tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post1932020817087603608..comments2024-03-11T07:53:25.838-04:00Comments on Spirituality, Dreams and Prophecy: Is the Second Coming a Physical Event or Spiritual Event?Doug Webberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-73192404805149405152020-09-16T21:50:04.594-04:002020-09-16T21:50:04.594-04:00For part 2 of this blog post, see How are the Prop...For part 2 of this blog post, see <a href="https://dream-prophecy.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-are-prophecies-of-second-coming.html" rel="nofollow">How are the Prophecies of the Second Coming Fulfilled?</a>Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-24891829609105590262020-08-29T11:18:33.151-04:002020-08-29T11:18:33.151-04:00An update for those of you reading this blog: Jesu...An update for those of you reading this blog: Jesus alone is the authority for determining what is the Word of God, and what isnt, not a man-made authority. And the evidence is within the Bible itself. See <a href="https://dream-prophecy.blogspot.com/2008/01/true-biblical-canon.html" rel="nofollow">A Divine Revelation of the Biblical Canon</a>Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-29077134406073750192017-04-18T12:03:29.048-04:002017-04-18T12:03:29.048-04:00The difference here is all former Christian church...The difference here is all former Christian churches are somewhat dependent on the doctrines and traditions of men in addition to scripture, whereas no such dependency exists in the New Church. We have, by Divine revelation, what scripture is inspired and what is not. It is Divine revelation which has priority over everything else. The other works, such as Hebrews, is included for the sake of edification for the church, and Paul was indeed Divinely influenced in his work but not to the same extent as Divine inspired scripture.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-23936222173341692832017-04-10T14:04:49.295-04:002017-04-10T14:04:49.295-04:00Apologist, somehow I am losing your comments, just...Apologist, somehow I am losing your comments, just found the ones I posted. I think there are three others. This is beginning to take several threads so you might want to separate some of these under separate comments.<br /><br />So, I selected a custom rather than a dogmatic teaching, for once the Catholic Church makes an infallible pronouncement on something that ends all discussion. So since the Catholic Church has not made a pronouncement, presumably they are agnostic on the matter. But I doubt they are agnostic. All they said officially is indeed Mary's body was assumed into heaven (in 1950). The point here, is that there are two competing traditions: one for Ephesus, the other for Jerusalem. And you cannot use scripture to determine the truth, nor a dogmatic doctrine based on authority for truth. So the question for you is: which do you think is most likely correct? How do you determine the truth of the matter? Obviously something triggered the Pope to make that pronouncement in 1950. What was it?<br /><br />And before you jump to conclusions on Hebrews, scripture is written in a variety of different styles, with different levels of inspiration. Its not like a "black" and "white" matter as most people take it. Hebrews, along with the letters of Paul, are Divinely influenced in their subject matter. But they do not have the same level of inspiration as other works, e.g., the words of Jesus, or when a prophet writes down something from an inner locution. Again I had already addressed that question in an earlier post which I put at the beginning of this discussion so I did not bother explaining it again in detail here. You will see that the Israelites were not satisfied with the law of Moses, so they were given Saul of the tribe of Benjamin. It is similar with the early Christian church, who were given Paul, who was also formerly Saul of the tribe of Benjamin. That is not a coincidence.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-55509111315729573392017-04-06T14:38:08.207-04:002017-04-06T14:38:08.207-04:00Now, to address your comment that you don't be...Now, to address your comment that you don't believe that Hebrews is God-breathed---WHAT IN THE WORLD?<br /><br />Doug, seriously? You have done exactly what the Evil One has planned. He has whispered to you, "Did God really say..." and you have been led astray here.<br /><br />No better plan does Satan have for the downfall of man than to inject some doubt into man as to what is God-breathed.<br /><br />First you say Hebrews is not theopneustos...and next will be the descent into the belief that Jesus did not rise from the dead.<br /><br />This is perilous, Doug. Utterly perilous.<br /><br />https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Descent_of_the_Modernists%2C_E._J._Pace%2C_Christian_Cartoons%2C_1922.jpg/784px-Descent_of_the_Modernists%2C_E._J._Pace%2C_Christian_Cartoons%2C_1922.jpgThe Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-51355953420024034492017-04-06T14:34:21.288-04:002017-04-06T14:34:21.288-04:00Perhaps it would be better if you used the word &q...Perhaps it would be better if you used the word "custom" instead of tradition, for I fear you have made a very basic (and common, so don't feel bad, Doug) mistake of confusing the two. <br /><br />There has never been a "teaching" regarding Mary's place of death, Doug. <br /><br />Please don't confuse customs with doctrines and teachings of Catholicism.<br /><br />Best place to look for what's been the constant teaching of the Church is here: <br />http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm<br /><br />So, again, don't confuse a custom with a teaching! :)<br />The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-34930780744059235122017-04-06T13:56:20.576-04:002017-04-06T13:56:20.576-04:00I made sure I picked the most inconsequential trad...I made sure I picked the most inconsequential tradition possible. The point is, some teachings have grown over the centuries within the churches that have become falsified or corrupted. Nevertheless tradition has its place. There are three general levels or degrees of truth:<br /><br />1. Truth by tradition or religious authority.<br />2. Rational truth, or truth according to reason.<br />3. Spiritual truth, from an inward perception or Divine revelation.<br /><br />Truth by tradition or religious authority is the lowest level of truth. Even though it is imperfect, it has its place. When one is first introduced to Christianity, it is normal to learn from tradition or authority. And most people do not progress beyond that. The next level of truth is when one asks why something is truth, and to give a reason for it. Very few progress to that level. The next level of truth, the highest, is Divine revelation, or an inward perception, which is very rare.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-74547552651766250632017-04-06T09:49:35.693-04:002017-04-06T09:49:35.693-04:00I think you are confusing Catholic tradition with ...I think you are confusing Catholic tradition with Sacred Tradition, Doug.<br /><br />They are not the same thing.<br /><br />You submit to Sacred Tradition, each and every time you quote from, say, Hebrews, as theopneustos. <br /><br />But the "tradition" that Mary died in Jerusalem--that's neither here nor there. The article I cited says Mary may also have died in Ephesus. <br /><br />Or that she didn't die at all--she was simply assumed into heaven at the end of her life!The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-32430922114547337282017-04-06T09:39:50.344-04:002017-04-06T09:39:50.344-04:00Thanks apologist. The problem with your answer is ...Thanks apologist. The problem with your answer is that Catholic tradition states that Mary died in Jerusalem. So how would we know which is correct, was it Ephesus, or was it Jerusalem? For many centuries, if I went to a Catholic bishop for the answer, he would have said Jerusalem.<br /><br />So on the others:<br />* To do this would require several pages, I gave you an example for the first. But again, you cannot demonstrate it by taking passages out of context, which is what you did with the quotes.<br />* Hebrews is not theopneustos.<br />* Deuteronomy has the test for prophets, but you are probably going to tell me I should accept the Catholic one.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-76347755890928431872017-04-05T22:42:15.677-04:002017-04-05T22:42:15.677-04:00Where did Mary spend the last years of her life? ...Where did Mary spend the last years of her life? <br />https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/LASTHOME.HTM<br /><br />Now, please answer my questions. <br /><br />-Would you mind addressing whether you can look at all of those verses I cited (without Googling!), and tell us whether they are theopneustos or not? Thanks!<br />-What internal evidence tells you that Hebrews is theopneustos?<br />-In order to "test prophets", you have to have first received the template, right? <br /><br /><br />Thanks, Doug!<br /><br />The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-18121388124002499192017-04-05T20:41:07.275-04:002017-04-05T20:41:07.275-04:00I am going to answer your question with this quest...I am going to answer your question with this question. It is not a nonsequitur. It is a simple question, where did Mary spend the last years of her life?Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-9478905842211083702017-04-05T18:27:29.097-04:002017-04-05T18:27:29.097-04:00Can you first answer my questions, Doug?
Can you first answer my questions, Doug? <br /><br />The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-41460439652977830902017-04-05T10:02:18.165-04:002017-04-05T10:02:18.165-04:00Lets do it this way, in a way you can understand. ...Lets do it this way, in a way you can understand. First, where did Mary spend the last years of her life?Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-27680964074171495162017-04-04T18:50:38.662-04:002017-04-04T18:50:38.662-04:00When you say Irenaeus is "actually correct&qu...When you say Irenaeus is "actually correct" here, what is the measure you are using to determine whether he's correct, Doug?The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-14353436859642799862017-04-04T18:42:28.418-04:002017-04-04T18:42:28.418-04:00Again, you have to have the template already, in o...Again, you have to have the template already, in order to "test any prophet", right, Doug?<br /><br />And you received this template from the Catholic Church.<br /><br />There is no other way around it, Doug. <br /><br />The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-45736751392000367142017-04-04T17:53:45.999-04:002017-04-04T17:53:45.999-04:00There is evidence that accompanies a prophet that ...There is evidence that accompanies a prophet that indicates they have received a heavenly revelation, so no it is not circular. One should apply tests to any prophet or claim of Divine revelation, as most are fraudulent. In that way, one does not have to depend on circular reasoning (which the Protestants do) or argument from authority (as Catholics do). So in the New Church there is an "escape clause" from the dilemma that both Catholics and Protestants have. So sorry, I sort of found a loophole here.<br /><br />However, if you would prefer to go by tradition or Catholic bishops, you can reference Irenaeus who gave some rather interesting arguments as to why there are only four gospels, by referencing the four animals that appear in the book of Revelation. He is actually correct in a certain way in his assessment. Also before the canon was formed, the early church fathers would always make a distinction between the words of Jesus and the apostles. In this manner, a revelation has confirmed what was previously received solely by tradition.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-86540025050486293482017-04-04T17:09:09.236-04:002017-04-04T17:09:09.236-04:00I am confused by your statement: "To determi...I am confused by your statement: "To determine what is Divinely inspired or not, I go by Divine revelation". <br /><br />You (and readers of this blog) must see how obviously circular this is, right?<br /><br />You first have to accept something as divine revelation (that is, from what the Catholic Church told you is inspired), and then you use what the CC has told you is divine revelation as the measure by which you evaluate all other ancient Christian texts.<br /><br />That's what you're doing--but, you simply need to acknowledge that you've accepted the testimony of men...Catholic men...specifically, Catholic bishops...to tell you what's divine revelation.The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-84426145306340179112017-04-04T17:03:19.463-04:002017-04-04T17:03:19.463-04:00You haven't answered the question, Doug. Wher...You haven't answered the question, Doug. Where do you get the idea that because an inspired writer references another writer, we have to necessarily conclude that this other writer is inspired?<br /><br />That seems like (another) man-made tradition you've been duped into believing.The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-11177724395236797862017-04-03T22:41:29.616-04:002017-04-03T22:41:29.616-04:00Paul's quotes are by nature different. Jude ob...Paul's quotes are by nature different. Jude obviously regards Enoch as a prophet and having actually written the work, and Peter regards the visions as genuine. There is strong evidence it was regarded as scripture by the early Christian church - it is prominent among the Dead Sea scrolls for one. The Epistle of Barnabus explicitly quotes it as scripture (see v. 16:5). Some early church fathers regard it as scripture, and others because of that quote did not want Jude as part of the canon. Another indication is that the book of Enoch itself has later Christian interpolations added at the end.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-39901308046000162772017-04-03T18:58:33.980-04:002017-04-03T18:58:33.980-04:00Thanks for continuing this dialogue, Doug!
Quick...Thanks for continuing this dialogue, Doug! <br /><br />Quick question before dinner: where do you get the idea that because something is referenced in Scripture (Enoch, by Jude), this necessarily means it's Scripture? That's just a man-made tradition you've endorsed.<br /><br />St. Paul also references pagan authors...but we don't declare that because he references them that they, too, are inspired, right? Acts 17: "For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’* as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring." <br /><br />This is an allusion to the Stoic, Aratus. But no reasonable person says, "Hey, that means that the poems of Aratus are also divine revelation!"<br /><br />Right?The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-16394773130690526462017-04-03T17:12:00.146-04:002017-04-03T17:12:00.146-04:00Apologist, I am not sure you missed it, but the ca...Apologist, I am not sure you missed it, but the canon as we have it now does not define what is Divinely inspired or not. And I am telling you, if you are saying that every word of Jude is Divinely inspired, you would be forced to include the book of Enoch, a definite mistake. And you know as well as I do that evidence of canonical formation started in areas that now belong to the Orthodox branch, I am not sure they would agree with you calling them Catholic. Mark founded the church in Alexandria long before the church in Rome existed, and it is from there, that the Christian church adopted the Septuagint canon as the basis. They still have their own line of Popes/Patriarchs.<br /><br />But this does not matter who declared it, you simply have to go by the internal evidence of the text itself whether or not it is valid testimony or not. Church officials obviously went by the internal evidence as criteria, it is that internal criteria which determines the truth of the matter.<br /><br />To determine what is Divinely inspired or not, I go by Divine revelation, and the only revelation that addresses what is Divinely inspired or not is the one received by Emanuel Swedenborg over a period of 27 years of waking visions. In it, he acknowledged that his only source of truth was Jesus Christ:<br /><br />"That the Lord manifested Himself before me His servant, and sent me to this office, and that He afterward opened the sight of my spirit, and so has admitted me into the spiritual world, and has granted to me to see the heavens and the hells, also to converse with angels and spirits, and this now continuously for many years, I testify in truth; likewise, that from the first day of that call I have not received any thing which pertains to the doctrines of that church from any angel, but from the Lord alone while I read the Word. For the sake of the end that the Lord might be constantly present, He has disclosed to me the spiritual sense of His Word, in which Divine truth is in its light, and in this light He is continually present. For His presence in the Word comes only by the spiritual sense; through the light of this, He passes into the shade in which is the sense of the letter; comparatively, as it is with the light of the sun in the day time, passing through a cloud that is interposed." (True Christian Religion, n. 779-780)<br /><br />And to repeat what I said before, as it has been buried in numerious blog posts, the restricted canon of the Bible containing the books that are Divinely inspired are as follows:<br /><br />"The Word of the Old Testament was of old called the Law and the Prophets. By the Law were meant all the histories, which are contained in the five Books of Moses, the Books of Joshua, the Judges, Samuel, and the Kings: by the Prophets, all the prophecies, which are those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; and also the Psalms of David." (Heavenly Arcana, n. 2606).<br /><br />"The books of the Word are all those which have an internal sense; and those which have not an internal sense are not the Word. The books of the Word in the Old Testament are the five books of Moses, the book of Joshua, the book of Judges, the two books of Samuel, the two books of the Kings, the Psalms of David, the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah including the Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; and in the New Testament the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; and the Apocalypse." (Heavenly Arcana, n. 10325).<br /><br />So I agree! Doctrines do not come from the Bible alone. You have to look for those who have received Divine inspiration, and each person must also go to the Lord. But all doctrines and teachings still need to be confirmed by scripture. The ultimate source is the Lord.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-5911631500844960032017-04-02T17:12:04.880-04:002017-04-02T17:12:04.880-04:00Also, would you mind addressing whether you can lo...Also, would you mind addressing whether you can look at all of those verses I cited (without Googling!), and tell us whether they are theopneustos or not? Thanks!The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-67802048612333867262017-04-02T17:06:24.668-04:002017-04-02T17:06:24.668-04:00You wrote: "Also, when the New Testament was...You wrote: "Also, when the New Testament was formed, all they addressed at the time was were these valid testimonies of the words of Jesus and the apostles." YES!!!! That is nothing but a testimony of your submission to Sacred Tradition.<br /><br />That means, your doctrines come NOT from the Bible Alone, Doug.<br /><br />This is exactly what I've been leading you to acknowledge!The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-14781884974325168582017-04-02T16:56:26.638-04:002017-04-02T16:56:26.638-04:00Yes, you are very Catholic when you assert that Go...Yes, you are very Catholic when you assert that God's teachings have priority over the teachings of men! <br /><br />However, again, the ONLY way you know what belongs in the NT is because of the testimony of men...Catholic men...Catholic bishops to be exact.<br /><br />So, when you quote Luke, as you do above, this is because you have trusted in the authority of men (Catholic bishops) who told you that the writings of Luke accurately represent what Jesus taught.<br /><br />You would not know it ANY OTHER WAY, save that you defer to the authority of the CC to tell you that these words come from an inspired author.<br /><br />For example, even though there is an ancient text that declares that these are the words of Jesus: "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man", you never quote these words and the inspired words of Christ because...you defer to the authority of the Catholic Church on this.<br />The Amateur Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042589564126217004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-1963587962709710152017-04-02T14:44:14.661-04:002017-04-02T14:44:14.661-04:00To add here, in multiple places Swedenborg discuss...To add here, in multiple places Swedenborg discusses the real spiritual danger of separating faith from charity. It is not a minor theological issue. Those who hold to this doctrine do not know what repentance is:<br /><br />"Because few in the Reformed Christian world practise repentance, it is here added, that he who has not looked into and searched himself, at length does not know what damning evil and saving good are; for he has no religion from which to know it: for the evil which a man does not see, know, and acknowledge, remains; and that which remains becomes more and more rooted, until it closes the interiors of his mind; hence man becomes first natural, then sensual, and at last corporeal, and neither the sensual nor the corporeal man knows any damning evil, or any saving good." (True Christian Religion, n. 564)<br />Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.com