Christian Identity & British Israelism and the varied doctrine

[Mary]

(07-03-2011 10:25 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:  

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  I'm sure you will concede that it is also possible to be unpopular and biblically incorrect.

Yes, of course I would. (BTW I wasn't arguing my position is correct because it is the less popular, but that popularity doesn't make a position correct, as we can see from the Pharisees).

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  THE Bible's message is clear, and is quite simple. I have understood it since childhood to be:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I said from the onset, that when it came to essential Christianity I was orthodox, but WRT theological non-essentials, not so much. So you'll get no argument from me quoting [John 3:16].

Consider, the bible has about 31124 or so verses. Of those, approximately 23210 are OT. So about 74.57% of the Bible is OT. There are Christians and Christian ministers alike, who publicly argue the OT is obsolete, not necessary; despite [2 Timothy 3:16]. Clearly the OT points to Christ.

Of the Bible's 31124 or so verses, approximately 6641 OT verses and 1711 NT verses are predictive or prophetic. In total, 8352 of the Bibles verses are predicative or prophetic, which is just under 27% (so 1/3). Likewise Christians and Christian ministers alike often shrug off or write off prophecy as unknowable and uncertain.

When it comes to salvation, understanding Christ's atoning sacrifice, on the cross is everything. Beyond that, when it comes to understanding the bible (one doesn't need to understand the bible to be saved incidentally), the OT and prophecy are clearly important, and the question is, are the details important? I'd argue beyond salvation, the rejection of any part of the bible is a rejection of Christ, so it is worth contending for the faith, as we are all doing here.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  You entered the discussion by saying that Christian theology is based on an incorrect understanding and incorrect translation of "ecclesia" and "church" and congregation". Having stated that, essentially, you left no room for argument, because anyone who disagreed with you would then be subscribing to this incorrect translation.

Well, if the argument presented was valid, it says that any theology using of those English words in a cavalier way are without biblical foundation; which should make people examine their own presuppositions. There should be no room for further argument.

On the other hand, I've made an argument about biblical meaning and the use of words. If I've committed an error, or employed a fallacy, point it out and that's room for further argument. Either my argument is shown to be false, or it is accepted; that generally is how it works.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  Rose took you back to basics - the church is the body of believers in Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, and who is God.

But Mary, if you accept the argument that Greek words have had theological meaning imparted to them, and 'ekklesia' is such an example, than any theology that builds off that 'added' meaning is without biblical foundation. You have to decide for yourself, whether I'm correct or not (I've shown you my reason). If I am correct, you have to accept my conclusion and determine what it means for theology that uses such words.

I've been through the same process, and am convinced that theology has been injected which was not originally there. I'm even more convinced this is the source of every major theological debate; (Calvinism vs Arminianism for example, is the covenant unconditional or conditional - well clearly from my point of view, such as question doesn't understand the covenant, Likewise how can OT prophecy be understood, if people can't answer simple question 'is it talking about the 'church' or 'Israel'?' etc).

I've showed you a number of these cases were the Greek doesn't seem to have the meaning, that the English words impart. Because I accept the arguments, I accept the conclusion, and have had to adjust my own understanding of theology. Remember, I was originally questioned on my assertion that I understood the 'ekklesia' (congregation) and Israel to be one and the same thing. I believe I've shown my reasons, whether or not others share that belief.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  I think you have misunderstood Rose's point about the Greek woman in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. In fact I think you have misunderstood the passages in those verses entirely. In my next post I will go through them.

It's possible. I reread both [Mark 7] and [Matthew 15], and then I'll reread Rose's argument.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  You ask has anyone read of the prodigal sons. I have read of the prodigal son. Where will we find the prodigal sons?

That was a typing error. Sorry about that.

no worries.

Perhaps we need to clear up what you mean by theology exactly. Or do you mean doctrine?

---

(07-03-2011 10:45 PM)Mary Wrote:  

(07-03-2011 10:25 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:  

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  I'm sure you will concede that it is also possible to be unpopular and biblically incorrect.

Yes, of course I would. (BTW I wasn't arguing my position is correct because it is the less popular, but that popularity doesn't make a position correct, as we can see from the Pharisees).

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  THE Bible's message is clear, and is quite simple. I have understood it since childhood to be:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I said from the onset, that when it came to essential Christianity I was orthodox, but WRT theological non-essentials, not so much. So you'll get no argument from me quoting [John 3:16].

Consider, the bible has about 31124 or so verses. Of those, approximately 23210 are OT. So about 74.57% of the Bible is OT. There are Christians and Christian ministers alike, who publicly argue the OT is obsolete, not necessary; despite [2 Timothy 3:16]. Clearly the OT points to Christ.

Of the Bible's 31124 or so verses, approximately 6641 OT verses and 1711 NT verses are predictive or prophetic. In total, 8352 of the Bibles verses are predicative or prophetic, which is just under 27% (so 1/3). Likewise Christians and Christian ministers alike often shrug off or write off prophecy as unknowable and uncertain.

When it comes to salvation, understanding Christ's atoning sacrifice, on the cross is everything. Beyond that, when it comes to understanding the bible (one doesn't need to understand the bible to be saved incidentally), the OT and prophecy are clearly important, and the question is, are the details important? I'd argue beyond salvation, the rejection of any part of the bible is a rejection of Christ, so it is worth contending for the faith, as we are all doing here.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  You entered the discussion by saying that Christian theology is based on an incorrect understanding and incorrect translation of "ecclesia" and "church" and congregation". Having stated that, essentially, you left no room for argument, because anyone who disagreed with you would then be subscribing to this incorrect translation.

Well, if the argument presented was valid, it says that any theology using of those English words in a cavalier way are without biblical foundation; which should make people examine their own presuppositions. There should be no room for further argument.

On the other hand, I've made an argument about biblical meaning and the use of words. If I've committed an error, or employed a fallacy, point it out and that's room for further argument. Either my argument is shown to be false, or it is accepted; that generally is how it works.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  Rose took you back to basics - the church is the body of believers in Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, and who is God.

But Mary, if you accept the argument that Greek words have had theological meaning imparted to them, and 'ekklesia' is such an example, than any theology that builds off that 'added' meaning is without biblical foundation. You have to decide for yourself, whether I'm correct or not (I've shown you my reason). If I am correct, you have to accept my conclusion and determine what it means for theology that uses such words.

I've been through the same process, and am convinced that theology has been injected which was not originally there. I'm even more convinced this is the source of every major theological debate; (Calvinism vs Arminianism for example, is the covenant unconditional or conditional - well clearly from my point of view, such as question doesn't understand the covenant, Likewise how can OT prophecy be understood, if people can't answer simple question 'is it talking about the 'church' or 'Israel'?' etc).

I've showed you a number of these cases were the Greek doesn't seem to have the meaning, that the English words impart. Because I accept the arguments, I accept the conclusion, and have had to adjust my own understanding of theology. Remember, I was originally questioned on my assertion that I understood the 'ekklesia' (congregation) and Israel to be one and the same thing. I believe I've shown my reasons, whether or not others share that belief.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  I think you have misunderstood Rose's point about the Greek woman in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. In fact I think you have misunderstood the passages in those verses entirely. In my next post I will go through them.

It's possible. I reread both [Mark 7] and [Matthew 15], and then I'll reread Rose's argument.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  You ask has anyone read of the prodigal sons. I have read of the prodigal son. Where will we find the prodigal sons?

That was a typing error. Sorry about that.

no worries.

Perhaps we need to clear up what you mean by theology exactly. Or do you mean doctrine?

Also, I'm not sure what your point is about the number of verses in the Bible, and that some people dismiss the OT. What is the relevance of this at this point in the discusssion?

---

(07-03-2011 10:45 PM)Mary Wrote:  

(07-03-2011 10:25 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:  

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  I'm sure you will concede that it is also possible to be unpopular and biblically incorrect.

Yes, of course I would. (BTW I wasn't arguing my position is correct because it is the less popular, but that popularity doesn't make a position correct, as we can see from the Pharisees).

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  THE Bible's message is clear, and is quite simple. I have understood it since childhood to be:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I said from the onset, that when it came to essential Christianity I was orthodox, but WRT theological non-essentials, not so much. So you'll get no argument from me quoting [John 3:16].

Consider, the bible has about 31124 or so verses. Of those, approximately 23210 are OT. So about 74.57% of the Bible is OT. There are Christians and Christian ministers alike, who publicly argue the OT is obsolete, not necessary; despite [2 Timothy 3:16]. Clearly the OT points to Christ.

Of the Bible's 31124 or so verses, approximately 6641 OT verses and 1711 NT verses are predictive or prophetic. In total, 8352 of the Bibles verses are predicative or prophetic, which is just under 27% (so 1/3). Likewise Christians and Christian ministers alike often shrug off or write off prophecy as unknowable and uncertain.

When it comes to salvation, understanding Christ's atoning sacrifice, on the cross is everything. Beyond that, when it comes to understanding the bible (one doesn't need to understand the bible to be saved incidentally), the OT and prophecy are clearly important, and the question is, are the details important? I'd argue beyond salvation, the rejection of any part of the bible is a rejection of Christ, so it is worth contending for the faith, as we are all doing here.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  You entered the discussion by saying that Christian theology is based on an incorrect understanding and incorrect translation of "ecclesia" and "church" and congregation". Having stated that, essentially, you left no room for argument, because anyone who disagreed with you would then be subscribing to this incorrect translation.

Well, if the argument presented was valid, it says that any theology using of those English words in a cavalier way are without biblical foundation; which should make people examine their own presuppositions. There should be no room for further argument.

On the other hand, I've made an argument about biblical meaning and the use of words. If I've committed an error, or employed a fallacy, point it out and that's room for further argument. Either my argument is shown to be false, or it is accepted; that generally is how it works.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  Rose took you back to basics - the church is the body of believers in Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, and who is God.

But Mary, if you accept the argument that Greek words have had theological meaning imparted to them, and 'ekklesia' is such an example, than any theology that builds off that 'added' meaning is without biblical foundation. You have to decide for yourself, whether I'm correct or not (I've shown you my reason). If I am correct, you have to accept my conclusion and determine what it means for theology that uses such words.

I've been through the same process, and am convinced that theology has been injected which was not originally there. I'm even more convinced this is the source of every major theological debate; (Calvinism vs Arminianism for example, is the covenant unconditional or conditional - well clearly from my point of view, such as question doesn't understand the covenant, Likewise how can OT prophecy be understood, if people can't answer simple question 'is it talking about the 'church' or 'Israel'?' etc).

I've showed you a number of these cases were the Greek doesn't seem to have the meaning, that the English words impart. Because I accept the arguments, I accept the conclusion, and have had to adjust my own understanding of theology. Remember, I was originally questioned on my assertion that I understood the 'ekklesia' (congregation) and Israel to be one and the same thing. I believe I've shown my reasons, whether or not others share that belief.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  I think you have misunderstood Rose's point about the Greek woman in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. In fact I think you have misunderstood the passages in those verses entirely. In my next post I will go through them.

It's possible. I reread both [Mark 7] and [Matthew 15], and then I'll reread Rose's argument.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  You ask has anyone read of the prodigal sons. I have read of the prodigal son. Where will we find the prodigal sons?

That was a typing error. Sorry about that.

no worries.

Perhaps we need to clear up what you mean by theology exactly. Or do you mean doctrine?

---

(07-03-2011 10:45 PM)Mary Wrote:  

(07-03-2011 10:25 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:  

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  I'm sure you will concede that it is also possible to be unpopular and biblically incorrect.

Yes, of course I would. (BTW I wasn't arguing my position is correct because it is the less popular, but that popularity doesn't make a position correct, as we can see from the Pharisees).

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  THE Bible's message is clear, and is quite simple. I have understood it since childhood to be:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I said from the onset, that when it came to essential Christianity I was orthodox, but WRT theological non-essentials, not so much. So you'll get no argument from me quoting [John 3:16].

Consider, the bible has about 31124 or so verses. Of those, approximately 23210 are OT. So about 74.57% of the Bible is OT. There are Christians and Christian ministers alike, who publicly argue the OT is obsolete, not necessary; despite [2 Timothy 3:16]. Clearly the OT points to Christ.

Of the Bible's 31124 or so verses, approximately 6641 OT verses and 1711 NT verses are predictive or prophetic. In total, 8352 of the Bibles verses are predicative or prophetic, which is just under 27% (so 1/3). Likewise Christians and Christian ministers alike often shrug off or write off prophecy as unknowable and uncertain.

When it comes to salvation, understanding Christ's atoning sacrifice, on the cross is everything. Beyond that, when it comes to understanding the bible (one doesn't need to understand the bible to be saved incidentally), the OT and prophecy are clearly important, and the question is, are the details important? I'd argue beyond salvation, the rejection of any part of the bible is a rejection of Christ, so it is worth contending for the faith, as we are all doing here.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  You entered the discussion by saying that Christian theology is based on an incorrect understanding and incorrect translation of "ecclesia" and "church" and congregation". Having stated that, essentially, you left no room for argument, because anyone who disagreed with you would then be subscribing to this incorrect translation.

Well, if the argument presented was valid, it says that any theology using of those English words in a cavalier way are without biblical foundation; which should make people examine their own presuppositions. There should be no room for further argument.

On the other hand, I've made an argument about biblical meaning and the use of words. If I've committed an error, or employed a fallacy, point it out and that's room for further argument. Either my argument is shown to be false, or it is accepted; that generally is how it works.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  Rose took you back to basics - the church is the body of believers in Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, and who is God.

But Mary, if you accept the argument that Greek words have had theological meaning imparted to them, and 'ekklesia' is such an example, than any theology that builds off that 'added' meaning is without biblical foundation. You have to decide for yourself, whether I'm correct or not (I've shown you my reason). If I am correct, you have to accept my conclusion and determine what it means for theology that uses such words.

I've been through the same process, and am convinced that theology has been injected which was not originally there. I'm even more convinced this is the source of every major theological debate; (Calvinism vs Arminianism for example, is the covenant unconditional or conditional - well clearly from my point of view, such as question doesn't understand the covenant, Likewise how can OT prophecy be understood, if people can't answer simple question 'is it talking about the 'church' or 'Israel'?' etc).

I've showed you a number of these cases were the Greek doesn't seem to have the meaning, that the English words impart. Because I accept the arguments, I accept the conclusion, and have had to adjust my own understanding of theology. Remember, I was originally questioned on my assertion that I understood the 'ekklesia' (congregation) and Israel to be one and the same thing. I believe I've shown my reasons, whether or not others share that belief.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  I think you have misunderstood Rose's point about the Greek woman in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. In fact I think you have misunderstood the passages in those verses entirely. In my next post I will go through them.

It's possible. I reread both [Mark 7] and [Matthew 15], and then I'll reread Rose's argument.

(07-03-2011 07:54 PM)Mary Wrote:  You ask has anyone read of the prodigal sons. I have read of the prodigal son. Where will we find the prodigal sons?

That was a typing error. Sorry about that.

no worries.

Perhaps we need to clear up what you mean by theology exactly. Or do you mean doctrine?

Also, I'm not sure what your point is about the number of verses in the Bible, and that some people dismiss the OT. What is the relevance of this at this point in the discusssion?

Furthermore, I'm a little confused about whether you mean John 3 16 is a theological non essential, or whether the ecclesia issue is a non essential?