Originally posted by DarfiusThat makes no sense at all. Are you saying that somebody who sins INTENDS to repent? If they did, they wouldn't sin in the first place. Where in this passage does it say IF you repent your sins will be forgiven? You are simply creating a new definition for the word "wilful"; that word has nothing to do with later repentance or not.
It says if you sin wilfully. I would say Judas killed himself on purpose, eh?
Wilfully includes not willing to repent. Or planning to.
Jesus also said "Now go and sin no more." to the same adulteress. And it's God the Father that does the judging on Judgement day. Jesus' 1st coming wasn't to condemn the world, but to save it.
Originally posted by NemesioThank you. The reason I ask this question is because most people will automatically say no. I will study more on this and see if any passages hint or give direct forgiveness or not.
Well, working within a Christian theological framework,
anyone forgiven by Jesus or the Father (or by St Peter
as per St Matthew 16:19b and, by extension the other
leaders of the church), [b]anyone, including Judas would
be in heaven.
So, with the above givens, I have no difficultly believing
that Judas may have been forgiven and thus is ...[text shortened]... thodox
and not particularly well supported by Scripture, but not
utterly excluded.
Nemesio[/b]
Nyxie
Originally posted by telerion
I thought that I should expound to you all why exactly I feel Jesus commited suicide and was not merely the innocent victim of human murderers. All of what I am about to say assumes that God (three in one: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) does in fact exist and is accurately described in the 66 books of the Holy Bible.
Begin sidebar:
Ahem. 73 books. The Protestants removed 7 books from the OT because
they found their theology inconvenient (and the decreased economic cost of
printing a thinner Bible played a large role, too), even though these books
were ratified by the same council that ratified the NT in 382. While they
claim that the Holy Spirit was present for the selection of the books which
formed the NT, somehow, the Holy Spirit left the synod for the selection of
the OT.
Plus, the argument that the Jews rejected these books is a bogus one. While
it was rejected by the Palestinian Jews in 96 (and, at this same time, they
cursed the name of Jesus -- this is certainly not an authority that the church
should rely on), the Alexandrian Jews kept these books in their canon.
These books are found in the Septuagint, the oldest source of the OT we have.
fully 84+% of the OT quotations in the NT use the Septuagint translation.
Almost without a doubt, this is the Bible that Jesus used.
------
End of sidebar.
I have this question for you Telerion:
Let's say you have a son. Let's say someone is pointing a gun at him.
You know that this person is going to fire on the count of three. And,
as he does so, you throw yourself in front of the bullet, saving your son,
but dying in the process.
Would you call this suicide? I don't think I would.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf Jesus "gave" or "yielded" up "the ghost" on the Cross before he normally would have died, did he commit suicide? After all, all men die, so all suicide does is hasten our deaths. Don't the wording of the Gospels indicate that Jesus deliberately died before he had to and thus commited suicide?
[b/]Originally posted by telerion
I thought that I should expound to you all why exactly I feel Jesus commited suicide and was not merely the innocent victim of human murderers. All of what I am about to say assumes that God (three ...[text shortened]... Would you call this suicide? I don't think I would.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIs'nt giving your life willfully for another the greatest gift you could ever give? This is what jesus did in essance.
Originally posted by telerion
[b]I thought that I should expound to you all why exactly I feel Jesus commited suicide and was not merely the innocent victim of human murderers. All of what I am about to say assumes that God (three in one: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) does in fact exist and is accurately described in the 66 books of the Holy Bible.[ ...[text shortened]...
but dying in the process.
Would you call this suicide? I don't think I would.
Nemesio
What about the books missing from the new testament Nemesio?
Nyxie
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't have a vested interest in it, but I don't take 'gave up His spirit'
If Jesus "gave" or "yielded" up "the ghost" on the Cross before he normally would have died, did he commit suicide? After all, all men die, so all suicide does is hasten our deaths. Don't the wording of the Gospels indicate that Jesus deliberately died before he had to and thus commited suicide?
to mean that He chose that exact moment to expire as opposed to remaining
alive for a longer period of time. I take a more metaphorical reading of it,
as an elegant way of saying, 'He kicked the bucket.'
His relatively short time on the Cross (people didn't die so much of suffocation
as is often believed, but of exposure, unless the legs were broken) has been
explained by the severe beatings He got. I don't know if that is a compelling
argument or not.
From a theological position, I don't think of His death as a suicide; a suicide
is a selfish act, one that a person does for one's own 'benefit.' Theologically,
it is a sacrifice, the losing of one's life for the benefit of another. In this way,
I do not think of those first soldiers who landed on the beach at Normandy as
people who committed suicide, even though their deaths were nearly assured.
They sacrificed their lives so that others may over come the enemy.
In my example above, the father who takes the bullet for his son does not
commit suicide in my mind, for the same reasons. Suicide is 'inequitable' loss
of life. Sacrifice is the trading of one life for another.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nyxie
Is'nt giving your life willfully for another the greatest gift you could ever give? This is what jesus did in essance.
Well, this is the theological explanation for it, especially the Johannine one.
And, yes, I believe that, as St John's Jesus said, the greatest gift or expression
of love a person can give is to give his life so that another may live.
What about the books missing from the new testament Nemesio?
This is somewhat more complicated; many books which existed between
100-382 were not ratified by the general Christian community and were
never deemed by the Church to be 'canonical.' This is not the case with
the OT. Those seven books I mentioned were always accepted
as Scripture from 382 until the Protestants decided that they weren't
Scripture. As I said, they claim that the Holy Spirit was present for the
ratification of the NT, but she went to lunch for the OT session. It's
absurd and theologically indefensible.
Nemesio
Edit: I should say that I have read a great many of these so-called
non-canonical books and they are fascinating.
Originally posted by NemesioWhat are your views on the Gospel of Thomas? Or should we start another thread for that?
Originally posted by Nyxie
[b]Is'nt giving your life willfully for another the greatest gift you could ever give? This is what jesus did in essance.
Well, this is the theological explanation for it, especially the Johannine one.
And, yes, I believe that, as St John's Jesus said, the greatest gift or expression
of love a person can give is ...[text shortened]... that I have read a great many of these so-called
non-canonical books and they are fascinating.[/b]
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieYou are lucky, because I am tired and going to bed, you are going
What are your views on the Gospel of Thomas? Or should we start another thread for that?
Nyxie
to get the short version. 😉
The two or three extant papyri for the Gospel of St Thomas come
from the late-third or early-fourth centuries, but the text most likely
dates from the mid-second century. The content reflects the growing
(but still nascent) Gnostic theo-philosophy about Christianity.
However, the seeds of the Gospel of St Thomas are as old as any
other mainstream Gospel text; they reflect the 'sayings tradition'
of transmission. The Gospel reflects an interest in what Jesus said
rather than what Jesus did. This 'sayings tradition' is called Q and,
although we do not have an extant source for this (other than
exemplified by St Thomas), it is dated around 50 CE. St Mark had
a limited version of a 'Q' document, St Luke and St Matthew had
a well-developed one (as did St Thomas).
One would be a fool to ignore the Gospel of St Thomas if one was
interested in Christianity, even if you have an Orthodox perspective.
One can easily weed out the Gnostic stuff and see the 'primative'
Gospel text.
That was the short version. 😉
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio1. Concept of the Inerrancy of Scripture
Originally posted by Nyxie
[b]Is'nt giving your life willfully for another the greatest gift you could ever give? This is what jesus did in essance.
Well, this is the theological explanation for it, especially the Johannine one.
And, yes, I believe that, as St John's Jesus said, the greatest gift or expression
of love a person can give is ...[text shortened]... that I have read a great many of these so-called
non-canonical books and they are fascinating.[/b]
 The Apocrypha was derived from the Septuagintal plus which was not present in the Hebrew text of the OT.
Inerrancy, as I understand it, is a necessary corollary of plenary inspiration. Inerrancy applies to Scripture as originally given. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew text and could not qualify as inerrant Scripture, strictly speaking. Therefore Scripture must reside in the original Hebrew canon.
2. NT evidence
 The Apocrypha was not quoted as Scripture in any place in Jesus’ discourses or the rest of the NT.
Perceived exceptions: ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’ and Jude 14, 9 from 1Enoch and the Assumption of Moses respectively.
In the first, there are a few solutions to the ‘Nazarene’ prophecy. It may be a pejorative equivalent to Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering servant as ‘one from whom men hide their face’. If so, Matthew was not citing an explicit OT verse verbatim but referencing an OT idea of the rejected Messiah (‘Nazarene’ being a byword for shame or ignominy). Alternatively, I do not have problem accepting the view that it comes from an oral tradition lost to us, though there is no hard evidence for that.
In the second, we need to recognize the difference between referencing Scripture as a source of authority and citing extrabiblical sources for illustration or information. The NT writers cited the Greek and other secular poets/writers too but that is not the same as quoting Scripture.
Moreover, neither did these citations come from the Apocrypha.
When Jesus or the apostles quote Scripture, the style makes it evident. He/they often predicate it with, ‘ It is written…’ or ‘David speaking by the Holy Spirit…’ or ‘in order that Scripture may be fulfilled’… or ‘This is spoken of through the prophet Daniel…’ There is often a ring of finality to it (because 'Scripture cannot be broken' Jn 10:35)
The reasoning that Jesus recognized the book of 2 Maccabees as scripture simply because he observed the feast of Hanukah is wanting. Jesus has the authority to observe any good customs and religious observance without necessarily appealing to explicit scriptural texts, does he? This is to attribute a biblicist mentality on Jesus that he does not have. Many mainstreams Protestants rightfully celebrate Easter, Christmas, May Day and Independence Day without necessarily having to rely on Scriptural warrants, do they? A biblicist mentality is an aberration of sola scriptura not representative of the Reformers’ plea.
 That the Hebrew text was what Jesus had in mind when he referred to Scripture can be gleaned from three biblical evidences:
1. The way he classified the OT scripture as the law, the prophets and the writings. This is the way the OT was classified according to the Hebrew canon of 22 books. (Lk 24:44)
2. Jesus alluded to the limit of the OT canon from Genesis to 2 Chronicles when he mentioned the prophets who were martyred from the blood of Abel to that of Zechariah. This was in line with the order of the Hebrew canon. (Mt 23:35)
3. Most of the books of the Hebrew canon were individually attested to in the sayings of Jesus as well as the other NT writings. None of the Apocrypha was cited as Scripture.
Jesus seemed to be in agreement with the Pharisees’ limit of canon (the Hebrew text of 22 books which correspond exactly with the Protestants’ 39) as he appealed to it often in his debate with them. If the Saduccees were in error in reducing the canon to the Pentateuch, the Pharisees were in error in adding rabbinical interpretation (human tradition) to the canon. (Mk 7:5ff) Jesus did not totally debunk human tradition here, only that he restored it to its rightful place – in subordination to Scripture. (I think this is a nuance often missed by many RCs and Protestants in opposite directions). Jesus affirmed that he had not come to do away with the law (meaning the entire OT scripture) but to fulfil it right down to the iota. This implies that he stood in the tradition of the Pharisees in recognizing the limit of the OT canon.
3. Church history
 The Septuagintal plus was rejected by some noted early church fathers such as Melito, Origen, Athanasius of the East and Jerome of the Latin West and councils such as the canons of Laodicea(363 AD). So it was not something invented by the reformers though the reformers certainly pointed us back to the original source of revelation to God’s people.
If there was such a council at Jamnia around 98 AD (still a matter of debates among scholars), it merely confirmed what was already widely accepted by the Jewish community. The fact that Alexandrian Jews used the Septuagint widely was no proof that the whole was accepted as canonical by them anymore than many people who read the KJV (or whatever version) today accept the King James Version as inspired, unless they are misguided by some propagandistic teaching. Many Alexandrian Jews had to read the Greek translation because they had already forgotten the Hebrew tongue but they knew that they were reading a translation, not the inspired text.
The limit of the canon recognized by the Jews was the Hebrew canon of 22 books was also corroborated by the Jewish historian, Josephus. (Contra Apion)
Philo of Alexandria made much reference to the three sections of the Hebrew text and ascribed inspiration to many of the canonical books but none to the Apocrypha. This suggests that the Alexandrian canon might not be dissimilar to the Palestinian one.
One possible reason that church councils like the one presided by Damasus included the Septuagintal plus in the canon was that the Septuagint had been widely used by the early church and the distinction between canonical and non-canonical works was blurred over time. The reformers’ plea for sola scriptura made it imperative for the distinction to be clarified once again though some like Luther went too far with his private judgement in excluding some books from the OT/NT canon which had neither the historical support of the early church nor the Jews.
4. The Church today
 Even the RC made a concession to the place of the Apocrypha by classifying it as deutero-canonical, as did the Eastern Orthodox. The variant in the Apocrypha list between the RC and the East should also give us some pause as to their general acceptance by the Church ecumenical (it is this Church I believe that the gates of Hades will not prevail against). The fact remains that the core 22 books in the Hebrew canon were unanimously accepted by all the people of God, both ancient and new should point to its self-authenticating quality, lacking in the Apocrypha.
I have not found any reasoning or evidence so far for the Apocrypha to be included in the canon of Scripture to be compelling. The Apocrypha should best be read for its edifying benefits and historical information but not for the establishment of doctrines. It should therefore be left out of the canon of Scripture.
http://www.theologyreview.com/forums/printthread.php?s=5bbd80f0ebeaa04de2d628ae4b4d93dd&t=199&page=2&pp=15
Originally posted by Darfius
1. Concept of the Inerrancy of Scripture
The Apocrypha was derived from the Septuagintal plus which was not present in the Hebrew text of the OT.
The Hebrew text of the OT was ratified at meeting of the Palestinian
Jews at the end of the first century. At this meeting these Jews
ratified that version and at the same time cursed the name of
Jesus and His followers. Why would Christians use these Jews as
model for Scripture?
Furthermore, the Septuagint was the Bible used by the Gospel writers
and that translation is used in the overwhelming majority of Jesus's
quotations from Scripture rather than the Hebrew.
2. NT evidence
The Apocrypha was not quoted as Scripture in any place in Jesus’ discourses or the rest of the NT.
There are many books not quoted by Jesus or the NT. Would you
say, for example, that Obadiah wasn't Scripture because Jesus or any
other NT writer didn't use it in their writing?
The idea that the so-called apocrypha aren't referred to is simply false
as the bottom of this web page clearly deliniates many, many very
clear references.
http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html
Also, the Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, which isn't and has
never been in any Western Christian Canon. Also, explicit references
are made to the Assumption of Moses. Why aren't these Scripture,
if references to inspiration rely on whether or not a NT author refers
to them?
3. Church history
The Septuagintal plus was rejected by some noted early church fathers such as Melito, Origen, Athanasius of the East and Jerome of the Latin West and councils such as the canons of Laodicea(363 AD). So it was not something invented by the reformers though the reformers certainly pointed us back to the original source of revelation to God’s people.
Yes. So was the Book of Revelation and the Letter to the Hebrews.
Revelation wasn't even added to the Bible until some years after the
formation of the canon. Also, the Epistle of Barnabas and the
Shepherd of Hermas were considered contenders for Scripture as well.
Anyway, the OT as preserved by the complete Septuagint was ratified
in 382. Jerome initially only questioned and not opposed those
books which the Protestants excised from the complete Bible. He
included them within his edition of the Bible (the Vulgate).
4. The Church today
Even the RC made a concession to the place of the Apocrypha by classifying it as deutero-canonical, as did the Eastern Orthodox.
The term 'deutero-canonical' means Second Canon and was a
counter-reaction to the Protestant disposal of those Sacred Texts in
the 16th century. There were no distinctions or special titles for them
until the Protestants threw them out. And, it's being second doesn't
give it any less inspired status, just like the Jews hold the Torah in
especially high esteem but still consider the other books of the OT
to be inspired and sacred. The RC church was only clarifting its
position regarding these books: they are fully inspired and have been
considered so since the inception of the Canon, but like Revelation
and Hebrews, were not entirely accepted by the lay Christian
community.
The arguments against the apocrypha are bogus: it is just Protestants
who want to ignore 1000 years of faith because of problematic
theological implications imbedded in these books. Jesus almost
certainly used the Septuagint as His Bible (as the vast majority of
quotes from the OT use the Septuagint translation) and the excision
of these books makes absolutely no historical or theological sense.
Nemesio
Ahem. 73 books. The Protestants removed 7 books from the OT . . . selection of the OT.
I agree, however I haven't read the Apocrypha. I don't really know what is in them so I didn't feel comfortable assuming anything from those texts. I don't think it's so crucial to the point, unless there is something in them that makes my 66 book assumption necessary.
Really interesting information though. Sometime I'll look into the matter carefully.
Let's say you have a son. Let's say someone is pointing a gun at him.
You know that this person is going to fire on the count of three. And,
as he does so, you throw yourself in front of the bullet, saving your son,
but dying in the process.
Would you call this suicide? I don't think I would.
To answer this, I'll go back to my working definition of suicide.
1) Did the father (me) intend to die?
and
2) Did the father take deliberately manipulate his environment to see this intention actualized?
From the way, you've constructed the example, I'd have to answer, "No," to question 1. The father intended only to keep the bullet from hitting his son. He had no desire to be killed by the bullet, (I suspect, if given the choice, he would have preferred to live.)
If this is the case, then the answer to question 2 is also "No," since self-death was not the father's intention. While he certainly took deliberate actions to place himself in harm's way, but he did not do so with the intent to bring about his own death.
Based on the standard I have proposed, I would have to agree with you that this is not a case of suicide.
Now we can make a slight amendment to the example to produce a case of suicide. Let's say that the shooter is a terrorist who has taken the boy and the father hostage. The shooter announces that he is going to kill one of them. The father must choose who the terrorist will kill. Perhaps believing that his death will increase his son's chances of surviving the situation, the father asks the terrorist to shoot him rather than his son.
This is suicide. The father has the intention to die (to save his son's life) and has taken deliberate action to see his death actualized (He asks to be killed) . Notice that as in the example of the captive revolutionary from my original post, this is a case of "noble suicide."
Originally posted by telerion
I agree, however I haven't read the Apocrypha. I don't really know what is in them so I didn't feel comfortable assuming anything from those texts. I don't think it's so crucial to the point, unless there is something in them that makes my 66 book assumption necessary.
I didn't mean to suggest that it was critical to the argument. Just another side
bar of information, especially for those who maintain a 66 book incomplete Canon
as proper.
---
Now we can make a slight amendment to the example to produce a case of suicide. Let's say that the shooter is a terrorist who has taken the boy and the father hostage. The shooter announces that he is going to kill one of them. The father must choose who the terrorist will kill. Perhaps believing that his death will increase his son's chances of surviving the situation, the father asks the terrorist to shoot him rather than his son.
This is suicide.
This is an interesting perspective, but, for my part, I do not see it as suicide.
Suicide -- su from Latin meaning oneself, cide from Latin caedere meaning to
strike or kill. That is, 'self-killer' or 'killer of oneself.'
I understand suicide to mean with deliberate primary intention to kill oneself.
So, when a person takes too many pain pills deliberately with the specific
intention of overdosing and dying, I would call this suicide. When a person
takes too many pain pills because they misread the label, I call this an accident
and not suicide. When a person takes too many pills because they believe that
the dosage recommended is insufficient, but dies as a result, I call this an
accident and not suicide.
When a father asks to take his son's place, the primary intention is not to kill
oneself (for, if asked, the father would have no one killed) but to save his
child's life. Similarly, I think it is pretty clear that the Synoptic Jesus was
not particularly keen on being crucified (cf. St Luke 22:42 - 'Father, if you
are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done.'😉.
However, as the father accepts death to save his son, so too does Jesus
accept His death to 'save the world' (speaking theologically, of course).
The primary intention here is not to die, but to save. As such, I would describe
both Jesus's death a Sacrifice as I would the father's death.
Nemesio
I understand suicide to mean with deliberate primary intention to kill oneself.
So, when a person takes too many pain pills deliberately with the specific
intention of overdosing and dying, I would call this suicide. When a person
takes too many pain pills because they misread the label, I call this an accident
and not suicide. When a person takes too many pills because they believe that
the dosage recommended is insufficient, but dies as a result, I call this an
accident and not suicide
Each of your judgements in these three cases is consistent with my defintion. The last two are not suicide because they lack intent to die.
When a father asks to take his son's place, the primary intention is not to kill
oneself (for, if asked, the father would have no one killed) but to save his
child's life.
I understand your distinction here, however I believe it is really based on a judgement of the motives for the suicides. Those who purposefull overdose on pills would also prefer to live, but they cannot live in the world that they perceive. In the father's case, his choice set is very constrained. He would like to live, but not if it means that his son will die. He too cannot live with the world as he perceives it.
Perhaps the difficulty accepting both cases as a form of suicide arises because the first is ignominious. We do not accept that the agent's perception of the world is correct. We naturally think, "The agent didn't have to kill itself. The world is not so bad as it thinks. What a pathetic thing to do." However, we are more sympathetic to the father's plight. We believe his perception is correct, and we would like to do the same if placed in his situation. I prefer to call this 'noble suicide,' self-sacrifice.
Similarly, I think it is pretty clear that the Synoptic Jesus was
not particularly keen on being crucified (cf. St Luke 22:42 - 'Father, if you
are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done.'😉.
However, as the father accepts death to save his son, so too does Jesus
accept His death to 'save the world' (speaking theologically, of course).
The primary intention here is not to die, but to save. As such, I would describe
both Jesus's death a Sacrifice as I would the father's death.
I think this would work if we weren't assuming as I do in my post, that Jesus is also God, so that he (Jesus) actually chose to create a world in which he would want to die. If Jesus is God, then Jesus is the one who will accept no other payment than his own blood for man's sin.
As for the passage from Luke, I think it displays the humanity in Jesus. By assumption, Jesus knew at the worlds conception that he would not want to die when the time came. His humanity would strive to prevent it. So he communes with his God-self, and reassures himself that this was what he wants to do. Again all of this arises from the notion of the trinity. I think the whole thing is pretty fishy myself.
The father in the hostage situation is being constrained by an outside agent, the terrorist. God (Jesus) however is contraining Himself by a choice of His own will. If the world is the son, and God(Jesus) is the father, then God(Jesus) is also terrorist. God then has simply developed an elaborate, split-personality suicide.
I hope I do not offend you by making God synonymous with terrorist here.