ON PROPHETS AND THE BIBLE
/ Topic > Re: Joining Anabaptist List / Date > 24 Sept 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
> Aleksandar Katanovic wrote: Dear Textman, (sorry of addressing you as Textman,
> since I do not know how to call you)
.
On Sept21 textman emailed Mr Katanovic: Dear Aleksandar, please don't be sorry for addressing me as textman since that is indeed my name (ergo you *do* know how to call me).
.
> I noticed that you have shown one interest to join the Anabaptist list. You are welcome to join it, but I
> wish to know whether you would answered YES to all my questions in the application-mail, which was
> sent automatically to all who shows interest for our Anabaptist list. Did you get the application-mail?
.
Yes. I certainly did. Here are my over-simplified answers:
1) ... infallible Bible ... -> No
2) ... God is a Triune God ... -> Yes
3) ... Jesus is Son of God ... -> Yes
4a) ... Jesus died to pay for sins ... -> unsure about this one
4b) ... Jesus bodily resurrected ... -> Yes
5) ... believe in ALL seven points ... -> NO! Actually I *do* believe the first six points,
but #7 troubles me. I am particularly offended by the statement that "There are no more apostles".
Note: I am NOT a so-called Charismatic Christian.
6) I wish to join the list in order to discuss the reasoning behind the erroneous view
that there are no more prophets.
.
> The reason for forming the Anabaptist list is to share and give encouragement for our beliefs
> that very few Christians hold.
.
Very few Christians hold these beliefs because they are obviously in need of some improvement.
.
> There are not so many who holds Anabaptist beliefs, as described in the list of the Main Page.
.
I do not believe that the earliest radical reformers would so eagerly embrace the idea of no prophets.
.
> Also, other topics, as history of Anabaptists, are welcome topics.
.
This is also a topic in which I have a strong interest.
.
> However, let it not be understood that we think that all other Christians, of different denominations,
> are not children of God.
.
Actually, I have no real denomination. I used to be a Catholic, but have since seen that church for what it truly is (ie. the Whore of Babylon). The only thing preventing me from joining an Anabaptist church are these few unfortunate and erroneous theological doctrines (eg. infallible bible, no prophets).
.
> We just feel uncomfortable to worship God as they do.
.
I understand completely. The sight of Catholics worshiping a plastic wafer as if it were God used to sicken me.
.
> It is Christ who saves us and not the mere membership of some local church.
.
I agree wholeheartedly!
.
> It is not ours to judge who is saved, but rather to judge whether some doctrine and practise is true.
.
If I can demonstrate to you (from biblical teachings) that the beliefs in infallibility and 'no prophets' are unbiblical, would you be willing to consider changing these views in order to conform more strongly and surely with the Word of God?
.
> If the doctrine or practise is not true, then we ought not to follow it.
.
Can I take this to mean that the answer to my question above is 'Yes'?
.
> If you share our beliefs, I would be very happy if you join us.
> Respectfully, Aleksandar - (moderator of the anabaptist-list)
.
I would be very happy to join, Aleksandar, but you ought to know that I consider myself to be called by the Lord to minister unto the People of God as a prophet of the Word. In other words, there is no possibility that I could be persuaded to embrace the view that there are no more prophets!
/ Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
> On Sept22 Aleksandar Katanovic e-mailed the cyber-prophet: Dear Textman, I was happy to receive your
> e-mail, and I am willing to hear / understand your views. Let me give some comments on what you said.
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> Yes. I certainly did. Here are my over-simplified answers:
>> 1) ... infallible Bible ... -> No
.
> Why don't you believe in the infallibility of the Bible?
.
textman answers: Dear Alex, I don't believe in the infallibility of the Bible for the simple reason that the Holy Bible is neither infallible nor inerrant. This is not just my opinion, but a simple statement of fact. These qualities are certainly appropriate when describing the qualities and attributes of divinity, but to transfer these divine attributes to anything that is not God is nothing less than pure idolatry. And you know what scripture says about idolatry?
.
> I am very willing to discuss this issue.
.
Me too! :)
.
> Also, do you have some respect to the Bible?
.
I could hardly call myself a 'prophet of the Word' if I did not have the *utmost* respect for the Sacred Text!
.
> And what kind of respect do you have towards the Bible, if you respect it?
.
The kind that respects the Bible for what it *really* is. But those who hold the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy actually *disrespect* the scriptures because these "infallible and inerrant" man-made doctrines (which have no warrant in scripture) attempt to make the Word of God into something that it is not: a pure and golden nugget direct from the lips of God to the eyes of childish believers. In other words, these doctrines deny the fact that the scriptures are the result of a collaboration between men and the Holy Spirit by making God the sole and complete author of everything, and thus reducing the role of men to that of "inspired" secretaries. Needless to say, all these false and idolatrous views and opinions are an offense unto the Lord!
.
>> 2) ... God is a Triune God ... -> Yes
>> 3) ... Jesus is Son of God ... -> Yes
>> 4a) ... Jesus died to pay for sins ... -> unsure about this one
.
> What is that which you are unsure about?
.
In one sense it is correct to say that 'Jesus died for our sins', for it was the general blindness and ignorance of the human race that refused to accept Jesus, and ultimately led him to the same fate that awaits most of the prophets (ie. death by violence).
.
"Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed." -- John 3:19-20/NETbible
.
But to say that Jesus came to this world for the sole purpose of being a sacrificial lamb in order to thus "pay for the sins of humankind" strikes me as being a rather poor theological interpretation of the meaning and value of the Lord's life, death, and ministry ... A much better view of the meaning of the Crucifixion is also provided by that same gospel:
.
"Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commandments and remain in his love. I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete. My commandment is this-to love one another just as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this-that one lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you." -- John 15:9-14/NETbible
.
> Perhaps my question was formulated clumsy.
.
I'm guessing that English is maybe not your primary language? :)
.
> I am not a native speaker of English. Perhaps we actually agree,
.
That is highly unlikely, Alex. Very few Christians actually agree with the offensive one!
.
> but that something I have missed in my formulation.
.
>> 4b) ... Jesus bodily resurrected ... -> Yes
.
> That's VERY important! I am very HAPPY that you believe in this!
.
To believe that death is stronger than love is to declare yourself unworthy to be a disciple of the Lord.
.
>> tx: 5) ... believe in ALL seven points ... -> NO! Actually I *do* believe the first six points, but #7
>> troubles me. I am particularly offended by the statement that "There are no more apostles".
>> Note: I am NOT a so-called Charismatic Christian.
.
> AK: It might be the case that we have different notions of Apostleship.
.
Yes, that is very probably true. My notion is that apostle=prophet.
.
> I would suggest you to read my article that deals with this issue of Apostleship, Charismatic gifts. I think
> that you should read my article, because I was a Pentecostal, but changed my view. The title of the
> article is "The End of Supernatural Charismatic Gifts."
.
Judging from the title alone, I doubt that I would be much impressed. To say that the gifts of the Spirit no longer exist is the same as saying that the Encourager is no longer with (and active within) believers. You certainly can't have it both ways: Spirit -> Yes; Gifts -> No!
.
> In the article, I try to argue that the Charismatic thesis is certainly a wrong one, by examining the important
> arguments that are present in the issue, arguments to which both parties in the dispute appeal to. It will be
> shown that a Charismatic meets more difficulties than a Noncharismatic in their interpretation of the Bible.
.
How does that work exactly?
.
> The basic and underlying assumption for the article is that the gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthian 12-14
> are of a supernatural character.
.
That seems plausible enough; although the significance of this point escapes me.
.
> However, if you do not share my assumption, I would nevertheless urge you to have a patience with my
> article in order to understand what is the problem in the dispute between a Charismatic and a Noncharismatic.
.
I have no idea what this "problem" is supposed to be ...
.
> I am very concerned with the assumption that these gifts are supernatural because I take Pentecostals /
> Charismatics very seriously in their understanding of Charisma. It will be shown that precisely this
> assumption, which a Charismatic grants, refutes effectively the Charismatic view.
.
Yes?
.
> I try to be fair in my evaluation of Charismatic position. I avoid the slandering arguments against
> Charismatics, that are so usually used by many Noncharismatics, and I try to meet the best Pentecostal
> arguments. Also, many Noncharismatics have wrong interpretations of Charismatic gifts, and many in
> their Noncharismatic camp are dishonest in their arguments. I was very frustrated by reading their
> Noncharismatic books. They are insensitive, bad and outright stupid. You see, I have been Pentecostal
> when I became a Christian, and was much frustrated when I met Noncharismatics. Nevertheless, I
> changed my view, and now I am a Noncharismatic.
.
Again the significance of all this escapes me.
.
> The article can be found at: http://www.house-church.net/charisma.htm
> If the server is down, please try the mirror sites: http://home.chello.no/~akatanov/charisma.htm
> http://www.crosswinds.net/~akatanov/charisma.htm
.
> I am very open to hear your comments and eventual objections to my article.
.
I will surely comment upon it in the next upcoming article in this thread. In the meantime, I will make one exception here so that our Readers will have some idea of where you're coming from. Near the beginning of your "essay about the gifts of the Holy Spirit" you make the following statements: "Are these [nine] gifts [cf. 1Cor.12-14] present in the churches of the 21th century or did they end after the first century due to the completion of the Canon? My answer is that they did ended after the completion of the Canon and the gifts that are supposedly present in some churches nowadays are counterfeits."
.
There are so many errors here that I hardly know where to begin! For one thing, you seem to be suggesting that the sole purpose of the nine gifts was the creation of what you call "the Canon", or that this Canon somehow replaces the need for these gifts. Both of these assumptions / conclusions are so obviously false that it would be a waste of time just to refute them. In the same way, you assume that the Canon was completed by the end of the first century; but, in fact, the process of the canonical formation of the NT can in no way be said to have been
*completed* before the *fourth* century CE. Moreover, this process of canonical formation must be clearly distinguished from the initial writing of the original autographs; which were not finished until the middle of the second century CE. Therefore, you are wrong twice over, and very obviously confusing two separate and distinct historical processes: the writing of the original documents, and the longer and more general process of collecting, editing, and standardizing that made up the bulk of the canonical process that eventually led to the Emperor Constantine's fifty so-called 'Great Cathedral Bibles' (ie. the Holy Bible as we now know it). Anyone who imagines that the Holy Bible which they hold in their hands existed before the beginning of the second century obviously hasn't got the first clue about how the Bible came to be what it is today!!!
.
>> 6) I wish to join the list in order to discuss the reasoning behind the erroneous view that there
>> are no more prophets.
.
> Would you wish to discuss this issue with me?
.
Of course ... :)
.
> I have been myself a prophet.
.
Oh yeah? So you think being a prophet is the sort of thing that one can just walk away from?
Just what exactly is your definition of a prophet?
.
> So, I understand quite this prophetic perspective you talk about.
.
I hope so!
.
> And I would ask you one important thing. If we discuss this issue, I will refrain of saying that your
> view is false during our discourse.
.
You needn't restrain yourself in such a manner, Alex, as I will certainly not do so. Moreover, my prophetic vision of things has been so often called false (and worse!) that I am quite used to it by now.
.
> Our goal is really to understand reasons behind each others perspective.
.
The reasons behind your perspective seem to be based on a very limited (and outrageous) view of the scriptures, and a serious lack of knowledge regarding church history and the formation of the canon. Can you honestly say that I am wrong about this?
.
> Would you do the same with me during our discourse?
.
No. Sorry, Alex, but I calls them as I sees them.
.
> Of course, we are free to think that other's view is false, but we are not entitled to say this
.
We are not entitled to say what we think? What, then, is the point of dialogue in the first place if we are not allowed to say what we are thinking?! ... No, I can't go for that at all. :(
.
> DURING our discourse until it is indeed established at the end of our discussion. OK?
.
Very *NOT* OK! It is the nature of my duty to the People of God to *always* say what I think; and I cannot be bound by artificial rules and secondary considerations . . . Perhaps now you are beginning to get an inkling about just why they call me 'the offensive one', eh? :)
.
>>> AK: The reason for forming the Anabaptist list is to share and give
>>> encouragement for our beliefs that very few Christians hold.
.
>> tx: Very few Christians hold these beliefs because they are obviously in need of some improvement.
.
> AK: I am in fact very open minded,
.
Oh yeah? :)
.
> and will respectfully hear your opinions.
.
That may not be enough for the Lord, Alex.
.
>> Actually, I have no real denomination. I used to be a Catholic, but have since seen that church for what
>> it truly is (ie. the Whore of Babylon). The only thing preventing me from joining an Anabaptist church are
>> these few unfortunate and erroneous theological doctrines (eg. infallible bible, no prophets).
.
> I am very open to hear your reason for the view that the Bible is fallible. May I ask you two questions:
> 1) If I show that there is no contradiction in the Bible, would you accept that the Bible is infallible?
.
Since I can't imagine how you could possibly demonstrate such a thing, I really can't promise you a response to your liking. However, you're certainly welcome to attempt the extremely improbable! :)
.
> 2) Have you fear of God?
.
Of course.
.
> I ask you this, since fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
.
That's what I was gonna say! :D
.
>>> AK: We just feel uncomfortable to worship God as they do.
.
>> I understand completely. The sight of Catholics worshiping a plastic wafer as if it were God used to sicken me.
.
> AK: Yes, it worries me a lot such ritualistic worship.
.
What can we expect of any church that so zealously serves the Wicked One?
.
>> If I can demonstrate to you (from biblical teachings) that the beliefs in infallibility and 'no prophets' are
>> unbiblical, would you be willing to consider changing these views in order to conform more strongly and
>> surely with the Word of God?
.
> Absolutely! I have changed a lot of views, because I was and still are in search for Truth.
> I always evaluate all kinds of beliefs, even my own.
.
I couldn't have said it better myself (grammatical errors aside), and I gladly echo all that you have just stated.
.
> But what do you mean by "the Word of God"?
.
Usually this is simply a reference to the sacred scriptures, but it can also refer to the Logos of God (being also Jesus Christ), who speaks to us through the medium of the Sacred Text. In my view, the two always go together; although obviously the divine Logos is much bigger and more authoritative than the Bible (as such).
.
> What is the authority you appeal to?
.
The Living Logos of God who is present with True Believers in the scriptures, in their faithful hearts, and in the Encourager (who is also the Spirit of Truth).
.
>>> AK: If the doctrine or practise is not true, then we ought not to follow it.
.
>> tx: Can I take this to mean that the answer to my question above is 'Yes'?
.
> AK: Of course.
.
Excellent!
.
>> I would be very happy to join, Aleksandar, but you ought to know that I consider myself to be called by the
>> Lord to minister unto the People of God as a prophet of the Word. In other words, there is no possibility
>> that I could be persuaded to embrace the view that there are no more prophets!
.
> Well, I have once considered myself as a prophet, but have understood that I was self-deceived.
> I am not saying that this is the case with you,
.
No, that would be premature, to be sure. I think that we have very different conceptions of the essential nature and function of the prophet. It will be interesting to compare and contrast them.
.
> but I am willing to discuss this issue. I would first ask you to read my article "The End of Supernatural Charismatic
> Gifts", and let that article be our starting point of discussion. Would that be all right for you? -- In Christ, Alex
> Home Page: http://home.chello.no/~akatanov/
> Moderator for: 1) http://www.egroups.com/group/christian-philosophy
> 2) http://www.egroups.com/group/anabaptist
.
Of course. I've already downloaded it to my hard-drive, and have begun to read it (as the quote above attests). In my next epistle I'll set forth my initial reaction and considered response. Please be patient with me. I'm so slow *because* I'm so methodical ... LOL
.
- the one who goes too far (sometimes) - textman ;>
.
P.S. I've also decided to share our discussions with the good cyber-saints in my two favorite ngz (listed at the top of this posting). I hope this unilateral action does not bother you, Alex, but as I said before, my ministry is not to individuals as such, but to the People of God in general. The Spirit bloweth wheresoever She wilt ... :)
/ Re: Prophets and the Bible - 3 [was: Re: Joining Anabaptist List] / E-mail: Aleksandar Katanovic <akatanov@bigfoot.com> /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren / Date > 26 Sept 2000 /
.
> On 26Sept Aleksandar Katanovic e-mailed the offensive one: Textman, I have decided to deny your joining
> the Anabaptist list because I find that we disagree in fundamental things concerning our faith in Christ.
.
textman answers: Dear Alex, the Anabaptist site at e-groups clearly states:
.
] For Christians who have Anabaptist ideals. In our opinion, the list below defines an Anabaptist Christian. In the
] list, it is not included beliefs that are common for all Christians, but only those which Anabaptist Christians have.
] List of Anabaptist Beliefs: 1) Church and the State should be separated.
] 2) Infant baptism is not the true baptism. (3) The Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ.
] 4) Both Calvinist and General Protestant theology of God's election and salvation is wrong. God does not
] unconditionally elect people to Hell. Rather, God's Manifested Wrath is conditional, and the condition is of not
] being in Christ. God will show His wrath only to people who are not in Christ. Likewise, God's election is
] conditional, and the condition is being in Christ. God elects only people who are in Christ.
] 5) Faith in Christ should be a LIVING faith, faith which is confirmed in the fruits of Spirit. People who are living
] sinful life, without true repentance, will end in Hell. Living in sin and falling occasionally in sin are not the same
] thing. All children of God can fall in sin because of our weaknesses, but they do not live in sin.
] 6) Worshiping God is a very serious thing, and we ought not to introduce new things in our Worship, of which
] the Bible doesn't say anything about.
] 7) There are no new revelations or prophecies, and all supernatural Charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit are no
] more present in the children of God. The Charismatic gifts were only present during the Apostolic period of
] Church age (1st. century). There are no more apostles. The Bible is our necessary and sufficient supreme
] authority in our lives.
.
This is your list, Alex. Your definition of what makes a Christian an Anabaptist. Wut? Six out of seven is not good enough for you? Six out of seven means that I am not fit to be an Anabaptist? Didn't you tell me before that you had an open mind? What happened to your open mind, Alex? Did you misplace it somehow?!
.
> I believe that you are a false prophet,
.
And what, pray tell, leads you to this belief? Could it be the fact that we see the Bible differently? Is it something that I have said or done that shows me to be a false prophet? Or is it simply the fact that you don't believe that there can be any more prophets?
.
> and if you do not repent from your sin, you will end in Hell.
.
What sin is it that I must repent for? The sin of claiming to be a prophet?!
.
> If you are a true prophet of God,
.
Yes?
.
> then answer me this question: "Do you know name of my mother and father, and their nationalities?"
.
textman answers the question: No, I don't know the name of your mother and father, or their nationalities.
.
> This question would not be difficult for you to answer if you are God's cyber prophet. -- Alex
.
The question was not at all difficult to answer, Alex, but I'm afraid you've mistaken me for something that I'm not. Only God is omniscient. Prophets are simply mortal and fallible men, like all other men, and are therefore *not* omniscient. Furthermore, I don't recall ever claiming to be God, so I hardly think that my ignorance about your parents somehow proves that I am a false prophet!
P.S. If the whole body were an eye, what part would do the hearing? If the whole were an ear, what part would do the smelling? But as a matter of fact, God has placed each of the members in the body just as he decided. If they were all the same member, where would the body be? So now there are many members, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you," nor in turn can the head say to the foot, "I do not need you." -- 1Cor.12:17-21/NETbible
/ Re: Prophets and the Bible - 4 /E-mail: Aleksandar Katanovic <akatanov@bigfoot.com> /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren / 28Sept2000 /
.
> From "The End of the Supernatural Charismatic Gifts: An essay about the gifts of the Holy Spirit"
> by Aleksandar Katanovic <snip> The crucial question is in which way does God speak to us.
.
textman asks: Dear Alex, is it not possible that God speaks to us in more ways than one?
.
> To repeat, I strongly believe that God speaks to His children and that He can physically heal us when we
> pray to Him. But my contention is that God does not speak through some special chosen prophets ... <snip>
.
But you do not deny that God has spoken through the prophets in the past, right? What, then, has changed since then? Has God lost the will or ability to speak through prophets? Have the People of God perhaps outgrown the need for prophets?
.
> <snip> The word "apostle" is one of the few Greek words, which is not translated in our English Bibles.
.
Interesting observation there, my friend. One ripe with significance I'd say ...
.
> Why did we not translate this word from the Greek, which means a messenger, he that is sent,
> a delegate, one sent forth with orders?
.
The word is not translated because the only adequate translation for 'apostle' is 'prophet'; for a prophet is *also* defined as one who is sent forth, a messenger, a delegate, one sent forth with orders. Why have you not made this rather obvious connection, Alex?
.
> There are many other Greek terms for expressing the meaning of someone sent as messenger (e.g. angelo,
> pempo and their derivates). 'Angelo' is translated into English 'messenger' only when it denotes an ordinary
> human messenger, but it is not translated when it denotes angels, i.e. nonhuman messengers. In the case
> when it refers to nonhuman messengers, then the meaning of the term would not be correctly conveyed under
> translation. The same with the term apostolos. It is not translated because the term has a special meaning,
.
Yes, and that meaning is best understood as 'a prophet / messenger of the Lord Jesus Christ'!
.
> not easily conveyed in languages that do not have the same concept of apostolos. The apostolos does not
> just mean an ordinary messenger, or some delegate. It is more than that. To illustrate the significance of the
> term "apostolos," I will give one example. When a king on those days had sent his apostolos to some distant
> town, then the people in that town regarded king's apostle as if the apostle was the king himself. They bowed
> to him and addressed him in the manner as he was the king who sent him. The apostle had the authority of
> the one who sent him. Thus, Jesus' apostles were messengers with Jesus' authority. <snip>
.
That is correct, Alex. There are *none* who have the authority that a prophet has. Not the priests. Not the bishops. Not the preachers, teachers, scribes, scholars, or missionaries. And *that* is why the word 'apostle' is not translated: so that the People of God may be kept ignorant about the real significance of the word, and the true
role of the prophet among the churches yesterday and today!
.
> Another important feature of the ministry of an apostle in the Body of Christ was that an apostle of Christ
> was a Prime Witness of Jesus' Resurrection. The necessary condition for a person to be an apostle of Jesus
> was that the person had seen the Physically Resurrected Jesus in order to give the Prime Testimony for the
> truthfulness of our fundamental Christian belief. The only possibility for such kind of testimony to be truthful
> was that the person had seen Jesus before His death ... <snip>
.
Since Paul had not seen Jesus before his death, and had not seen the "Physically Resurrected Jesus" either (ie. prior to His Ascension), he did not (according to your criteria) have any right to call himself an apostle. Yet the fact that he did call himself an apostle means that either he lied and/or deliberately deceived the People of God, or that
you are wrong in stating that this is a "necessary condition for a person to be an apostle of Jesus". My guess is that Paul is right, and you are wrong.
.
> In the nature of things, the office of Apostleship could not be repeated or transmitted: any more than the
> underlying historic experiences could be transmitted to those who had never known the incarnate Lord and
> seen Him resurrected. Therefore, we do not have Apostles in our age after the 1st century A.D.
.
Since the case of Paul shows that you are wrong in basing apostleship on specific historic experiences, it follows logically that you have no basis for concluding either that the office could not be "repeated or transmitted" or that there are no apostles "after the 1st century A.D".
.
> Do we have apostles today? Certainly not.
> If that was the case then the Bible would not be our sufficient authority in our life,
.
Since the Bible is NOT "our sufficient authority in our life" (ie. at the very least, prophets are required for its proper interpretation), we have no reason to join you in your foundationless certainty.
.
> and the Canon of the bible would be open. If we have apostles nowadays, then we could in principle
> add new books to the Bible
.
I see no reason why we cannot do so. The last nineteen centuries have provided an abundant harvest of Christian literature; some of which is surely inspired, and *therefore* fit for inclusion among the library of sacred scriptures known as The Holy Bible.
.
> because we have persons with an apostolic authority.
.
We *do* have them. What we *don't* have is the recognition and acknowledgment of their presence!
.
> Because of the fact that the apostolic ministry is gone,
.
A "fact" that you have clearly failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt ...
.
> it is plausibly to assume that some gifts of the Holy Spirit is not manifested in our churches, especially
> those gifts pertaining to the sign of the Apostleship (see 2 Cor. 12:12).
.
2Cor.12:12 is not the place to look for the signs of apostleship, but rather in these verses:
.
"For one is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, and another the message of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another performance of miracles, to another prophecy, and to another discernment of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. It is one and the same Spirit, distributing to each person as he decides, who produces all these things." -- 1Cor.12:8-11/NETbible
.
In these verses all the essential attributes manifested by the prophet are clearly set forth: wisdom, knowledge, faith, discernment, interpretation. These are the "signs" that identify the apostle or prophet; for the prophet surely requires them all (especially in this age of unbelief and ignorance)!
.
> What about the prophets, do we have them in the 20th century?
.
Of course! We even have them here in the *21st* century ... :)
.
> If we have persons who give prophetic utterances, meaning that God is speaking *directly* to people
> through such utterances,
.
Your emphasis on the word 'directly' strikes me as misleading in the extreme. It suggests that God is simply using the prophet as a mouth-piece; in the same way that one would use a megaphone to increase the volume of his voice. That is certainly *not* my understanding of "prophetic utterances". Other than that, I certainly do agree that
God is speaking indirectly to the People of God through the words of His humble slaves, the prophets.
.
> then these prophetic words are in principle of the same authority as the words of the Bible.
.
I tend to agree.
.
> The prophet, through the verbal inspiration by God,
.
ie. the prophet is merely a tool, a puppet, a mindless zombie!!!
.
> speaks directly the words of God to the Church by addressing the Church in a first person utterance in the
> name of the Lord. That means that the prophet begins his utterance with "and so says the Lord." Because
> the prophet begins with such strong declaration, we should regard the speech as infallible, unless God did
> not inspire it.
.
You are indeed confused, sir. Since the prophet is NOT a mindless zombie, and since God speaks *indirectly* to the People through the inspired prophet, we have no reason whatsoever to imagine that all that he says is necessarily infallible. Inspiration does NOT imply inerrancy and infallibility! That is a Fundy fantasy that has no basis either in the scriptures or in reality.
.
> If we maintain that the prophetic words are not direct and infallible speech of God then the person
> is not entitled to speak in the first person utterance in the name of the Lord, by using the expression
> "and so says the Lord." <snip>
.
You are wrong, Alex. The prophet certainly *is* entitled to speak in the name of the Lord, for that is his function. Only the prophet can speak thusly, because only the prophet is granted the authority to speak thusly.
.
> Why does not the Bible tell us more clearly that gifts, as prophecies, will end after the
> death of the last apostle? <snip>
.
Because the gifts and prophets are needed, and will continue to be needed, by the People of God right up until the time when all things are completed; as Paul clearly suggests:
.
"But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside." -- 1Cor.13:8-10
.
In other words, up until the time of perfection - and we are long *long* way from that happy day - we will continue to know in part, and to prophesy in part (ie. the prophet is not infallible)! Therefore the Word of God states that there are prophets today, and those who deny it are denying the clear testimony of the very scriptures they profess to honor!
.
> A prophet is a person who has prophetic ministry. <snip>
.
This is true. And also perfectly obvious.
.
> Of course, it is a necessary condition for a prophecy to be consistent with the Bible,
.
I tend to agree. The only problem with this is that the scriptures are not always perfectly consistent among themselves; which is perfectly understandable in light of the fact that the Bible is not one book, but many, and has not one author, but many!
.
> but it is not a sufficient criterion. We must also test the supernatural quality of the prophecy. If
> someone claims that he/she has a gift of the prophecy, then the person must be in the position
> to say some information that he/she could not possibly learn in a natural way. <snip>
.
I could not possibly disagree with you more! On what biblical passage or verse do you base this absurd and utterly ridiculous proposition?
.
> Both these criteria, biblical-consistency and supernatural-origin criteria, are jointly
> sufficient conditions of the truthfulness of the prophecy.
.
You are in error, sir. The truthfulness of the prophet (and his words) rests upon the fact that he speaks truly and honestly, and in harmony with biblical teachings that are known to be true. The prophet is *not* shown to be a false prophet simply because he made some minor error regarding some minor detail or fact. Rather, the true prophet is a
fundamentally different sort of person from the false prophet. The true prophet can, does, and will err on rare occasions (for he necessarily remains a limited and fallible creature), but a false prophet always proceeds on deceptions, lies, and dishonesty. That is, his *heart* is dramatically different in quality and nature from the heart of a true prophet. Therefore, your "sufficient conditions" for testing the prophet are NOT sufficient in any way!
.
> Saying something that will not be fulfilled would expose a prophet who speaks presumptuously in the
> name of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18 precisely guarantees this.
.
I agree. But this only works when the prophet functions as a sooth-sayer and fortune-teller. In my ministry I leave such things to the sooth-sayers and fortune-tellers. Therefore, Deut.18 is unable to determine whether or not the offensive one is a prophet, precisely because it assumes a limited and unchristian understanding of the nature and role of the prophet.
.
> < snip remainder of article (which simply builds upon the errors and misconceptions that form the
> substance and essence of Alex's unbiblical opinion that there are no more prophets) >
.
- 1who sets forth this posting as example of what the true prophet is called to do for the People of God - textman ;>
.
P.S. "Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit. But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy." -- 1Cor.14:1-5 / NETbible
/ Re: Prophets and the Bible - 5 / E-mail: Aleksandar Katanovic <akatanov@bigfoot.com> /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren / 30Sept2000 /
.
] On 28Sept textman wrote: <snip> Since Paul had not seen Jesus before his death, and had not seen
] the "Physically Resurrected Jesus" either (ie. prior to His Ascension), he did not (according to your
] criteria) have any right to call himself an apostle. Yet the fact that he did call himself an apostle means
] that either he lied and/or deliberately deceived the People of God, or that you are wrong in stating that
] this is a "necessary condition for a person to be an apostle of Jesus". My guess is that Paul is right, and
] you are wrong. <snip>
.
> Aleksandar Katanovic replies: Paul had seen Jesus before Christ's death.
.
textman answers: Dear Alex, and what (may I ask?) is your source for this information? Did you reason out this conclusion from the evidence presented by the sacred texts? Is it perhaps a theological presupposition required by your thesis? Or did Paul himself inform you of this "fact"?
.
> Jesus was well known person in Judea. Multitude of people saw Christ, His preaching and miracles.
.
Paul was born and raised in Damascus; which is a long way from Judea. Jesus was also well known in Galilee, which is much closer to Paul's home-city; but this does not mean that he *must* have seen Jesus, or even heard about him, before the Crucifixion. There is no logical or historical connection between your first statement and these two that follow.
.
> Read Gospels. -- Alex
.
Just exactly where do you read in the gospels that "Paul had seen Jesus before Christ's death"?
/ Re: Prophets and the Bible - 6 [was: Re: Change of attitude] / E-mail: Aleksandar Katanovic <akatanov@bigfoot.com> /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren / 2Oct2000 /
.
] On 26Sept textman wrote: <snip> This is your list, Alex. Your definition of what makes a Christian an
] Anabaptist. Wut? Six out of seven is not good enough for you? Six out of seven means that I am not
] not fit to be an Anabaptist? Didn't you tell me before that you had an open mind? What happened to
] your open mind, Alex? Did you misplace it somehow?! <snip>
.
> Aleksandar Katanovic e-mailed the offensive one: Textman, The list of Anabaptist beliefs does not include
> the fundameental beliefs of Christianity.
.
Obviously. I *do* know how to read ...
.
> It is taken for granted that the fundamental beliefs of Christianity are taken for granted.
.
textman scratches his head in great bewilderment for a time, then asks: Dear Alex, are you now suggesting that I am not fit to be a Christian either? Who assigned you the duty of separating the goats from the sheep?
.
> Since you do not submit to the Apostolic and Prohetic Authority of the Bible,
.
There is no one on this planet that submits to the prophetic authority of the sacred scriptures more than I!
And I do not for one moment imagine that you submit to that same authority more than the cybrwurm does
... Not by a long shot, mister!
.
> and even claim for your self that you are a new apostle,
.
Nonsense. Now you are putting your own words into my mouth. I have never claimed to be "a new apostle". At most I claim to be a second-class prophet (by no means on par with the great prophets of Egypt (eg. Jacob, Judas, 2Peter); which is much *more* than this vain and arrogant generation of Christians deserves, believe me!
.
> then clearly you reject the Supreme Authority of the Bible.
.
No. Actually, what I *do* reject is your flawed and irrational conception of "the Supreme Authority of the Bible". No one who thinks about it for more than a minute could possibly confuse the two.
.
> How can I recognoze you as my brother in Christ when you reject the Supreme Authority of the Bible?
.
Well gee-wiz, Alex, I'd guess that a smidgen of love, and a small dose of Christian generosity, are all it would take; but perhaps I'm expecting too much from you.
.
] What sin is it that I must repent for? The sin of claiming to be a prophet?!
.
> The sin of speaking presumteously in the name of our Lord. That sin is very serious.
.
I agree that it is a serious sin. But I still don't see why you should accuse me of it.
.
] <snip> The question was not at all difficult to answer, Alex, but I'm afraid you've mistaken me for something
] that I'm not. Only God is omniscient. Prophets are simply mortal and fallible men, like all other men, and are
] therefore *not* omniscient. Furthermore, I don't recall ever claiming to be God, so I hardly think that my
] ignorance about your parents somehow proves that I am a false prophet! <snip>
.
> Read about the supernatural quality of the prophetic word and authority in Deut. 18:20-22.
.
Your wish is my command:
.
"... But the prophet who will presume to speak anything in my name that I have not authorized him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. Or if you say to yourselves, how can we know what the LORD has not spoken? Whenever a given prophet speaks in my name and the thing is not fulfilled, then I have not
spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it so you need not fear him." -- Deuteronomy 18:20-22/NETbible
.
So what have I spoken that has not been fulfilled? And if there is nothing I have spoken that has not been fulfilled, then why do you assume that I have not been authorized to speak in the name of the Lord? Surely you must admit that your accusation that I am a false prophet is NOT based on prophecies on my part that have failed to materialize, but is *only* an assumption on your part; (and one that is entirely without foundation).
.
] P.S. If the whole body were an eye, what part would do the hearing? If the whole were an ear, what part
] would do the smelling? But as a matter of fact, God has placed each of the members in the body just as he
] decided. If they were all the same member, where would the body be? So now there are many members,
] but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you," nor in turn can the head say to the foot,
] "I do not need you." - 1Cor.12:17-21 / NETbible
.
> If so, why do I not find the manifestation of ALL nine gifts in Charismatic and Pentecostal Churches?
.
Perhaps because there are no genuine prophets in these churches?
.
> If so, why are there only tounges which are easy to fake.
.
Perhaps because they do not truly understand the teachings of the Word of God on these matters. Perhaps because they, like so many other churches, have lost their way owing to the loss of the prophets.
.
How can any church be healthy and pleasing unto the Lord without the vital and necessary ministry of the prophets? Can a body live without a head? As Paul says: The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you," nor in turn can the head say to the foot, "I do not need you." Those churches who say to the prophets "I do not need you" have indeed lost the heart and soul that keeps the body alive and healthy and pleasing unto the Lord. Is there any church today that is willing to say, "Yes, we need you"?
.
> If you speak God's direct words as a prophet, then the quality of your word MUST be distinct and
> distinguished from a mere preacher's one.
.
I firmly believe that the quality of my words *are* "distinct and distinguished" from those of priests, preachers, teachers, scholars, scribes, and anyone else who claims authority over the hearts and minds of the people of God.
... Of course, you are certainly free to ignore or disagree with me about this; for that is your right and privilege.
.
> I do not see any distinction between you and a preacher except of your false claim that you are a prophet.
> -- Regards, Alex
.
You seem very sure indeed that I am a false prophet, yet you do not bother yourself to explain or demonstrate how that is so, or even why you are so sure that you are right. I'm sure that many of our readers would like to know these things. You do all of us a grave injury by withholding all this from us.
/ Re: Prophets and the Bible - 7 [Re: Answers to your questions] / E-mail: Aleksandar Katanovic <akatanov@bigfoot.com> /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren / 2Oct2000 /
.
] On 28Sept textman wrote: Dear Alex, is it not possible that God speaks to us in more ways than one?
.
> On 28Sept Aleksandar answers: Dear Textman,
> "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
> hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by
> whom also he made the worlds (Heb 1:1-2)."
.
On 2Oct textman replies: Dear Alex, "these last days" were 2000 years ago! This naturally brings us to a difficult question: When did "these last days" end? And if these are *still* the last days, wouldn't it be more sensible to say "these last centuries"? Obviously the prophet who wrote Hebrews had no conception that the world would still be here 19 centuries later. He, like Paul and so many other early Christians, confidently expected the imminent return of the Lord (who would destroy the world, and remake the heavens and the earth in what was called 'the Day of the Lord'). Yet the Day did not come. The early Christian prophets were *wrong* in their prophecy! And according to Deut.18:22 this means that the Lord had "not spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it so you need not fear him." Thus, BY YOUR OWN THEOLOGY, Paul and the author of Hebrews are false prophets!!!
.
> We have Christ's own words in Gospels and His words through His appointed Apostles. Apostle Paul
> admonished to all followers of Christ: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye
> have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2Th 2:15)."
.
By all that I take it that your answer is: No, it is NOT possible that God speaks to us in more ways than one, because God no longer speaks in "divers manners". As for myself, I am not so eager to wrap up the Lord in chains of your own devising.
.
> We hold only to the traditions of the Old Testament prophets
.
If that were so, then how is it that you do not recognize Paul and the author of Hebrews as false prophets (according to the fact that their prophecies were not fulfilled)? If you truly believe that Deut. 18:22 still applies, how is it that you do not apply the OT criteria to the NT prophets? Are they perhaps exempt from scrutiny?
.
> and the New Testament Apostolic prophetic Teaching and Practise.
.
Do you also confidently expect the imminent destruction of the world in the Day of the Lord? If not, then how can you say that you hold *only* to the "New Testament Apostolic prophetic Teaching and Practice"? ... In fact, you do NOT expect the imminent Parousia; and therefore you do NOT hold *only* to the "New Testament Apostolic prophetic Teaching and Practice"!
.
> We do not recognize other traditions as our authority.
.
Yes you do! Your definition of who is and is not Christian according to the standard of belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible is certainly *not* biblical, but rather comes from post-biblical traditions (specifically from post- Reformation traditions). If you were at all honest, you would at least have the decency to admit that much!
.
] But you do not deny that God has spoken through the prophets in the past, right? What, then, has changed
] since then? Has God lost the will or ability to speak through prophets?
.
> There were periods of silence. The periods of silence are periods when there is no prophetic activity, when
> there is no prophet of God. We do live now in a period of silence. From 400 - 1 BC, was a period of silence,
> when no prophet was active in Israel. Last books of the OT, Ezra and Nehemiah are books during the time
> of Malachi (c.460), who was the last prophet before Christ.
.
You are wrong, sir. There were many prophets during the intertestimental period; including the author of the book of Daniel, the author of the so-called 'Wisdom of Solomon', and the author of the book of Enoch (a book that was recognized as scripture by the prophet Judas (misnamed 'Jude' in English translations of the NT)). Nor do I believe that we "live now in a period of silence". The prophets have been active throughout *all* of church history; and it takes a certain willful blindness not to recognize this.
.
> The first prophet after Christ's birth was John the Baptist. The last prophet after Christ's birth was John
> the Apostle (the writer of his Gospel, his three epistles and the book of Revelation).
.
Once again you are wrong. The prophet of Patmos (ie. the author of Revelation) is NOT the same man who wrote the Gospel of John. The fact that you could make such an elementary error only demonstrates just how little you know about this book that you foolishly idolize.
.
> God is now a silent God,
.
Our God has *never* been a silent God!
.
> because it is we who must make the move to be reconciled with Him. God has nothing more to say to us,
.
God has a great deal more to say to us. It is we who close our ears to Him in the arrogant belief that He "has nothing more to say to us"!
.
"O my God, how does it happen in this poor old world that thou art so great, and yet nobody finds thee?! That thou callest so loudly, and yet nobody hears thee? That thou art so near, and yet nobody feels thee? That thou givest thyself to everybody, and yet nobody knows thy name? ... Men flee from thee and then say they cannot find thee! They turn their backs and then say they cannot see thee! They stop their ears and then say they cannot hear thee!" -- Hans Denck (16C)
.
> for everything was said through Christ, who is the culmination in the communication between God and
> mankind simply because Christ is the incarnation of infinite God in finite human flesh, who walked among
> us. God has nothing more to say to us, for everything was said on the cross, where He showed His love
> towards us in spite of our sins.
.
So, in other words, the meaning and message of the Cross is that there are now no more prophets because our God is become a mute, dumb, and silent God! I thank the Lord constantly that I do not share this idiotic theology of willful blindness and ignorance ...
.
] Have the People of God perhaps outgrown the need for prophets?
.
> There is nothing new to add to His Perfect Revelation. I know, for instance, exactly what will happen in
> the future, by reading John's Last Revelation.
.
Since the future is *not* set in stone, I seriously doubt that you know *exactly* what will happen in the future!
.
>> Alex previously say: The apostle had the authority of the one who sent him.
>> Thus, Jesus' apostles were messengers with Jesus' authority. <snip>
.
] That is correct, Alex. There are *none* who have the authority that a prophet has.
.
> AK: But you claim to have the authority equal to Christ's.
.
I have *never* made such an absurd claim, sir! If I did, then you would be more than justified in saying that I am a false prophet.
.
> You say that you are an Apostle and that your word is God's word.
.
Negative on that, Alex. I merely say that I am a prophet; (although certainly not equal in stature and authority with the NT prophets). Nor do I say that my word is God's word (in the sense that God speaks *directly* through me), but rather that the prophet is inspired by the Eternal Logos and His Spirit of Truth. This does *not* mean that I am inerrant and infallible. Nor does it mean that my words supersede or replace the sacred scriptures; but it *does* mean that my words supplement and clarify the biblical revelation. That is a long way from saying that I have an authority equal to Christ's!
.
> If that was true then I had to submit myself to your authority.
> This means that we could add your words to the Bible.
.
You would certainly be very wise to do so! :)
.
] tx: Since Paul had not seen Jesus before his death, and had not seen the "Physically Resurrected Jesus" either
] (ie. prior to His Ascension), he did not (according to your criteria) have any right to call himself an apostle. Yet
] the fact that he did call himself an apostle means that either he lied and/or deliberately deceived the People
] of God, or that you are wrong in stating that this is a "necessary condition for a person to be an apostle of
] Jesus". My guess is that Paul is right, and you are wrong.
.
> AK: Jesus Christ was a renown person in Israel when He walked among us. He performed great miracles
> and multitude of people heard His message. He was known as Bill Clinton is known in USA. It is quite
> implausible to say that Paul had not known Jesus,
.
It is not implausible at all. If Jesus was as well known as you suggest, then it is *inconceivable* that the great Greek and Roman historians of the day would have completely overlooked him!
.
> since Paul was a Gamaliel disciple
.
Nowhere in Paul's epistles does he say such a thing. Since Paul saw fit not to mention such things about himself, it is highly unhistorical to make such absurd assumptions on his behalf.
.
> and Gamaliel was sympathetic to the new Christian movement. Paul was well informed man, and he knew
> who was Jesus. Many scribes and pharisees heard Christ's preaching. Paul was a Pharisee, and he had
> surely heard of Christ's teaching.
.
Of course he did -> several years *after* the Crucifixion!
.
> When Christ entered Jerusalem, riding the donkey, multitude of people hailed Christ as the king of Israel.
> To repeat, Christ was a famous person, otherwise people could not hail Him as the king. Everyone in
> Jerusalem knew that Jesus was killed at the Cross. But the great sensational news in Jerusalem was the
> news of His disappeared body. Enemies of Christ could not show Christ's dead body, and Apostles were
> quite bold in their Testimony that they saw the Resurrected Christ, even if they were imprisoned and were
> threaten by death penalty for their preaching.
.
Your reasoning doth surely amaze me, as all of this does *nothing* to demonstrate your irrational contentions.
.
> Paul knew that Christ was killed on the Cross, and he could testify that Christ resurrected. There were at
> least 500 persons in Israel who could testify Christ's resurrection (1 Cor 15:6).
.
Paul knew that Christ was killed on the Cross, and then was raised, because he was told about it, not because he was a witness to these events. As he says: "For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received - that Christ died for our sins ..." (1Cor.15:3). Paul ends his list of Resurrection appearances with v.7: "Then he appeared
to James, then to all the apostles." This last reference would be to those who witnessed the Ascension. But several years had to pass by before Paul could say: "And last of all, even as if to one untimely born, he was seen by me also. For I am the least of the apostles, who is not qualified to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1Cor.15:8-9).
.
As usual, Paul does not bother to give us any of the details regarding these events, so it is impossible to say what his persecution consisted of, or what exactly it was that he saw when he says that "he was seen by me also". Perhaps it was a vision, or perhaps only a dream; but in any case, it is clear that Paul's first contact with the Faith came some years after the Crucifixion, and that his initial response was one of hostility and unbelief. That is why he says that he is "not qualified to be called an apostle". But according to your absurd theology, Paul is not qualified to testify as an apostle because "The only possibility for such kind of testimony to be truthful was that the person had seen Jesus before His death". Paul tells us that he did not see Jesus "in the flesh" (ie. before the D&R), but rather than accept the witness of scripture, you prefer to twist the facts to bring them in line with your silly notions of what is required for apostleship. Paul tells us quite plainly how it was that he became an apostle: "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me has not been in vain. In fact, I worked harder than all of them - yet not I, but the grace of God with me" (1Cor.15:10).
.
] tx: <snip> In these verses all the essential attributes manifested by the prophet are clearly set forth: wisdom,
] knowledge, faith, discernment, interpretation. These are the "signs" that identify the apostle or prophet; for the
] prophet surely requires them all (especially in this age of unbelief and ignorance)!
.
> Well, you have not produced yet any sign that you are an apostle or a prophet.
.
Perhaps that is because you are not paying attention ... For there are none so blind as those that will not see!
.
> Read Peter's apostolic signs in the Acts.
.
There is no need for that, as I hardly think that the author of Lk-Acts could improve upon Paul's thoroughly thorough list here (ie. 1Cor.12:8-11).
.
>> AK: A prophet is a person who has prophetic ministry. <snip>
.
] tx: This is true. And also perfectly obvious.
.
> AK: If so, read how the prophetic ministry was manifested among Jews. For instance, read about Moses,
> Eliah, Elisha, Samuel, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Their prophetic ministry was supernatural.
.
Oh yes. Supernatural, amazing, and incredible to the point where we are fully justified in wondering whether or not these accounts are historically accurate, reliable, and completely realistic.
.
> Testing prophet involved testing the supernatural quality of prophetic words (cf. Deut. 18:20-22).
.
We have already examined these verses. We have seen that there is no mention of any "supernatural quality of prophetic words". We have already seen that the underlying understanding of the prophet is limited and unchristian. And we have already seen that they are incapable of determining whether or not the cybrwurm is a prophet or not. Yet I can say, along with Paul: "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me has not been in vain. In fact, I worked harder than all of them - yet not I, but the grace of God with me" (1Cor.15:10).
.
] tx: <snip> I tend to agree. The only problem with this is that the scriptures are not always perfectly
] consistent among themselves.
.
> They are quite consistent. There is no contradiction in the Bible.
.
This a faith statement (actually, a BAD faith statement); NOT a statement of fact! It is a *bad* faith statement because the question of whether or not there are contradictions in the Bible is not a matter of faith or opinion, but rather a matter for biblical scholarship to decide. Thus it is a *fact* that there are many contractions among the
many biblical books. One need only compare Galatians and Acts to find a bucketful of contradictions. And the contradictions among the various Resurrection accounts are even more striking and undeniable. But this no cause for confusion or loss of faith in the reliability of scripture; for it is unreasonable to expect so many different documents
from so many different authors writing from so many different cultures and centuries to agree on each and every detail. But those who practice bibliolatry are very adept at ignoring the facts, and spurning the truth; and in doing so they clearly demonstrate their contempt for the scriptures (which make no absurd claims of inerrancy and infallibility)!
.
> As a logician,
.
Oh Alex, I *really* have a lot of confidence in your ability to think logically ... LOL
.
> I have studied this issue a lot. And I have not yet find any contradiction in the Bible.
.
Obviously you are looking in all the wrong places.
.
> [I am a teacher of logic and mathematics].
.
Then you ought to know better, hadn't you?
.
> The Bible is a book,
.
You have just made a logical error, sir. The Bible is not *a* book, but is, in fact, a *library* of books!
.
> which, after my opinion, reveals God's personal character.
.
I agree. The biblical books reveal the nature and character of God; but nothing so reveals God as *person* as our good Lord Jesus Christ.
.
> The Bible tells us how God is behaving, and it reports about His words. We can either choose to love such
> character, and interpret His actions, as they are described, in a favorable light, or choose to have other
> attitudes towards Him. The point is that we have freedom in our attitude towards Him. This is reflected by
> the fact that the Bible can indeed be understood in so many different ways, and consequently be interpreted
> in many different and plausible ways.
.
That is true; but some ways are obviously more rational, more reasonable, more sensible, more logical, more true to history and the nature of reality, than others. Thus I will gladly stack my exegesis against anyone's, and comparison will inevitably show that those of the scholars, scribes, priests, and fundies (that would be you, Alex) are of very poor quality indeed!
.
> This fact rather shows that we are free to choose which interpretation we like, with a good conscience,
> reflecting the fact that we are created as free beings. By our choice we also express our affinity and love to
> what we choose. For me personally it is a signature of God's authorship. So, you are perfectly free to interpret
> the Bible and render some texts of the Bible as ludicrous and contradictory, thereby expressing your skeptic
> attitude towards God. However, in my study of the Bible, I always interpret the Bible in a favorable light.
> The seeming inconsistencies are easily resolved. -- Regards, Alex
.
Well, Alex, that's all very well and good as an apologetic for reading the sacred scriptures after the manner of ignorant children, but it does nothing to wash away the fact that there *are* inconsistencies and contradictions among the various books. Loving and respecting the Bible means that we are willing to accept these imperfections in the text; (for our first duty as believers is to the truth of things). Turning a blind eye to these imperfections is not a sign of love and respect, but only a sign of immaturity and stupidity ...
.
Frankly, Alex, your "logic" leaves *much* to be desired!
