counter-reaction that he's Holy Gospel got precisely because of it, by the Alogoi, means to have the "eyes wide shut".
That's rich coming from you.
Fine - the idea of the Logos existed before the Incarnation. I knew that already.
You have been implying, and I said this, that Jesus was "substantively influenced" by Gk philosophy. Absurd. That doesn't stop Him from using such language to explain Himself more clearly to the people of the time. Sure, I'll grant that, no problem.

Paul says "I was as a Jew to the Jews and as a Gentile to the Gentiles, so that being all for all I might save [at least] a few". -- so much for "It is ludicrous to assert that Jesus was substantively influenced by some worldly philosophy. "

How does that answer my assertion?

as if the Scriptures were written by men from the Moon, or as if Christ or His Holy Apostles had any 'shame' in speaking the people's "language" -- and I don't mean just the words, but also the concepts they carried
I would never say that (and indeed, affirmed the very same just above). But I didn't think that was what you were saying. If that IS what you have been saying all along, then I mistook you, I apologise.
But if not (and I don't think I'm wrong b/c you still refuse to accept that Jesus would not have been substantively influenced by Gk philosophers), then the burden of proof is still on you.
You do know what "substantively" means, right?

Are they really?
Yes they are.

And please stop it with the "You don't even read what I link" line -- it's getting tiresome ... except, of course, You think we should all just proclaim You Pope and bow down to Your infallible view of things...

1) If you do indeed read what I link, act like it and interact w/ the links.
2) I do think you should come over to my way of thinking, and you think the same about me. So what?
3) I don't have to be infallible to be right and to know I'm right b/c my opponent makes irrational and ludicrous statements all the time, barely interacts w/ anythg I say, and never answers my questions.

Peace,
ALAN

MG said...

Why does the appeal to Jesus' statement that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" constitute an adequate response to this problem?