The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[ksen]

Context is exactly what I think is crucial - the context of the OT. When Ecclesiastes was written, this was true. But in the context of the NT, it's not true any longer.

But didn't the same Holy Spirit that inspired the OT also inspire the NT? If so, then wouldn't he have known what was going to happen in the NT?

-Kevin

[IMRight]

Did He have no ability to affect anything for those three days?

Show me in scripture where he affected anything but the spiritual... The dead have no more influence on the earth.

You would have been on such firmer ground if you had just said "I think we have to admit that Christ is the exception to many rules and that even when His body was dead He was still God. I'm not going to try to put constraints on God, but the rule still stands for mortal humans"

The question was "Did He have the ability to affect anything for those three days?" Your response seems to be "no". Interesting position.

[Ard Ri]

Compare you to the Apostles???? Gimme a break! Rather, I`ll take the Church founded by the Apostles, if its all the same to you, Havoc. In fact, even if it`s not all the same to you!

[Ard Ri]

Are you familiar with the Apostles Creed, Havoc? Have you read it? Whats your opinion of it? The 2nd line of the Apostles Creed speaks of the 'Communion of Saints' . You familiar with that term? Well, its in the creed. And, the Apostles Creed goes back quite a ways! And the term 'The Communion of Saints' says alot about how the early Church viewed Itself. You see, the Church, The Body of Christ, is a LIVING ENTITY. The Church didn`t stop at the time of the Apostles, IT ONLY BEGAN! God didn`t shut up once Revelation was written, did he? You mean to tell me that you believe that He hasn`t uttered one word through the Holy Spirit, to His Church since then? There are even some Protestant Faiths today who believe that God speaks to members of their congregation on a weekly basis! (Speaking in tongues.) And, yes, some Catholic groups believe that today as well. We even have what is called 'The Living Waters' Prayer group that meets at my Church each Sunday evening for prayer.

[IMRight]

Not to be fecetious; but, can you read and think for yourself? Go sit down and read it in context and break it down. Hmm lets see, How can one be guilty for two accidents although he was only involved in one wreck. In the one instance he cause the accident, in the other he was also a party to it when he caused it. It isn't tough, one just has to apply themselves and seek God when it isn't this apparent.

I'll take your word for it that you aren't trying to be insulting. But you aren't making sense either. Can you state your position here briefly and in english?

You have tried to identify the RCC as the whore of babylon using soley Rev 17:6. I have no doubt that you think you see things in other verses that you haven't brought up yet, but let us confine ourselves to the one that merely needs to be read in context and broken down.

You are distinguihing the RCC from other entities on the basis of 17:6, saying that it is fulfilled uniquely by the RCC, but you seem to make two distinct arguments:

The first (which is reiterated in this latest post) is the distinction that in one case they are "guilty of the blood" and in the other case (3384 "Being guilty of their martyr") they are guily of martyr (treating martyr as a verb though it is clearly a noun in the verse). But the verse makes no such distinction. The whore is drunken with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs. So any distinction which tries to seperate when one is "guilty of the blood" and when one isn't is not exactly "on point". I searched ten translations and none of them failed to state it that way except the "Living Bible" (if you want to use that one you can just go read by yourself in the corner - I'm not playing) :)

Your second distinction seems to be between "saint" and "Martyr" as you were asked a couple times. You clearly posted that all the other countries were guilty of the blood of martyrs (but not of saints). The entire argument seems to break down to claiming that it is clear in the text that killing a saint is different than killing a martyr ("witness" in the Greek). And this distinction seems to revolve soley around whether a political entity did the killing personally or ordered some other political entity to do it for them? Remember that the word "mrtyr" here is being used as a noun... the people killed are martyrs. You can't distinguish whether they are a martyr or not based on who did the killing and whether it was personal or by order of another, their death is a "witness" to Christ regardless of who killed them. Your attachment as verb to the whore is just plain wrong, it is a noun describing the person killed. Whether I agree with the distiction or not, all of the states listed both killed christians and had others kill christians so the argument seems moot, but I'd love a clarification.

And please follow the point through to the end. Please let me know why there are no longer any saints being killed (assuming the RCC is not still at it of course). Since no country (including the anti-Christian Muslim countries) is currrently guilty of the blood of saints by your definition.

[IMRight]

I'll take that $20.

[RobbyS]

But didn't the same Holy Spirit that inspired the OT also inspire the NT? If so, then wouldn't he have known what was going to happen in the NT? Don't you think that God's revelation was progressive? Thus we needed Moses AND the prophets And the books of wisdom AND the New Testament to complete the Bible? From my point of view, only Christ could answer the complaint of Joband the skepticism of the Preacher.

[ELS]

Thank God for Latin ... Makes these kinds of discussions so civilized.

LOL!

[OLD REGGIE]

Are you going to tell me it's natural to get up at all hours to take your temperature?

Are you going to tell me it's natural to live your life by some artificial schedule.

Are you going to tell me "your" method is not birth control?

I'm going to tell you; you have substituted a thermometer for a condom.

[IMRight]

By the way. I searched through a pile of sites claiming that the RCC was the whore of Babylon. I couldn't find one that made any distinction similar to what you ahve been saying. A couple did identify 17:6 as speaking of Rome, but none of them said that it was unique to Rome. That "no other kingdom fit "Now name me any empire since Christ that both Put Christians to death and because of the way that empire was structured, also ordered other authorities under their jurisdiction to do the same. There are none but that of the Holy Roman Empire which was headed by the Roman Catholic Church."

Can you give me a link to someone else with your special interpretive twist? Maybe they made the (wrong) argument better than you did.

[OLD REGGIE]

Only the Lord knows which of those you call matyrs are Saints.

[DouglasKC]

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you - 1 Cor 11:2
Paul said thank you for remembering the traditions he gave them, not traditions they picked up from a friend or a relative.

In addition, Paul makes it clear who is he imitating when he delivers doctrine:

1Co 11:1 Be imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.
1Co 11:2 But I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and you keep the doctrines as I delivered them to you.

[IMRight]

Are you going to tell me it's natural to live your life by some artificial schedule.

I don't know about the rest of your points, but the "schedule" you are talking about is just about the most "natural" part of this discussion.

I'm going to tell you; you have substituted a thermometer for a condom.

Why does that sound particularly painfull? :)

[IMRight]

Only the Lord knows which of those you call matyrs are Saints.

Who we call martyrs is irrellevant. Scripture calls them martyrs (literally "witnesses" for Christ) so they are. I can't think of a Scriptural definition that would leave out any martyr from the communion of saints. Can you?

How many times do you type "martyr" before it looks funny?

[OLD REGGIE]

In this sense the condom wearer or the vasectomeied is not engaged in a true unitive giving of oneself. they are deliberatley holding back.

You poor misled, naive little boy.

[ventana]

That's the one I started with. Since converted. I like the Douay-Rhiems. I can deal with the RSV(CE). I wish I was as smart as Havoc, so I could read Greek :)

[OLD REGGIE]

Catholics insist upon both procreative and unitive aspects in each sexual act, while others would seem to find the procreative aspect optional, or optional at times anyway.

This is a true difference between us.

It is baloney statements such as this that I jump all over you for. You do not speak for the Catholics on this issue.

You speak for, at the most, a small group of Catholics.

[OLD REGGIE]

Aw, come on Angelo, that logic does not work :) I do not know if there are many that believe that a woman taking her basal body temperature is part of the act of sex.

No, of course not. It is just one more artificial way to prevent pregnancy. Throw out your thermometer, be spontaneous, and be open to the possibility of pregnancy and then you can blow your horn about your purity. Until then you are just using a "legalistic" method of birth control.

[IMRight]

I hope I didn't miss you before you left. You and your brothers will be in our prayers.

Godspeed padre.

[OLD REGGIE]

Dave, you'd better ask the moderator to remove that post before Reggie sees it. ;o)

Duly noted.