Chazn

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I must confess, I have never had a burden for debating RCs on these "side issues" for fear of getting bogged down. Nevertheless, I've been reading through much of your debate and have found it somewhat educational. I will grant you that. [Quote You must have been very tired because your answers are all wrong! ] Astralis, I have to admit I thoroughly disagree with you. As you're reply to Racer indicates, you would argue that Peter was NOT a great man. Personally I don't see how you could be MORE wrong. What amuses me the most, however, is that this thread started as an attempt to discuss the origins and criterion for determining what is canonical. With all due respecet, it seems that some people have a VERRRRY "high horse" on which that they like to climb. :inlove:

<Hate to burst your bubble, but actually I did, under the heading of "Papal Infallibility" back on July 6, 2002:> Racer, Sorry about that but in light of the fact that I'm merely a recent sojourner to this web sight and saw no mention of the Galatians text anywhere in this thread, I alluded to it. I find it both sad and amusing that RCs attempt to explain away the obvious of this text. It is also interesting that they attempt to use more obscure texts (relative to this and other issues) in an effort to argue their case. To be honest, since all people tend to believe what they want to believe. The question is not "why do you interpret this text this way?" but "what is keeping you from interpreting the text correctly, and without a preset bias?" The issue ceases to be an intellectual issue but a heart issue. If you want to engage in "intellectual" bla bla :blush: go ahead. But I think that God has a preferable way of going about things. He said "If they do not receive your message then shake the dust off your feet."

I'm surprised that in the midst of all of your discussions no one ever presented Gal.2:11 ff to the table. "11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." The context here, points to the fact that Peter, even after the resurrection and pentecost, where he was filled with the Holy Spirit, not only lacked the character that would be necessary to accompany infallibility but was, in his judgement, not infallable. <"You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?> I have neither the time nor inclination to get into the OT texts where attempts have been made to use them as proof texts for the support of this doctrine. Nevertheless the use of these texts for this purpose is really nothing more than a reflection of bad hermaneutics. Munari: I would agree with you that God superintended the writing of the 66 books of the protestant canon. But God certainly did not superintend your interpretation. And I respectfully oppose the RCCs interpretation as well. I recommend, as I have before, that you take a Berean approach to the scriptures and interpret it for yourself in the context out of which they were written, and without having any "leader" (Pope or otherwise) interpret it for you. As far as I am concerned the above text from Galatians says it all... Case Closed. Shoin Genicht. It's all over! Peter was not infallible. Nor were any of his alleged replacements. Again... a beautiful example of the violation of Paul's admonision to abstain from vain speculations, etc.

Astralis, Munari refered to the following verses not you. But I believe they were in context of arguing in favor of the doctrine of purgatory. Lana, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59) Quote Sometimes Protestants object that Jesus told the thief on the cross that, on the very day the two of them died, they would be together in paradise (Luke 23:43), which they read as a denial of purgatory. However, the argument backfires and actually supports purgatory by proving the existence of a state other than heaven and hell, since Jesus did not go to heaven on the day he died. Peter tells us that he "went and preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Pet. 3:19), and, after his resurrection, Christ himself declared: "I have not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17). Thus at that time paradise was located in some third state besides heaven and besides hell. from: http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32) "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15) 18 For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. 19 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, 20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43

Lanakila, thank you for your response. I was troubled that I had neither the time nor the inclination to respond to Munari. Perhaps I'm being somewhat simplistic but God gives us only so much time to do so many things and I think that He would rather me argue about more relevant things (like telling unbelievers about the love of Jesus). Nevertheless, I think that, from the direction that this thread has taken us, we've gone from a discussion of what determines canonicity to the veracity of the doctrine of purgatory. THE APOSTLE PAUL WRITES: But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. (2 Timothy 2:23) and nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. (1 Timothy 1:4). I think that our discussion certainly has led me to the conclusion that Apocryphal literature yields fodder for just such fruitless and conjectural speculations. They do, indeed, produce quarrels and characterize many cultish practices and doctrines which presume upon things that we mortals not only don't know but are called upon to place trustingly into the hands of God. I think that canonicity is indeed discernible but not necessariily agreed upon depending upon the specific herecies one wishes to get behind. e.g. The Apocrypha is canonical for proponents of prayer to the saints and purgatory as well as other such doctrines. The book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price is canonical for proponents of the heretical notion that God is subject to the creation, temporal and we humans can become like Him. The Bible seems to allow for footholds for such speculations. It also provides evidence to the contrary. But it obviously warns against jumping conclusions and violating the above admonissions of Paul. "By grace are we saved through faith, yet not of ourselves LEST ANY OF US SHOULD BOAST. Blessings in the name of the one who died so that we might live.

munari, Your definition of the function of purgatory seems to be somewhat characteristically speculative. Furthermore, I don't see how the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus, in any way, fits your definition. Nevertheless, I still ask... Is there evidence for this doctrine in the NT or anything that utterly refutes it? It seems that, unless otherwise indicated, the NT holds that what happens in one's life while one is alive is what impacts whether a person winds up in heaven or the lake of fire. Hence, pergatory is, at best, conjectural and irrelevent. Again, I ask the question, does "appocrapha" unequivicolly agree with Protestant Canon on this issue?

Racer: I would tend to agree to give close heed to Irenaus. Perhaps I need to back -track on some previous posts but In light of what you just said, what books were in HIS canon (scripture) when he

I silk screened some shirts dealing with the theory of evolution. Two fish were talking to each other. Fish 1 = Ixthus fish Fish 2 = Darwin fish looking somewhat dejected, cut up into 5 or six pieces. Fish 1 "Say where are your missing links?" Fish 2 "Don't worry we'll find them." Fish 1 "Boy you sure have a lot of faith (don't you know you're not supposed to mix science with faith?)" On the back it says "When the theory of evolution becomes a law, I'll stop wearing this shirt." I gave a teenage boy who attends our congregation 10 shirts on the basis that he would find 9 other friends who would agree to wear the shirts at school on the same day. He himself, got into 15 conversations about the Lord in one day! Ideally I'd like to take this strategy and incorporate follow-up and debriefing sessions, but I lack time and focus. I've also been experimenting with bumper stickers that are NOT in English. They're designed to arouse curiosity so that people will call the number below. It's had some limited success but it really needs wide dissemination in the area where I live in order to create an aura that "there's a movement afoot". I do believe it can work. Right now I've only gotten it on about 100 cars. I'm hoping to get it on 1000 cars!

I'd like to do some reading on this, could you tell me which book and chapter I can find it in?

Some maintained that extreme caution must be exercised when using the Septuagint as a text-witness for an ancient Hebrew text-type fundamentally different from the Masoretic version; one must take into account the changes that were made in the course of translation for linguistic, exegetical, and interpretative reasons.

Some good stuff has been posted, thus far. I haven't had the time to read through all of it but that is my intent. The notion of purgatory, it seems, flies in the face of Jesus' account of the Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16). There are probably other canonical NT texts that would refute this notion wouldn't you say? re: praying to the saints... I have a hard time with that one, however, is there any canonical NT text that would either support or refute such a practice? Would such inconsistencies or lack, thereof serve as an argument for or against canonicity? Someone mentioned that the NT supports the notion of a pre-resurrection purgatory. If you can, I'd like to know what those texts are. Thanks

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Astralis, Some Questions: 1. Wouldn't you think that Jeremiah being thrown into a sewage pit qualified him as a recipient of the kind of torture outlined in your quote from Heb.11? 2. Wouldn't the death of Zechariah son of Berekiah (Alluded to in Mt.23:35) of II Chron. qualify under the same criterion established by Heb.11? (By the way, I've always understood that Jesus' quote of Mt. 23:34-36 was His way of saying "You are responsible for the deaths of all the prophets from Gen. to II Chron. (Beginning to end, since II Chron. is the last book of the Jewish OT.) 3. Even with the Deuterocanonical books included, would II Chron. still have been the last book in the Jewish OT? 4. Could you refer to a doctrine or two that might be derived from a Deuterocanonical (interesting term! :-) ) book that would prove to be at variance with contemporary protestant theology? Thanks for your input.

Folks, This is an extremely fundamental question. And is not really an issue for jest! The canon is the collection of books that make up the Bible. As many of you know, the Catholic Bible includes Aprocaphal books in it which carry as much weight authoritatively as the 66 books that make up the "Protestant" Bible. Hence, their Bible contains well over 70 (perhaps 80) books in it. It is imperetive that we have a satisfying explanation (at least for ourselves) as to how these specific 66 books were determined to be canonical. What was the process for determining this and what are the criterion for canonicity. Otherwise we leave a real foothold for the enemy of the Gospel.

I enjoyed reading the article. His perspective gave me a little hope of seeing some exciting "goings on" in the near future, provided the rapture is held off. I do have some difficulties with this article that would require some reconciliation with other known eschatological considerations. If Israel winds up with everything from the Mediteranean to the Euphrates, and, in essence, becomes the sole power in the Middle East as this article implies, why would she need an Anti-Christ to allegedly broker a peace so that she can be made secure? That's just one question that I have. But don't have the time to think through or formulate other such questions. Any comments would be appreciated.

I must admit, I'm somewhat embarrassed to ask this. Nevertheless this is a foundational question. Perhaps one or more of you might know where we got our present canon, how it was decided upon and what are the criterion for determining whether a particular book is or is not canonical? Please keep it clear and simple so that a pea-brain, such as myself can understand. Thanks

Elect writes - "I have a question: Can we expect to get the true scoop on Mormonism from an LDS site? or the truth about Rome from an RC site? or the correct understanding from any site that has been set up to cause us to believe that 'we all worship the same God, and we are all going to Heaven, we are all brothers and sisters(no matter what you believe),etc'.,etc.??" Chazn replies - absolutely not!!! Mormon missionaries will come to your door and throw around jargon that sounds very Christian. Mr. or Mrs. Christian will say "Wow this is a VERY Christian group". Only later on in there visits, after you've gotten comfortable with them, will they start throwing tweeked and wierd doctrine at you. They are fundamentally not Christian!!! Elect writes - "It may be true that we can get some value from reading these sites, but you would have to read between the lines so often in order to see what they are *really* saying." Chazn replies - Again, you're right on the money!!! I forget exactly who it was. I think it was John Stewart Mill who said "BEFORE I DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH YOU, DEFINE YOUR TERMS". No such example of the need for term definitions is any greater than when dialoguing with a member of the LDS. All too frequently they may be saying something that you might agree with but you don't know that their definitions are different. eg: You'll agree with the LDS that "Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same". Question though "What is the Mormon definition of Jehovah? To the Mormon, he's a lesser God than "Elohim"... the son of "Elohim". To the Christian, Johovah IS Elohim. Elect - by the way, thanks for your kind words. I was scanning through the Worthy board posts and there is an EXCELLENT post on this same subject by rwboyd58 at the apologetics topic entitled "Is Mormonism Christian?" regards

I've had some experience with Mormons and Mormonism and have done some reading on the subject. My personal opinion is that some Mormons MAY BE saved... those who are, in fact, naiive about what the actual teachings of the church are. The actual teaching of the Mormon church about God is extremely different than orthodox Biblical Christianity. 1. Orthodox Biblical Christianity teaches: God is eternal and created all things. - Mormonism teaches: The universe and all of its components are eternal and God was made from the stuff that is the universe. 2. Orthodox Biblical Christianity teaches: There is only one God... the creator of all things. - Mormonism teaches: the "God" of point "1" is very far removed from us and is essentially one of an ALMOST infinite number of Gods who fathers succeeding Gods. Our God is "Elohim", the father of "Jehovah" who is one and the same with Jesus. Elohim had a father, who had a father, who had a father... etc. ad infintum. Whoever (or whatever) created the first in that chain of Gods is beyond me maybe it was God. In essence, Mormonism is polytheistic. 3. Orthodox Christianity teaches - In the life to come we will worship God. Moronism teaches - You too, can become a god. 4. Orthodox Christianity teaches - We are saved by grace through faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Messiah, Jesus. Good works eminate from us through the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Mormonism teaches - (as I understand it) the cross is not sufficiant to save us. We still need to demonstrate good works. 5. Orthodox Christianity teaches - Jesus IS God... one with the Father and Spirit in substance... unique in function. Mormonism teaches - The Father, Son, and Holy GHOST (not spirit) are three completely separate entities. 6. Christianity - God is personal and without form Mormonism - God is personal and embodied in human form. 7. Christianity - God is omnipotent Mormonism - God is limited in power 8. Christianity - God is omniscient Mormonism - God is limited in knowledge 9. Christianity - God is omnipresent Mormonism - God is localized in space. 10 Christianity - God does not change Mormonism - God does change. 11. Christianity - God is self-existing. Mormonism - God needs the universe and His predessors (sp?) in order to exist. Note: When one worships "God" it is imperitive that it be the "right" GOD. If you and I were talking and you told me that you had talked with "SUE" the other night, it would be easy for me to assume that you were talking about the same "SUE" that I knew... that is until I discovered that you were talking about Sue Skolnick and not Sue Adams. The same is true with God. Mormonism does not worship the God of the Christian Bible. This holds for Mormonism, Islam, or any cult. Lest I be politically incorrect, I submit that "their Gods are no God's at all".

An artical was posted by Worthy News which was an eschatological speculation by a somewhat reputable theologian (whose name escapes me) concerning the outcome of this present conflict. He posited that Israel, in light of Ps. 83, will be at war with, not only the Palestinians but Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. He expressed belief that at the end of the conflict Israel will own everything from the Mediterranian to the Iraqi border. This sounds good and I would like to see that, but I see an inconsistency in this scenario if Israel is supposed to rely on the anti-Christ for the maintainence of her security. Does anyone have a Biblical way of reconciling the scenario posited with the advent of the anti-Christ? Otherwise, it seems more likely that the Anti-Christ would have to step in and stop this mess (temporarily) in the relatively near future without Israel experiencing any personal victory. To me this seems like the more plausible scenario since Israel's strength (and salvation) must ultimately come from the LORD.