Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, I kinda would have thought that you would prefered the last pope... I guess I can be too cynical some times...

I feel Benedict maybe got misunderstood. He wasn't a bad person at all. He was a theologian and a genius, and geniuses are often quite misunderstood.

Honestly, JP2, Benedict, and Francis are all awesome, in their own ways.

Benedict was just a conservative Pope. It was a bit damaging on the PR front, but I enjoyed his automatic excommunication of women priests.

Both John XXII and St. John Paul II had kind of shied away from saying anything about it and Benedict XVI just kicked em out old school.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I was reading my bible today and found a verse that caught my attention. It says that if God was your Father you would love Him. Those who do not love Him, He is not your Father, but the devil is your father. Jesus says they belong to the devil. Could this verse be scriptural evidence for limited atonement? I ask this because from the verse, it sounds like everyone's destinations were predetermined.

Thoughts?

Verse: John 8:42-47

People back then believed very much in breeding to type. You can see some of it in the story of how Jacob cheated Laban out of his cattle. If you were the "son" of something, that meant you had that deeply ingrained characteristic. So when those who wanted to not only silence but harm Jesus claimed the status of sons of Abraham, blessed of God, Jesus retaliated with that comment. I don't blame him.

I'm not sure that there is some moral duty to love God just because he has the role of a father. Many fathers have that role and are worthy of no respect at all. It depends on the character of the one living that role.

Indeed. To further exemplify this 2 Samuel 7, the Messiah is one who will be "like a son of God.

[Luminesa]

I feel Benedict maybe got misunderstood. He wasn't a bad person at all. He was a theologian and a genius, and geniuses are often quite misunderstood.

Honestly, JP2, Benedict, and Francis are all awesome, in their own ways.

Benedict was just a conservative Pope. It was a bit damaging on the PR front, but I enjoyed his automatic excommunication of women priests.

Both John XXII and St. John Paul II had kind of shied away from saying anything about it and Benedict XVI just kicked em out old school.

Another thing I found cool about Benedict:

Of course, he was pro-life, and once he was challenged by Gisele Bundchen (however you say her name), a supermodel. She said that he was basically stupid (I'm paraphrasing, of course). I'm looking at this on my computer like:

Let's see, Pope Benedict XVI was:
1.) Pope (duh).
2.) A theologian at various prestigious German universities.
3.) A genius (need I say it again?)
4.) Author of...tons of deeply intellectual books on the Catholic faith.

Gisele Bundchen? She was a Playboy model, at the time.

My reaction to her?

Of course, we have to pray for her, and many other radical feminists, but I couldn't help but find her challenging of the Pope hysterical.

Though I must add that St. John Paul II and John XXIII did stir up things around the world, even if they didn't deal as much with the female priests issue. JP2 of course is credited with helping take down communism. John XXIII started Vatican II. Both of which changed the global religious and political landscape forever.

[Narland]

I was reading my bible today and found a verse that caught my attention. It says that if God was your Father you would love Him. Those who do not love Him, He is not your Father, but the devil is your father. Jesus says they belong to the devil. Could this verse be scriptural evidence for limited atonement? I ask this because from the verse, it sounds like everyone's destinations were predetermined.

Thoughts?

Verse: John 8:42-47

Atonement is limited--only a certian number of people will be saved.Some will be (temporal pespestive) saved. Some have been saved (eternal perspective). Those who are saved love God and are the children of the Father. Those who do not love God are (by default) the children of the Devil. By the Grace of God the children of the Devil are tranformed into the kindom of Light. Matthew 7:13-14; 1 John 3:1-10; 1 John 5:1-3; 1 Peter 2:1

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I was reading my bible today and found a verse that caught my attention. It says that if God was your Father you would love Him. Those who do not love Him, He is not your Father, but the devil is your father. Jesus says they belong to the devil. Could this verse be scriptural evidence for limited atonement? I ask this because from the verse, it sounds like everyone's destinations were predetermined.

Thoughts?

Verse: John 8:42-47

Atonement is limited--only a certian number of people will be saved.Some will be (temporal pespestive) saved. Some have been saved (eternal perspective). Those who are saved love God and are the children of the Father. Those who do not love God are (by default) the children of the Devil. By the Grace of God the children of the Devil are tranformed into the kindom of Light. Matthew 7:13-14; 1 John 3:1-10; 1 John 5:1-3; 1 Peter 2:1

Semantically I'd argue that Atonement is universal, there is no cap to the number of people who will be saved. But it is limited in that not everyone will choose to accept salvation.

[Narland]

Atonement is limited--only a certian number of people will be saved.Some will be (temporal pespestive) saved. Some have been saved (eternal perspective). Those who are saved love God and are the children of the Father. Those who do not love God are (by default) the children of the Devil. By the Grace of God the children of the Devil are tranformed into the kindom of Light. Matthew 7:13-14; 1 John 3:1-10; 1 John 5:1-3; 1 Peter 2:1

Semantically I'd argue that Atonement is universal, there is no cap to the number of people who will be saved. But it is limited in that not everyone will choose to accept salvation.

That is quite a semantic jump when universal doesnt mean everybody. Can you elaborate?

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Well, I kinda would have thought that you would prefered the last pope... I guess I can be too cynical some times...

I feel Benedict maybe got misunderstood. He wasn't a bad person at all. He was a theologian and a genius, and geniuses are often quite misunderstood.

Honestly, JP2, Benedict, and Francis are all awesome, in their own ways.

Totally. There hasn't been a bad Pope in a long time.

JPII changed the world and became a saint. Benedict XVI was a genius and like the best chess player in the world. And Pope Francis is the most approachable Pope there's ever been.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Semantically I'd argue that Atonement is universal, there is no cap to the number of people who will be saved. But it is limited in that not everyone will choose to accept salvation.

That is quite a semantic jump when universal doesnt mean everybody. Can you elaborate?

Atonement isn't limited. Atonement is universal. Christ died because he so loved the world. We are supposed to make disciples of everyone.

But as it says so those "who believe in him" will get the eternal life. So not Everyone will receive salvation, because they choose not to.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I feel Benedict maybe got misunderstood. He wasn't a bad person at all. He was a theologian and a genius, and geniuses are often quite misunderstood.
Honestly, JP2, Benedict, and Francis are all awesome, in their own ways.

Benedict was just a conservative Pope. It was a bit damaging on the PR front, but I enjoyed his automatic excommunication of women priests.
Both John XXII and St. John Paul II had kind of shied away from saying anything about it and Benedict XVI just kicked em out old school.

What about the bishops who illicitly ordained them?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Benedict was just a conservative Pope. It was a bit damaging on the PR front, but I enjoyed his automatic excommunication of women priests.
Both John XXII and St. John Paul II had kind of shied away from saying anything about it and Benedict XVI just kicked em out old school.

What about the bishops who illicitly ordained them?

Excommunicated as well.

And any woman who seeks ordination, and any bishop who ordains them hence forth is automatically excommunicated.

[The Archregimancy]

I feel Benedict maybe got misunderstood. He wasn't a bad person at all. He was a theologian and a genius, and geniuses are often quite misunderstood.

Honestly, JP2, Benedict, and Francis are all awesome, in their own ways.

Totally. There hasn't been a bad Pope in a long time.

JPII changed the world and became a saint. Benedict XVI was a genius and like the best chess player in the world. And Pope Francis is the most approachable Pope there's ever been.

I can see why a Catholic might think that, but it is a very Catholic perspective.

Others might argue that

A) John Paul II was a transformative and important Pope who nonetheless failed to grapple with a crippling child sexual abuse scandal that deeply damaged the Catholic church's moral authority for decades, and whose serious health issues in the final decade of his papacy left the church rudderless at precisely the moment when it needed firm leadership to deal with that scandal.

B) Benedict XVI offered a classic example of why deeply intellectual and profoundly intelligent scholars who are often excellent serving as an organisation's second-in-command are often too otherworldly to run large-scale organisations riven with extensive and often damaging political in-fighting. And he certainly wasn't the best chess player in the world. During Benedict's papacy, that was Viswanathan Anand.

C) Francis supports San Lorenzo, when everyone knows Newell's Old Boys are the only team worth supporting in Argentina.
As to 'most approachable Pope there's ever been', that's demonstrably incorrect given that the early Classical popes pre-dating monarchical episcopacy were presumably much more approachable for their congregations. Also, John XXIII.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

What about the bishops who illicitly ordained them?

Excommunicated as well.

And any woman who seeks ordination, and any bishop who ordains them hence forth is automatically excommunicated.

I don't know why anyone who professed to be Catholic would attempt such a heretical thing. If they want such a thing, they should advocate for it in the Church, not just do it anyway without permission.

[Narland]

That is quite a semantic jump when universal doesnt mean everybody. Can you elaborate?

Atonement isn't limited. Atonement is universal. Christ died because he so loved the world. We are supposed to make disciples of everyone.

But as it says so those "who believe in him" will get the eternal life. So not Everyone will receive salvation, because they choose not to.

Thanks for clarifying. There are those who teach that universal salvation means All will be saved. It threw me for a moment.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Excommunicated as well.

And any woman who seeks ordination, and any bishop who ordains them hence forth is automatically excommunicated.

I don't know why anyone who professed to be Catholic would attempt such a heretical thing. If they want such a thing, they should advocate for it in the Church, not just do it anyway without permission.

'

But they do.

[Menassa]

People back then believed very much in breeding to type. You can see some of it in the story of how Jacob cheated Laban out of his cattle. If you were the "son" of something, that meant you had that deeply ingrained characteristic. So when those who wanted to not only silence but harm Jesus claimed the status of sons of Abraham, blessed of God, Jesus retaliated with that comment. I don't blame him.

I'm not sure that there is some moral duty to love God just because he has the role of a father. Many fathers have that role and are worthy of no respect at all. It depends on the character of the one living that role.

Indeed. To further exemplify this 2 Samuel 7, the Messiah is one who will be "like a son of God.

Yeah but wut about Solomon?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Indeed. To further exemplify this 2 Samuel 7, the Messiah is one who will be "like a son of God.

Yeah but wut about Solomon?

"all this has happened before and all this will happen again"

[Menassa]

Yeah but wut about Solomon?

"all this has happened before and all this will happen again"

Are you stating this is a dual prophecy?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

"all this has happened before and all this will happen again"

Are you stating this is a dual prophecy?

Actually I would debate that 2 Samuel 7 refers to Solomon, as his kingdom hardly lasted forever.

[Menassa]

Are you stating this is a dual prophecy?

Actually I would debate that 2 Samuel 7 refers to Solomon, as his kingdom hardly lasted forever.

The Kings of David through Solomon will last forever, such as Israel will last forever.

[Menassa]

I Chronicles 22:8--10

The word of the L-rd came to me, saying:....Behold, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a father to him; and I will establish his royal throne over Israel forever.

Then there's of course: "so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men,"
Jesus wasn't a sinner no?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I Chronicles 22:8--10

The word of the L-rd came to me, saying:....Behold, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a father to him; and I will establish his royal throne over Israel forever.

Fair enough.

However in Mathew 16 Peter refers to him as the Son of God, a reference to this prophecy. So a dual prophecy perhaps.

[The Archregimancy]

I Chronicles 22:8--10

The word of the L-rd came to me, saying:....Behold, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a father to him; and I will establish his royal throne over Israel forever.

So where does the division of the Kingdom of Israel, the takeover of the Kingdom of Israel by Jeroboam, and the limiting of the House of David to the Kingdom of Judah fit here?

Honest question, not a facetious one.

[The Alma Mater]

Actually I would debate that 2 Samuel 7 refers to Solomon, as his kingdom hardly lasted forever.

The Kings of David through Solomon will last forever, such as Israel will last forever.

So if Iran nukes Israel into oblivion tomorrow, Christianity will have been disproven ?

[Menassa]

I Chronicles 22:8--10

The word of the L-rd came to me, saying:....Behold, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a father to him; and I will establish his royal throne over Israel forever.

So where does the division of the Kingdom of Israel, the takeover of the Kingdom of Israel by Jeroboam, and the limiting of the House of David to the Kingdom of Judah fit here?

Honest question, not a facetious one.

I Kings 11:13

However, I [G-d] will not take away all the kingdom; rather, I will give one tribe to your [Solomon's] son for David My servant's sake, and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.

Indeed the kingship was transferred to his son, and afterward it remained in his family:

II Chronicles 9:31

And Solomon slept with his fathers; they buried him in the city of David, his father; and Rehoboam his son reigned in his place.

http://drazin.com/?9._The_King_Messiah#Samuel7-12

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Kings of David through Solomon will last forever, such as Israel will last forever.

So if Iran nukes Israel into oblivion tomorrow, Christianity will have been disproven ?

Judaism maybe, but not Christianity. We have our own understanding of the prophecy which has no requirement for Israel to exist.