Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[Salus Maior]

2) Simple. If Jesus was only speaking to the handful of people he was walking around with, then nothing he said carries any weight beyond that.
.

That's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Would you say the same thing of Greek philosophers or any Philosophers born before the modern era? Sun Tzu's Art of War I guess should be tossed into the garbage because he wrote it with Ancient Chinese Warlords in mind.

[Herskerstad]

2) Simple. If Jesus was only speaking to the handful of people he was walking around with, then nothing he said carries any weight beyond that.

Hah, ahaha. That's brilliant Grave. If the audience and occasion were the only indicators of the significance of a statement then Joel Osteen would be one of the greatest theologians of all time.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Good luck saying that when there are literally hundreds of different denominations of your faith each with their own slightly different moral standards.

And there is only one true 'denomination'.

And I bet, considering your a Catholic, its the Catholic Church, right? On whose authority? Oh, yeah, the Catholic Church's. I mean, come on. Of course they'd call themselves the only legitimate Church - they think their right. As do the Orthodox, and the Protestants. Your claims of "IM RIGHT!" don't make you any more right or authoritative. Then again, isn't that what the authority of the Bible is based on? The declarations of people that its "right" and "true" and "inspired" without any actual evidence to back that up?

[Luminesa]

And there is only one true 'denomination'.

And I bet, considering your a Catholic, its the Catholic Church, right? On whose authority? Oh, yeah, the Catholic Church's. I mean, come on. Of course they'd call themselves the only legitimate Church - they think their right. As do the Orthodox, and the Protestants. Your claims of "IM RIGHT!" don't make you any more right or authoritative. Then again, isn't that what the authority of the Bible is based on? The declarations of people that its "right" and "true" and "inspired" without any actual evidence to back that up?

Just saying, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were united for the first thousand or so years after Christ. So you can't put them in the same category as the Protestants. The Protestants didn't show up until the 1400s at the very earliest, if we count people such as Zwingli, Wycliffe (his name slipped me, I don't know why), and Hus.

[Herskerstad]

And I bet, considering your a Catholic, its the Catholic Church, right? On whose authority? Oh, yeah, the Catholic Church's. I mean, come on. Of course they'd call themselves the only legitimate Church - they think their right. As do the Orthodox, and the Protestants. Your claims of "IM RIGHT!" don't make you any more right or authoritative. Then again, isn't that what the authority of the Bible is based on? The declarations of people that its "right" and "true" and "inspired" without any actual evidence to back that up?

Just saying, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were united for the first thousand or so years after Christ. So you can't put them in the same category as the Protestants. The Protestants didn't show up until the 1400s at the very earliest, if we count people such as Zwingli, Wycliffe (his name slipped me, I don't know why), and Hus.

Depends a bit on what one considers a protestant prior to the reformation. Peter Waldo came long before the above mentioned and if one goes into proto-protestantism then both dates, figures and challenges to certain creeds become hugely disputed.

[Luminesa]

Just saying, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were united for the first thousand or so years after Christ. So you can't put them in the same category as the Protestants. The Protestants didn't show up until the 1400s at the very earliest, if we count people such as Zwingli, Wycliffe (his name slipped me, I don't know why), and Hus.

Depends a bit on what one considers a protestant prior to the reformation. Peter Waldo came long before the above mentioned and if one goes into proto-protestantism then both dates, figures and challenges to certain creeds become hugely disputed.

I knew I was forgetting someone.

Quick, where's Waldo?

*Waldo pops out of a corner somewhere in France.*

Waldo: Hullo!

*St. Thomas Aquinas pops out of another corner and stares at him.*

*Staring contest.*

[Spiffier]

Because the ancients were practicing the ancient faith.

I don't see how that makes them any less blinded by their own cultural matrices. Besides, 'homosexuality' as we see it today wasn't really a thing back then, at least not prevalently. Most people at the time would have associated it more with the type of stuff NAMbLA pushes for and not with the mainstream gay rights crowd.

No, but women were also generally get married at about the age of the younger party in a homosexual relationship, so you might as well say heterosexuality wasn't really a thing back then as well.

[Spiffier]

The argument isn't that their biases are more valid, rather that it is through their biases that they would have understood the teachings of Jesus, the prophets, God, etc. Interpreting scripture through modern biases would therefore result in misunderstanding. The text must be understood in terms of it's cultural context in order to make sense. Analogy: "Would you like some chips?" means something else coming from a Briton than it does coming from an American. There is no context in the text that makes the meaning apparent. Only with cultural context can the question be correctly interpreted.

But how can a Christian assume that Jesus, who, in their view, is God, would share the same cultural bias as the people he was speaking to? Furthermore, would God not have enough foresight to be able to speak through ages?

God did speak through the ages, he just didn't do it sola scriptura. Scripture was not written in Esperanto, was it? No, to even comprehend it, you need to translate it unless you can speak the original dialects. Christ didn't write Scripture even, he passed on teachings to his Apostles, and later on many of these teachings were recorded in holy writ, but this holy writ was never intended to be all you need, it was intended as a testament to Christ's teachings, and the teachers he passed them to, it's their job to help you understand these teachings; Christ didn't just drop a book and say, "Figure it out," he created a tradition of instructors, and these instructors were always the primary source of his teaching; all the books of the New Testament were written by ordained instructors. When you say, "I don't want the instructors, just the writings," well it's not on God that these writings are not easy to understand in all times, they weren't even easy to understand in the time they were written; God ensured his teachings were timeless by having a tradition of instruction to explain to you, so you don't have people doing things like literally plucking their eyes out or chopping off their hands or castrating themselves because that's what it says to do right here. And when we say, "understand Scripture in its own culture," we don't just mean the understanding of a regular person, we mean the understanding that the ancient instructors had.

[Menassa]

And there is only one true 'denomination'.

And I bet, considering your a Catholic, its the Catholic Church, right? On whose authority? Oh, yeah, the Catholic Church's. I mean, come on. Of course they'd call themselves the only legitimate Church - they think their right. As do the Orthodox, and the Protestants. Your claims of "IM RIGHT!" don't make you any more right or authoritative. Then again, isn't that what the authority of the Bible is based on? The declarations of people that its "right" and "true" and "inspired" without any actual evidence to back that up?

Just because people claim there are multiple answers to a question, doesn't mean that all of them are correct.

Case in point, creationism vs evolution.

[Nordengrund]

Just saying, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were united for the first thousand or so years after Christ. So you can't put them in the same category as the Protestants. The Protestants didn't show up until the 1400s at the very earliest, if we count people such as Zwingli, Wycliffe (his name slipped me, I don't know why), and Hus.

Depends a bit on what one considers a protestant prior to the reformation. Peter Waldo came long before the above mentioned and if one goes into proto-protestantism then both dates, figures and challenges to certain creeds become hugely disputed.

Interestingly, Peter Waldo held to the doctrines of sola scripture and sola fide prior to the Reformation, but his followers still retained many Catholic beliefs like Transubstantiation, veneration and intercession of saints, the devotion to Mary, etc. Well, the leaders reject the devotion of Mary, but many of laity still practiced it. For the Waldensians, their main issue was that they found the Roman Catholic clergy to be corrupt and felt that they had a duty to spread the Gospel regardless of what the church officials thought. However, once the Reformation happened, they Waldensians became solidly Reformed and rejected Transubstantiation and the other Catholic beliefs they held.

I was just reading up on early Christianity in Ireland earlier today. While Idk how different Celtic Christianity was from Roman Catholicism in doctrine, but I some of the evangelists like Columbana were actually persecuted by the RCC and he attacked them in return, throwing Scripture at them. This was before the 1000 AD (I think this was the Fifth Century), so I don't think the Irish joined the RCC yet.

Columbana did not approve of idolatry and demanded the converts from paganism to destroy their idols before he would baptize them, so Idk what he thought about the veneration of saints and icons in the churches.

[Spiffier]

And there is only one true 'denomination'.

And I bet, considering your a Catholic, its the Catholic Church, right? On whose authority? Oh, yeah, the Catholic Church's. I mean, come on. Of course they'd call themselves the only legitimate Church - they think their right. As do the Orthodox, and the Protestants. Your claims of "IM RIGHT!" don't make you any more right or authoritative. Then again, isn't that what the authority of the Bible is based on? The declarations of people that its "right" and "true" and "inspired" without any actual evidence to back that up?

The Catholic Church is mostly right. We do disagree with them on several important particulars but most of them could probably have been resolved were it not for the Donation of Constantine. Unfortunately a lot more particulars have been introduced since the schism, and I don't think reconciliation is remotely possible now, but still.

No Protestant denomination is even a thousand years old, so no argument there. None of them even have the Sacrament of Holy Confession, which is mandated in the New Testament.

[G-Tech Corporation]

And I bet, considering your a Catholic, its the Catholic Church, right? On whose authority? Oh, yeah, the Catholic Church's. I mean, come on. Of course they'd call themselves the only legitimate Church - they think their right. As do the Orthodox, and the Protestants. Your claims of "IM RIGHT!" don't make you any more right or authoritative. Then again, isn't that what the authority of the Bible is based on? The declarations of people that its "right" and "true" and "inspired" without any actual evidence to back that up?

The Catholic Church is mostly right. We do disagree with them on several important particulars but most of them could probably have been resolved were it not for the Donation of Constantine. Unfortunately a lot more particulars have been introduced since the schism, and I don't think reconciliation is remotely possible now, but still.

No Protestant denomination is even a thousand years old, so no argument there. None of them even have the Sacrament of Holy Confession, which is mandated in the New Testament.

That's what the Pope and the priesthood want you to think

[Spiffier]

The Catholic Church is mostly right. We do disagree with them on several important particulars but most of them could probably have been resolved were it not for the Donation of Constantine. Unfortunately a lot more particulars have been introduced since the schism, and I don't think reconciliation is remotely possible now, but still.

No Protestant denomination is even a thousand years old, so no argument there. None of them even have the Sacrament of Holy Confession, which is mandated in the New Testament.

That's what the Pope and the priesthood want you to think

I'm Orthodox, I'm not concerned about the what Pope wants me to think.

Does not Scripture state explicitly that those sins forgiven by the Apostolic office, will be forgiven in heaven, and those which are not, won't be?

[G-Tech Corporation]

That's what the Pope and the priesthood want you to think

I'm Orthodox, I'm not concerned about the what Pope wants me to think.

Does not Scripture state explicitly that those sins forgiven by the Apostolic office, will be forgiven in heaven, and those which are not, won't be?

Certainly- if, that is, you take John 20:23 entirely out of the context of the previous verses. Consider 21 and 22.

"Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

then we see in 23:

"If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Context, as always with Scripture, is key. The proclamation about the forgiveness or lack thereof for sin has to be seen in light of the fact that Jesus is sending the Apostles out to preach the Gospel. That Gospel will be either accepted or rejected by the people to which it is preached, and that acceptance or rejection is key to the forgiveness of sins which is in Christ alone; verse 23 is merely clarifying to the Apostles that any who accept their word may be told that their sins are forgiven, and indeed it will be so. Additionally, those who do not accept the Gospel may be told that their sins have not been forgiven, and indeed it will be so. The focus is on the sending out and thus the spread of the Gospel and the ensuing forgiveness of sins, not some mystical transferal of the ability to forgive sins, which is God's alone.

[Spiffier]

I'm Orthodox, I'm not concerned about the what Pope wants me to think.

Does not Scripture state explicitly that those sins forgiven by the Apostolic office, will be forgiven in heaven, and those which are not, won't be?

Certainly- if, that is, you take John 20:23 entirely out of the context of the previous verses. Consider 21 and 22.

"Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

then we see in 23:

"If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Context, as always with Scripture, is key. The proclamation about the forgiveness or lack thereof for sin has to be seen in light of the fact that Jesus is sending the Apostles out to preach the Gospel. That Gospel will be either accepted or rejected by the people to which it is preached, and that acceptance or rejection is key to the forgiveness of sins which is in Christ alone; verse 23 is merely clarifying to the Apostles that any who accept their word may be told that their sins are forgiven, and indeed it will be so. Additionally, those who do not accept the Gospel may be told that their sins have not been forgiven, and indeed it will be so. The focus is on the sending out and thus the spread of the Gospel and the ensuing forgiveness of sins, not some mystical transferal of the ability to forgive sins, which is God's alone.

Right, the breath is them being ordained ("spirit" and "breath" are two translations of the same word).

The problem with the rest of your exegesis, is that it leaves out that Christ talks about the *Apostles* forgiving. When you spread the Gospel to someone, you are not forgiving them, no matter how you twist that.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Certainly- if, that is, you take John 20:23 entirely out of the context of the previous verses. Consider 21 and 22.

"Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

then we see in 23:

"If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Context, as always with Scripture, is key. The proclamation about the forgiveness or lack thereof for sin has to be seen in light of the fact that Jesus is sending the Apostles out to preach the Gospel. That Gospel will be either accepted or rejected by the people to which it is preached, and that acceptance or rejection is key to the forgiveness of sins which is in Christ alone; verse 23 is merely clarifying to the Apostles that any who accept their word may be told that their sins are forgiven, and indeed it will be so. Additionally, those who do not accept the Gospel may be told that their sins have not been forgiven, and indeed it will be so. The focus is on the sending out and thus the spread of the Gospel and the ensuing forgiveness of sins, not some mystical transferal of the ability to forgive sins, which is God's alone.

Right, the breath is them being ordained ("spirit" and "breath" are two translations of the same word).

The problem with the rest of your exegesis, is that it leaves out that Christ talks about the *Apostles* forgiving. When you spread the Gospel to someone, you are not forgiving them, no matter how you twist that.

Hardly. That interpretation relies on dogmatically interpreting the English translation, whereas in the Greek the first verbs in the two clauses are aorist tense forms, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which commenced before the action of the aorists. Literally, the text suggests: “Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.”

Furthermore, man forgiving sins contradicts Acts 8:22, and it is worth noting that on the day of Pentecost the Apostles did not forgive men their sins, but said to call on the name of the Lord and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

[Grave_n_idle]

2) Simple. If Jesus was only speaking to the handful of people he was walking around with, then nothing he said carries any weight beyond that.
.

That's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Would you say the same thing of Greek philosophers or any Philosophers born before the modern era? Sun Tzu's Art of War I guess should be tossed into the garbage because he wrote it with Ancient Chinese Warlords in mind.

Do you think Plato was only intending his message to travel to his immediate audience? Do you imagine he believed that a different audience wouldn't be able to understand it?

And he was (if he existed) just a man. We're talking about someone who is supposed to have godlike abilities, but somehow can't come up with a way of expressing himself that doesn't require a team of amateur interpreters.

[Grave_n_idle]

2) Simple. If Jesus was only speaking to the handful of people he was walking around with, then nothing he said carries any weight beyond that.

Hah, ahaha. That's brilliant Grave. If the audience and occasion were the only indicators of the significance of a statement then Joel Osteen would be one of the greatest theologians of all time.

Exactly my point.

I tend to believe that an omnipotent entity might be able to express himself better than a televangelist.

[Grave_n_idle]

...but this holy writ was never intended to be all you need, it was intended as a testament to Christ's teachings,

It was intended as a record, but the rest is arguable.

It certainly can be argued that more is needed, but it can also be argued that that 'more' is specifically described in the Greek scripture, in the form of one of the spiritual gifts.

...and the teachers he passed them to, it's their job to help you understand these teachings; Christ didn't just drop a book and say, "Figure it out," he created a tradition of instructors...

That's certainly what the people who claim to be the tradition of instructors want people to believe.

One might argue they have a vested interest in people accepting that - whether or not it is true.

[Spiffier]

Hardly. That interpretation relies on dogmatically interpreting the English translation, whereas in the Greek the first verbs in the two clauses are aorist tense forms, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which commenced before the action of the aorists. Literally, the text suggests: “Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.”

"Have already been" is a superfluous interpolation, since it's passive voice. "They are forgiven," is the more literal translation.

Even with a Calvinist reading on the verse, you're still left with a problem: if your sin is not forgiven by the Apostolic office, it hasn't been in heaven.

Furthermore, man forgiving sins contradicts Acts 8:22, and it is worth noting that on the day of Pentecost the Apostles did not forgive men their sins, but said to call on the name of the Lord

But Orthodox Confession does not have you facing the priest when asking for forgiveness, it has you kneeling and facing an icon. The priest only stands aside and is a witness.

and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

Yeah, but you can only do that once. Any sin after baptism requires Holy Confession, though your sins are still forgiven through your baptism.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Exactly. Gays are included in the prohibition on sodomy and fornication.

It's like speaking to a brick wall.

listen can't I have a thought for myself can't I belive in what I wan to belive in so if I want to be both a Christian and a LGBTQ supporter then let me do so and gay people are not the enemy ok.

You are entitled to think what you want but that doesn't mean what you think is correct. Christianity is about the learning the truth whether you like it or not.

[Spiffier]

...but this holy writ was never intended to be all you need, it was intended as a testament to Christ's teachings,

It was intended as a record, but the rest is arguable.

It certainly can be argued that more is needed, but it can also be argued that that 'more' is specifically described in the Greek scripture, in the form of one of the spiritual gifts.

...and the teachers he passed them to, it's their job to help you understand these teachings; Christ didn't just drop a book and say, "Figure it out," he created a tradition of instructors...

That's certainly what the people who claim to be the tradition of instructors want people to believe.

One might argue they have a vested interest in people accepting that - whether or not it is true.

The tradition of Apostolic teachers is attested to in Holy Scripture, and certainly predates any denomination saying Scripture alone is sufficient; the Scriptural canon wasn't even established until later than 100 AD, people were still debating over exactly what books constituted Scripture. The Didache, for instance, is an important work from the first century of Christianity (in fact, the fast days it prescribes are still adhered to by the Orthodox Church), and many held it as canon, but it was ultimately not included in the canon of Scripture because no one knew who wrote it.

In early Christianity, canonical parts of the New Testament weren't unified into one work, they were spread all over, many churches didn't even have more than one Gospel and a few Epistles.

[The Alexanderians]

And there is only one true 'denomination'.

And I bet, considering your a Catholic, its the Catholic Church, right? On whose authority? Oh, yeah, the Catholic Church's. I mean, come on. Of course they'd call themselves the only legitimate Church - they think their right. As do the Orthodox, and the Protestants. Your claims of "IM RIGHT!" don't make you any more right or authoritative.

Well of course Bailey, that's why people pick the church they do because they feel it's the right one, the correct one. It's like Theological Highlander: there can be only one. It's either none are right or one is right; all can not be right.

Then again, isn't that what the authority of the Bible is based on? The declarations of people that its "right" and "true" and "inspired" without any actual evidence to back that up?

The Bible draws it's authority from the original church which compiled it. Protestants mistakenly thought the church proceeds from the Bible, which isn't true. The Church complied the bible.

[Luminesa]

The two best candidates are the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. I am a member of the former.

well how about Methodism and I also happen to be a Methodist and I don't think that shunning all other denomination's by saying that there is only one true form of Christianity is right oh but let me guess us Methodist's aren't true Christians well we belive in God and Jesus and yes we may not do all of those silly things that you Catholics do but we are as Christian as you so don't you shun us cause we belive in a different way we are Christians.

Nobody is saying Methodists are 'not true Christians'. Nobody is shunning other denominations. When a Catholic (like me) says that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, I am saying that the Catholic Church is the Church that is closest to what God intended for Christianity to be, according to the Gospels, including all of the sacraments, the priesthood, Apostolic Succession, the Mass (which would count under the Sacraments), and so on and so forth.

Now, in the eyes of the Church (and in my eyes), does that make all other churches invalid? No! If you're Orthodox, wonderful. Baptist? Sweet (just not WESTBORO BAPTIST, lol). Methodist? Awesome. Charles Wesley wrote some gorgeous hymns. Overall, if you are striving for Christ in your life, then you are on the right path, and you should continue on that path. The Catholic Church does not preach 'outside of the Church there is no salvation outside of the Church' (though we'd totally love to have you at Mass one day).

[Herskerstad]

Hah, ahaha. That's brilliant Grave. If the audience and occasion were the only indicators of the significance of a statement then Joel Osteen would be one of the greatest theologians of all time.

Exactly my point.

I tend to believe that an omnipotent entity might be able to express himself better than a televangelist.

'Looks at historical bible sales'

I'd think he did by an ever so tiny margin.