 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > What is the TRUTH about the word THEOLOGY? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/11/2004 4:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | I love the Bible too, larris. (I hope you are not trying to imply that I don't!)
But I can't really carry on a conversation when it appears that you are saying that (1) God is made of a substance, and (2) that that substance that God is made of is the Bible. Didn't you just say that? The "substance" I was mentioning refered to the category of "essence" -- I said that the essence of God is communion-love (his ontological category). That's what is being discussed. And I said that there is no "substance"/essence that dictates God's loving. But you say that the substance is the Bible, and that it preceeds God's actions and forces God to love. I just don't get it. Are you confusing the discussion? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/12/2004 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi POW,
You said:
quote:
I love the Bible too, larris. (I hope you are not trying to imply that I don't!)
No I am not implying that you do not love the Bible. And I should explain concerning what you then stated:
quote:
But I can't really carry on a conversation when it appears that you are saying that (1) God is made of a substance, and (2) that that substance that God is made of is the Bible. Didn't you just say that? The "substance" I was mentioning refered to the category of "essence" -- I said that the essence of God is communion-love (his ontological category). That's what is being discussed. And I said that there is no "substance"/essence that dictates God's loving. But you say that the substance is the Bible, and that it preceeds God's actions and forces God to love. I just don't get it. Are you confusing the discussion?
1. Am I confusing the discussion?
No, I am just disagreeing with what your "ontological" definition of God is.
Now dose not "Ontological" refer to that branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being or a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents.
You said: "that there is no "substance"/essence that dictates God's loving."
I said: "Yes there is a "substance"/essence that dictates God's loving." And that this love is dictated by what God said to Holy Men of God, who then WROTE down His Words. And that these words of God we now have before us in what is called the Bible.
In other words, what was once invisible and incorporal and spirit as it was spoken to man, and then man wrote it down became a visible and concrete substance, that declairs the true essence of the invisible God who is spirit.
You said: "The essence of God is communion-love."
What do you mean by "communion"? Do you mean like "having communion" where you go to church and have communion partaking of the bread and wine et.
Or do you mean a mystical type of meditation and prayer whereby you commune with a spirit and become elated and feel like you are "commining" with God?
I am saying that true "communion" with God can only be done through letting him speak to us through his written Word, which is a concrete substance. God is not that substance, in that he is not THE BIBLE, but it is the BIBLE, those words he first spoke to holy men, who then wrote those words down, that declairs the true nature of his love for us.
When God speaks things come into existence and form into material concrete substances.
And God SAID, let there be light....and there WAS LIGHT.
Light is a true reality, a literal SUBSTANCE.
And God SAID, Let there be a firmament....and God made the firmament...and God called the firmament heaven.
Heven is a REAL place, sky and air are real SUBSTANCES, but it started out with WORDS that God spoke.
Now what about the BIBLE? The Word of the Lord came unto Moses, Isiaha, David, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter, Abraham etc. etc. And HOLY men of God SPOKE those words as they were spoken to them.
THEN they WROTE those WORDS down, and the spoken word of God became the written Word, a literal concrete SUBSTANCE. Your Bible, my Bible is literal and concrete, it exists, you can feel it, hear it, smell it, taste it and SEE it. And by all these means of your five sences in READING can partake of that SPIRIT within it.
That written concrete substantial word of God you hold in your hands and see with your eyes, and put in your heart DECLAIRS who and what God is, what he's done, what he's doing, and what he will do.
God choose to have that Bible written so that ANY MAN could come to know him and his full intentions towards man. He did this because of the deceptions of the devil man's greatest enemy.
Look a SPIRIT can deceive you and lie to you, but God's written Word is the standard by which all spirits are tested. That written word when we know it accurately let's us know if the spirit we are commining with is from God himself or from the devil. However if you remember the devil also uses God's word, by giving it a false interpretation.
Jesus did not say "GOD SAID" man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
Jesus said: IT IS WRITTEN, man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
Jesus stated "It is the spirit that quickens the flesh profits nothing. The WORDS THAT I SPEAK unto you THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE.
Those same WORDS that he spoke are now WRITTEN down in a book, and in being WRITTEN are STILL SPIRIT and produce LIFE to those who read and understand them.
Consiquently when those words are not understood correctly, when they are corrupted or perverted into meaning something God did not intend, the interpretations thereof also carry a SPIRIT.
1John 4:We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
Yes THEY were of God, because they received the words first hand. They knew the correct teaching of the gospel of Christ. Therefore if someone came along teaching a slightly different version of the truth, they would be able to discern the error in what that person spoke.
We on the other hand did not receive our knowlede first hand from the apostles who received it first hand from Jesus. And because Peter foretold that there would be FALSE TEACHERS among us and many would follow their destructive ways, our knowledge has been tainted. Therefore when we often read the bible we are reading things into it that we were taught by men who had a spirit of error guiding them.
POW, it is a historical fact that both the Church in the West and that in the East, which became the Eastern or Greek Orthodox Church adopted and adapted either Platonic or Aristotlian philosophy to the Written Word of God corrupting the meaning. And what we have been taught by all the Church Fathers, and founders of these Churches is some truth combined with error.
I know you love the bible and I know you love God, but you also love very much the traditions and teachings of the Church that are contrary to the sound teaching of scripture ONLY. For when Paul stated that PHILOSOPHY would lead us away from Christ as spoil, he meant it. And the very argument you are presenting here is based on METAPHISICS which is:
METAPHYSICS, the division of PHILOSOPHY which deals with FIRST PRINCIPLES and the nature of reality. The term "metaphysics" has a broad and ambigous connotation in the HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Its importance relative to other divisons of philsophy has often been questiond. How to DIFFERENTIATE METAPHYSICS FROM THEOLOGY IS A PROBLEM UPON WHICH MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN. ARISTOTLE, who may be called the FATHER OF METAPHYSICS, seems to have regarded metaphysics as SIMILAR INQUIRES.
In reality when you are arguing metaphysical ontology, you are endeavoring to explain God and his being according to PAGAN concepts of false gods, rather than just going to his written WORD and letting the God who spoke that word tell you about who and what he is.
By combining philosophical metaphysical ontological arguments and theories about God with the actual written Word that God once literally spoke, you wind up corrupting the true meaning of God's written Word by COMPAIRING HIM to PAGAN DIETIES that produced multitudes of LIES in the men who practiced such things.
What I am trying to get people to do, is to look at the history of where their beliefs have originated. Then to see that the Churches have gone away from the truth of God's Written word by combining false concepts and arguements with it. I know this because I too did it at one time, but God's mercy allowed me to stumble upon the true history of this idolatry withint the Church and come out of it. And God is calling all men to recognize and renouce their former teachings and come to his pure written word, WITHOUT all the philsophical trappings and deceit that give a false impression of what his written word is really saying, and thus a fasle concept of who and what he truly is and what he expects of them.
In the love of Christ,
Larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/12/2004 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by larris
that declairs the true essence of the invisible God who is spirit.
Declaring about essence and being essence are two different things.
As you appear confused, I'll step aside and let the next guy answer you.
(For anyone else, the book "Being as Communion" by John Zizioulas comments that "communion of trinitarian love" is God's ontological "mode of being." That means, that God's ontology is described by using a verb, and not nouns. Anyone interested can follow this LINK: www.new-ostrog.org/holytrinity.html: "Outside the Trinity there is no God, no divine substance, because the ontological 'principle' of God is the Father. The personal existence of God (Father) constitutes His substance -- makes it hypostasis. The being of God is identified with the person." (John D. Zizioulas. Being As Communion, p.41).) | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/12/2004 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm not confused at all, since God's Word tells me what God is without all the philsophical ontological jargon.
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
A "spirit" can be seen, if one is given the sight to see him. Jesus saw him. The angels have "seen" him. But no human man has seen him yet.
Dan. 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: (Which I'm sure will be some metaphysical ontological argument about the essence of what God is.) I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to THE ANCIENT OF DAYS, and they brought HIM near before HIM. (Jesus coming to God to receive the book with the seven seals to begin the tribulation and the judgment, which will usher in his kingdom.)
And there was given him (by the ANCIENT OF DAYS, a literal being that can be seen.) dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.
But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.
Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.
I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
You can talk about the essence and being of God all you want, but the fact is that God is as real of an individual person as you or I. He has a real home, in a real area of heaven, a real throne, real servants and some pretty strange household pets, and a real son.
Rev. 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.
And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.
And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
Same exact thing that Daniel saw taking place. As Paul stated: "The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy foot stool."
I do not see where as any of this is so ontologically or metaphysically COMPLICATED! These guys exist they are individuals just like you and I, they speak to men, have men write it, we read it and get to know who and what they are and what they expect of us. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? Since when do we need all the mystical big words and complicated sentences to describe my...no OUR brother and m OUR DAD? I mean do you come off with all this esoteric garbage to your kids? AND then treat them like morons for not understanding something that according to metaphysics isn't really understandable anyway? (Not understandable according to that philsophy, but God is understandable.)
In getting into all this metaphysical (theologial) jargon pawned off by Plato and Aristotle and adopted by the Church, you wind up not being able to describe what God is at all, since those guys NEVER KNEW God nor his Word to begin with. But boy it sure SOUNDS SMART!
Which do you love more? God's simple word, that even a child need not err therein? OR all the big fancy pancy high fallutin educated Philosophical MUCK that quoting makes you feel superior to others?
You make statements like this: "As you appear confused, I'll step aside and let the next guy answer you."
And then have the NERVE to talk about the "LOVE" of God. When in truth your snotty, prideful and most of all MEAN mouthed.
Because that is what philosophy and theology really come down to. It's called "PUTTIN ON AIRS". Being able to know a bunch of big words and phony concepts that make you feel smarter than then next guy. It's nothing but PRIDE. And the one thing our DAD hates more than anything else is a PROUD LOOK. And that is exactly how you are acting towards me.
Show me ONE sentecne where I have been a smart allick to you, and I'll gladly applogize and repent.
In Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/12/2004 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by larris
You make statements like this: "As you appear confused, I'll step aside and let the next guy answer you."
I'm doing the polite thing, and stepping aside. You aren't understanding the topic I have been writing about, and you have been saying other things in a tone and manner that signifies to me that you think they are incompatable. And you appear antagonistic. I'm not in for that! 
quote:
Originally posted by larris
And then have the NERVE to talk about the "LOVE" of God. When in truth your snotty, prideful and most of all MEAN mouthed.
(More follows.)
quote:
Originally posted by larris
...you feel smarter than then next guy. It's nothing but PRIDE. And the one thing our DAD hates more than anything else is a PROUD LOOK.
(Below.)
[quote]Originally posted by larris
Show me ONE sentecne where I have been a smart allick to you, and I'll gladly applogize and repent.br>
You might start here. 
Like I said, I tried to hang in there with you, and tried my best. But it didn't work.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/12/2004 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
"God is love; and he who dwells in love dwells in God" (I John 4:16).
Along that line is a verse that really impressed me in high school. We had a Bible study on Friday nights at these people's house. They had little kids but hosted us. And they had powdered hot chocolate and Russian tea too. Guitars, etc. The ONE rule is that you couldn't share anything that you felt the Lord was teaching you from scripture UNLESS you had lived it for a week. (No one brought any revelations about "angels on the head of a pin!")
Here was a verse that has meant a lot to me ever since those days of the early 70's.
Jeremiah 31:34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD..."
Its like:
Hebrews 8:10:11 "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
and:
John 6:45 "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
and:
1 John 2:27 "As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him."
and:
Isaiah 54:13 "All your sons will be taught of the LORD; And the well-being of your sons will be great."
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/14/2004 3:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me say, larris, that while I appreciated your post on another thread about submerging your mind in scripture, your behavior in this last post is not worthy. Scripture clearly teaches, in the Commandments, to not bear false witness. I'd like to see you edit your post.
larris: So no one teaches you but God huh?
PoW: This is an impuning of my relationship with God. You should withdraw it.
larris: HUM, I didn't know GOD'S name was JOHN ZIZIOULAS
PoW: Met. Zizoulas does not present himself as God. Nor do I him.
But he is created in the image of God, and a Child of God. SO, larris, he deserves that you pay him the same respect that you consider that you should pay to God. We cannot say that we love God unless we also love our brothers.
larris: ...they used all of one scripture in Romans taken totally OUT of context on the whole page. Why is that? Because they dont teach scripture and then you only use it to justify your behavior. Sorry that's not what scripture is for.
PoW: If there is a requirement for minimum number of scriptures, then your last post is called into question too. This is superficial, and rediculous.
You break the commandment when you say "they don't teach scripture." You lied! Shame. And you act like a fool when you say things about which you do not know. You talk big about scripture, but you break the second great commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. And you lied.
This saddens me, larris.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/14/2004 3:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by larris
I went to the sight http://www.new-ostrog.org/holytrinity.html:
and they used all of one scripture in Romans taken totally OUT of context on the whole page.
Here's a LINK that works: www.new-ostrog.org/holytrinity.html
Two scriptures are cited: Romans 8:26-27 and I John 4:16
I John 4:16 says: "God is love." The author says that this passage "points to the truth that God is Trinity. The human person in relation to God is personal and this relation is manifested in love as God's energy. God's love is expressed in His 'image,' that is, the close relation of God as lover and the human person as the 'beloved.' So the ontology of persons is grounded in relations." This is a good homily! It has exegesis and an application. Its a good short sermon!
Related to (not exegeting) the Romans passage is made the observation that "the Spirit's inspiration of prayer transcends words since the realities encountered in worship are beyond the limited scope of reason the longing for the divine communion which is inexhaustible for the rational mind. The very purpose of life is to worship the transcendent mystery as revealed by the Incarnate Christ." The purpose of our lives is worship of God. And God has revealed himself in Christ. Paul speaks of how we need the spirit to help us pray because part of worship involves that which is beyond our capacity to contain by reason: "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express" (Romans 8:26).
This is good application of scripture. (And their is not minimum number of verses required.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/16/2004 9:09 AM (GMT -6) | | The World Almanack Encyclopediea for "KIDS" states:
A more impressive achievement of the medieval church during the period of the Crusades was the development of Scholastic philosophy and theology. Building as always on the foundations of the thought of St. Augustine, [who combined Aristotle's philosophy to Christian doctrine.] Latin theologians turned their attention to the relation between the knowledge of God attainable by unaided human reason and the knowledge communicated by revelation. St. Anselm took as his motto “I believe in order that I might understand” and constructed a proof for the existence of God based on the structure of human thought itself (the ontological argument). About the same time, Peter Abelard was examining the contradictions between various strains in the doctrinal tradition of the church, with a view toward developing methods of harmonization.
These two tasks dominated the thinking of the 12th and 13th centuries, until the recovery of the lost works of Aristotle made available a set of definitions and distinctions THAT COULD BE APPLIED TO BOTH.
Col. 2:8 BEWARE lest any man spoil you through PHILOSOPHY and vain deceit, after the traditon of men, after the rudiments of the World and not after Christ.
Unfortunately no one took heed to this warning then. And few believe it now. EVERY DOCTRINE that main stream Chrstianity believes today has been corrupted through this means. God is calling you to repent and come out of it, and seek only the written word of God and quite giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of devils, who have worked through the very men of the Church you all revere the most.
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/16/2004 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | | larris: "These two tasks dominated the thinking of the 12th and 13th centuries, until the recovery of the lost works of Aristotle made available a set of definitions and distinctions THAT COULD BE APPLIED TO BOTH."
PoW: Gotcha! 12th and 13th cent. Western Europe. (Actually it was quite a bit earlier!!!)
Maybe that is why it is so refreshing to read the Early Greek Fathers who DID read lots of scripture, and quote scripture, and let scripture guide their arguementations. They spoke and read GREEK -- which Augustine COULD NOT DO. And their influence, promunlgating the message of scripture within their culture was huge; while the influence of Augustine traveled olong the linguistic paths of Latin speakers.
That explains why the "East" jumped on and attacked heresies as soon at they threatened the message and rule of scriptural revelation and the Gospel it preaches, while the "West" did not, could not recognize threats as easily, and by-and-large got bamboozled by just about all the man-centered philosophies that blew down those ancient Romand roads.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/16/2004 9:39 AM (GMT -6) | | | Louis Berkhof: ... Theology is the fruit of the reflection of the church on the truth revealed in the Word of God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/16/2004 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | THIS APPLIES TO THE FELT NEED EVERYONE RIGHTLY HAS FOR CAUTION:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
www.quodlibet.net/gresser-doxology.shtml
The Need For and The Use Of Doxological Language in Theology© Robert Gresser
Quodlibet Journal: Volume 6 Number 1, January - March 2004
http://www.Quodlibet.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/16/2004 9:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
PoW: Gotcha! 12th and 13th cent. Western Europe. (Actually it was quite a bit earlier!!!)
Maybe that is why it is so refreshing to read the Early Greek Fathers who DID read lots of scripture, and quote scripture, and let scripture guide their arguementations. They spoke and read GREEK --
But for the first thousand years of her history the Church was essentially one. Five historic Patriarchal centers--Jerusalem; Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople-- formed a cohesive whole and were in full communion with each other. There were occasional heretical or schismatic groups going their own way, to be sure; but the Church was unified until the 11th century. http://saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html
Therefore from the first century up to the eleventh the history of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as the SAME. Therefore where did they get their “theology”?
http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/chron.html And from this sight a little bit of interesting Eastern Orthodox Church History.
EARLY CHURCH FATHER
220? Clement of Alexandria, b.150?, bishop, cites "Alexandrian" NT text-type & Secret Gospel of Mark & Gospel of the Egyptians; wrote: "Exhortations to the Greeks";"Rich Man's Salutation";"To the Newly Baptized"; (Loeb Classics)
223? Tertullian, wr: "de Spectaculis" (Latin): v30.6 cites rumor Jesus son of prostitute, coined "New Testament", cites "Western" Gospel text-type (Loeb)
230-250 Christian council of Rome, Demetrius bishop of Alex. condemns Origen who in 248 cited a rumor recorded by Celsus that "Jesus fabricated the account of his birth from a virgin. In reality, Jesus' mother was driven out by the carpenter husband to whom she was betrothed because she had committed adultery with a [Roman] soldier named Panthera [thus the ben Pantere of Jewish sources]. Left poor and homeless, she gave birth to Jesus in secret. Jesus later spent time in Egypt, where he hired himself out as a laborer, learned magic, and so came to claim the title of God." [CC1.28-32, Marginal Jew, Meier, p. 223]
250 Letters of Methodius, Pistis Sophia, Porphyry Tyrius; church fathers
Methodius - Platonic styled dialogs. Obsessed with virginity, the first step towards commanding to abstain from marriage.
Church “Father????”
Psitis Sphhia - Supposed conversations that Mary Magdalene had with Jesus. The words Pistis Sophia are Greek for "Faith Wisdom" and represent a teaching (supposedly) given to the disciples of Christ Jesus AFTER his resurrection. Significant for modern times, these are teachings revealed not only to Jesus' male disciples, but also to his female disciples including Mary Magdalene, Martha, and Salome! Pistis Sophia in its fuller context represents not only the Wisdom of the Divine Father and the teachings of the Divine Son, but the Divine quality of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is exemplified in actual female forms of the Divine Mother, the Celestial Mother, the Virgin of Virgins, Mary and Mary Magdalene.
EXTREMELY WELL ESTEEMED CHURCH FATHER.
Porphyry Tyrius, real name Maximus Tyrisus, Selected works of Porphyry teach Abstanence from Animal Foods, in which the “aspining philosophers” are shown how to apply philosophical ideas and concepts in a “practical” way in their daily lives. A learned and wide ranging individual (no kidding), Porphyry presents us with an insight in to many cultural traditions which had their expression in the classical world (i.e. Platonism)
Greek Scholar and Neo-Platonic philosopher He early became a pupil of ORIGEN the Christian, however at 30 he came for the second time to Rome to place himself under the teaching of PLOTINUS the Neoplatonist pagan. He entirely adopted the opinions of Plotinus and became his confidant and literary assistant.
Porphyry was a hypochondriac and the abtuse mysticism of Plotinus incited in him a tendency to cherish thoughts of suicide. Plotinus somewhat straightened him out on that and about 268 he went to Sicily, where he wrote his treatise AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS, in FIFTEEN BOOKS (no less). Porphyry and Plotinus, believed Christ to be an eminent philosopher; [but charged THE CHRISTIANS WITH CORRUPTING HIS DOCTRINES. The philosophy of Porphyry is completely identified with that of Plotinus, the founder of the neoplatonic philosophy. Part of this philosophy was when you reach the third level, which corresponds with absorbing devotion of philosophy, MAN BECOMES A GOD. and on the fourth level, he becomes the father of the gods. And there are Christians thinking and preaching things along this very line today. Encyclopedia Americana and http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Porphyry+Tyrius&ei=UTF-8&fr=my&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt
I had read and studied this Porphyry before but until today I had NO IDEA that he was an early CHURCH FATHER. And here I thought I knew the depths to which the Church had stooped in deceit.
Yes the pagan CHURCH FATHER Porphyry did of course "quote scripture", especially when he was writing all his treatise AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS!
However, there were other Church Fathers who defended the value of studying classical literature and philosophy. The classical Greeks could aid in the moral development of children because the Greeks, though pagan, still embraced a virtuous life. Knowledge of Greek thought helped Christians to explain their beliefs logically and enabled them to argue intelligently with critics of Christianity. It was Clement of Alexandria (c.150-220) who brought reason to the support of faith by trying to make Christianity more intellectually respectable. As Clement once wrote in his Stromata (Miscellanies), "thus philosophy acted as a schoolmaster to the Greek, preparing them for Christ, as the laws of the Jews prepared them for Christ."
Using the language and techniques of Greek philosophy, Christian intellectuals changed Christianity from a simple ethical creed into a theoretical system. From this "Hellenization of Christianity," theology was born. Christ was depicted as the divine Logos (reason) in human form. Roman Stoicism was incorporated into the belief that all are equal and united in Christ. http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture16b.html
These men were infact all corrupted by Greek pagan Philsophy, and they corrupted and perverted the meaning of the gospel. What the Churches teach today is not the original gospel. God wants all men every where to repent and come out of it. He foretold in his word that Gentile Christianity would fall into complete apostasy before the return of the Lord.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/17/2004 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by larris
quote:
PoW: Gotcha! 12th and 13th cent. Western Europe. (Actually it was quite a bit earlier!!!)
Maybe that is why it is so refreshing to read the Early Greek Fathers who DID read lots of scripture, and quote scripture, and let scripture guide their arguementations. They spoke and read GREEK --
But for the first thousand years of her history the Church was essentially one. Five historic Patriarchal centers--Jerusalem; Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople-- formed a cohesive whole and were in full communion with each other. There were occasional heretical or schismatic groups going their own way, to be sure; but the Church was unified until the 11th century. http://saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html
Therefore from the first century up to the eleventh the history of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as the SAME. Therefore where did they get their “theology”?
The Franks. And Charlamagne's court. www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm Pagan philosophy slipped in there. And after more than a hundred years of trying they finally brought it to Rome with an army.
quote:
Charlemagne had also caused the Filioque to be added to the Frankish Creed, without consulting the pope. When the controversy over this addition broke out in Jerusalem, Charlemagne convoked the Council of Aachen in 809 and decreed that this addition was a dogma necessary for salvation. With this fait accomplit under his belt, he tried to pressure Pope Leo III into accepting it.[ 9 ]
Leo rejected the Filioque not only as an addition to the Creed, but also as dogma, claiming that the Fathers left it out of the Creed neither out of ignorance, nor out of negligence, nor out of oversight, but on purpose and by divine inspiration.
What Leo is clearly saying, but in diplomatic terms, is that the addition of the Filioque to the Creed is a heresy. The Franks were a too dangerous a presence in Papal Romania, so Leo acted as Hadrian had done before him. Leo did not reject the Filioque outside of the Creed, since there is in the West Roman tradition an Orthodox Filioque which was, and is, accepted as such by the East Romans until today. However, this West Roman Orthodox Filioque could not be added to the Creed where the term procession had a different meaning. In other words in a wrong context.
www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm
Keep studying...
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/17/2004 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by larris
I had read and studied this Porphyry before but until today I had NO IDEA that he was an early CHURCH FATHER. And here I thought I knew the depths to which the Church had stooped in deceit.
WHO?
Porphyry
Never heard of him!
Oh, yeah. There were heretics of the time. And that is what the Seven Ecumenical Councils were about. And it was tough work; so tough that sometimes they would look back and realize that they had got it wrong, and go back and fix things. The Council's nor the "Fathers" were the authority. That is why the counciliar statements began (as had James and the others in Jerusalem hearing Paul) "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28)
You want to read about some dangerous dude that they had to deal with, look up Paul of Samosata! www.bartleby.com/65/pa/PaulSamo.html
fl. 260–72, Syrian Christian theologian, heretical patriarch of Antioch. He was a friend and high official of Zenobia of Palmyra. Paul enounced a dynamic monarchianism, denying the three Persons of the Trinity. He taught that the Logos came to dwell in Jesus at baptism, but that Jesus possessed no extraordinary nature above other men, the Logos being entirely an attribute of God. Paul was repeatedly challenged and finally excommunicated (269)
It was fear of his poison that fueled the mistrust that created the atmosphere where many, for a time, would give quarter to Arias--as his heresy at least criticized Pauls heresies.
.
Be careful, larris, that you don't try to throw out the faith of everyone before the Reformation. BTW -- go read what the Reformers wrote and WHO they quoted. | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/17/2004 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | | (HATE to use this sight, did not realize where it was from till after I posted. But the historical fact of it remains the same. Chances are that they are only telling this to condemn the Eastern Church, and laud themselves. But the TRUTH is that the Roman Catholic Church has done more to promote evil and false doctrine through pagan religion and philosophy that any other organization in the world. However that dose not let the Eastern Church off the hook for doing the same exact thing. The are both the Pot calling the kettle black, when it comes to this stuff.)
http://www.loyno.edu/~gerlich/315BirthXtianPhilosophy.html
Different attitudes of the early Church Fathers towards pagan philosophy
There were basically two different kinds of attitudes which the early Church Fathers took towards the pagan philosophy:
The Latin Fathers (Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and others) rejected philosophy as a heathen product. [note from me, however history shows that the Roman Catholic Church fully adopted Greek pagan philosophy. In speaking of those who were on the "Latin side" or those on the "Greek side", it refers to "langueage" only and not the Eastern or Western Church since they did not in effect exist in that state as yet.]
While on the other side, the Greek Fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the Neoplatonic Christians) cultivated philosophical knowledge.
Certainly part of the reason for this difference in attitude was the fact that the Eastern Church was more heavily influenced by Greek thought in general. As Greek speakers, these Churchmen saw themself in the tradition of the "lovers of wisdom," while Latin speakers found less to praise in Greek thought.
Anti-Accommodation Church Fathers
Tertullian (c. 160-c. 230)
Among the Latin Church Fathers, Tertullian represents the voice of the those who severely rejected the philosophy as a heathen product. The most famous words of this opinion is written in his Prescription against Heretics, 7. It reads:
'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from " the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition. We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel. With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to belief besides.'
Pro-Accommodation Church Fathers
Initial "philosophical" formulations were the result of apologetic concerns. Unlike Tertullian, the successors of the Apostoles and the Eastern Church Fathers recognized that the traditional Judeo-Christian images and ideas of thought were only poorly understood by their pagan neighbors. Indeed, that misunderstanding had in great measure been the source of repeated persecution. Nor was biblical language readable understood by non-Jewish converts to the faith.
Thus, they concluded that in order to proclaim the message of Jesus in a manner that their non-Jewish adherents could readily understand, it was necessary to formulate those concepts using the intellectual terminology of the day. In the process, the Church Fathers came to an appreciation for the potential of Greek thought. It was eventually "baptized' as Christian thought for it proclaimed the Christian message in terms that were both intelligible and meaningful to men and women of the early second and third centuries.
In response to the challenge of the Hellenized world, several theological models were worked out in early Christian Church:
1. In the second century, the Christian apologists elaborated the first new philosophical theology by borrowing from popular philosophy and invoking the Hellenistic-Johannine Logos (seen as active everywhere in the world). In large measure, their efforts were unsystematic attempts to formulate a rational defense of Christian thought and practice.
2. Around the end of the second and the beginning of the third centuries, Irenaeus (c. 125-202 CE) offered a more complete theological system. His thought guided by a keen desire to clarify the nature of salvation history as evidenced by Scripture and apostolic tradition. In this way, he sought to undermine the claims of the Gnostic mythologies. Relying heavily upon the writings of Paul of Tarsus and the fourth gospel, he identified the common philosophical logos (the Greek concept for divine reason) with the Johannine attribution of logos as the "voice" of God as given in His revelations to men, especially in the teachings of Jesus.
3. In the middle of the third centuries (parallel to Tertullian in the west) there was the theology of Clement and Origin, the two influential Alexandrians, who boldly assimilated all previous efforts at theological synthesis (including Gnostic ones). They brought these ideas to their dialogue with Neo-Platonic philosophy. From their work evolved the first fully articulated, widely influential, long prevalent macromodel of theology. The structural elements of this Greek theology, which were both cosmopolitan and ecclesiastical, historically responsible and philosophically reflective. This fruitful merger of Biblical ideas with Neo-Platonic thought became the regula fidei ("rule of faith") that was both intellectually satisfying and religiously meaningful.
Factors Favoring the Accommodation of Greek Thought.
Philosophy as the Basis of Ordinary Education
In the first and second centuries, the philosophy taken for granted by ordinary educated folk, was in effect a blend of Stoicism and Platonism. On the ethical side it was profoundly molded by Stoicism, while on the metaphysical side it looked more to Platonism.
The elementary education in the Middle Ages were pagan. The book which was to become the common text-book of the Seven Arts was by a pagan, of Neo-Platonic views. This was the De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, by Martianus Capella.
As early as Philo (30bce-46ce), the current intellectual coin of the more literate classes of society was a blend of Stoic ethics with Platonic metaphysics and some Aristotelian logic. Like the "common" form of Greek spoken in the Hellenistic world, this mixture of Hellenistic philosophies was the philosophical koine, and Philo simply accepted that as a given fact.
A further indication of Christian appreciation for the positive aspects of Greco-Roman philosophy can be seen in the persistent elaboration of Hellenistic concepts in the period of Christian intellectual domination during the Middle ages. Thus, even when no longer necessary as "the common ground" on which to engage in apologetics with the pagan world, classical thought remained the substrata for philosophical reflection
during the Middle Ages. [6]
The easy mixing of Christian concepts with the popular intellectual medium of the times, Greek philosophy, is further evidenced by the discoveries of papyrus fragments of pagan Greek literature that were written in the same style and handwriting as Biblical fragments discovered in the same finds. Evidently, the two literatures (Christian and pagan) belonged to the same ancient world. [7]
quote:
Be careful, larris, that you don't try to throw out the faith of everyone before the Reformation. BTW -- go read what the Reformers wrote and WHO they quoted.
Oh I don't. I just pretty much throw out the faith of all the Churches after the Apostlistic Fathers, Since the Apostasy began durring the time of the Apostles, and the true faith was lost in the next generation. After all Paul was the one who first warned them to BEWARE OF PHILOSOPHY and also told Timothy not to practice the "science falsely so called" which some professing had erred from the faith. The NT is FULL of such warnings, and FULL of information about false teachings coming in through philosophy even at that time.
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:14 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|