Crossing the Jordan into the Inner Meaning [New Church, Open]

Spirit and Life Bible Study ^ | Wed Nov 28, 2012 | Rev Dr Johnathon Rose

[stfassisi]

but the easiest thing to do is to post the link, and my posting of material from my own site

Sure, it's your site with lots of LINKS you posted to your site. Sounds easy to me!

[CynicalBear]

Hey, I wouldn’t even attempt to hide my age. I was born in 1948. I see the Lord’s grace every day. He gave me an inventive and inquisitive mind. I just need to use tools to a greater extent than most. I can’t physically lift things but with equipment I build I can. I’m a firm believer in levers and fulcrums if you know what I mean. I am daily reminded that what Satan meant for harm the Lord uses for good. I take a lot of people’s excuses away for why they can’t do something.

[boatbums]

The canon of orhtodoxy was settled in : the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419).

I can't help but wonder, if these Councils were all supposed to have "settled" the question of the Old Testament canon, then why was there a need for all the rest after the first one at the Synod of Rome? Why did the council at Trent then decide it needed to make ANOTHER "infallible" pronouncement on the canon if it was already a settled question and why was there STILL far from unanimous consent on what they did decide to do? Sure seems like the "propaganda" is on the side of those who insist it was a settled question in 382 A.D.

[daniel1212]

All you can do and have done is to try to move the goal posts by focusing on the general acceptance of the canon before Trent affirmed it, but which does not make it infallible and thus indisputable.

And your attempt to equate it to Nicea and the doctrine of the Trinity is invalid because officially esteemed scholars like Luther’s adversary Cardinal Cajetan (who following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, stating of the latter three, “They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture”), were not seen or treated like Arian heretics by Rome.

Sippo’s idea of an infallible decree makes a mockery of the binding force of them, or rebels out of such esteemed scholars. But the fact is that the first infallible indisputable decree Trent’s occurred over Luther’s dead body, and he did not arbitrarily removed the Deuterocanonical books from Scripture.

Those are the facts, and it is no wonder you want no more reminder of them. I posted links which you refused to look at, and then wanted no more than a cursory analysis from me of your tome from Sippo, so indeed it is “Time to move on to something else.”

May God in His grace peradventure give you and like souls repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. (2 Timothy 2:25) AS He has been gracious to me.

[daniel1212]

An excellent spirit.

“The spirit of a man will sustain his infirmity; but a wounded spirit who can bear? “ (Proverbs 18:14)

[BlueDragon]

The middle ground appears once again. It is between that which you first wrote (in your last to me) and that which you underlined there. It is a matter of principles compared, not a matter of semantics employed.

There is concession on part of Protestants to some limited legitimate authority, found clearly to be known of, in your own words.

When we look further, such authority is limited only by that which is spoken of in John 14;

12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

I ask only rhetorically, not for examination to please myself;
What does in His name mean? Much relies upon that answer, in just how words possibly used to describe are understood. Properly understood, we find the mystical, we have the answer arrive to us, precisely how Peter came to know the truth, the answer to the question asked

[daniel1212]

As said, if it was binding then you had such a lax attitude toward dissent that one who dissented from the canon Trent would affirm was yet considered as “Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority,... a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly.”

Or in fact the canon was not yet indisputable, and Luther was not a maverick in listing some books as separate from Scripture proper, nor was he a pope whom all must follow. But such objective consideration would hinder an angry lynching.

[boatbums]

Do that the point was about 20,000 different religious dogmas -- as I said there are not 20,000 -- many retain the same beliefs but have different locations, or disagree on some organizational matter It might be good for you to read a post or read a Bible before commenting incorrectly each time

It might be good for you to remember your own posts. This is the orginal post #26, about the dishonest 20,000 denominations strawman first raised in this thread:

Put in context, the Bible has no inconsistencies. Men "find" the "inconsistencies" to make themselves and their religions conform to their sensibilities - else, why some 30,000+ sects of Christianity that all claim the same Bible?

Thus my surprise when in post #293, you actually agreed and said this which contradicted what you had said in another thread a week ago:

That's just two. I'd say the number is about 20,000 roughly

Like I said, somehow I just knew I would need to keep your other comment from the thread The Impossible Gospel of Mormonism where you said:

oh, thanks for the correction -- well, tery, the thing is that there are not 20,000 different sets of core beliefs -- many retain the same beliefs but have different locations, or disagree on some organizational matter

Take just one sub-group: baptists -- there are about 50 odd baptist groups around the country, but I would guess there are no more than 3 or 4 different theological groups.

i would suggest stop using the 20,000 argument. The number is too random and too arbitrary and includes theological, geographical, linguistic and organizational differences

You know what would be good? If some people could actually make up their minds about what they really believe concerning certain points so that others don't have to constantly ask for clarification. So who really is commenting "incorrectly" here? I'll let others decide.

[stfassisi]

All you can do and have done is to try to move the goal posts

Not at all. You should admit that you don't understand the teachings of Catholicism and therefore your arguments are strawman

Perhaps you should focus on something else rather than anti Catholicism and you would realize a true meaning of love

[boatbums]

By the same reckoning how do you justify the inclusion of James, Jude and Revelation?
If one is to ask you, "I wonder what it is in the book of the Apocalypse that it should be included" - what is your answer? Is it "that this is in scripture decided in the councils"? well then that's the same answer for the Deuterocanonicals.

I would just LOVE if my answer actually made a difference in what keeps getting thrown out there about the "canon" of the Bible. I'll take a leap of faith and assume you really want my answer. Here it is:

ALL the books that make up the New Testament which we ALL agree is Divinely inspired, God blessed and inerrant Holy Scripture is accepted as such for three reasons:

1. The Apostles of Jesus Christ gave their approval of these books as they were composed and circulated throughout the different local churches. They were carefully copied and great care was given to preserve them as THE authority by which all doctrinal claims could be measured.

2. Most all of these local churches, with very few exceptions, received these letters as from the Apostles themselves and honored them and followed the teachings and precepts they spoke of JUST as the Jewish people had received their sacred writings from God-ordained prophets.

3. Lastly, because they speak to the heart of every believer as if the Holy Spirit was right there leading and guiding us through them. It is through the Holy Spirit that they are discerned as from Almighty God. The unsaved read it and it is "foolishness to them" because they do not have the Holy Spirit illuminating the truths of God to them.

I don't get that sense when I read from the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books. There is no light of God that I feel when reading them, no spiritual connection. Now, granted, that is subjective, but my question had to do with those who DO consider them as equal to the other books ALL believers hold has inspired. What is it in these books that YOU believe reveal divine truth that cannot be found in the undisputed books?

[Elsie]

Here ya go!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Genesis 13:13

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Genesis 13:13</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Now <B><FONT color=#ff0000>the men</FONT></B> of
<B>Sodom</B> were wicked and were <B><FONT color=#ff00ff>sinning
greatly</FONT></B> against the LORD. </FONT></DIV>

[Elsie]

"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." - Matthew 18:18

Well, for one, it says nothing about those following after "YOU".

[Elsie]

I said what I said; "the foundational precept of Protestantism is that the Church has no legitimate authority."

Is the converse true as well?

"Protestants have NO authority at all!"?

[daniel1212]

Perhaps you should focus on something else rather than anti Catholicism and you would realize a true meaning of love

After resorting to insults I find such appeals lacking in credibility.

[daniel1212]

the foundational precept of Roman Catholicism is that she alone is the legitimate authority - if she does say so herself, infallibly declaring she is infallible whenever she speaks according to her infallibly-defined scope and subject-based criteria, by which anything can be defined as supports her.

Under such circularity anything can be “proven.”

Have a God night.

[Natural Law]

"Opinion."

And that is entirely your opinion.

[boatbums]

Just another note, since this appears in Scripture so often and the literal sense might be misleading: Spiritual power is signified by the hand... all spiritual power and omnipotence by means of the Human which He assumed in the world is signified by the right hand of God.

Do you believe that while Jesus was present on earth in bodily form, that God the Father was in heaven? Was God the Holy Spirit present both in heaven and on earth while Jesus was on earth and the Father was in heaven?

[boatbums]

Low to mid 70s here the last several days. I’m lovin it! Supposed to be a little cooler tomorrow with rain but we’ll see. Not bad all in all. I’m trying really hard not to gloat! :-)

Same here! We've had the A/C on two nights this week. And, as weird as it sounds, our two big Yoshino cherry trees have started to FLOWER!!! The last of the leaves dropped off a few weeks ago and the flowers are staring to come out. That's just wild!

[DaveMSmith]

I believe the heavens were bowed at the Lord's Advent. Jehovah God is the perfect Divine soul of Jesus. His body was from His mother, Mary, and was imperfect and the Lord spent His lifetime battling temptations thus subjugation of the hells. I see Jesus as Son of God or Son of Jehovah, not Son of Mary, which I believe takes away from His Divinity.

When in the world, the Lord dealt with two states - the Son of Man state and the Son of God state, as indicated in Scripture. God is omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent and is present everywhere - in heaven and earth always. After the glorification (temptation of the cross), the Lord became Divine Human thus allowing conjunction with all mankind.

[BlueDragon]

3 for 3