User talk:HBCALI

Welcome "Wiki Scholars". Please feel invited to read and contribute without modifying original posts. If you'd like to add a comment, please remember to submit your responses at the end of each section. Please Note: To ensure an orderly page layout, I reserve the right to remove clutter, ammend dialog format and delete frivolous additions. Comments left here will be responded to here, unless you request otherwise. Thanks for visiting! - HBCALI

Biblical Integrity

Proponents of Biblical Integrity concede that Judeo Christian Biblical text has been divinely sustained and protected throughout the millennia. This belief is attributed to the continual presence and stewardship of God throughout human history.

"If God can create the Universe from nothing and continually sustain all creation, then surely He would have the power and ability to preserve a book. If you sincerly consider His Divine promises and authority, safe-guarding His own message would hardly seem to be an effort for an Almighty, All-Sovereign God”.--HBCALI (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside our personal upbringing, how sovereign is God - really? Are his plans dashed by the failures of men? When in Biblical history did mankind ever get a single thing right? From Adam forward, mankind has attempted to turn the plans of God upside down and inside out. But nothing, not a single thing, has altered or muted the sovereign plans of God. So, even if deviant church groups or corrupt men decided to taint the Scriptures, would that confound God? Hardly. If God makes a promise, it's a sure bet He make good on it. So if God promised to preserve His word, how could he fail?

Relationship Between Judaism & Christianity

New Testament Fragment, 75-100 A.D. P¹: Matthew 1

Judaism: Is considered by mainstream Christianity as the “elder statesman” of the Christian faith. More importantly, Judaism forms the foundation of the New Testament (Καινὴ Διαθήκη) and sets the back-drop for all New Testament literature. Jewish and Christian Scripture are tightly woven together in a unique tapestry of cross-references and parallel writings. Additionally, New Testament authors utilized several hundred references from the Hebrew Scriptures to emphasize the relationship between the two co-dependent and unique literary periods.

Moreover, the original Twelve Apostles (שליח), especially the Apostle Paul (שאול התרסי), were Jews – and remained Jews – during the birth of the New Testament Church (30 – 100 CE). In turn, the Hebrew Scriptures are viewed by many Christians as the essential "framework" of God's purpose - with the New Testament unveiling the larger extent of God's intent and irrevocable love for all humanity. Ultimately, The New Testament brings the eternal plans of YHWH into sharper focus and broadens the relationship between all mankind and the One True God. Orthodox Christianity believes that the New Testament, along with the Old Testament, stands as the complete, irrevocable written revelation of God. In turn, the Orthodox Biblical Canon opens with the Book of Genesis (בְּרֵאשִׁית) and forever closes with the Book of Revelation (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου). Subsequently, Orthodox and traditional beliefs maintain that additions to Scripture beyond the Biblical Canon are not divinely inspired and ultimately originate from mankind.

Unbeknown to many, Christianity does not emphasize a “new religion” separate and discriminatory from Judaism. Rather, it establishes a renewed relationship or “New Covenant” (ברית חדשה) between God and man. As such, from a New Testament perspective, Jewish believers in Yeshua ben Nazareth (Jesus) can simultaneously be considered “Christians” without any forfeiture of Jewish birthright, heritage or core belief.

Judaism & Sacrificial Offerings

"For the life of a creature is in the blood...it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life". (Leviticus 17:11)

My Reply (HBCALI): First, I agree completely with DRosenbach on a key point,“...repentance is vital to forgiveness”. I couldn't agree more. Secondly, I'm not an Orthodox Jew, so I can't pretend to fathom the legal requirements set forth on it's adherents. However, from both a Jewish and Christian Biblical perspective, repentance is paramount. The idea of Teshuva (Hebrew תשובה, literally "return"), isn’t marginal within Christianity, it's the irrevocable cornerstone of the faith. A sinner must recognize their sin, turn from it and make atonement before God (Acts 3:19, ect). In fact, the only thing fouling the intended relationship between God and mankind is the issue of sin and the refusal of Teshuva.

Needless to say, the Tanakh clearly conveys that Elohim (אלהים) is absolutely Holy and mankind is separated from His presence because of sin (Isaiah 59:2, ect). Likewise, Ezekiel also records that God's relationship with His people can be completely severed through sin (Ezekiel 39:23-24). Let us not forget, Isaiah was also clear that our "righteous deeds" are like filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6). As such, without God's direct forgiveness, He can't see past our filth to even notice our "perceived righteousness". Not to mention it seems rather arrogant to assume we can somehow "manage" our own sin without involving God or His Law in the process.

Regardless of your sect, from conservative to liberal, the One True God of the Tanakh does not tolerate any degree of unrighteousness among His people and takes the issue of sin very serious. Here's my point - The Holiness of God does not change or become muted to accommodate our modern culture or sin. Neither do His requirements change to accommodate our geography or political shortcomings. In my opinion, that's why an honest Jewish Believer is aware (deep down) that more is required than just "prayer" and "good deeds". If that were so, there would be no pressing need to rebuild the Holy Temple. No desire in finding the Red Heifer. No need for the Temple Institute or it's endeavors. At the end of the day, sin at any level is still unacceptable to God and requires His forgiveness according to His standard. Moreover, YHWH through His Grace and Love, has always provided a way for His people to be reconciled back into His favor. As such, Christianity finds the Mosaic Law (or Old Law) perfected through the Messiah, who richly satisfies the highest standard of forgivness.

LOOKING FOR ANSWERS SECTION

The following are common questions asked by many people looking for answers to tough questions. Many of these questions are also common to Wiki users when posting edits or discussing Christianity with HBCALI (talk). If you have further questions, leave me a post or check out topic-based issues on this website.

If Jesus is God, why does the Bible say He prayed to God?

Great question. Since the Bible affirms that Jesus is God, it is often perplexing to note that Jesus addresses God in prayer. Scripture records that Jesus was truly God, but also truly man. In his flesh, Jesus experienced fatigue and hunger. He felt pain, shed tears and eventually died in his natural body on the cross. All this while being able to divinely forgive sins, perform incredible miracles, display power over nature and live a sinless life.

You see, God the Son (Jesus) took upon Himself complete humanity, except for our sinful nature, when He was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit. The Book of Philippians records, "...he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness..."' (2:7, NIV). To fulfill Prophecy, Jesus was absolutely divine, but for a period of time he lived His life on earth as a true man – being made into a “servant to God”. As a man (like us), He depended upon His heavenly Father day by day, just as we are expected to do. As a man, Jesus was able to demonstrate that prayer was essential to cultivate an intimate relationship with God.

As part of humanity for a time, Jesus understood that prayer was indispensable. As such, through His prayer and ministry, Jesus was able to personally define the proper relationship we should have toward God. He was able to model the absolute righteousness and humility that humans must display as God’s creation. God Himself, clothed in human flesh, showed humanity what was proper, expected and required for a perfect relationship with Him. In all of this great mystery, we have only glimmers of truth which is sometimes beyond human comprehension.

In the Bible, didn’t Jesus claim “The Father is Greater than I” (John 14:28). How then is Jesus equal to God?

May I say, many groups have used this verse outside its context to develop their own, corrupt theology. You’re not alone in asking this question, but consider your position very carefully after you’ve studied the whole council of Scripture. As a side note, The Bible records in several places that Jesus shares equality with God. For a clear, easy example, read John 5:18 and 10:33.

Consider the President of the United States when compared to yourself. The President is “greater” in position than you. But he certainly isn’t more “human” than you. Despite your current roles of authority, you and the the President share the same nature – you’re both absolutely human. So yes, the “President is greater than you and I.” Not because he has a superior nature, but because for the time-being, he holds a higher position of authority.

The analogy applies to Jesus and the Father in John 14:28. Jesus wasn’t addressing His divine nature; He was addressing his current position of authority – a submissive servant to the Father. Many people confuse the context of this verse. As mentioned before, Scripture tells us that Jesus “took the form of a servant” and was “made in the likeness of man.” For a time, Jesus laid His glory aside and voluntarily became submissive to the Father’s authority. So yes, as a matter of position, God the Father held a “greater office” than Jesus (at that moment). At the time John 14:28 was spoken, Jesus was about to be crucified. He was about to agonize in the Garden of Gethsemane and soon die a gruesome death on the cross. Postionally at that moment, Jesus was a servant to God’s Perfect Will.

Wasn’t Jesus called the Son of God? Doesn’t that mean he was literally “God’s Son”?

No, it doesn’t. To assume this definition would demonstrate an extremely “westernized” understanding of the title. Keep in mind, Jesus was also called the “Son of David”, the "Son of Man" and the "Son of Abraham". Would you also consider Jesus to be inferior to "man" because he was called the "Son of Man? Was he inferior to Abraham as the "Son of Abraham"? Of course not. These are positional titles.

LDS EDITING CHALLENGES - VARIOUS TOPICS

LDS "Inspiration"

During the time of the Apostasy the Holy Spirit continued to do what he has always done. He never departed or stopped influencing people to follow Christ and Christ's teachings. There really is not a reconciliation for LDS. Just thought I would answer your question. Cheers. --^StormRider 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HBCALI Challange Reply

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I respect your unique knowledge on the topic. I’ve reviewed several related articles, but I’m still trying to vaguely understand the LDS position on the Holy Spirit's role. In your reply, you mentioned that the Spirit “…never departed or stopped influencing people to follow Christ and Christ's teachings…” . Although that sounds eloquent (not to mention very close to the Protestant view), it's entirely counter-intuitive to your point. Allow me to explain...

If Mormons consider thier doctrine “truth”, then the complete lack of Mormon teachings throughout the millennia would be the “absence of truth”. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit was still promoting “truth” (as you assert), where was the inspiration of Mormon doctrine? In fact, we have no record that Mormon teachings existed prior to Joseph Smith. Which or course, creates a dillema for the honest Mormon thinker.

But as you mentioned on your talk page, the Spirit was in fact cultivating the Gospel through the Saints, the Reformation, ect. Only thing, none of these very real, historical points are part of Mormon heritage. Arguably, these type of historical events are all based around “Orthodox / Protestant” preachers and theology – Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, Moody, ect. Evidently, Mormonism has no link to prior Saints, Evangelists or Theologians.

Ultimately, since we’re both versed on the topic, we both understand that Mormon “truth” varies greatly from Orthodoxy’s “truth” – even on basic issues like Phrophets, Salvation, Jesus, and the Scriptures. We can’t forget that. HBCALI (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

36,000 Denominations?

Primary sources, like the Holy Bible, are only useful if the meaning of the passage is indisputable. Generally, within the Bible, that's not the case. There are over 36,000 different Christian denominations and each of them hold up the same Bible, yet there are differences among all of them^{[citation needed]}. For this reason it is better to quote an expert who clarifies the meaning you are seeking. Cheers. --^StormRider 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HBCALI Response

Thanks for your post. Also – 36,000 different denominations? I’m curious what Non-LDS source tallied that suspiciously enormous number. My church was never polled, so I’m not sure who came to take that census. My point is, the figure sounds remarkably easy to fabricate – mainly because it’s based upon sources no one could possibly verify on their own. Did these "surveyors" visit every Orthodox Church on earth asking each their personal beliefs? Hardly.

I would assume everyone who has the same understanding of God and His Word shares one common “faith”. I'm fairly certain Heaven isn't divided into sections - Baptist on the left, Catholics on the right (so to speak). Based on Scripture, I'm not convinced the "label" you choose to share while on earth (Presbyterian, Messianic Jew, XYZ Church, ect) means a whole lot.

Storm Rider Reply 1

I can't remember where the source was for 36,000, here is one that provides an explanation of a similar number. I concur with you thoughts; there are no division of peoples in Heaven. We are all God's children.--^StormRider 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HBCALI Response

With regard to your source for 36,000 different denominations, you should really check deeper into your facts (as I did). Apart from well known Mormon rhetoric, the numerical figure stems from a scantily recognized book written by David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian and Todd M. Johnson. All of which have unspecified credentials and seem to lack any creditable experience to qualify thier research. Additionally, they often source subjective, unverifiable references – when did the United Nations become an authoritive voice on Christian doctrine and denominations?

Storm Rider Reply 2

I think the definition of denomination is well defined and understood. It is not about how individuals believe, but what different, distinct church denomination teach. There is Orthodoxy and then there is orthodoxy. Walter Martindale was good at outlining what were required doctrines to be part of Christianity; however, the problem was that using his definition would exclude all the first apostles and most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Martindale's definition was/is simply not supported by the Bible.

HBCALI Response

Who's Walter Martindale? What influence does he have on Orthodox thinking? Again, what personal expertise does he have in the field of Traditional, Orthodox Theology? The answer to both questions - NONE. In other words, who cares what he "outlined"? If you really want to approach the topic with sincerity, you would benefit from reasearching what recognized teachers within Orthodoxy preach look at this example. What does Charles Spurgeon, Billy Graham, Chuck Swindoll and John F. MacArthur (to name a few) have to say? I’m sure you’ll find that thier "outlines" are faithful to Biblical Scripture and the Message of Salvation. Believe it or not, even academic-minded Catholics agree with their essential points.

Storm Rider Reply 3

There is not even agreement on what books belong in the Bible within Christianity. No agreement on gifts of the Spirit, baptism, Eucharist, priesthood, etc. The LDS Church has far more in common with the Catholic Church than almost all Protestant churches. However, the thing that binds them all is the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and it is by Grace that all are saved. --^StormRider 21:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HBCALI Response

You’re correct. A proper understanding of Jesus Christ and His redemptive work is the binding force that brings Christians together. An improper understanding often creates a deviation from sound doctrine into an “occult” theology.

On your other points, I respectfully disagree. Protestants and Catholics both accept the 66 Books of Scripture universally. Apocrypha is not considered “Inspired Literature” by the Catholics, but still profitable for teaching and instruction so it's included within thier Bible. However, both groups use the same Old and New Testaments with no further disagreement. You should also note that none of the other issues you mentioned are Biblically essential teachings for Salvation. Yes, that includes Baptism. For example, was the thief on the Cross Baptized before he died (Luke 23:43)? Of course not. Regardless, his faith in Jesus saved him, not the sprinkling of water or any other chruch ordinance. At the end of the day, the vast majority of Orthodoxy accepts that understanding.

Storm Rider Reply 4

Catholicism believes in a closed canon, but believes in Tradition, a significant point of conflict between it and the Protestant world. In addition, their canon is very different than the Protestant world. It is a common criticism that none shall take away or add to the Word of God, but that has obviously been violated in this case. Who holds the incorrect position, Protestants or Catholics? The Trinity is certainly the doctrine that is believed by the vast majority of Christians today to explain the nature of the Godhood, but it is not THE universal belief. There are millions of Christians today who do not accept it as there has been throughout history.

HBCALI Response

Not entirely accurate. Again as I mentioned earlier, Protestants and Catholics both accept the 66 Books of Scriptural Canon universally. Now, we could talk about "tradition" and "ceremony" all day - yes, we have differences. But unless they detract from the Salvation Message or erode Biblical doctrine, are they really worth a lengthy discussion?

With regard to your notion about the Trinity - absolutely untrue. I have deep respect for your posisition, but I'm not sure who's providing you these erroneous facts. Among Traditional Christians, the Trinity IS THE accepted belief, plain and simple. If you dismiss the Trinitarian concept, you're wouldn't be a "Traditional Christian"here. "Millions" within Orthodoxy who flat-out don't accept the doctrine? Entirely counter-intuitive nonsense. In that case, maybe they shouldn't be considered "Christians" at all?

Storm Rider Final Reply

My intent is not to engage in a battle of wits, so much as engage in conversation. I view the Christian world as a diverse group of believers. Their purpose is their belief in the Son of God, the great Mediator of mankind, the sole doorway through which we may approach the Father, the Way, the Truth, and the Light. I acknowledge only one great truth that all Christianity depends upon and that is Jesus through whom all are saved and without his saving grace, none are saved. This belief is what unites Christians as a common brotherhood of Christ's disciples.

We can all learn from one another. It is difficult not to acknowledge the rich spiritual heritage we find in the lives of the Saints such as St. Francis, St. Catherine of Siena, Saint Teresa of Ávila, and St. John of Damascus. Even more value the writings of John Paul II; his writings, his life, was exemplary of wisdom and deep faith. The vitality of faith seen in some of the Protestant churches, the joy of the African and Latino Christians can teach all of us something. This list could go on and on because there are so many examples by which we can learn and have gratitude in all Christian churches. Let us all look for the good in others, but patient with their position on God's path and their growth. Thanks for the conversation and, as you say, we can close this talking point. --^StormRider 22:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HBCALI Closing

Agreed. Mankind should strive to find the good in one another and begin working toward truth. We can all learn from each other - if nothing more. We certainly don't need to abandon our faith simply to have intellegent, meaningfull dialog. All good points discussed in these threads...

Scripture and the LDS

I saw a question and then it was deleted, but still felt it was worth a comment. The Bible is viewed as the Word of God as long as it is "translated" correctly; however, interpreted correctly also applies. The importance of the Bible for LDS is that it is a record of God's dealings with those inhabitants around Jerusalem. LDS view it as vital; it is the first Testament that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Son of God, and member of the Godhead that was in union without beginning or end.

The Book of Mormon is viewed as equally important because it bears the same witness of Jesus. It is the second witness that Jesus was the Christ and it concerns the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. It is believed by LDS that with these two witnesses it is beyond doubt that Jesus lives, that he was the Christ and no man can deny it having read the two together. I hope this helps. --^StormRider 06:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

HBCALI Reply

Intriguing to say the least. I’m not entirely sure why you need “another testament” when the Hebrew Scriptures alone are enough to make us wise toward Salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). In either case, the Book of Mormon is more accurately described as a “different testament of Christ” – the whole nature of God and our relationship towards Him is defined entirely differently than revealed in Biblical Scripture. Mormonism doesn’t hide that point, they openly reconcile the entire religion upon it!

It's also interesting that Mormons refute the idea of Biblical Inerrancy when they can’t even begin to prove the historicity or validity of Reformed Egyptian. Am I wrong in my assumption? Still waiting for an answer...

After all, Biblical Scripture was written in the well-documented languages of Aramaic, Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek. Which lends credibility on it’s own. Reformed Egyptian? Mormons should also consider that many of Smith's teachings or "New Revelations" are plainly counter-Biblical. Moreover, most of these "teachings" find a difficult (if not impossible) time being reconciled by Old or New Testament literature. Five minutes of discussion with a sincere Mormon, along with reading only a few passages, will prove that reality. No further explantion is really needed. It’s just interesting when we compare that understanding with our knowledge of Biblical Scripture. Written by numerous authors, on several continents, spanning thousands of years – but remaining consistent to all prior revelations. The Book of Mormon, not so much.

Watchtower

Your edits to The Watchtower have been removed, as your changes constituted an unsourced opinion.

Additionally, it appears that your User Talk page is being used primarily as a platform for stating your religious opinions rather than for discussion about article content or user behaviour. Most of the content here fits within the definition of "unrelated content" explained at WP:USERPAGE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]