Who made God?

[Papa Zoom]

Calvin,
How do you figure that Apostolic succession does not exist?
You could not agree with it, but you cannot say it doesn't exist.

It simply means that Jesus left his orders with the Apostles and they passed them down through the generations.
We could debate what happened with the schism in 1,000 with the Eastern Church.
IOW, which one held on to the truth.
But we cannot say that it does not exist.

Also, it definitely got broken with the reformation.

The Protestant churches that have made up new and different doctrine from what the Apostolic Fathers believed have separated themselves from the Apostolic succession. Some protestants are going back into the RCC and the Orthodox Church because they can't take all the different doctrines anymore. A very important figure in Protestantism just became a Catholic - sorry I can't remember the name.

I think you wrote me another post --- I'll go look for it.

I think you mean Hank Hanegraaff and he converted to the Orthodox Church recently.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think you mean Hank Hanegraaff and he converted to the Orthodox Church recently.

YES!

Now, many RC's also leave that church and become Protestant. (like me).
There is no perfect church.

And as far as the reformation, it was necessary because the RCC had gone so far off what it used to be at the beginning, I'd say until Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire.

This mixing of "religion" and government was not a good idea, in my opinion. Especially by living in Italy and seeing first hand how the RCC had so much power here and how it turned into a theocracy which ruined, IMO, the spiritual side of religion.

I fear that both you and Jim Parker are correct in your assessments. As I've said before, it was good and it was bad.
It was bad because it has led to so much incorrect doctrine that was not present until the past 500 years and even the past couple of hundred years.

I truly cannot come to a decision on this and probably never will.

I do want to say that what persons do because they are human, should really not be held against that church. You mentioned the popes.
Jimmy Swaggart comes to mind. He was a pastor for the Assembly of God church. Because he did not practice what he preached does not mean that every pastor does this.

Let's not hold an entire church responsible for the acts of some.
I do hold it responsible for not teaching its people correctly and not wanting to share the word of God with them.
Indulgences are still practiced to this day. The Pope declares that if such and such is done (I won't explain it but can if you ask) a person could actually skip spending time in purgatory. How does a pope get to make such a decision? Does God obey HIM? And where is this in scrupture? Did the reformation really accomplish anything?

Just some thoughts...

 

[Papa Zoom]

YES!

Now, many RC's also leave that church and become Protestant. (like me).
There is no perfect church.

And as far as the reformation, it was necessary because the RCC had gone so far off what it used to be at the beginning, I'd say until Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire.

This mixing of "religion" and government was not a good idea, in my opinion. Especially by living in Italy and seeing first hand how the RCC had so much power here and how it turned into a theocracy which ruined, IMO, the spiritual side of religion.

I fear that both you and Jim Parker are correct in your assessments. As I've said before, it was good and it was bad.
It was bad because it has led to so much incorrect doctrine that was not present until the past 500 years and even the past couple of hundred years.

I truly cannot come to a decision on this and probably never will.

I do want to say that what persons do because they are human, should really not be held against that church. You mentioned the popes.
Jimmy Swaggart comes to mind. He was a pastor for the Assembly of God church. Because he did not practice what he preached does not mean that every pastor does this.

Let's not hold an entire church responsible for the acts of some.
I do hold it responsible for not teaching its people correctly and not wanting to share the word of God with them.
Indulgences are still practiced to this day. The Pope declares that if such and such is done (I won't explain it but can if you ask) a person could actually skip spending time in purgatory. How does a pope get to make such a decision? Does God obey HIM? And where is this in scrupture? Did the reformation really accomplish anything?

Just some thoughts...

I always appreciate your thoughts on things. Thanks. I'm currently reading this: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/a-protestant-exodus-my-response-to-peter-leithart/
because I stumbled on it. Interesting so far. It points out many big name Protestant defections (I don't like that word but can't think of another) to the Orthodox Church and the RCC. I believe Salvation is found in Christ, wherever a person can find Him. The organization can't matter. Only true faith in the One that can save us. God is for us, knows we are flawed, loves us anyway and wants us to have a relationship with him. For some of us, that's the local Baptist Church and others, the Lutheran, others the Orthodox (there isn't one within 50 miles of me and due to traffic would take up to two hours one way) and still others the RCC. One Protestant friend of mine goes the the Catholic Church because she likes the liturgy.

As for the Popes - it does make me wonder how the RCC can claim Succession from the Apostle Peter when many of the Popes were nothing short of scoundrels. Seems to be a kink in the chain and it's many, not few. I can't help but find that a troubling fact.

 

[GodsGrace]

I always appreciate your thoughts on things. Thanks. I'm currently reading this: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/a-protestant-exodus-my-response-to-peter-leithart/
because I stumbled on it. Interesting so far. It points out many big name Protestant defections (I don't like that word but can't think of another) to the Orthodox Church and the RCC. I believe Salvation is found in Christ, wherever a person can find Him. The organization can't matter. Only true faith in the One that can save us. God is for us, knows we are flawed, loves us anyway and wants us to have a relationship with him. For some of us, that's the local Baptist Church and others, the Lutheran, others the Orthodox (there isn't one within 50 miles of me and due to traffic would take up to two hours one way) and still others the RCC. One Protestant friend of mine goes the the Catholic Church because she likes the liturgy.

As for the Popes - it does make me wonder how the RCC can claim Succession from the Apostle Peter when many of the Popes were nothing short of scoundrels. Seems to be a kink in the chain and it's many, not few. I can't help but find that a troubling fact.

I agree with you re Jesus being our salvation and not a church.
The article is very long, I'll read it after dinner. It's interesting.
I love Scot Hahn's books, BTW. He took a lot of his Protestantism with him to the RCC.

Just one thing, I might forget later.
The Pope.
The RCC claims that Peter was the first Pope. This cannot be true because the highest office in those times was that of Bishop.
Peter was a Bishop. The Pope is also the Bishop of Rome, BTW. You might know this already.

So I asked once how it is that Peter is considered the first Pope. This is how it was explained to me:

The first Pope was named in the 300's. So what they did was to proclaim every Head Bishop of the church a Pope going all the way back to Peter.

Like the Super Bowl. It wasn't called the Super Bowls before 1969. But NOW, ALL championship games even before that are called the Super Bowl.

Explained like this it made it more palatable to me.

Thanks for posting that article...
Later.

 

[Jim Parker]

Does that satisfy your inquiry into what early church fathers thought of this document.

It is not just this document. The document is obviously not written by James since it does not show up until 100 years after his death.
That does no make it other than what it would be seen as in the 2nd century; a pseudopigraphical document that records the oral tradition widely accepted at that time.
The Church has maintained the teaching of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos. I am content to accept that teaching.

jim

 

[Jim Parker]

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

What work or works have you done to have your sins forgiven?

Confession.
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If someone has faith enough and opens the door then that is sufficient.
Rev 3:20

Opening the door would be a work.
And faith includes being obedient to Jesus commands.

James received his salvation by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Not by works.

As did every one else.

From what was he saved?

Deeds is a sign of one who has received or not received the Fathers promise.

I agree.
But all good works do not automatically start happening. Some of them take effort and determination and perseverance.
2Pe 1:5-8 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So Jesus appeared to Paul who wasn't even seeking Jesus. Yet His sins were forgiven. I think Paul is going to preach salvation is by grace not by works. And Paul was also a sign of Gods mercy. The worst of sinners shown grace.

Paul said that we were "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10)
So, what do you think should we walk in them? It's what God wants us to do. What say you?

Scripture also says we are to be baptized for the remission of sins. (Act 2:38) That's a "deed." Do we need to do that "deed"?

And Jesus told us to do good works so that people will see them and glorify out Father in heaven. (Mat 5:16) Should we obey Him? Should we do the "deeds" that Jesus said to do?

And Paul was also a sign of Gods mercy. The worst of sinners shown grace.

Amen.

And anyone who sins is a slave to sin unless the Son sets them free and the Son sets them free they are free indeed.

Paul said that there is an internal "war" between the flesh, which still wants to sin, and the mind, which wants to serve God.
Rom 7:21-25 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

And Paul, by the Holy Spirit, told us:
Eph 4:17-32
This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.
Therefore, putting away lying, “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,” for we are members of one another. “Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, nor give place to the devil.
Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need. Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

That's a whole bunch of "deeds" that Paul, by the Holy Spirit, told believers to DO.
Those "deeds" are obviously not automatic. If they were, there would be no need for Paul to tell us to do them.

Two asked something of Jesus yet only one received a reply. And that one went from being dead to alive forever and ever. By the grace of God poured out into the world through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The experience of the thief on the cross is not the paradigm for believers who are NOT nailed to a cross and NOT going to die in the next hour or so and who are thereby prevented from doing any of the "deeds" which the scriptures command believers to do.

The paradigm for the believer who is not prevented from acting according to his own free will is:
John 14:23-24 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

In the "great commission," (Mat 28:18-19) Jesus told his apostles to go and make disciples of all nations and to teach them to OBEY everything He had taught them. Obeying requires doing "deeds."


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Jim Parker]

This: "All you have done is display your ignorance of the early church and you abiding hatred for the RCC"
That is directed at the person and isn't allowed. Discuss the issues only.

So when someone makes a statement based on ignorance and hatred, how are we to respond?

And I don't have any hatred for the RCC. I just take issue with many of their claims.

I glad to hear that. Unfortunately, it just didn't quite come across like that.
I also take issue with much of their doctrine.

It's difficult to take seriously a claim of Apologetic Succession when those very apostles were filled with evil and corruption.

Did you mean "apostolic" succession?
You'd have to explain what you mean by the "apostles being filled with evil and corruption."

That doesn't negate the problems and they need to have the light of day shed on them.

But it does ignore the same kinds of problems in the Protestant churches.
Also, I don't know that any good is accomplished by dredging up what some vile pope in the 9th century did. We have plenty of serious issues with ALL of today's church right in front of us. This nation is going down the tubes with every kind of immorality from top to bottom while our church super stars are busy building their little empires and turning the unsaved away in droves. Europe and the USA have become post-Christian neo-pagan societies.

Leave us at the helm and we'll find multiple ways to mess things up.

Indeed we will.
So let us strive to love one another so that we may be one, as the Father, is in Christ, and Christ in the Father; that we also may be one in Them, that the world may believe that the Father sent the son and God loves the world. (Jn 17)

 

[OzSpen]

It is not just this document. The document is obviously not written by James since it does not show up until 100 years after his death.
That does no make it other than what it would be seen as in the 2nd century; a pseudopigraphical document that records the oral tradition widely accepted at that time.
The Church has maintained the teaching of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos. I am content to accept that teaching.

jim

Jim,

You've missed my point. I provided a quote from the Protoevangelium of James that is an error. Zacharias was never the high priest but Proto says he was. There's error upon error in this spurious document and the RCC and Orthodox want to use it as one of the earliest promoters of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

When it takes 3 centuries before the church fathers even mention it, this should be treated as a fringe doctrine that is not supported by the pseudo Proto.

Appealing to oral tradition doesn't help because it makes oral tradition, in this case, a supporter of many false statements. I have tabulated some of them in my article: Perpetual virginity of Mary promoted by false document

Blessings,
Oz

 

[Randy]

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Confession.
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Opening the door would be a work.
And faith includes being obedient to Jesus commands.

As did every one else.

From what was he saved?


I agree.
But all good works do not automatically start happening. Some of them take effort and determination and perseverance.
2Pe 1:5-8 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul said that we were "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10)
So, what do you think should we walk in them? It's what God wants us to do. What say you?

Scripture also says we are to be baptized for the remission of sins. (Act 2:38) That's a "deed." Do we need to do that "deed"?

And Jesus told us to do good works so that people will see them and glorify out Father in heaven. (Mat 5:16) Should we obey Him? Should we do the "deeds" that Jesus said to do?


Amen.

Paul said that there is an internal "war" between the flesh, which still wants to sin, and the mind, which wants to serve God.
Rom 7:21-25 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

And Paul, by the Holy Spirit, told us:
Eph 4:17-32
This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.
Therefore, putting away lying, “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,” for we are members of one another. “Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, nor give place to the devil.
Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need. Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

That's a whole bunch of "deeds" that Paul, by the Holy Spirit, told believers to DO.
Those "deeds" are obviously not automatic. If they were, there would be no need for Paul to tell us to do them.


The experience of the thief on the cross is not the paradigm for believers who are NOT nailed to a cross and NOT going to die in the next hour or so and who are thereby prevented from doing any of the "deeds" which the scriptures command believers to do.

The paradigm for the believer who is not prevented from acting according to his own free will is:
John 14:23-24 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

In the "great commission," (Mat 28:18-19) Jesus told his apostles to go and make disciples of all nations and to teach them to OBEY everything He had taught them. Obeying requires doing "deeds."


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

We are not far apart but I would classify one asking and receiving as putting ones faith into action. And the forgiveness from God by grace. (not earned by works) If there was a wise Egyptian who believe God on the first passover and they painted their door frame or door with blood by their faith they would have kept the death angel out of their home. Their actions would have proved their faith sincere. Likewise Rahab hid the spies because she believed God and by her faith saved her family

So sanctification is received by faith in Christ Jesus.

Jesus to Saul
to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'



Randy

 

[Jim Parker]

Zacharias was never the high priest but Proto says he was.

Again, Proto is not to be taken as an historical account.
It should not be examined as if it were a 21st century, western, scientifically accurate, report by the medical examiner.
It is an example of ancient, middle-eastern literature.
Homer's Illiad should not be taken with such modern, western, scrutiny because, of the part that the pagan gods take in the story. But, by referring to it, Heinrich Schliemann in 1870 found the allegedly mythical city of Troy.
It is a written account of the oral story of Mary which oral account probably dates from the late 1st century.
It related the very early belief that Mary remained a virgin, (a dedicated virgin to be more precise) for her entire life. It was not an uncommon situation in the ancient world.

If it important to you to reject the teaching of the historical church then so be it.

 

[Jim Parker]

I would classify one asking and receiving as putting ones faith into action.

Faith that is not put into action is no faith at all.

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

So, you think Isaiah lived for about 180 years?
And calling the view "liberal theology" is, again, the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.
Don't want to be goaded? Don't goad.

You ignore the fact that pseudopigrapha was, in the AME, an accepted form of literature. It was a way to commit to writing an oral tradition.

Jim,

What's the acronym AME? Associazione Medici Endocrinologi

As for the authorship of Isaiah, OT scholar Dr Gleason Archer contradicts the view you espoused and gives his reasons:

Isaiah 6:11-13 records a revelation made by God to Isaiah at the beginning of his prophetic ministry (ca. 739 BC). After he heard God’s call and had been commissioned to preach to a people who would only harden their hearts against the truth, he asked the Lord with troubled heart, “Lord, how long?” Then Yahweh answered him, “Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, houses are without people, and the land is utterly desolate, the LORD has removed men far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land” (NASB). Here we have a clear prediction of the total devastation and depopulation of Judah meted out by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BC, over 150 years later!.…

Isaiah 6:13 therefore destroys the basic premise of the entire Deutero-Isaiah theory, which assumes that it would be impossible for an eighth-century Hebrew prophet to foretell or even foreknow the events of 587 and 539–537 BC (the Fall of Babylon and the return of the first settlers to Jerusalem).
It was on this premise that J.C. Doederlein (1745-92) built his entire argument and based his case for some unknown author living
quite near to 539 B.C., who began his prophetic composition with chapter 40 (with its awareness that the Babylonian exile has taken place and that there is now a prospect of their return to Palestine) and ending with chapter 66.

In other words, Doederlein assumed that no genuine predictive prophecy was possible, and that no eighth-century prophet could have seen that far into the future. His theory was built on antisupernatural presuppositions, and so also were the elaborations of this theory by J.G. Eichhorn (ca. 1790), H.F.W. Gesenius (ca. 1825), E.F.K. Rosenmueller (ca. 1830), and Bernhard Duhm (ca. 1 890) — who opted for three Isaiahs instead of just two.
Every one of them assumed the impossibility of genuine prophecy by a personal God; therefore every apparent evidence of it had to be explained away as "prophecy after the fulfillment" ( vaticinium ex eventu). But Isaiah 6:13 cannot be explained away as prediction concocted after the event since its time of composition was unquestionably in the 730s B.C.

Second, the internal evidence of Isaiah 40-66 speaks decisively against the possibility of post-exilic composition. Many of the same evils deplored and denounced by Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 5 are still prevalent in "Deutero-Isaiah." Compare Isaiah 1:15: "Yea, when you make many prayers, I will not hear [you]; your hands are full of blood" and 59:3, 7: "For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue has muttered perverseness.... Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood." Compare also Isaiah 10:1-2 with Isaiah 59:4-9.

Moreover, there is a revolting hypocrisy that corrupts the religious life of the nation. Compare 29:13: "Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men" and Isaiah 58:2,4: "Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their
God; they ask of me the ordinance of justice; they take delight in approaching to God.... Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness."

Third, idolatry is set forth in Isaiah 40-66 as a current vice in Israel. The prophet addresses his countrymen as flagrant idol worshipers in 57:4-5: "Against whom do ye sport yourselves?... Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clefts of the rocks?" Compare with this Isaiah 1:29: "They shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye have desired" (oak groves being the setting for ritual prostitution and excesses connected with Baal worship). The reference to infant sacrifice suggests the conditions prevailing during the reign of Manasseh (697-642 B.C.), who made a practice of sacrificing babies to Moloch and Adrammelech in the Valley of Hinnom (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6). Isaiah 57:7 makes a clear allusion to sacrifice on the "high places," which was practiced in Judah during the time of Ahaz (743-728 B.C.) and Manasseh. Again, in Isaiah 65:2-4 we read: "'I have spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people ... a people that provoke me to my face continually, sacrificing in gardens and burning incense upon bricks; that sit among the graves and lodge in the secret places; that eat swine's flesh; the abomination, and the mouse. They shall come to an end, all of them,' says Yahweh."

These references to the practice of idolatry by the Israelites demonstrate conclusively that the author is writing in a historical setting prior to the Babylonian exile. This is so for two reasons.

First, the mountainous terrain, the high and lofty hills, are not to be found in Babylonia at all; for there is nothing but a broad, flat, alluvial plain. Moreover, the trees that are mentioned as possibilities for making wooden images out of and then using the scrap for the stove or fireplace— the cedar, the cypress, and the oak (41:19; 44:14)— are all unknown to Babylonia. Therefore, if we have any respect at all to the internal evidence of the text itself, we have to conclude (Doederlein to the contrary notwithstanding) that Isaiah 40-66 could never have been composed in Babylonia.

Second, the references to idol worship exclude the possibility (advocated by Duhm and many of the later scholars) that Isaiah 40-66 was really composed after the Fall of Jerusalem, up in Lebanon, and partly back in Judah, after the Fall of Babylon. The reason that this possibility is excluded is that only the earnest, pious men of religious conviction were involved in the resettlement of Jerusalem and Judah after Cyrus gave permission for the Jewish exiles to return to their homeland. Only a mere 10 percent of them responded to the invitation (about fifty thousand in all), and their expressed purpose was to
reestablish a commonwealth dedicated to the worship and service of Yahweh as the one true God.

We have positive control evidence that no idolatry was practiced in post-Exilic Judah within the sixth and fifth centuries BC. That evidence comes from the writings of Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi. In the prophecies and historical records of these five post-Exilic authors, we meet with a good deal of denunciation of sins that were prevalent among their countrymen at that time; but there is never a mention of idolatry in
Israel. There was intermarriage with foreign women of idolatrous background, there was oppression of the poor by the rich, there was desecration of the Sabbath, there was a withholding of tithes, and there was the presentation of diseased or defective animals on the altar to God. But there was never a mention of idolatry— which had been emphasized
by the pre -Exilic prophets as the cardinal sin of the nation, the very particular sin for which God would bring down on them the weight of His wrath and the total destruction of their country. There is no other logical deduction to draw from the evidence of the text of Isaiah 40-66 but that it demands a pre-Exilic setting, which absolutely destroys the Deutero-Isaiah and the Trito-Isaiah theories. Such antisupernatural hypotheses can be
maintained only in the teeth of the objective evidence of the Hebrew text, on which they were allegedly founded (Archer 1982:263-265).​

(continued)

 

[OzSpen]

Continued from #512:

What were Jesus' and the NT writers' views of the Book of Isaiah? This is some of the evidence that Gleason Archer noted:

The final consideration we adduce at this point is the attitude of Christ and the New Testament authors toward the authorship of the Book of Isaiah. Consider the following:

(1) Matthew 12:17-18 quotes Isaiah 42: 1 as "that which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet." (2) Matthew 3:3 quotes Isaiah 40:3 as "spoken by the prophet Isaiah." (3) Luke 3:4 quotes Isaiah 40:3-5 as "in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet." (4) Acts 8:28 reports that the Ethiopian eunuch was "reading Isaiah the prophet," specifically Isaiah 53:7-8. He then inquired of Philip, "Of whom is the prophet speaking, of himself or of some other man?" (5) Romans 10:20 quotes Isaiah 65:1, stating, "Isaiah is very bold and
says...." (6) In John 12:38-41 we find two quotations from Isaiah: Isaiah 53:1 (in v.38) and Isaiah 6:9-10 (in v.40). Then in v.41 John affirms concerning these two verses, one from Isaiah "I" and the other from Isaiah "II": "These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him." This surely implies that the inspired apostle believed that both Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 53 were written by the same Isaiah.

In view of this decisive New Testament testimony, it is hard to see how those who claim to be Evangelical can espouse the Deutero-Isaiah theory, or even regard it as a legitimate option for Evangelicals to hold. Or are there really Evangelicals who can embrace antisupernatural theories that completely deny the possibility of predictive prophecy and still call themselves Evangelical? It is questionable whether they can do so with integrity! (Archer 1982:265-266).​

Who are the anti-supernaturalists? I find a pile of them among liberal theologians and higher-critical advocates who promote 2 or 3 Isaiahs. Archer presents evidence to confound the views of the anti-supernaturalists.

Oz

Works consulted

Archer, G.L., 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House).

 

[Jim Parker]

What's the acronym AME? Associazione Medici Endocrinologi

Ancient Middle East

What were Jesus' and the NT writers' views of the Book of Isaiah?

The NT writers refer to the book of Isaiah as a single piece in the same way that we refer to Webster's Dictionary as a single piece. But it would be absurd to propose that Noah Webster had a definition of "nuclear" in his dictionary.
It is a similar argument to the Mosaic authorship of the Torah (Penteteuch) because Jesus refers to it as the "Book of Moses" at Mark 12:26. That was an accepted reference to the five books but calling it the "book of Moses" actually says nothing about it's authorship.

Who are the anti-supernaturalists?

I'm not interested. Whoever wrote Isaiah 53 was definitely led by the Holy Spirit.


jim

 

[Jim Parker]

The RCC claims that Peter was the first Pope. This cannot be true because the highest office in those times was that of Bishop.
Peter was a Bishop.

I don't think Peter was ever a bishop.
He was an apostle. Apostles appoint bishops and elders.
He was the unofficial leader of the apostles simply because (IMO) he was ready to take charge when something needed to be done; like appoint deacons and pick a replacement for Judas Iscariot and preach to Gentiles. But notice that he had to explain himself to the church at Jerusalem when he went to the house of Cornelius.

 

[Jim Parker]

This mixing of "religion" and government was not a good idea, in my opinion.

That is a bit of a misconception.
Constantine considered it to be his duty to be the defender of the faith but not to meddle in theology which he left to the bishops.
But there were immediate and unfortunate results of making Christianity the state religion.

There was an immediate and huge influx of pagans who wanted to convert to Christianity. The church set about catechizing, baptizing and chrismating them. wonderful

Problem 1:There were too many of them to fit in a single church as was heretofore the norm for each city with a Christian congregation. So, they built multiple churches in each city and the bishop (presiding elder) sent priests (elders) to take charge of those other churches. The Bishop became the overseer of multiple congregations and a hierarchy was born and followed by archbishops over diocese (named after Diocletian who divided the empire into diocese). Power began to creep in.

Problem 2: Religious pagans (and most were very religious) had a view of the priesthood as the professionals who knew how to get in touch with the god for you. So you paid him/her to fix you up with the spirit in the sky. They brought that pagan view of clergy vs. laity with them and it stuck The idea of the priesthood of believers who could go directly to God without needing to get a professional to make the call for you.

Rome was "blesses" with a unique set of issues. The western Roman Empire was collapsing under the strain of wave after wave of Germanic tribes and it eventually regressed into a chaotic state. The only unifying forces were the Pope and the Francs who were the rising political power in northern Europe. It was Clovis I, a pagan king converted to the Catholic faith by his wife, who forced all his subordinate kings and chieftains to convert to Christianity or die. Without him, northern Europe would have remained Arian. (Not Hitler Aryans, Arius' Arians they sound confusingly identical)

So, it became the task of the Pope and the Frankish king to keep a lid on the chaos. Occasionally they did not get along too well and the Reformation provided a solution to the Germans issues with papal meddling in their politics. "You can't excommunicate me! I quit!"

but I digress

iakov the fool

 

[Randy]

Faith that is not put into action is no faith at all.

iakov the fool

Its not works nor penance. "Today you shall be with me in paradise" "Faith" then is a key. The man who believed in Jesus received eternal life because He believed in Jesus. "Lord when you come into your kingdom will you remember me?"
ASK and you shall receive..SEEK and you shall find..

Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit.
Washed, sanctified and justified.

Faith not works is a "key"
There are NT professors not of the faith. They are always trying to state or find out who the real Jesus was. They cannot enter the kingdom because of their unbelief. Because no one enters the Kingdom of God but by the Son. And if one beliefs Jesus is dead they why seek Him for life?
So those who believe are blessed.
Randy

 

[OzSpen]

Ancient Middle East

The NT writers refer to the book of Isaiah as a single piece in the same way that we refer to Webster's Dictionary as a single piece. But it would be absurd to propose that Noah Webster had a definition of "nuclear" in his dictionary.
It is a similar argument to the Mosaic authorship of the Torah (Penteteuch) because Jesus refers to it as the "Book of Moses" at Mark 12:26. That was an accepted reference to the five books but calling it the "book of Moses" actually says nothing about it's authorship.

I'm not interested. Whoever wrote Isaiah 53 was definitely led by the Holy Spirit.
jim

Jim,

But you are not interested in Isaiah as a solo document written by one author, but you accept the deutero-Isaiah model of the liberals. Gleason Archer's article refutes that perspective.

Seems as though you want Jesus to speak of 'the Book of deutero-Moses or trito-Moses' instead of the single 'Book of Moses'. The comparison with Webster's dictionary is a red herring because it is dealing with definitions of words and not with narratives like the Book of Moses.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Its not works nor penance. "Today you shall be with me in paradise" "Faith" then is a key.

That is a key ONLY for the the thief on the cross who was prevented from doing anything because he was nailed to a cross and going to be dead before get un-nailed.
YOU are NOT the thief on the cross who was of incapable of doing the good works for which God created you to do. (Eph 2:10)

ASK and you shall receive..SEEK and you shall find..
Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit.
Washed, sanctified and justified.

What has that to do with my comment "Faith that is not put into action is no faith at all."

Faith not works is a "key"

Faith without works is dead and cannot save anyone. (James 2)

There are NT professors not of the faith. They are always trying to state or find out who the real Jesus was.

Really?? Name some. No, never mind.
That has nothing to do with my statement that, "Faith that is not put into action is no faith at all."

 

[Jim Parker]

Gleason Archer's article refutes that perspective.

And other people support it.

Seems as though you want Jesus to speak of 'the Book of deutero-Moses or trito-Moses' instead of the single 'Book of Moses'.

Please.
That's a straw man.
I made absolutely no statement about how I "want Jesus to speak."

The comparison with Webster's dictionary is a red herring because it is dealing with definitions of words and not with narratives like the Book of Moses.

Ok. So you didn't get it.
The Torah was referred to as the "book of Moses" because Moses is the most prominent person in the Torah. Moses led Israel out of Captivity. Moses received the 10 commandments and the Law. Moses was king, priest and judge over Israel for 40 years. The Torah, after the story of the lineage of the Hebrews, is predominately the story of Moses.
Calling the Torah "the Book of Moses" does not require that he wrote it. It identifies that set of writings just like "Webster's Dictionary" identifies that reference book. In each case, anyone hearing the name would know exactly to what the reference was.

If Moses wrote the "Book of Moses" then why does he so consistently refer to himself in the 3rd person?

Did Moses write: "Deu 34:5-6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor; but no one knows his grave to this day.
No, he did not. He was dead when that was written.
Enough already