I'm an evangelical, I think we agree on 95% of our theology especially where salvation/justification is concerned. I love your videos, almost every one I've seen makes me laugh out loud. Keep up the good work!
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by GRACE you have been saved through FAITH, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast.
Galatians 3:10-11 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH"
Supposeth is spelled in this video with three "p"'s (Should I deduce that in addition to introducing a completely false heretical religion and false doctrine to Joey, that this [fallen]angel couldn't spell either? Or maybe the Glasses were off kilter on his nose-- you know the Ummin and Thummin brand?) -- Comment left by the faith descendant of the Scottish Covenanters and Seceders.
Lol you like taking scriptures out of context eh? like the baby baptism one if you want to baptize a baby because it says circumsion.. Then by that reasoning noone can be saved unless they somehow magically ask for forgiveness when we are 8 days old because the bible says that being saved is the circumsion of your heart.... it's called figurative speak.. /facepalm
@tfrIrate Numerous times in the bible God says to baptize "All nations." All nations includes adults AND infants. And where in Baptism does is say we need to fully ask for forgiveness. Infants cannot ask for forgiveness. Thanks to Ezekiel 36:22-30 we see that through Baptism we are given a NEW heart v26. Funny how it never says because of a CHANGED heart. Baptism does the work for infants.
Baptism is not required for salvation--the thief on the cross was never baptised. It's a good thing to do, and you SHOULD do it, but it's not required.
@RocknForJesus It is still an agent of salvation. Say you are at a swimming pool and when someone drowns a lifeguard saves them from drowning. Now perhaps you see a friend drowning and you jump in and save them. You are NOT a lifeguard, but does that mean that we should say lifeguards do not save anymore? And if we can all be next to God and have him verbally promise us salvation, then yes I would be comfortable agreeing that it is 100% not required for salvation.
I would hardly count the mormons as a part of the church, and the moroni passage is not about Baptism not being a part of salvation, because they believe that is a part of becoming a god. It instead is about the idea that children are inesint and that is wrong. DOn't include mormons as Church theologins, they are heretics.
This is a total misrepresentation of what Paul said in Chapter 6 and satirically or otherwise portraying him of saying incorrect things is wrong. Clearly water baptism is a picture of being baptised into Christ by the Holy Spirit.
before i get to the rest of the video i just stopped it at the capture 6 part wich is the beginning and i stopped it to say yes ch 6 does say that but I'm not sure if you know that there are three baptism... baptism 1) "baptism of repentance" baptism 2) "baptism of water" baptism 3) "baptism of the Holy Ghost" so as you can see it's kinda the same way the trinity is all baptisms agree with each other but all three are three different parts like God is three different persons :)
this is actually not true. Ephesians 4:4-6 clearly states that there is "one baptism" which is the one Christ commanded at the end of Matthew, this is the baptism that all believers should receive. The baptism of John was described as a "baptism of repentance" very well stating that baptism and repentance are connected. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was promised to the disciples which they received on Pentecost, during which they spoke in tongues.
@kiekie84 i would also like to add that the three baptism can also be a way to represent the trinity salvation is a form of baptism but not water baptism but a baptizing in the blood of Jesus not being washed or dunked in water but in the blood of Jesus although salvation is a must to enter the kingdom of heaven and the other two are not so but should be done if you know about them becuase they are a blessing and a gft from God plus if you know something is of God why wouldn't you want it!?
You will notice that when Baptism, that of water, is not spoken of as representation of a greater reality but it is effecting faith and salvation to those who are baptized. You're inventing some new baptism that is not spoken of. Read the passages that speak of baptism, it does not leave you with the impression that figurative language is being used. Baptism is a gift of God and should not be despised or diminished to "a public profession of faith."
Anyone who believes we should interpret one Scripture by another (proof-texting) would do well to watch this. The Church has always done a good job of steering our interpretations. Thanks and Kudos for this and the one on "The Original John Calvin"
This is really odd...I think there's a lot of people who misinterpret baptism...that it welcomes us into community with the church and God...God forgives our sins, the sacrements are the physical sign that signifies what it represents. Baptism, washing away our sins...not because water is poured however the sign is something tangible to humans and through the physical nature we can experience the gift God is offering...I'm not a Lutheran, but this is still quite patronising...
@justasidekick Well, the point of the video is that if you want to hold the view that baptism is just a symbol, you have to explain why Scripture says the opposite every time it talks about baptism.
My self-righteous scripture quoting aside, my whole point has been that which St. Philip revealed in Acts:
"Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I, unless someone guides me?”
The completion of the NT did not nullify this truth. We still need guides, and if we trust in our own interpretations, by which no man is saved, we'll fall into spiritual delusion, grandeur, and all sorts of error.
@NicholasMyra No, “the completion of the NT did not nullify this truth” – it fulfilled it. Romans is the crowning work in this regard. Romans ties the Gospels to their application in our lives. The other NT Books build on the Gospels likewise. 2 Pet 3:14ff affirms it is the Word of God, not man, that fully equips us. Jn 16:13, Mt 23:8-12, & Rom 8:14 tell us it is the Holy Spirit and not other men who leads us into the Truth.
@N-Myra Yes, there r othr spirits & that is why we rely on God’s Word &do as His Word instructs us – use the Word (“…the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God…”) to prepare for battle & wage war Eph 6:10ff
10s of 1000s of den'ns attest to the fact that men are what the Word says they are. We r disobedient & carnal. We see 1 Cor 3, esp v 4, but do not perceive (Mk 4:12).
For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? (ESV)
@NicholasMyra My apologies. It was not my intention to be flippant or insulting. I refer to them as such since the “Song…” was an addition to Daniel not in the original Hebrew Canon and I understand “Wisdom…” has 2 instances of contradictory doctrine. They are likely more reliable than my writing but not up to the standard of the Holy Bible.
@aphidjonesesq For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. 20 Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled. (Wis 8:19–20 Apoc-KJV). Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Ps 51:5 ESV).
The Apoc statement supposedly attributed to Solomon is beyond the mere appearance of contradiction with the statement made by his father.
We enter through a narrow gate on a hard way (Matt 7:14). Delineating that path brings terms near contradiction.
@tjotwo Did you find this quote in the text yourself, or get it off of a polemic website? Because if you read the full Wisdom, you would have seen shortly after:
"For I am thy slave and the son of thy maidservant,
@NicholasMyra I have the books and read the text around it. While the surrounding text mitigates this Pelagianism, it reduces it only to Semipelagianism at best. It still wars with Ps 51:5 and the entire Gospel. Rom 3:9ff quotes Psalms 14 & 53: For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God…” (ESV)
@tjotwo So because you don't understand how to reconcile the scripture, you purge it. Typical pick-and-choose consumer Christianity...
Wisdom of Solomon says that mankind made itself of the devil's party, and blames man entirely for the Fall. If that's not sinful enough for you, sorry. Besides, you seem to imply that Christ's coming didn't change humanity so that humanity can turn toward God. That sounds a lot like denial of the Incarnation.
Wisdom has a Christ prophecy, BTW. Did you see it?
@NicholasMyra I understand how to reconcile Scripture with Scripture and reject false teachings that do not qualify as Scripture.
Wisdom like other false teachings supports the Semipelagian (SP) view of universal atonement (UA) as you demonstrate here. The next SP step after UA is cooperation of man with God in his salvation. And this contradicts Eph 2:8 among others. “Humanity” does not turn toward God – only the elect do (Rom 11:7)
@NicholasMyra Yes, The Word is my Principal Teacher of this.
When Christ was tempted in the wilderness, He responded by relying on Scripture. Satan even tried to use Scripture against Him (Matt 4:6) but Christ illustrated the perfect method of interpreting Scripture with Scripture by countering Satan’s misuse of Scripture with proper use of Scripture (Matt 4:7).
@tjotwo Do you understand how silly it sounds when you say you use Scripture to gain the proper interpretation of Scripture because your interpretation of Scripture taught you that Scripture Scriptures Scripture and that Scripture teaches you how to Scripture the Scriptures?
Oh, I know perfectly well how this sounds foolish to some, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Co 1:18 ESV). Continue reading beyond 18 for more.
And I know, “…how from childhood [I] have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make [me] wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Ti 3:15 ESV).
No, I am rejecting Wisdom as inspired Scripture because it contains a passage that directly contradicts the true Word of God as illustrated previously.
@tjotwo Your quotes do not prove Limited Atonement. All you're doing is prooftexting the scriptures according to your false interpretation. Everyone in the nations' denominations does that, and they are in babel.
Uh, what? First, that's just fallacious. Just because I share a point of view with certain people does not imply that I agree with everything that they said. Second, my question was rhetorical. I am not suggesting that you actually reject the other books of the Scriptural canon. Rather, I am suggesting that your faith in the primacy of those books over Wisdom begs the question. If they contradict each other, then one is false. It doesn't tell you which one is false.
The nature of your question is obvious & I responded as it deserved (Prov 26:4). Now I will answer acc to 26:5. My faith is based on the Founder and Focus of my faith, Jesus Christ. There are 4 main eye witness accounts and the rest of the books I accept are Apostolic and/or harmonious with these 4. As has been amply illustrated above, Wisdom is not.
I do not need to know the answers to the questions you posed to know Luke, Hebrews, Jude, and James are Breathed by God (2 Tim 3:14-17)
“…far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” (Ga 6:14 ESV).
2 Timothy says Scripture is inspired by God. Where does it mention Hebrews, James, and Jude? Let me be clear, I accept these texts as Scripture, but they conflict with your very own standard of what qualifies as Scripture, namely, apostolic authorship. You just completely avoided the question and sprinkled it with Scripture that doesn't pertain to the issue in order to divert peoples attention.
You didn’t read what I said very well or you are purposefully mischaracterizing what I wrote:
“There are 4 main eye witness accounts and the rest of the books I accept are Apostolic and/or harmonious with these.” & u missed another avenue to maintain your contentious stance. The sacred writings of Timothy’s childhood (2 Tim 3:15) included none of the Apostolic writings. But they are no less focused on Christ & harmonious with the eyewitness and Apostolic accounts (Jn 5:39).
Okay, so why not accept the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas? Those are consistent with the canonical Scripture. Are they Scripture too? Where's the cutoff? What if I feel that the Letter of St. James contradicts the other parts of the New Testament? How do you prove to me that it is scriptural?
Asked and answered. See thread above for Apocrypha. I reiterate that the Test of Scripture is based and focused on Christ. There are 4 eyewitness accounts. There are accounts by Christ’s handpicked Apostles and there are OT & NT books that are harmonious. What you feel may or may not have bearing on fact and has no bearing on what has been tested by the Body you claim to have faith in.
Actually, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabas are not part of what is commonly called the Apocrypha, which is OT Jewish literature. Anyways, yes, it's been tested by the Church, and that's why I accept it. This whole discussion was intended to lead you to that very conclusion, that our ground for accepting the twenty-seven New Testament books was indeed the Church.
I use “Apocrypha” to denote books that are falsely represented as canonical. Likewise, the “church” has varied meanings. Note that I indicated the Canon was tested by the Body. Your “Church” is not the ultimate authority – the Word of God focused and centered on Christ is. Par 5 of Hermas represented Christ as a normal man imbued with the Holy Spirit – heresy. Barnabas 16:3-4 prophecied the Temple would be rebuilt by the Romans – didn’t happen.
No, but it appears vs 18-20 is another inaccuracy. God did not deliver Christ from the hand of His enemies and He was not respected. This directly contradicts the Truth as accurately prophesied by Isa 53, esp v 10.
Very good point. Since the prophecy comes from the mouth of the “ungodly” (v 1), their words can be regarded as truth or incorrect conjecture as the reader sees fit. It is tough to hang your hat on a prophecy like that. But I do have to acknowledge that many of the OT prophecies are only revealed properly through the eyes of the NT – Scripture interprets Scripture.
@tjotwo Prophecies came from the mouth of the ungodly in the New Testament, and you regard them as truth. Besides, you can clearly see that this is a powerful Christ prophecy. Only a Judaizer would deny it.
@aphidjonesesq Your say-so does not make this so. 1 Maccabees 9:27 even testifies to this notion: 27 So was there a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen among them. (Apoc – KJV) The voice of prophecy was silenced for 400 years between the Babylonian Captivity and John the Baptist. And I have already indicated Josephus came to reject the Apocrypha.
Tjowtwo, you say you abandoned traditional Lutheranism because it was too "Catholic" for you. Don't you find it odd that you now find yourself as your own pope, dictating novel re-interpretations of the Christian faith, re-writing history, and attempting to preach your Islam-influenced sectarian view in youtube comments?
@NicholasMyra I missed this post until just now as you initiated a new post rather than reply to my post so I got no notification.
Jesus condemned the practices of the papists in Matt 23, esp 5-12. He Asserted we are all brothers. The 1st Pope (NOT), was guided by the Holy Spirit to record that Christians are all priests (1 Pet 2:5,9). If you are truly a Christian, I am your brother and you are in danger for calling me blasphemous names (Matt 5:22). The Word is my Authority.
Apparently you did not notice “NOT” next to the statement about 1st Pope. No need to convince me but you might want to visit the wikipedia page on "Pope_Peter" and have a chat with them:
Once again, my authority is the Word of God in the 66 books of the Bible. Convince me where I have strayed from this and I will move towards the Truth that moment.
@tjotwo You trust not in the Word of God, rather you trust in the Word of God as interpreted by the proud imaginations of your own heart- you have made yourself your own Pope; the same pope who was the first true protestant. And to those who trust in their own interpretations, the LORD says through his chosen vessel Mary:
@NicholasMyra Once again, Peter proclaims all Christians a holy and royal priesthood (1 Pt 2:5,9). The Holy Spirit dwells in all Christians (Rom 8:9-11) leads us (Rom 8:14) and bears witness with our spirits that we are children of God (Rom 8:16). We are to use the Word of God to test anything any man, even an apostle, tells us (Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 3:14ff). And Mary acknowledged she was a sinner in need of the Savior, like the rest of us: “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Lk 1:47)
@NicholasMyra It takes no “personal interpretation” to understand you are disputing what I say when you state, “you trust in the Word of God as interpreted by the proud imaginations of your own heart- you have made yourself your own Pope; the same pope who was the first true protestant.” I rely on the Word of God as my Authority and Guide and you continue mount these fallacious ad hominem attacks.
The Titus 3:5 proof text is preceded with the phrase, "He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness"
God alone receives the glory for our salvation and there is no component of man's works, like sprinkling water and saying a blessing, that enters into this salvific work. Otherwise, robe up & grab the firehoses.
Col 2:11-12 is properly used to illustrate that infant baptisim is appropriate. And Romans 4:1-12 explains how faith was given to Abraham prior to circumcision.
@tjotwo That's exactly the point. This washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, through which God saves us, is done by God. Baptism is God's work, not ours.
@TheLutheranSatire Yes, washing of regen is the work of the HS. Baptidsm and circumcision are works of men to set themselves and their children apart as holy unto the Lord. As Rom 4:1-12 illustrates, faith is given independent of these works.
@tjotwo Just as there is one Lord and one Faith, there is one Baptism (Ephesians 4:5). The only reason people separate water baptism from spirit baptism is because they start with the conclusion that baptism doesn't do anything and then have to create different levels of baptism in order to fit the conclusion they've already drawn. That's a bad way to do theology and doesn't let the Scriptures speak freely.
@tjotwo The references to "works" refer to "works of the law". While God alone administers the graces freely and there is nothing we can do to "coerce" Him into giving them to us, including salvation, our works are not completely irrelevant to our salvation. Indeed, faith and works go hand in hand. Matthew 7:21 says, "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who *does* the will of my Father who is in heaven." To "do" something is a work.
@kozyshack12 That is the Semipelagian view that man participates in his salvation. Drop back to Rom 3:21 and read through 4:12, esp 3:28 which tells us our works ARE irrelevant to our salvation. In fact, pg 544 your Bk of Concord quotes M Luther,” Therefore, while and as long as we have to do with this article of justification, we reject and condemn works, since the very nature of this article cannot admit any treatment or discussion of works.” Works follow faith but do not produce faith.
After 30 years as a Lutheran, I suddenly realized that, too. I woke up, pinched myself, realized I wasn't having a nightmare, made like Martin Luther, and got away from those Catholics. Last time I visited, I was treated to an RC procession with the pastor following a graven image on a stick -- in a "Lutheran" church.
@tjotwo You mean like when the Israelites followed God's command and looked upon a graven image on a stick in the wilderness so that, through faith, they might be saved? (Numbers 21:4-9) FOR SHAME!!!
@TheLutheranSatire Yes, like Lutherans and RC's and Anglicans, my grandchildren try to make an exception a rule from time to time. And I purpose to make like Hoshea. 2 Kings 18:4.
@tjotwo It's obvious that Hoshea destroys the Bronze Serpent because the Israelites are worshipping it falsely, taking a good gift of God and abusing it. The reason this is obvious is because God once told the Israelites to look upon the Bronze Serpent. And God does not tell people to sin. That's why I think it's a rather weak response to say that this was the exception to the rule, unless you can provide me another example of a time when God commanded people to break His law.
@tjotwo But even if you were right about this being an exception, you still have to get around the fact that God commands the Israelites to make all sorts of "graven images" on the Ark and in the Temple. And then, of course, you have the fact that Jesus Christ Himself, as God in the flesh, is a "graven image." So either your understanding of God's prohibition of idols is off, or God is forbidding us from worshiping the same God-Man He says we must worship in order to be saved. Weird.
@TheLutheranSatire You fail to see the difference between God’s Direct Commands to make images and His own Work of Creation on one hand and man’s replication, separate from and contrary to God’s Direct Command, of those images. Deut 12:3-4, “You shall tear down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and burn their Asherim [sacred trees or poles set up near an altar; Strong’s] with fire. You shall chop down the carved images of their gods and destroy their name out of that place. ” (ESV)
@tjotwo I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm simply noting that, when the Father sent His Son into the world, He makes the man Jesus Christ the visible image of God. So, in his humanity, Christians worship a "graven image." Why would God do that if He outright rejects graven images?
@tjotwo Yes, God tells the Israelites not to use pagan images in worship. And He also tells them to put all kinds of images on the Ark and in the Temple. So He is obviously forbidding the Israelites from using the idols of the pagans and from using them the way that the pagans do. But He is not outright forbidding the use of graven images by His people.
@TheLutheranSatire This is very clearly stated: “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, .” (Dt 4:15–16)ESV.
@TheLutheranSatire Once again, there is a difference between God telling and man doing it on his own. One one hand, God is directing man as to the proper object of worship in the way God chooses. On the other is man, on his own initiative, devising an object of worship that is totally contrary to God's Commandment. Consider whether the Body of Christ is that image on a pole or the Communion of Saints.
@tjotwo But a Crucifix is not an object of worship. No one is praying to it. No one is treating it as the presence of God among us, just as the Israelites were not at first worshiping the Bronze Serpent (but then later were, hence it's destruction.) Rather, a Crucifix is a visible reminder of the Crucified One we worship. And it functions in the same way as illustrations in a children's book or the images on screen in "The Passion."
@TheLutheranSatire That was a somewhat plausible point back when the crucifix was displayed on the alter or on a wall. But when it is paraded in front of a procession with the “pastor” walking behind, it becomes an object of worship. The Bride of Christ turns and focuses on that image as if it was the Bride.
@tjotwo Wrongity wrong wrong wrong. We who embrace the processional crucifix do not worship it. We know that this piece of wood is not God, but an image of the Crucified God whom we do worship in Spirit and Truth. It's the same thing as when a congregation turns to face the bride as she processes down the aisle at her wedding. We all know she is not the Church, but a beautiful image of the Church, Christ's Bride.
@TheLutheranSatire The bride that everybody turns to look at in a wedding was made by the one true living God and the analogy is spelled out in His Word (Eph 5:22ff and others). The image on the pole that Lutherans turn to look at was shaped by an ironsmith (Isa 44:12) or a carpenter (Isa 44:13ff) These craftsmen are only human (Isa 44:11).
@tjotwo I find your argument fallacious on numerous grounds. First, and most important is that the cross *is* the serpent (John 3:14). If the serpent is an exception, than the cross is an exception. Second, you seem to be arguing that all acts (actus or energia) are immoral without divine dictum. Any yet, it is that very dictum (logos) who is lifted up on the cross. The procession of the cross is the proclamation of the Word of God who is elevated in his self-sacrifice.
@npmccallum The Cross is not the serpent. In fact, the metaphor is not focused on the objects (Christ and the serpent) but the actions (lifting up and saving from death). But it is true that both were an exception. The charge against Christ was blasphemy for which Caesar judged him not guilty (Luke 23:4). He was guilty by Jewish law and should have been stoned (Lev 24:16). Makes the prophetic fulfillment all the more miraculous. 2nd, all acts contrary to the Word of God are sin.
@tjotwo It would be nice to be able to edit a post. I meant to say Christ was considered guilty because He was certainly not guilty when He claimed to be the Son of God. But the charge was blasphemy for this claim (Matt 26:65). Consider Heb 10. This repeated holding up of an image on a stick in a processional (like the serpent in the desert) is more like the repeated sacrifices and the RC mass than the proper cognizance of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself once for all.
@tjotwo So we've gone from "all graven images are bad" to "only graven images made my men are bad" to "it's ok to have a graven image by the altar as long as people don't turn to face it or anything like that" to "you can hold it up for people to look at, but only once." Hombre, you are grasping at straws here.
@TheLutheranSatire On the contrary, my straw is in the brick laid on the rock. (Matt 7:24) God said all graven images are bad. (Deut 5:8) God made 1 exception (Num 21:8) that was later destroyed when it became an object of worship (2 Kin 18:4). Christ said He would be raised up like that serpent (Jn 3:14) and Hebrews 10 tells us Christ was raised up, died, and was re-raised up once for all time – not to be repeated with graven images by Peter worshipers or their progeny.
@tjotwo "Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twisted linen and blue and purple and scarlet material; you shall make them with cherubim, the work of a skillful workman." -Exodus 26; "And on the surfaces of its stays and on its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around." -1 Kings 7:36
@tjotwo "There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony" -Exodus 25:22; "The nave he lined with cypress and covered it with fine gold and made palms and chains on it... In the Most Holy Place he made two cherubim of wood and overlaid them with gold...he made a hundred pomegranates and put them on the chains." -2 Chronicles 3
@NicholasMyra You treat me to 2 responses with OT passages then condemn me for an OT passage. Welcome to the NT era. God’s directions for His OT Temple do not give license to practice NT idolatry or “Judaising”. A graven image on a stick does not equate to God’s prescribed decorations of the Temple. “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Co 3:16 ESV). See also 2 Cor 6:14ff, the Lutheran construct for not praying with other Christians.
@tjotwo None of that is an actual argument. You speak of Judaising, and yet Jews AND Christians utilized images in their worship until rabbinical jews adopted hardline iconoclasm in the later centuries AD. This can be clearly seen from excavations from the 200's AD at Dura Europos, which demonstrates both Rabbinical Jewish and Christian iconography. Essentially, to completely reject images in worship is to take a later form Judaising position. And FYI, having images in worship is not idolatry.
@aphidjonesesq Rather than an “actual argument” a properly discerned statement based solely on the Word of God contained in the 66 books of the Bible is the Prima-Facie argument. While you presented a nice history lesson, the practices of a certain sect in a certain period of time is not normative and it certainly does not trump the Truth of Scripture. So your rebuttal does not touch the question of whether my Prima-Facie argument is true to the Word of God.
@tjotwo The practices of a certain sect? You mean all of Christendom for the first 1500 years of the Church?
Solomon added things to the temple that were not specified in Exodus. He would also have no reason to boast because of divine-human co-operation, because he is simply obeying God's Word (the Logos, that is) working through free humanity.
@NicholasMyra In one sense, I mean any group that operates for any number of years. The Word of God is by far our primary Standard of what is right or wrong. In another sense, I do not mean all of Christendom for the 1st 1500 yrs since there was a distinct transition from Biblical organization and worship after about 250 years.
Would “free humanity” be like the Pharisees in Jn 8:33 or like everyone in Rom 6:18?
@NicholasMyra It is time for you to take a look at Rom 3:21ff. No one freely does the Will of God except Christ Who did it in our place. Abel complied with the Will of God later recorded in Ex 13:12 & Nu 18:17.
History for me is His-Story – God’s Story as recounted in the Word of God. It is unwise to call this silly – 1 Cor 1:18ff.
Yes, money was saved on printing by cutting out the fiction section.
@tjotwo Leave it to mortal men to decide which parts of the Scriptures are fiction and which aren't, I suppose. So much for Sola Scriptura!
Your Romans quote has nothing to do with monergism or the ability to do God's will. I suppose in the warped interpretive grid of Sola Augustine, you could somehow arrive at that conclusion, but exactly how escapes me.
@NicholasMyra It was mortal men who recorded the Word of God. There were some rigid guidelines, undoubtedly inspired by God, for acceptance as Canon, both OT and NT. We have plenty of good manuscripts recording the Word of Christ and His Apostles. This makes most of the OT Canon a no-brainer since they quoted out of nearly every OT book included in the Canon. This class could continue but 500-word limits make for a lot of posts.
@tjotwo I'm sorry, what OT canonization event are you referring to? Which council? The counter-reformation council of Trent held by the Latins? One done by post-2nd temple rabbinic jews?
BTW, The New Testament quotes and refers to events and quotes from texts outside the protocanon.
@NicholasMyra Jamnia in 100 AD is a council many hang their hats on but Jamnia only confirmed the books that were already clearly defined by ancient Hebrews. By the Time of Christ, there had been a silence in prophecy of several hundred years – plenty of time to establish the OT Canon.
@tjotwo Jamnia? The hypothetical council that decided rabbinic jewish texts in opposition to Christianity? Uh... go ahead and hang your hat on that, buddy, but nobody in the Christian community accepted their decisions until the post-reformation.
@NicholasMyra Once again, I appreciate the history lesson but no need to stop by going back only to 100 AD. Jesus continually confronted the Scribes and Pharisees for their apostasy. Matt 23 is a big dose. And Paul warned of various heresies in many of his letters to include Gal 3 where he addresses human cooperation.
@NicholasMyra You spend more time reframing and misstating my words than coming up with your own. You are the one to insists I am arguing for a ~250 apostasy. I id’d a distinct transition in your supposed unified Christendom for 1500 years meanwhile I reiterate one more time that apostasy has been continuous from the time of Christ in human flesh on Earth. Only by relying solely on the Ultimate Prooftext, the Holy Bible, are these heresies id’d and avoided. Psa 118:8
And Christ's Church was never overcome by apostasy. This is just a red herring. You DID say that structure and worship changed around 250 AD. You failed to demonstrate this fact in the face of counter-evidence.
@NicholasMyra You added “overcome” to my assertion that apostasy has existed since the time of Christ in flesh on Earth. Besides the proof I have already provided, 2nd & 3rd chapters of Revelation further illustrate the seriousness and extent. Men have moved towards apostasy and the Word has brought them back since the Word became flesh & it could be argued even before.
Around 324 rather than 250 AD I previously stated, Constantine made the persecuted Christendom the state religion.
That's not true. Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state religion through the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, in reaction to Arianism and Julian the Apostate's abuses.
Iconography in churches, the real presence, the three ranks, closed communion, liturgy... these are all demonstrably present well before 380 AD.
Yes, men have become apostates. But not because they defy your self-papist interpretation of things.
@tjotwo After the 324 comment I see that you aren't currently interested in what's actually true about early Christianity. You're interested in repeating common low-church protestant myths about early Christianity without regard to actual evidence. I'm ending this discussion because it is clearly not going anywhere; I exhort you to educate yourself on such matters before speaking about them again.
@NicholasMyra Funny how you insisted on playing “my history is better than your history” only to take your ball and go home with one final insult. My objective all along has been to “make a defense” in accordance with 1 Pet 3:13ff. And the Word of God is the main thing I base my defense on. I am interested in knowing more but I certainly am not ready to swallow anything on your say-so, alone.
@NicholasMyra Pls forgive my cautious response, but I believe I agree with your statement. I believe we approach any reading with a presuppositional framework (PF) that is further developed by the reading. In the unique case of the Word of God, the test of the veracity of our PF is whether it fits entirely within the Word of God without adding or subtracting anything from either.
@tjotwo But that view is self-refuting, because to "interpret scripture with scripture" as biblicists often say, you must have made an initial correct interpretation, and then interpret the passages you believe the Scriptures interprets the other passages with.
So it is impossible to read the Scriptures without having made use of at least an initial and then several subsequent extra-scriptural hermenutical devices.
@NicholasMyra You probably have not directed artillery fire. Fire one round based on best guess. Adjust fire until on target then fire for effect – all guns. That has been my experience with reading the Bible from various perspectives. I keep rereading, learning, and adjusting. Finally, after 40 years, I adjust primarily from within Scripture. I enjoy smart people like you who test my PF rather than condemning me along with my PF out of hand.
@tjotwo If I was too abrupt in ending the discussion, I'll continue. From the beginning, Christians utilized the Greek Septuagint Old Testament, which predates the modern Masoretic text by around 1000 years. NT Old Testament quotes often come from the Septuagint, and Christ observes Hanukkah, a festival derived from events in the books of Maccabees (John 10:22 and onward).
The OT canon was "closed" for the Latins at the Council of Trent, in the 1500's; however, this "closing" included the so-..
@tjotwo ...called "deuterocanonical" books and even accepted the possibility of others. Obviously you disagree with the Latins and their council, but it begs the question; who, then, fixed the OT canon for non-Latins?
@NicholasMyra Jn 10:22 marks a time period just like Luke 2:2. We are not looking for the writing where Luke took this fact to make it canonical. We know Jesus often went to the Temple to teach (Mk 14:49). Jesus chastised the Jewish leaders for developing unScriptural traditions in Matt 15:1-9 among other places. Amos 8:11, Mic 3:4-8, & Mal 4:5 tell us the next voice from God will be Elijah preparing the Way for the Lord (Luke 1:17). This fixes Malachi as the last OT Book.
@tjotwo My main point was that the OT canon wasn't officially closed in Christendom, and was closed only in a part of it (the Latins) as a response to the Reformation, and by post-Lutherans (Luther himself didn't toss out the Latin deuterocanon, contrary to popular belief). And nobody for the first 1500 years had a serious problem with this fact.
@NicholasMyra Note that Christ provides a timeframe in Luke 11:51. Around 400AD, Jerome recanted his support of DC books naming them apocrypha after the Greek term for hidden. There are 4 different sets of apocryphal books depending on whether you are RC, GO, SO, or HC. And it was Trent, after Reformation, that settled it for the RC’s while they also condemned Luther.
@tjotwo Yes, the Council of Trent was what I was referring to.
Regarding Jerome, he is not the consensus Patrum. And it should also be noted that there was a Scriptural ranking system in place, where the Gospels took precedence over NT letters and writings, the NT took precedence over the OT, and OT took precedence the Deuterocanon (literally: secondary canon). There is another category, "Anagignoskomena" which means "things that are read". This includes Didache, Hermas, and other apocrypha.
@NicholasMyra This is now movement from a completely homogenous, unified Christendom for 1500 years to a consensus Patrum. But the DC books were and are a moving target from Jamnia and Carthage all the way to Trent and from Rom Cath to Grk Orth to Slav Orth to Hist Coptic.
@tjotwo There's always been disagreement about things of lesser importance, like where the OT canon has to end (And yes, to a Christian, that is of lesser importance), how long should the Liturgy be, what the proper flour/salt ratio for tasty communion bread is, etc
But on those things I mentioned: use of Liturgy, Real Presence, ecclesiastical structure, images & symbols; the only people who contested any of those were those you wouldn't want to associate with (Islamisers and Gnostics.)
Many who are called "Christian" would agree about the unimportance of where the OT ends but many (Calvinists, for example) would not. I am not an Islamizer, Gnostic, Judaiser, Buddhist, etc… but I contest the things you list and I am committed to the Word of God, esp. 2 Tim 3:12ff where there is both a warning about persecution by imposters and an admonition to adhere to what I have known from childhood to be the Word of God.
@tjotwo The idea was "All the Scriptures are inspired, but [Animal Farm joke] Some are more Scripture than others." Martin Luther understood this concept, which is why he put the Epistles of James and to the Hebrews in the back of his bibles' NT Canon.
You forgot Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Armenian Orthodox, etc. which all have their own apocrypha. The churches have overlapping apocrypha as anagignoskomena, though, meaning that while they're not on each other's canon lists, the books are considered useful/inspired to varying extents. For example, 1 Enoch is secondary canon for Ethiopians, and is anagignoskomena in the Coptic church (and the Greek and Slavic, if I'm not mistaken).
@NicholasMyra I appreciate all the info you have provided on this thread. Sadly the Prots, contrary to those with these differences over canon, sought to unify under 66 Books. But as the RC’s feared, they have become more fragmented than the RC’s and Orthos. And like the RC’s & O’s, many essentially have tiered the Word and made it subject the hearts of men who have established their own 3 walls (a la Luther’s assertions about RC’s).
I'm an evangelical, I think we agree on 95% of our theology especially where salvation/justification is concerned. I love your videos, almost every one I've seen makes me laugh out loud. Keep up the good work!
lenpettis74 2 weeks ago
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by GRACE you have been saved through FAITH, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast.
Galatians 3:10-11 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH"
luv ur vids tho!
lenpettis74 2 weeks ago
@lenpettis74 I agree! But I feel like you are saying Baptism is a work... not good.
11webekl 1 week ago
I like the fact that Paul's short. Someone did his homework.
ForgivenLutheran 2 weeks ago
Supposeth is spelled in this video with three "p"'s (Should I deduce that in addition to introducing a completely false heretical religion and false doctrine to Joey, that this [fallen]angel couldn't spell either? Or maybe the Glasses were off kilter on his nose-- you know the Ummin and Thummin brand?) -- Comment left by the faith descendant of the Scottish Covenanters and Seceders.
fishersmedic 1 month ago
Lol you like taking scriptures out of context eh? like the baby baptism one if you want to baptize a baby because it says circumsion.. Then by that reasoning noone can be saved unless they somehow magically ask for forgiveness when we are 8 days old because the bible says that being saved is the circumsion of your heart.... it's called figurative speak.. /facepalm
tfrIrate 1 month ago
@tfrIrate Numerous times in the bible God says to baptize "All nations." All nations includes adults AND infants. And where in Baptism does is say we need to fully ask for forgiveness. Infants cannot ask for forgiveness. Thanks to Ezekiel 36:22-30 we see that through Baptism we are given a NEW heart v26. Funny how it never says because of a CHANGED heart. Baptism does the work for infants.
11webekl 1 week ago
Baptism is not required for salvation--the thief on the cross was never baptised. It's a good thing to do, and you SHOULD do it, but it's not required.
RocknForJesus 1 month ago
@RocknForJesus Where in the Bible does it say the thief on the cross was NEVER baptized?
Dullsloth 3 weeks ago
@Dullsloth ...Are you serious?
RocknForJesus 3 weeks ago
@RocknForJesus It is still an agent of salvation. Say you are at a swimming pool and when someone drowns a lifeguard saves them from drowning. Now perhaps you see a friend drowning and you jump in and save them. You are NOT a lifeguard, but does that mean that we should say lifeguards do not save anymore? And if we can all be next to God and have him verbally promise us salvation, then yes I would be comfortable agreeing that it is 100% not required for salvation.
11webekl 1 week ago
I would hardly count the mormons as a part of the church, and the moroni passage is not about Baptism not being a part of salvation, because they believe that is a part of becoming a god. It instead is about the idea that children are inesint and that is wrong. DOn't include mormons as Church theologins, they are heretics.
kightsun 1 month ago
@pegcage We can be thankful that God has a sense of humour.
WillKub92 2 months ago
This is a total misrepresentation of what Paul said in Chapter 6 and satirically or otherwise portraying him of saying incorrect things is wrong. Clearly water baptism is a picture of being baptised into Christ by the Holy Spirit.
pegcage 2 months ago
before i get to the rest of the video i just stopped it at the capture 6 part wich is the beginning and i stopped it to say yes ch 6 does say that but I'm not sure if you know that there are three baptism... baptism 1) "baptism of repentance" baptism 2) "baptism of water" baptism 3) "baptism of the Holy Ghost" so as you can see it's kinda the same way the trinity is all baptisms agree with each other but all three are three different parts like God is three different persons :)
kiekie84 4 months ago
this is actually not true. Ephesians 4:4-6 clearly states that there is "one baptism" which is the one Christ commanded at the end of Matthew, this is the baptism that all believers should receive. The baptism of John was described as a "baptism of repentance" very well stating that baptism and repentance are connected. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was promised to the disciples which they received on Pentecost, during which they spoke in tongues.
MarcusAndrewWilliams 4 months ago
@kiekie84 i would also like to add that the three baptism can also be a way to represent the trinity salvation is a form of baptism but not water baptism but a baptizing in the blood of Jesus not being washed or dunked in water but in the blood of Jesus although salvation is a must to enter the kingdom of heaven and the other two are not so but should be done if you know about them becuase they are a blessing and a gft from God plus if you know something is of God why wouldn't you want it!?
kiekie84 4 months ago
You will notice that when Baptism, that of water, is not spoken of as representation of a greater reality but it is effecting faith and salvation to those who are baptized. You're inventing some new baptism that is not spoken of. Read the passages that speak of baptism, it does not leave you with the impression that figurative language is being used. Baptism is a gift of God and should not be despised or diminished to "a public profession of faith."
MarcusAndrewWilliams 4 months ago 3
I'm Orthodox, but this is awesome. Great job. That crud about "superstition" is just neo-Gnosticism.
KabaneTheChristian 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OK how about this one? I still think it is funny!
irondawson 5 months ago
Can an unbaptized person go to heaven?
Taiwan1997 5 months ago
Comment removed
brycepatties 6 months ago
This is awesome! Congratulations for nailing it, Hans.
guavaberry1952 7 months ago
Anyone who believes we should interpret one Scripture by another (proof-texting) would do well to watch this. The Church has always done a good job of steering our interpretations. Thanks and Kudos for this and the one on "The Original John Calvin"
guavaberry1952 7 months ago
This is really odd...I think there's a lot of people who misinterpret baptism...that it welcomes us into community with the church and God...God forgives our sins, the sacrements are the physical sign that signifies what it represents. Baptism, washing away our sins...not because water is poured however the sign is something tangible to humans and through the physical nature we can experience the gift God is offering...I'm not a Lutheran, but this is still quite patronising...
justasidekick 7 months ago
@justasidekick Well, the point of the video is that if you want to hold the view that baptism is just a symbol, you have to explain why Scripture says the opposite every time it talks about baptism.
TheLutheranSatire 7 months ago 10
This video is a testament to the fact that sacraments are about as foreign a concept as the sanctity of life.
TheKbugga 8 months ago
My self-righteous scripture quoting aside, my whole point has been that which St. Philip revealed in Acts:
"Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I, unless someone guides me?”
The completion of the NT did not nullify this truth. We still need guides, and if we trust in our own interpretations, by which no man is saved, we'll fall into spiritual delusion, grandeur, and all sorts of error.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra No, “the completion of the NT did not nullify this truth” – it fulfilled it. Romans is the crowning work in this regard. Romans ties the Gospels to their application in our lives. The other NT Books build on the Gospels likewise. 2 Pet 3:14ff affirms it is the Word of God, not man, that fully equips us. Jn 16:13, Mt 23:8-12, & Rom 8:14 tell us it is the Holy Spirit and not other men who leads us into the Truth.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo The Holy Spirit does lead us into Truth, but there are other spirits too. False spirits that lead into confusion and chaos.
The Bible does not interpret itself. Tens of thousands of denominations attest to this reality.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@N-Myra Yes, there r othr spirits & that is why we rely on God’s Word &do as His Word instructs us – use the Word (“…the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God…”) to prepare for battle & wage war Eph 6:10ff
10s of 1000s of den'ns attest to the fact that men are what the Word says they are. We r disobedient & carnal. We see 1 Cor 3, esp v 4, but do not perceive (Mk 4:12).
For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? (ESV)
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo What the heck?
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
Sorry for being harsh.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra
Accepted.
Please accept my apologies for not fully living up to the "gentleness and respect" required of me by 1 Pet 3:15.
tjotwo 8 months ago
The fact that you refer to the Song of the Three Youths and the Wisdom of Solomon as "fictions" is quite depressing, my friend.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra My apologies. It was not my intention to be flippant or insulting. I refer to them as such since the “Song…” was an addition to Daniel not in the original Hebrew Canon and I understand “Wisdom…” has 2 instances of contradictory doctrine. They are likely more reliable than my writing but not up to the standard of the Holy Bible.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Contradictory doctrine? Well, that's quite a statement. The Bible itself is full of what appear to be contradictions.
aphidjonesesq 8 months ago
@aphidjonesesq For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. 20 Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled. (Wis 8:19–20 Apoc-KJV). Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Ps 51:5 ESV).
The Apoc statement supposedly attributed to Solomon is beyond the mere appearance of contradiction with the statement made by his father.
We enter through a narrow gate on a hard way (Matt 7:14). Delineating that path brings terms near contradiction.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Did you find this quote in the text yourself, or get it off of a polemic website? Because if you read the full Wisdom, you would have seen shortly after:
"For I am thy slave and the son of thy maidservant,
a man who is weak and short-lived,
with little understanding of judgment and laws;
for even if one is perfect among the sons of men,
yet without the Wisdom that comes from thee
he will be regarded as nothing."
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra I have the books and read the text around it. While the surrounding text mitigates this Pelagianism, it reduces it only to Semipelagianism at best. It still wars with Ps 51:5 and the entire Gospel. Rom 3:9ff quotes Psalms 14 & 53: For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God…” (ESV)
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo So because you don't understand how to reconcile the scripture, you purge it. Typical pick-and-choose consumer Christianity...
Wisdom of Solomon says that mankind made itself of the devil's party, and blames man entirely for the Fall. If that's not sinful enough for you, sorry. Besides, you seem to imply that Christ's coming didn't change humanity so that humanity can turn toward God. That sounds a lot like denial of the Incarnation.
Wisdom has a Christ prophecy, BTW. Did you see it?
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra I understand how to reconcile Scripture with Scripture and reject false teachings that do not qualify as Scripture.
Wisdom like other false teachings supports the Semipelagian (SP) view of universal atonement (UA) as you demonstrate here. The next SP step after UA is cooperation of man with God in his salvation. And this contradicts Eph 2:8 among others. “Humanity” does not turn toward God – only the elect do (Rom 11:7)
tjotwo 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I understand how to reconcile Scripture with Scripture and reject false teachings that do not qualify as Scripture."
Who taught you this?
...Scripture?
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra Yes, The Word is my Principal Teacher of this.
When Christ was tempted in the wilderness, He responded by relying on Scripture. Satan even tried to use Scripture against Him (Matt 4:6) but Christ illustrated the perfect method of interpreting Scripture with Scripture by countering Satan’s misuse of Scripture with proper use of Scripture (Matt 4:7).
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Do you understand how silly it sounds when you say you use Scripture to gain the proper interpretation of Scripture because your interpretation of Scripture taught you that Scripture Scriptures Scripture and that Scripture teaches you how to Scripture the Scriptures?
Do you see the chicken and egg problem here?
FullContactCMA 8 months ago
@FullContactCMA
Oh, I know perfectly well how this sounds foolish to some, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Co 1:18 ESV). Continue reading beyond 18 for more.
And I know, “…how from childhood [I] have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make [me] wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Ti 3:15 ESV).
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Oh, not that old ploy. You've yet to explain who taught you how to interpret Scripture with Scripture.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@tjotwo
So you're rejecting Wisdom because it rejects TULIP?
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra
No, I am rejecting Wisdom as inspired Scripture because it contains a passage that directly contradicts the true Word of God as illustrated previously.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Your quotes do not prove Limited Atonement. All you're doing is prooftexting the scriptures according to your false interpretation. Everyone in the nations' denominations does that, and they are in babel.
FullContactCMA 8 months ago
@tjotwo
Why not reject the other books and accept Wisdom?
KabaneTheChristian 5 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian
@KabaneTheChristian
This same kind of question has been asked by Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Barker Eddy, Adolf Hitler, and many others.
tjotwo 5 months ago
@tjotwo
Uh, what? First, that's just fallacious. Just because I share a point of view with certain people does not imply that I agree with everything that they said. Second, my question was rhetorical. I am not suggesting that you actually reject the other books of the Scriptural canon. Rather, I am suggesting that your faith in the primacy of those books over Wisdom begs the question. If they contradict each other, then one is false. It doesn't tell you which one is false.
KabaneTheChristian 5 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian
The nature of your question is obvious & I responded as it deserved (Prov 26:4). Now I will answer acc to 26:5. My faith is based on the Founder and Focus of my faith, Jesus Christ. There are 4 main eye witness accounts and the rest of the books I accept are Apostolic and/or harmonious with these 4. As has been amply illustrated above, Wisdom is not.
tjotwo 5 months ago
@tjotwo
Luke was not written by an Apostle. We don't know who wrote Hebrews. Who's Jude? How do you know? Which James wrote the Letter of James?
My faith is centered around the Lord Jesus Christ, but unlike you, I also have faith in His body.
KabaneTheChristian 5 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian
I do not need to know the answers to the questions you posed to know Luke, Hebrews, Jude, and James are Breathed by God (2 Tim 3:14-17)
“…far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” (Ga 6:14 ESV).
tjotwo 5 months ago
@tjotwo
2 Timothy says Scripture is inspired by God. Where does it mention Hebrews, James, and Jude? Let me be clear, I accept these texts as Scripture, but they conflict with your very own standard of what qualifies as Scripture, namely, apostolic authorship. You just completely avoided the question and sprinkled it with Scripture that doesn't pertain to the issue in order to divert peoples attention.
KabaneTheChristian 5 months ago
@Kabane...
You didn’t read what I said very well or you are purposefully mischaracterizing what I wrote:
“There are 4 main eye witness accounts and the rest of the books I accept are Apostolic and/or harmonious with these.” & u missed another avenue to maintain your contentious stance. The sacred writings of Timothy’s childhood (2 Tim 3:15) included none of the Apostolic writings. But they are no less focused on Christ & harmonious with the eyewitness and Apostolic accounts (Jn 5:39).
tjotwo 5 months ago
@tjotwo
Okay, so why not accept the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas? Those are consistent with the canonical Scripture. Are they Scripture too? Where's the cutoff? What if I feel that the Letter of St. James contradicts the other parts of the New Testament? How do you prove to me that it is scriptural?
KabaneTheChristian 5 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian
Asked and answered. See thread above for Apocrypha. I reiterate that the Test of Scripture is based and focused on Christ. There are 4 eyewitness accounts. There are accounts by Christ’s handpicked Apostles and there are OT & NT books that are harmonious. What you feel may or may not have bearing on fact and has no bearing on what has been tested by the Body you claim to have faith in.
tjotwo 5 months ago
@tjotwo
Actually, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabas are not part of what is commonly called the Apocrypha, which is OT Jewish literature. Anyways, yes, it's been tested by the Church, and that's why I accept it. This whole discussion was intended to lead you to that very conclusion, that our ground for accepting the twenty-seven New Testament books was indeed the Church.
KabaneTheChristian 5 months ago
@KabaneTheChristian
I use “Apocrypha” to denote books that are falsely represented as canonical. Likewise, the “church” has varied meanings. Note that I indicated the Canon was tested by the Body. Your “Church” is not the ultimate authority – the Word of God focused and centered on Christ is. Par 5 of Hermas represented Christ as a normal man imbued with the Holy Spirit – heresy. Barnabas 16:3-4 prophecied the Temple would be rebuilt by the Romans – didn’t happen.
tjotwo 5 months ago
@tjotwo Are you saying that Wisdom of Solomon does not contain a Christ prophecy? Read 2:12-23.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra
No, but it appears vs 18-20 is another inaccuracy. God did not deliver Christ from the hand of His enemies and He was not respected. This directly contradicts the Truth as accurately prophesied by Isa 53, esp v 10.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo My friend, you misunderstood the context. 18-20 is part of a quote within the text, spoken by "wicked men." It says
"For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."
Compare Luke 23:35 and Matthew 27:42.
FullContactCMA 8 months ago
@FullContactCMA
Very good point. Since the prophecy comes from the mouth of the “ungodly” (v 1), their words can be regarded as truth or incorrect conjecture as the reader sees fit. It is tough to hang your hat on a prophecy like that. But I do have to acknowledge that many of the OT prophecies are only revealed properly through the eyes of the NT – Scripture interprets Scripture.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Prophecies came from the mouth of the ungodly in the New Testament, and you regard them as truth. Besides, you can clearly see that this is a powerful Christ prophecy. Only a Judaizer would deny it.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@tjotwo Besides, it's not coming from their mouths, it's a prophecy of what they will say.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
And also,
"For what man can learn the counsel of God?
Or who can discern what the Lord wills?
For the reasoning of mortals is worthless,
and our designs are likely to fail,
[for a perishable body weighs down the soul"
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@tjotwo It was indeed an addition to Daniel. An addition the early Christians and the 1st century Jews considered inspired.
aphidjonesesq 8 months ago
@aphidjonesesq Your say-so does not make this so. 1 Maccabees 9:27 even testifies to this notion: 27 So was there a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen among them. (Apoc – KJV) The voice of prophecy was silenced for 400 years between the Babylonian Captivity and John the Baptist. And I have already indicated Josephus came to reject the Apocrypha.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo
I never contended that an OT-class Prophet appeared at that point.
And Josephus was a contemporary/post-Christian Jew who venerated the Emperor of Rome. His opinion on the Scriptures isn't very important.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
Tjowtwo, you say you abandoned traditional Lutheranism because it was too "Catholic" for you. Don't you find it odd that you now find yourself as your own pope, dictating novel re-interpretations of the Christian faith, re-writing history, and attempting to preach your Islam-influenced sectarian view in youtube comments?
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra I missed this post until just now as you initiated a new post rather than reply to my post so I got no notification.
Jesus condemned the practices of the papists in Matt 23, esp 5-12. He Asserted we are all brothers. The 1st Pope (NOT), was guided by the Holy Spirit to record that Christians are all priests (1 Pet 2:5,9). If you are truly a Christian, I am your brother and you are in danger for calling me blasphemous names (Matt 5:22). The Word is my Authority.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Actually Peter wasn't the first Pope. Linus was. The Apostles weren't fixed to certain sees or bishoprics.
Your interpretation of the Word, informed by a mishmash of protestant tradition and your own authority.
aphidjonesesq 8 months ago
@aphidjonesesq
Apparently you did not notice “NOT” next to the statement about 1st Pope. No need to convince me but you might want to visit the wikipedia page on "Pope_Peter" and have a chat with them:
Once again, my authority is the Word of God in the 66 books of the Bible. Convince me where I have strayed from this and I will move towards the Truth that moment.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo You trust not in the Word of God, rather you trust in the Word of God as interpreted by the proud imaginations of your own heart- you have made yourself your own Pope; the same pope who was the first true protestant. And to those who trust in their own interpretations, the LORD says through his chosen vessel Mary:
"He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble."
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra Once again, Peter proclaims all Christians a holy and royal priesthood (1 Pt 2:5,9). The Holy Spirit dwells in all Christians (Rom 8:9-11) leads us (Rom 8:14) and bears witness with our spirits that we are children of God (Rom 8:16). We are to use the Word of God to test anything any man, even an apostle, tells us (Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 3:14ff). And Mary acknowledged she was a sinner in need of the Savior, like the rest of us: “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Lk 1:47)
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Your personal interpretation leads you to believe I am in disagreement with that.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra It takes no “personal interpretation” to understand you are disputing what I say when you state, “you trust in the Word of God as interpreted by the proud imaginations of your own heart- you have made yourself your own Pope; the same pope who was the first true protestant.” I rely on the Word of God as my Authority and Guide and you continue mount these fallacious ad hominem attacks.
tjotwo 8 months ago
LOL!!!!!!!
pippochap 8 months ago
The Titus 3:5 proof text is preceded with the phrase, "He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness"
God alone receives the glory for our salvation and there is no component of man's works, like sprinkling water and saying a blessing, that enters into this salvific work. Otherwise, robe up & grab the firehoses.
Col 2:11-12 is properly used to illustrate that infant baptisim is appropriate. And Romans 4:1-12 explains how faith was given to Abraham prior to circumcision.
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo That's exactly the point. This washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, through which God saves us, is done by God. Baptism is God's work, not ours.
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire Yes, washing of regen is the work of the HS. Baptidsm and circumcision are works of men to set themselves and their children apart as holy unto the Lord. As Rom 4:1-12 illustrates, faith is given independent of these works.
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo Just as there is one Lord and one Faith, there is one Baptism (Ephesians 4:5). The only reason people separate water baptism from spirit baptism is because they start with the conclusion that baptism doesn't do anything and then have to create different levels of baptism in order to fit the conclusion they've already drawn. That's a bad way to do theology and doesn't let the Scriptures speak freely.
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@tjotwo The references to "works" refer to "works of the law". While God alone administers the graces freely and there is nothing we can do to "coerce" Him into giving them to us, including salvation, our works are not completely irrelevant to our salvation. Indeed, faith and works go hand in hand. Matthew 7:21 says, "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who *does* the will of my Father who is in heaven." To "do" something is a work.
kozyshack12 9 months ago
...and a work applied toward one's salvation, no less.
kozyshack12 9 months ago
@kozyshack12 That is the Semipelagian view that man participates in his salvation. Drop back to Rom 3:21 and read through 4:12, esp 3:28 which tells us our works ARE irrelevant to our salvation. In fact, pg 544 your Bk of Concord quotes M Luther,” Therefore, while and as long as we have to do with this article of justification, we reject and condemn works, since the very nature of this article cannot admit any treatment or discussion of works.” Works follow faith but do not produce faith.
tjotwo 9 months ago
I keep hearing the music, you need to do these videos with Law and order theme music to it. :)
Shoots1978 9 months ago
Total Closet Catholic. Welcome home, boys, it's been a while!!!
swingkid1771 9 months ago
@swingkid1771
After 30 years as a Lutheran, I suddenly realized that, too. I woke up, pinched myself, realized I wasn't having a nightmare, made like Martin Luther, and got away from those Catholics. Last time I visited, I was treated to an RC procession with the pastor following a graven image on a stick -- in a "Lutheran" church.
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo You mean like when the Israelites followed God's command and looked upon a graven image on a stick in the wilderness so that, through faith, they might be saved? (Numbers 21:4-9) FOR SHAME!!!
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire Yes, like Lutherans and RC's and Anglicans, my grandchildren try to make an exception a rule from time to time. And I purpose to make like Hoshea. 2 Kings 18:4.
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo It's obvious that Hoshea destroys the Bronze Serpent because the Israelites are worshipping it falsely, taking a good gift of God and abusing it. The reason this is obvious is because God once told the Israelites to look upon the Bronze Serpent. And God does not tell people to sin. That's why I think it's a rather weak response to say that this was the exception to the rule, unless you can provide me another example of a time when God commanded people to break His law.
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire Another example: Matt 12:1-8
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo But even if you were right about this being an exception, you still have to get around the fact that God commands the Israelites to make all sorts of "graven images" on the Ark and in the Temple. And then, of course, you have the fact that Jesus Christ Himself, as God in the flesh, is a "graven image." So either your understanding of God's prohibition of idols is off, or God is forbidding us from worshiping the same God-Man He says we must worship in order to be saved. Weird.
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire You fail to see the difference between God’s Direct Commands to make images and His own Work of Creation on one hand and man’s replication, separate from and contrary to God’s Direct Command, of those images. Deut 12:3-4, “You shall tear down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and burn their Asherim [sacred trees or poles set up near an altar; Strong’s] with fire. You shall chop down the carved images of their gods and destroy their name out of that place. ” (ESV)
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm simply noting that, when the Father sent His Son into the world, He makes the man Jesus Christ the visible image of God. So, in his humanity, Christians worship a "graven image." Why would God do that if He outright rejects graven images?
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire And Deut 12:4 is the key verse, "4 You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way." (ESV)
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo Yes, God tells the Israelites not to use pagan images in worship. And He also tells them to put all kinds of images on the Ark and in the Temple. So He is obviously forbidding the Israelites from using the idols of the pagans and from using them the way that the pagans do. But He is not outright forbidding the use of graven images by His people.
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire This is very clearly stated: “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, .” (Dt 4:15–16)ESV.
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo And yet, God tells the Israelites to put all kinds of graven images on the Ark and in the Temple. Why does He do that?
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire Once again, there is a difference between God telling and man doing it on his own. One one hand, God is directing man as to the proper object of worship in the way God chooses. On the other is man, on his own initiative, devising an object of worship that is totally contrary to God's Commandment. Consider whether the Body of Christ is that image on a pole or the Communion of Saints.
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo But a Crucifix is not an object of worship. No one is praying to it. No one is treating it as the presence of God among us, just as the Israelites were not at first worshiping the Bronze Serpent (but then later were, hence it's destruction.) Rather, a Crucifix is a visible reminder of the Crucified One we worship. And it functions in the same way as illustrations in a children's book or the images on screen in "The Passion."
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire That was a somewhat plausible point back when the crucifix was displayed on the alter or on a wall. But when it is paraded in front of a procession with the “pastor” walking behind, it becomes an object of worship. The Bride of Christ turns and focuses on that image as if it was the Bride.
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo Wrongity wrong wrong wrong. We who embrace the processional crucifix do not worship it. We know that this piece of wood is not God, but an image of the Crucified God whom we do worship in Spirit and Truth. It's the same thing as when a congregation turns to face the bride as she processes down the aisle at her wedding. We all know she is not the Church, but a beautiful image of the Church, Christ's Bride.
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire The bride that everybody turns to look at in a wedding was made by the one true living God and the analogy is spelled out in His Word (Eph 5:22ff and others). The image on the pole that Lutherans turn to look at was shaped by an ironsmith (Isa 44:12) or a carpenter (Isa 44:13ff) These craftsmen are only human (Isa 44:11).
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo I find your argument fallacious on numerous grounds. First, and most important is that the cross *is* the serpent (John 3:14). If the serpent is an exception, than the cross is an exception. Second, you seem to be arguing that all acts (actus or energia) are immoral without divine dictum. Any yet, it is that very dictum (logos) who is lifted up on the cross. The procession of the cross is the proclamation of the Word of God who is elevated in his self-sacrifice.
npmccallum 9 months ago
@npmccallum The Cross is not the serpent. In fact, the metaphor is not focused on the objects (Christ and the serpent) but the actions (lifting up and saving from death). But it is true that both were an exception. The charge against Christ was blasphemy for which Caesar judged him not guilty (Luke 23:4). He was guilty by Jewish law and should have been stoned (Lev 24:16). Makes the prophetic fulfillment all the more miraculous. 2nd, all acts contrary to the Word of God are sin.
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo It would be nice to be able to edit a post. I meant to say Christ was considered guilty because He was certainly not guilty when He claimed to be the Son of God. But the charge was blasphemy for this claim (Matt 26:65). Consider Heb 10. This repeated holding up of an image on a stick in a processional (like the serpent in the desert) is more like the repeated sacrifices and the RC mass than the proper cognizance of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself once for all.
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo So we've gone from "all graven images are bad" to "only graven images made my men are bad" to "it's ok to have a graven image by the altar as long as people don't turn to face it or anything like that" to "you can hold it up for people to look at, but only once." Hombre, you are grasping at straws here.
TheLutheranSatire 9 months ago
@TheLutheranSatire On the contrary, my straw is in the brick laid on the rock. (Matt 7:24) God said all graven images are bad. (Deut 5:8) God made 1 exception (Num 21:8) that was later destroyed when it became an object of worship (2 Kin 18:4). Christ said He would be raised up like that serpent (Jn 3:14) and Hebrews 10 tells us Christ was raised up, died, and was re-raised up once for all time – not to be repeated with graven images by Peter worshipers or their progeny.
tjotwo 9 months ago
@tjotwo "Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twisted linen and blue and purple and scarlet material; you shall make them with cherubim, the work of a skillful workman." -Exodus 26; "And on the surfaces of its stays and on its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around." -1 Kings 7:36
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@tjotwo "There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony" -Exodus 25:22; "The nave he lined with cypress and covered it with fine gold and made palms and chains on it... In the Most Holy Place he made two cherubim of wood and overlaid them with gold...he made a hundred pomegranates and put them on the chains." -2 Chronicles 3
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@tjotwo Judaising, Islamising, iconoclastic nonsense like this resorts to Dt. 4:15 as if in denial of the incarnation of God.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra You treat me to 2 responses with OT passages then condemn me for an OT passage. Welcome to the NT era. God’s directions for His OT Temple do not give license to practice NT idolatry or “Judaising”. A graven image on a stick does not equate to God’s prescribed decorations of the Temple. “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Co 3:16 ESV). See also 2 Cor 6:14ff, the Lutheran construct for not praying with other Christians.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo None of that is an actual argument. You speak of Judaising, and yet Jews AND Christians utilized images in their worship until rabbinical jews adopted hardline iconoclasm in the later centuries AD. This can be clearly seen from excavations from the 200's AD at Dura Europos, which demonstrates both Rabbinical Jewish and Christian iconography. Essentially, to completely reject images in worship is to take a later form Judaising position. And FYI, having images in worship is not idolatry.
aphidjonesesq 8 months ago
@aphidjonesesq Rather than an “actual argument” a properly discerned statement based solely on the Word of God contained in the 66 books of the Bible is the Prima-Facie argument. While you presented a nice history lesson, the practices of a certain sect in a certain period of time is not normative and it certainly does not trump the Truth of Scripture. So your rebuttal does not touch the question of whether my Prima-Facie argument is true to the Word of God.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo The practices of a certain sect? You mean all of Christendom for the first 1500 years of the Church?
Solomon added things to the temple that were not specified in Exodus. He would also have no reason to boast because of divine-human co-operation, because he is simply obeying God's Word (the Logos, that is) working through free humanity.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra In one sense, I mean any group that operates for any number of years. The Word of God is by far our primary Standard of what is right or wrong. In another sense, I do not mean all of Christendom for the 1st 1500 yrs since there was a distinct transition from Biblical organization and worship after about 250 years.
Would “free humanity” be like the Pharisees in Jn 8:33 or like everyone in Rom 6:18?
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo
1. I meant humans who freely co-operate with the will of God. See Abel for an example.
2. So 250 AD is your great apostasy number? At least you didn't go with the mormon's ~90 AD. You're silly. History thinks you're silly too, homes.
3. You mean the Word of God your ancestors rent asunder through the traditions of men by removing OT books to save money on printing? ;P
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra It is time for you to take a look at Rom 3:21ff. No one freely does the Will of God except Christ Who did it in our place. Abel complied with the Will of God later recorded in Ex 13:12 & Nu 18:17.
History for me is His-Story – God’s Story as recounted in the Word of God. It is unwise to call this silly – 1 Cor 1:18ff.
Yes, money was saved on printing by cutting out the fiction section.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Leave it to mortal men to decide which parts of the Scriptures are fiction and which aren't, I suppose. So much for Sola Scriptura!
Your Romans quote has nothing to do with monergism or the ability to do God's will. I suppose in the warped interpretive grid of Sola Augustine, you could somehow arrive at that conclusion, but exactly how escapes me.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra It was mortal men who recorded the Word of God. There were some rigid guidelines, undoubtedly inspired by God, for acceptance as Canon, both OT and NT. We have plenty of good manuscripts recording the Word of Christ and His Apostles. This makes most of the OT Canon a no-brainer since they quoted out of nearly every OT book included in the Canon. This class could continue but 500-word limits make for a lot of posts.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo I'm sorry, what OT canonization event are you referring to? Which council? The counter-reformation council of Trent held by the Latins? One done by post-2nd temple rabbinic jews?
BTW, The New Testament quotes and refers to events and quotes from texts outside the protocanon.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra Jamnia in 100 AD is a council many hang their hats on but Jamnia only confirmed the books that were already clearly defined by ancient Hebrews. By the Time of Christ, there had been a silence in prophecy of several hundred years – plenty of time to establish the OT Canon.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Jamnia? The hypothetical council that decided rabbinic jewish texts in opposition to Christianity? Uh... go ahead and hang your hat on that, buddy, but nobody in the Christian community accepted their decisions until the post-reformation.
aphidjonesesq 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aphidjonesesq You obviously did not read my response properly. I am tjotwo -- not "many".
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo
Extra-biblical evidence against a ~250 AD "apostasy" that resulted in Nicene Orthodoxy:
~100 AD: Didache affirms closed communion.
~110 AD: Ignatius of Antioch affirms traditional Bishop/Presbyter/Deacon structure and Real Presence in the Eucharist.
~140 AD: Justin Martyr explains Eucharistic structure to pagans and affirms the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Late 2nd Century: Martyrdom of Polycarp affirms that Polycarp of Smyrna, who was born in the 1st Century, was paedobaptised.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra Once again, I appreciate the history lesson but no need to stop by going back only to 100 AD. Jesus continually confronted the Scribes and Pharisees for their apostasy. Matt 23 is a big dose. And Paul warned of various heresies in many of his letters to include Gal 3 where he addresses human cooperation.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo And yet you argued for a ~250 apostasy. And when that argument fell apart, you prooftexted out of context to cover your mistake.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra You spend more time reframing and misstating my words than coming up with your own. You are the one to insists I am arguing for a ~250 apostasy. I id’d a distinct transition in your supposed unified Christendom for 1500 years meanwhile I reiterate one more time that apostasy has been continuous from the time of Christ in human flesh on Earth. Only by relying solely on the Ultimate Prooftext, the Holy Bible, are these heresies id’d and avoided. Psa 118:8
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo
And Christ's Church was never overcome by apostasy. This is just a red herring. You DID say that structure and worship changed around 250 AD. You failed to demonstrate this fact in the face of counter-evidence.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra You added “overcome” to my assertion that apostasy has existed since the time of Christ in flesh on Earth. Besides the proof I have already provided, 2nd & 3rd chapters of Revelation further illustrate the seriousness and extent. Men have moved towards apostasy and the Word has brought them back since the Word became flesh & it could be argued even before.
Around 324 rather than 250 AD I previously stated, Constantine made the persecuted Christendom the state religion.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo
That's not true. Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state religion through the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, in reaction to Arianism and Julian the Apostate's abuses.
Iconography in churches, the real presence, the three ranks, closed communion, liturgy... these are all demonstrably present well before 380 AD.
Yes, men have become apostates. But not because they defy your self-papist interpretation of things.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@tjotwo After the 324 comment I see that you aren't currently interested in what's actually true about early Christianity. You're interested in repeating common low-church protestant myths about early Christianity without regard to actual evidence. I'm ending this discussion because it is clearly not going anywhere; I exhort you to educate yourself on such matters before speaking about them again.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra Funny how you insisted on playing “my history is better than your history” only to take your ball and go home with one final insult. My objective all along has been to “make a defense” in accordance with 1 Pet 3:13ff. And the Word of God is the main thing I base my defense on. I am interested in knowing more but I certainly am not ready to swallow anything on your say-so, alone.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Do you acknowledge that it is impossible to read the Scriptures without interpreting them according to an interpretive grid?
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra Pls forgive my cautious response, but I believe I agree with your statement. I believe we approach any reading with a presuppositional framework (PF) that is further developed by the reading. In the unique case of the Word of God, the test of the veracity of our PF is whether it fits entirely within the Word of God without adding or subtracting anything from either.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo But that view is self-refuting, because to "interpret scripture with scripture" as biblicists often say, you must have made an initial correct interpretation, and then interpret the passages you believe the Scriptures interprets the other passages with.
So it is impossible to read the Scriptures without having made use of at least an initial and then several subsequent extra-scriptural hermenutical devices.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra You probably have not directed artillery fire. Fire one round based on best guess. Adjust fire until on target then fire for effect – all guns. That has been my experience with reading the Bible from various perspectives. I keep rereading, learning, and adjusting. Finally, after 40 years, I adjust primarily from within Scripture. I enjoy smart people like you who test my PF rather than condemning me along with my PF out of hand.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Makes me want some P.F. Changs'.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@tjotwo If I was too abrupt in ending the discussion, I'll continue. From the beginning, Christians utilized the Greek Septuagint Old Testament, which predates the modern Masoretic text by around 1000 years. NT Old Testament quotes often come from the Septuagint, and Christ observes Hanukkah, a festival derived from events in the books of Maccabees (John 10:22 and onward).
The OT canon was "closed" for the Latins at the Council of Trent, in the 1500's; however, this "closing" included the so-..
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@tjotwo ...called "deuterocanonical" books and even accepted the possibility of others. Obviously you disagree with the Latins and their council, but it begs the question; who, then, fixed the OT canon for non-Latins?
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra Jn 10:22 marks a time period just like Luke 2:2. We are not looking for the writing where Luke took this fact to make it canonical. We know Jesus often went to the Temple to teach (Mk 14:49). Jesus chastised the Jewish leaders for developing unScriptural traditions in Matt 15:1-9 among other places. Amos 8:11, Mic 3:4-8, & Mal 4:5 tell us the next voice from God will be Elijah preparing the Way for the Lord (Luke 1:17). This fixes Malachi as the last OT Book.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo
Yes, John the Baptist was the next and final OT-class prophet.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@tjotwo My main point was that the OT canon wasn't officially closed in Christendom, and was closed only in a part of it (the Latins) as a response to the Reformation, and by post-Lutherans (Luther himself didn't toss out the Latin deuterocanon, contrary to popular belief). And nobody for the first 1500 years had a serious problem with this fact.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra Note that Christ provides a timeframe in Luke 11:51. Around 400AD, Jerome recanted his support of DC books naming them apocrypha after the Greek term for hidden. There are 4 different sets of apocryphal books depending on whether you are RC, GO, SO, or HC. And it was Trent, after Reformation, that settled it for the RC’s while they also condemned Luther.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo Yes, the Council of Trent was what I was referring to.
Regarding Jerome, he is not the consensus Patrum. And it should also be noted that there was a Scriptural ranking system in place, where the Gospels took precedence over NT letters and writings, the NT took precedence over the OT, and OT took precedence the Deuterocanon (literally: secondary canon). There is another category, "Anagignoskomena" which means "things that are read". This includes Didache, Hermas, and other apocrypha.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra This is now movement from a completely homogenous, unified Christendom for 1500 years to a consensus Patrum. But the DC books were and are a moving target from Jamnia and Carthage all the way to Trent and from Rom Cath to Grk Orth to Slav Orth to Hist Coptic.
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo There's always been disagreement about things of lesser importance, like where the OT canon has to end (And yes, to a Christian, that is of lesser importance), how long should the Liturgy be, what the proper flour/salt ratio for tasty communion bread is, etc
But on those things I mentioned: use of Liturgy, Real Presence, ecclesiastical structure, images & symbols; the only people who contested any of those were those you wouldn't want to associate with (Islamisers and Gnostics.)
FullContactCMA 8 months ago
@FullContactCMA
Many who are called "Christian" would agree about the unimportance of where the OT ends but many (Calvinists, for example) would not. I am not an Islamizer, Gnostic, Judaiser, Buddhist, etc… but I contest the things you list and I am committed to the Word of God, esp. 2 Tim 3:12ff where there is both a warning about persecution by imposters and an admonition to adhere to what I have known from childhood to be the Word of God.
tjotwo 8 months ago
No True Christian...
No True Scotsman...
aphidjonesesq 8 months ago
@tjotwo The idea was "All the Scriptures are inspired, but [Animal Farm joke] Some are more Scripture than others." Martin Luther understood this concept, which is why he put the Epistles of James and to the Hebrews in the back of his bibles' NT Canon.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
You forgot Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Armenian Orthodox, etc. which all have their own apocrypha. The churches have overlapping apocrypha as anagignoskomena, though, meaning that while they're not on each other's canon lists, the books are considered useful/inspired to varying extents. For example, 1 Enoch is secondary canon for Ethiopians, and is anagignoskomena in the Coptic church (and the Greek and Slavic, if I'm not mistaken).
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra I appreciate all the info you have provided on this thread. Sadly the Prots, contrary to those with these differences over canon, sought to unify under 66 Books. But as the RC’s feared, they have become more fragmented than the RC’s and Orthos. And like the RC’s & O’s, many essentially have tiered the Word and made it subject the hearts of men who have established their own 3 walls (a la Luther’s assertions about RC’s).
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo
Even protestants try to make it hard to be your own infallible interpreter sometimes. Life is hard! ;)
FullContactCMA 8 months ago
@tjotwo The Scriptures are a good standard, but Pope Tjotwo I's interpretation of the Scriptures is not.
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
@NicholasMyra Ahhh, clever fellow. You watched "How to Argue Like a Theological Liberal"
youtube.com/user/TheLutheranSatire#p/u/13/prAhi7DcvzQ
tjotwo 8 months ago
@tjotwo k
NicholasMyra 8 months ago
<