Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

The Hebrew is messiah.

However, the Old Testament never uses the word messiah to refer to
"the promised one to herald the final age of Israel".

The title is reserved principally for kings, but is also used for
prophets and priests.

Both the Jewish and Christian concepts of Messiah developed in
post-exilic Judaism, and the term Messiah first came to be applied
to "the one who would establish in the world the definitive reign of
Yahweh" in intertestamental times.

/john

    John,
    
    Then as an Orthodox Catholic, your view of the Old Testament usage of
    the messiah is diametrically opposite that of Mike's.
    
    Is that perception correct?
    
    If it is correct, does it not show that two orthordox Christian's both
    believing that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, are just as
    likely to come up with opposing interpretations of scripture as us
    Liberal Christians?
    
    What do you make of two committed orthordox Christians having such
    diametrically opposed views?
    
    If my interpretation is correct, then what good is a basic assumption
    of the innerrancy of the Bible as a requirement for Christian
    Community?
    
    
    I am poking at these issues because many of the conservative members of
    this file state that we cannot have community in here because not all
    of us share that basic assumption about the Bible.  Can you and Mike
    and Jack and Phil, all with radically different interpretations of
    scripture be in community with each other because you all believe that
    the Bible is innerrant and then not be in community with us who believe
    that the Bible is God Breathed but not necessarily innerrant?
    
    Mike, Phil, Jack.  please also feel free to answer even though this
    question is directed at Jack.
                                 Patricia

Diametrically opposite?

No, I wouldn't say that.  (But he might.)

While the word messiah in the Old Testament is used in _direct_ terms
to refer to kings, prophets, and priests, it is used in prophetic terms
to refer to Jesus Christ.

Doctrine develops.  Understanding increases.

As long as this is growth, not contradictory to past revelation, not
contrary to God's commandments, this is a good thing.

/john

>While the word messiah in the Old Testament is used in _direct_ terms
>to refer to kings, prophets, and priests, it is used in prophetic terms
>to refer to Jesus Christ.

>Doctrine develops.  Understanding increases.

>As long as this is growth, not contradictory to past revelation, not
>contrary to God's commandments, this is a good thing.

>/john
    
    
    I think I am in agreement with you regarding those statements.  The
    Gospel of Mark is very profound for me.  The message I get from that
    Gospel is that Jesus is the Messiah, but he is a Messiah very different
    from the Messianic expectations that evolved during the whole of the
    Old Testament Period.
    
    I also believe that the definition of the future messiah evolved.  
    Christ Crucified, is the message of the New Testament.  Not a Messaih
    that leads in military victory, but I Messiah that dies on the Cross.
    
    I believe that the power and mystery of Christ Crucified, is changed
    and misinterpreted, when it is not divorced from the Messianic
    expectation of a Military Leader.  Projecting the Military Victory to a
    future time, only recreates the Disciples lack of faith in a Messiah
    who will die on the Cross and will save, not by military victory, but
    by Dying for us.
    
    Patricia

re .2

;    Can you and Mike
;    and Jack and Phil, all with radically different interpretations of
;    scripture be in community with each other because you all believe that
;    the Bible is innerrant and then not be in community with us who believe
;    that the Bible is God Breathed but not necessarily innerrant?
    
;    Mike, Phil, Jack.  please also feel free to answer even though this
;    question is directed at Jack.

     Patricia,

     The dangers of participating in a notes conference like this is that
     persons like yourself my feel that all persons who profess that the 
     Bible is inspired of God are in the same community. No disrepect to 
     Mike or Jack, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are so
     diametrically opposed that we even worship different God's. This
     being the case, I certainly would not have fellowship with them.
     However there is nothing wrong in sharing our different views, 
     although at times it can be difficult to find common ground.

     It's no different than when it was in Jesus' day. Both Jesus and his
     disciples had knowledge of God's Word, but so did the Jewish religious
     leaders. Jesus pointed out that they where making God's Word invalid,
     "and thus YOU make the word of God invalid by YOUR tradition which
     YOU handed down. And many things similar to this YOU do." Mark 7:13 NWT	.
     The example that Jesus cited was the man made tradition of "corban",
     to explain God's Law stated that they must honour their parents otherwise
     they could loose their lives as punishment. Now if ones parents fell on
     hard times then by God's Law one had to look after them with whatever 
     material things that are needed, that one has at their disposal. But
     the man made tradition of corban was a loop hole, for one could say
     the money I have is corban that assigned as a donation to the temple
     "a gift dedicated to God" and can't be used for any other purpose. Yet,
     actually, the dedicated gift is kept by the person who dedicated it.
     This way a son could evade his responsibility of helping his aged 
     parents, who may have fallen on hard times. Jesus loving helped persons
     in the Sermon on the mount to see how they had been misled by their
     religious leaders, but as Mike pointed out this message was primarily
     for Jesus' disciples. Even so, persons who heard and understood could
     make adjustments so as to be redirected back on the path the God had 
     wanted them to walk.    

     So for this reason, Jesus, said that his disciples would be known by their
     good fruit and it is logical to conclude that those who invalidate God's 
     Word are evident by their rotten fruit (Matthew 7:15-20). John 13:34,35
     is an important scripture that I ponder on often. Also what should be
     emphasised is the importance of personal study, does the Bible really 
     teach what I'm being taught by my religious leaders?. What sort of fruit 
     is being displayed by the whole association of brothers and sisters ? not 
     just in ones own country but earthwide ? ie does the love and unity transcend 
     national boundaries. Do I work in harmony with God's will ? if not, is it 
     because of what I'm being taught by my religious leaders ?.

     I hope I'm not misunderstood by this note, for I'm not likening Mike and 
     Jack to the religious leaders of Jesus' day. The emphasis is on oneself,
     God's Word is there for our benefit when applied (Isaiah 48:17-18). This 
     calls for personal study and honest assessment of what is written, which
     takes effort. Further, the Bible can be difficult to understand at first
     so Jehovah Witnesses offer free Bible studies. This is a big responsiblity
     for the person conducting the study, for they have to curtail the inclination
     to offer their own opinion rather than letting God's Word do the talking
     to the student.

     Hope this helps

     Phil. 

>     The dangers of participating in a notes conference like this is that
>     persons like yourself my feel that all persons who profess that the 
>     Bible is inspired of God are in the same community. No disrepect to 

    I think we all agree that the Bible is inspired by God.  Some of
    us believe not all things *inspired* by God come out perfect.  Just
    a nit.

>     Mike or Jack, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are so
>     diametrically opposed that we even worship different God's. This
>     being the case, I certainly would not have fellowship with them.

    This saddens me, that our love for God should prevent us from
    fellowship.  Perhaps there's a difference in our meaning of
    "fellowship."  In John somewhere Jesus said something like, this
    I command you, to love each other as you love me. 

    How do you reconcile these things?

>     I hope I'm not misunderstood by this note, for I'm not likening Mike and 
>     Jack to the religious leaders of Jesus' day. The emphasis is on oneself,

    I read your message as saying that we, Mike and Jack included, can
    potentially be mislead by our leaders and it's really up to us to
    determine what God wants us to do, you believe, by reading the
    Bible for ourselves.

    Tom

re .6

>     Mike or Jack, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are so
>     diametrically opposed that we even worship different God's. This
>     being the case, I certainly would not have fellowship with them.

;    This saddens me, that our love for God should prevent us from
;    fellowship.  Perhaps there's a difference in our meaning of
;    "fellowship."  In John somewhere Jesus said something like, this
;    I command you, to love each other as you love me. 

;    How do you reconcile these things?

     Tom,

     Sorry that this saddens you, but Jehovah's Witnesses feel it 
     important to be one in unity, love and faith. Our unity, apart
     from Jehovah, is that which draws us together.  

     Further, we worship different God's, the God I worship exacts 
     exclusive devotion and therefore I can't participate in fellowship 
     as regards worship. The love Jesus spoke of, was love for ones 
     spiritual brother or sister ie those related in your faith
     (but I could be wrong for I'm assuming you mean along the lines
     of John 13:34,35) . For this reason we will not allow anything 
     to come between the association and fellowship that we have, for 
     example when national conflicts occur we refuse to be pitted 
     against our brother even to the point of laying down ones life 
     just as Jesus did. I only hope that I can show the same conviction 
     as the majority of my German brothers and sisters did during World 
     War II. 

     That's not to say one shouldn't love ones enemy, but not to the point 
     of fellowshipping with those that *practice* wrongdoing. In my view 
     what Mike and Jack are doing is wrong, but I still respect them as 
     persons and the choices they have made. Love shouldn't be so blind as 
     to condone wrongdoing, Jesus never did. I'm sure they feel Jehovah's
     Witnesses are doing wrong and so no doubt the feelings are mutual.


>     I hope I'm not misunderstood by this note, for I'm not likening Mike and 
>     Jack to the religious leaders of Jesus' day. The emphasis is on oneself,

;    I read your message as saying that we, Mike and Jack included, can
;    potentially be mislead by our leaders and it's really up to us to
;    determine what God wants us to do, you believe, by reading the
;    Bible for ourselves.

      Well a bit more than that, actually applying what is written so
      as to benefit. You see often people say the Bible's counsel is
      outdated and doesn't work. However, one should not lean on ones
      own understanding but take God's counsel to heart then one will
      reap the benefit (Proverbs 3:5,6). Not like the world's view 
      that happiness or pleasure has to be instantaneous, but rather 
      with our lasting happiness in mind.

      Persons need help in studying God's Word, just as Jesus helped
      his disciples come to an accurate knowledge. His teachings
      methods in opening peoples hearts to God's Word has to be
      admired. To conclude as Jesus once said "If YOU remain in my word, 
      YOU are really my disciples, and YOU will know the truth and the 
      truth will set YOU free." John 8:31b-32 NWT. One application could
      be free from man made traditions that invalidate God's Word.

      Phil.
  

    Re: Tom
    
|    potentially be mislead by our leaders and it's really up to us to
|    determine what God wants us to do, you believe, by reading the
|    Bible for ourselves.
    
    I believe he means well but he reads what the Watchtower tells him to
    read.  I have friends in the same church and they have an unnatural 
    reliance on what the Watchtower says despite all their false prophecies.
    
    Re: Patricia
    
    A common misconception is that the orthodox Christian community includes
    those who condemn salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ
    alone.
    
    Mike

|      admired. To conclude as Jesus once said "If YOU remain in my word, 
|      YOU are really my disciples, and YOU will know the truth and the 
|      truth will set YOU free." John 8:31b-32 NWT. One application could
|      be free from man made traditions that invalidate God's Word.
    
    Jesus says it is "my word" and you say it is God's.  Sounds like you
    really do believe Jesus is God.

    Re: .0
    
    According to Strong's (#4899):
    
    "mashiyach - from root word mashach; anointed; usually a consecrated
    person (as a king, priest, or saint); spec. the Messiah: - anointed,
    Messiah."
    
    

    Then it must be understood that messiah meant different things at
    different times, that messiah (which in Greek becomes christ) has
    multiple connotations.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re .9

|      admired. To conclude as Jesus once said "If YOU remain in my word, 
|      YOU are really my disciples, and YOU will know the truth and the 
|      truth will set YOU free." John 8:31b-32 NWT. One application could
|      be free from man made traditions that invalidate God's Word.
    
;    Jesus says it is "my word" and you say it is God's.  Sounds like you
;    really do believe Jesus is God.

	Mike,

	You know that Jesus is God's Anointed One, the one sent forth to 
        make God's name known. I also try to take to heart the admonition 
        in the letters of the apostles. I also view them as God's servants 
        just as they viewed Jesus (compare Acts 4:30).

	Phil.   

    Richard, I think it's like John explained.  Prophetically speaking,
    Messiah refers to Jesus Christ.  It would be interesting to see how
    many times the word Messiah is used in the OT while associating a
    specific name with the title as Isaiah 45:1 does.

    I don't think it's quite that plain.  Apparently there are still differing
    connotations of what it means to be messiah.
    
    Richard
    

re Mike Heiser:

>    A common misconception is that the orthodox Christian community includes
>    those who condemn salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Your inclusion of this statement would seem to imply that you still believe
your ex-Catholic friends who have lied to you about the teaching of the
Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is 100% clear that salvation is by grace through faith in
Jesus Christ alone, and it has been 100% clear on this since the controversy
first arose during the Reformation.  Your claim that the Catholic Church
teaches a false gospel of salvation by works is 100% false; the Catholic
Church teaches, as the Book of James does, that works are a FRUIT of faith.

As I've told you before: go buy the Catechism, and read it, rather than
paying attention to those ex-Catholics who have been telling you lies.

/john

    Re: Richard
    
    Wherever a Messianic prophecy is mentioned, the subject is nameless. 
    Is Cyrus the only example where the title is used with a named subject?
    
    Re: John
    
    Vatican II anathemized salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ
    only.
    
    Mike

>    Vatican II anathemized salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ
>    only.

Bullfeathers.  Vatican II teaches the same teaching as Trent.

/john

    RE: .8
>    I believe he means well but he reads what the Watchtower tells him to
>    read.  I have friends in the same church and they have an unnatural 
>    reliance on what the Watchtower says despite all their false prophecies.

    I find it sad when someone feels he has to trivialize someone else's
    faith especially when it's based  on casual obervations of other 
    people loosely  connected.

    I've heard it said again and again in here that Jesus was at
    times harsh and that was sometimes His way of showing His love.

    But is harshness the only fruit your faith produces?

    Tom

    Mike,
    
    I truly hope one day you will appear secure enouogh in you faith not to
    need to belittle others in the name of your god.  It doesn't reflect
    well on bible believeing christians, such as yourself.
    
    meg

    
    
    I guess I was pretty Niave.  I thought all you Bible Believing
    Christians were a fellowship that excluded only us Liberals.
    It did not occur to me how strong your disregard for each other was.
    
    
    
    

>    It did not occur to me how strong your disregard for each other was.

    And you thought it was juz' you.  :-(  (;^)

Naive.

nnttm.

In "Unam Sanctam", Pope Boniface VIII declared: "There is one holy Catholic 
    and apostolic church, outside of which there is NO SALVATION...it is 
    altogether NECESSARY FOR SALVATION for every creature to be subject to 
    the Roman Pontiff."  This was confirmed by Vatican Council I.  Vatican II 
    declared: "The Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the 
    return of ALL HUMANITY AND ALL ITS GOODS under [Rome]...this holy Council 
    teaches...that the church...is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION." (Vatican Council 
    II, Costello Publishing, Austin Flannery. O.P., General Editor, vol 1, pp 
    364-5).

Catholic apologist Karl Keating says, "accepting Jesus' has nothing to do with
turning a spiritually dead soul into a soul alive with sanctifying grace... we
are all redeemed - Christians, Jews, Moslems, animists...but our salvation is
conditional...you must work to earn your salvation."  What a particular Catholic
may believe is not the issue, but rather the official teaching of Roman
Catholicism.  That is found in The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
(1545-64) and Vatican II (1962-5).  Trent denied every Reformation doctrine
(Martin Luther), from Sola Scriptura to salvation by grace through faith alone.
It pronounced 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) upon anyone believing what
evangelicals believe and preach today.  "No one can know with the certainity of
faith...that he has obtained the grace of God [anathema to all who claim they
know]" (Trent, 6th Ses., Chap. IX).  "If anyone says that the sacraments of the
new law are not NECESSARY FOR SALVATION...but that without them...men obtain
from God through faith alone the grace of justification...LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"
(Trent, 7th Ses., Canon 4).  Vatican II far from making changes, reaffirmed
Trent: "This sacred council...proposes again the decrees of...the Council of
Trent" (Vol 1, p 412).  As for the "sacraments of the new law," which Trent said
were "necessary for salvation," Vatican II declared: "For it is the liturgy
through which, especially in the divine SACRIFICE of the Eucharist, the WORK OF
OUR REDEMPTION IS ACCOMPLISHED" (Vol 1, p 1).

Here are a few more quotes from Vatican II:  "Sins must be expiated...throught
the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life...otherwise...in the next life
through fire and torments...[because] our souls need to be purified...in
purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant
but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and
omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their
debt" (Vol 1, pp 63-4).

First of all, you will not find a single reference to Purgatory in the entire
Bible.

The Bible declares: "When he [Christ] had by himself PURGED our sins (Hebrews
1:3)...by his own blood he entered in ONCE in the holy place, HAVING OBTAINED
ETERNAL REDEMPTION for us (Hebrews 9:12)...without the shedding of blood is no
remission [of sin] (Hebrews 9:22 - suffering in purgatory won't do it!)...now
where remission of these is there is NO MORE OFFERING (SACRIFICE) for sin
(Hebrews 10:18)...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ ONCE FOR ALL (Hebrews 10:10)...for by ONE OFFERING he hath perfected FOR
EVER them that are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14).  Catholcism denies this Biblical
Gospel written by Paul!  Read Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  Not of works, lest
any man should boast."

    Re: Meg, Patricia, others
    
    It has zero to do with insecurity.  

>    It has zero to do with insecurity.  

    Alright, then what *does* it have to do with?

    Why must you slur someone as a puppet because someone *else* you
    know reads a certain publication faithfully?

    Why must you denounce any idea that doesn't agree with you?

    That, Mike, is the essence of insecurity.

    If you were comfortable in your faith you wouldn't feel
    you had to be nasty so frequently.

    Tom

    There's a major disconnect in here between the core membership group 
    and people like Jack, Jim, Jeff, and myself.  If the disconnect wasn't 
    there, I'd feel more open to explain with the hope you would understand.
    
    Mike

    Then for civility's sake, knock off the cheap shots, OK?

    Tom,
    
    We've been over this ground before.  Contrasting and denouncing ideas that
    conflict with the Scriptures is neither insecure nor nasty, but rather
    exposing truth from falsehood.  Even if you don't accept the Scriptures as
    truth, Mike does and it is a truth that leads to life through faith in
    Christ.
    
    Michael
    

    Tom, if what I've typed is perceived as "cheap shots," you're just as
    guilty.

.16

>    Wherever a Messianic prophecy is mentioned, the subject is nameless. 
>    Is Cyrus the only example where the title is used with a named subject?

I don't know.  But whether it is or isn't doesn't dilute my point.  Messiah
is pregnant with meaning beyond its denotation.

Richard

re .23

You just don't understand.  Everything in there is in the Bible.

Are the sacraments necessary?  The bible says so.  The bible demands
baptism; the bible demands reception of holy communion.  Both of these
can be received by faith rather than actually in case of necessity,
according to the Catholic Church.

If you keep listening to the liars instead of to the Church itself, you
will never understand the Truth.

/john

Let me ask you a simple question, Mike:

	If you do something wrong, i.e., you commit some sin,
	such as, for example, bearing false witness,

	and then you go to Jesus in faith, and say, I'm sorry,
	I shouldn't have done that,

	What do you think Jesus says?

Go ahead and give your answer, before you read the rest of this.

Here's what the bible and the Church teach:

	Jesus died so that you may live.

	You will live if you have faith.

	You have been saved by the one sacrifice on the Cross.

	You will not receive eternal punishment.

However, the Bible and the Church also teach:

	You will endure some temporal punishment for disobeying God.

Do you really not believe that God punishes those who do wrong?  God is
both merciful (so he still saves those who have faith), but God is also
just (so he still punishes those who, after choosing Christ first, after
being justified through grace by faith in Christ alone, still do wrong
things).

Nothing in the Bible should lead you to believe that you can simply say
"I have faith, God will not punish me if I do wrong."

/john

A reply from Eric Ewanco (eje@world.std.com)

As might be expected, Mike has done a good job of twisting words in what
he has written.  It is shameful that a person who claims to be a
Christian should do this.

Mike says:

> Catholic apologist Karl Keating says, "accepting Jesus' has nothing to
> do with turning a spiritually dead soul into a soul alive with
> sanctifying grace... we are all redeemed - Christians, Jews, Moslems,
> animists...but our salvation is conditional...you must work to earn your
> salvation."

A general note is to be alert when a person uses an overpreponderance of
ellipses with little context between them.

The text quoted is from a tract called "No Assurance of Salvation."  In
the first sentence, Keating is contrasting the fundamentalist view of
salvation to the Catholic view.  The Catholic view is the justification
turns a spiritual dead soul into a soul alive with sanctifying grace
(that is, grace which makes us holy -- that's what "sanctifying" means):
a person is transformed into the image of Christ and made a partaker of
the divine nature and a son of God by adoption (Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet
1:3-4).  "Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the
old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who
through Christ reconciled us to himself." (2 Cor 5:17-18) Mike's quote
gives the impression that Karl is saying the _opposite_ of what he is
really saying.  Here is the full quote:

    That, anyway, is how the Catholic Church looks at the matter. But for 
    fundamentalists it makes no difference at all how you live or end your 
    life. You can be Mother Teresa, yet you will go to hell if you do not 
    accept Christ in the fundamentalists' sense--and there have been more 
    than a few fundamentalist writers who have remarked that Mother Teresa is 
    doomed, her (to them false) faith and earthly good works notwithstanding. 
    On the other hand, you can sober up one Sunday morning, go to church, 
    heed the altar call, announce to the congregants that you accept Jesus as 
    your personal Lord and Savior, and, so long as you really believe it, 
    you're set. There is nothing you can do, no sin you can commit, no matter 
    how heinous, that will forfeit your salvation. You can't undo your 
    salvation, even if you wanted to.

    The reason is that "accepting Jesus" has nothing to do with turning a 
    spiritually dead soul into a soul alive with sanctifying grace. Your soul 
    remains the same. Whether you've led a good life or a clearly wicked one, 
    your soul is depraved, worthless, unable to stand on its own before God; 
    it is a bottomless pit of sin, and a few more sins thrown in won't change 
    its nature, just as taking a cleaning compound to it won't make it shine 
    in the least. For the fundamentalist, sanctifying grace is a figment of 
    Catholics' imaginations.

    Your accepting Christ accomplishes one thing and one thing only. It makes 
    Christ cover your sinfulness. It makes him turn a blind eye to it. It is 
    as though he hides your soul under a cloak. Any soul under this cloak is 
    admitted to heaven, no matter how putrescent the reality beneath; no one 
    without the cloak, no matter how pristine, can enter the pearly gates.

The contrast he is making is between Catholicism, which teaches that
through the free gift of God we are cleansed and purified of our sins
and made into new creatures, and fundamentalism, which teaches that our
sins are not purified but just cloaked and covered, but not really
removed.  Note that the text after Mike's first ellipsis hasn't even
been encountered yet.

On to the second out of context fragment.  First, I would urge readers
to look up the theological meaning of redemption.  Christ bought us once
for all: this was the redemption.  He has already redeemed all men by
his sacrifice (1 Tim 2:6).  It only remains for men to accept the
sacrifice of Christ.

Continuing the quote:

    Does this sound too good to be true? Take a look at what fundamentalists 
    say. Wilson Ewin, the author of a booklet called "There is Therefore Now 
    No Condemnation," says that "the person who places his faith in the Lord 
    Jesus Christ and his blood shed at Calvary is eternally secure. He can 
    never lose his salvation. No personal breaking of God's or man's laws or 
    commandments can nullify that status."

    Ewin cites Heb. 9:12, which states that "Nor by the blood of goats and 
    calves, but by his own blood he entered the most holy place once and for 
    all, having obtained eternal redemption." "To deny the assurance of 
    salvation would be to deny Christ's perfect redemption," argues Ewin. and 
    this is something he can say only because he confuses redemption and 
    salvation. The truth is that we are all redeemed--Christians, Jews, 
    Moslems, animists in the darkest forests--but our salvation is 
    conditional.

Yes, our salvation is conditional -- contingent upon us accepting Christ
by faith. 

The last ellipsis is so deceiving I cannot believe it.  Here Keating is
quoting the BIBLE.  

    Compare it to Phil. 2:12: "Beloved, you have always shown yourselves 
    obedient; and now that I am at a distance, not less but much more than 
    when I am present, you must work to earn your salvation, in anxious 
    fear." Other translations say "work out your own salvation in fear and 
    trembling." This is not the language of self-confident assurance.

    What's more, Paul tells us, "All of us have a scrutiny to undergo before 
    Christ's judgment-seat, for each to reap what his mortal life has earned, 
    good or ill, according to his deeds" (2 Cor: 5:10), and God "will award 
    to every man what his acts have deserved" (Rom. 2:6). But if the only act 
    of consequence is "being saved," what difference do the other acts make?

    These verses demonstrate that we indeed will be judged by what we do--and 
    not just by the one act of whether we accept Jesus as our personal Lord 
    and Savior. Yet it is not to be thought that being do-gooders is 
    sufficient. The Bible is quite clear that we are saved by faith. The 
    Reformers were quite right in saying this, and to this extent they merely 
    repeated the constant teaching of the Church. Where they erred was in 
    saying that we are saved by faith alone. (It was Luther, in a knowingly 
    wrong translation, who foisted in "alone," and he gave serious thought to 
    junking James, which he called "an epistle of straw," because it clearly 
    says faith alone is not sufficient.)

> It pronounced 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) upon anyone believing
> what evangelicals believe and preach today.

That is not what "anathema" means.  It refers to the condemnation of a
doctrine, and that those who steadfasting affirm such doctrines should
be separated from the church, just as Paul demanded.

> "No one can know with the certainity of faith...that he has obtained the
> grace of God [anathema to all who claim they know]" (Trent, 6th Ses.,
> Chap. IX). 

The ellipsis omit, "which cannot be subject to error".  Here the Council
is forbidding people to insist that they know with the same absolute
certainty that we know the truth of the Gospel that he himself is saved.
 This is Biblical because to declare yourself saved is called justifying
yourself, and that is a judgment which only God can make.  Such a
judgment would be arrogant and presumtuous, since it is only God who
justifies.  Our feelings and our intellect are fallen and we can not be
sure or certain about any truth apart from Christ.

> "If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not NECESSARY FOR
> SALVATION...but that without them...men obtain from God through faith
> alone the grace of justification...LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Trent, 7th
> Ses., Canon 4). 

One wonders again why Mike omitted such a small number of words which
change the meaning.  The first ellipsis omits "but are superfluous" and
the second, "or without the desire of them."  These are crucial to
correctly understanding this canon.  What is being condemned is the idea
that sacraments such as baptism and the Eucharist are totally
unnecessary, especially given that Jesus said, "He who believes and is
baptized will be saved," and "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has life in him, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6)

The second ellipsis is crucial because it upholds the principle that
sacraments are not absolutely necessary for salvation, but only
normatively necessary.  If someone cannot be baptized but desires to be
regenerated in Christ (that is the purpose of baptism), and dies before
having the opportunity to be baptized, he can still be saved. 
Sacraments are not magic formulas; they are not works which save, they
are sources of divine life, provided by God.

>  "For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine
> SACRIFICE of the Eucharist, the WORK OF OUR REDEMPTION IS ACCOMPLISHED"
> (Vol 1, p 1).

That is correct, because the Eucharist IS the once for all sacrifice of
Calvary made present to us in a mystical way.  It is not another
sacrifice, but the same sacrifice of Christ.  A Synod in Constantinople
(Jan. 1156-May 1157) said: "Today's sacrifice is like that offered once
by the Once-begotten Incarnate
Word; it is offered by him (now as then), since it is one and the same
sacrifice."  The Council of Trent: "In the sacrifice of the mass,
Christ's sacrifice on the cross is made present, its memory is
celebrated, and its saving power is applied."  An appropriate
non-authoritative source explains, "The Cross was not worth more than
the Mass, because the two are but one and the selfsame Sacrifice, time
and space being pushed aside by the hand of Omnipotence." (Legion of
Mary Handbook 1985 edition, p.135)

I cannot comment at length on the quote on expiation and purgatory, but
suffice it to say that purgatory has nothing to do with the eternal debt
of punishment which our sins deserve.  Mike does not indicate that
unlike Protestants, Catholics believe in two kinds of punishments for
sins: the eternal and the temporal.  Purgatory, and this expiation
mentioned in the document quoted, refers not to the eternal punishment
which Mike is referring to but to the temporal punishment of sins.  I
would offer as an example King David whose sin was forgiven, but who had
to suffer temporal punishments (the first of which was the death of his
son) for his sins afterwards.  The eternal punishment of sin is removed
simply by our repentance, but the temporal effects may require some
effort to remit.  This is the sense in which sin must be expiated
through sorrows, miseries, and trials.


# __   __                    Eric Ewanco 
# IC | XC                 eje@world.std.com
# ---+---           http://www.wp.com/Eric_Ewanco
# NI | KA                  Framingham, MA

    Hmm... And I was condemned as a coward for only answering part of
    someone's reply.
    
    Thanks, John.
    
    Tom

    Hi Patricia:
    
Z    I am poking at these issues because many of the conservative members of
Z    this file state that we cannot have community in here because not
Z    all of us share that basic assumption about the Bible.  Can you and
Z    Mike and Jack and Phil, all with radically different interpretations of
Z    scripture be in community with each other because you all believe
Z    that the Bible is innerrant and then not be in community with us who
Z    believe that the Bible is God Breathed but not necessarily innerrant?
    
    Understand that my dubious responses of the past were directed more at
    fellowship than they were at community.  I remember quite well your
    departure last year.  You seem to have concluded that after a lengthy
    time in this file, community was unfortunately something that cannot be
    obtained here.  
    
    Fellowship...Koinenia...Likemindedness.  See below.
    
    "Now we command you bretheren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
    that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly,
    and not after the teaching you received from us....and if any man obey
    not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company with
    him, that he may be ashamed.  Yet count him not as an enemy, but love
    and admonish him as a brother."  This is the context of 2nd
    Thessolonians 3.
    
    It is interesting to sidenote here that exclusion and love are
    coexistent here.  That sometimes love has to have a tough facade.  This
    passage is directed at a church and touches on individuals who are out
    of fellowship with the church.  Let it be understood that even amongst
    conservatives, pure fellowship cannot come about unless there is
    likemindedness.  This is why I have concluded recently that groups like
    the Promisekeepers, with all their honorable intentions and good work,
    will never as a whole unit have pure fellowship.  This is something
    only the local church can have with one another, but this does not
    preclude the ability to break bread together and learn from one
    another...not by any means.  
    
    So yes, in my opinion, and as Phil has mentioned, there is no
    fellowship here; however, there is an exchange of beliefs and
    ideas...something I see as quite valuable.  It was only natural that
    Phil would state that fellowship does not exist...understandable and
    with no malice whatsoever.   
    
    -Jack
    

re .35

	Jack,

	That was a good note. This can be a very sensitive subject,
	I remember reading a note in the Religion notes conference
	about a person who was upset because their relatives would 
        not participate in a religious ceremony at a wedding. But
	is it loving to force ones religion on another ?. Worship
	of God should come from ones heart, rather than being 
	cajoled into something you don't agree with.

	Yes, there is no malice.  I too have learnt valuable things
	because others were prepared to share their beliefs. 

	There can be a danger that one justifies ones own faith by
	belittling the faith of others, something I try not to slip
	into (compare Luke 18:10-14). Jack, you have been refreshing
	in this regard.

	Phil.

>	Jack,
>
>	That was a good note. This can be a very sensitive subject,

    Yes, I rather liked it too.

    Although I'm not sure I agree, at least as far as I'm concerned,
    that people of different faiths can't worship together, it's
    good to hear  your point of view and reasoning behind it.

    Thanks,
    Tom

    Z    Although I'm not sure I agree, at least as far as I'm concerned,
    Z    that people of different faiths can't worship together, it's
    Z    good to hear  your point of view and reasoning behind it.
    
    Thanks for the encouraging words.  You too Phil.  I believe it is
    possible for people to pray together but I don't believe it is always
    expedient.  Scripture teaches that whenever two or more are gathered in
    my name, there I am in their midst.  How can two who are together be in
    worship when one is praying to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
    another is praying to the goddess Diana and yet a third is praying to
    the goddess of mother earth?  This would of course negate fellowship
    for all parties.
    
    -Jack

|    On the other hand, you can sober up one Sunday morning, go to church, 
|    heed the altar call, announce to the congregants that you accept Jesus as 
|    your personal Lord and Savior, and, so long as you really believe it, 
|    you're set. There is nothing you can do, no sin you can commit, no matter 
|    how heinous, that will forfeit your salvation. You can't undo your 
|    salvation, even if you wanted to.
    
    What were you saying about misrepresentation?  Keating doesn't
    understand the Biblical model of salvation and God's grace either.
    
|    Compare it to Phil. 2:12: "Beloved, you have always shown yourselves 
|    obedient; and now that I am at a distance, not less but much more than 
|    when I am present, you must work to earn your salvation, in anxious 
|    fear." Other translations say "work out your own salvation in fear and 
|    trembling." This is not the language of self-confident assurance.
    
    "Work out," not "work for."
    
    The rest of Eric's reply confirms the Catholic errors.  Makes one
    wonder what John would do without him.
    
    Mike

>    Makes one wonder what John would do without him.

Was that last sentence necessary?

Answer the question in .32, Mike.

    "God chastens those whom he loves."  However, I believe this chastening
    comes about in this lifetime and not afterwards.
    
    -Jack

    Doesn't chasten mean purify?  Or is it closer to chastize?
    
    Richard
    

re .37

;    Although I'm not sure I agree, at least as far as I'm concerned,
;    that people of different faiths can't worship together, it's
;    good to hear  your point of view and reasoning behind it.

	Tom,

        From our point view, Jehovah's Witnesses, apart from God's
	command to give exclusive devotion there are real dangers
 	in sharing worship with other faiths. For what will happen 
	is one will be induced to serve these other gods.

	Take Germany and leading up to World War II for example. 
	Persons were required to "Sieg Heil" and follow the religious
	banners of the Nazi party. However, my brothers and sisters
	reasoned that to "Sieg Heil" was wrong, for it meant "salvation
	was in Hitler". To them salvation was only through their 
	fuhrer Jesus, hence they refused to participate in anyway in
	showing allegiance. For this reason they suffered bitter 
        persecution, even the women and children received many beatings. 
        Though many of them went to concentration camp, the majority kept 
	their integrity through it all.

	What about the rest of the German people, the majority of whom 
	had a religious faith, but felt it ok to share worship (whether
	they felt it was worship or not) and "Sieg Hiel". Were not the 
	majority of them induced to serve other gods? take the god of war, 
	was not much bloodshed on their hands?. If from the onset they 
	had refused to show reverence to Hitler and his party, would
	he have had enough support for the war effort?.

	An extreme example, but there are also further examples in the
	Bible were many of the Israelites failed to heed the command
	to show exclusive devotion and were led into immorality some
	even were induced to burn their children as a sacrifice to Molech
	(Numbers 25:1-3, Jeremiah 7:31).

	You may feel, well not all faiths are like that. Even so, many
	of the practices or their standards of different faiths are not 
	in line with the God we serve Jehovah. Some are stricter and
	oppressive and others loose if any standard at all, viewed
	immoral in God's eyes. Most important to us is fellowship with
	our God and as Jack pointed out it can be viewed as likemindedness.
	If we shared interfaith then it would effect our fellowship with
	our God and therefore we decline any invitations to do so. Persons
	have a personal choice to whom they will serve, we choose Jehovah.
	It is a pity, when persons take offense to us not sharing worship,
	but we would rather say no than lose our integrity.

	Hope this further helps you see a different viewpoint.

	Phil.

    Hi Phil,
    
    When I worship with others it is with the understanding that
    I am worshipping the *same* God.  There is no other, except
    in the minds of man.  The Goddess is just one aspect.  I may
    not agree with everything that goes on in a service but I
    can still be there with God.  No matter where I am, that's
    always an option.
    
    Obviously, mere objects and people like Hitler are not worthy
    of worship.  Those are the false gods and do you no good to
    worship.
    
>	If we shared interfaith then it would effect our fellowship with
>	our God and therefore we decline any invitations to do so. 

    Worship and devotion can be precarious.  If you find it more
    effective to worship only with those who think the way you do,
    if that's what it take to feel safe and intimate with God, it's
    worth doing.  If it connects you with God I can't argue with it.
    You may even enjoy a depth of communion that I have yet to
    encounter.
    
    It's just that I can feel comfortable at a pagan gathering,
    a yoga/Hindu gathering or in a Catholic or Protestant church
    or anywhere where the emphasis is on the love of God and know 
    that God is with me wherever I go.  I can express my love for
    God in any of those places.  I wish you could feel that freedom.
    
>       Persons
>	have a personal choice to whom they will serve, we choose Jehovah.
>	It is a pity, when persons take offense to us not sharing worship,
>	but we would rather say no than lose our integrity.

    I'm not offended.  As far as I can tell, you, as a group, don't
    do it through arrogance.  I think it is arrogance (in general) 
    that offends people most of all.
    
    Tom

    Z    I'm not offended.  As far as I can tell, you, as a group, don't
    Z    do it through arrogance.  I think it is arrogance (in general) 
    Z    that offends people most of all.
    
    Tom:
    
    What is more arrogant; a body of believers who recognize their need for
    a savior, a need to be redeemed, a need to recognize their
    sinfulness....or a body of believers who believe in many ways to the
    kingdom of God, who make the sacrifice at Calvary null and void?
    
    -Jack

>    What is more arrogant; a body of believers who recognize their need for
>    a savior, a need to be redeemed, a need to recognize their
>    sinfulness....or a body of believers who believe in many ways to the
>    kingdom of God, who make the sacrifice at Calvary null and void?

    Sigh.  You and your loaded questions.

>who make the sacrifice at Calvary null and void?

    Yeah.  Like I can singlehandedly do that.  Also, that does not
    necessarily follow from someone who believes there are many
    ways to God.  I don't want to go down that rathole right now.
    I just want to have a quiet conversation where understanding
    is the goal and not the conversion of the other.

    Neither groups, given only the information above, can be deemed
    arrogant.  Arrogance rises from one entity thinking itself somehow
    superior to another.  Such attitudes get in the way of community
    and communion.

    Are you trying to say something in an underhanded way?

    Tom

    Z    I'm not offended.  As far as I can tell, you, as a group, don't
    Z    do it through arrogance.  I think it is arrogance (in general) 
    Z    that offends people most of all.
    
    Your statement above leads me to conclude you believe somebody to be
    arrogant...otherwise you wouldn't have raised the issue in the first
    place.  As for my question, I believe it not to be underhanded and I
    believe it should cause people like yourself to consider the motives of
    others.  How can a begger or a destitute pauper...with nothing of
    him/herself to offer afford the right toward arrogancy?  You are
    correct...nobody.  
    
    For one to acknowledge many ways to redemption would imply that one who
    is destitute and impoverished can give something of themselves to earn
    such merit.  I would find such a person incredulous in light of a holy
    God.
    
    -Jack

    I was responding to:

>        It is a pity, when persons take offense to us not sharing worship,
>        but we would rather say no than lose our integrity.

    and I said that what many people find offensive is arrogance and that
    I couldn't see arrogance in what Phil was saying.

>    Your statement above leads me to conclude you believe somebody to be
>    arrogant...otherwise you wouldn't have raised the issue in the first

    Someone arrogant?  In this world?  Perish the thought!

>    For one to acknowledge many ways to redemption would imply that one who
>    is destitute and impoverished can give something of themselves to earn
>    such merit.  I would find such a person incredulous in light of a holy
>    God.

    That's nice.

    Tom

     For one to acknowledge many ways to redemption would imply that one
    who
    >    is destitute and impoverished can give something of themselves to
    earn
    >    such merit.  I would find such a person incredulous in light of a
    holy
    >    God.
    
ZZZ        That's nice.
    
    Well, it may or may not be nice.  The important question is does it
    hold any merit with you.  
    
    In other words, we are up the proberbial creek.  The question is do we
    have a paddle.
    
    -Jack

>    For one to acknowledge many ways to redemption would imply that one who
>    is destitute and impoverished can give something of themselves to earn
>    such merit.

    Without already holding a certain set of beliefs this last statement
    is meaningless.  I know what you're trying to imply and I disagree.

>    I would find such a person incredulous in light of a
>    holy God.

    I guess you would.

ZZZ        That's nice.

    Some days I just don't feel like joining in inane arguments.

>    In other words, we are up the proberbial creek.  The question is do we
>    have a paddle.

    The first thing an insurance salesman needs to do is to convince
    you that you are at risk.  In order to sell insurance this risk
    is frequently overstated.

    For someone selling directions, the incentive is also to overstate
    the perils of not being on the path that he prescribes.
    
    You may be up a proberbial or even a proverbial creek.  That's
    your problem.  Don't try to suck me into your insecurities.
    
    Tom

    It's not insecurities Tom.  It is apparently unclear to you that you
    have absolutely nothing to offer God in order to redeem yourself.  No
    biggie, this is the case with all of humanity.  But I would be
    interested in what you do have to offer of yourself ...or is it that
    you believe redemption is not necessary.  Jesus believed otherwise.
    
    -Jack

    A reasonable question.

    It's best to use the paradigm(?) of parents.  Parents raise you
    up and teach you the best they can for some 15-20 years on
    average.  Maturity takes longer, much longer than that.

    After a certain point you/we have exhausted whatever wisdom
    and life teaching that our parents can give us and yet we
    are still immature/not wise.  I believe this is God's plan.

    At this point in life many go on a spiritual pilgrimage, to
    find their next/spiritual parent.  Although this doesn't happen
    to everyone, it happens frequently enough to detect a tendency.
    I believe this is God's plan.

    The religion of Jesus makes a good spiritual parent.  It teaches
    love God, love one another, love one's enemies, join in communion.
    This is what I'm trying to learn/be taught now.
    
    God wants me to be in communion with Him/Her.
    
    What can I offer God?  What can a child offer a parent?  Not much.
    What does a parent want for a child?  For it to grow strong, become
    loving and wise.  Ultimately, a child can become a good friend to
    the parent.  You might call this "joining the Father in heaven".
    But I don't think S/He wants any brats running around up there
    who don't know how to behave.
    
    I cannot raise myself any more than a child can raise him/herself.
    I need guidence and firm correction when necessary.  I feel I'm
    getting plenty of both, although sometimes I get *too* much 
    correction :-)
    
    God is here and active in my life.  Like a child I sometimes resent
    it, but it's definately for my own good.
    
    You don't have to agree.  It works for me.
    
    Tom

     Z   At this point in life many go on a spiritual pilgrimage, to
     Z   find their next/spiritual parent.  Although this doesn't happen
     Z   to everyone, it happens frequently enough to detect a tendency.
     Z   I believe this is God's plan.
    
    This presupposes that as we get older, God is molding our spiritual
    walk and we move forward from day one.
    
    I believe this is the significance of being "born again".  Our first
    birth is not the starting gate to spiritual maturity.  Our first birth
    is simply a gateway into our existence.  Unfortunately, we are
    spiritually dead from day one and remain in this state unto the day we
    are redeemed...or the day we die.  Hopefully the latter.  It is after
    redemption that we begin the spiritual pilgrimage.  Until that point,
    we haven't even left the starting gate.  
    
    And while we are waiting at the starting gate, we are a car without a
    motor.  Absolutely no power or ability to begin.
    
    -Jack

>    This presupposes that as we get older, God is molding our spiritual
>    walk and we move forward from day one.

    That's what I believe.  He sometimes even pushes us to see our personal
    need for rebirth or other spiritual commitments.
    
>    I believe this is the significance of being "born again".  Our first
>    birth is not the starting gate to spiritual maturity.  Our first birth

    Perhaps I got zapped so early (I think my first "experience" was at 17)
    and so much has happened since that I can't tell when my journey
    began.  I'll have to ponder this one some more.

>    Unfortunately, we are
>    spiritually dead from day one and remain in this state unto the day we
>    are redeemed...or the day we die.  Hopefully the latter.  

    I *hope* you mean "former".  :-)

>    It is after redemption that we begin the spiritual pilgrimage.

    I think we agree that it's just the begining.  In the mean time
    it's also a good idea to get much of your life in order.  This
    time needn't be wasted.

    We differ, however, in that I believe that one who is not
    "reborn" is not forever damned if death meet him/her first.

    Once you get "zapped" the heat can rise really quickly.
    
    In Hindu/yogic terms this getting "zapped" is called "Shaktipat"
    I believe.

>    And while we are waiting at the starting gate, we are a car without a
>    motor.  Absolutely no power or ability to begin.

    Speaking as one who's been "jolted" or even "jump started" if
    you will, things didn't heat up until that time.

    But, boy, when you commit, God "don't never let go".  And it's not
    always gentle.  At least that's my experience.

    Tom

Answer the question in .32, Mike.

Z    Do you really not believe that God punishes those who do wrong?  God is
Z    both merciful (so he still saves those who have faith), but God is also
Z    just (so he still punishes those who, after choosing Christ first,
Z    after
Z    being justified through grace by faith in Christ alone, still do wrong
Z    things).
    
Z    Nothing in the Bible should lead you to believe that you can simply say
Z    "I have faith, God will not punish me if I do wrong."
    
    I would like to address this if I may...I'm not Mike so I hope nobody
    minds.
    
    I have found from my own personal experience that God seems to have
    dealt with previous sins in different manners.  There have been times,
    like the case of King David for example, where sin was dealt with
    quickly and decisively.  I am reminded of that wonderful Psalm
    passage...
    
    "If his children forsake my law and walk not in my judgements; if they
    break my statutes and keep not my commandments; then I will visit their
    transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes. 
    Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not take from them, nor suffer my
    failfulness to fail..." Psalm 89
    
    There is no question that our sin will surely find us out.  However, I
    again believe from personal experience that God's mercy is greater in
    some instances than in other instances.  Sometimes we are given a harsh
    wakeup call while at other times we recieve a small reminder which
    seems to be adequate.
    
    In the very heart of Israel's apostacy, God eventually wiped out all
    but a remnant.  Yet God continually brought prophets before
    them...pleading for repentence.
    
    -Jack

    What's most interesting is that the prophecy in Isaiah 45:1 was written
    175 years before Cyrus was born.  History records that when Cyrus
    invaded Jerusalem to conquer it, he was shown this passage.  He was so
    overwhelmed that God mentioned him by name that he spared the city and
    allowed them to rebuild the Temple just as prophecied.
    
    Mike

>1 John 1:7-10

That's not an answer to the specific question:

	"Although he forgives us, does he not still punish us?"

Specifically, is the method of "cleansing from unrighteousness" not the
endurance of some form of punishment?  "Purified as by a refiner's fire."

/john

|Specifically, is the method of "cleansing from unrighteousness" not the
|endurance of some form of punishment?  
    
    Not always.  When Jesus Christ saves you He cleanses you from
    unrighteousness and that isn't a punishment.
    
    |"Purified as by a refiner's fire."
    
    You're confusing this with the process of sanctification.
    
    Mike

 ZZ    "Although he forgives us, does he not still punish us?"
    
    Jesus actually said in the gospels, "I will have mercy upon whom I will
    have mercy, and I will have compassion upon whom I will have
    compassion."  Not sure where it is but what this tells me is that Gods
    refining of people is not always in a consistent manner.  
    
    -Jack

 God has forgiven me for sin in my life.  However, the consequences of 
 such sin remain.  




 Jim

    Jim,
    
    That's a good answer.
    
    patricia

.58

>    What's most interesting is that the prophecy in Isaiah 45:1 was written
>    175 years before Cyrus was born.  History records that when Cyrus
>    invaded Jerusalem to conquer it, he was shown this passage.  He was so
>    overwhelmed that God mentioned him by name that he spared the city and
>    allowed them to rebuild the Temple just as prophecied.

It's true that parts of Isaiah are pre-exilic and parts are post-exilic, but
this can be explained in ways other than what you've provided above.  What
historical record are you citing?

Richard

    Just musing here but Isaiah was a contemporary with Daniel, and Daniel
    prophesied the rule of Cyrus in the somewhat distant future...is this
    not correct?
    
    -Jack

> God has forgiven me for sin in my life.  However, the consequences of 
> such sin remain.  

Exactly.

    For example, if someone robbed a bank and was caught and
    sentenced.  In prison the person finds Jesus.  He is forgiven,
    but he still has to serve out his sentence.

    If a woman drinks while pregnant and has a deformed child
    as a result.  She can repent and stop drinking, but she
    still has to live with the results of her past transgressions.

    I don't think anyone said anything about pergatory...  Unless,
    of course, pergatory is lived out in this life...

    Tom

re Note 1261.68 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

>     For example, if someone robbed a bank and was caught and
>     sentenced.  In prison the person finds Jesus.  He is forgiven,
>     but he still has to serve out his sentence.
> 
>     If a woman drinks while pregnant and has a deformed child
>     as a result.  She can repent and stop drinking, but she
>     still has to live with the results of her past transgressions.
  
        Tom,

        These two kinds of consequences are very, very different --
        at least insofar as society's handling of them.

        In the former case, it is a human institution that insists on
        the convict serving out his sentence, even though the human
        institution is *easily* capable of setting him free.

        In the latter case, if it were at all within the power of
        human medicine to cure the child, human society (at least in
        affluent countries) would devote great energy to reverse the
        results of the mother's past transgressions.

        Obviously society, including most Christians, will try to
        reverse the results of *some* transgressions and will oppose
        (on principle) reversing the results of other transgressions.

        Why?

        Bob

         Z   Obviously society, including most Christians, will try to
         Z   reverse the results of *some* transgressions and will oppose
         Z   (on principle) reversing the results of other transgressions.
    
    Because the one that is now being reversed is an affront by the person
    upon themself or upon a loved one.  The other affront is toward the
    community at large and the penal system is designed to quell our
    propensity to harm society as a whole.  Our law is actually a Bill of
    Rights for society.
    
    -Jack

|    Just musing here but Isaiah was a contemporary with Daniel, and Daniel
|    prophesied the rule of Cyrus in the somewhat distant future...is this
|    not correct?
    
    Jack, Isaiah was before Daniel.  Daniel was born about 75 years after
    Manasseh had Isaiah sawed in half.
    
    Mike

  Z    Jack, Isaiah was before Daniel.  Daniel was born about 75 years after
  Z      Manasseh had Isaiah sawed in half.
    
    Ahh..then I'm thinking of Jeremiah and Ezekiel...since Ezekiel actually
    ministered to the Jewish spiritual leaders who were in fact exiled and
    Jeremiah prophesied to the Israelites in Jerusalem during the seige. 
    Is this correct?
    
    -Jack

|It's true that parts of Isaiah are pre-exilic and parts are post-exilic, but
|this can be explained in ways other than what you've provided above.  What
|historical record are you citing?

Richard, Zondervan's Encyclopedia of the Bible (vol. 1, p. 1055) states
    that Daniel personally showed King Cyrus the scroll of Isaiah, and of
    Jeremiah's prophecy on the return of Israel into the land.  Josephus
    wrote that "when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, an
    earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so
    written" (Antiquities XI, i, 2).  
    
    If you wish, I can post the bibliography from the encyclopedia's
    entry on Cyrus.  This is just further proof that there was only 1
    Isaiah.
    
    Mike

|    Ahh..then I'm thinking of Jeremiah and Ezekiel...since Ezekiel actually
|    ministered to the Jewish spiritual leaders who were in fact exiled and
|    Jeremiah prophesied to the Israelites in Jerusalem during the seige. 
|    Is this correct?
    
    Yes, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and even Daniel were contemporaries for a time. 
    Jeremiah and Ezekiel were both from families of the High Priest.
    
    Mike

.66

>    Just musing here but Isaiah was a contemporary with Daniel, and Daniel
>    prophesied the rule of Cyrus in the somewhat distant future...is this
>    not correct?

Daniel is thought by scholars to have been written during the tyrannical
regime of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, as I recall (without looking it up).

Richard

|Daniel is thought by scholars to have been written during the tyrannical
|regime of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, as I recall (without looking it up).

    Only "scholars" who don't believe in prophecy.  Daniel actually lived
    long before then.  Simple logic says he couldn't have written the book
    during Antiochus Epiphanes IV (~160 B.C.) because the Septuagint contains 
    his book and was done in 300 B.C.  Daniel lived 605-536 B.C.
    
    Mike

.76

>    Only "scholars" who don't believe in prophecy.

Prophesy, of course, means something other than the prediction of future things.

>    Daniel actually lived long before then.

This may be true.  From admittedly imperfect memory, the accounts in Daniel
depict a period much earlier than that in which it was written.

>    Simple logic says he couldn't have written the book
>    during Antiochus Epiphanes IV (~160 B.C.) because the Septuagint contains 
>    his book and was done in 300 B.C.  Daniel lived 605-536 B.C.

I should have probably looked it up before making the remark, but I did
indicate it was off the top of my head.

Bob Messenger:  What sayeth Asimov on the dating of Daniel?

Richard

    |Bob Messenger:  What sayeth Asimov on the dating of Daniel?
    
    Isn't this the science fiction writer?  Is the Bible a hobby of his
    too?

>    |Bob Messenger:  What sayeth Asimov on the dating of Daniel?
>    
>    Isn't this the science fiction writer?  Is the Bible a hobby of his
>    too?

    Some people know a lot about a little.  Others know a little
    about a lot.  Mr. Asimov knew a lot about a lot.

    I believe he published a book(s?) on biblical stuff.

    Tom

Isaac Asimov wrote a book called "Asimov's Guide to the Bible", of which I
have the first volume, on the Old Testament.  From the introduction:

	  I cannot pretend that in writing this book I am making any
	significant *original* contribution to Biblical scholarship;
	indeed, I am not competent to do so.  All that I will have to say
	will consist of material well known to students of ancient
	history.  (There will, however, be a few places where I will
	indulge in personal speculation, and label it as such.)

Here is what Asimov says about the dating of Daniel:

	  In the various Christian versions of the Bible, Daniel is found
	after Ezekiel as a fourth major prophet.  Since the events related
	in the book supposedly take place during the Babylonian Exile, in
	the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, it comes, in
	chronological fitness, after the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
	Ezekiel.

	  In the Jewish canon, however, Daniel is not to be found among
	the prophets at all, but among the Writings.  From this, it might
	be presumed that at the time that Daniel was written the
	collection of prophetic books had reached their final form and
	been closed.  Since at least one of the prophetic books (Jonah)
	had been written as late as 300 B.C., it would seem to follow that
	Daniel was written after 300 B.C. and could not have been written
	by the individual who gave the book its name and who is the hero
	of its tales.

	  In fact, the Book of Daniel is probably among the last written
	of the Jewish canon and may date from as late as 165 B.C.  A few
	decades later, and it might not have been allowed into the canon
	at all, but would have had to remain in the Apocrypha (where some
	might argue it really belongs anyway.)

	  The evidenceo of late authorship is manifold.  Parts of the book
	are written in Aramaic, which seems to place it in a time when
	Aramaic had become so much the common speech of the people that
	Hebrew was understood only by the educated.  Other subtle facets
	of the language used bespeak the Greek period rather than the time
	of the Exile.

	  Where Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel make no anachronistic
	mistakes concerning the times supposed to be theirs, the Book of
	Daniel is replete with anachronisms as far as it deals with the
	Exile.  It treats, however, of the Greek period with easy
	correctness and while this might be explained by those dedicated
	to the literal acceptance of the Bible as a case of prophetic
	insight, it is odd that Daniel should be so correct in his view of
	what to him was the "future" and so hazy about his view of what
	was to him the "present".  It is easier to believe that the writer
	was a man of Greek times, to whom the Exile was an event that had
	taken place four centuries earlier and concerning the fine details
	of which he was a bit uncertain.

	  There is nothing we can say about the Daniel on whom the book of
	that name is based except that he must have been a folk hero known
	for his wisdom and arcane knowledge.  Ezekiel mentions him three
	times, in a way which seems to make him an ancient worthy.

				-- Bob

    The Septuagint proves Asimov wrong too.  At least he provides for such
    mistakes in his opening disclaimer.  In addition, Ezekiel couldn't
    refer to Daniel 3 times as a contemporary if he lived in 160 B.C.
    
    What amazes me is the lengths that people go to so that they may reject
    the power of God in prophecy.  The Bible is the only book of faith that
    not only contains prophecy, but has a 100% fulfillment record.  The
    Koran, Veda, and other religious books don't contain prophecy. 
    Revelation 19 tells us that the testimony of Jesus Christ is prophecy!
    
    Mike

.80

>	Daniel was written after 300 B.C. and could not have been written
>	by the individual who gave the book its name and who is the hero
>	of its tales.

>	  In fact, the Book of Daniel is probably among the last written
>	of the Jewish canon and may date from as late as 165 B.C.

Thank you very kindly, Bob Messenger.

I did a little investigation and my source (published by the United
Methodist Church) says essentially the same, suggesting the book of
Daniel was written very close to the era of Antiochus IV, acknowledging
parts of the book may be much older.

I've no desire to play 'dueling sources' and I don't expect to change
anybody's mind.

Richard

    Why do all these supposedly learned people ignore the dating of the
    Septuagint?  It is such a simple fact.  The *ENTIRE* Old Testament was
    translated into Greek by 300 B.C.
    
    Mike

.83

>    Why do all these supposedly learned people ignore the dating of the
>    Septuagint?  It is such a simple fact.  The *ENTIRE* Old Testament was
>    translated into Greek by 300 B.C.

If you learned the answer, would it change anything?

Richard

    Many of the origins of books didn't come from the star individual.
    
    Esther, Job, Samuel...many are attributed to writers but nobody knows
    100% on some of them.
    
    -Jack

    Mike,
    
    what amazes me is the length that you go to in distorting the Bible to
    make it fit into the box you have constructed for it.
    
    We lose a good deal of Biblical insight by refusing to understand and
    read the Bible in its true historic context.
    
    Tonight I will look up the Book of Daniel in both my study Bible, and
    in my Old Testament Textbook.  My guess is that it will reflect the
    same scholarly understanding that Asinov is quoting.
    
    
    
                                      

Re: .83 Mike

>    Why do all these supposedly learned people ignore the dating of the
>    Septuagint?  It is such a simple fact.  The *ENTIRE* Old Testament was
>    translated into Greek by 300 B.C.
    
Apparently the liberal view is that the entire Old Testament wasn't
translated by 300 B.C.  The translation started with the Pentateuch and
continued over a period of years.

From "Asimov's Guide to the Bible", volume one, page 426:

	  In later years, however, perhaps about 100 B.C., a prayer was
	written by an unnamed poet, a prayer designed for the use of
	sinners who craved mercy.  It was a short prayer, only fifteen
	verses long, but was so beautiful that it became easy to believe
	that it was indeed the prayer that had been uttered by Manasseh in
	his Assyrian dungeon.  It therefore came to be included in some
	versions of the Bible as that prayer.

	  In particular, it was included in the Greek translation of the
	Bible that circulated among the Greek-speaking Jews of the city of
	Alexandria, in Egypt.

	  This translation is called the Septuagint, for the Latin word
	for "seventy". According to legend, Ptolemy II, king of Egypt, was
	on good terms with his subjects, the Alexandrian Jews, and agreed
	to help them prepare a translation of their holy books.  He
	brought in seventy-two scholars (altered by later legends to an
	even seventy) from Jerusalem at his own expense and had them
	translate the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) into
	Greek.  It was the first translation of any of the Biblical books
	into a foreign language.  Over the next two centuries, additional
	books were translated and these eventually included the supposed
	prayer of Manasseh (which may, to be sure, have been written in
	Greek to begin with).

He goes on to say that a Jewish council in Jamnia, in 90 A.D., met to
decide which books to include in the Jewish Bible.

	In general, though, they did not accept those books, however
	edifying, that were written after about 150 B.C.  They were too
	clearly the work of men rather than of God.  One of the books
	*not* accepted by the Jewish scholars was the prayer of Manasseh.
	  Some of the eliminated books nevertheless remained in the
	Septuagint.  Christian scholars made use of the Septuagint, and
	when Latin translations were made, the books eliminated by the
	Jewish scholars were translated and kept.  Some are still to be
	found in English-language Bibles used by Catholics today.

				-- Bob

  Z   what amazes me is the length that you go to in distorting the Bible to
  Z      make it fit into the box you have constructed for it.
    
    Not sure I understand.  I thought this was an exercise in logistical
    issues.  It is certain that many of the books were not written during
    the exact times of the occurances...or by the individuals portrayed in
    the books.  Secondly Patricia, your statement above indicts you since
    you immediately assume guilt, and then you say you will look it up
    tonight.  I mean, come on Patricia...am I as a reader to assume you
    don't have biases either...or an agenda?  
    
    Patricia, free advice.  Keep an open mind if you really seek truth. 
    You have exposed yourself here.
    
    -Jack

>    tonight.  I mean, come on Patricia...am I as a reader to assume you
>    don't have biases either...or an agenda?  

    Good Heavens!  Someone in this file has an agenda?!?  Perish
    the thought!  ;^)
    
>    Patricia, free advice.  Keep an open mind if you really seek truth. 
>    You have exposed yourself here.

    Advice *not* just for Paticia.  We should follow it too, Jack.

    Tom

  Z   what amazes me is the length that you go to in distorting the Bible to
  Z      make it fit into the box you have constructed for it.
    
    Not sure I understand.  I thought this was an exercise in logistical
    issues.  It is certain that many of the books were not written during
    the exact times of the occurances...or by the individuals portrayed in
    the books.  Secondly Patricia, your statement above indicts you since
    you immediately assume guilt, and then you say you will look it up
    tonight.  I mean, come on Patricia...am I as a reader to assume you
    don't have biases either...or an agenda?  
    
    Patricia, free advice.  Keep an open mind if you really seek truth. 
    You have exposed yourself here.
    
    -Jack
    
    Jack,
    
    My statement comes after reading Bob Messenger's quote of Assinov, my
    knowledge of Asinov and his work, and Mike's instances that there is
    only one Isaiah, I which I know that there are at least three Isaiah's
    writing the book attributed to Isaiah.
    
    I have studied the Old Testament and I do know that there are issues
    with the Book of Daniel although I am vague on what those issues are.
    
    I am in search of truth.  I am open minded.  But I am not going to go
    back and revisit issues with conclusive evidence everytime a
    fundementalist insists on a dating or conclusion based on the literal
    contents of the writing.
    
    I prefer to start with and openly acknowledge the basic assumption of
    what the Bible is impacts every aspect of our Biblical study.  We have
    gone thru this same argument before where I have presented information
    from three different sources and people still discard all three
    sources.  I do know how to find reliable sources and I do know which
    sources have a reputation for reliability.
    
    It is not as if this is the first time we are having this discussion!
    
                                          Patricia

    Oh I understand that.  However...
    
 Z   I am in search of truth.  I am open minded.  But I am not going to go
 Z   back and revisit issues with conclusive evidence everytime a
 Z   fundementalist insists on a dating or conclusion based on the
 Z   literal contents of the writing.
    
    Asimov made it understood up front he was not a biblical scholar and
    should not be seen as such.  What about your other sources?  I find
    Ryrie, Whitcliffe, and others to be solid, quality sources of
    information.
    
    -Jack

    Asimov is just plain wrong.  The LXX was commissioned and translated
    from Hebrew to Greek during Ptolemy II Philadelphus' reign from 284-247
    B.C.  The Hebrew text that was translated to Greek included the entire
    Old Testament.  You won't find a reputable Bible scholar who says
    otherwise.
    
    Mike

    It's true Asimov is not a biblical scholar.  He merely researched
    every disreputable scholar he could locate and put their weird
    conclusions into a very readable form.
    
    Richard
    

Re: .92

>    Asimov is just plain wrong.  The LXX was commissioned and translated
>    from Hebrew to Greek during Ptolemy II Philadelphus' reign from 284-247
>    B.C.  The Hebrew text that was translated to Greek included the entire
>    Old Testament.

And you were there, I suppose.  Right, Mike? :-)

Seriously, I assume Asimov was basing his statements on research by
(liberal) scholars, but since his book was directed at the general public
and made no pretence of being authoritative, he didn't provide references.

				-- Bob

    Bob, I wasn't there, but know someone who was ;-)