Hi Jimmy In this more appropriate locale could you: 1) explain why you are not inconsistent if you evidence your belief on the death penalty by citing church fathers to indicate Jesus' mind on the subject but reject church fathers who say Paul's writings are Scripture? 2) explain too why you think the early Church measured books in early canonical formation by the criteria or manner as you measure Paul's books now. Now I hope this will not appear to any as a persecution of you. Of course you have the right to believe anything. Neither are you obligated except by the constraints of academic integrity to cloth your views with reasoning. But surely any fair person would think if that you make statements about my own particular subject of interest I have the right to question you. Others consider it their right to ask for reasoning and evidence here all the time on other topics as politics. Few of these are categorized as Grand Imans or King posters just for requesting such. Of course, I know you are busy with your studies, so if you think that affords you the security of making statements on whatever without accompanying argumentation, I'll understand
Bill, I really am busy with some school work. I periodically review the topics here, read them, and repsond if I have time, between reading chapters and doing some Internet research. I have to conduct an on-site visit at a home health care agency this week and interview a staff member involved in Quality Assurance and Performance Evals. But, suffice it for me to say this regarding your questions. Bill, you do not accept everything the fathers said and held dear to their hearts. If you did, you'd be a Roman Catholic! You do not agree with some of them on a number of issues such as purgatory, Immaculate Conception, sainthood, the canonicity of Scripture, Mariology (the New Eve, the Second Eve), do you? Do you accept everything agreed upon at the Councils of Rome and Carthage? Do you hold to all that was formulated at the Council of Trent? You've quoted Luther but you are not inconsistent because you do not agree with him about the Book of James, are you? Come on Bill, surely you have more to do than fret over my personal belief system. With all due respect, Bill, sometimes you come across as if nobody knows anything about Christianity but you. You are becoming too academic, my brother. Loosen up and allow for freedom of thought and varieties of opinion. There is no unanimity among the major scholars on most theological issues, Bill. Now don't start another thred about who were and who were not "church fathers." Ha!
Bill, you seem to approach scripture with a very consistent and sytematic methodology. For this reason I would like to ask you your opinion on something: Acts 15:28-29 read as follows: For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." I am of the opinion that this passage makes it very clear that we are to abstain from blood. I have looked at this issue from every angle over the last year and simply can not reach any other conclusion. What is your opinion, and why? Please don't consider this a challenge, but rather an inquiry that may become a debate. Tony
Re: Re: Re: Re: To Jimmy: Scriptural shearing and consistency == OK, then show me. Where do I use Creeds or Luther to prove that my Theology or Bible interpretation is correct?? If you clearly show me that, I will apologize and admit it. Please don't "disappear" under the pretence of "busyness." Please be courteous enough to ASAP evidence the claim you now make about me.
<<Could this be explained by 1 Corinthians 8:9-13? >> Well, perhaps. But 1 Co 8:13 says "Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." Two problems here...blood was never considered a food, and Paul is specifically speaking of meat that had been offered to idols, not of blood. <<That is, could the prohibitions have been for that historical occasion?>> I once thought this might be the case as well. The problem is that fornication (sexual immorality) is included with the prohibitions. This complicates things. Certainly sexual immorality is not something we were only to abstain from for a certain period in history. I think there are two types of commands that God gives us in scripture: 1) Commands meant for all time. 2) Commands meant for a certain period of time. Throughout scripture, God gives us clear direction regarding a command that was only meant for a time. He doesn't leave us guessing. I believe this to be the case with the meats offered to idols. Paul explains in his epistles that an idol is really nothing, and that he is fully convinced that eating meat offered to nothing would certainly not make one unclean. This command then, was only meant for a time. I find no such evidence that persuades me to believe that the prohibition from blood was only meant for a time. Paul never discusses blood. If we are to assume that blood is to be grouped into the broader category of food, we need to look elsewhere in scripture to ensure that blood can be considered food. I find no such evidence. In Paul's discourses regarding meats, he continually affirms that nothing we eat can cause us to be unclean. I agree fully. The problem, in my opinion, is that the consumption of blood is not an issue of uncleanliness. It is an issue sanctification. Look at it this way. God prohibited the consumption of blood to Noah. He then re-affirmed the prohibition under Mosaic Law. Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law, but there remains a question as to whether the terms of the Noahadic covenant still apply. This question was answered at the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. Even Peter's vision in Acts 11:7, which addresses issues of gentile inclusion as well as food cleanliness, confirms the prohibition from blood. The word used for "kill" in Acts 11:7 is "thuo." Thuo means "to kill sacrificially" and is different from other greek words translated as "kill" or "slay." To kill something sacrificially would require the draining of its blood prior to consumption. Tony
Home Health Course is boring Hey Jimmy, how do you stay awake while trying to read four chapters from that book? The Home Health book from CCHS is about the most boring thing I have ever read. I bet all those agencies and rules/regulations have you brewing extra strong coffee. This forum probably wakes you up, especially when others try to provoke your religious beliefs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To Jimmy: Scriptural shearing and consistency Bill, This is it, come on. No matter what I say you will challenge. You constantly quote the church fathers to support your theology. The church fathers established most, if not all, of the creeds of the Christian church. If not so, why did you quote them or Luther? What was your purpose? If you didn't quote Luther, I apologize. I seem to remember you did. These are rhetorical questions. I have some deadlines to meet. I commend your commitment to study and your tenacity. But, again, allow each Christian to hold his or her views without trying to bully them into accepting your theology. On one post, quite a while ago, you said something to the effect that you have to challenge me so others on here will not accept what I say, or something like that, and you have to show them the truth, or something like that. This is very, very loosely presented. I cannot find, nor have time, to look for the exact quote. This is very presumptuous, Bill. You imply those on here are not smart enough to study, research, interpret, and think on their own, that they need to you to theologically educate them. This is a little smug, don't you think? I have yet to see a denomination or theological purport named "Grovertarian" or "Grovetist." Perhaps "Groveism" is about to explode on the theological scene. If you have any more questions, I will not immediately, if at all, respond. I really want to finish CCHS by the end of May. I don't have time to work on Trinity and CCHS studies simultaneously. I have just been asked to be chaplain at the local hospital and I will be on call 24 hours per day.
There's no way CCHS will let you finish Do you really think CCHS will grade your work by May? Maybe May of 2010. You can work on Trinity while you wait.
Re: There's no way CCHS will let you finish My, my are you angry at CCHS, ha! I called today and one paper was graded yesterday and the grade is on the way. A second paper is now in the process of being graded. As soon as I get both grades I can take the proctored final. A new course is also on the way. So, by the end of May I will have earned the M.S. in Health Services. I will post again in May and let you know the updates. Until then, good luck on your studies and choices of institutions of higher learning.
Slithery slime, slithery slime, still smells sleazy after two weeks' time. Bill and S.E.: Pleeze remember that only flummerers can engage in abuse and defamation on this forum without having to answer to anybody. Shame on you for being academic, of all things. Now, if you had run along the old mill stream or two, failed to finish eating your Quaker oats, mailed yourself an orderly denomination or two, psassed yourself off as a pisschologist, diddled with Dothan till Dothan decided your doctrine was deadly, called yours truly a male whore, and whined and wept at any and all intellectual disagreement, then you wouldn't be a nasty academic type on a DL forum. You'd be nice. If you're nice, see, you have no intellectual responsibilities, can call people names, invent things about the church fathers, and drop the ball on D.M.L. Of course, I can't imagine that anybody would be that nice and that nonacademic, too.
