Rule Of Law Ends In Boston Archdiocese

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Continued...

through faith alone. (What they Believe, p. 204)

*snip*

Yes, we deny Sola Fide!

So tell me, S0uljah - just why would you (a Catholic) have a problem with the fact that Christadelphians deny Sola Fide?

Are you a closet Lutheran, after all? :D

5. It denies the existence of the fallen angel Lucifer as the devil. (Answers, p. 100)

Biblical Proof of Falsehood: Isaiah 14

From Adam Clarke's Commentary:

  • Isa 14:12 - O Lucifer, son of the morning -
    The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render &#1492;&#1497;&#1500;&#1500; heilel as signifying Lucifer, &#934;&#969;&#963;&#966;&#969;&#961;&#959;&#962;, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed.

    But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. &#1492;&#1497;&#1500;&#1500; heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from &#1497;&#1500;&#1500; yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, “Howl, son of the morning;” and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under &#1492;&#1500;&#1500; halal.
Also John Gill, in his Exposition:

  • Isa 14:12 - How art thou fallen from heaven,....
    This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it; see Luk_10:18 but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon, wondering at it, as a thing almost incredible, that he who seemed to be so established on the throne of his kingdom, which was his heaven, that he should be deposed or fall from it.


    So the destruction of the Roman Pagan emperors is signified by the casting out of the dragon and his angels from heaven, Rev_12:7 and in like manner Rome Papal, or the Romish antichrist, will fall from his heaven of outward splendour and happiness, of honour and authority, now, possessed by him:

    O Lucifer, son of the morning!
    alluding to the star Venus, which is the phosphorus or morning star, which ushers in the light of the morning, and shows that day is at hand; by which is meant, not Satan, who is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one, and the good angels are called morning stars, Job_38:7 and such he and his angels once were; but the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers.

    The Targum is,

    "how art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars.''

    Jarchi, as the Talmud (c), applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon. The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation:
Also John Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes:

  • Isa 14:12 - Fallen -
    From the height of thy glory.

    Lucifer -
    Which properly is a bright star, that ushers in the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the mighty king of Babylon.
Also James Burton Coffman, in his Commentary:

  • We are glad that our version (American Standard Version) leaves the word "Lucifer" out of this rendition, because it was the cause of misunderstanding based on Luke 10:18 and Ezek. 28. Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all! Kelley approvingly quoted some scholars who believe that Isaiah here made use of a mythological story from Canaanite religion to illustrate the fall of the king of Babylon. This tale, largely an invention by critics, tells how a minor god of the Canaanites

    "sought to ascend to heaven and sit on the mount of the assembly of the gods, but was cast down to Sheol." (Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1971), p. 239.)

    How ridiculous critical commentators make themselves when they resort to ancient mythology to explain Bible texts. This alleged Canaanite myth is an invention. Kidner flatly stated that,

    "If such a tale ever existed, it has not come to light." (The New Bible Commentary, Revised, p. 600.)

    The same author also pointed out that,

    "The idea of storming heaven, however, was certainly connected with Babylon, i.e., Babel (Gen. 11)." (Ibid.)

    It was the avowed purpose of the rulers of Babel (Babylon) to build a tower high enough to reach heaven itself (Genesis 11:4). Thus God's Word substantiates Babylonian ambition, and it needs no supplement from Canaanite mythology.

    Barnes pointed out that the true meaning of the passage in Gen. 11:4 is that,

    "the king of Babylon did not intend to acknowledge any superior either in heaven or earth, but designed that himself and his laws should be regarded as supreme." (Albert Barnes' Commentary, p. 272.)
Also the footnotes of the New English Translation:

  • What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called “the man” in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song.

    These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur.

    Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, BKCOT, 1061).
I see no problems here for the Christadelphian community. Indeed, I see only a series of ringing endorsements for our interpretation!

6. It denies the existence of hell and eternal punishment. (What They Believe, p. 188-189)

Biblical Proof of Falsehood: Rev. 20:10

But read on...

  • Revelation 20:14.
    And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Clearly, the lake of fire is not hell!

Furthermore, the "torment" of the "devil, beast and false prophet" is not literal torment of literal beings. After all, the book of Revelation is a book of symbol, not 100% concrete fact.

7. It denies that a person exists after death. (What They Believe, p. 17)

Biblical Proof of Falsehood: John 3:16

ROTFL!

John 3:16 does not refer to "existence after death", but to the eternal life that we are promised after resurrection from the dead!

Hence article #25 of the Christadelphian Statement of Faith:

  • 25. That the unfaithful will be consigned to shame and 'the second death', and the faithful, invested with immortality, and exalted to reign with Jesus as joint heirs of the Kingdom, co-possessors of the earth, and joint administrators of God's authority among men in everything.


    References
    25. MAT 7:26, MAT 8:12, MAT 25:20-30, DAN 12:2, GAL 6:8, GAL 5:21, 2TH 1:8, HEB 10:26-31, 2PE 2:12, REV 21:8, MAL 4:1, PSA 37:30-38, PRO 10:25-29, 1CO 15:51-55, 2CO 5:1-4, JAM 1:12, ROM 2:7, JOH 10:28, MAT 5:5, PSA 37:9, PSA 37:22, PSA 37:29, REV 5:9, DAN 7:27, 1TH 2:12, 2PE 1:11, REV 3:21, 2TI 2:12, REV 5:10, PSA 49:7-9, LUK 22:29-30
:cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
isshinwhat -

*snip*

You have shown me nothing which proves that Irenaeus understood the bishop of Rome to be the central authority of the Church.

Meanwhile...

That statement puts you at variance with your source's claim that there was no evidence for the Tradition until the Fourth Century, a full one-hundred years later than you say the Tradition emerged.

Not so.

There are two different traditions here:
  • The tradition that Peter was "the first bishop of Rome."
  • The primacy of the bishop of Rome.
The former refers to the myth that Peter was head of the Roman church. The latter refers to the myth that the bishop of Rome was the central authority of the Church.

Hence my previous citation, which (curiously enough) you did not even quote properly:

  • In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent.

    Kelly, J. N. D. (1986), The Oxford Dictionary of Popes.
You have confused the "Peter was the first bishop of Rome" tradition with the "primacy of the Roman bishop" tradition. They are, in fact, entirely separate and distinct from one another.

Your rebuttal, therefore, consists of nothing more than a fallacy of equivocation. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
FM -

Well I'm not a Catholic, so I'm not interested enough in your "citations" to go back and verify them for myself.

*snip*

So why did you enter this debate in the first place?

The answer, of course, is simple. It's because you saw another chance to slander my faith, and mock my beliefs. Impotent in the face of a rational, Bible-based rebuttal, you prefer to throw stones from a safe distance.

I think I'll have to start calling you "Shimei." :D

Why would he have to "look for it" if he claims it was never lost?

ROTFL! Don't you realise that this question is equally relevant to the Reformation era Protestants?

The simple fact of the matter is that JT knew nothing of the other Biblical Unitarian congregations which existed in his day. He knew only of the Rationalist Unitarians - whose beliefs he rejected. Consequently, he found it necessary to discover the truth of the Bible on his own.

Not only that, but he began life as an "orthodox" Christian, and only found fault with its message when he began to study the Bible independent of church indoctrination.

Alright, assuming that is true, can you tell me where your beliefs can be found in church history prior to his rise during the times of the SDAs, Mormons, and JWs?

*snip*

I have already done this on another board, as you well know. Oh, and by the way, were you aware that the European Unitarians were virtually the only laymen of their day who were capable of matching (and defeating) the Jesuits in open debate?

Did you know that the Racovian Catechism (written by Transylvanian Unitarians) was 400 pages long? Have you read it?

And have you read:
  • John Biddle's Catechism?
  • Or Ferenc David's defence at Alba-Iulia?
  • Or the Catechism of the Polish Brethren?
  • Or Piotr Wilczek's Catholics and Heretics?
  • Or Johann Kell's statements on The Soul?
  • Or Georgio Biandrata's Christological confession?
  • Or Andrzej Wiszowaty's debate with Cichowski, in 1660?
  • Or Hieronim Moskorzowski on Satisfaction and Redemption?
  • Or Jonas Szlichtyng's The Son of God and God's Foreknowledge of Christ?
Now, if you were actually familiar with the history yourself, I would have spent more time on this subject.

But... Matthew 7:6.

And btw, the (Pfft! ) 1500's don't hold too much weight.

So you reject Luther, Calvin, and all the other Reformation era Protestants? My, my, my. That doesn't leave you with an awful lot of room for "orthodoxy", does it?

Are we expected to join the "Independent Non-Denominational Church of Future Man", perhaps? :D

Maybe he should have just swore off drinking.

That is a slanderous innuendo. JT never had a drinking problem in the first place.

So I assume that an "apostasy" entails a complete swallowing up of the truth as well?

*snip*

Nope. You obviously don't even understand the meaning of the word. :rolleyes:

But Huldrich Zwingli (one of the original progenitors of what is now known as "Reformed Theology") certainly believed himself to be God's gift to the Christian faith, for he proudly boasted:

  • In this matter of baptism — if I may be pardoned for saying it — I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. . . .
    Zwingli, Of Baptism; Library of Christian Classics, Vol. 24 Page 156.
What an arrogant, bloodthirsty little heretic he was.

And how fitting that he should eventually die in battle. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

isshinwhat

Pro Deo et Patria
Apr 12, 2002
8,338
624
Visit site
✟13,555.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Hence my previous citation, which (curiously enough) you did not even quote properly:

In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent.

<B>Kelly, J. N. D. (1986), The Oxford Dictionary of Popes.</B>

Sir, that is not the quotation I was citing, this is:

On the point – the role of the Papacy in the conversion of Europe – we need some background for, in the early Church prior to Toleration in AD 313, there had been no suggestion that the Bishop of Rome exercised any significant influence, much less authority, outside his own domain.

Guthridge, Ian (1999), The Rise and Decline of the Christian Empire, pp. 77-80, 126.

This source puts the earliest dating for the Tradition of the Papacy in the Fourth Century, your other places it in the 2nd or 3rd. If you cannot concede that Irenaeus believed it was "necessary" to agree with the Church of Rome in doctrinal matters because of it's "pre-eminent authority," then I must conculde our conversation here, as I refuse to argue.

Have a Happy and Safe New Year,

Neal
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
So I assume that an "apostasy" entails a complete swallowing up of the truth as well?


*snip*

Nope. You obviously don't even understand the meaning of the word.

Yes, I do. You missed my point.

But Huldrich Zwingli (one of the original progenitors of what is now known as "Reformed Theology") certainly believed himself to be God's gift to the Christian faith, for he proudly boasted:


In this matter of baptism — if I may be pardoned for saying it — I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. . . .
Zwingli, Of Baptism; Library of Christian Classics, Vol. 24 Page 156.


What an arrogant, bloodthirsty little heretic he was.

And how fitting that he should eventually die in battle.

Onward Christian soldier....:rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0