BibleForums Christian Message Board

Quote from: watchinginawe on April 07, 2025, 08:44:31 PM

It isn't hard to conceive. Error in one's viewpoint certainly can have consequence in my opinion. For example, atheism. If the atheist is wrong, there is eternal consequence to their viewpoint in my opinion.

I think that most atheists are actually just agnostic. They don't know. In any case, I've observed that many Christians have this concept of "thought crimes" and even "improper belief" and I don't know that this is canonical. But then, I am not a Christian. Such ideas don't really exist in Judaism.

Well surely there is error in action, right? And if those actions are based on wrong viewpoints (like my religious zealot example) then those viewpoints have consequence, at least in my opinion. So, it isn't a thought crime, it is an action crime carried out from reasoned viewpoint in error and contrary to God's will.

I wanted to expand on the determinism angle here. Often people like me accuse those who believe in determinism, where God has decreed and predetermined all actions of humanity (call it predestination), of making God out a murderer, or adulterer, or whatever action he predetermined to happen. I don't believe God predetermines every action and sin and thus justifies the "free will" or really "free moral agency" of humanity. I also believe this is clearly depicted in Scripture, both Old and New Testament. God can predetermine certain individuals for his purpose (like Judas for example) where it is in their nature to do so and use them. These examples are called out specifically in the Bible and are not examples of how God deals with every human but specifically in certain instances according to His purposes. If it was a given that all actions of all humanity are predetermined, there would be no reason in Scripture to highlight where God does predetermine a thing as we would all know already that it is all predetermined.

Quote from: watchinginawe on April 06, 2025, 08:05:27 AM

Are all humanity's personal actions determined by God? This would be a deterministic view of human will, a kind of fatalistic approach.

What would even be the point of human existence in this scenario?

And thus fatalism. If one believed that God has determined all, they would say the point is in bringing Glory to God. I have problems with it but do exercise my apparent freedom in disagreeing with it. There is no consequence that I can see to a wrong opinion in such a system. I often am confused with others trying to change my mind about it, it seems futile, as if they were fighting against God Himself and what He has determined my view to be. Right? But then how do they explain their actions and beliefs? Maybe we are all just playing out our roles exactly as written. This is often characterized by we who oppose such a notion as humanity being "puppets" in a play. Anyone for "The Matrix" at this point?    (wow, we need to work on the emoticons available. No lol?)

God creates humanity, then chooses to "save" some and condemn others to endless punishment? And this could somehow be perceived of as a benevolent deity? "Yah sorry that you're burning in hell for all eternity, it has nothing to do with your choices, I just decided to do that to you..."

It is confounding. The stated coup de grace of the viewpoint, "All to the Glory of God". There are finer points of the argument that can be made, and it's probably best to not discard out of hand as preposterous. God's sovereignty is clear in the Bible. After all, God did favor Israel as a people. Jews were astonished at the Jerusalem Council of the conversion of Gentiles. This wasn't against God, this was provided for specifically by His sovereign will and revealed.

But again, if there is determinism of every individual's Salvation, then opposing viewpoints carry no consequence if wrong, you might as well believe counter as there could be no eternal consequence. It appears God allows it.

I only have one question….

Did anyone do anything that remotely told people about Jesus today…

Other than that, I do t care much any more

Too many in house family pissing matches and not enough external proclamation of the gospel

We agree on that. I wrote but then erased that a lot of this falls into a "misplaced faith" category. The focus of faith becomes more than about Jesus. If we get the Jesus part right, then you have a solid foundation to consider and develop an opinion on the rest. When they start adding how a particular view of Genesis is essential to having faith, well that is where I depart as it begins to become a misplaced faith. But there are lots and lots of categories like these.

In both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, the Eucharist via transubstantiation or "real presence" facilitates theosis. Even sanctification is viewed as a form of thesois, and I really can't argue against the thought. We are either becoming more God like or not. But there is no completion of this in this life. I think this is the sense of the ECF except for the strange doctrine of the Eucharist and the partaking of the Divine Nature by eating the real flesh and drinking the real blood of Jesus.

Quote from: watchinginawe on March 20, 2025, 03:06:09 PM

Pharisees for example were described in the New Testament as legalistic to a point of absurdity

I feel that this is a mischaracterization.

I assume you mean that the New Testament mischaracterizes Pharisees. The New Testament, except perhaps for Luke and Acts, were written by Jews. Paul of course testified that he, Saul, was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews", and "after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee". Paul doesn't disparage his life and apparently referred to himself as a Pharisee after his conversion. Paul did count the whole of his experience before conversion as "dung" in the context of how it ultimately stood before God. Of course, Paul used his Roman citizenship and identity and renown as a Pharisee to his advantage depending on his compromised situations (beatings, imprisonment, threat to be assassinated, etc.).

I'll pull out a passage which shows the general way the Gospels characterize the Pharisees:

Matthew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Of course Jesus was a Jew as well. My point being that none of the 12 disciples were Pharisees and the portrayal of them is just not favorable by the Jewish writers of the Gospels, thus there were a segment of Jews who did not view the Pharisees positively.

Why do you see it as a mischaracterization? I know the general accusations, etc. and don't want to take it there. But I guess Pharisees carried their religion on into the Synagogue era of the Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple, and that seems to be what exists today. So at least from the perspective of contemporary Jews, I would guess Pharisees are seen as kind of founders of the current practice of the religion? And in a positive light, kind of like our "ECF" or Early Church Fathers.

Quote from: watchinginawe on March 19, 2025, 10:16:08 AM

This all gets to the faith vs works "argument" between Protestantism and Catholicism. Works play an important role in maintaining one's good standing with the Catholic church wherein one is "saved". In Protestantism, one's salvation is through faith and managed primarily with God. This is just a sliver of the real issues at hand, but most are familiar with this.

And this seems to me to be the real weakness of Catholicism. We can all agree that Judaism is a "works based" (although I prefer the term "rules based" ) religion.

If Christianity is a truly break from Judaism, why then did the Catholic church introduce new rules?  Why not just leave the old rules in place then?

This is of course the famous point of The Apostle Paul's to the Galatians.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

This was Paul's argument against requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised and converted to Judaism as part of receiving Christ. Paul said to do so would make Christ then of "no effect unto you" since they put their faith aside to justify themselves with works.

The determination that Gentile converts did not need to be brought under The Law was proclaimed at the Council of Jerusalem. This is recorded in Acts 15 and The Apostle Paul triumphed over the Judaizers.

I think Paul's primary concern as an Apostle was the Gospel and keeping it (the preaching, the practice, etc.) from dilutive influences. But most of this became directed towards gentile converts while the other Apostles largely directed themselves towards Jewish converts.

You make a good point regarding the comparison between Jewish religion and Catholicism. I kind of made a soft point about this in our discussion above but didn't want to press the point. The Jews observe Yom Kippur annually and thus have to continually atone. This is clearly stated in the Bible as well, the Jews were to continually make atonement, and as you suggest a religion of rules to be followed to practice the religion result, all (maybe not all) with Biblical precedent.

Catholicism kind of fell (from a Protestant's view) into Paul's trap of tradition and a religion with rules (another Protestant objection) takes hold. This is another great point of Protestantism as they hold that the Bible (Scripture) is the sole and final authority for all matters of faith and conduct of the believer whereas tradition of the church is additive to the Scripture in Catholicism. Interestingly, Jewish religion probably holds close to Scripture as the final authority as well. Or does it?

Question on my mind: what does the first "or" mean, or how does it affect the interpretation of the text?

Col. 2:16: "Let no man therefore judge you in eating and in drinking
or in respect of [i.e., in that part of] a feast,
or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath-days"

The Textus Receptus doesn't seem to make any distinction on the first "or". What are your thoughts? Are you intrigued by the difference between the TR and the NA26 perhaps?

I would guess the NASB where it says "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--", it probably could be read as "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to "food or drink", or in respect to a festival, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day...

So, in the NASB, you get "food and drink" as one thing in the list as opposed to the list in the KJV which is "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:..." all with the commas and everything with all uses of "or" by the same Greek word. Thus, meat is first in the list, drink is second, and so on.

Quote from: watchinginawe on March 13, 2025, 08:55:14 AM

Quote from: teddyv on March 12, 2025, 11:38:10 AM

My wife is serving as principal for the local Catholic elementary school, so she is getting introduced to all the Catholic things including Ash Wednesday, coming home with some ash on her forehead. Yesterday, they did a pilgrimage around town with the priest, stopping at several locations to pray such as fallen soldiers and vets at the cenotaph, or for the homeless by the local homeless camp. Mass is every Friday, although she (and most others) cannot partake.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Yes, I was explaining to someone the other day the major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and was explaining how Mass is participated in only by those in good standing with the church. Catholics very much manage their faith through the church and not directly with God as we Protestants do, Jesus being our intercessor as opposed to the church.

Catholics, particularly those who are actively involved and faithful, would disagree with the last sentence. Protestants, mostly evangelicals, rarely interact with Catholicism in good-faith.

Well, like the thread said, I'm not picking any bones with Catholics. Regarding the last sentence, regardless of how practitioners may disagree, it is the view of the Catholic Church. Thus, your wife is excluded from Mass.

Thanks for the thoughts.