Innokent

Pastor Billy's recent question about why Protestants think Roman Catholics don't respect Scripture got me to thinking. We Orthodox have the same problem but here's what we do:

We read two passages (a couple of chapters) out of both the Gospels and epistles minimum every Sunday morning our service (matins and the Liturgy). Our hymns are often, a single Scripture or several Scriptures together. For example, we sing Psalm 50/51 every service and in most devotionals. We sing St. Symeon's prayer every service. The services pepper almost everything with Scripture readings and go through it all (save Revelation). So great is our respect for God's Word, that every matins, we file out and kiss the Bible to show our affection and love of the Bible.

I used to be Evangelical. We never used as much Scripture even as we do in just the readings.

In light of that, which Church really respects the Scripture more manifestly, Evangelicalism or Orthodoxy? Why criticize us as if we didn't love the Word?

They recently found a copy of the Hebrew Bible wherein the Children of Israel were promised a star-shaped land called "Friend". They would, however, have to cross the great ocean to arrive there. In their fear of the water, though, they refused. God was disappointed but gave them Israel as consolation (He still had compassion).

In the text, the land was referred to as "Lone Star" and other such gaudy titles. Its inhabitants were to be blessed, and the land a land of many cattle. While the scholars debate the meaning of the newfound scroll, dubbed PQ123, religious groups in Texas have already seized on the opportunity to advance the truth of the promised land on account of its similarities to the state.

Could Texas really be the promised land?

My previous question on the rapture illustrates a problem in the Evangelicalism. They have, here, a doctrine that is acceptable in their community, which they will not schism over, but which has no biblical evidence at all (nor does it have historical evidence). It is mere Evangelical tradition, created by some of their teachers.

Now, Evangelicalism will condemn the Jehovah's Witnesses or other groups for altering basic teachings of Scripture and not being "Bible-based." In this case, however, they have no Scriptural support and alter the doctrine of the Second Coming (it's a basic doctrine). When they criticize Roman Catholics and Orthodox for being mired in Tradition contrary to the Word of God, they do this while preaching doctrines like the Rapture.

So, is this inconsistent on the part of Evangelicalism? To be consistent, does it not also have to accept groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons? If not, then there has to be a dang good biblical reason, and personal preference.

It's not biblically supported. It's too important proof-texts fail to demonstrate that the "taking up" of Christians is anything other than the Second Coming. For instance I Cor. 15.51-43 gives no reason at all to assume this isn't a separate event. It's at the tail end of a long discussion on the resurrection where verses like 15.20-25 tie it to the Second Coming. There are no verses making a distinction.

Likewise, those "taken" in the Olivet Discourse are taken not in "Rapture" but judgment. I've seen apologists quote Mt. 24.40-44 in support of this doctrine, but were the people "taken" by the Flood in v.39 raptured? This is an arbitrary division in the Scripture.

It also has no background in history. It was created by a minor British group that we would consider a cult today and never existed before that.

Why should I believe the Rapture and not condemn it as heresy? How is it any different than teachings made up by Mormons or JWs? It's not historical Christianity by any stretch.

In the Scripture, it states very clearly that "The Kingdom of God is within you" (Lk. 17.21). It also says that eternal life is knowing God. The Kingdom of God isn't some outward, easy to say thing. It isn't a legal satisfaction of God, but how you love Him and become like Him.

The direct correllary of this is that Hell must also be within you. The first indication of this is precisely what Heaven is. It's not some carnal torment, but something spiritual, so wouldn't eternal death be similar in nature to eternal life? The next indication is that Jesus says that there will be people who cry to him "Lord, Lord," a clear sign of belief, but will go straight to Hell (Mt. 7.21-23), they cannot cry "Lord" except by the Spirit (I Cor. 12.3). They believed and are damned.

The last evidence is that in Rev. 20.15, anyone not in the Book of Life is cast into the Lake of Fire. In Rev. 19.20 this is called the "Lake of fire and burning brimstone." Brimstone in Greek also means "divinity."

cont

Ontology is the philosophy of existence. What we believe about the nature of the existence of our world and others determines how we treat them.

Where this comes in, is that on numerous occasions I've seen the atheists here assert that religion leads inevitably to tyranny and brutality. This is not a universal tendency in history, and there are stories they don't tell about it ameliorating it.

I intend to put the shoe on the other foot. The atheist asserts that there is nothing transcendental in us. There is no spirit, and we aren't materially different from what surrounds us. Ultimately, this makes us like bugs or blades of grass, nothing more.

They can't offer a moral explanation why killing a man is worse than killing a roach, but they can offer claims they prefer it the other way. Preference changes quickly.

Is there any way a regime that states that it is atheist can avoid the tyranny and brutality that ALL such regimes in the past? I don't believe they have a way to avoid it.

I've studied ancient Greek for the New Testament, the Septuagint, the Divine Liturgy, and the Fathers. I've been studying Latin for the Fathers. I intend to add to this some other languages (e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic). It'd be pretty interesting to see what people have learned to read holy texts in, chant in, or pray in.

I'm wanting a good systematic defense of monarchy. I know it comes in several forms (I've read Hobbes and didn't find too much impressive in him). I've grown up in America, and I want to know the other side of the argument, but sources are few and far between in defense of it. One only needs to glance at history to realize an age of republics closes with a long age of monarchy, and I can see trends in that direction.

I'm not interested in celebrity stories about monarchy, but rather a good exposition of the system(s) of thought underlying it. I know there is more than one, because there are Hobbesian monarchists and those who aren't.

I would ask on the political forum, but I doubt I'd get much of a response there. I'm willing to bet that I'd get a better list of the political theory here where there are more people who believe in it.

Abu Bakr and others had begun compiling editions of Muhammad's words. Some of them were chronological, and thus, would have been more readable than Uthman's. They existed in a number of different regions, pronounced differently by the seven different dialects of Islam.

Uthman responded by having every rival version burnt and assembled a committee (which he oversaw) to compile an official Quran. What did he have to lose? What was he hiding in burning the rival copies?

I don't buy the dialect story. I read English, Old English, Latin, and Ancient Greek. They have dialects, and the meaning doesn't change in them. This seems to be a cover-story. In fact, it makes sense for me of the nonsensical order of the Quran; it makes it rather difficult to read, which would be good for an alteration not to be detected.

Can anyone offer any logical reason to me not to believe Uthman corrupted the Quran? At least Christians can examine variants in ours. They weren't conveniently burnt by an emperor.

Protestants assault my faith, Orthodox Christianity, and the Roman Catholic faith on the grounds that we establish doctrines with Tradition and settle controversies from it. The truth is, we consider the Bible a part of Tradition.

Therefore, I ask the Sola Scriptura guys to asnwer these questions using *only* the Bible (no appeals to any Tradition).

1). What books belong in the Bible? The table of contents is a modern phenomena. Please quote only Scripture.

2). Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?

3). If it does not, then what good is a doctrine that fails its own test?

4). If it does, is your collection of books identical with that one? If you quote a book written before Revelation, then why do you include Revelation (if you do)?

5). If your references refer to passages like Revelation's prohibitions to add to "this book," then why would you add other books of the Bible to it? It says THIS book (no addition, remember?).

I predict that everyone will have to use tradition.