Question about the contents of the "Charter"

[GenghisKhan44]

Before I accept your Charter, I had some questions and comments about the conditions.

Jesus Christ is the son of God. (Matthew 3:16-17)

No contest there. I prefer Matthew 16:16, myself, but that passage works, too.

Accepting Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior is the only way to enter heaven. (John 14:6)

I agree to it.

But I also believe God is Lord and Creator of the entire Universe. In fact, if it weren't for the latter, I wouldn't believe the former.

So, while of course you needn't - it's your server, after all - I might suggest you also say He is Lord of All Creation as well. Something to the effect of "He died for you, and for all men". You see what I mean? "Personal Saviour" just seems a bit too "me-centred" and not so God-centred.

The Bible is inspired by God, and its perfection is inherently passed from God to its human authors, and from those authors to its interpretations. (2 Timothy 3:16)

Whose interpretations?

The Bible is a single volume, without sequel or addendum. (Revelation 22:18-19)

This passage of Revelation seems to refer to the Revelation itself, not to the Bible. While I don't disagree with your conclusion, you are drawing the right conclusion from the wrong passage. A better verse would be Matt 5:18 (neither a jot nor a tittle).

And while I do agree with it, I also believe in Tradition (note the captial T) which Jesus passed on to His Apostles orally while He was still on Earth before His Ascension, but which was not codified in Scripture and was only written by later disciples, like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. By that definition, would I be in disagreement with your charter?

 

[Abea]

I'd like to make one personal comment about one of your comments. However, I think this would be a question better answered by someone else. I have emailed this post to Tek7 since he IS the founder and president of the Tribe of Judah is probably the best person to respond to it.

But from my own personal thoughts to your comment:

Accepting Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior is the only way to enter heaven. (John 14:6)
...
So, while of course you needn't - it's your server, after all - I might suggest you also say He is Lord of All Creation as well. Something to the effect of "He died for you, and for all men". You see what I mean? "Personal Saviour" just seems a bit too "me-centred" and not so God-centred.

I'd just like to ask, how is saying "He died for you and for all men" less me centered? In fact, I find that statement to be VERY me centered.

Personal Savior means that I accept him personally as the one and only person who could die for me. It completely recognizes that it was all on HIM and not on anything that I could do.

God has many names and if we look at them, many in some way are about how he relates to us personally. They are for us, not for him, to recognize who he is. They are in essence "me centered" as you put it.

El Shaddai (Lord God Almighty)
El Elyon (The Most High God)
Adonai (Lord, Master)
Yahweh (Lord, Jehovah)
Jehovah Nissi (The Lord My Banner)
Jehovah-Raah (The Lord My Shepherd)
Jehovah Rapha (The Lord That Heals)
Jehovah Shammah (The Lord Is There)
Jehovah Tsidkenu (The Lord Our Righteousness)
Jehovah Mekoddishkem (The Lord Who Sanctifies You)
El Olam (The Everlasting God)
Elohim (God)
Qanna (Jealous)
Jehovah Jireh (The Lord Will Provide)
Jehovah Shalom (The Lord Is Peace)
Jehovah Sabaoth (The Lord of Hosts)

He is my PERSONAL savior. He isn't just someone that saved you, or saved that guy over there, he saved ME, ME personally. Many people believe that Jesus lived. Many people believe there is a God. But they believe they don't need him or that he is here for other's and not for them. That he died for everyone else but them. Or that he did for those that were alive at that time, not specifically for them. It's important that we recognize that he died for each of us personally.

God IS personal. He wants a PERSONAL relationship with each of us.

He HAS to be our Personal Savior - or he really isn't a savior at all.

Just my thoughts - personally.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Thank you for the reply Albea. I look forward to tek's reply.

But, as for your comments:

But from my own personal thoughts to your comment:

I'd just like to ask, how is saying "He died for you and for all men" less me centered? In fact, I find that statement to be VERY me centered.

Note the last part: He died... for all men. Not just for me, but for everyone.

Personal Savior means that I accept him personally as the one and only person who could die for me. It completely recognizes that it was all on HIM and not on anything that I could do.

Hm. I see what you mean.

Still, while it is true He died for you, He also died for all of humanity. This "personal saviour" statement never sat well with me, perhaps because it seems to forget Christ is not only saviour, but King. A King of a Kingdom.

We are all part of God's Kingdom. And a statement of faith ought to remind us that we are all part of this Kingdom, where He Lives and Reigns Forever and Ever. Amen.

God has many names and if we look at them, many in some way are about how he relates to us personally. They are for us, not for him, to recognize who he is. They are in essence "me centered" as you put it.

Not only "me-centred". "Us-centred". He is not Lord of One. He is Lord of All.

He is my PERSONAL savior. He isn't just someone that saved you, or saved that guy over there, he saved ME, ME personally. Many people believe that Jesus lived. Many people believe there is a God. But they believe they don't need him or that he is here for other's and not for them. That he died for everyone else but them. Or that he did for those that were alive at that time, not specifically for them. It's important that we recognize that he died for each of us personally.

Again, I see what you mean. And you do make a good point. And I am not saying this "Jesus died for me" saying is wrong.

But there is another important component of your relationship with Jesus: others. He also died for everyone who has lived and died on this planet. And each and every one of the saints, living and dead, stand right beside you with Christ to help you home.

God IS personal. He wants a PERSONAL relationship with each of us.

Yes, I agree. He wants to be intimate with us. He is Our Father, after all. Who is more intimate with His Children than a father? My father was a very loving man, God bless his heart. And I am sure He is one of the elect in Heaven.

But my father also loved my sister, and my mother, and the world around him. He was personal with everyone. He loved everyone.

What I'm driving at is that God is love - both for us personally, AND for everyone. One is not to the exclusion of the other.

He HAS to be our Personal Savior - or he really isn't a savior at all.

I agree emphatically. But He has to be OUR saviour. If He saves only one person - me - and forsake everyone else, He's not much of a Saviour there, either.

Just my thoughts - personally.

And I like them. I hope you don't mind mine.

Remember: I'm pullin' for ya. We're all in this together. Jesus, me, and everyone.

 

[Abea]

When you were saying me centered, I thought you meant like humankind centered as opposed to God centered.

Yes, I is important that we realize he died for all, otherwise there is no point in trying to point someone to him.

If you look at what Jesus commanded, it's Love God ... Love others as yourself. If you can't find a love for yourself first, then you can not love other's properly. Same idea here, first we have to take him on as Savior personally, otherwise we have nothing to hand to anyone else.

We can't know how to love ourselves if we don't love God first. And we love him because he first loved us. So

God loved us so we love God. Because we love God and realize our value to him, we love ourselves. When we understand what he did for us, we want to do the same for others. Because we have learned how to love ourselves, we can now love others. Because we love others' we prove our love for God. If any part of that is missing, then we really truly don't love God.

Don't mind your comments at all.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

When you were saying me centered, I thought you meant like humankind centered as opposed to God centered.

My apologies. I thought you meant "me" in the individualistic sense. Which, of course, is grossly myopic.

I get the logic of the rest of what you've said, and I agree. Still I'll wait for tek to speak officially. And I'll still suggest the communal aspect of Christianity ought to be made clearer.

But thank you for putting up with me.

 

[Abea]

But thank you for putting up with me.

Well, you know, we all have a thorn in our side.

hehehhheheheh

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Tek, I only want to know so I can know whether I want to sign this charter or not. Whatever you say that charter says is all I want to know. I won't argue you to the death about it.

Just tell me what your charter means so I can be of good conscience in signing or not signing on with it, and I'll make no more than that of this thread.

 

[Abea]

Just to clarify, the only thing you are questioning is:

Quote:
The Bible is inspired by God, and its perfection is inherently passed from God to its human authors, and from those authors to its interpretations. (2 Timothy 3:16)
Whose interpretations?

Correct?

And you added the additional question of:

I also believe in Tradition (note the captial T) which Jesus passed on to His Apostles orally while He was still on Earth before His Ascension, but which was not codified in Scripture and was only written by later disciples, like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. By that definition, would I be in disagreement with your charter?

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Ah... yes, I believe that's correct. As Hillel said, the rest is commentary.

Actually, I'll change my first question. I think misunderstood what the passage I quoted actually meant. I originally'd thought tek meant the interpretations were also perfect. (Which is why I asked which interpretations, as I clearly cannot agree to that statement.)

That isn't what you meant, tek, is it?

If I understand you correctly, you meant God's word is perfect, and that word (while not necessarily its complete perfection) is passed on to men, and those words men speak and write are then interpreted (again, not necessarily perfectly).

Am I understanding this correctly?

And that second question is, again, in reference to :

The Bible is a single volume, without sequel or addendum. (Revelation 22:18-19)

 

[Abea]

I think you've answered the first one yourself and are correct.

As far as the second one, I think I am safe in saying, you would not be in in disagreement with the charter.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

...I will wait for tek to answer, just to be sure.

 

[Wolfeman]

Tek may not have seen this. You may want to PM him for a more direct and immediate response. Unless your trying to start a public dialog on this point in which case never mind.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

No, but I do feel I have a right to know what exactly I would be signing into. Perhaps a PM would've been a better idea. But I suppose it might be just as well, in case anyone else may wonder in the future.

 

[Tek7]

First, let me say that I am a Protestant. (No surprise, I know.) While I respect the very significant positive impact the Catholic church has had and continues to have on cultures around the world, I personally disagree with some of its doctrine. I don't say that to start a debate, but rather explain the point of view from which the ToJ charter was written.

Secondly (and most of you are probably tired of hearing this by now), I never intended for Tribe of Judah to serve as a substitute or replacement for attendance and involvement in a local church. I do not claim spiritual authority as a pastor called by God to teach rightly claims over a congregation. I mention that to highlight that the charter was written by an individual and not a congregation and thus may lack some of the "polish" or church "What We Believe" statements.

Thirdly, I believe the original manuscripts were divinely inspired and without error. I do not make the same claims of translations. I don't necessarily refute that one or multiple translations may be divinely inspired and therefore inerrant, but I won't make the claim, either.

Fourthly, the initial purpose of the reference to Revelations was to make it clear that we do not recognize Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses, but that's another matter) as legitimate Christian denominations. The section was added after a Mormon joined ToJ and later removed from the roster. Of course, returning to my first point, I did write the charter from a Protestant perspective, so we do not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Hope this clears up any misunderstandings!

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Thank you, Tek. Much appreciated.

First, let me say that I am a Protestant. (No surprise, I know.) While I respect the very significant positive impact the Catholic church has had and continues to have on cultures around the world, I personally disagree with some of its doctrine. I don't say that to start a debate, but rather explain the point of view from which the ToJ charter was written.

OK. I understand perfectly well ToJ is primarily a Protestant group, and so I wanted to be sure you were not asking anything that would violate what I believe as a Catholic. That's all.

Secondly (and most of you are probably tired of hearing this by now), I never intended for Tribe of Judah to serve as a substitute or replacement for attendance and involvement in a local church. I do not claim spiritual authority as a pastor called by God to teach rightly claims over a congregation. I mention that to highlight that the charter was written by an individual and not a congregation and thus may lack some of the "polish" or church "What We Believe" statements.

OK. I honestly never thought you had intended that. I asked these questions for my own sake because, again, I do not want to say I believe in or agree to something I don't. You understand.

Thirdly, I believe the original manuscripts were divinely inspired and without error. I do not make the same claims of translations. I don't necessarily refute that one or multiple translations may be divinely inspired and therefore inerrant, but I won't make the claim, either.

OK.

And I take it the charter reflects that? OK. Cool.

Just out of curiosity, what about copies (but not translations) of the originals? It doesn't matter to me, I just wonder.

Fourthly, the initial purpose of the reference to Revelations was to make it clear that we do not recognize Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses, but that's another matter) as legitimate Christian denominations. The section was added after a Mormon joined ToJ and later removed from the roster. Of course, returning to my first point, I did write the charter from a Protestant perspective, so we do not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Hmm...

I agree with the general premise that statement makes - the Bible, in the Greek so to speak, is the only Scripture.

My question was mainly in regards to the oral tradition the Catholic Church claims is not written as Scripture, but developed alongside Scripture (and was eventually written down). Like the Oral Torah in Judaism, which has since been recorded in the Midrash, Talmud, and Mishnah.

If I understand you correctly, oral tradition not being strictly "Scripture", per se, Tradition would not violate this principle.

But, as for the Deuterocanonical books... well, we both know the history of them. They were written after the rest of the Old Testament, but NOT after the New. So Catholics didn't invent them (unlike the Book of Mormon or the Quran or... Dianetics, I guess.

But the Jews took them out of their Hebrew Bibles on the premise that they couldn't find any copies of them in Greek. But since the Christians used the LXX instead of the Hebrew, they made few bones about keeping them for the next 1400 years. Then Luther took them out for the same reason the Jews did...

Well, I suppose, considering you don't have it in your Bible, and we do, regardless of whether the Pope added it or Luther subtracted it, I guess you would consider those books an "addition", wouldn't you? Be rather silly if you considered your canon a "subtraction" of ours, regardless of the history, wouldn't it?

Hope this clears up any misunderstandings!

Again, I thank you, Tek. Thank you for taking your time out to answer my questions. I appreciate it. It's helped me make a cleaner decision.

It's cleared up quite a few questions. I don't know what you have to say definitively about the last question, but I think I can make an educated guess.

And, if I do understand correctly - correct the logic above if I'm wrong - it's simply a case of "if it's not in our Bible, it's not Scripture". That makes perfect sense to me. And I admire you for being honest and definite about what Scripture is. Takes guts to stand out and define anything these days.

But if that charter defines "the Bible" as the Protestant canon and nothing more... I don't think I can sign that charter in good conscience.