Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vulcan on May 02, 2005, 05:24:29 PM
-
Typical Christians, can't even get a simple number right... does this mean all those formula to derive 666 from the evil Boosh are wrong too?
Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
By Tom Anderson
01 May 2005
A newly discovered fragment of the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament indicates that, as far as the Antichrist goes, theologians, scholars, heavy metal groups, and television evangelists have got the wrong number. Instead of 666, it's actually the far less ominous 616.
The new fragment from the Book of Revelation, written in ancient Greek and dating from the late third century, is part of a hoard of previously unintelligible manuscripts discovered in historic dumps outside Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. Now a team of expert classicists, using new photographic techniques, are finally deciphering the original writing.
Professor David Parker, Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and Paleography at the University of Birmingham, thinks that 616, although less memorable than 666, is the original. He said: "This is an example of gematria, where numbers are based on the numerical values of letters in people's names. Early Christians would use numbers to hide the identity of people who they were attacking: 616 refers to the Emperor Caligula."
The Book of Revelation is traditionally considered to be written by John, a disciple of Jesus; it identifies 666 as the mark of the Antichrist. In America, the fundamentalist Christian right often use the number in sermons about the coming Apocalypse.
They and satanists responded coolly to the new "Revelation". Peter Gilmore, High Priest of the Church of Satan, based in New York, said: "By using 666 we're using something that the Christians fear. Mind you, if they do switch to 616 being the number of the beast then we'll start using that."
-
DOH!
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Typical Christians, can't even get a simple number right...
Well, at least the Christians don't elect a "holy father" and worship the virgin Mary.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, at least the Christians don't elect a "holy father" and worship the virgin Mary.
Ummmmm does someone want to tell Nuke - I don't have the heart.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Ummmmm does someone want to tell Nuke - I don't have the heart.
naw let's just point our fingers and laugh at 'em.
no wait... a pointy stick. let's poke 'em w/ a pointy stick!!
-
pokes Nuke
hmmm not so fun as the old school poking with a blunt stick.
of course wed have tosubmerge Nuke in a conveinent body of water first
-
Cathylicks (http://www.fes-net.com/_lob/audio/cathylicks.wav)
-
Where's Fubar?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Ummmmm does someone want to tell Nuke - I don't have the heart.
There's always one in every crowd :)
culero (LMAO!)
-
70 % of Nukes dont know that Catholosism is a sect of Christianity.
-
"The new fragment from the Book of Revelation, written in ancient Greek and dating from the late third century"
???
Im no expert, but something tells me this is wrong.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
70 % of Nukes dont know that Catholosism is a sect of Christianity.
Yeah, I know that technically, Catholics are Christian. However, when someone mentions "Catholics" and "Christians", most people in America understand what the difference is.
If I say "Christian evangelist", do you think of a television preacher or the Catholic Pope?
Catholics fashioned themselves into whole new cult in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, I know that technically, Catholics are Christian. However, when someone mentions "Catholics" and "Christians", most people in America understand what the difference is.
If I say "Christian evangelist", do you think of a television preacher or the Catholic Pope?
Catholics fashioned themselves into whole new cult in my opinion.
I'm Protestant, myself, but.....:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, I know that technically, Catholics are Christian. However, when someone mentions "Catholics" and "Christians", most people in America understand what the difference is.
If I say "Christian evangelist", do you think of a television preacher or the Catholic Pope?
Catholics fashioned themselves into whole new cult in my opinion.
Technically?
Keep digging that hole nuke ;)
-
i thought 90210 was the number of the beast.
-
I think the whole 666 thing was a derivation of something called numerology. Somehow this stuff has been incorporated, but I'm not shure exactly when or by whome. Alot of old psuedo sciences and myths have left their mark on contempory thought.
Is anyone out there a buff on this stuff? I have not studied these things since I was a kid.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Technically?
Keep digging that hole nuke ;)
I liked the "most people in America understand" BS, too :)
culero (still LMAO)
-
A few points to ponder...
the original christian church didn't have any central gov't.
In the bible the term "saint" describes all christians.
the only water baptism in the bible is an immersion. it's purpose according to the bible is for remission of sins. Do babies sin? why would we want to sprinkle a baby then? where's the biblical authority?
the antichrist is mentioned 4 times by john and describes someone who is simply against christ. he says there are anti-christs already in the world (when he penned the book in the first century). it isn't some guy whos gonna take over the world. Now this take isn't popular today because in my opinion it just doesn't make good tv.
most religious organizations that call themselves christian today would hardly be recognized by the apostles. 1 corinthians chapter 1
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, at least the Christians don't elect a "holy father" and worship the virgin Mary.
Well does it matter ?
Somebody worship to God, somebody else to virgin Mary.....
Well would you be so kind and tell me, why i shoulnt consider both of them mentaly ill ?
INTELECTUAL AT HOME:I BELIVE IN UFO ON MARS....
HALF DRUNKEN INTELECTUAL IN PUB: YOU FREAKING DUMB..... THOSE WHO BELIVE IN UFO ON MARS ARE MORONS ... EVERYBODY KNOW THAT UFO IS ON JUPITER, COZ ITS OLDER ... HA HA HA HA.
ohh welll
btw Vulcan does that mean that all those HC movies about 666 has to be reworked and released again with 616 ? :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Catholics fashioned themselves into whole new cult in my opinion.
Yeeep every political party reform it self from time to time.
-
hblair,
The reason babies are baptized is because as a Catholic you are born with oringinal sin. It is to rid the infant of "original sin".
I'm Catholic but do not attend Mass anymore. I've slipped from the flock as they say.
Tried the Pentecostal thing but holy rollers do absolutely nothing for me. They all come off as I'm holier than thou so you best listen to what I have to say. Went to a Pentecostal service and they were doing something called laying of the hands. This dude lays his hands on me and I flipped out. I damn near hit the dude. I will never go back to a Pentecostal church again.
People standing up during service and spewing this jibberish while I'm trying to listen to the Preacher talk. My mother in law tells me the people are speaking in tounges. I told her she's full of crap and its nothing more than a bunch of garbage. Speaking in tounges. What a load!
If your Pentecostal anyone I don't mean any disrespect. Its just not my cup of tea.
-
My sister was pentecostal and she was telling me what a miracle it was that she spoke in tongues. I asked her what language she spoke. She said tongues. I then said right....was it spanish, russian, hebrew, arabic...what language did you speak?
The conversation went down hil from there and when spit started flying I just walked away. I dont talk to her much anymore.
-
Who cares 666 sounds better! Its all made up anyway.
(http://www.headbanger.us/gallerie_i/bilder/iron_maiden_number_of_the_beast_front.jpg)
-
[Argh, can't resist desire to answer... must keep... hands... away... keyboard... too late.]
Originally posted by hblair
A few points to ponder...
the original christian church didn't have any central gov't.
Hblair, this is only partially true. During the Apostolic age, particular churches where governed by Ruling and Teaching Elders (1 Tim. 5:17, etc.) and served by Deacons (Greek: Presbuteros & Diakonos). The Apostles had authority to plant new churches (Titus 1:5), and they were primarily responsible for writing the authoratative books that closed the canon of scripture (a few non-apostles also wrote NT books, Luke and Mark for instance). In turn, however all of these elders assembled together to definitively decide matters of faith and practice as was the case with the Jerusalem Assembly of Acts 15, this would be the first Synod, Council, or Assembly of the church. So churches were not entirely independent, there was connectionalism.
But admittedly not the kind we see in the episcopal (hierarchical) kind of church gov't in Episcopacy or Roman Catholicism. This developed later and resembled the Roman system of civil gov't more than system of church government laid down in the Pastoral Epistles and Acts.
In the bible the term "saint" describes all christians.
True, for instance, Paul's letter to the church at Phillippi begins "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons:" It comes from the Greek Hagioi meaning set apart, sacred.
the only water baptism in the bible is an immersion. it's purpose according to the bible is for remission of sins. Do babies sin? why would we want to sprinkle a baby then? where's the biblical authority?
Most Christians would grant that the sign of Baptism is intended to be an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible change, for instance this ceremonial "washing" with water points to the real saving "washing" of regeneration that can only occur via the Spirit (Titus 3:4) it also is intended to be the sign and seal of the New Covenant as Circumcision was in the Old Covenant , hence when the call to repent and be Baptized is given in Acts 2, the promises are explicitly said to be for you and "your children." This follows the covenantal model the Jews would have already been familiar with (Gen. 17:7)
The practice of sprinkling refers to the biblical statements about how God cleanses the heart from sin (Ezek. 36:25, Heb. 10:22, 1 Peter 1:22). As you know, biblically speaking all people are born fallen and sinful, (Psalm 51:5) "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." but it is not the Baptism itself that grants remission, it is the heart cleansing that baptism symbolizes that grants remission and that change of heart only comes via Regeneration and Justifying Faith. For a more detailed biblical defense of Infant Baptism from an Evangelical Perspective. click here (http://www.providencepca.com/essays/millerbap.html)
most religious organizations that call themselves christian today would hardly be recognized by the apostles. 1 corinthians chapter 1
However, the fact is that Jesus said that the gates of hell would never prevail against his church and that he would be with them to the end of the age (i.e. this present evil age as opposed to the age to come inaugurated by his return). God has always preserved a faithful remnant in every age, wheat amongst the chaff, and this faithfulness is measured in the degree of their faithfulness to his Word, something that all mortals fall short of (including even the Apostles at times - see Gal. 2:11-21 for instance).
So while there are indeed many false churches around and a lot of tares growing up amongst the wheat, there are still true and faithful churches out there struggling to be salt and light in the world, to love Christ and one another, to follow his commands, to do good works, and to be conformed to the image of Christ in all of their faith, life, and practice.
- SEAGOON
-
Gore invented 666..... wait???
GORE 666......Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh......GORE 666
*runs away in panick*
-
Can'twe just do the love one another as you love yourself thing without the christ bit?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
As you know, biblically speaking all people are born fallen and sinful,
seagoon...
i have to ask, how do you deal with explaining that to someone?
i have know that forever, and whenever it has come up, not even the Christians i know want to accept it. there is always some broad generalization of "knowing right from wrong" and all that, basically saying all kid's are sinless untill they know what is and is not a sin.
i disagree, and hold true what i quoted from you, but have never been able to explain it properly.
-
religion ..the root cause of all evil...he types looking upward for a flaming hand full of lightning :)
:D
-
Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
I think the whole 666 thing was a derivation of something called numerology.
Numerology? Phafffttttttt
What a load of horse crap that is. Not at all like good old reliable Phrenology and Physiognomy.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, I know that technically, Catholics are Christian. However, when someone mentions "Catholics" and "Christians", most people in America understand what the difference is.
If I say "Christian evangelist", do you think of a television preacher or the Catholic Pope?
Catholics fashioned themselves into whole new cult in my opinion.
NUKE you can be very entertaining. I think I know what you are trying to say but dang what a way to put it! "Whole new cult"? They were the original Christian church. By original, I mean the very first. Numero uno.
How's the turf business, btw!? Hope things are going well.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, I know that technically, Catholics are Christian. However, when someone mentions "Catholics" and "Christians", most people in America understand what the difference is.
If I say "Christian evangelist", do you think of a television preacher or the Catholic Pope?
Catholics fashioned themselves into whole new cult in my opinion.
quoted for truth.
-
Thanks for the reply seagoon.
It was necassary for paul and others to travel around to those different congregations and be sure that the doctrine was correct. Why would they need to do this? Because the written word had not come into being yet. We today know that the early church (each congregation) was governed by elders (also referred to as bishops, pastors, presbyters) And there are qualifications for being an elder in 1 timothy 3:1-7. There are qualifications for being a deacon also. There is no scriptural authority for a centrally governed church.
As for the born-into-sin stuff..
Calvinism came about in the 14 or 1500's. John Calvin taught the born into sin doctrine you're talking about. Let's look at the verse in psalms you are talking about. Of course we know that the old testament is not law for christians today(colossians 2:14 hebrews 8:13) but is there for our learning (romans 15:4). To know the mind of God and how he dealt with his people under the old law. We also know that the bible isn't going to contradict itself.
Keeping that in mind, what was david talking about? Wouldn't it make more sense that david was speaking of being born into a world of sin? Look at ezekiel 18:20. And better yet, in the new law, see what Jesus has to say about the state of children.
Matthew 18:3 is pretty plain. We have to be as innocent as children.
Matthew 19:14, Jesus shows the innocence of children.
And another thing, of all the conversions to christianity in the NT, there is not one single example where a child is baptized, let alone sprinkled. Yet people today thing it is standard procedure. We are plainly told of the burial of baptism in romans 6:4 and colossians 2:12, yet people pull obscure verses to try and justify something contrary to the plain verses.
-
Dogma fight! Dogma fight!
-
Originally posted by JB73
seagoon...
i have to ask, how do you deal with explaining that to someone?
i have know that forever, and whenever it has come up, not even the Christians i know want to accept it. there is always some broad generalization of "knowing right from wrong" and all that, basically saying all kid's are sinless untill they know what is and is not a sin.
i disagree, and hold true what i quoted from you, but have never been able to explain it properly.
JB,
It depends on who you are talking to.
If you are speaking to someone who reveres the teaching of the bible, and is basically familiar with it, then you go straight to the source.
Basically you start with the creation and fall of man. Man is created in the image of God upright and undefiled, yet mutable (capable of changing). Then he disobeys God's Law by taking from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and becomes subject to death. The curse did not just apply to Adam but also to all his posterity. Mankind fell, not just an individual man. The curse they became subject to involved not only just eventual physical decline and death, but becoming spiritually dead in sin as well (Eph. 2:1-3) and he is born with a heart hopelessly inclined towards evil - "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21) This evil is nature is all pervasive, it doesn't mean that we are as bad as we can possibly be or that all people are constantly committing every sin, or that we cannot do things that are nice to others on occasion but it does mean that it affects every part of of us the mind, the imagination, the conscience, our dispositions, as the word puts it: "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9) This fallen nature is universal as the following verses indicate:
"As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10)
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)
"All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way" (Is. 53:6)
Then you move on to the practical outworkings of this doctrine, we don't become sinners when we sin, we sin because we are by nature sinners - enemies and rebels against God as Paul puts it. That is why we don't need to teach our children to lie or steal, they have a natural inclination to do so. You can actual test most people to find that at heart they don't actually believe that all men are good deep down with in. Simply asking them questions like why they have keys in their pocket, should begin to tap into the fact that they recognize not only their own sin nature, but the universality of that nature in others. Then you point out that desperately sinful men cannot be reconciled to a Holy God by their own efforts, if they are to be Holy as He is Holy then they need to have their hearts and natures changed forever. They need a new heart, forgiveness for sin, and an alien righteous imputed to them. Hence the great good news contained in the message of salvation from sin and death through faith in Christ: Romans 3:21-24 "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"
(Note also the universality of the problem expressed above - "for all have sinned")
Now if you aren't talking with someone who doesn't believe bible, you are going to have to give an argument that reverses the presentation. I.E. Starting out by establishing the state of the world, the truth about men's hearts and inclinations, the universality of evil, the fact that they themselves have done wicked things, and then moving into the bible as the only coherent explanation of those facts with the only viable solution to the problem.
Take heart though JB, I myself was thoroughly convicted of my own sinfulness prior to believing in the Bible. Historically, conviction of sin and embracing the free offer of the Gospel go hand in hand.
- SEAGOON
-
Hi Hblair,
Originally posted by hblair
Thanks for the reply seagoon.
It was necassary for paul and others to travel around to those different congregations and be sure that the doctrine was correct. Why would they need to do this? Because the written word had not come into being yet. We today know that the early church (each congregation) was governed by elders (also referred to as bishops, pastors, presbyters) And there are qualifications for being an elder in 1 timothy 3:1-7. There are qualifications for being a deacon also. There is no scriptural authority for a centrally governed church.
I hope you understand, I am not attempting to prove there was a hierarchical government to the church, rather that there was a connectional nature to the church and that the Jerusalem Assembly was not a one time event, rather that that was a normative pattern.
Controversies that arise in the church are to be decided by the elders of the church working together in the Spirit to determine what the Word says on the matter. Hence the great work done in the first 6 eccumenical counsels. Doctrinal decisions are not to be solely the realm of "Me and my Bible" but that rather as Prov. 11:14 puts it "Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety." This also applies in the case of church discipline, it is not "disfellowship them yourself" but rather the final step is: "tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector" (Matthew 18:17)
As for the born-into-sin stuff..
Calvinism came about in the 14 or 1500's. John Calvin taught the born into sin doctrine you're talking about. Let's look at the verse in psalms you are talking about. Of course we know that the old testament is not law for christians today(colossians 2:14 hebrews 8:13) but is there for our learning (romans 15:4). To know the mind of God and how he dealt with his people under the old law. We also know that the bible isn't going to contradict itself.
Keeping that in mind, what was david talking about? Wouldn't it make more sense that david was speaking of being born into a world of sin? Look at ezekiel 18:20. And better yet, in the new law, see what Jesus has to say about the state of children.
Matthew 18:3 is pretty plain. We have to be as innocent as children.
Matthew 19:14, Jesus shows the innocence of children.
The doctrine of orginal sin doesn't hail from Calvin (1509-1564) or even the Reformation. Augustine (354-430) includes a huge section on his dispute with Pelagius showing how the doctrine of Original Sin is biblical and was taught by all the Church fathers. In fact he states that he is amazed that Pelagius could even have doubted it. Augustine for instance says "even if there were in men nothing but original sin, it would be sufficient for their condemnation. For however much heavier will be their condemnation who have added their own sins to the original offense (and it will be the more severe in individual cases, in proportion to the sins of individuals); still, even that sin alone which was originally derived unto men not only excludes from the kingdom of God, which infants are unable to enter, unless they have received the grace of Christ before they die, but also alienates from salvation and everlasting life, which cannot be anything else than the kingdom of God, to which fellowship with Christ alone introduces us. "
This forum isn't really set up or intended for weighty theological discourse, so answering point by point is going to be impossible. But please note that the idea that all men have inherited the fallen and sinful nature of Adam has been (with the exception of the Pelagians and those follwing them) the almost universal confession of Christian theologians and certainly the confession of almost all of the Protestant denoms including the SBC for instance. The interpretation of Psalm 51:5 that you are employing is novel and doesn't withstand exegetical scrutiny. Iniquity ("Avon") in that passage is reflexive and climaxes the fivefold "My" in verses 1-3. It is just not exegetically coherent that David would be using the phrases: "My Transgressions" (verse 1)
"my iniquity ,my sin (verse 2)
"my transgressions, my sin" (verse 3)
And then switch to speaking of the world of sin, rather than speaking of the origin and root of "my sins" and the confession of being sinful from the beginning.
And another thing, of all the conversions to christianity in the NT, there is not one single example where a child is baptized, let alone sprinkled. Yet people today thing it is standard procedure. We are plainly told of the burial of baptism in romans 6:4 and colossians 2:12, yet people pull obscure verses to try and justify something contrary to the plain verses.
Just wondering, before I deal with this, did you click on the section of Miller I sent? I'd rather not further test the patience of this long-suffering Board by rehearsing arguments he makes better if it isn't necessary.
- SEAGOON
PS: Also just wondering which denomination you are affiliated with (or if you are non-denominational if you have a website for your church).
-
Seagoon; Hblair et al...
Aren't you forgetting the significance of the apolistic rite? The unbroken chain of annointment from Paul? Without it there's no talk of a catholic (with small "C" = orthodox) church?
And Seagoon...
I don't share your beliefs; but I relish your posts. You explain; and don't attempt to indoctrinate; which I find both interesting and refreshing.
-
who cares what the devils number is, as long as the sweet sweet pie remains 3.14...
-
Bah screw you're false idols I shall worship the only and true god and his name is Kurt Tank! Beotches! :D
-
Originally posted by oboe
NUKE you can be very entertaining. I think I know what you are trying to say but dang what a way to put it! "Whole new cult"? They were the original Christian church. By original, I mean the very first. Numero uno.
How's the turf business, btw!? Hope things are going well.
Hey oboe, it's just that I feel the catholic church has morphed into something very different. I would call myself a Christian, but never a Catholic. They are not the same to me.
Oh, and my "synthetic" turf business ( or, fake grass :) ) is rolling along. There are 4 partners and we have just formed our LLC and have gotton our first job. We have three lined up that look like they are going to go through. Thanks for asking.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Bah screw you're false idols I shall worship the only and true god and his name is Kurt Tank! Beotches! :D
STFU I'm trying to start a new religious war, all I gotta do is haul in the Mormons and the 7th day crowd...
-
Originally posted by Habu
Numerology? Phafffttttttt
What a load of horse crap that is. Not at all like good old reliable Phrenology and Physiognomy.
LOL! You forgot about astrology, which is every bit as crappy as the others, with the bonus of still being quite popular and annoying. It can be a real kok-blocker if your stupid chart doesn't line up right! I wish phrenology was back instead astrology since I have such a lumpy head!
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Hblair,
I hope you understand, I am not attempting to prove there was a hierarchical government to the church, rather that there was a connectional nature to the church and that the Jerusalem Assembly was not a one time event, rather that that was a normative pattern.
Controversies that arise in the church are to be decided by the elders of the church working together in the Spirit to determine what the Word says on the matter. Hence the great work done in the first 6 eccumenical counsels. Doctrinal decisions are not to be solely the realm of "Me and my Bible" but that rather as Prov. 11:14 puts it "Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety." This also applies in the case of church discipline, it is not "disfellowship them yourself" but rather the final step is: "tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector" (Matthew 18:17)
I agree in that the eldership of the congregation should be governing the body. I take it you are a member of the presbyterian church. I'm not very familiar with presbeteryians. Do you practice church discipline and disfellowship if necassary? This is unfortunately a rarety in todays religious world.
Originally posted by Seagoon
The doctrine of orginal sin doesn't hail from Calvin (1509-1564) or even the Reformation. Augustine (354-430) includes a huge section on his dispute with Pelagius showing how the doctrine of Original Sin is biblical and was taught by all the Church fathers. In fact he states that he is amazed that Pelagius could even have doubted it. Augustine for instance says "even if there were in men nothing but original sin, it would be sufficient for their condemnation. For however much heavier will be their condemnation who have added their own sins to the original offense (and it will be the more severe in individual cases, in proportion to the sins of individuals); still, even that sin alone which was originally derived unto men not only excludes from the kingdom of God, which infants are unable to enter, unless they have received the grace of Christ before they die, but also alienates from salvation and everlasting life, which cannot be anything else than the kingdom of God, to which fellowship with Christ alone introduces us. "
This forum isn't really set up or intended for weighty theological discourse, so answering point by point is going to be impossible. But please note that the idea that all men have inherited the fallen and sinful nature of Adam has been (with the exception of the Pelagians and those follwing them) the almost universal confession of Christian theologians and certainly the confession of almost all of the Protestant denoms including the SBC for instance. The interpretation of Psalm 51:5 that you are employing is novel and doesn't withstand exegetical scrutiny. Iniquity ("Avon") in that passage is reflexive and climaxes the fivefold "My" in verses 1-3. It is just not exegetically coherent that David would be using the phrases: "My Transgressions" (verse 1)
"my iniquity ,my sin (verse 2)
"my transgressions, my sin" (verse 3)
And then switch to speaking of the world of sin, rather than speaking of the origin and root of "my sins" and the confession of being sinful from the beginning.
Interesting points seagoon. I will look further into what you are talking about. It is my understanding that calvinism was when the belief in "original sin" really took off. So what you are saying is that it was actually 300 years after the inspired word was penned. A serious question, Why do you think something like this is not be mentioned clearly in the inspired scripture, but actually comes about hundreds of years later from men?
Originally posted by Seagoon
Just wondering, before I deal with this, did you click on the section of Miller I sent? I'd rather not further test the patience of this long-suffering Board by rehearsing arguments he makes better if it isn't necessary.
No, I haven't yet, but I will. I'll try to read it later today, possibly tonight. This board doesn't have to read all this stuff. Thanks for taking time to give detailed answers. It is clear you have spent time in study. Are you a minister? That's the only way you could possibly have the time. ;)
Originally posted by Seagoon
PS: Also just wondering which denomination you are affiliated with (or if you are non-denominational if you have a website for your church).
I'm a member of the church of Christ, for four years. Was raised in the baptist church. Here's the website (http://www.eastgadsdenchurchofchrist.org/) for the congreagtion I attend. I just noticed it needs to be updated. I've been a deacon for almost a year lol.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Dogma fight! Dogma fight!
Yeah!!!
And burn Nuke!!!
:D
-
Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
LOL! You forgot about astrology, which is every bit as crappy as the others, with the bonus of still being quite popular and annoying. It can be a real kok-blocker if your stupid chart doesn't line up right! I wish phrenology was back instead astrology since I have such a lumpy head!
Ahh an educated man I see.
I think my joke fell flat as no one else here had any idea what Phrenology is.
Salute my scholarly friend.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Ahh an educated man I see.
I think my joke fell flat as no one else here had any idea what Phrenology is.
Salute my scholarly friend.
Thank you!
I beleive that an education is very important. A simple course in elementary logic would do wonders around here, as most can't identify a basic fallacy. I see alot of circular arguments, bifurcations, false dilemmas, and my favorite phallacy of all, the (argumentum ad hominem)....LOL! So, for all you kids out there, pick up a book on elementary logic! Win arguments! Impress your friends! Most importantly, dont fall victim to BS! LOL!
At least Phrenology is pretty much dead. The residue of Physiognomy is still alive and well, but maybe that is because it falls under natural judgment instict, maybe a bit archetypal, not shure.
-
Hi Hblair,
I'm guessing that this conversation is going to get a little on the esoteric side for some of the readers, but hopefully it will remain more intelligible than the British Political system. ;)
Originally posted by hblair
I agree in that the eldership of the congregation should be governing the body. I take it you are a member of the presbyterian church. I'm not very familiar with presbeteryians. Do you practice church discipline and disfellowship if necassary? This is unfortunately a rarety in todays religious world.
Yes, the Presbyterian Church in America or PCA practices church discipline - they view it as the "third mark" of the true church after the right preaching of the gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments as they were instituted by Christ. For an overview of how this takes place in the PCA you can click here (http://www.pcanet.org/BCO/BCO27-34.htm)
The synopsis though is that the following order is:
Scriptural law is the basis of all discipline because it is the revelation of God’s Holy will.
Proper disciplinary principles are set forth in the Scriptures and must be followed. They are:
a. Instruction in the Word;
b. Individual’s responsibility to admonish one another (Matthew 18:15, Galatians 6:1);
c. If the admonition is rejected, then the calling of one or more witnesses (Matthew 18:16);
d. If rejection persists, then the Church must act through her court unto admonition, suspension, excommunication and deposition (See BCO 29 and 30 for further explanation).
This can only happen after investigation and trial, and the accused if found guilty at the sessional level has two further courts of appeal (the Presbytery and the GA). Excommunication can only occur for "contumacy" in the case of serious charges, i.e. a stubborn unwillingness to repent after being proven guilty.
If I can address your last questions first, yes I am a minister (Teaching Elder in the PCA). I was converted in 1993 from being a practicing occultist, crass sinner, and an all-around shnook. At the time I was converted I was in the computer industry, trying my hardest to work my way up the food chain, and taking seminary courses in my spare time to find out as much as I could about the Christian faith. Eventually, just when I was finally getting into a position where I could move on from Sys Admin. to head of I.T., I finally gave in to the conviction in 1997, that I had a call to the ministry. After receiving visiting several seminaries, my wife and I decided on Westminster Theological Seminary (http://www.wts.edu/) in Philadelphia. During that time I served as a Ruling Elder in a wonderful Korean/American church and eventually earned an M.Div in 2001 after 4 years and received a call to be a church planting Pastor in Fayetteville, NC and was ordained that year. My wife and I will probably never earn as much money as we were in the 90s, but we are richer by far today.
I suspected that you might belong to one of the permutations of the Church of Christ from your doctrinal statements. Its a funny old world, but in a sense the origins of your denomination lie in mine. Let me explain what I mean. In the early 1800s during the period of Revivals that came to be called "The Second Great Awakening" there were a series of "Camp Meetings" took place at Cane Ridge in Kentucky in 1801. Among the preachers there were 2 Scottish Presbyterians, Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. Both of these men, as a result of their experiences at the meetings came to reject Presbyterianism, Reformed theology and indeed the idea of denominations. Stone, Campbell and a group of other ministers from various denominations, started a movement they called "Restorationism" designed to restore the purity of the Apostolic church. The movement became known variously as the Campbellites, Disciples of Christ, and eventually just Church of Christ. While they took much orthodox Christian doctrine with them. The movement definitely bore the stamp of the distinctive theological beliefs of Campbell and Stone, including a denial of the necessity of regeneration, and the belief that holiness was a "moral quality" rather than the work of the holy spirit in sanctifiying the believer.
An excellent review of the roots of Restoration movement in historical and theological context can be found in Church Historian Iain Murray's excellent
Revival and Revivalism (http://www.cvbbs.com/inventory.php?target=indiv&search_back=keywords%3D%26searchstyle%3Dadvanced%26page%3D1%26session%3D9b7dda45cfd5f89a9c47fc8c6b1d9a64%26title_keyword%3DRevival%26isbn_keyword%3D%26publisher_keyword%3D%26author_keyword%3D%26sort_by%3DAUTHOR&bookid=2391) which gives a great overview of both of the "great awakenings." Mark Noll also tackles the period very well (although far more generally in his History of Christianity in the United States and Canada.
This period of American church history was an interesting one to say the least. The denominations and creeds of the old world were clashing with the new American spirit, especially out on the wild frontier (which at the time was Kentucky, Tennessee and the like). Denominationalism was rejected in favor of independency, Creeds were rejected in favor of the principle that each man had the right to frame his own creed, common sense was viewed as far more valuable than "book larnin'" and universities and seminaries were viewed with greater and greater suspicion. Calvinism and the Sovereignty of God in Christian theology particular were falling prey to the "each man his own king" spirit of the frontier and the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" approach to life. To say that this new spirit was incompatible with a belief that Salvation was monergistic i.e. entirely the gracious work of God would be a major understatement. Enlightenment rationalism was also having a profound effect on theology, heightening the emphasis on the moral dimension of Christianity while deemphasizing the mystical components, especially in regards to soteriology. It was during this period of religious and social upheval and change, that the majority of distinctively American religions and sects, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and Mormons got started, as men and women left the major denoms to found their own movements.
Interesting points seagoon. I will look further into what you are talking about. It is my understanding that calvinism was when the belief in "original sin" really took off. So what you are saying is that it was actually 300 years after the inspired word was penned. A serious question, Why do you think something like this is not be mentioned clearly in the inspired scripture, but actually comes about hundreds of years later from men?
You ask a good question, and are definitely working from the right principle, i.e. that scripture alone must form the foundation for all our doctrines, but this is a doctrine that predates Augustine, being explicitly stated in the writings of both Tertullian and Cyprian in the 2nd Century. But I would hold that the reason for that is because it is taught in scripture. Take a look at universal statements of Ephesians 2:1-3 and the consequent necessity of regeneration in verses 4-10. Also take a look at Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-21, there he speaks specifically of the universal imputation of Adam's Sin to all mankind, and links sin to death ("just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" v.12). Paul even extends the extent of this sin and resulting death to those who have not "sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam" i.e. those who have not actively sinned themselves, a verse Christian expositors have traditional held as logically referring to infants dying in infancy. Paul's entire argument in these verses breaks down if Adam's Sin is not imputed in manner somehow coordinate to the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The actual formula of these verse - in nutshell, is that all are born in Adam, sinful (evidence: Condemnation, Death) and that in Christ many will be made righteous (evidence: Justification, eternal life).
- SEAGOON
-
Hello Seeker,
Sorry I missed this post earlier, I can only say I've been sick as a dog of late.
Originally posted by Seeker
Seagoon; Hblair et al...
Aren't you forgetting the significance of the apolistic rite? The unbroken chain of annointment from Paul? Without it there's no talk of a catholic (with small "C" = orthodox) church?
And Seagoon...
I don't share your beliefs; but I relish your posts. You explain; and don't attempt to indoctrinate; which I find both interesting and refreshing.
You are much too kind my friend, but thank you.
Regarding your point, as you are probably aware, only the Roman Catholic Church (and to a certain extent the Episcopals) claim Apostolic succession usually based on their understanding of Matt. 16. Protestants have historically held that the office of Apostle was an extraordinary office intended to pass away and was not extended beyond the Apostolic age. This would seem to be supported both by church history, the fact that the requirements enummerated by Peter in Acts 1:21-22 (or the direct choice by Christ in the case of Paul in Acts 9) are unrepeatable, and because the office is never discussed as normative and indispensible to church government - especially in the Pastoral Epistles, which are the closest thing we have to a biblical "Book of Church Order."
Rather, Protestants would say that the Rock was not Peter, but Peter's Confession, and that his confession forms the heart of the Gospel. For them, it is unity in Christ and in the universal proclamation of the one gospel that makes the church "Catholic."
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Rather, Protestants would say that the Rock was not Peter, but Peter's Confession, and that his confession forms the heart of the Gospel. For them, it is unity in Christ and in the universal proclamation of the one gospel that makes the church "Catholic."
- SEAGOON
It isn't a Protestant thing. It is surprising how many Early Church Fathers either recognized the rock as either St. Peter's confession or Jesus Christ Himself, and NOT St. Peter. ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If I say "Christian evangelist", do you think of a television preacher or the Catholic Pope?
No, when people say "Christian Evangelist", I think of this guy.
Christian Evangelist (http://www.miggy.net/multimedia/preacher.htm)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If I say "Christian evangelist", do you think of a television preacher or the Catholic Pope?
Both
-
Originally posted by Silat
Both
sure you do ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Typical Christians, can't even get a simple number right... does this mean all those formula to derive 666 from the evil Boosh are wrong too?
Another Religious troll from a moron, how shocking!
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
No, when people say "Christian Evangelist", I think of this guy.
Christian Evangelist (http://www.miggy.net/multimedia/preacher.htm)
ack-ack
Ah yes, Robert Tilton. I'm not sure Mr. Tilton qualifies for the title as he has proved again and again that his god is named "Mammon."
Robert Tilton returns, and his hand is out again (http://www.trinityfi.org/press/tilton2.html)
The Famous Poodle Edition (http://wittenburgdoor.com/godstuff/tilton01.html)
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Regarding your point, as you are probably aware, only the Roman Catholic Church (and to a certain extent the Episcopals) claim Apostolic succession usually based on their understanding of Matt. 16.
There's a movement in Europe to support more interdenominational work and support between the various churches.
A Danish pholosophor; Gruntvig was was of the earlier movers in this; and I know from his writings he was shocked to discover that many of the established protestant churches and the catholic churches simply refused to recognise the Danish "folkkirke" (peoples church; the official state religion) simply due the lack of the rite.
According to English theoligians; Danmark is still a heathern state.