Jump to content

choir loft

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by choir loft

  1. You are quite right here. Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid. Yet I have often heard grace preached on the grounds that it does indeed justify our pet sins fetishes and licentiousness. The LAW has become a four letter word among many Christians because they are being taught to disdain the LAW. "We are saved by grace, not law," they say. But they are using a twisted version of God's Word to justify their sin. LAW is given to convict of sin. Without it the process of redemption cannot begin in the heart of man. Grace cannot abide in an old wineskin of sin, yet many today teach that very thing. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  2. Authorship of the book of Hebrews has been in contention for millennia. It should be noted, however, that those who examine the literary style on its own merits generally believe it is consistent with the writing style of other known Pauline epistles. Those who disagree with its authorship cite evidence that Paul did not write Hebrews. This contrary evidence is itself questionable because cited 'evidence' is only the opinion of others who also doubt Paul's authorship. Do you agree with scoffers or do you agree with God's Word? "I did not come to abolish the LAW. I came to fulfill it." - Jesus as quoted by Matthew 5:17 You would throw out the baby with the bath water - as do most evangelicals when they consider the LAW. Which part of the LAW did Jesus come to fulfill? Do you know? Why did He come into the world? hint: 1 Timothy 1:15 Jesus came into the world to die for our sins. Hence the LAW, which required a death in payment for sin, is fulfilled by Christ. In Exodus and Leviticus, animal sacrifice was specified to TEMPORARILY satisfy the sacrifice for sin. The problem with this exercise is that animals, like humans, are mortal. As a result, animal sacrifices had to be performed continually and constantly. See the book of Hebrews, Exodus and Leviticus as well as all four gospels and the book of Revelation. Jesus is the passover lamb - killed for our benefit to absolve us of guilt and sin before God. When Paul wrote Hebrews 8:13 the temple still existed. It hadn't been pulled down by the Romans and animal sacrifices were still being performed - unnecessarily I may add. This is why Paul wrote that the LAW (regarding animal sacrifice) was obsolete. Can you read also that Paul wrote that it was passing away? This is internal evidence that Paul's words were put to paper sometime prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (circa 70AD) Jesus' sacrifice fulfills the LAW completely because of His immortal nature. It is no longer necessary to appeal to God for a sacrifice for sin because Jesus did it one time for all time. The blood of Jesus is immortal and perfect as opposed to the blood of animals, which is imperfect by its temporary nature. Jesus fulfilled the LAW by dying. He did NOT abolish it. He fulfilled it with His own blood. THE LAW STILL STANDS. Why do you protest O man? Do you not know that Jews are the oracle of God who have received heaven's good Word for salvation and good works? Jews are a people separated by God for service to Him - so as to receive from heaven and dispense blessings to all men everywhere. Do you not know that God intends His blessings to be passed onto all the families of man? (Genesis 12:3) Do you not know that Gentiles are not required to follow Jewish tradition diet and ceremony? Ancient Israel was a theocracy - subject to severe interpretations and execution of Jewish moral LAW. Do you know what a theocracy is? Look it up. Why do the heathen rage against the LAW? They wail because that part which DOES apply to all men defines sin and wickedness (10 commandments) and they do not like to see their own guilt before God. Salvation begins in the LAW. Without it no one can be saved. The purpose of the LAW is to convict of sin and evoke repentance. Repentance leads to salvation which leads to the gift of divine grace. Grace in turn enables one to live according to the LAW so as to please God. Grace is not a license to sin as many today believe. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LICENSE TO SIN. The LAW still stands. Thank God for giving us His Torah (LAW). that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  3. You are all over the map with your protestations - mostly out of bounds of the lines I've drawn. But you must justify your own ignorance and so I'm not surprised to read your twisted version of my writing. To be clear I didn't say I couldn't stand the Trinity. I defined its invention by means of history. Look it up on your own. The NT isn't very definitive regarding the Trinity at all. Constantine was instrumental in defining the current doctrine of the Trinity and insisted upon its inclusion in Christian doctrine. In that sense, current definition isn't Biblical. It's Roman. Look it up. It isn't me. I didn't oppose Communion either. I did say that its misinterpreted. The Last Supper wasn't a typical evening meal. It was a seder. Do you know what a seder is? Look it up. A seder is observed during one season each year - Pesacah. Bread and wine (REAL alcoholic wine, btw - not pasteurized grape juice [*] ) are part of the seder. When the ceremonial meal came to partaking of the bread and wine, Jesus redefined the meaning of those parts. Jesus didn't institute communion or the seder. He observed it and explained it. Christians who are full of their own doctrine do not realize the importance and meaning of the words they read. The Roman Catholic church seized on this part of the ceremony and institutionalized it. They denied references to Liberty and Freedom and converted a simple meal shared among members of a family. The church restricted it to dispensation by ordained priests only and participation in a Christianized ceremony only. That, dear fellow, is history and Christian dogma - not Biblical. Look it up. It isn't me. I have not attacked the efficacy of the blood of Christ in any way. Unfortunately you have obfuscated the issue to your own advantage. Most Christians use the term and phrase as a religious slogan or buzz word and do not understand the power and meaning behind the blood of Christ. Many do not even understand why Jesus went to the cross. I pity your lack of vision. Finally the doctrine of hell is an invention of the church. The Bible doesn't support the myth at all. There is no such thing as hell. What happens when a man dies? According to the Tanakh (Old Testament) sheol, or the grave, is the end of a man's life. That's it and that's all. The OT is not well defined about it at all. There is a hint of resurrection, which was expanded upon by the pharisees, but in fact all the expansion on the subject happens in the NT. No part of a human survives physical death. Let's take a closer look at the history of the myth and then see what the Bible says about it. Ancient Egypt developed the first idea of an afterlife and incorporated it into their own religion and tombs. The Greeks followed the idea and expanded upon it with their own mythology and pantheon of gods as did the Romans who got most of their pagan pantheon from the Greeks. Christendom adopted the Roman ideology and made it part of its own ideology. St. Augustine is credited as being one of the first major theologians to define the Christian fantasy of the afterlife. During the middle ages the doctrine was popularized by secular writers such as Dante Aligheri. The ironic thing about Dante's DIVINE COMEDY is that Dante intended the entire work to be a satire on secular life and politics. The work became quite popular and as people often do - believed it when in fact it wasn't true at all. The work is in three sections of which INFERNO is taken literally by most as being an absolute description of hell. Even George Lucas adapted one scene from INFERNO in Star Wars episode six. It's just that popular. Myth - not Biblical fact. The Bible says man is mortal. The nature of man is to die. "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal" - Genesis 6:3a "Are my days not few? Leave me that I may have a little comfort before I go - never to return - to a land of darkness and gloom, of darkness deep shadow and disorder, where even light is like darkness." - Job 10:21-22 Job was describing SHEOL and the consequent burial and dissolution of the body in the darkness of the grave hidden away from the light of day. It's rather poetic if you consider the words chosen to describe it. ONLY GOD HAS IMMORTAL LIFE. "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light." - 1 Timothy 6:16 The subject of hell naturally gravitates to final judgment where God reveals the ultimate destiny of all mankind. Sinners are temporarily resurrected from death so as to face their judgment - total and absolute destruction, deletion and annihilation. The Bible never describes eternal torment as a punishment. God kills. God does not torture. Jesus does not manage a torture chamber in the bowels of the earth.......but He does if you believe the Christian myth of hell. Biblical descriptions of the method of destruction/judgment suggest the method endures, but that which is consigned to it is not. When a thing is burned it is destroyed permanently. There is no place in heaven or on earth where a thing is burned continually. Fire consumes. As a personal note: if you find an occurrence in nature where a thing may be burned but not consumed please let me know. I'd like to try it in my car. The really wonderful thing about Our Lord is that He has chosen to pass HIS immortal life on to humans - a class of created being that by and of its nature is consigned to the same destiny as any plant or animal of earth. Is this not the grandest thing anyone has ever heard? Over the centuries millions have agreed and came to Christ to be saved. Mostly they aren't concerned about church myths. They just want to live. As do I. The caveat to eternal life is that one must accept God's gift. It isn't automatic and it isn't granted to everyone. It is indeed offered to everyone, but most reject it. (John 3:19 & Matthew 7:13) As to being persuaded of cultish ideas, I accept your accusation. According to the Bible, early believers were also accused of the same thing. Apparently I am in good company. What company do you follow if not the original - cult? that's me, hollering from the choir loft... [*] American evangelicals, and some Messianic Jews, are fond of declaring Jesus never drank alcoholic wine. He did, though. When one squeezes the juice out of grapes the natural process of fermentation begins. It is not rot, as some insist, but a chemical reaction that converts natural sugars in the grape to alcohol. The technology to denature the fruit of the vine did not exist until the mid-19th century, when it was invented by a fellow named Louis Pasteur. Look it up. The doctrine of using denatured grape juice in communion is an American fetish and a result of the 19th century Temperance Movement and the Prohibition Era of the early 20th century. It is entirely political in nature and has nothing at all to do with the Bible.
  4. God's Word may be an excellent teacher, but no one is born with the knowledge of how to open God's Word to learn from it. Even Jesus humbled Himself before learned men to learn of the LAW and Prophets. (Luke chapter 2) If it was good enough for Jesus, then who do you think you are? One must be taught how to interpret GOD'S WORD and it is typically the formally educated elder who dispenses the skills to do it. Even your cattle farmer had to learn something from someone. One cannot learn by osmosis - as many teachers tell their students. Your cattle farmer may know bovine excrement, but he knows little else. Expertise in farming, or any other occupation, does not automatically make one an expert on another subject. Would you want your cattle farmer to perform open heart surgery on you? Neither does some Hollywood Oscar winner know anything about the context of the Bible. CAUTION: Your farmer's pithy remarks may impress Biblically illiterate people, but they are not necessarily true or accurate with regard to Biblical interpretation. One must be taught HOW to interpret the passages of Holy Writ. A legitimate teacher has himself been taught by his elders - as was JESUS. Many Christians pridefully consider themselves to be experts in interpretation - to their own shame. Few acknowledge their need to learn - really learn. Look at your church's parking lot and count the cars. Why are there more cars present for worship services than at times when TEACHING is made available (typically Sunday or Wednesday evening)? The majority of those who call themselves Christian are Biblically illiterate - and proud of it ! "It matters very little to me how I am evaluated by you or by any human court" - Paul as written in 1 Corinthians 4:3a The wise man will learn from his elders. The fool will not. Here's a true example of the extent of ignorance - My wife's friend was asked by a church pastor to arrange the dance routines for a Christmas presentation. Pastor asked her to have a religious theme in the dance she was teaching the kids. She didn't know what he meant. He asked her what she knew of Christmas. "Christmas is the day Jesus was born," she said. "New Year's Eve is the Last Supper because December 31st is the last evening of the year. On New Year's Day Jesus' parents (she didn't know their names) held Jesus up in the air before the people and presented Him as their savior." "This presentation isn't THE LION KING," the pastor said. True story. This is exactly what happens when an illiterate fool takes it upon himself or herself to interpret the Bible. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  5. You write the LAW is weak because of the flesh. St. Paul wrote it was obsolete and is passing away.... (Hebrews 8:13) Matthew 5:17 quotes Jesus as saying, "I did not come to abolish the LAW or the prophets. I came to fulfill it." THE QUESTION before us is thus: If the LAW is NOT ABOLISHED and if Christ fulfilled it, then what part of the LAW is weak? Which part of the LAW was becoming obsolete as Paul wrote? No one can be saved apart from the LAW. Why? Sunday school 101 tells us the LAW convicts us of sin. Conviction of sin inspires repentance which in turn leads to forgiveness salvation and the gift of grace. Grace allows us to live according to THE LAW - thus pleasing God. LAW and GRACE thus work together, but what part of the LAW was weak and which part was passing away? The book of Exodus establishes God's remedy for sin. That remedy for the wages of sin is death. Since God desires man to be free of guilt He established the LAW which not only convicts of sin, but provides a sacrifice for it. In Exodus and again in Leviticus the sacrifice for sin was the death of animals. Death pays for the sins of a sinner because the life of a creature is in its blood. Unfortunately the LAW as written in Exodus is imperfect BECAUSE animal blood is temporary. Animal sacrifice was required continually because an animal is mortal. Animal sacrifice had to be performed again and again. Jesus' sacrifice is permanent because of Jesus' immortal nature - because Jesus IS God. The death of Christ is therefore a perfect fulfillment of the LAW, not the abolition of it. The LAW still stands in all its weight and power. When Paul wrote the LAW was passing away, animal sacrifices were still being performed in the Jerusalem temple. He knew the meaning of Jesus' words quoted by Matthew. The perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross is only needed once and applies perpetually because of His immortal nature. Also because of His immortal nature He is able to impute His righteousness and His life to those who accept it - also according to Exodus. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LICENSE TO SIN. When folks use grace as an excuse to sin, dogmatically stating they're saved by grace not LAW, they are speaking error. Why? Because they know neither LAW nor GRACE nor how God expects them to live - according to the LAW enabled by GRACE. Jews do not understand GRACE and hold to tradition which cannot save. Christians do not understand LAW and hold to doctrine which cannot save either. Both stumble over Christ who is the cornerstone of human redemption. I once attended a Baptist church hosting a guest speaker. The sermon was delivered by the Dean of a local Bible college and the subject was grace. At the end of the sermon he said, "go out and sin this week that grace may abound." One way or another God will have an end to SIN. Either it will end in a sinner's repentance or it will end in a sinner's death ! The LAW defines it and Grace never allows for it. The LAW still stands and GRACE is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to be liberally applied to any filthy thing one wants to put his hand upon. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  6. Now I ask this of you; will you admit to God's LAW as an absolute and true definition of sin or will you reject it? that's me, hollering from the choir loft....
  7. Did I attempt to attain credibility? No. Did you actually read my words? No. I wrote that nobody cares. So it is and so they do not. Do I expect you to be impressed? I do not. I don't even expect you to seriously consider church history as the basis of the post modern gospel. I seriously doubt you studied anything at all of church history, church doctrine or that you understood your own experience - if indeed you aren't misrepresenting that too. Many false prophets lived and taught in Israel. Residence and religious articulation do not qualify one as being a servant of the Most High. Secular pagan influences affected church doctrine from the beginning of the cult (as it was called by Jews and gentiles alike - or weren't you aware of that?). The Nicene Creed, for example, was called into existence by the Roman emperor Constantine. Because Constantine financed the travel and lodging of Christian bishops to the convention site, his influence on matters such as the doctrine of the Trinity (which Paul never spoke of, btw) was considerable. A fist fight even broke out during the convention between Arias and a bishop of the city of Lycia - Nicholas by name. Bishop Nicholas was later renamed by American retail interests into the present demigod of holiday commercialism, Santa Claus. Neither Constantine nor Nicholas deferred to Pauline doctrine with regard to the Trinity. It's basically a pagan ideology adopted by the church. Another major pagan dogma is that of hell, which doesn't exist and isn't mentioned at all by Paul or any other Biblical writer. Church influences on the doctrine beginning with Augustine are based upon Greek myth and Egyptian religion NOT the Bible. Other issues such as evolution, the rapture and the idea of global proselytization prior to the second coming of Christ are all pagan or secularized versions of Christian doctrine NOT found or justified by scripture. Christian communion is yet another aberration of scripture. It's a paganized version of the Jewish seder, celebrated once a year not every week. The aberrations of church dogma go on and on. Even slavery global war and the holocaust have been and continue to be justified by the church. Don't dishonor the memory of St. Paul by claiming he backed those obscene ideas. He did not. I can go on and argue each item of church doctrine NOT based upon the Bible, but the main point I wish to make here is that the church has abandoned the LAW as the bedrock of salvation. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LICENSE TO SIN. Today anybody and everybody is supposed to be saved regardless of their relationship with Christ. Doctrinal grace now justifies licentiousness of every imaginable sort, but because the church has abandoned the LAW as a basis for Biblical interpretation the gospel has become a joke. As are your points - each and every one. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  8. My references are in accord with accepted forms of definition and purpose. In my opinion, specific individual intellectual aberrations are invalid. Using hypotheticals to justify lies and innuendo are not appropriate to discern truth from anywhere, especially the Bible. Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. - Adolph Hitler Our (American) society has become infected with the lies and deceptions of fools - reinforced from the pulpit. Unless and until we realize the hard and fast and unchangeable advantages to God's LAW we will continue to circle the drain of self-destruction. Past civilizations that preferred to justify their own sins and wickedness by means of philosophy eventually collapsed. As will our own. When, not if, it happens those who employed private philosophies to deflect their guilt of sin will not know what hit them. and God will laugh at them..... (I will laugh when disaster strikes you; I will mock when calamity overtakes you. - Proverbs 1:26) As to my acceptance or rejection of your favorite intellectual poison, I believe I've made my position clear. Can you not even understand a simple yes or no? It is my purpose here to generate consideration of the advantages of the unchangeable character of God's LAW as being superior to that of human philosophy that changes with every passion of the flesh. Now I ask this of you; will you admit to God's LAW as an absolute and true definition of sin or will you reject it? that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  9. Church doctrine has been and continues to be very loosely connected to FEW teachings of the Bible including but not limited to Paul. There is, by the way, the entire Old Testament that most Christians disallow. Considering the whole volume, Paul did NOT write the bulk of Biblical text. These pages are proof positive of the varying degrees of interpretation that have resulted from two thousand years of "political correctness" as it were. People have been and continue to be killed as a result of attention paid to the words of Holy Writ. Flame wars here are pretty dull stuff in comparison but still of the same spirit. I'm not referring to your particular point of view, but that of Christendom in general - the big picture generally speaking. I see by your venomous retort that you refuse to understand what I'm trying to point out here - and THAT TOO is part of the problem. Everyone here is so busy defending their own particular version of what God's Word says that they absolutely refuse to consider the big picture. Again, the big picture, as I mean it, is the devaluation perturbations and obfuscations of original intent of the Bible. To wit: the unchangeable nature of God's LAW as opposed to the philosophically based doctrines favored by the church. Oh and by the way I hold a Masters Degree in Theology, which consisted of formal education in a certified institution and which suggests to no one in particular that I do indeed know what I'm writing about. I'm also well aware that this formal training means nothing to self-important persons who's private musings are more important to them than any other perspective. This is why I didn't go on to doctoral studies. "What a fool believes no wise man can reason away." - WHAT A FOOL BELIEVES, Doobie Brothers song of the year 1988 Instead of accusing me of stupidity, I submit you weigh the words and intent I'm attempting to share here. A wise man will do so. A fool will not. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  10. I'm not afraid to engage an answer, just unwilling to join you in your intellectual sewage. Like it or not, here is my answer. I assume you'll choke on it. So be it. Merriam-Webster definition of modus tollens states it is, "a mode of reasoning from a HYPOTHETICAL proposition." (italics mine) Either you do not understand the simple difference between a hypothetical premise and a statement of fact - or - you are deliberately rejecting it. I assume the latter. A hypothetical is a device used to manipulate an argument, illustrate a point or seduce the unwary into SIN. Philosophy, therefore, is based on shifting perceptions augmented by fanciful allusions (hypotheticals). A hypothetical is a mind game. A head trip in self-delusion and cousin to lies and deception. It is partially true and subjectively false, which I believe is why you love it so much. Anyone who uses logic will refrain from deference to hypotheticals. Hypotheticals are the language of hell - the logic of the devil, justification of SIN and denial of God Almighty. The LAW of God is neither a fantasy nor supposition. It is a fixed point in God's definition of SIN and human behavior as He expects it. It is objective logic. It is A HIGHER LAW. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  11. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. - Jesus as quoted by Luke 21:24 Speculation as to the meaning of Jesus' words is usually based upon traditional Christian anti-semitic dogma. It is a refusal to acknowledge two important matters of historic significance: the resurrection of the nation of Israel and the restoration of its capital city to Jewish control. First, the modern State of Israel is a resurrected form of the Jewish homeland described in the Bible and predicted by the prophet Ezekiel as well as the Jewish Son of God - Yeshuah. Second, that the political and military control of the Jewish capital city of Jerusalem is pivotal in End Times eschatology. Christian attitude and doctrines that Jews in particular and the Jewish nation in general have been rejected by God and may therefore be justifiably rejected by man have been part of church doctrine since the early centuries of Christendom. Its known by several names such as Replacement Theology, Supersessionism, etc. In point of fact, God has never rejected either the Jewish people or Jewish LAW. (Matthew 5:17) The result of this errant dogma has been a persecution of Jews by Christians greater than any other religious or national group including but not limited to Islam. * * * In 70AD the Jewish nation was destroyed. Key in this historic event was the destruction of the capital city of Jerusalem. The city did not enjoy Jewish administration for another two thousand years until its liberation in June of 1967. It was quite literally "trampled on by the Gentiles". Using this key event in history, one may correctly conclude that the Times of the Gentiles are over - as of June 1967. To support and expand upon this assertion one may only look at history since the late 1960's. Using Mosaic LAW, specifically the LAW with regard to the JUBILEE one can clearly understand the pattern of events in the world since the liberation of Jerusalem. According to the LAW, Jubilee is a period of restoration. During restoration all debts are forgiven - cleared to zero. All slaves are freed. All real estate previously traded or sold reverts to its original owner or owner family. No land is to be cultivated. Numerous other details are included in Jubileac rules, but the point to the observance is that ALL THINGS ARE RESTORED. Some Christian theologians rightly deduce the recent liberation of Jerusalem is a certification of the JUBILEE of 1967 - a restoration of the nation's capital to the Jewish people. But these same theologians fail to consider the full extent of JUBILEE throughout the world. If JUBILEE means a restoration of the homeland and capital to the Jewish people, IT ALSO MEANS restoration of pagan ideologies habits attitudes and behavior to those people who had lost it. The great apostasy of the church predicted in the Bible is a reflection and extension of the LAW of JUBILEE. If Israel is restored, it necessarily follows that the church will wither and return to its pagan roots - lose sight of and inspiration of its Biblical point of origin. In point of fact, this is exactly what we've been witnessing in the last fifty years or so. I've personally witnessed trends over the years that didn't fit any explanation offered by anyone EXCEPT that of the JUBILEE influence. According to PEW and Gallup polls, regular church attendance defined as one trip to church per month has drastically fallen. Using 1948 attendance figures as a benchmark, regular attendance in churches as of 2010 has fallen to 50% of 1948 levels. Projections of this trend indicates attendance will fall to 10% by the year 2050. When I was in the Navy traveling abroad in the late 1960's people were generally open to the gospel, even when I visited Peru. While in Panama I heard stories from missionaries to Muslim lands that were favorable to their work. But night has fallen and the work is failing...... Twenty years later I began to hear reports from disgruntled missionaries to the same S.A. areas saying the people there had reverted to their pagan beliefs and rejected the gospel. Since 911 the ballistic rise in popularity of Islam has taken everyone off guard. Even Muslim imams can't explain it. Five years ago I heard statements from Christian missionaries to Japan that interest in Christianity was faltering because the Japanese people were experiencing a fundamental return to their ancestral beliefs; Confucianism, Buddhism, ancestor worship as well as other -isms. In America, fascism has become the religion of the land (Corporatism wedded with endless militarism). Christianity has become an illegitimate popular joke. Christian leaders no longer enjoy an automatic respect from society as they once did. The rise of modern Messianic Judaism since June 1967 seems to parallel the early church. The public view of Messianics (Jews & gentiles who accept Yeshuah as Son of God) is nearly identical with the perception of the early church - that it's another cult not recognized as legitimate either by gentiles or Jews. In summation, it isn't just Israel that's come back to life. Paganism is experiencing a surge of popularity and acceptance too. Christians don't seem to want to recognize either the validity of the State of Israel or the fact that their own religious edifice is crumbling - or why. The reason is the JUBILEE effect. The Bible in general and Jesus in particular predicted the restoration of all things. All things means all things, boys and girls - not just godly things. The times of the gentiles are over. The time of the Jews and their King have come. The second coming of Jesus Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of this restoration process - the restoration of mankind to its creator. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  12. There is no such thing as good philosophy. According to Merriam-Webster definition, the first on the list btw, philosophy is: "all learning EXCLUSIVE of technical precepts and practical arts". (italics mine) In other words, philosophy is NOT based upon truth. Want more? Merriam-Webster definition second on the list states, "sciences and liberal arts EXCLUSIVE of medicine, law, and theology". (italics mine) Your statement that good philosophy, whatever that may be, is based upon truth is absolutely false according to normative definitions. Philosophy may seek truth, but once found the quest becomes something else. It becomes LAW. Truth can be discovered, but once found it demands a response on the part of the seeker. Truth is LAW. The only remaining question thus asks, "who decides which philosophy is good or bad?" You have refused to address this question and have rejected my obvious answer - philosophy is defined by the individual (for the individual's justification) and/or by society so as to justify social behavior (ergo SIN). The TRUTH you claim to adhere to also states that the heart and mind of man is entirely corrupt. If the heart and mind of man is corrupt, then it follows ANY philosophy invented by man is also corrupt and by its nature NOT GOOD. THE ONLY standard by which man can measure appropriate behavior before God and man is the LAW, otherwise defined as the Law of Moses or the moral LAW. One cannot be saved by philosophy because it is corrupt and incapable of identifying SIN. The very purpose of THE LAW is to convict of SIN, to provide a standard by which man can know that which God hates. I submit that you refuse to acknowledge the veracity of the LAW because you presume to justify SIN, which can easily be accomplished by appeals to philosophy (which can be redefined at the whim of any man or society). that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  13. You have not stated how or who is qualified to define what is good philosophy or what is bad philosophy. You haven't done so because it's an impossible task. It's impossible because philosophy is changeable. It's definition and use is dependent upon the individual or popular society. Therefore it is an inaccurate measure at best. The LAW of God is not changeable. It isn't affected by the politics of the day or by personal preference. This is the reason for difficulties with church doctrine and aberrations in national politics. Philosophy can justify slavery (by church doctrine of the 18th century) as well as genocide (as in the US government policy of murder of Native Americans or the German Final Solution or mass murder of Jews). Everything the Nazis did was legal according to their philosophy. Who said Nazi legal philosophy was bad? It was the combined military opposition to German aggression, not any sort of social conscience of the German, Russian, American or English people. More than sixty million people DIED as a result of the conflict between opposing philosophies. God's LAW is not affected by human hubris and passion and politics as is philosophy. You stated some philosophy is based on truth. I'd go further than that and say all of it is. There is a nugget of truth in every thought of man - as is every lie of the devil. Our problem is to define how much or how little philosophy is to be allowed to dilute the truth we accept, not whether it's good or bad. Consider a plate of brownies. One may use brownie mix to make a delicious confection. What if one added a teaspoon of dog poo to the mix before baking? How about a half teaspoon or quarter teaspoon? How much or how little would you tolerate when you put one of those brownies into your mouth? Philosophy is the dog poo of religious doctrine and teaching. How much do you swallow and why? that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  14. I wouldn't go so far as to assign a percentage of Christian doctrine vs. Pauline teaching. Such a guesstimate would require a considerable amount of scholarly work, which would be wasted on the bulk of believers anyway. People have fixed ideas about what is or is not worthy of their beliefs. Most of the time it has little to do with Biblical teaching or church doctrine. The idea that 99% of present Christian doctrine or even the majority of it is based upon Pauline teachings is inaccurate and absurd. Political correctness (pc) determines doctrinal ideology, not Biblical standards nor Papal bulls. For example, Paul clearly teaches that women ought not hold positions of leadership, that they shouldn't teach anything or even that they should speak during the assembly of believers. By today's standards, Paul & the Word of God is a result of sexist male chauvinism. I don't agree with that opinion, but it's the standard today nonetheless. Paul teaches that church leaders should be the husband of one wife, but that is contrary to the current policy of the Roman Catholic church. Most Christians are Catholics, btw. The idea that a leader should be married to a woman is also contradictory to today's pc ideas. Single sex marriage is accepted, despite clear Biblical teaching against it. The Methodist church, for example, openly embraces the gay life style and flies the gay flag on their properties. In other words, the church has corrupted Biblical teaching and rejected it outright. In Christendom, the ceremony of Communion varies widely in every denomination. Nobody mentions that the gentile ceremony is based on the Jewish seder - observed once a year during Pesach. Instead they wrongly teach Jesus insisted it be observed during weekly or monthly worship services. The form of Communion as observed by Christians has nothing to do with the Jewish seder or Jesus' intent at that time. Christian doctrines certifying communion are based upon European and American ideology, not the Bible. Among American protestants grape juice is substituted for alcoholic wine. Some even use water instead of juice. The practice is linked to American political history, not Biblical standards or teaching. In the mid-19th century the Temperance movement gained traction in America, which resulted in Prohibition - the illegal production distribution or consumption of alcoholic beverages. Despite the passage of the 21st amendment to the constitution, protestant denominations as well as non-denominational churches, STILL observe prohibition in their ceremonies and doctrines. The current teaching suggests grape juice was used instead of wine during the Biblical period, BUT it isn't mentioned at all that the technology for denaturing wine did NOT exist prior to the mid-19th century. Denatured wine is processed by pasteurization - invented by Louis Pasteur. None of this has anything to do with the Bible, but it is taught as gospel anyway. I can go further concerning controversial doctrines of the millennium, rapture, tribulation, the false doctrine of hell and every aberration of church doctrine of which there are very many. Jewish tradition does not allow for admitting Yeshuah (Jesus) is the anointed ha-mashiach (messiah or christ). Tradition doesn't consider belief. Consequently its entirely possible for a Jew to believe Jesus rose from the dead and not accept Him as part of their tradition. Jewish tradition doesn't even allow for the admission of the existence of God. Its mandate is only ceremonial observance and nothing more. Jewish tradition does not imply or require belief - normally. This is the chief difference between Jewish and Christian religious systems. Christian doctrine does not admit Jesus is a Jew or that the Bible is a religious book written by JEWS for JEWS. The Christian religious system is one of belief, not tradition. To be sure there are a lot of ceremonial acts involved, but belief is definitely separate from action or tradition. It is entirely possible for a member of an organized crime family to be a devout believer, while at the same time to be a hardened murderer, drug lord, con artist, thief or politician. Christian belief does not imply or require action - normally. This is the chief difference between Jewish and Christian religious systems. Without religious tradition, the early church found itself drawn to philosophy to interpret its belief system. Philosophy is diametrically opposed to observance of the LAW. In point of fact, most Christians will almost become visibly nauseous when the LAW is mentioned - despite the fact that none of them can begin to be saved without it. I could write a book about the issues of the church which do NOT have anything to do with Pauline teaching at all. Our problem today is that most Christians are illiterate about such matters and rely upon buzz words and religious slogans which they presume to be Biblical and which in fact are not. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  15. A new generation has arisen in the land that knows not God. Neither do they uphold the LAW of God. Not knowing the LAW and not being taught it, many Christians AS WELL AS atheistic young people, embrace an ungodly form of licentiousness they call grace - or simply do as they please. BE ADVISED: This new attitude is called "NO HIGHER LAW." Have you heard of it? Ask around. I didn't invent the thing. The 'no higher law' attitude is particularly embraced by young people of high school age as well as young adults. Like all false philosophy it masks itself as popular truth. In reality its a restatement of the original lie spoken by the tempter in the garden of Eden in Genesis chapter 3 verse 5. "God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." I'm informed the Hebrew idiom may more accurately be translated as "you shall be gods unto yourselves" instead of "like God, knowing good and evil." Either way, this is an expression of the adoption of human philosophy to justify deliberate disobedience to and rejection of God's LAW. It is the basic philosophy behind school shootings, street violence and every sort of flagrant licentiousness by young and old. Nothing has changed since the tempter's words in the garden of Eden - nothing in all these years. Man is still seeking ways to justify his SIN. I submit to the reader that the forbidden fruit God warned us not to eat is the newly refurbished philosophy of NO HIGHER LAW. We have been given the LAW for a reason. that's me, hollering from the choir loft....
  16. Approximately 30% of Jews who lived during Jesus' time acknowledged Him as messiah - the anointed Son of God. This is no small number by any count one wishes to undertake. Jesus used miracles to prove He is God. There was no discussion about the trinity in the gospels or any of the letters of the New Testament. If I am mistaken, please quote chapter and verses where this is discussed in detail. In point of fact there is only one incident where anything close to it appears - the account of the baptism of Jesus by John the immerser (where Jesus was officially anointed by God and man). Trinity as a doctrine was initially discussed by the church during the first council of Nicaea (325AD) and formally adopted in its present form in the council of Constantinople (381AD). It was there that it became known as the Nicene Creed. What is not generally known is that these council meetings were called by paid for and personally supervised by the Roman emperor Constantine. Constantine insinuated his own peculiar form of pagan ideology into the doctrine of the trinity. However, in the original Hebrew it conveys a somewhat different impression. Shema Yisrael (Hear O Israel) Adonai Eloihenu (The Lord your God) Adonai Echad (The Lord is One) - Deuteronomy 6:4 I call the reader's attention to the Hebrew word 'echad'. It's literal translation is 'one', but its contextual meaning is somewhat different. The Hebrew word Yachid also means one. Echad and Yachid carry different values for the word one. Yachid is the meaning of an absolute one. For example, the earth has One sun in the sky. Humanity lives on One planet - the earth. Yachid refers to a single item or count. Echad is the meaning of a union of items. The United States, for example, is one country - a union of fifty separate parts or states. But echad is more than a political boundary line. Its more than a corporate merger or a ball club. It describes a personality that is unified in thought word and deed. God is echad. * * * In ancient times every Jewish teacher (rabbi) hosted a group of followers known as students or talmidim. Each of these student groups emulated their intellectual and moral leader. Today these assemblies are called Bible study groups. Some things never change. One of the best examples of this situation was in the gospel account of the talmidim of Yeshua (students of Jesus) asking Him how they ought to pray. Every rabbi taught his talmidim a different way to pray. That's why the gospel account of Jesus' answer is commonly known as the Lord's Prayer (as opposed to rabbi so-and-so's prayer). The Greeks employed a similar method of education to transmit knowledge from one generation to another. The talmidim of Yeshuah (students of Jesus) were mostly Jews, even in Antioch. In every account in the gospels and epistles they worshipped in synagogues. It was in Antioch they were renamed Christians by gentiles (goyim) for several reasons. Mostly it was because the believers in messiah, or Messianics as they are called today, had become noticed as a particularly unique religious group - a mixture of both Jews and gentiles. Previously these two groups did not fellowship together - AT ALL. The name Christian was affixed to the group for two reasons. First, because of the latinized translation of ha-mashiach (messiah or christ) - as in Christ believers instead of messiah believers. The word catholic was first associated with these persons by Ignatious of Antioch (same town, btw) in a letter to believers in a different city. The word catholic was originally associated with the Greek phrase "on the whole" as a reference, I suppose, to the union of Jews and gentiles as students (talmidim) of Jesus (the Latinized form of the Hebrew name Yeshua). At about the same time, the original teachings of Jesus began to be diluted as a result of gentile pagan influences. As time went on Jews were either excluded altogether, forced to follow a newly devised litany of paganized worship and ideology or eventually murdered out of hand. Replacement theology, or supersessionism as it has come to be known, eventually replaced the whole of the Old Testament with pagan theology. It is worthy of mention here that Supersessionism is not strictly an ideology of the Roman Catholic church. It has been fanatically embraced by protestants as well - using the principles of Greek philosophy to fill in the blanks and illogical spaces in its ideology with pseudo-intellectual rationale. Bottom line differences between Jews and Christian religion is tradition vs. doctrine. Jews DO their religion. It's known as tradition and involves a lot of rules and ceremonies, none of which may have anything at all to do with God. It is therefore entirely possible and appropriate for a Jew to be an atheist - as long as tradition is observed. Christians BELIEVE their religion. It may or may not have anything to do with how things were done in the past or even whether actions are legal or sinful. Christians BELIEVE, for example, they can put their hands on any filthy thing they desire and be exonerated for it. In neither case does God have any sort of personal input in the lives and acts of man. Until Jesus stepped onto the world stage and demonstrated something different. He demonstrated that God can be and most certainly is intimately involved in every thing mankind does at every level mankind experiences. He demonstrated that God is above the human experience at the same time He lives it. He demonstrated that it is possible for us to become like Him - even though its the last thing on anyone's mind. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  17. A very good statement concerning American political progressivism and the odd corrupted form of institutional religious self-justification adopted by Christendom. Many would argue the truth of what you've written here so as to suppress it or obfuscate it or simply to avoid it. I don't understand the false identification with Jews you've mentioned. It's been my experience that Christians today give lip service to respect of Jewish brethren, but secretly harbor an extreme covert dislike of them as well as an outward rejection of Jewish LAW. Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the LAW, but to fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17) Not knowing the LAW and not being taught it, many Christians embrace an ungodly form of licentiousness they call grace. A new generation has arisen in the land that knows not God. Neither do they uphold the LAW or enjoy its glory. This new attitude is called "NO HIGHER LAW." The 'no higher law' or NHL attitude is embraced by young people of high school age as well as young adults. Like all false philosophy it masks itself as popular truth. In reality its a restatement of the original lie spoken by the tempter in the garden of Eden in Genesis chapter 3 verse 5. "God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." I'm informed the Hebrew idiom may more accurately be translated as "you shall be gods unto yourselves" instead of "like Gold, knowing good and evil." Either way, this is an expression of the adoption of human philosophy to justify deliberate disobedience to and rejection of God's LAW. Nothing has changed in all these years. Man is still seeking ways to justify his SIN. I submit to the reader that the forbidden fruit God warned us not to eat is philosophy. We are given the LAW for a reason. that's me, hollering from the choir loft....
  18. def: Truth is that which is consistent with what is. def: Philosophy is a system of thought. It isn't necessarily based upon truth. Jesus said He was the Truth. He didn't say He was good philosophy. Philosophy is by its nature changeable and defined by persons or societies as they choose. God's LAW doesn't change and cannot be reinterpreted by man. 'Good philosophy' is that which is of an advantage to justify actions of an individual or society. A good philosophy may thus justify my killing of you, rape of your wife, stealing of your worldly goods, burning your house to the ground and blaming you for the whole episode. There is no such thing as good philosophy. In a Communist society a good philosophy places the state in the position of God. It rejects the existence and worship of God and His LAW. In a fascist society a good philosophy embraces perpetual war so as to enlarge financial interests and global hegemony. Appeals to God are employed only as a basis of propaganda. For example "God is with us" was a slogan used by Nazi Germany. A similar slogan, "God bless America", is used by Americans to justify greed and SIN. Both use God as a propaganda technique to justify government policies of international aggression as well as personal aggrandizement. The advantage of God's LAW over philosophy, be it personal or social, is that it is uniform for all people at all times and in all places. It does not change and is not subject to interpretation of anyone or any group. We don't decide what is true or not. It is for us to seek it and embrace it - not redefine it for our own purposes and pleasure. Your point of view is changeable philosophy. You've even admitted to it. In doing so you oppose the will of God. Be advised you are walking on very thin ice. Apart from the LAW, no one can be saved. Philosophy has never saved anyone. THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. - George Santayana Philosophy is the keystone in the arch of lies and SIN. It holds all false notions together - for a season. that's me, hollering from the choir loft..... PS God appeared to the Arabs and said He had a LAW for them. "What is this LAW," they asked. "You shall not kill," God said. "We can't abide by such a LAW," the Arabs answered. "Take your LAW elsewhere." God then appeared to the Americans and offered them a LAW. The American repeated the same question and asked what LAW God offered to them. "You shall not covet your neighbors' goods," the Lord answered. "We cannot abide by such a LAW," the Americans replied. "Go away from us." Lastly God appeared to the Jews and offered them the LAW. "How much is this LAW," the Jews asked. "Nothing," God said. "The LAW is free." "Good," the Jews answered. "Give us ten."
  19. You are deliberately misunderstanding my meaning here. WHO defines 'good' or 'bad' philosophy? You? Me? Society? The common practice today, especially among the young generation, is to do that which appeals to and fulfills their appetites and passions. If they are intelligent enough to make a leap beyond themselves, then they believe that society is justified in establishing the philosophy by which we are all meant to live. (*) The problem with making society or self one's god is that such a decision leads to despotism and murder. The foundation of philosophy is changeable and subject to corruption. The LAW of God is not. I find it interesting that you deem the LAW of the Most High to be an insufficient guide to one's personal life or that of society. The philosophical attitude of today is 'what society determines to be good is that which is good'. Mark my words here - such a social attitude will lead to further erosion of political liberty and the destruction of guarantees of personal safety. If social philosophy determines it's good to kill Jews, then they die by the millions. If society decides it's ok to murder innocent children, Kurds, or Croats, or Protestants or Catholics, or Native American Indians then war is made upon them. This is history and it proves philosophy is not only corruptible but is murderous in the extreme. The philosophy of today calls mass murders "ethnic cleansing" not genocide. There is no difference in the meaning of the words except one of philosophy. Ethnic cleansing doesn't sound as abhorrent as genocide. The LAW is stable and good because it depends upon the unchangeable nature of God as applied to nations and persons. My use of the term post modernism is a reference to the common REJECTION of rationality as historically employed to interpret scripture as well as all other aspects of society. The current attitude of clerics politicians and captains of industry today is to reject grounded traditional standards of behavior and responsibility. The result of this philosophical aberration is what is generally referred to as a CULTURE WAR. It has nothing to do with illegal aliens and everything to do with perverse thinking - good becomes bad, bad becomes good, man becomes woman and woman becomes god. Philosophy lies at the root of every successful war upon an established productive and respected civilization. We are at war today because we've abandoned the root and standard of God's honest unchangeable LAW. Who decides what is good or bad about philosophy? That answer is as changeable as philosophy itself. You seem to prefer this sort of situation. Every despot in history would agree with you. that's me, hollering from the choir loft... (*) ASK a high school student if society is justified in its behavior. They will tell you it is. (That's what they've told me.) If society deems it proper to murder babies in their mother's womb, then it is good. If society decides war is to be made upon an innocent foreign nation so as to steal their resources, then it is good. If Christians and Jews are to be labeled as insane people filled with hate speech, then it is justifiably mandated to act against them. The fruit of philosophy, rather than LAW, is murder lies and thievery (all the qualities of satan, btw).
  20. I can do nothing here except agree heartily with every word you wrote. You are a rare bird, sir and I imagine you ruffle a lot of Christian feathers from time to time. Keep doing it. It's good for them. Has anyone here been to a Jewish worship service recently? Specifically I refer to a Reform congregation. Sermons can be as devoid of reference to scripture as any apostate faux-Christian franchise. Perhaps I should amend that accusation to say MOST Christian franchises. There are two types of sermon; topical and textual. A textual sermon is like a seminary lecture because it steps through a passage of scripture one line at a time - never departing from the verses except to provide examples to explain them. Textual sermons are seldom presented because they are deemed to be too exhaustive for the mentality of the average congregation. A topical sermon is most common. Its subject is usually some pc subject with scripture used to support the speaker's argument in the same way he or she might employ an anecdote to lighten the mood. Organized religion, especially the Christian type is mostly a commercialized activity - like Christmas and Easter. Congregations are deliberately manipulated so as to provide financial support for the dog and pony show that entertains them on Sunday morning. I'm not kidding about manipulation. Courses are offered to educate religious leaders in how to manipulate their members. Apologetic speakers are very popular these days. It might surprise some to learn that apologetic speakers are the cream of the crop when it comes to philosophical manipulation of the faithful. Apologetics is an intellectual chess game and many of the fans of a debate contest between an apologist and an atheist thrill at the moves of each player. It's all in the moves - JUST LIKE a chess game, but just like a chess game few get saved in the process. It's all about crushing your opponent with a good argument, not saving him. Finally, I've actually met people who were shocked down to their shoes when they were told Jesus is a Jew. Never heard about His ancestry. What if the two witnesses in Revelation are references to Jewish evangelists? There's another shocking suggestion. Good church folk do not like Jews or references to Jewish LAW. (*) that's me, hollering from the choir loft.... (*) I wear a lapel pin on my sport coat. It's not an American flag. It's the flag of Israel. When it comes time during a church service to go around and shake one another's hand I get a lot of disapproving gazes from folks who'd rather not give me a second glance. I've thought about wearing my kippah (yamaka) to church, but that might be too aggravating for them.
  21. I don't quite understand your meaning or intent. Which orthodoxy are you referring to? The Russian version? The Greek version? The main comparison between Christian and Jewish thinking is DOING vs. BELIEVING. Jewish tradition involves doing or acting upon the tenants of the religion. Judaism is replete with all sorts of customs and rules and actions. These ACTS are so involved as to allow exclusion of God in some cases. Judaism isn't a set piece religion. There are reform Jews and there are orthodox Jews and there are atheistic Jews and all manner of types in between. This is possible because Judaism is about DOING. Christian tradition is about believing. One cannot join a church without a passing acceptance of the church creed or statement of faith. There are many. Believing does not normally require acting. All that is really required is a regular donation to the local venue so as to sustain its existence. The result is that people attend a church, agree in principle to a standard set of ideas, pay an admission tax, and then live their lives any way they please after they hit the parking lot. The result is a lot of differing doctrines, which in principle mean exactly nothing. The rapture tribulation and millennium issues are a good example. People argue endlessly about these subjects as if the rising and setting of the sun depended upon embracing a particular interpretation. In point of fact it has nothing at all to do with acting like a disciple of Christ, or anything efficacious regarding sanctification or salvation. It's an empty belief, nothing more. The traditions and philosophy of the Jewish Pharisees didn't die when the legions of Titus pulled down Herod's temple in Jerusalem. It affects much of Christian thought to this day. Do you believe in angels? You are a pharisee. Do you believe in the resurrection? You are a pharisee. Do you believe that tithing is required of God? Then you are a pharisee. The bag of sand you refer to is full of meaningless philosophical ideas that change with the wind. They allow men to do as they please and justify themselves as being religious. God is no fool and doesn't buy this bag of sand for a moment. One cannot compare Jewish tradition with Christian doctrines. Its worse than comparing apples to oranges because neither tradition nor doctrine will save anybody. Apples and oranges make for a healthy diet. Finally I wish to ask WHICH Messianic faiths you are referring to. The movement has become gradually more popular in the years following June 6, 1967 but not necessarily unified in thought word and deed. Even the RC church has a messianic spin off. Christians do not consider Messianics to be Christian and Jews do not consider them to be Jewish. It's a group that exists in the twilight zone between major religions. The reader should consider this when exploring the veracity of a local Messianic congregation. I consider myself to be a Messianic Jew, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize that there are differences between us. Therefore the issues I consider to be of major concern are those of changeable philosophy versus the immutable LAW of the Torah and the lessons of the Tanakh. One is guided by unchangeable directions and diverted into destruction by changeable philosophy. History of empires bears witness to this truth. Those that do not learn the lesson of history are doomed to repeat it. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
  22. Who defines "bad philosophy" or "good philosophy"? One man's meat is another man's poison. The good of the society is not always good. It changes according to social opinion. The whole point of my post on philosophy is that its changeable according to individual perception. That is the meaning of subjectivism. You agreed with this and said it was a good thing - except it isn't. When a man decides to kill another for his money the act is good for the killer. Not so good for his victim. When a society decides to wage war upon another, rationale is employed to justify it one way or another. War is good for the winner but not good for the loser. When a society decides that religion is poison and that god is imaginary, such thought and activity justifies the changeable nature of SIN. The first thing satan did in the garden of Eden was to call God a liar. (Genesis 3) That is exactly what post-modern philosophy accomplishes. My point is that a higher standard must be employed. This higher standard is and of a right ought to be impervious to individual or social opinion and change. It should be objective, as for example the Ten Commandments. Your post is very busy justifying the gelatin substance of philosophy. Philosophy is fine for discussions over a pitcher of beer. As the beverage affects the speakers at table they all become wiser in their own eyes - even though their eyes cannot see as clearly as before. Philosophy in church is killing Christendom - a point I've made numerous times before. A NEW GENERATION HAS ARISEN THAT KNOWS NOT GOD. This new generation is only interested in self gratification. They are not interested in anything which remotely suggests a standard of behavior or - God forbid - objective thinking. God is rejected completely as is morality. Both are four letter words in their mind because they require behavior and attitudes which disagree with their appetites and passions. In the words of the Bile they are carnal. Philosophy lies at the root of group manipulation, which is why it is used so often in church and repressive government. It is the enemy of righteousness and decency. It is the friend of the criminal, the despot and the devil. * * * * I wish to reiterate the protestant hypocrisy of hatred of Jews and Jewish LAW. Once upon a time long ago, all protestants gave lip service to respect for Jews as persons and Israel as their homeland. Today the reverse is true. All major protestant denominations except for Baptists have made public statements denying Israel the right to exist. (BDS movement) Each of these organizations is actively involved in supporting the enemies of Israel. Their names are registered as members of the opposition. Those which are considered to be evangelical mouth support of Jews and Israel, but in private they believe Jews are disgusting and Jewish LAW is obsolete. Any statement otherwise refuses to acknowledge fact. I have personally seen the expression of ignorant evangelicals change to one of disgust when something of Jewish nature is put before them. I have personally read and heard statements by ignorant fundamentalists that believe the LAW has been replaced by grace and that it is abolished. Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the LAW (Matt 5:17), but these folk who claim to love the King of the Jews ignore His words. Granted there are isolated individuals who don't hold a nameless grudge against Jews or Israel, but they are a rare bird. Most of the time these same persons continue to support churches that are openly opposed to Israel. This too is hypocrisy and double-mindedness. My posting is and continues to be one of rejecting philosophy as a form of interpreting scripture. The LAW is almost never employed in churches today to do so. And that is the primary reason so many are leaving churches. People who think - do not appreciate empty words. People who don't think - won't be bothered with empty entertainment. that's me, hollering from the choir loft.....
  23. Thank you for your kind evaluation of my post. I differ on the efficacy of philosophy, Greek or otherwise. Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them: He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid his foundation on the rock. When the flood came, the torrent crashed against that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears My words and does not act on them is like a man who built his house on ground without a foundation. The torrent crashed against that house, and immediately it fell—and great was its destruction.” - Luke 6:46-49 The Roman Catholic church parses out the italicized portion of the quote above to justify their doctrine of apostolic succession. But Christ didn't teach in bits and pieces and didn't intend his thoughts to be employed solely by an institution. He meant them for all. At issue is the trend of the church to abandon Jewish tradition theology and scripture from the earliest years of Christianity. Severed from its Jewish roots, the church naturally gravitated toward the popular secular style of philosophical interpretation - specifically the Greek type. There are two problems with using Greek philosophy to interpret scripture. One is the tendency to dilute Biblical thought by references to pagan ideology (Easter, Christmas & the concept of hell). The other is the temporary subjective changeable nature of philosophy itself. The shifting sands, or foundation, Jesus spoke of is subjective philosophy. (*) Jewish tradition is glacial with rare application of changes. Jewish ideology is mostly fixed. It's objective in nature, meaning that its' basic presupposition is based upon the unchangeable nature of the LAW. The rock Jesus spoke of is objective LAW. Philosophy, as a subjective tool used by the church to interpret the gospel, changes every ten to fifteen years. It does so in reaction to changes in secular society, which occur every ten to fifteen years. It takes approximately five years for church theologians to realize a change in secular philosophy and to compose a religious philosophy to oppose it. The term used to describe this process is, "making the gospel relevant." I'm guessing the reader has heard or read this expression countless times. It implies a constant intellectual chess game of move and counter move on the part of theologians to react to changes in secular attitudes. One of the best chessmen today is a fellow by the name of Ravi Zacharias. I confess to enjoying his intellectual banter immensely. But with all his remarkable skill and extensive education in philosophy, Mr. Zacharias has pinned his arguments upon the shifting sands of philosophy to interpret the gospel to the secular world and entertain the church. When the years roll by in a man's life it becomes apparent to many that the ways of life depend on unchangeable matters. Honesty, thrift, truth, peace, loyalty and humility toward God are objective unchangeable qualities that build a successful life. These things do not change. They are the rock upon which one can build one's house. Lies, cruelty, corruption, betrayal and violence are changeable subjective qualities secular society admires and in many cases employ to their destruction. It is certainly a large part of secular entertainment. Philosophy is at the heart of it all whether it is expressed over a pitcher of beer at a local tavern or from a church pulpit. It is the same chameleon view of life that leads to the destruction of one's house - one's life. For example: The United States is currently enduring a culture war, which can be expressed in terms of a conflict between objective traditional values and subjective focus on individual failure, greed, political manipulation and overt sin. Unfortunately, Christianity hates anything that smells of Jewish LAW and has taught its adherents to despise and reject it. The ROCK, is therefore rejected even by the church. SHIFTING SANDS are given as an alternative. The words of Jesus remain as a lighthouse guide in the storm of life. The LAW is not to be ignored. It remains forever as a standard for living a solid life before God and man. that's me, hollering from the choir loft... (*) definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary; Subjective - modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
  24. You may find the book THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES by Edward William Fudge to be quite interesting. I recommend it to you. Edward Fudge is also the subject of a biographical movie called HELL AND MR. FUDGE. The book is 210 pages and pours a lot of cold water on the myth of hell. The movie describes the hell Mr. Fudge experienced from the protestant church as he developed his research from the entire context of the Bible. To this day, despite Biblical evidence to the contrary, protestants refuse to let go of the Greek myth they believe to be gospel. The RCC is flirting with abandonment of the doctrine, but hasn't come out with any bull on the subject (Papal bull or official pronouncement, that is.) As for me, I believe the traditional Christian idea of hell as an eternal torment of sinners is indeed bovine excrement. It stinks on many levels. God kills (and doesn't even enjoy the act). God doesn't torture. Catholics have loved to torture, as evidenced by the inquisition. Protestants love to torture as evidenced by the holocaust. Neither consult the Bible because it cannot justify their demonic persuasion. that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
×
×
  • Create New...