Deception in Theology

[jas3]

Tell me where in the Bible Paul or any other author spoke of taking the bread in the same way as Judas.

What are you talking about?

Tell me when icon veneration (idolatry) started.

We've been over the evidence for icon veneration in another thread and you stopped responding when I pointed out cultic use of images commanded by God in the Old Testament.

 

[All Becomes New]

What are you talking about?

You don't dip the bread in the wine?

We've been over the evidence for icon veneration in another thread and you stopped responding when I pointed out cultic use of images commanded by God in the Old Testament.

Why isn't it in the NT? Anyone can make any kind of allusion to something in the Bible. I want to see a clear use of icon veneration anywhere in the Bible. Quote the verse(s). I will look them up myself.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Everyone has their "camp" their tradition. Everyone reads the Bible through the eyes of others.

No one reads the Bible for themselves. They are content to see what their "Betters" say about things.

Take Dispensationalism and all the mapping out of the Great Tribulation and the Lord's coming. You can point out verses like 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and it does nothing to change their mind. Or take Catholicism and their view of Mary who is given very little primacy in the Bible and when you point this out, they appeal to their Fathers, their "betters" and their Popes who all contradict each other. Or take the Orthodox and their primacy on tradition for the sake of tradition never minding that their tradition changes over time. Or take Lutherans who adhere dogmatically to everything Luther said never faulting him for his radical anti-semitism. Or Calvin as he starts with the philosophy of determinism and works that into the Bible even though the Bible was never meant to be read that way. Or the flat earthers, or the holocaust deniers, or those predicting the Lord's return.

There are very few who seek after Truth in an unbiased way. Everyone has their tradition and they will not read the Bible for themselves. Everyone has their "Camp."

Study, by all means, but don't think you are necessarily on the side of Truth especially when you have a box for everything in the Bible and everything in the Bible fits into this box just so. It is arrogant.

So you think being a lone ranger you can do better than any school, church or "betters"?

 

[All Becomes New]

So you think being a lone ranger you can do better than any school, church or "betters"?

Read my signature.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Read my signature.

It doesn't answer the question. And I only read the op so perhaps I am misunderstanding you. But it sounds like you look down upon those who choose a faith community for guidance and fellowship

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Everyone has their "camp" their tradition. Everyone reads the Bible through the eyes of others.

No one reads the Bible for themselves. They are content to see what their "Betters" say about things.

Take Dispensationalism and all the mapping out of the Great Tribulation and the Lord's coming. You can point out verses like 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and it does nothing to change their mind. Or take Catholicism and their view of Mary who is given very little primacy in the Bible and when you point this out, they appeal to their Fathers, their "betters" and their Popes who all contradict each other. Or take the Orthodox and their primacy on tradition for the sake of tradition never minding that their tradition changes over time. Or take Lutherans who adhere dogmatically to everything Luther said never faulting him for his radical anti-semitism. Or Calvin as he starts with the philosophy of determinism and works that into the Bible even though the Bible was never meant to be read that way. Or the flat earthers, or the holocaust deniers, or those predicting the Lord's return.

There are very few who seek after Truth in an unbiased way. Everyone has their tradition and they will not read the Bible for themselves. Everyone has their "Camp."

Study, by all means, but don't think you are necessarily on the side of Truth especially when you have a box for everything in the Bible and everything in the Bible fits into this box just so. It is arrogant.

Yeah, but Mr. J, you're using Habermas for some of your own personal interpretation about the meaning of the Bible (or for interpreting the evidence of the Resurrection). How much of his view is his and how much of his view has become yours because you perceive that you learned something from him?

Cutting to the chase, my hermeneutical position in approaching and reading the Bible isn't too different from yours. However, our main difference here is that I just focus in on Trinitarian commonalities between all of us and I don't assume others are being arrogant simply because they think (at the moment) that the Christian faith is 'what' they think it is in accordance with their current churches or favorite theologian-----which often times is 'different' a bit from what I think it is in accordance with all it is I think I know.

Everyone does read the Bible a little differently for various reasons, some personal, some educational, some church influenced. However, something I try to be mindful of is that not everyone has the money, time or ability to gather, buy or study the hundreds of sources that I have or to have gone through, and obtain, some of the same educational experiences I have.

Tell me. Are you feeling a little frustrated because you're not finding many other Christians who share similar understandings of what you think the Bible states or what the Christian life should be? I think you're an intelligent guy, but maybe you're feeling disconnected right now?

 

[All Becomes New]

It doesn't answer the question. And I only read the op so perhaps I am misunderstanding you. But it sounds like you look down upon those who choose a faith community for guidance and fellowship

That is not what I am saying. There is nothing wrong with getting guidance and having fellowship. We are commanded to do that.

 

[All Becomes New]

Yeah, but Mr. J, you're using Habermas for some of your own personal interpretation about the meaning of the Bible (or for interpreting the evidence of the Resurrection). How much of his view is his and how much of his view has become yours because you perceive that you learned something from him?

And how does Dr. Habermas use the minimal facts? By going based on what is best atteste across different worldviews--even those hostile to the faith. This is quite a bit different than going based on what any particular priest says. He is basically using enemy attestation to make his case. He is not going based on his own fallible reasoning. Does that make sense?

being arrogant

My point in saying people are being arrogant is when they use the Bible to fit God into some rigid category. People of all different traditions do this. when you understand that God, and therefore, the Bible cannot be fit neatly into a box, you realize that it is arrogant to think you have good theology.

What I try to be mindful of is that not everyone has the money, time or ability to gather, buy or study the hundreds of sources that I have or obtain the same educational experiences I have.

Right. I agree with you that not everyone studies to the same amount. But we can arrive at the Truth in other ways. We can see Truth in our child's smile or the Big Bang, or why an apple falls from the tree. Arriving at Truth is not necessitated by studying, is what I am saying.

Are you feeling a little frustrated because you're not finding many other Christians who share similar understandings of what you think the Bible states or what the Christian life should be?

It is not out of some feeling of being an outsider that I made this thread. My motivation is to get people to think a bit more about their dogmatic traditions, which sometimes have no basis other than "My betters said so."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

That is not what I am saying. There is nothing wrong with getting guidance and having fellowship. We are commanded to do that.

Well then if I want to participate in the discussion I should probably read all the posts and since it is only two pages so far that shouldn't be too bad.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

My motivation is to get people to think a bit more about their dogmatic traditions, which sometimes have no basis other than "My betters said so."

O, ok, well I am pretty ,much a renegade anyway, on the fringe of Catholicism. They tell me it is dangerous. I like guys like Thomas Merton, Bede Griffiths and these days Richard Rohr.

Is that outside dogmatic tradition enough?

We can add process theology also.

 

[jas3]

You don't dip the bread in the wine?

Sure, but I've never heard someone call this "taking the bread in the same way as Judas." You would have to argue that the entirety of the Last Supper is a manual for how to take communion to say that immersion or intinction is the "Judas" way to take it.

Why isn't it in the NT? Anyone can make any kind of allusion to something in the Bible. I want to see a clear use of icon veneration anywhere in the Bible. Quote the verse(s). I will look them up myself.

In the context of our other discussion, we were specifically talking about indirect evidence for a doctrine in the Bible and comparing the Trinity and icon veneration. Similarly to how you can get "one God, three Persons" out of the Bible but not the exact "homoousios/hypostaseis" terminology that the Nicene Creed uses to profess the doctrine, you can get "cultic use of images commanded by God" out of the Bible but not the exact form of veneration the council fathers of Nicaea II had in mind.

 

[All Becomes New]

You would have to argue that the entirety of the Last Supper is a manual for how to take communion to say that immersion or intinction is the "Judas" way to take it.

No, I just have to show that Judas dunked it as a sign of who betrayed the Lord, whilst the other Apostles did not do the same thing.

In the context of our other discussion, we were specifically talking about indirect evidence for a doctrine in the Bible and comparing the Trinity and icon veneration. Similarly to how you can get "one God, three Persons" out of the Bible but not the exact "homoousios/hypostaseis" terminology that the Nicene Creed uses to profess the doctrine, you can get "cultic use of images commanded by God" out of the Bible but not the exact form of veneration the council fathers of Nicaea II had in mind.

What name were you baptized into?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And how does Dr. Habermas use the minimal facts? By going based on what is best atteste across different worldviews--even those hostile to the faith. This is quite a bit different than going based on what any particular priest says. He is basically using enemy attestation to make his case. He is not going based on his own fallible reasoning. Does that make sense?

I know who Habermas is. In fact, I have referenced some of his writing for myself in my own learning over the years, Mr. J. But that's not the point I'm driving at here. Of course Habermas' approach makes sense, but because of the nature of evidence and because of how evidence has to be evaluated, even his approach isn't perfect nor convincing to those who are the most skeptical today.

My point in saying people are being arrogant is when they use the Bible to fit God into some rigid category. People of all different traditions do this. when you understand that God, and therefore, the Bible cannot be fit neatly into a box, you realize that it is arrogant to think you have good theology.

That's not how I'd define arrogance. Some fellow Trinitarian Christians are simply committed to their church and to their respective Traditions because (for whatever reasons) they feel it has spoken to them in some way. And, being that the Lord, through the Holy Spirit, uses many of our vehicles of communication to reach us in all places around the world, with many languages and personalities, we're bound to disagree with the meaning of some of this on the human level.

Right. I agree with you that not everyone studies to the same amount. But we can arrive at the Truth in other ways. We can see Truth in our child's smile or the Big Bang, or why an apple falls from the tree. Arriving at Truth is not necessitated by studying, is what I am saying.

Sure. We all see aspects of Truth, but no human can encompass God's perspective on "the Truth." Moreover, Epistemology is a lot more complex, and complicated, than what many people realize it is. Scripturally, we arrive at a meeting point of God's Truth from all sorts of limited human contact points.

It is not out of some feeling of being an outsider that I made this thread. My motivation is to get people to think a bit more about their dogmatic traditions, which sometimes have no basis other than "My betters said so."

Well, I can appreciate that. But not everyone has been exposed to the same expanses of alternative points of view as others, so they may be more sequestered within the boundaries of their particular denomination's teaching. And as long as they're able to be loving people and be willing to stand for the Truth we all have in Christ, I don't see that the Lord is wanting to strike down every single error human's can make in attempting to understand what He wants us to understand.

 

[All Becomes New]

I have seen several people now equate philosophy with tradition. These are not equatable.

 

[jas3]

No, I just have to show that Judas dunked it as a sign of who betrayed the Lord, whilst the other Apostles did not do the same thing.

And what indicates that that would be significant in any other context?

What name were you baptized into?

The names we use for the Persons of the Trinity do not comprise the totality of the doctrine. And this is a huge double standard you have about icon veneration: why do you demand that any evidence for icon veneration describe it exactly as it was conceived of at Nicaea II, but refuse to define the Trinity in terms of consubstantiality as it was at Nicaea I?

 

[All Becomes New]

And what indicates that that would be significant in any other context?

Because it was a sign.

The names we use for the Persons of the Trinity do not comprise the totality of the doctrine. And this is a huge double standard you have about icon veneration: why do you demand that any evidence for icon veneration describe it exactly as it was conceived of at Nicaea II, but refuse to define the Trinity in terms of consubstantiality as it was at Nicaea I?

The Trinity was earlier and closer to the deposit the Apostles left. Do you have a verse in the OT (or the NT, but good luck with that one) that talks about icon veneration or not? People read Mary's assumption into Revelation 12. You can find all sorts of typological stuff in the Bible that is not deduced from the text. There is precedence of the explicitly of Nicea in the bible. Not Nicea 2.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have seen several people now equate philosophy with tradition. These are not equatable.

Actually, some of it is equatable, Mr. J.

 

[All Becomes New]

Actually, some of it is equatable, Mr. J.

Which means it is not synonymous.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which means it is not synonymous.

Right. It's not synonymous, but there are some intrinsic properties of human thought wrapped up in the processes of interpretation and transmission of different Christian Theologies which get carried along and developed through time.

Anyway, Mr. J. Whether or not we perfectly agree on all points of the faith, I appreciate your analytic sensibilities.

 

[All Becomes New]

I appreciate your analytic sensibilities.

That is a much better response than I have heard from some others. I do try to be logical. I am not the best deductive thinker, but I do consider myself a thinker or philosopher. Obviously, I do not think I have all the answers. That's kinda the point of this thread. It is easy to make someone else out to be a god, relying on their words as infallible while maintaining your own fallibility. That way, you have an "out" to say your tradition of Christianity is correct because you are not appealing to yourself but to someone else. You protect yourself by making other people infallible, is what I am saying.