Free Theology Courses, Master and Doctor degree

Re: Re: To Zvavda

My knowledge in bible very limit to discuss on this tread and also I don't have much time to follow any course in religious in this time. I'm intend to invite someone who like to follow religious study but don't want to spend much money to considering this school.

 

for Bill

 

Re: Re: Re: Free Theology Courses, Master and Doctor degree

Theology is not science anyway.

Science is something talking about reason and result.

Theology is belief.

 

Re: Some fundamentalists are not like Christ

This school is accredited by unrecognize accredited agancy. How about university license system in india?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: My knowledge of bible is limited

You bring up some highly interesting points. I do believe that the Bible is the word of God, but the question of who had a hand in deciding what should be included in the Bible is a bit more complex.

Throughout the 2nd-4th centuries AD, many good devout Christians had very different beliefs about which gospels, acts and epistles were to be considered authoritative or canonical. Some of these different lists show up in early Christian works such as Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (c. 320 AD). The New Testament canon as we know it was not fixed "authoritatively" until the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. However, I have found no evidence that those who decided which books would be included or rejected did so via any claim to prophetic inspiration.

 

Re: Some fundamentalists are not like Christ

I know that Matthew was a tax collector before becoming a disciple of Jesus, but who was the prostitute? I hope that you don't mean Mary Magdalene, as there is no evidence from the scripture that she was ever a prostitute--only a legend based on flimsy evidence.

Tony

 

Hi pugbelly,

I cannot speak to the Roman Catholic view, but I can say that the above view is incorrect regarding the "Mormons"--unless, of course, you mean that the "divine interpreter" is the Holy Ghost. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no problem at all with the idea of the inerrancy of the original autographs. We do recognize, however, that we do not currently possess any of the original autographs.

Another Tony

 

Re: for Bill

 

<<Hi pugbelly,

I cannot speak to the Roman Catholic view, but I can say that the above view is incorrect regarding the "Mormons"--unless, of course, you mean that the "divine interpreter" is the Holy Ghost. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no problem at all with the idea of the inerrancy of the original autographs. We do recognize, however, that we do not currently possess any of the original autographs.

Another Tony>>



Tony,

It sounds like you may me a LDS member? I was once affiliated with the LDS church so I speak from first hand experience. The "Mormon" Church is headed by a president, also referred to as a prophet. The prophet, it is believed within their denomination, receives divine revelation and inspiration from God. This is not unlike the Roman Catholics. See this link http://www.carm.net/lds/ldsstructure.htm for the structure of the LDS church.

Tony

 

observing

Hi guys,

I just wanted to chime in with a couple of observations and questions.

Brad and Bill: I, too, have struggled with the issue of James' quotation.

1.) I have wondered, myself, if it is, indeed, a quote. Can you express, over "virtual" space, the criteria you use to distinguish a quotation here, that is, as opposed to being a summary of a thematic conern in the OT (as Moo, you stated, suggests)? I don't have my GNT with me.

2.) Second, as you both point out, it doesn't take too much study to figure out that the term "graphe" is predomantly used not only of the OT "text" (in the 50 other uses) but also in such a way that it attributes some intrinsic value to that text. On that move, I agree with Beckwith's "OT Canon of the NT Church." Bill is right in pointing out that we don't know what "other" text it is that James might be quoting. That, however, (in my mind) does not refute the argument that "graphe" can not be used as an all-encompassing criteria for intertextuality that distinguishes between the canonical and the non-canonical. If there is an exception, that is technically what it is. So I really want to know Brad's criteria for discerning a quote here, and if you agree with that criteria, Bill.

Jimmy: Please find a commentary, any biblical commentary that Luther wrote and see that Luther still quoted from James as normative "Scripture." He did this over the course of his lifetime, even though he, at one time (as you say), wanted to throw it out. Please quit making these large generalizations that reinforce my perception that you avoid scholars and make lots of generalizations about them.

Chris

 

Re: observing

 

Bill,

Tell Brad to bring it on because I no longer hold that view... thanks to you Bill. ! What you showed me with the particle basically means that it can't be a quote. If someone is going to explain an exception to Pauls' teaching there, then, it will have to be through the historical context. I dont' think that's impossible, but pretty unlikely.

Chris

 

more for Bill

 

being thrown under the bus by Bill

I was just standing on a corner minding my own business and all of the sudden I felt this big PUSH in the middle of my back....


Ok, I'll bite what is the postion on women in the church, and how may I offend it?

Also, just to add to Bill's comments on James introducing the quotation: the commentaries that I have consulted say that its pretty clearly an intro to a quote, and at least the translaters of my NKJV felt confident enough about that to put the phrase in quotation marks. - though interestingly they did not separate it from the rest of the text as they typically do with OT quotations, including the very next verse in James.

brad

 

Hi Tony,

As many regulars on Degreeinfo know, I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also speak from first hand experience when I tell you that there are problems with your observation of the similarity between Roman Catholicism and the LDS faith.

LDS do regard the President of the Church as a prophet who receives revelation and inpiration from God. We also believe that all members who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are also entitled to divine revelation and inspiration within our spheres of responsibility.

Catholics do not believe that the Pope is a prophet, but Catholic teaching does teach that the Pope has the authority to make infallible interpretations of scripture when acting in his official capacity. The LDS Church has no doctrine of human infallibility (including the President of the Church).

I am very well acquainted with the organizational structure of the LDS Church and I am also familiar with the information about my church found on the "Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry" website that you referenced. Unfortunately, their site betrays a severe lack of research ability, as it is full of error with regards to LDS doctrine and history. They get their facts and sources mixed up so often that it embarrassing (for example, they have trouble telling the difference between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young). If the folks at CARM were one of my Cal State students turning in a research project, they would receive a failing grade for shoddy methodology.

Over the past three decades, I have read numerous anti-Mormon works. CARM is not even competent anti-Mormonism. The LDS Church believes and teaches that members can read and correctly interpret the scriptures without any help or dictation from the presidents of our church.

God bless,

Tony (the Mormon one)

 

I am not sure how you can use these scriptures to prove or disprove election. Maybe it depends on what/who you believe is Israel. My belief is that Israel (OT) is the Church (NT). Some interesting reading: Berkhof "Systematic Theology," O. Palmer Robertson "The Christ of the Covenants," and David E. Holwerda "Jesus & Israel - One Covenant or Two."

 

<<Hi Tony,

As many regulars on Degreeinfo know, I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also speak from first hand experience when I tell you that there are problems with your observation of the similarity between Roman Catholicism and the LDS faith.

LDS do regard the President of the Church as a prophet who receives revelation and inpiration from God. We also believe that all members who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are also entitled to divine revelation and inspiration within our spheres of responsibility.

Catholics do not believe that the Pope is a prophet, but Catholic teaching does teach that the Pope has the authority to make infallible interpretations of scripture when acting in his official capacity. The LDS Church has no doctrine of human infallibility (including the President of the Church).

I am very well acquainted with the organizational structure of the LDS Church and I am also familiar with the information about my church found on the "Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry" website that you referenced. Unfortunately, their site betrays a severe lack of research ability, as it is full of error with regards to LDS doctrine and history. They get their facts and sources mixed up so often that it embarrassing (for example, they have trouble telling the difference between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young). If the folks at CARM were one of my Cal State students turning in a research project, they would receive a failing grade for shoddy methodology.

Over the past three decades, I have read numerous anti-Mormon works. CARM is not even competent anti-Mormonism. The LDS Church believes and teaches that members can read and correctly interpret the scriptures without any help or dictation from the presidents of our church.

God bless,

Tony (the Mormon one)>>


Tony,

It is not my intent, nor was it to begin with, to attack the LDS church. I was merely stating a similarity between the LDS and Roman Catholics (RC) with regard to their view of scripture. Each has a "head" that continues to receive divine revelation and inspiration, whereas evangelical denominations have no such belief. I was not stating that the two, LDS and RC, were identical, or even that each received revelation or inspiration in the same way. I chose the CARM page only for the visual illustration of church structure, nothing more. You might be a little defensive...I'm not attacking.


Tony (non-Mormon one)

 

Re: more for Bill

 

Re: being thrown under the bus by Bill