WHY IS THE CHURCH GOING OUT BACKWARD?

[marksman]

There may not be an office of a pastor, but nevertheless they are given by Jesus to equip the saints and build up the body.

I have never said that is not the case and it is not an office, it is a ministry.

 

[marksman]

Derek was the man that originally debunked the KJV per John 10?

I don't know because I don't build a doctrine on one verse of scripture and you're sarcastic response does not merit consideration.

 

[marksman]

Just my personal revelation...i don't call a pastor anymore when I am in need.

I stopped that and go directly to Jesus for everything.

My walk with God has become more intimate ever since.

I tell him in prayer that he is my lone Shepherd, and I know he is well pleased to hear me say that.

I am now a sheep from his pasture and he alone is my guide.

He is perfect and sinless, which I fully trust.

Wow, I must meet this person who is so perfect and knowledgeable and has got God down pat so he doesn't need any ministry from the body of Christ that Jesus has annointed.

 

[marksman]

Sure they are.

If it is a professional, extra Biblical creation, it is commentary(biased professional opinion).


lex·i·con
/ˈleksiˌkän,ˈleksiˌkən/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. the vocabulary of a person, language, or branch of knowledge.
   "the size of the English lexicon"
   • a dictionary, especially of Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, or Arabic.
     "a Greek–Latin lexicon"

AKA...some fella's extra Biblical redefinitions.

So is Strongs Concordance of the Bible commentary(Biased professional opinion) or a lexicon or both?

 

[Josho]

Wow, I must meet this person who is so perfect and knowledgeable and has got God down pat so he doesn't need any ministry from the body of Christ that Jesus has annointed.

I think we can safely say there will always be someone that knows God better than us. We are not perfect, so we don't always hear the right voices, some people are better at discerning voices than others, some people are more knowledgable in God's word than others, there's a reason why there is meant to be a five fold ministry, if any of us individuals knew it all, there wouldn't be any need for a five fold ministry.

While I say all this, it's also important not to let spiritual pride get in the way.

 

[Illuminator]

Jesus is my shepherd, my Pastor is a shepherd, my Bishop is a shepherd, the Pope is a shepherd.
This is their described in Eph 4:11-2 and John 10.

 

[Illuminator]

So is Strongs Concordance of the Bible commentary(Biased professional opinion) or a lexicon or both?

it's useful for atomizing words, but lacks the spirit.

In the ancient eastern church, there were (broadly) 2 schools of biblical studies: the Antiochene and the Alexandrian. Antiochene scholars emphasized the literal, historical method whereas Alexandrians were more prone to allegorization. Origen was an Alexandrian.

But Arius, Sabellius, Nestorious, and Apollonarius were of the Antiochene school and this method eventually gave rise to the Bogomil and Paulician heretics.

Theodore of Mopsuestia was another scion of this school who was never condemned in life but whose works were later censured after his death at the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople. Orthodox members of the Antiochene school included St. John Chrysostom.

Protestants in the 16th Century would look back to the Antiochene school as their intellectual forbears. That is one reason why St. John Chrysostom has always been unpopular with them.

But a careful study of Church History shows that the desire to be crassly literal lay at the root of all the heresies of the Patristic period. The willingness to be flexible and to interpret difficult passages allegorically has been the usual manner of orthodoxy.

By doing so, paradoxes and outright contradictions are avoided. It also allows one to move beyond the literal meaning of the text to discern larger patterns of similarity between various portions of the Bible.

Scott Hahn has championed this understanding and has pointed out in some of his recent talks on a biblical worldview that the NT writers used allegorical methods in interpreting the OT.

The Deformers and their descendants have stated that this method cannot be used 'safely' in the Church because the Holy Spirit alone can do this safely and he no longer works within the Church as he did among the Apostles. This is one consequence of denying the existence and charism of the Magisterium.

Bottom line: People who want to interpret the Bible for themselves always prefer the Antiochene literal to the Alexandrian allegorical. They think that they can be guided by sound methodology which will lead to logical results.

They denounce the Alexandrian method as a flight of fancy that may lead to wild conclusions.

The reality is that without allegorization, people get carried away by their method into atomized conclusions that cannot be harmonized with other parts of the Bible and Tradition.

Virtually every major heresy has been the result of being too rigid and methodical in interpreting the Bible while not being willing to interpret the Bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. IMHO, this is the opposition of Spirit and letter, which St. Paul warned against:

2 Cor 3:5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

This error is a form of Pelagianism where human effort is pitted against the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

What's great about the Catholic Church is that she accepts both of the methods of Antioch and Alexandria. She sees them as two gifts.

I do agree that heretics do try to limit mystery. When I talk to some (not all) Protestants, they tend to rationalize everything. When I look at Protestant doctrine, I do not see development, but reductionism.

They tried to reduce "faith" without the sacraments, revelation to Scripture alone, righteousness into a mere declaration without the person's status itself. I hope I do not offend anyone here, and I'm not trying to, but whenever I read Protestant theology, it seems like it is a reductionist Christianity.

When they do not understand how the Cross and the Mass can be the same sacrifice, they reject it. If they do not understand how Mary can be the Mother of God without producing divinity, they reject it.

If they do not understand how a person can partake the sufferings of God so that he can offer his sufferings for another, they reject it. If they cannot understand why a mere man is chosen to feed His sheep, they reject it.

My question is, as it is the same to Ockhamists or reductionist philosophers, why take the reductionist position rather than the mystery? Is it because if we take the mystery, we will have to acknowledge our limitations? The issue is really humility isn't it?

The Antiochene "method" was abstracted from their whole system. What was advocated by the radicals was a truncated version of it that was reduced it to a mechanical method instead of a tool to aid faith. Many were seduced by the Antiochene "method" because it appealed to their rationalism. I think this is why the Deformers and their descendants have fallen into that trap.

There were problems with the extremists using the Alexandrian "method" as well, but they were always perceived as flighty and Gnostic and so they had less attraction to educated people. Their heresies degenerated into folk practices.

Carried to an extreme, the Antiochene "method" leads to a greater dependence on human nature than is wise. I think it assumes a kind of Pelagianism. The Alexandrian approach recognized that "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in {OUR} philosophy." Humility is the only way to approach the text. Having absolute assurance in our Greek grammar and our concordances is just another form of works righteousness.
by Dr. Art Sippo

 

[mjrhealth]

Wow, I must meet this person who is so perfect and knowledgeable and has got God down pat so he doesn't need any ministry from the body of Christ that Jesus has annointed.

Im amazed at how many christians would rather learn from men than be taught by the one they say they love, as for that perfect one, that you will never find because we all only get part of the story so we dont get"puffed" up as so many do. And define body, are we discusses those that belong to Him or religion.

 

[marksman]

I think we can safely say there will always be someone that knows God better than us. We are not perfect, so we don't always hear the right voices, some people are better at discerning voices than others, some people are more knowledgable in God's word than others, there's a reason why there is meant to be a five fold ministry, if any of us individuals knew it all, there wouldn't be any need for a five fold ministry.

While I say all this, it's also important not to let spiritual pride get in the way.

That is right and I know that I am where I am today because I listened to others. One of the reasons I attended Bible College was because I wanted to mine the riches available there.

 

[marksman]

it's useful for atomizing words, but lacks the spirit.

In the ancient eastern church, there were (broadly) 2 schools of biblical studies: the Antiochene and the Alexandrian. Antiochene scholars emphasized the literal, historical method whereas Alexandrians were more prone to allegorization. Origen was an Alexandrian.

But Arius, Sabellius, Nestorious, and Apollonarius were of the Antiochene school and this method eventually gave rise to the Bogomil and Paulician heretics.

Theodore of Mopsuestia was another scion of this school who was never condemned in life but whose works were later censured after his death at the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople. Orthodox members of the Antiochene school included St. John Chrysostom.

Protestants in the 16th Century would look back to the Antiochene school as their intellectual forbears. That is one reason why St. John Chrysostom has always been unpopular with them.

But a careful study of Church History shows that the desire to be crassly literal lay at the root of all the heresies of the Patristic period. The willingness to be flexible and to interpret difficult passages allegorically has been the usual manner of orthodoxy.

By doing so, paradoxes and outright contradictions are avoided. It also allows one to move beyond the literal meaning of the text to discern larger patterns of similarity between various portions of the Bible.

Scott Hahn has championed this understanding and has pointed out in some of his recent talks on a biblical worldview that the NT writers used allegorical methods in interpreting the OT.

The Deformers and their descendants have stated that this method cannot be used 'safely' in the Church because the Holy Spirit alone can do this safely and he no longer works within the Church as he did among the Apostles. This is one consequence of denying the existence and charism of the Magisterium.

Bottom line: People who want to interpret the Bible for themselves always prefer the Antiochene literal to the Alexandrian allegorical. They think that they can be guided by sound methodology which will lead to logical results.

They denounce the Alexandrian method as a flight of fancy that may lead to wild conclusions.

The reality is that without allegorization, people get carried away by their method into atomized conclusions that cannot be harmonized with other parts of the Bible and Tradition.

Virtually every major heresy has been the result of being too rigid and methodical in interpreting the Bible while not being willing to interpret the Bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. IMHO, this is the opposition of Spirit and letter, which St. Paul warned against:

2 Cor 3:5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

This error is a form of Pelagianism where human effort is pitted against the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

What's great about the Catholic Church is that she accepts both of the methods of Antioch and Alexandria. She sees them as two gifts.

I do agree that heretics do try to limit mystery. When I talk to some (not all) Protestants, they tend to rationalize everything. When I look at Protestant doctrine, I do not see development, but reductionism.

They tried to reduce "faith" without the sacraments, revelation to Scripture alone, righteousness into a mere declaration without the person's status itself. I hope I do not offend anyone here, and I'm not trying to, but whenever I read Protestant theology, it seems like it is a reductionist Christianity.

When they do not understand how the Cross and the Mass can be the same sacrifice, they reject it. If they do not understand how Mary can be the Mother of God without producing divinity, they reject it.

If they do not understand how a person can partake the sufferings of God so that he can offer his sufferings for another, they reject it. If they cannot understand why a mere man is chosen to feed His sheep, they reject it.

My question is, as it is the same to Ockhamists or reductionist philosophers, why take the reductionist position rather than the mystery? Is it because if we take the mystery, we will have to acknowledge our limitations? The issue is really humility isn't it?

The Antiochene "method" was abstracted from their whole system. What was advocated by the radicals was a truncated version of it that was reduced it to a mechanical method instead of a tool to aid faith. Many were seduced by the Antiochene "method" because it appealed to their rationalism. I think this is why the Deformers and their descendants have fallen into that trap.

There were problems with the extremists using the Alexandrian "method" as well, but they were always perceived as flighty and Gnostic and so they had less attraction to educated people. Their heresies degenerated into folk practices.

Carried to an extreme, the Antiochene "method" leads to a greater dependence on human nature than is wise. I think it assumes a kind of Pelagianism. The Alexandrian approach recognized that "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in {OUR} philosophy." Humility is the only way to approach the text. Having absolute assurance in our Greek grammar and our concordances is just another form of works righteousness.
by Dr. Art Sippo

What has all that got to with Strongs Concordance?

 

[Truther]

So is Strongs Concordance of the Bible commentary(Biased professional opinion) or a lexicon or both?

It is a commentary by a man that was not a professional, but an honorary linguist.

It was compiled to attempt to debunk the KJV.

James Strong is quoted from pulpits as the "Bible corrector" now.

It is a masterpiece of deception.

 

[Truther]

Wow, I must meet this person who is so perfect and knowledgeable and has got God down pat so he doesn't need any ministry from the body of Christ that Jesus has annointed.

You misunderstand what I am saying.

We all need each other's ministry.

The Shepherd-ship is not a ministry, but reserved for Jesus Christ alone(John 10).

The Shepherd is in charge of all ministries, and activates them in His flock.

Every minister is unique, but none is the Shepherd.

Don't ever say "baaah" to these ministers, but say "baaah" to Jesus only.

 

[Truther]

I don't know because I don't build a doctrine on one verse of scripture and you're sarcastic response does not merit consideration.

i think it does.

Some "theologian" disqualifies scriptures in the KJV?

I trow not.

 

[Truther]

In John 16:12-15 - Jesus is talking to His Apostles - the leaders of His Church.

He wasn't speaking to the crowds, therefore - this is not addressed to every individual, but the leaders of His Church and the Church at large.
He promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL Truth - not the individual.

This is evidenced by the tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim o have been "led" by the holy spirit. It is also true of the quasi-Christian sects, like YOUR online paramilitary cult, aggressivechristianity.net.

As I educated you before - the Holy Spirit who inspired John to record Jesus using the word 'poy-mane' (Shepherds) in John 10 is the SAME Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write about 'poy-mane' (Shepherds) in Eph. 4:11. That is a truth that neither YOU nor your other faithless friend @Truther can change.

The Holy Ghost has led these Protestants out of the great harlot(RCC), to try to find their way back to Acts 2.

Don't attack those that want out of that mess, but celebrate it.

 

[Truther]

You can call the Holy Spirit a liar ALL you want - but it'll never be true.

The Holy Spirit who inspired John to record Jesus using the word 'poy-mane' (Shepherds) in John 10 is the SAME Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write about 'poy-mane' (Shepherds) in Eph. 4:11.

You and your equally-ignorant friend @Truther have been stumbling all over yourselves trying to prove the Holy Spirit wrong - and you'll never be able to do it . . .

Catholic..."the Pope is my Shepherd....".


LOL

 

[Truther]

Jesus is my shepherd, my Pastor is a shepherd, my Bishop is a shepherd, the Pope is a shepherd.
This is their described in Eph 4:11-2 and John 10.

4 Shepherds(1+1+1+1).

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

LOL

 

[Truther]

EASY - because the Holy Spirit proclaims that there are MANY shepherds within the Body of Christ Eph. 4:11.

See - that wasn't so complicated, sparky . . .

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


LOL

 

[BreadOfLife]

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
LOL

4 Shepherds(1+1+1+1).
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. LOL.

Catholic..."the Pope is my Shepherd....". LOL

And you STILL haven't been able to explain away the fact that Jesus (John 10:2-16 and Paul (Eph. 4:11-12 use the SAME word, "Shepherd" ('poy-mane').

Ummmmmmm, maybe you should ask YOUR 'poy-mane' on Sunday - or whenever your pseudo-Christian sect meets . . .

The Holy Ghost has led these Protestants out of the great harlot(RCC), to try to find their way back to Acts 2.
Don't attack those that want out of that mess, but celebrate it.
LOL

The Holy Spirit isn't the Author of confusion, sparky. He doesn't lead men to conflicting doctrines.
YOU did that all by yourselves . . .

 

[Hidden In Him]

Context is our friend. Here Jesus is talking about the entire flock of which He is the great or chief shepherd. But as i've shown elsewhere each local church is also a flock albeit smaller. Those flocks which are everywhere all over the world has its own pastor/shepherd. This really isn't rocket science. No one disputes Jesus is 'the' shepherd. Each local church has its shepherd as well. If it doesn't then how are all these local congregations being led or being fed? Who does this and what do we call these people?

Welcome.

Don't expect to be able to talk sense to everyone here. I'd suggest attempting to do so only when you have a lot of time on your hands, and then try it simply as a source of personal entertainment, LoL.

God bless, and welcome again to Christianity Board.

P.S. You're correct. It isn't "rocket science," LoL.

 

[Marymog]

The Holy Ghost has led these Protestants out of the great harlot(RCC), to try to find their way back to Acts 2.

Don't attack those that want out of that mess, but celebrate it.

Your theory is that the Holy Ghost led Protestants out of The Church!! If your theory is true then why do all their doctrines conflict with each other?

I just want to be clear....You “celebrate” being a member of a belief system that has been disagreeing with each other and splitting off from each other for 500 years? Each splinter group believes they know the truth and you celebrate that??? Hmmmmm.....certainly at least one of those teachers of your splinter group is a false teacher? Which one is it?