Posted on 06/14/2004 4:05:12 PM PDT by Jacob Kell
Melchizedek was king of an actual city called Peace -- or in the original language, Salem. The city had "Jeru" added to the front of the name much later.
?
I think you missed my point. Among Jesus' contemporaries, he was largely rejected by the intellectual elites among his co-religionists. The common folk had no problem believing in him. But the clergy did not believe he was the promised messiah.
I can think of two reasons why they'd reject him.
Number one, he taught things that contradicted their principle tenants. For example he said that those who honor their father and mother more than him were not worthy of God's Kingdom. There are lots of examples of this.
Number two, the rumors. John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin. Mary's sister Elizabeth was married to Zacharias, a priest at the temple. They all knew each other and they also knew that Mary became pregnant before her betrothal. It must have been rumored at the time that Jesus was an illegitimate child.
Picture this obvious heretic and possibly illegitimate child going before the temple leaders and claiming to be sent to them by God. They had good reasons, according to their understanding, to disbelieve Jesus.
Hence, imperfect knowledge can be an obstacle to understanding. The religious leaders of the time did not understand God's providence as it was unfolding and so they blew their opportunity. He WAS the one they were waiting for after all.
To answer your question then, should we be heterodox (as regards the 2nd coming)? (def: contrary to or different from an acknowledged standard, a traditional form, or an established religion) It would have helped the religious leaders at the time had they taken an unorthodox view because Jesus, by any definition of the time, appeared as unorthodox as possible.
Finally, heterodoxy is not the same as ignorance. It is more like healthy skepticism.
Tell me, on the basis of what you've said, why is Moon preferable to Benny Hinn? Do you even have a reason?
I don't know much about Benny Hinn but Rev. Moon has developed a comprehensive, logical and insightful theology that includes a rational overview of providential history from the beginning. Exposition of the Divine Principle It's good reading.
There's also a theological seminary @ http://www.uts.edu/
Furthermore, there is a philosophical institute with an intro to Moon's Ontology, epistimology, axiology, ethics, theory of history and so forth at Unification Thought Institute.
Regards
In case you haven't noticed, most "common folk" have no trouble rejecting Moon as a loonie.
And, YET AGAIN, all of David Koresh's followers were ordinary people, not scholars. Ditto Jim Jones. Ditto all of them. You cannot defend your guy on these grounds without defending all of them, and then you'll be blown around from one fruitcake to the next, instead of sticking with just one.
Hence, imperfect knowledge can be an obstacle to understanding.
So what do you commend instead? No knowledge at all? Just trust the Leader? But you haven't given any reason for picking one leader over any other.
I don't know much about Benny Hinn but Rev. Moon has developed a comprehensive, logical and insightful theology that includes a rational overview of providential history from the beginning.
You don't know much about Hinn. But you still implicitly reject him by following Moon. But what about all the people in Jesus' day who never went to hear Him because they were content with the rabbi they already had? You don't want to be like them, do you? And what does Moon's alleged philosophical sophistication have to do with it? In the first place, you don't strike me as the one to judge. In the second place, none of that matters if Moon's claims for himself are wrong.
All you argued for so far is following fringe religious leaders, but you haven't given any reason for picking your fringe religious leader. But beyond that, the argument itself is incredibly weak. If an apparently fringe leader is RIGHT, we have every reason to believe God will cause that teaching to prosper and thereby stop being fringe. Unless God changes His mind, the right thing is then to following a mainstream teaching -- but still the same teaching. That would be Trinitarian Christianity.
The classic formulation of trinitarian dogma was created by the ecumenical councils of the fourth century and became normative for Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed churches. This creedal statement reads:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the one begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light; Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of Father; And He shall come again with glory to judge the quick c the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Love Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake the Prophets ... 41Although still widely used in worship services, this ecumenical creed has been repeatedly criticized on several grounds. First, it is not really Biblical because it goes far beyond the faith of the New Testament and distorts the kingdom-centered teachings of Jesus. Second, it represents an amalgamation of Judeo-Christian beliefs and the Hellenistic philosophy of the ancient world. Third, it has always divided Christians rather than uniting them in devotion to one God, one Lord and one faith. As a result of the trinitarian controversies of the patristic age, the Church has been fragmented into Athanasian and Arian Christians, Nestorians and Monophysites, Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches.
Is the trinitarian creed Biblical? Norman Pittenger, an Anglican theologian at Cambridge, fairly summarizes the conclusion of contemporary Biblical studies. The word "Trinity" (trias) is not to be found in the New Testament and was never used by any Christians until Theophilus of Antioch (circa 180 A. D.). The only trinitarian formula in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 28:19) does not claim to be a statement of the historic Jesus and represents an addition made by the early church after his death. Similarly, the many references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel were not spoken by Jesus but show the post-apostolic theology of its author. Paul often speaks of Jesus as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit sent from God and at least twice uses triadic formulas (I Cor. 12:4-6, 11 Cor. 13:14), yet none of these explicitly states the developed trinitarianism of the ecumenical creeds, Pittenger maintains. 42
What does the New Testament teach in regard to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? It clearly affirms the existence of one God because that faith was central to Judaism. Next, the New Testament affirms that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. We do not find "the myth of the incarnate God." What the oldest and most authentic tradition in the New Testament asserts is that Jesus was the anointed agent of God whose mission was to usher in the messianic age. Finally, even though Jesus was crucified, his disciples found that through continued loyalty to him they experienced the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.
In the light of the inadequacies of creedal trinitarianism, for more than a hundred years theologians have reinterpreted the classical trinitarian doctrine. What does it mean to believe in the triune God? Some would say that God has revealed His nature and purpose in three ways. He makes Himself known in creation and the process of history. He reveals Himself in the message, mission and ministry of Jesus Christ. He continues to work actively to realize His kingdom on earth. To put it another way, if God manifested His will in the messianic career of Jesus, He was active before Jesus was born and has remained active since the cross.
Another explanation of the Trinity is also frequently proposed. The trinitarian dogma explains the inner nature of the Godhead. God is a tri-unity in essence. How is He three-in-one? Let me mention some contemporary trinitarian views. Barth taught that the one God possesses three "modes of being": God as creator, as reconciler and as redeemer. Macquarrie redefines the Trinity as "movements" within the dynamic yet stable mystery of Being. The Father is primordial Being, the source of everything which He pours out in creation. The Son or the Logos is expressive Being, the God revealed in the multitude of forms and patterns of existing things. And the Holy Spirit signifies unitive Being, God's activity in maintaining, strengthening and restoring the whole creation's unity with Himself. 43 Or to state the matter even more simply, as the Anglican theologian H. E. W. Turner does, the Trinity refers to God over us (the Father), God with us (the Son) and God in us (the Holy Spirit). 44
How does Unification theology compare with ancient and modern trinitarianism? Like them it recognizes the triune nature of God as creator, redeemer and inspirer. As our exposition of the principle of creation shows, Unificationists believe in the parental God who is above us, with us and in us. In an earlier section, the Divine Principle understanding of the messianic mission of Jesus was explained. We have also treated the nature of and work of the Holy Spirit.
Let us therefore conclude with a distinctive Unificationist teaching. Because Divine Principle is especially concerned with the restoration of divine sovereignty over creation, we stress the trinitarian way by which the kingdom of heaven will be established upon the earth. If there had been no Fall, Adam and Eve would have realized the purpose of creation by founding a God-centered family. Restoration then can take place when a triadic relationship of love and respect is established between a new Adam and Eve based upon their God-centeredness. In give and take with God and between themselves, they will found a family, becoming true parents and fulfilling the three blessings. God can then work through them to provide a pattern for subsequent families on a four-position foundation to create His kingdom on earth.
41 Quoted from Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Service Book (1960), p. 110.
42 N. Pittenger, The Divine Trinity (1977), pp. 21-22.
43 J. Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (1977), pp. 190-210.
44 H. E. W. Tumer, Dictionary of Christian Theology (1969), p. 345.
Jesus came to fulfill the law, offering his own body as the perfect sacrifice, without spot or blemish. The blood of Christ was necessary for the atonement of sins and the redemption of mankind.
Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. Yes, it was the original plan.
"Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." (I Peter l:18-20 NKJ)
Tell me, then, why do your children need to be baptized?
Tell me if you believe that you can only be redeemed by the blood of Christ and that his crucifixion was necessary for that to occur.
and that his crucifixion was necessary for that to occur. No.
Do you believe that when we are redeemed by Christ all our sins are washed away completely?
First, it is not really Biblical because it goes far beyond the faith of the New Testament and distorts the kingdom-centered teachings of Jesus.
I have no idea what "kingdom-centered teachings" is supposed to mean, but since a Moonie said it, I'm willing to bet it's heretical.
Second, it represents an amalgamation of Judeo-Christian beliefs and the Hellenistic philosophy of the ancient world.
It uses a few philosophical terms. The Bible also uses a few philosophical terms. This is not an "amalgamation". I'm willing to bet this fellow doesn't even know why the charge arose (the terminology I just mentioned), he's just mouthing stuff he heard others say. It's pathetic.
Third, it has always divided Christians rather than uniting them in devotion to one God, one Lord and one faith. As a result of the trinitarian controversies of the patristic age, the Church has been fragmented into Athanasian and Arian Christians, Nestorians and Monophysites, Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches.
There are two reasons this is stupid. In the first place, Arius was around causing divisions a long time before the Council of Nicea. Second, we Christians are supposed to divide from heretics. It says: "After the first and second admonition a heretic reject." Divisive? YEP. Just like you divide a gangrenous limb from the body.
Is the trinitarian creed Biblical? Norman Pittenger, an Anglican theologian at Cambridge, fairly summarizes the conclusion of contemporary Biblical studies.
Contemporary here meaning not just recent but recent and faithless.
The word "Trinity" (trias) is not to be found in the New Testament
You strain out the word "Trinity" because the word isn't in the New Testament, but swallow Moon's stuff about how Jesus didn't mean to die (then what in the world does Isaiah 53 mean?) and how the other Korean megalomaniac has to finish His work for Him.
The only trinitarian formula in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 28:19) does not claim to be a statement of the historic Jesus and represents an addition made by the early church after his death. Similarly, the many references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel were not spoken by Jesus but show the post-apostolic theology of its author.
Whenever a person talks like this, he's faithless. Period.
BTW, the claim about what Matthew claims was said by the "the historic Jesus" is a straight up lie.
"No."
But it is the belief in his unjust crucifixion that begins the process of true repentance and transformation -- first the heart and THEN the mind. The only thing that we can offer God in return is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Then He can work with us and reveal His wonders. Have you missed out on something?
No need to respond to me, but only consider what is said and at some point maybe you can come back and tell me what the 'Passover' means to you.
Best wishes to you -- and don't be so 'grim.' ;)
"Rev. Moon
Unification News August 24, 1992"
What? No John the Baptist or a Peter to make that declaration?
Hmmmmm.
"We fell victim to it, we were duped," Dayton spokeswoman Chris Lisi said Tuesday.
"Other lawmakers who attended or were listed as hosts felt the same, she said."
"Everyone I talked to was furious," she said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.