"Ask the Pastor" radio show with Gregory Dickow

[MrPolo]

Anyone listen to this show "Ask the Pastor" with Gregory Dickow? I'm listening to him right now and I had a couple questions, spurned by the following:

When a caller asked him how the books of the Canon of Scripture were formed, he basically said he was not very familiar with that, but there were a bunch of "tests" that each letter went through and if it failed any of the "tests" the book was rejected.

So my first question is: What level of authority should we place on Pastor Dickow's answers to any given question?

And the second question is: Isn't it important for someone whose entire faith is drawn from the Bible alone to know how it was assembled?

 

[MrPolo]

Ugh...now he just told a caller that Jesus "absolutely" had brothers...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Anyone listen to this show "Ask the Pastor" with Gregory Dickow? I'm listening to him right now and I had a couple questions, spurned by the following:

When a caller asked him how the books of the Canon of Scripture were formed, he basically said he was not very familiar with that, but there were a bunch of "tests" that each letter went through and if it failed any of the "tests" the book was rejected.

So my first question is: What level of authority should we place on Pastor Dickow's answers to any given question?

And the second question is: Isn't it important for someone whose entire faith is drawn from the Bible alone to know how it was assembled?

First answer: That depends on where his authority comes from I suppose.

Second answer: I do not believe that is as important as reading the Bible it self. There is plenty of time later to get into the history of the Bible.

That is of course my most humble view. [not open for debate! ]

 

[RND]

Ugh...now he just told a caller that Jesus "absolutely" had brothers...

Ugh, Jesus had brothers.

 

[katholikos]

So my first question is: What level of authority should we place on Pastor Dickow's answers to any given question?

None.

Now HERE is a radio show to give credence to: LINK

 

[katholikos]

Ugh, Jesus had brothers.

click here

 

[Cross Reference]

Ugh...now he just told a caller that Jesus "absolutely" had brothers...

He did. The were half brothers born of Mary and Joseph. Do you believe they could have had an 'unconsumated' marriage and still function as married couple?

 

[katholikos]

He did. The were half brothers born of Mary and Joseph.....

click here

.......Do you believe they could have had an 'unconsumated' marriage and still function as married couple?

It happened all the time. You are super-imposing American culture onto theirs, and that does not work. Just because you don't see that in our society does not mean it didn't happen in theirs.

 

[Cross Reference]

click here

The argument arises not because of wrangling over the meaning of brother and sister but of the fact that Mary, having more children after the fact of Jesus, would have diminished her status in the eyes of the CC who promote her as 'mother of God' and all else she is venerated for. Mary being born in sin, as everyone else on Earth, is a 'horse pill' to swallow for any Catholic.

 

[katholikos]

Your opinion is based on false beliefs, so its no wonder that you think as you do.

 

[Cross Reference]

Your opinion is based on false beliefs, so its no wonder that you think as you do.

Really?? Then, by all means, set me straight. You will, of course, use only the scriptures to support your reason to accuse me, otherwise, I am not interested?

 

[katholikos]

Really?? Then, by all means, set me straight. You will, of course, use only the scriptures to support your reason to accuse me, otherwise, I am not interested?

Again your parameters are based on a false teaching: Sola Scriptura. I won't use false doctrine as the guidlines for my argument.

You don't understand the purpose of the New Testament. It is not a work of systematic theology which lays out all Christian beliefs. The Gospels give the basic message that the savior has come. Most of the epistles are directed to particular communities to address particular issues. It was never meant to be the be-all end-all of Christian beliefs. In fact, the reason it was even canonized in the first place was just so that people would not be reading from un-inspired books when they gathered, as was common in the first couple of centuries.

And THAT is another reason why Sola Scriptura is so flawed. You are using the Bible for something it was never meant to be used for: A total, all-encompassing source of all Christian beliefs. It is not.

 

[PaladinValer]

I have never known of individual books of the Bible having to pass "tests." Certainly the Fathers had their own personal opinions on the matter and shared their reasons for them, but I do not believe the Church, upon the Bible's canonization, local and universal, offered much in "why" other than the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, based on how some people view the Canon, I cannot believe the Church ever had some ancient concept of a "line-item veto" that cut up books into smaller portions. Of course, I mean Daniel and Esther here, but also the Psalms too (151) and my groggy head is perhaps forgetting some other examples too.

When bad history meets sola scripture...nay, meets Scripture at all, nothing good can come of it. And that is absolutely true.

As for Jesus having brothers, the Bible never says that St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin ever did marry; it merely says they were betrothed. That is why St. Joseph is given the title of "the Betrothed." Always has, if I recall right. Jesus' brothers, at best, would be, by law, half-brothers, being St. Joseph's brood. At the least, the Greek allows for cousins, and I'm sure tight ones at that.

 

[Cross Reference]

Again your parameters are based on a false teaching: Sola Scriptura. I won't use false doctrine as the guidlines for my argument.

You don't understand the purpose of the New Testament. It is not a work of systematic theology which lays out all Christian beliefs. The Gospels give the basic message that the savior has come. Most of the epistles are directed to particular communities to address particular issues. It was never meant to be the be-all end-all of Christian beliefs. In fact, the reason it was even canonized in the first place was just so that people would not be reading from un-inspired books when they gathered, as was common in the first couple of centuries.

And THAT is another reason why Sola Scriptura is so flawed. You are using the Bible for something it was never meant to be used for: A total, all-encompassing source of all Christian beliefs. It is not.

That IS false teaching. Again, back it up with only scripture or simply admit you don't believe in the scriptures to be God's inspired word, given to instruct HIS people. The scriptures say this: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV). And you disagree with that?

Do that and we will all know, in writing, where you stand in any "spiritual" argument, that you don't believe the scriptures as written, but rather some man thought out 'institutionalized word', responsible for the slaughter of millions.

Again, Paul says this to Timothy: "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us." 2 Timothy 1:13-14 (KJV)

 

[polishbeast]

The argument arises not because of wrangling over the meaning of brother and sister but of the fact that Mary, having more children after the fact of Jesus, would have diminished her status in the eyes of the CC who promote her as 'mother of God' and all else she is venerated for.

Jesus wasnt God?

 

[katholikos]

That IS false teaching......

The majority of Christiandom disagrees with you. Let me clue you in on something:

The total number of Christians in the world is: 2.1 billion. This is how it breaks down:

1) Catholics: 1.3 billion
2) Eastern Orthodox: 0.4 billion
3) Protestansts (Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc. etc): 0.4 billion

In light of these statistics, how can you, from a group that represents less than 20% of Christians, say what Christians should believe? And, more than that, among yourselves you argue endlessly because your small branch of protestantism is divided into hundreds of "denominations" who all disagree on doctrines. Yet you claim that your teachings are based on the Scriptures. The arrogance is stupifying, as is the groundlessness of your claim.

Your position is no more than 500 years old, and is in the extreme minority. My position represents ancient Christianity.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV). And you disagree with that?

No, I do not disagree with it. It IS "priofitable". BUT: Nowhere in there does it say that scriputure is the be-all end-all of Christian beliefs or a total, all-encompassing source of all Christian beliefs. It is not. You are reading into the texts your own personal bias, not what the text actually says

 

[MamaZ]

If one does not know how the bible was compiled does that negate what is written within the pages of scripture?

 

[Cross Reference]

The majority of Christiandom disagrees with you. Let me clue you in on something:

The total number of Christians in the world is: 2.1 billion. This is how it breaks down:

1) Catholics: 1.3 billion
2) Eastern Orthodox: 0.4 billion
3) Protestansts (Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc. etc): 0.4 billion

In light of these statistics, how can you, from a group that represents less than 20% of Christians, say what Christians should believe? And, more than that, among yourselves you argue endlessly because your small branch of protestantism is divided into hundreds of "denominations" who all disagree on doctrines. Yet you claim that your teachings are based on the Scriptures. The arrogance is stupifying, as is the groundlessness of your claim.

Your position is no more than 500 years old, and is in the extreme minority. My position represents ancient Christianity.



No, I do not disagree with it. It IS "priofitable". BUT: Nowhere in there does it say that scriputure is the be-all end-all of Christian beliefs or a total, all-encompassing source of all Christian beliefs. It is not. You are reading into the texts your own personal bias, not what the text actually says

Your human reasoning blinds you to the facts. We have no basis from which to continue this discussion.

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:14 (KJV)

I am happy in my 'perceived' deception to consider myself as one of the 'few'.

 

[katholikos]

Your human reasoning blinds you to the facts.......

And what are you, a Martian? You are a human too - try not to forget that.

I can level the same charge at you too. But I deal in truth, not personal bias.

 

[Cross Reference]

And what are you, a Martian? You are a human too - try not to forget that.

I can level the same charge at you too. But I deal in truth, not personal bias.

Sorry, it is evident you don't but rather a private, made corporate, misinterpretation for which you will be held accountable in that day. Gotta remember, there will be no one standing with you for support or that you can blame.