God in mormonism

[Clear]

To Forum members :


1)REGARDING THE TENDENCY TO APOSTATIZE FROM ORIGINAL RELIGION

I once saw an Opening post ask regarding the Jew’s motives in “turn[ing] away” from the gospel. I felt that this discussion had far reaching implications since the same mechanisms that caused the Jews to “turn away” from truth may then apply to ALL individuals who “turn away” from principles God reveals for mankind to follow. Another Christian poster immediately offered the insightful question : “Do you really think we [Christians] do any better?”

Honest discussions regarding this principle IS an appropriate and profound subject if Christianities are to ever gain insight into why Christians also “turn away” from truth, since, only a small portion of the many conflicting Christian theories on a specific doctrine CAN be correct and the rest must represent error.
Yet Christianities continue to innovate and develop new and different theological theories and move away (or “turn away”) from the more ancient christian traditions. It is as though Christianity has not avoided making the same mistakes as the Jews (in terms of abandoning and innovating away from early, original, revealed religion.)

Christians rarely flirt with this admission (which is so obvious to other religions as they correctly criticize Christians for having so many conflicting theories), yet occasionally we’ll have the tacit admission that Christians are “not above guessing at those traditions, adding to them, misunderstanding them, or even altering them.” As one poster described our shared tendency to apostatize.

Such words remind me of Pseudo-Hecateus when he says “We throngs of men go astray in our hearts when, to gain solace from misery, we set up as statues of gods figures worked from wood, or images of copper, gold or ivory. We imagine we are religious when we enjoin in their honor sacrifices and evil festivals. (#2 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.113)

This principle that man innovates and then adopts changed religion has ALWAYS been true whether speaking of Jews or Christians. Prophets reveal authentic religion. Men then go astray. Other prophets attempt to restore authentic religion to mankind, which correction men then apostatize from, which other prophets attempt to restore, ad nauseum.

Perhaps this is one of the great lessons that God seems to be trying to teach mankind from the beginning and Christians seem to be no more immune to this weakness than were the Jews. ALL mankind tend to apostatize to some extent. We innovate, we imagine, we theorize. And as we do, we get certain things wrong. A survey of the early Judao-Christian texts reveals this pattern as clearly as the later sacred texts do.



2) APOSTASY AMONG THE JEWS

For example, Moses understood this tendency for constant innovation and apostasy when he said “...for what I command them will not be to their liking, .... I declare to you that they will abandon me and choose to follow the idols of the gentiles and their abominations and their filthy deeds, and they will worship the false gods, which will become a trap and snare, and they will violate every sacred assembly and covenant Sabbath the very ones I am commanding them today to observe. (THE WORDS OF MOSES 1Q22 Col. 1:6-9)

The text described that “...the boundary-shifters appeared and led Israel astray and the land was devastated, for they had spoken rebellion against the commandments of God through Moses and also through the anointed of the spirit; and they prophesied falsehood to turn Israel from following God “. (The Damascus Document 4Q)

“all the boundary shifters and all of it will be done in the age of evil...and they did not obey the voice of Moses ...they went about spreading lies about His laws and from God’s covenant they strayed... “ (THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT – Geniza A+B 4Q266)


Indeed the manner of corruption of early authentic religion was NOT through refusal of the Pagans to accept authentic religion, but rather it was a contamination of authentic prophetic religion by counterfeit innovations; a warping of religion, not by the irreligious, but by the religious themselves. The boundaries of authentic religion have always tended to “shift”.

For example, When Levi prophesies to his son’s that Israel will someday lose the rights associated with authentic religion, he reaffirms that it was partly because of contamination of authentic religion with counterfeit commandments and having pride in their claim to authority :

“You will bring down a curse on our nation, because you want to destroy the light of the Law which was granted to you for the enlightenment of every man, teaching commandments which are opposed to God’s just ordinances. .... You will be inflated with pride over your priesthood, exalting yourselves not merely by human standards but contrary to the commands of God”. (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- Levi 14:1-8)

It is clear that it was not merely commandments and doctrines that were corrupted, but the authentic ordinances were corrupted as well.

‘And I shall send to them witnesses so that I might witness to them, but they will not hear. And they will even kill the witnesses. And they will persecute those who search out the Law, and they will neglect everything and begin to do evil in my sight. And I shall hide my face from them, and I shall give them over to the power of the nations to be captive, and for plunder, and to be devoured. And I shall remove them from the midst of the land, and I shall scatter them among the nations. And they will forget all of my laws and all of my commandments and all of my judgments, and they will err concerning new moons, Sabbaths, festivals, jubilees, and ordinances.” Jubilees (the book of division) 1:12-14;

New testament Barnabas reminds the christians of this same warning and it’s fulfillment among the Jews : “Now concerning the water, it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves.” (Barnabas 11:1)

Thus the book of Jubilees reminds us : “And this testimony will be heard as a testimony against them, for they will forget all of my commandments, everything which I shall command them, and they will walk after the gentiles and after their defilement and shame. And they will serve their gods, …. because they have forsaken my ordinances and my commandments and the feasts of my covenant and my Sabbaths and my sacred place, which I sanctified for myself among them.“ (Jubilees (the book of division) 1:9-10)



THE CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO RETAIN AUTHENTIC RELIGION WAS THE LOSS OF THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF AUTHENTIC RELIGION AMONG THE JEWS

28 “Hear these words, O Israel. … you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. 32 And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given.“ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32;

The Prophet Ezra is not merely referring to the land of Israel, but to the very loss of the Prophetic gift of Revelation which kept authentic religion on course. Prophetic revelation was so central to authentic religion that Justin martyr, reminds the Jew Trypho that prophetic religion was the key witness to the authenticity of the early Christian religion and it’s loss among the Jews and the appearance of Revelation and prophets among the Christians was a sign of Gods transfer of favor to the Christians.

Justin tells the Jew Trypo : “One may see among us [Christians] men and women who have received the gift of the Spirit of God...there were no longer to be prophets in your [Jewish] race as in the past...For after him [Jesus] absolutely no prophet has come among you... We have still among us, even until now, prophetic gifts, which should make you understand that which your race formerly possessed has been transferred to us. “ (Dialogue with Trypho, lxxxiii)

However, once the Christians received the gift of authentic prophetic religion, though they disdained the Jews for apostasy from the earliest religion, the Christians seemed no better at retaining authentic religion than the Jews were. The warnings given to the Jews anciently are no different in essentials than the warnings repeated to the Christians should Christianity turns too far from the path or should they not accept corrections back to correct principles.



3) APOSTASY AMONG THE CHRISTIANS

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.(gal 1:6-7)

Individuals quote (and often mis-use) Gal 1:6 as only regarding latter day apostasy when it applied to the Galations themselves and apostasy among the earliest Christians themselves. However, the same pattern of innovation and apostasy that became prominent among the Jews became a pattern within Christianity.

For example : Clement discusses this same unrelenting tendency to conflict, schism and apostasy among the earliest Christians in the very early text of 1st Clement : “Why is there strife and angry outbursts and dissension and schisms and conflict among you? Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace which was poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? Why do we tear and rip apart the members of Christ, and rebel against our own body, and reach such a level of insanity that we forget that we are members of one another? ...Your schism has perverted many; it has brought many to despair, plunged many into doubt, and caused all of us to sorrow. And yet your rebellion still continues!” (1st Clement 46:5-9)

Such schisms were not simply the hypocrites who did not live the law, but they often resulted from Christians who think they know the “real” Christianity and wanted to teach their interpretations to others. Among these were ones described as “Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.“ (1 Tim 1:6-7) Their motives were NOT necessarily to HARM the Christian religion, but instead They are trying to HELP God by offering their interpretations of religion.

This apostasy is not simply a phenomenon of our time, but it happened in the early congregations and from the earliest time Christians were given the gospel and, it is NOT the anti-Christians in the main, who changed Christianity from without, but it is the Christian disciples themselves who are changing doctrines from within the christian movement itself as the early text from the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah reminds us :

“And afterwards, at his approach, his disciples will abandon the teaching of the twelve apostles, and their faith, and their love, and their purity. And there will be much contention at his coming and at his approach. And in those days (there will be) many who will love office, although lacking wisdom. And there will be many wicked elders and shepherds who wrong their sheep, (and they will be rapacious because they do not have holy shepherds). And many will exchange the glory of the robes of the saints for the robes of those who love money; and there will be much respect of persons in those days, and lovers of the glory of this world. And there will be many slanderers and [much] vainglory at the approach of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit will withdraw from many. And in those day there will not be many prophets, nor those who speak reliable words, except one here and there in different places, because of the spirit of error and of fornication, and of vainglory, and of the love of money, which there will be among those who are said to be servants of the One, and among those who receive that One. 29 And among the shepherds and the elders there will be great hatred towards one another. 30 For there will be great jealousy in the last days, for everyone will speak whatever pleases him in his own eyes. 31 And they will neglect (gr) the prophecy of the prophets who were before me, and my visions also...they will make ineffective, in order that they may speak what bursts out of their heart.”(Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 3:21-31)

The difficulty for non-historian Christians is that they are often unaware of "doctrinal shifts" and "evolutions" of "orthodoxy" over time. So much so, that they are often disoriented by early Christian doctrines and traditions. Add to this, the difficulty caused by lack of insight among the religious resulting in the inability to see that all of us interpret according to our bias (myself included), AND, we all have bias, and we all teach according to our own bias. The end result is that we tend to innovate and guess and use imperfect logic in our interpretations of religion and the net result is that we move away from original and authentic religion to our own versions of it. Even if we hold to the most basic text as a "canon", we still tend to innovate and interpret and change that "canons" text to reflect our personal beliefs. It is a very difficult situation.

The centuries following the death of Christ were described by a logia of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas as follows :

“Jesus said, “The kingdom of the [father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking [on the] road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [on] the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty.”

This logia is one of many sad descriptions of the failed attempt to pass on the doctrines and traditions of the early Christianities to later generations. In the last days, when one looks inside of modern Christian Churches, often, one finds that most of the substance that gave the early Church its’ value, is no longer to be found in it.


The doctrine of “momentary belief saves evil individuals” as an example of apostasy from original Christianity

I think that the doctrine of “easy believism” and “momentary belief” that represent abandonments of the early Christian doctrines of such principles as repentance and attempts to be obedient to God are examples of specific doctrines that represent apostasy from doctrines held by the early Christian movement.

I would be very, very interested if there are any historians on the forum who have researched WHEN this interpretation and doctrine of "easy believism" originated and what the motives were for it's inception. I have participated in discussions regarding these issues, but none of the discussants involved could answer these questions.

Clear
φυτωφισεω

 

[Orontes]

I can agree with your per 1 and per 2--however, it is common for both Jews and Christians to understand the ancient sacrifices not as examples for repentance or merit but as "kill this, go free". Again, however, I can understand your perspective regarding other models. That's fine.

A "Biblicist" is someone who adheres to the scriptures as the highest source of truth. This is not true for the RCC and the Greek Orthodox and related churches. And yes, Protestants, some more Biblicist than not, were violent. But did Protestant churches inquest and burn Jews, Christians and witches? Are Protestants still insisting 500 years after the Reformation that anyone who says faith alone saves is anathema and destined for perdition? You believe faith saves. You believe works are evidence of faith. Do you say I'm anathema to the church and truth and must suffer in Purgatory or Hell BECAUSE I say we're saved by grace through faith, not of works, so that no one can boast in Heaven--a wholly biblical statement? Of course not.

I have some concerns about the Greek Orthodox and related churches, but not Orthodoxy. However, we cannot quote any early church father and say some or all of their particular statements are de facto accurate without checking their statements against the light of scripture. You are familiar, I'm sure, with the NT statements to test statements, prophesies, doctrines and more against scripture itself.

I see. So, a Biblicist is a subset of Protestant for you. I understand.

To your question: yes. Protestants in positions of power did burn/kill a variety of people they disagreed with. Recall, the Salem Witch Trials were under Puritan auspice (Puritans were a sect that grew out of English Protestantism). One can also note the second class status and bigotry Catholics had to suffer once England became firmly under Protestant control. Protestantism didn't have a formal Inquisition, but inquests and religious trials were common in Protestant circles. One simple example, Calvin is typically tied to the burning of the non-Trinitarian Michael Servetus as a heretic in 1553 in Geneva.

As I noted previously, the religious wars that followed from the Reformation were really bloody affairs. I referenced the Thirty Years War, the same could be said of the religious wars in France in the 1590s. It's impossible to only charge Catholics in these acts. Protestants were equally brutal, not only with Papists, but other 'reformers whose reforms they didn't agree with. The difficulties of the Anabaptists are a simply example.

Also note: since Vatican II, Catholicism no longer considers Protestants as anathema. Protestant Churches are considered as Apostolic, but simply out of union with the Holy See.

 

[Orontes]

I understand and I know that besides the Greek mind, the Jewish mind would consider itself noble and not a "wretch from birth" but rather, achieving the better self via the revelation(s) of Messiah. However, we must account for other statements, like David's and Job's of being conceived in sin and going astray since birth. And again, the time that Abraham came into this unique union we're speaking of was upon acknowledging God's ability to provide an heir. He then went out promptly and made his own heir that wasn't the chosen one, a theme consistent in Romans and Galatians also.

I would question also what is meant by self-mastery. Logically, very good people cannot enter Heaven, because very good people make mistakes, say hurtful things at times and cause hurts. No one can mar the new Heaven or Earth without making it a dystopia rather than a utopia. Very good, actualized, self-controlled persons cannot make it to Heaven. Perfect people can. We might even say if this is better for a dialogue that Christ didn't die to be punished for our punishment or to cover our sin but rather to perfect us. We see partial perfections now called sanctification and ultimate perfection at the Rapture.

Job is declared as a perfect man in the text. David was also seen as favored by the Lord. It is very problematic to argue any like an original sin positioning from the Bible. Original Sin is a position developed by St. Augustine during his theological battles with Pelagius. Original Sin was never accepted by Greek Christianity.


Self Mastery is typically tied to perfection. In Greek perfection is telios. The meaning behind telios (perfection) is maturation: the fruition of what a thing can be. Thus the perfection of the acorn is an oak tree. The perfection of man is the model Christ presented: to be as He is, and one with the Father. This is only possible through Christ's intervention. Thus, the need to have a covenant relationship with Christ. The core of this positioning is an upward focus. It is not the groveling wretch coiled about in sin so much as it is glorification and sanctification. The failure to become what is possible is the true tragedy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hi Billiardsball and Orontes - I'm sorry I did not reply quickly. I am both changing employment and moving and am busy. Hopefully things will slow down this next week.

REGARDING THE THEORY THAT MOMENTARY BELIEF SAVES EVIL INDIVIDUALS IN HEAVEN

1) Clear said : " Is there ANYTHING in Romans 3:22-24 that supports your theory that a momentary sincere belief guarantees a Christian who then repudiates that belief and goes on to live a life of immorality and oppression and torture and rape of children will then go to Heaven with individuals like Abraham? "
Billiardsball answers : “ Well, perhaps you can show me in Romans 3:22-24 where it discusses someone who repudiates belief? “

Requesting evidence rebutting your theory is not evidence supporting your theory.
Biblical literature is replete with descriptions of various types of apostasy, repudiation, and other forms of disobedience to God and his prophetic guidance. The much larger Judeo-Christian genre of historical literature also describes human religious experience of apostasy, repudiation and other forms of disobedience and evolution of belief. If one reads Judeo-Christian literature, then they will find description of apostasy.

To ask that we funnel consideration of your theory from two verses is transparent desperation and creates historical blindness. Your question is NOT evidence for your theory that momentary belief saves the Satanists and “despicables” in heaven together with Abraham.


2) Billiardsball said : We should be discussing the mechanism of salvation rather than your ire at God's choices as to whom He saves.
This is another mis-characterization. I am not irate at God, but instead, I think God knows what he is doing with mankind whom he deeply loves. Does this comment that has nothing to do with your theory mean you want to change the subject? If you want to stop trying to support your theory, we can stop talking about it. My current model of God's salvation for mankind is somewhat different than Orontes and Yours.


3) Billiardsball said " I will not be a pedophile because I'm thankful for my salvation."
Christian Pedophiles and oppressors and rapists who feel “saved” by Jesus probably feel and felt the same thankfulness you feel. What about the actual question? If you (or I, or anyone else) DO become a despicable rapist/pedophile/oppressor/torturer/satanist, etc., will you (and us) still be saved in heaven beside individuals like Abraham who lived exemplary lives?


4) Billiardsball said " Romans also says, "whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved" and "with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation". Is this a perpetual, ongoing lifestyle of calling or a one-time request?
If you really do have historical training in Greek that you claimed, then you would have understood that “ομολογεται” is NOT a simple “confession” in its normal historical usage in religious Koine Greek but instead, represented an ongoing agreement or covenant whether in social or business usage.

Are you still claiming to forum members that you are trained in historical Greek?



5) Billiardsball said " You simply cannot assault my understanding that salvation involves a once-for-all choice unless you can defend how the Greek or English says "lifestyle, mostly, much of the time" rather than "always".
My intent was never to change your mind. Since your theory was never historical or rational or logical I did not believe that historical information, nor logic nor rational thought was going to change your mind.

Rather I wanted to demonstrate to OTHER readers of this thread who ARE thinking historically and rationally and logically, that your theory is not connected with historical Christian doctrine. If readers wish to believe they can be saved by adhering to your modern theory rather than believe in the early, Historical, rational and logical Christian Doctrine, that is their choice.


6) Re Billiardsballs claim that No despicable individuals (whether in prison OR outside prison) who rape or torture or oppress children were ever sincere Christians. Re : Prisoners who claim to be or have been Christians :

billiardsball said : I'm rather questioning how they knew and more importantly, you knew that their childhood faith was sincere.
re : How they knew they were sincere : I supposed they assumed they had been sincere in their childhood beliefs upon the same principle you presently assume that you are sincere. However, Personal insight is not always accurate.

Still, if you theorize that they can mistake being sincere and later recognize they were not sincere, then I suppose all of us can, in the same way, fool ourselves upon this same principle and think we are saved when we are not (if we use your criteria and principle on this point).

Since our own hypocrisy is, frequently, recognized in "hind-sight" for what it is, you may claim to be saved; think you are saved inside your theory and later discover that you are not. .

Your theory that no despicable adult was ever a sincere Christian when they were young is yet another unusual theory that you will have hold to in order to support your theory of “momentary faith guarantees salvation in heaven”. It is illogical to suppose that no Christian Child will ever choose to become an atheist (especially since some forum athiests were Christians) and that none will choose to do evil acts in certain moments of anger or loss of control.

I must point out that it feels like the increasing number of unusual, irrational and illogical theories you create to support you single modern theory of “easy believism” of “momentary faith saves evil individuals” is becoming burdensome.

For examples,
Your theory that “…someone who is a hypocrite or apostate isn't a Christian.” Is illogical.
Your theory that Christians cannot display simple hypocrisy is unusual, especially when we have obvious evidence that they are occasionally hypocritical.
Your theory that a large portion of the bible (apocrypha) was influenced by Satan is unusual.
Your theory that prisoners cannot be saved Christians inside your model of salvation is irrational.
Your theory that correct greek grammar does not apply to your theory of easy believism is irrational.

To try to use such theories to "prop up" your main theory is not helping your cause.


7) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ I will be comfortable in saying, "have had" [saving] faith since the Greek and English use present, ongoing tense…”
Clear replied : " This very bizarre admission simply says you are comfortable disregarding basic grammar to support your theory. How does pretending a non-continuous verb is continuous (“ongoing” as you say) help your theory in the real world where language follows grammatical rules? Are you still claiming to forum members that you have been trained in Greek? To admit you must disregard correct grammar in order support your theory UNDERMINES, rather than supports your theory."
Billiardsball said **Sorry, you are wholly unaware of the differences between have and have had and has in English?

READ what you are saying. You are mixing “present, ongoing tense” (continuous) with past tense in a greek text. It is irrational to consciously and intentionally disregard and disobey basic rules of grammar in order to try to support your theory. Are you still claiming to forum members that you have been trained in Greek?



8) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ And no, I don't want a ten-page refutation of the fact you should already know, that many fine teachers confirm that pisteuo may have us render it in the English, "...God so loved the world, that whoever has trusted, is trusting or will trust..."
Clear replied : " 1) I do not know a single, legitimate translator who would intentionally render a present-tense verb in past tense or in future tense. Instead, they would be embarrassed to make that mistake.
You cannot possibly have studied greek and make this incredibly silly, strange, claim. On the planet where most of us lives, it makes a different whether our rent has been paid (past), is being paid (present continuous), or will be paid (future).
2) Tell us, who are these “many fine teachers” who are translators of greek that take a simple present continuous form of a verb and render it into a past or future form?
3) Give us examples where these “fine teachers” render Πιστεύω as a past or future without the original greek itself being a past or future form. To use your word Πιστεύω as an example : Πιστεύω appears ONLY 5 times in the New Testament (mk 9:24, Jn 9:38, Acts 8:37, Acts 27:25, 1Cor 11:18). In NONE of these textual occurrences, can Πιστεύω be properly rendered as a past or future verb such as “I did believe” or “had believed” or “I will, in the future, believe”.

You grammatical examples are becoming more erroneous, more irrational and more illogical. The accumulating errors and illogic do NOT build credibility in your claims, nor do they support your personal theory of momentary faith produces eternal salvation.
Do you still claim to forum members that you are trained in Greek?
Billiardsball said **It is disingenuous of you to make claims regarding the ongoing nature of faith in salvation since both of us know that many fine translators and expositors look at pisteuo and the aorist tense and context and other things and conclude salvation is done via a one-time choice of faith, not an ongoing faith. I admit for my part that many fine Greek scholars--including you--believe it is an ongoing, continual, perpetual unto death faith. I don't take away from your intelligence in recognizing this fact. However, you are not admitting the context--the unsaved Greek reader can read John 3:16 or etc. and trust Christ THERE AND THEN. You are assuming, as many fine but misguided people do, that the entire Bible is written for Christians only. It is not.

We are not talking about a sincere person simply coming to a belief. Your theory claims a sincere person can have a momentary sincere belief that will then save them in heaven once that belief in Jesus is repudiated and Satanism is firmly adopted and a life of despicable torture and rape of children and oppression of others replaces this belief. In your theory, the evil and most despicable anti-christian is saved in heaven with Abraham and Mother Teresa like individuals who attempted to obey God and worship him and sacrificed for him.

This new additional illogical and irrational grammatical theory you are suggesting, is not helpful to your grammatical cause. You can’t simply create new grammatical rules that only serve to support your theory. Are you still claiming to forum members that you are “trained in Greek”?

Billiardsball : You still have not told us : WHO ARE THESE MANY TRANSLATORS WHO RENDER Πιστεύω IN A PAST OR FUTURE TENSE?
NAME THEM, GIVE US EXAMPLES since the bible has none where Πιστεύω is rendered the way you say it is rendered by "many fine translators" of greek". I don't know ANY who make this mistake. I've given you example of EVERY single occurrence of Πιστεύω in the bible. NONE of these occurrences can be correctly translated as you suggest. Your claim is simply bizzare.

Also, Your description of my own belief is incorrect. Please don’t tell me what I believe. If you don’t know, ask me, rather than mis-characterizing my belief. I believe faith may wax stronger; it may wane; it may stop and restarts (etc.) for many individual Christians during their religious journey



9) Billiardsball said “ I see you've dropped Christian murderers from your list, probably in recognition of John's statement, "we know no murderer has the Spirit of Christ".
Yes,I dropped murderers this list because you stated you did not believe murderers were saved and I did not want to mis-represent your theory.


10) However, by suggesting that backslidden people can become torturers and rapists, you are ignoring the fact I've stated several times over already--when you know you're saved, gratitude, is the natural response.
Sincere child-Christians who later became torturers and rapists and oppressors are not responding “normally”. They may have become a rapist or oppressor or liar or do despicable actions during "abnormal" times and circumstances when their faith waned, when they were angry, frustrated, when they felt life had been unfair; or they had lost faith or will to "be good", etc. (e.g. they were sincere Christians who were temporarily depressed, intensely lonely, angry, etc..)



Regarding Billiardsballs' dismissal that Prisoners could ever have sincerely believe in Jesus when they were small children
11) Clear Said : "To simply dismiss the claims of an entire population because it disagrees with your religious theory is strange."
Billiardsball responded : " **Did you mean to use the word "entire"?

If you are dismissing “all” inmates everywhere in the world, at all times in the history of the world who sincerely believed in Jesus when they were children and then committed despicable acts, then you are dismissing this “entire” population.

If you theorize that ALL despicable Christians in the world never really “sincerely believed in Jesus” when they were children and accepted Christ as their savior, this is yet another theory that you will have to provide data to support. This is yet another theory you will have created in order to support your original theory that unrepentant Satanists and committed oppressors and rapists and those who torture children and still want to torture children will be saved in heaven beside Abraham.


12) Billiardsball said : "**I see you were indeed not conversant with these terms. A backslider is never described in scripture as an apostate or hypocrite and vice versa."
1) Perhaps we can discuss this point and you can enlighten me on these greek/hebrew terms and their correct historical usage. Since you are referring to Christianity, Give me some New Testament verses that uses “backslider” in greek/hebrew (rather than "apostasy".) that supports this theory on your historical useage of this specific term versus “apostate”. Teach me the Greek and Hebrew that you know about this usage.

Also, since you are referring to a Jewish usage in the single reference to משבה that you, (as a Jew) are referring to. WHY do you assign this hebrew word the meaning “backsliding” rather than another rendering (such as turning or apostasy - which is more accurate historically - e.g. Jews of 300 b.c. used επστραφητι με in the verse you refer to) in this specific instance?


Billiardsball, Why should anyone prefer your modern Christian interpretational theory over the interpretation of the ancient and most original Christians in their interpretations and doctrines?


In any case Billiardsball, I honestly and truly wish you a good spiritual journey.

Clear
φυτωτζφυω

Clear,

1* Really? We need to go to the Greek for you to understand how a rabbi who was called a hypocrite in the gospels was not yet a born again Christian? We need to find in the "Greek" why God calls a nation "apostate" in the Hebrew scriptures and how the nation/those persons in the OT weren't born again Christians? Really?

2* You have a theory regarding what persons can and cannot do to lose their salvation. The same book under discussion, Romans, says:

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls, and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

It says elsewhere in that book:

Why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim we say) 'Let us do evil that good may come...' -- their condemnation is just...

The apostle says that we are not to judge Christians as lost by actions, since God is able to make one righteous, and that servant WILL stand. The apostle says we are justly condemned if we accuse those with sound doctrine regarding salvation of being libertines. Or do you have a different interpretation of these ideas from Romans?

You will have to support your theory that God will judge a Christian pedophile by first proving that the born again person has no restraints, natural or supernatural and can do whatever heinous things they want in the first place. There is a restrainer who will not be removed before the Tribulation. There is a Spirit on deposit in believers, guiding them into truth. There are encouragements to live right based on gratitude. There are statements in Romans and elsewhere that the Christians are be restrained from/avoid indulging in jealousy, strife, immorality and sensuality, but there are zero NT statements I can find that say the Christian is to cease abusing children and is to cease raping and murdering. Why is that, do you think? If real born again persoms could murder and rape in the apostles' day, why were they reluctant to speak out then in the NT? How could they have missed this important point?

Or do you still believe that everyone is what they say they are, not what they truly are? You know most of us who met a pedophile who said, "I used to be a Christian!" would not assume he had lost salvation but never really had it or a relationship with God, yes...?

In good faith, your friend, BB.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see. So, a Biblicist is a subset of Protestant for you. I understand.

To your question: yes. Protestants in positions of power did burn/kill a variety of people they disagreed with. Recall, the Salem Witch Trials were under Puritan auspice (Puritans were a sect that grew out of English Protestantism). One can also note the second class status and bigotry Catholics had to suffer once England became firmly under Protestant control. Protestantism didn't have a formal Inquisition, but inquests and religious trials were common in Protestant circles. One simple example, Calvin is typically tied to the burning of the non-Trinitarian Michael Servetus as a heretic in 1553 in Geneva.

As I noted previously, the religious wars that followed from the Reformation were really bloody affairs. I referenced the Thirty Years War, the same could be said of the religious wars in France in the 1590s. It's impossible to only charge Catholics in these acts. Protestants were equally brutal, not only with Papists, but other 'reformers whose reforms they didn't agree with. The difficulties of the Anabaptists are a simply example.

Also note: since Vatican II, Catholicism no longer considers Protestants as anathema. Protestant Churches are considered as Apostolic, but simply out of union with the Holy See.

No, a Biblicist is any Catholic, Protestant or any other person who says the Bible is the authority, not tradition and above tradition.

Protestants are not only "out of Union" but remain forbidden to many sacraments, including the Mass until quite recently, hundreds of years after Trent. That's right, the RCC acknowledges as literal truth that the literal body and blood are present in the Catholic host and then disallow non-Catholics to have it. Follow their thought process:

1. The true body and blood are in the Mass only now.

2. No, the heretic Christian sects cannot have it.

3. So, non-Catholics can suffer in purgatory or Hell because we deny them what Christ has commanded where He said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part of me." The RCC can talk unity and love all it wants but was condemning Mormons, Protestants and others to Hell for years. Sad.

And thanks for pointing out the wars and excesses of the Protestants. I'm glad I'm a Jew who attends a non-denom local church!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Job is declared as a perfect man in the text. David was also seen as favored by the Lord. It is very problematic to argue any like an original sin positioning from the Bible. Original Sin is a position developed by St. Augustine during his theological battles with Pelagius. Original Sin was never accepted by Greek Christianity.


Self Mastery is typically tied to perfection. In Greek perfection is telios. The meaning behind telios (perfection) is maturation: the fruition of what a thing can be. Thus the perfection of the acorn is an oak tree. The perfection of man is the model Christ presented: to be as He is, and one with the Father. This is only possible through Christ's intervention. Thus, the need to have a covenant relationship with Christ. The core of this positioning is an upward focus. It is not the groveling wretch coiled about in sin so much as it is glorification and sanctification. The failure to become what is possible is the true tragedy.

I don't accept Original Sin either! It was promulgated by that "great father" Augustine and followed on by Calvinist and other "seminal thinkers and godly men".

I do agree that we can be free men and not groveling wretches. As a matter of practice, I'm constantly encountering people who are very good people, with and without Christ. But unlike Job, because when I ask, "Are you perfect?" they say "No. I don't know anyone who is!"

I ask, "Are you going to Heaven?" [They usually say yes or that they hope so/hope to.]

I ask, "Are you a good, moral, ethical person?" [They typically say yes and tell me more.]

I ask, "Are you a perfect person?" [No!]

I explain this is a problem as logically speaking, if they or I ever make an action, even a casual statement, that causes others hurt or distress, we are no longer in a place of perfection but a dystopia, and that Christ came for us as He is perfect and we aren't.

 

[Clear]

REGARDING BILLIARDSBALLS' THEORY THAT MOMENTARY BELIEF SAVES EVIL INDIVIDUALS IN HEAVEN


Hi Billiardsball :



I read your post # 344 as a reply to my post # 340, but am cannot find within specific relevance to the questions you were asked in post # 340. Irrelevance is part of the difficulty readers will have with your comments that do not answer questions you are actually asked.

Let me give you examples from post # 340


1) In post # 340 :
Clear asked : " Is there ANYTHING in Romans 3:22-24 that supports your theory that a momentary sincere belief guarantees a Christian who then repudiates that belief and goes on to live a life of immorality and oppression and torture and rape of children will then go to Heaven with individuals like Abraham? "
Billiardsball responded by asking “...where it discusses someone who repudiates belief? “ in these three verses.
Clear responded : The much larger Judeo-Christian genre of historical literature also describes human religious experience of apostasy, repudiation and other forms of disobedience and evolution of belief. And I explained that your question was NOT evidence for your theory that momentary belief saves the Satanists and “despicables” in heaven together with Abraham.

How is your post # 344 relevant to these two points?


2) When asked if, despite present belief in Jesus, he becomes a despicably evil person if Billiardsball would still be saved in heaven with Abraham :
Billiardsball said " I will not be a pedophile because I'm thankful for my salvation."
Clear replied : Christian Pedophiles and oppressors and rapists who feel “saved” by Jesus probably feel and felt the same thankfulness you feel. What about the actual question? If you (or I, or anyone else) DO become a despicable rapist/pedophile/oppressor/torturer/satanist, etc., will you (and us) still be saved in heaven beside individuals like Abraham who lived exemplary lives?

How is your post # 344 relevant to this question? If we (or ANYONE) turn evil, and do despicable things (rape, pedophilia, oppress, torture, become committed Satanists, etc. Are we still saved in heaven simply because we momentarily (but sincerely) believed in Jesus as a child?


3) Billiardsball said " Romans also says, "whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved" and "with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation". Is this a perpetual, ongoing lifestyle of calling or a one-time request?
Clear responded : If you really do have historical training in Greek that you claimed, then you would have understood that “ομολογεται” is NOT a simple “confession” in its normal historical usage in religious Koine Greek but instead, represented an ongoing agreement or covenant whether in social or business usage. Are you still claiming to forum members that you are trained in historical Greek?

How is your post # 344 relevant to these two points?



4) Regarding Billiardsballs' claim that No despicable individuals (whether in prison OR outside prison) who rape or torture or oppress children were ever sincere Christians. Re : Prisoners who claim to be or have been Christians : In post # 340, Clear made the point that It is illogical to suppose that no Christian Child will ever choose to become an atheist (especially since some forum athiests were Christians) and that none will choose to do evil acts in certain moments of anger or loss of control.

How is your post # 344 relevant to this logic?


5) In post # 340, Clear pointed out regarding your multiplying theories :
Your theory that “…someone who is a hypocrite or apostate isn't a Christian.” Is illogical.
Your theory that Christians cannot display simple hypocrisy is unusual, especially when we have obvious evidence that they are occasionally hypocritical.
Your theory that a large portion of the bible (apocrypha) was influenced by Satan is unusual.
Your theory that prisoners cannot be saved Christians inside your model of salvation is irrational.
Your theory that correct greek grammar does not apply to your theory of easy believism is irrational.
To try to use such theories to "prop up" your main theory is not helping your cause.

How is your post # 344 relevant to or support your multiplying theories?


6) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ I will be comfortable in saying, "have had" [saving] faith since the Greek and English use present, ongoing tense…”
Clear replied : " This very bizarre admission simply says you are comfortable disregarding basic grammar to support your theory. How does pretending a non-continuous verb is continuous (“ongoing” as you say) help your theory in the real world where language follows grammatical rules? Are you still claiming to forum members that you have been trained in Greek? To admit you must disregard correct grammar in order support your theory UNDERMINES, rather than supports your theory."
Billiardsball said **Sorry, you are wholly unaware of the differences between have and have had and has in English?
In post # 340, Clear responded : “…It is irrational to consciously and intentionally disregard and disobey basic rules of grammar in order to try to support your theory. Are you still claiming to forum members that you have been trained in Greek?”

How is your response in post # 344 even relevant to these points?


7) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ And no, I don't want a ten-page refutation of the fact you should already know, that many fine teachers confirm that pisteuo may have us render it in the English, "...God so loved the world, that whoever has trusted, is trusting or will trust..."
Clear replied : " 1) I do not know a single, legitimate translator who would intentionally render a present-tense verb in past tense or in future tense. Instead, they would be embarrassed to make that mistake.
You cannot possibly have studied greek and make this incredibly silly, strange, claim. On the planet where most of us lives, it makes a different whether our rent has been paid (past), is being paid (present continuous), or will be paid (future).
2) Tell us, who are these “many fine teachers” who are translators of greek that take a simple present continuous form of a verb and render it into a past or future form?
3) Give us examples where these “fine teachers” render Πιστεύω as a past or future without the original greek itself being a past or future form. To use your word Πιστεύω as an example : Πιστεύω appears ONLY 5 times in the New Testament (mk 9:24, Jn 9:38, Acts 8:37, Acts 27:25, 1Cor 11:18). In NONE of these textual occurrences, can Πιστεύω be properly rendered as a past or future verb such as “I did believe” or “had believed” or “I will, in the future, believe”.

Your grammatical examples are becoming more erroneous, more irrational and more illogical. The accumulating errors and illogic do NOT build credibility in your claims, nor do they support your personal theory of momentary faith produces eternal salvation.
Do you still claim to forum members that you are trained in Greek?

How is your response in post # 344 relevant to this grammatical claim? Who are these translators?


8)Billiardsball referred to “ … the fact you should already know, that many fine teachers confirm that pisteuo may have us render it in the English, "...God so loved the world, that whoever has trusted, is trusting or will trust..." (post #324)
Clear replied : You still have not told us : WHO ARE THESE MANY TRANSLATORS WHO RENDER Πιστεύω IN A PAST OR FUTURE TENSE? … NAME THEM, GIVE US EXAMPLES since the bible has none where Πιστεύω is rendered the way you say it is rendered by "many fine translators" of greek". I don't know ANY who make this mistake. I've given you example of EVERY single occurrence of Πιστεύω in the bible. NONE of these occurrences can be correctly translated as you suggest. Your claim is simply bizzare.

How does your post #344 give us a single name of these “many translators” you claimed render Πιστεύω in a past or future tense? Who are these “many translators” and where, in the bible have they rendered Πιστεύω as you claim?


9) Billiardsball said : "**I see you were indeed not conversant with these terms. A backslider is never described in scripture as an apostate or hypocrite and vice versa."
Clear replied : Perhaps we can discuss this point and you can enlighten me on these greek/hebrew terms and their correct historical usage. Since you are referring to Christianity, Give me some New Testament verses that uses “backslider” in greek/hebrew (rather than "apostasy".) that supports this theory on your historical useage of this specific term versus “apostate”. Teach me the Greek and Hebrew that you know about this usage.

Also, since you are referring to a Jewish usage in the single reference to משבה that you, (as a Jew) are referring to. WHY do you assign this hebrew word the meaning “backsliding” rather than another rendering (such as turning or apostasy - which is more accurate historically - e.g. Jews of 300 b.c. used επστραφητι με in the verse you refer to) in this specific instance?


Your post # 344 does not give anyone any of the answers you were asked to provide them. You are describing a modern term and a modern theory and trying to apply it to historical text from a different age. For example, the term backslider doesn’t even appear in New Testament text. Are you still claiming to forum members that you are trained in Greek?


10) Clear asked : Billiardsball, Why should anyone prefer your modern Christian interpretational theory over the interpretation of the ancient and most original Christians in their interpretations and doctrines?

How does your post #344 answer this simple question


I hope that it makes sense that the responses to questions should have some relevance to the question it tries to answer.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good Billiardsball.

Clear
φυφιφυτζω

 

[Clear]

TO FORUM READERS :

In Oct of 2009 the Catholics and LDS and other Christian movements, were under certain pressures to change their views and practices regarding sexual mores and practices. I was interested in the Catholic views on this point and so, posted in the Catholic forum regarding societal pressures upon their members and their church, to evolve and change religious position regarding certain sexual mores in society. With this as context, I said :

I grew up in an amoral (and sometimes immoral) type of Christianity. It did not matter what one did as long as one believed in Jesus. That culture developed their own supportive philosophy that was an inversion of moral values where other “moral” Christianities” were seen as being guilty of “moral pride” (some were "proud"...) and of a “moral self-sufficiency” that we advertised as a type of faithlessness in Jesus’ sacrifice and an unwillingness to “submit the bill” for all sinfulness (including willful and on-going sins) to Jesus atonement since we taught his atonement "paid the price for all sin". (Looking back, I cannot help but see this as a subconscious yet willing creation of specific doctrines and attitudes to support our bias) "Repentance" and "Penance" were naughty words and had no part in our thoughts.

However, in my native amoral or immoral christianity, we never underwent any rigorous persecution since there was only “the belief in Jesus” for critics to Sneer at (and though they snickered, the doctrine did them no harm). The single doctrine that “Jesus made all things right” covered everything and all contingencies. It allowed us to embrace all moral behaviors as equally desirable (since they didn’t matter...). It did not matter if one was homosexual, or promiscuous or untrue to their wives or husbands since, such sins would be "made right" and "justified" equally by the type of atonement we taught. The bank robber and pedophile and pimp was on equal moral status with the married couple that remained true and taught their children against promiscuity. Ironically, It was those who took a moral stand that seemed to come under the greatest scrutiny. This is what I mean by an inversion of moral values.

This is not to say there were not social problems caused by immorality. Our pastor divorced his wife (also a pastor) and married a teen friend of my sister. But the divorce, the hard feelings, and the deep divisions that resulted, were seen as problems of a social nature and NOT of a moral or religious nature. Because of this amoral or immoral stance, we, had no fear of persecution from any moral disagreement since we took no moral stance against any moral behaviors. (One would generally have to take a moral stance before a moral stance could BE faulted and argued against).

However, what about moral Christianities that hold to the ancient moral stances? If they hold to the ancient teachings against homosexuality and promiscuity, then there is something to disagree with; to push against and to gnash on. I’ve noticed that the Catholics and the LDS seem to have taken much criticism due to their stance on homosexuality and against the desire for some individuals to re-define marriage. And I’ve watched the subtle debates amongst the LDS and the Catholics themselves as to what is correct and what is not. Even these “private” discussions that take place seem to be worded more carefully and some that are public take place on egg-shells.

As society increasingly releases it’s own grip on moral values, will society ultimately be converted to the amoral or immoral paradigms and come to view the moral among society as simply the “hypocritical” (who “deny” their own nature) and “self-righteous” or “sexual bigots” (there are those too...) and thus fair game for criticism (rather than as the salt of the earth the moral were once viewed as)? There are others too, who are watching from the side lines who are Christians, but of the moral “wannabees” who are watching to see how much pressure and criticism the moral christians will bear before taking any public stand. They’ve received Christianity with joy “yet hath no root in himself” and are in the process of stumbling as the “tribulation or persecution arises” (matt 13:20-21). Worse yet, will many Christains “without moral root” stand beside in the shade with the immorals, simply to avoid the heat that comes from a moral commitment

I have wondered what a deep study regarding early Christians morals and what sorts of persecutions might have resulted from their commitment to sexual morals might reveal, since their moral commitment in these regards was very, very clear.

A sampling from the Christian texts shows commitment to certain sexual morals was taught. For example : The Apostolic Fathers (the earliest christian texts written while apostles lived or written by those who knew apostles) reveals this doctrine. For example: In the Didache (used as scripture by early Christians such as origen, clement and didymus -the blind) The second commandment (behind murder) was :

“ you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous; you shall not steal; you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide. (Did 2:1-2)

New Testament Barnabas repeats the ancient teaching that : “you shall not be sexually promiscuous; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt boys. You shall not abort a child nor again, commit infanticide. (Bar 19:4-5)

Ignatius, the apostolic Father and Bishop of Antioch taught the ephesians that “...those who adulterously corrupt households “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (I-eph 16:1) Polycarp (who heard John speak and believed him) taught that “neither fornicators nor male prostitutes nor homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God,” nor those who do perverse things. Therefore one must keep away from all these things and be obedient... (Poly to phil 5:3)

It is clear that such things were prohibited in early and authentic Christianity.

The Jewish and Christian sampling from the Old Testament PseudoEpigrapha also reveals the same moral stance : for example, Abortion was one of the misdeeds of the fallen angels before noah’s time. The fifth angel named Kasadya, : “revealed to the children of the people (the various) flagellations of all evil,...the smashing of the embryo in the womb so that it may be crushed...” (1En 69:12)

Speaking of the latter days, Enoch prophesied that :

“In those days, the nations shall be confounded, and the families of the nations shall rise in the day of the destruction of the sinners. In those days, they (the women) shall become pregnant, but they (the sinners) shall come out and abort their infants and cast them out from their midst; they shall (also) abandon their (other) children, casting their infants out while they are still suckling. They shall neither return to them (their babes) nor have compassion upon their beloved ones.” (1En 99:4-5)

This teaching was not simply from the Jewish-Christian literature, but greek-christian literature took a similar stance : The Sybaline Oracles also relate that : “All the righteous will be saved, but the impious will then be destroyed for all ages, as many as formerly did evil or committed murders, ....”Again, those who defiled the flesh by licentiousness, or as many as undid the girdle of virginity by secret intercourse, as many as aborted what they carried in the womb, as many as cast forth their offspring unlawfully. (syb ora book 2 vs 245 and vs 275-280)

Modern promiscuity unprotected by birth control that results in abortion is not modern : Ezra’s vision of Mother’s who both aborted and killed infants relates that abortion was a moral problem in their day and age. Seeing the regret of such women on the day of judgement, Ezra saw such women and asked : “Who are they?” And the angels said, “They had sons in adultery and killed them.” And those little ones themselves accused them, saying, “Lord, the souls which you gave to us these (women) took away. And he said, “Who are they?” And the angels said, “They killed their sons.” (Vision of the blessed Ezra v51-55)

It is not just upon Abortion that the ancients took a firm moral stance, but other sexual immoralities as well. Enoch was shown the terrible regret such immoralities :

“This place, enoch, has been prepared for those who do not glorify God, who practice on the earth the sin which is against nature, which is child corruption in the anus in the manner of Sodom,...stealing, lying, insulting, coveting, resentment, fornication, murder...seizing the poor by the throat, taking away their possessions, ...” (2En 10:4)

”For I know the wickedness of mankind, how they have rejected my commandments and they will not carry the yoke which I have placed on them. But they will cast off my yoke and they will accept a different yoke.... And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities and wickednesses and abominable fornications that is friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleaness which it is disgusting to report, and the worship of the evil one. And that is why I shall bring down the flood onto the earth... (2en 34:1-3)

In MANY of the testaments of the Twelve partriarchs (sons of Jacob), they told their sons to avoid promiscuity. For examples :
Reuben says to his children : “observe all the things that I command you and do not sin, for the sin of promiscuity is the pitfall of life, separating man from God and leading on towards idolarty...” (T OF TW PAT - REUBEN 4:6)

Simeon tells his sons that he has “seen in a copy of the book of Enoch that your sons will be ruined by promiscuity” ( SIMEON 5:4-5)

levi repeats this warning and goes even further : “I know from the writings of Enoch that in the end-time you will act impiously against the Lord, .....you have intercourse with whores and adulteresses. .... your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah. .... (LEVI 14:1-8)

Judah reveals the problems of promiscuity by his own experiences : “The promiscuous man is unaware when he has been harmed and shameless when he has been disgraced. For even someone who is a king, if he is promiscuous, is divested of his kingship, since he has been enslaved by sexual impulses, just as I experienced. (JUDAH 15:1-4)

When Judah read from and quotes Enoch’s writings, it gave the patriarchs as clear a vision of our day as any prophet :“For in the books of Enoch the Righteous I have read the evil things you will do in the last days. Guard yourselves therefore, my children, against sexual promiscuity and love of money; listen to Judah, your father, for these things distance you from the Law of God, blind the direction of the souls, and teach arrogance...4 They deprive his soul of all goodness...5They impede the sacrifices to God, he does not remember the blessings of God, he does not obey the prophet when he speaks and he is offended by a prior word. 6 For two passions contrary to God’s commands enslave him, so that he is unable to obey God: They blind his soul, and he goes about in the day as though it were night... (JUDAH 18:1-6)

Dan and Benjamin give the same testimony as this one from Jacob to his sons : “For the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God, nor will the adulterers, nor the accursed, nor those who commit outrages and have sexual intercourse with males...nor those who pollute themselves outside of pure marriage...” (Testament of JACOB 7:19-20)

They had all heard these teachings before. Abraham, in his farewell testimony from Jubilees, current eastern old testament, reads : “And he commanded them...that we should keep ourselves from all fornication and pollution, and that we should set aside from among us all fornication and pollution.” Jubilees (the book of division) 20:2, 3

Pseudo-Phocylides, in it’s Summary of the Decalogue reads the early take on this moral issue “Neither commit adultery nor rouse homosexual passion”. (THE SENTENCES OF PSEUDO-PHOCYLIDES vs 3) These issues do not change over the centuries. Phocylides tells them : "Do not approach the bed of (your) sister, (a bed) to turn away from. 183 Nor go to bed with the wives of your brothers. 184 Do not let a woman destroy the unborn babe in her belly, 185 nor after its birth throw it before the gods and the vultures as a prey..... 188 Do not seek sexual union with irrational animals. 189 Do not outrage (your) wife by shameful ways of intercourse. 190 Do not transgress with unlawful sex the limits set by nature. 198 Let no one violently have intercourse with a girl not yet betrothed...213 Guard the youthful prime of life of a comely boy, 214 because many rage for intercourse with a man." (THE SENTENCES OF PSEUDO-PHOCYLIDES)

The syriac menander reinforces this same moral stand : "45 And as for an adulterous woman, her feet are not firm, 46 for she deceives her good husband. 47 And a man who does not correctly deal with his wife, 48 even God hates him. 49 Keep your son away from fornication," THE SENTENCES OF THE SYRIAC MENANDER

"They set up the sons of Jerusalem for derision because of her prostitutes. 13 And the daughters of Jerusalem were available to all, according to your judgments, because they defiled themselves with improper intercourse." PSALMS OF SOLOMON #2 v11,13;

The ancients and authentic moral christianity remained firm on these moral issues. If Christianity gives up more and more of what are central and core issues, then at what point has it abandoned the doctrines that allow it to claim it is authentic? There are those who say these issues are not important (perhaps because they either avoid or cannot find strict and obvious descriptions of ancient Christian morals). Still what if the ancients were correct about the importance of these principes?

“Great is the mystery of marriage! For without it the world would not have existed. Now the existence of the world depends on man, and the existence of man on marriage. Think of the undefiled relationship, for it possesses a great power” (The gospel of Phillip).


Though several of these books were part of early bibles, the current Western versions of Old and New Testament may lack great clarity and repetition of certain principles which can make it difficult to tell exactly what moral doctrines they believed in and how important and how widespread such doctrines were in ancient Judaism and Christianity, a survey of a large portion of texts from different eras and different locals that agree on a single doctrine mean that the doctrine was an authentic belief among a large group of theists over a large spans of time.

If one critical purpose of man’s mortality is learning to live by moral laws such as prohibition of certain types of abortion, and certain types of sexual relations then it makes sense that these principles cannot be abandoned without abandoning authentic original Christian religion. Whether the early christians were right or wrong in their earliest beliefs, to abandon these historical beliefs represents an evolution away from, an apostasy away from, specific historical principles of this earliest Christian movement.

Clear
φυφιφυτζω

 

[Orontes]

No, a Biblicist is any Catholic, Protestant or any other person who says the Bible is the authority, not tradition and above tradition.

Protestants are not only "out of Union" but remain forbidden to many sacraments, including the Mass until quite recently, hundreds of years after Trent. That's right, the RCC acknowledges as literal truth that the literal body and blood are present in the Catholic host and then disallow non-Catholics to have it. Follow their thought process:

1. The true body and blood are in the Mass only now.

2. No, the heretic Christian sects cannot have it.

3. So, non-Catholics can suffer in purgatory or Hell because we deny them what Christ has commanded where He said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part of me." The RCC can talk unity and love all it wants but was condemning Mormons, Protestants and others to Hell for years. Sad.

And thanks for pointing out the wars and excesses of the Protestants. I'm glad I'm a Jew who attends a non-denom local church!

By your definition of Biblicist it would only apply to Protestants. Roman Catholics look to the Canon, Tradition and the Magisterium as authoritative. Christian Orthodoxy is the similar, though placing a greater stress on Canon, Tradition and Ecumenical Councils: including all Seven (Protestants typically seem to only go up to the First Four, which is interesting).

The idea only the Bible is authoritative is problematic. Just to note a couple reasons: the text was put together, therefore in declaring the Bible as authoritative, one is ipso facto declaring the source of compilation as authoritative. Therefore the sole scriptura positioning has a contradiction at its core. Another problem is there is the text, and there is interpretation. This is something that has been touched on repeatedly in this thread. It doesn't follow that any and all readings of a text are of equal value. Therefore, a Biblical appeal in and of itself has little value if the hermeneutic is not properly qualified. Thus, again sola scriptura is insufficient in establishing truth claims, there of necessity must be a right understanding as well.

The Eucharist in Roman Catholicism entails transubstantiation. The communicant must believe this to partake. Protestantism basically rejected this stance, but per Lutheranism or Anglicanism etc. still holds that in and through Communion the real presence of Christ is present. What this actually means is typically held as a mystery. Some Protestant theologians accept the meaning as the same as transubstantiation, others do not. For Protestants, it therefore depends on the particular church.

 

[Orontes]

I don't accept Original Sin either! It was promulgated by that "great father" Augustine and followed on by Calvinist and other "seminal thinkers and godly men".

I do agree that we can be free men and not groveling wretches. As a matter of practice, I'm constantly encountering people who are very good people, with and without Christ. But unlike Job, because when I ask, "Are you perfect?" they say "No. I don't know anyone who is!"

I ask, "Are you going to Heaven?" [They usually say yes or that they hope so/hope to.]

I ask, "Are you a good, moral, ethical person?" [They typically say yes and tell me more.]

I ask, "Are you a perfect person?" [No!]

I explain this is a problem as logically speaking, if they or I ever make an action, even a casual statement, that causes others hurt or distress, we are no longer in a place of perfection but a dystopia, and that Christ came for us as He is perfect and we aren't.

I don't consider any act or speech that cause hurt or distress to therefore relate to a loss of perfection. When the Lord tells Moses He is going to destroy the host of Israel because of their wickedness, this clearly caused Moses distress. Moses passionately argues to save them. The distress Moses felt does not then mean the Lord had lost perfection. Perfection is not defined by the reaction of others.

 

[BilliardsBall]

TO FORUM READERS :

In Oct of 2009 the Catholics and LDS and other Christian movements, were under certain pressures to change their views and practices regarding sexual mores and practices. I was interested in the Catholic views on this point and so, posted in the Catholic forum regarding societal pressures upon their members and their church, to evolve and change religious position regarding certain sexual mores in society. With this as context, I said :

I grew up in an amoral (and sometimes immoral) type of Christianity. It did not matter what one did as long as one believed in Jesus. That culture developed their own supportive philosophy that was an inversion of moral values where other “moral” Christianities” were seen as being guilty of “moral pride” (some were "proud"...) and of a “moral self-sufficiency” that we advertised as a type of faithlessness in Jesus’ sacrifice and an unwillingness to “submit the bill” for all sinfulness (including willful and on-going sins) to Jesus atonement since we taught his atonement "paid the price for all sin". (Looking back, I cannot help but see this as a subconscious yet willing creation of specific doctrines and attitudes to support our bias) "Repentance" and "Penance" were naughty words and had no part in our thoughts.

However, in my native amoral or immoral christianity, we never underwent any rigorous persecution since there was only “the belief in Jesus” for critics to Sneer at (and though they snickered, the doctrine did them no harm). The single doctrine that “Jesus made all things right” covered everything and all contingencies. It allowed us to embrace all moral behaviors as equally desirable (since they didn’t matter...). It did not matter if one was homosexual, or promiscuous or untrue to their wives or husbands since, such sins would be "made right" and "justified" equally by the type of atonement we taught. The bank robber and pedophile and pimp was on equal moral status with the married couple that remained true and taught their children against promiscuity. Ironically, It was those who took a moral stand that seemed to come under the greatest scrutiny. This is what I mean by an inversion of moral values.

This is not to say there were not social problems caused by immorality. Our pastor divorced his wife (also a pastor) and married a teen friend of my sister. But the divorce, the hard feelings, and the deep divisions that resulted, were seen as problems of a social nature and NOT of a moral or religious nature. Because of this amoral or immoral stance, we, had no fear of persecution from any moral disagreement since we took no moral stance against any moral behaviors. (One would generally have to take a moral stance before a moral stance could BE faulted and argued against).

However, what about moral Christianities that hold to the ancient moral stances? If they hold to the ancient teachings against homosexuality and promiscuity, then there is something to disagree with; to push against and to gnash on. I’ve noticed that the Catholics and the LDS seem to have taken much criticism due to their stance on homosexuality and against the desire for some individuals to re-define marriage. And I’ve watched the subtle debates amongst the LDS and the Catholics themselves as to what is correct and what is not. Even these “private” discussions that take place seem to be worded more carefully and some that are public take place on egg-shells.

As society increasingly releases it’s own grip on moral values, will society ultimately be converted to the amoral or immoral paradigms and come to view the moral among society as simply the “hypocritical” (who “deny” their own nature) and “self-righteous” or “sexual bigots” (there are those too...) and thus fair game for criticism (rather than as the salt of the earth the moral were once viewed as)? There are others too, who are watching from the side lines who are Christians, but of the moral “wannabees” who are watching to see how much pressure and criticism the moral christians will bear before taking any public stand. They’ve received Christianity with joy “yet hath no root in himself” and are in the process of stumbling as the “tribulation or persecution arises” (matt 13:20-21). Worse yet, will many Christains “without moral root” stand beside in the shade with the immorals, simply to avoid the heat that comes from a moral commitment

I have wondered what a deep study regarding early Christians morals and what sorts of persecutions might have resulted from their commitment to sexual morals might reveal, since their moral commitment in these regards was very, very clear.

A sampling from the Christian texts shows commitment to certain sexual morals was taught. For example : The Apostolic Fathers (the earliest christian texts written while apostles lived or written by those who knew apostles) reveals this doctrine. For example: In the Didache (used as scripture by early Christians such as origen, clement and didymus -the blind) The second commandment (behind murder) was :

“ you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous; you shall not steal; you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide. (Did 2:1-2)

New Testament Barnabas repeats the ancient teaching that : “you shall not be sexually promiscuous; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt boys. You shall not abort a child nor again, commit infanticide. (Bar 19:4-5)

Ignatius, the apostolic Father and Bishop of Antioch taught the ephesians that “...those who adulterously corrupt households “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (I-eph 16:1) Polycarp (who heard John speak and believed him) taught that “neither fornicators nor male prostitutes nor homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God,” nor those who do perverse things. Therefore one must keep away from all these things and be obedient... (Poly to phil 5:3)

It is clear that such things were prohibited in early and authentic Christianity.

The Jewish and Christian sampling from the Old Testament PseudoEpigrapha also reveals the same moral stance : for example, Abortion was one of the misdeeds of the fallen angels before noah’s time. The fifth angel named Kasadya, : “revealed to the children of the people (the various) flagellations of all evil,...the smashing of the embryo in the womb so that it may be crushed...” (1En 69:12)

Speaking of the latter days, Enoch prophesied that :

“In those days, the nations shall be confounded, and the families of the nations shall rise in the day of the destruction of the sinners. In those days, they (the women) shall become pregnant, but they (the sinners) shall come out and abort their infants and cast them out from their midst; they shall (also) abandon their (other) children, casting their infants out while they are still suckling. They shall neither return to them (their babes) nor have compassion upon their beloved ones.” (1En 99:4-5)

This teaching was not simply from the Jewish-Christian literature, but greek-christian literature took a similar stance : The Sybaline Oracles also relate that : “All the righteous will be saved, but the impious will then be destroyed for all ages, as many as formerly did evil or committed murders, ....”Again, those who defiled the flesh by licentiousness, or as many as undid the girdle of virginity by secret intercourse, as many as aborted what they carried in the womb, as many as cast forth their offspring unlawfully. (syb ora book 2 vs 245 and vs 275-280)

Modern promiscuity unprotected by birth control that results in abortion is not modern : Ezra’s vision of Mother’s who both aborted and killed infants relates that abortion was a moral problem in their day and age. Seeing the regret of such women on the day of judgement, Ezra saw such women and asked : “Who are they?” And the angels said, “They had sons in adultery and killed them.” And those little ones themselves accused them, saying, “Lord, the souls which you gave to us these (women) took away. And he said, “Who are they?” And the angels said, “They killed their sons.” (Vision of the blessed Ezra v51-55)

It is not just upon Abortion that the ancients took a firm moral stance, but other sexual immoralities as well. Enoch was shown the terrible regret such immoralities :

“This place, enoch, has been prepared for those who do not glorify God, who practice on the earth the sin which is against nature, which is child corruption in the anus in the manner of Sodom,...stealing, lying, insulting, coveting, resentment, fornication, murder...seizing the poor by the throat, taking away their possessions, ...” (2En 10:4)

”For I know the wickedness of mankind, how they have rejected my commandments and they will not carry the yoke which I have placed on them. But they will cast off my yoke and they will accept a different yoke.... And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities and wickednesses and abominable fornications that is friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleaness which it is disgusting to report, and the worship of the evil one. And that is why I shall bring down the flood onto the earth... (2en 34:1-3)

In MANY of the testaments of the Twelve partriarchs (sons of Jacob), they told their sons to avoid promiscuity. For examples :
Reuben says to his children : “observe all the things that I command you and do not sin, for the sin of promiscuity is the pitfall of life, separating man from God and leading on towards idolarty...” (T OF TW PAT - REUBEN 4:6)

Simeon tells his sons that he has “seen in a copy of the book of Enoch that your sons will be ruined by promiscuity” ( SIMEON 5:4-5)

levi repeats this warning and goes even further : “I know from the writings of Enoch that in the end-time you will act impiously against the Lord, .....you have intercourse with whores and adulteresses. .... your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah. .... (LEVI 14:1-8)

Judah reveals the problems of promiscuity by his own experiences : “The promiscuous man is unaware when he has been harmed and shameless when he has been disgraced. For even someone who is a king, if he is promiscuous, is divested of his kingship, since he has been enslaved by sexual impulses, just as I experienced. (JUDAH 15:1-4)

When Judah read from and quotes Enoch’s writings, it gave the patriarchs as clear a vision of our day as any prophet :“For in the books of Enoch the Righteous I have read the evil things you will do in the last days. Guard yourselves therefore, my children, against sexual promiscuity and love of money; listen to Judah, your father, for these things distance you from the Law of God, blind the direction of the souls, and teach arrogance...4 They deprive his soul of all goodness...5They impede the sacrifices to God, he does not remember the blessings of God, he does not obey the prophet when he speaks and he is offended by a prior word. 6 For two passions contrary to God’s commands enslave him, so that he is unable to obey God: They blind his soul, and he goes about in the day as though it were night... (JUDAH 18:1-6)

Dan and Benjamin give the same testimony as this one from Jacob to his sons : “For the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God, nor will the adulterers, nor the accursed, nor those who commit outrages and have sexual intercourse with males...nor those who pollute themselves outside of pure marriage...” (Testament of JACOB 7:19-20)

They had all heard these teachings before. Abraham, in his farewell testimony from Jubilees, current eastern old testament, reads : “And he commanded them...that we should keep ourselves from all fornication and pollution, and that we should set aside from among us all fornication and pollution.” Jubilees (the book of division) 20:2, 3

Pseudo-Phocylides, in it’s Summary of the Decalogue reads the early take on this moral issue “Neither commit adultery nor rouse homosexual passion”. (THE SENTENCES OF PSEUDO-PHOCYLIDES vs 3) These issues do not change over the centuries. Phocylides tells them : "Do not approach the bed of (your) sister, (a bed) to turn away from. 183 Nor go to bed with the wives of your brothers. 184 Do not let a woman destroy the unborn babe in her belly, 185 nor after its birth throw it before the gods and the vultures as a prey..... 188 Do not seek sexual union with irrational animals. 189 Do not outrage (your) wife by shameful ways of intercourse. 190 Do not transgress with unlawful sex the limits set by nature. 198 Let no one violently have intercourse with a girl not yet betrothed...213 Guard the youthful prime of life of a comely boy, 214 because many rage for intercourse with a man." (THE SENTENCES OF PSEUDO-PHOCYLIDES)

The syriac menander reinforces this same moral stand : "45 And as for an adulterous woman, her feet are not firm, 46 for she deceives her good husband. 47 And a man who does not correctly deal with his wife, 48 even God hates him. 49 Keep your son away from fornication," THE SENTENCES OF THE SYRIAC MENANDER

"They set up the sons of Jerusalem for derision because of her prostitutes. 13 And the daughters of Jerusalem were available to all, according to your judgments, because they defiled themselves with improper intercourse." PSALMS OF SOLOMON #2 v11,13;

The ancients and authentic moral christianity remained firm on these moral issues. If Christianity gives up more and more of what are central and core issues, then at what point has it abandoned the doctrines that allow it to claim it is authentic? There are those who say these issues are not important (perhaps because they either avoid or cannot find strict and obvious descriptions of ancient Christian morals). Still what if the ancients were correct about the importance of these principes?

“Great is the mystery of marriage! For without it the world would not have existed. Now the existence of the world depends on man, and the existence of man on marriage. Think of the undefiled relationship, for it possesses a great power” (The gospel of Phillip).


Though several of these books were part of early bibles, the current Western versions of Old and New Testament may lack great clarity and repetition of certain principles which can make it difficult to tell exactly what moral doctrines they believed in and how important and how widespread such doctrines were in ancient Judaism and Christianity, a survey of a large portion of texts from different eras and different locals that agree on a single doctrine mean that the doctrine was an authentic belief among a large group of theists over a large spans of time.

If one critical purpose of man’s mortality is learning to live by moral laws such as prohibition of certain types of abortion, and certain types of sexual relations then it makes sense that these principles cannot be abandoned without abandoning authentic original Christian religion. Whether the early christians were right or wrong in their earliest beliefs, to abandon these historical beliefs represents an evolution away from, an apostasy away from, specific historical principles of this earliest Christian movement.

Clear
φυφιφυτζω

Clear,

Are you saying that believing faith saves without works leads to libertine practice? Because I know hundreds of people personally who believe being born again is a one-time act resulting in salvation, and who also live with the utmost moral codes in their lives. One of my main points is that Paul was accused of being a libertine. Statements like those that begin Romans 6 make no sense unless Paul was teaching once saved, always saved.

 

[BilliardsBall]

By your definition of Biblicist it would only apply to Protestants. Roman Catholics look to the Canon, Tradition and the Magisterium as authoritative. Christian Orthodoxy is the similar, though placing a greater stress on Canon, Tradition and Ecumenical Councils: including all Seven (Protestants typically seem to only go up to the First Four, which is interesting).

The idea only the Bible is authoritative is problematic. Just to note a couple reasons: the text was put together, therefore in declaring the Bible as authoritative, one is ipso facto declaring the source of compilation as authoritative. Therefore the sole scriptura positioning has a contradiction at its core. Another problem is there is the text, and there is interpretation. This is something that has been touched on repeatedly in this thread. It doesn't follow that any and all readings of a text are of equal value. Therefore, a Biblical appeal in and of itself has little value if the hermeneutic is not properly qualified. Thus, again sola scriptura is insufficient in establishing truth claims, there of necessity must be a right understanding as well.

The Eucharist in Roman Catholicism entails transubstantiation. The communicant must believe this to partake. Protestantism basically rejected this stance, but per Lutheranism or Anglicanism etc. still holds that in and through Communion the real presence of Christ is present. What this actually means is typically held as a mystery. Some Protestant theologians accept the meaning as the same as transubstantiation, others do not. For Protestants, it therefore depends on the particular church.

1. There are individual Catholics who set scriptures above tradition. We both know what the RCC teaches as official doctrine, but there are individuals within who are biblicists.

2. You seem stuck on a pure "Catholic or Protestant or Mormon" division. I purposed to become a member of a nondenominational church precisely to distance myself from the errors and excesses of the Protestant denominations.

3. I can recommend a number of good sources to you as to how the Bible was received and made canon. And I never said only the Bible is authoritative. However, trusting the Bible as inerrant precludes alternative doctrines, yes. Such as the horror mentioned--that the RCC teaches one must have the eucharist to be in true communion with Jesus than denies the eucharist to outsiders. Awful!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't consider any act or speech that cause hurt or distress to therefore relate to a loss of perfection. When the Lord tells Moses He is going to destroy the host of Israel because of their wickedness, this clearly caused Moses distress. Moses passionately argues to save them. The distress Moses felt does not then mean the Lord had lost perfection. Perfection is not defined by the reaction of others.

Are you saying that God will cause Moses distress in Heaven? Because then it wouldn't be Heaven. Perfect behavior isn't defined by the responses of those to perfect behavior, but perfect enjoyment necessitates only heavenly eustress and not distress.

 

[Clear]

Hi Billiardsball ;

Rather than changing the subject, can we work the present issues and problems with your theory of momentary belief saves evil individuals in heaven alongside abraham? For example, you still have not responded to the points in posts # 340 and # 347. What about all of these problems with and questions regarding your prior claims?

Clear
φυφιακακω

 

[Thanda]

Faith is faith. Repentance is repentance. Are you saying people are saved by faith, repentance or a combination of both. The scriptures say "faith".

Sorry for the delay. Was taking a break

They are saved by faith. And no true faith in Jesus ever existed which didn't lead to repentance. Indeed your question made me think of another question a person might ask: does God require repentance or obedience? The answer to that question is obvious: if a man repents he has a change of heart. And since sin begins in the heart and since his heart is changed he will no longer sin but will be obedient.

So no faith without repentance and no repentance without obedience and no obedience without salvation.

 

[Orontes]

1. There are individual Catholics who set scriptures above tradition. We both know what the RCC teaches as official doctrine, but there are individuals within who are biblicists.

2. You seem stuck on a pure "Catholic or Protestant or Mormon" division. I purposed to become a member of a nondenominational church precisely to distance myself from the errors and excesses of the Protestant denominations.

3. I can recommend a number of good sources to you as to how the Bible was received and made canon. And I never said only the Bible is authoritative. However, trusting the Bible as inerrant precludes alternative doctrines, yes. Such as the horror mentioned--that the RCC teaches one must have the eucharist to be in true communion with Jesus than denies the eucharist to outsiders. Awful!

Master Billiards,

Per 1) a Catholic who holds that only the scriptures are authoritative is either ignorant of the teachings of the Church, or a heretic.

Per 2) If you are the judge of what is error or excessive, then your stance is an absurdity. It's absurd because it is a subjectivism.

Per3) I am very familiar with the historical canonization process.
Inerrancy is another absurdity. One simple example: the text itself includes contradictions.

 

[Orontes]

Are you saying that God will cause Moses distress in Heaven? Because then it wouldn't be Heaven. Perfect behavior isn't defined by the responses of those to perfect behavior, but perfect enjoyment necessitates only heavenly eustress and not distress.

Master Billiards,

I am saying perfection as a personal trait is not measured or defined by the distress of others.

 

[Smart_Guy]

****Mod Post****

This thread is closed for review, until further notice.​

 

[Quagmire]

***Thread moved to General Debates and re-opened***​

 

[Prestor John]

What a great discussion.

I wonder why it was ever closed...