Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; christmas; mary; movie; nativity; nativitystory; thenativitystory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 7,201-7,2507,251-7,3007,301-7,350 ... 16,251-16,256 next last
To: Buggman
I meant to ping you 7421
7,251 posted on 01/22/2007 9:27:23 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7241 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Thank you so very much for your encouragements!


7,252 posted on 01/22/2007 10:06:17 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7240 | View Replies]

To: Blogger

Works for me.

Thx.


7,253 posted on 01/22/2007 10:20:41 AM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7250 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
me: missing one of the names or titles of God is most disturbing to me. In this case, “God is the Rock.” In Hebrew, tzur - the Septuagint translation drops that term and uses something like God or Mighty One

kosta50: Apparently, it wasn't disturbing enough for the Apostles, A-G, for they used the Septuagint (LXX).

Er, no, they didn't quote the Septuagint on that name for God, kosta50. That's why I included 1 Cor 10:1-4, Matt 7:4 and 1 Peter 2:7-8. They knew that God is the Rock.

They just weren't "quoting" Deu 32 specifically - and if they did, they could not have used the Septuagint because the meaning of tzur was lost in the translation.

This kind of indirect reference to the Tanakh is not raised in your and Buggman's conversation - not a direct quote, a Spiritual Truth out of the Tanakh.

The name(s) of God are more than a little bit important. It is our first "no strings attached" request:

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name...

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:11-12

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. – John 5:43

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. – John 17:6

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. – John 17:11-13

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. – Philippians 2:9-11

His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. – Revelation 19:12-13

And this from the Jewish corner:

The Name of God (Jewish Virtual Library)

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in BBS messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.

Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Heh (10-5), is normally written as Tet-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Heh is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.

To me, dear kosta50, not translating tzur literally Rock - is in fact "erasing" a name of God in my view. That is why it bothers me so.

7,254 posted on 01/22/2007 10:26:11 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7241 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

imho,

Excellent refs and points.

God has gone to a lot of trouble to illustrate His character, His nature

via His names . . . . Certainly the OTestament is replete with vivid examples. But there are plenty of references to those in the NT for it to be clearly important.

I think I'll stop there. I feel a rant coming on.


7,255 posted on 01/22/2007 10:35:22 AM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7254 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Thank you so much for all your encouragements!

Indeed, the names and titles of God speak right to our spirit.

The first phrase of John is absolutely breathtaking to me: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.


7,256 posted on 01/22/2007 11:11:40 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7255 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; kosta50
Of all the types of translation errors that can be made, missing one of the names or titles of God is most disturbing to me. In this case, “God is the Rock.” In Hebrew, tzur - the Septuagint translation drops that term and uses something like God or Mighty One.

That is correct: "God (Gr. Theos, vs. the Heb. HaTzur, 'The Rock'), His works are true, and all His ways are equity. God is trustworthy, and there is no injustice in Him; just and sacred is the LORD" (Deu. 32:4, LXX).

A similar mistranslation occurs in 2 Sa. 22:32, this time replacing Tzur with Ktistes, altering, "Who is a Rock except our God?" to "Who is a Creator like our God?"

Good catch, A-G.

7,257 posted on 01/22/2007 12:40:10 PM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7236 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
7,258 posted on 01/22/2007 12:42:06 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7257 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; annalex; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix; P-Marlowe; ...
Christ did not teach abandoning the Law, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. That's where the disagreement between +Paul and the Apostles who knew Christ personally arose. To them, +Pauline gospel (he called it 'my gospel') rang foreign to what they remembered from Christ's teachings.

You are correct that Yeshua HaMashiach never advocated abandoning the Torah; just the contrary (Mat. 5:17-19).

But you are incorrect that Sha'ul did.

For not the hearers of the Torah are just before God, but the doers of the Torah shall be justified. (Rom. 2:13)

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the Torah, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the Torah? (Rom. 2:26-27)

Do we then make void the Torah through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (i.e., uphold) the Torah. (Rom. 3:1)

Therefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (Rom. 7:12)

For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Ro 7:14)

For I delight in the Torah of God according to the inward man. (Rom. 7:22)

For Christ is the end (telos, goal) of the Torah for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:4)

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Co. 7:19)

Therefore the Torah was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24)

But we know that the Torah is good if one uses it lawfully . . . (1 Ti. 1:8)

All Scripture (including the Torah) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Ti. 3:16-17)

Sha'ul's apparent opposition to the Torah was not an opposition to the Torah itself, but to a misuse of it that some elements were trying to foist on the infant Ekklesia:

First, the idea that circumcision--which in a first century context meant becoming Jewish via a rabbinical ceremony--was required for salvation; i.e., that one had to be Jewish to be saved.

And second, the idea that keeping the Torah--and in particular, keeping the rabbinical customs as part and parcel of keeping Torah--was a prerequisite for salvation.

Sha'ul opposed those ideas not on the basis of some new revelation, but on the basis of the Torah itself. Therefore, he was not anti-Torah, but very pro-Torah.

More importantly, if they were all inspired, and filled with Spirit, how could they be in disagreement?

Where were they in disagreement? Sha'ul rebuked Kefa (Peter) for an ill-considered action in distancing himself from the Gentiles at one point, but remember that Kefa and Ya'akov (James) both agreed with him, not only at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) but also later (Acts 21)!

There is no other author of post-Pentecost Christianity other than +Paul.

Your Bible stops at Hebrews? Interesting. Mine has three letters and a prophetic vision by Yochanan (John), two letters from Kefa, one from Ya'akov, and one from Y'hudah (Jude). I also have a history recorded by the companion of Sha'ul which tells us in some detail how the Apostles and the Jerusalem Ekkesia--the one closest in time, space, and culture to our Lord Yeshua--lived and practiced, and it tells us that they worshiped daily in one accord in the Temple (Acts 2:36), that the issue of Jews keeping the Torah was never even an issue (Acts 15), that it was not uncommon for even "optional" parts of the Torah like Nazrite vows to be undertaken (Acts 21:23-24) or for the requisite animal sacrifices for such vows to be made (v. 26).

More importantly, my Bible has the words of our Lord Himself, recorded in four Gospel accounts--and He never opposed the Torah, only human tradition piled on top of God's pure Word.

If Sha'ul--who never walked with the Lord Yeshua during His earthly ministry, and who started out opposed to Him--stood alone among all the Apostles--the rest of whom were taught personally by the Lord in the flesh--and we cannot even find this supposed anomia in the Messiah . . . well, guess who's in the wrong then. I guess you'd best go find an Ebionite congregation to worship in.

However, the fact is that Sha'ul was not in opposition either to the rest of the Apostles or to the Torah. You've been misreading him.

Now, in regards to post #7248, you write, It wasn't just circumcision; it was entire Judaism! You tell me how and why? Christ never said the Law did not apply because those who believe in Him are under grace. +Paul did. Justified under grace is not Judaism.

You obviously don't know the first thing about Judaism! First of all, where did Sha'ul get the idea that one is justified by faith rather than by the Law? Genesis 15:6--that's right, in the Torah! How then could it even enter your mind that grace and Judaism, built upon the Torah, are mutually exclusive?

But let us look at what the Jews say about their own beliefs. The basis of a Jew's salvation, in the minds of the rabbis, has never been that he keeps Torah, but on the basis of his fellowship in Israel with God, because of Israel's covenant with God. Hence why the Mishnah says,

All Israelites have a share in the world to come, as it is said, "your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified." (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedron 11:1, folio 90A)
In Shabbat 119B, R. Joshua b. Levi points out that God annuls the retribution that He would be just to pour out on His people when they offer themselves to Him willingly. Gee, doesn't that sound familiar?

In the Avinu Malkeynu ("Our Father, Our King"), traditionally sung on Yom Kippur, the Jew prays, "Be merciful unto us / For we have no deeds / Commending us unto You / Be merciful, save us, we pray." Hmm, nothing there about winning God's favor by keeping the Torah--in fact, we see the admission that only by God's unmerited mercy (grace) does one have a hope.

Now what is true is that modern Judaism--and I have no doubt this was going on in the first century as well--tends to emphasize a "merit system" of salvation. I suspect that this is in part an overreaction against the Christian emphasis on faith, just as Christian anti-Torah attitudes are an overreaction against the synagogue. However, the fact remains that according to Judaism's own oldest traditions, one cannot separate salvation from God's grace exhibited in the forgiveness of sins.

Now, for some friendly advice: Put down Paul for a while; pretend that those pages don't even exist in your Bible. Then go study the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospel, and the other Epistles with all reverence and prayerfulness, asking God for wisdom (Jas. 1:5). Do a little historical study on the Jewish culture of the first century. Then return to Paul with fresh eyes, and see for yourself if he is really against the Torah, or if perhaps he was simply trying to return to a pure Torah.

7,259 posted on 01/22/2007 1:37:05 PM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7239 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
To me, dear kosta50, not translating tzur literally Rock - is in fact "erasing" a name of God in my view. That is why it bothers me so.

And rightly so, since the command is far more concerned with God's Names being removed from the culture than it is about a piece of paper.

7,260 posted on 01/22/2007 1:43:31 PM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7254 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; D-fendr; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine
can anyone point out in scripture where Peter or any of the Apostles forgave sin.

We need to realize that to the Apostles penance and baptism were forgiveness of sin:

Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

(Acts 2:38)

Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.

(Acts 22:16)

We have numerous references of the apostles giving baptism. Penance is usually mentioned, and always implied.

Here we have a confession, and context suggests that absolution was given:

And many of them that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds.

(Acts 19:18)

There is a general sense that St. Paul is coming to Corinthianms to sort out their sins at the end of 2 Corinthians, although there is no direct prooftext of a confession.

I am, however, curious why given the command of Christ to forgive sins (John 20:23) should we suspect that the apostles in fact disobeyed Him?

7,261 posted on 01/22/2007 4:11:22 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7114 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Buggman; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe
It appears that the allusions I made in 7101 need elaboration.

mutilate the sacred Deposit of Faith given the Apostles

The allusion is to the doctrines of Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura, not in evidence in the scripture and never taught by the Apostles or by the Early Church.

mutilate the Scripture

The reference is primarily to the truncation of the Christian Canon performed by Luther, and also to the horrid translations to vernacular, such as The Message.

the message remains Orthodox Catholic

The assertion is that an unbiased reading of the scripture in any edition still renders the fundamental beliefs that are both Catholic or Orthodox: Scripture is understood through the Church; man must cooperate with grace to reach holiness; Christ leads us to Church life which we share with the Apostles. One may not get things like Assumption of Mary form the scrpture, or whetehr or not to have pews or eat fish on Friday, form the scripture. But fundamnetals of faith one will get, and that will make him 90% Orthodox or Catohlic, and not at all Protestant of any stripe.

have Romans 3:28 say "allein".

Allein, "alone", is what Luther fraudulently inserted in Romans 3:28 to justify his theories "from scripture".

7,262 posted on 01/22/2007 4:22:25 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7118 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
Not a part of Christ's bride

St. John Chrysostom;'s homily that I excerpted for you previously explains what a man of Christian character would be doing when facing a corruption in the Church. You leader did not imitate Christ on this.

7,263 posted on 01/22/2007 4:26:20 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7119 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Buggman; .30Carbine; Alamo-Girl; Marysecretary; DarthVader; hosepipe; blue-duncan
History, at least, is rather clear on that point.

Which part? Papacy had moral clout, and at times certain political clout. It hardly ever was imperial.

7,264 posted on 01/22/2007 4:28:44 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7125 | View Replies]

To: Quix
pulls the rugh out from under it

I read your post three times and still don't understand why do you think so. What, in particular, do you find "leveling" in the renaming of Simon episode?

7,265 posted on 01/22/2007 4:30:53 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7128 | View Replies]

To: Quix
HOLY SPIRIT LED WORSHIP DEVOID OF SCRIPTED LITURGY???

... Is a woodstock-generation invention not in touch with 2,000 years of Christianity.

For a second time, do you mind using less uppercase?

7,266 posted on 01/22/2007 4:33:29 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7133 | View Replies]

To: Blogger; Quix
We take Paul and James as BOTH equally authoritative and not contradictory in the least.

It would be nice if you did. We do. The problem for you is, it takes mountains of spin to harmonize James 2 with Sola Fide.

7,267 posted on 01/22/2007 4:35:49 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7144 | View Replies]

To: annalex

To the contrary. It is not a problem to harmonize the two at all. And it doesn't involve throwing out Paul unless you can tweak just a tiny bit of support to spin your way to support Catholicism.


7,268 posted on 01/22/2007 4:44:15 PM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7267 | View Replies]

To: annalex

and also to the horrid translations to vernacular, such as The Message.
= = =

Hogwash. Perhaps there's a lack of understanding the degree to which the originals were in the vernacular of the people. THE MESSAGE is much more of an accurate return to the spirit, intent, tone, wording of the originals than any other translation I know of.


7,269 posted on 01/22/2007 4:51:06 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7262 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Dr. Eckleburg; Marysecretary; DarthVader; Buggman; Blogger; xzins

Which part? Papacy had moral clout, and at times certain political clout. It hardly ever was imperial.
= = =

Hmmmmm. I'm beginning to think that the RC edifice has a rubber publishing house. First rubber Bibles, then rubber dictionaries and now rubber histories.

"having at times political clout" doesn't come near describing the troops sent at the Pope's word to ruthlessly destroy whole families, communities for daring to question his absolute rule and absolute construction on reality.

"not imperial???"

Evidently we are now talking about a galactic cluster far, far, far away and never having had anything to do with this planet.

The history I know of describes a super imperial papacy for many centuries of it's existence.


7,270 posted on 01/22/2007 4:53:54 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7264 | View Replies]

To: annalex
[ History, at least, is rather clear on that point. ]

In my experience Roman Catholic sanctioned church history is one thing.. Accurate church history is quite another.. at least for the first 300 years a.d...

7,271 posted on 01/22/2007 4:55:03 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7264 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I don't think I have the skills sufficient to explain it any better.

Christ speaking of the faith Holy Spirit had imparted to the little pebble Peter in support of Christ the Chief Cornerstone; GOD THE ROCK OF OUR SALVATION, OUR HIGH TOWER . . .

communicated that the faith imparted to Peter by Holy Spirit would be the faith in all believers upon which Christ would build His church. Throughout all Scripture that faith is key--as Hebrews articulates so well.

And, I think I have failed yet again to articulate it well. But I fear I can't do better.


7,272 posted on 01/22/2007 4:56:36 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7265 | View Replies]

To: annalex

HOLY SPIRIT LED WORSHIP DEVOID OF SCRIPTED LITURGY???

... Is a woodstock-generation invention not in touch with 2,000 years of Christianity.

For a second time, do you mind using less uppercase?
= = =

I can't imagine that Holy Spirit is impressed at being labeled "woodstock" but that will have to be an issue with Him.

Yeah, I do mind. It's a blessing to my eyes as well as a number of other aspects of who I am and what I'm about.


7,273 posted on 01/22/2007 4:58:20 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7266 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Kolokotronis; kosta50; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; P-Marlowe; Quix
The NT authors did not always favor the LXX, so your thesis just went right out the window.

I am still waiting on a non-pauline example of MT preference. All you showed Kosta was that the NT writers corrected both from time to time (perhaps, because they were quoting form memory). You did not show that anyone other than St. Paul preferred MT.

the LXX illuminates the thinking of the pre-Apostolic Jewish translators

That too, but to me as a Christian it is the thinking of the Apostles that is of paramount importance. The Hebrew original is of course important, but it is the mind of the Early Church that I need to know.

I do go to the Church for guidance--just not your church

You do not go to anything that looks for historical continuity with the Aposotles if your basic theology is Baptist, as I suspect it to be.

the Apostles went out of their way to keep Jewish Tradition as well as the Torah (cf. Acts 21:20-26)--they just didn't make it a requirement for Gentiles.

True. In other words, the Church as a whole deprecated the Jewish tradition even though it did not wish to purge it. This is generally what we see about Tradition: that its criticism is always pointed against a particular superstition or when used a s a hypocritical cover. In generall, Christ and the Apostles did not mind the Christian Tradition at all, and when used in the general sense, as in 2 Thess 2:14, it is praised.

Jewish authority before Christianity as to the canon is very important, since it tells us what Bible Yeshua and His disciples used

They were using the Septuagint alongside with the Hebrew scripture, did they not? They read the Deuterocanon. So should we.

7,274 posted on 01/22/2007 4:58:48 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7181 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; xzins; annalex; blue-duncan; kosta50; Blogger; bornacatholic; ...
Perhaps WAY back in the day, the context would have better understood by the average layman. I'm just saying that today, I don't think it is.

This is easy to remedy. When in need of instriction in the faith ask the Catholics or the Orthodox, and it will be better understood.

7,275 posted on 01/22/2007 5:01:55 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7198 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Far from my reality. Will try and . . . let me see . . .

Reviewing James 2, I find no problem . . . is there a particular part taken to be a problem?


7,276 posted on 01/22/2007 5:02:08 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7267 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Blogger; Dr. Eckleburg; blue-duncan; Kolokotronis; kosta50
I see the Catholic view being that Christ's work made all this possible. IOW, in Catholicism, Christ didn't actually accomplish salvation for any person in particular for all time. Instead, He, by His sacrifice, made it POSSIBLE for men to choose to do their works, and THEN be saved for all time. I still think that with an explanation, that is a fair description of a "works-based" salvation

Yes, that is accurate. One perhaps would also need a footnote that says that since God foreknows anything, He also knows His Elect form the foundation of the world, even though they need to cooperate with His grace in order to actualize their election.

This is why I generally tolerate epithets like work-based salvation, but I also make sure to explain that this does not negate election and does not negate the sacrifice of Christ as the only source of salvation. I suspect that soem groups (Salvation Army? Pelagius, for sure) have "works based salvation" in the sense that we find heretical.

7,277 posted on 01/22/2007 5:13:40 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7220 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Buggman; Kolokotronis; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix

It is not just St. Paul who saw a problem with the Judaizers. St. Peter received a vision that lead him to abolish the major tenet of Judaism, the dietary laws. It was adopted by the Jerusalem Council.

The moving of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday has nothing to do with St. Paul either.


7,278 posted on 01/22/2007 5:19:47 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7239 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; blue-duncan; wmfights; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Blogger; ...
I don't think that touches the idea that God DID, in fact, lay down one complete and perfect scripture.

Of course it touches on it. If one complete and perfect scripture existed, it would be perfect enough to exist forever in a literal form. It also would say so in the scripture itself.

God gave us the Church. She gives us the Holy Scripture, the holy Liturgy, the Holy Tradition and the living grace of God.

7,279 posted on 01/22/2007 5:25:43 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7245 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Thanks for the thoughful, history based reply.

"But while the ECF whose writings have been preserved for us were anti-Torah, we have evidence in their writings that a Torah-observant yet Messiah-believing Jewish remnant still remained, from the perplexed tolerance of Justin Martyr in the second century to the anti-Semitic screed of John Crysostom in the fourth. Indeed, the mere fact that so many of the Fathers found it necessary to write missives condemning keeping the Torah as "Judaizing" tells us that it was a persistent phenomenon through the ante-Nicean church."

This is consistent with what I have been taught over the years by a former Chief Rabbi of Budapest, a 90 year old rabbi who tried manfully to teach me hebrew 35 years ago and a very wise and holy Greek archimandrite down in the old country. By the way, the connection was not only with messianic Jews (not a good one at all), but with "regular" Jews (a much more irenic one), at least well into the 3rd century. The connection was so close that in Sardis, the main church structure was connected to the synagogue by a simple door in the wall. Greek and Antiochian Orthodoxy has always laid great stress on it Jewish "roots", which are most apparent in our liturgical forms and the endless use of the Psalms in our devotions and services. The old chief rabbi regularly remarks to me that when he attends a Greek Orthodox liturgy or service, he feels as if he is at a Temple ceremony.

I won't get into what +John Chrysostomos was sermonizing against save to say it wasn't the Jews, it was the Judaizers which I suspect in his times meant the messianic jews based on what you have said. His sermons seem quite well based in NT scripture, B, though I don't doubt for a minute that given the nature of the Eastern Roman state, the power of that state was behind him with all it meant to those who crossed the state, as +John himself found out.


7,280 posted on 01/22/2007 5:38:32 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7209 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Two thousand years later, there is a huge body of Protestants who are agreeing only with themselves individually, a little bit here and a little bit there. There are 30,000 various Protestant 'churches' with their own theology and creeds. Even the Apostolic Church is in deep disagreement on some issues and has been for one thousand years.

Protestants agree with other (and with other christians) on far more than you think.

True Protestants churches (not the fringe groups) all agree on the centrality of Christ and His mission and message to save lost souls.

In fact, I think that you be hard-pressed to find many areas where Protestants don't agree ... and even those are areas where we agree ... to disagree.

The Church has failed miserably to stop secularization. In Europe 5% of the people attend church regularly. In America (some figures are over-inflated) the percentage is much higher, but America is a secular society through-and-through.

You call that a success? It's not the failure of the Spirit. We failed. Miserably.


Christ's mission was never to reform the world, ... but rather, ... to save souls out of the world.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
At this point, by any honest christian's count, ... the church has been used by God to save countless millions, if not billions, ... out of this world.

I'd call that a rousing success.

7,281 posted on 01/22/2007 5:42:59 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7248 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Kolokotronis; kosta50; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; P-Marlowe; Quix
I am still waiting on a non-pauline example of MT preference.

*sigh* When you manage to get the criteria of my argument correctly, maybe we'll get somewhere: I am not arguing for the MT, which is just one tradition out of at least three, but for the Hebrew text. Ergo, both quotes consistent with the MT and quotes that are evidentially self-translations from the Hebrew but do not agree with the LXX are admissible.

Moreover, I am not arguing that the NT authors did not use the LXX as their default translation any more than I would claim that Chuck Missler does not use the KJV as his default translation. What I am arguing is that they did not consider the LXX to be Divinely correct, since out of the instances in which there is real disagreement between the LXX and the Hebrew (that is, the actual sense of the words in all existent Hebrew texts, including the DSS, are different from the sense of the words in the LXX), they side against the LXX between almost half to a third of the time, to judge by how often even this LXX proponent seems to err in imagining a difference where there is none.

Even limiting myself to MT quotes, I can cite Matthew (2:15, 11:10) and John (19:37) in addition to Sha'ul's letters. Under my actual criteria rather than your strawman parody of it, Mark likewise did not always agree with the LXX (12:29-30), but did his own rendering of the text.

So right off the bat, your premise that only Sha'ul the Pharisee ever disagreed with the LXX is shown to be completely fallacious.

You do not go to anything that looks for historical continuity with the Aposotles if your basic theology is Baptist, as I suspect it to be.

Actually, my basic theology is Messianic Judaism--and my historical continuity with the Apostles, who were all Torah-observant Jews as the book of Acts attests, is a heck of a lot closer than yours.

In other words, the Church as a whole deprecated the Jewish tradition even though it did not wish to purge it.

They didn't deprecate Jewish tradition as a whole--you'll notice how Ya'akov (James) was concerned at the false rumor that Sha'ul was teaching Jews not to follow the customs of their people (Acts 21:21). What they did is cast aside certain traditions which contradicted the Torah (like refusing fellowship with believing Gentiles) and refused to enforce as binding others that added to the Torah (in accordance with Deu. 12:32).

In generall, Christ and the Apostles did not mind the Christian Tradition at all, and when used in the general sense, as in 2 Thess 2:14, it is praised.

Tradition is a fine thing, a connection to our ancestors . . . as long as it neither adds to nor takes away from God's commandments. This is why I reject both the RCC and the EOC as being the "true" Church: Your traditions contradict God's commands in the Torah, which were never annulled in the NT.

As for 2 Thess 2:14, I see nowhere where Sha'ul defines what traditions he had in mind. Most likely he was referring to those traditions which came to be enshrined in the Gospel accounts, since they weren't written at that time. He may have been referring to something else. But I'm pretty sure that moving the Sabbath or iconography wasn't what he had in mind, since that would by definition make him a false prophet (Deu. 12:32-13:5).

They were using the Septuagint alongside with the Hebrew scripture, did they not?

Alongside, yes, as a translation for those who did not speak Hebrew, the same way we use an English translation--but not in place of the Hebrew, which their rabbis (religious leaders) were expected to know so that they could teach correctly from the Tanakh.

They read the Deuterocanon. So should we.

They did not speak of the Apocrypha with the terms that indicated that they thought it Scripture, nor did they build doctrine upon them. Neither should we.

7,282 posted on 01/22/2007 5:45:29 PM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7274 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; kawaii; annalex; kosta50; blue-duncan; wmfights; P-Marlowe; HarleyD; Blogger; ...
"All those involved acted precisely as God had preordained it from before time. That would be the only way to ensure that the scriptures are not only inerrant, but perfect. The scriptures are God's revelations to His most beloved on earth. How could they be any less than perfect?"

and later:

"I don't think that touches the idea that God DID, in fact, lay down one complete and perfect scripture."

If you believe that is what we have, then you hold a belief in common with the Mohammedans, FK. The reason what you have opined is off the mark is because men wrote those scriptures, they were not dictated to them by the HS or an angel and the "pretty much" final form of the canon was likewise established by men to accomplish a specific purpose of The Church. Now I think all true Christians can agree that the writings were inspired by the HS and inspired in a way that other writings of the time and since were not even if they too were inspired by the HS (which, by the way, I firmly believe in many instances). Similarly, I think all true Christians can agree that canon "pretty much" was established (by the way, I say pretty much because there were issues about a couple of books of the NT until into the early Middle Ages in the East) by 4th century councils in North Africa and Rome under the inspiration of the the HS.

Now:

"I have no idea how much the Fathers of that time understood, or didn't. I can't name a post, but I thought you had agreed earlier that in the first days the structure of the early Christian churches and the worship that was actually practiced was not at all under an "iron fist", as some would refer to it today. (Of course, this is much more so in Catholicism.) That would seem to leave open a lot of questions as to just how many actual Christians practiced the things you listed above."

But indeed you do have an idea of how The Church was working in the 4th century! You read +Athanasius on the Incarnation thoroughly. He was the Patriarch of Alexandria. You have read the letters of +Ignatius of Antioch and +Clement of Rome. I wouldn't be surprised if you had read the Divine Liturgies of +James and +John Chrysostomos; we've posted many "snips" from them and links to them over the past couple of years. You recite The Creed. By the time of the late 4th century councils on the canon, the structure of The Church as you see it in the East today was already established. The liturgies were already being said in the same fashion and in virtually the same words they are to this very day. So here's the kicker, FK. The hierarchs, clergy and laity who determined (absent Luther's meddling) the canon you read today, believed the exact same things and expressed them in the exact same way that I do as an Orthodox Christian. That's just a fact, FK.

My point is not that because you believe as you do about the nature of the canon scripture, ipso facto, you must be Orthodox. I am saying that your beliefs about the nature of the canon are inconsistent with your rejection of the beliefs of the men who put that canon together.
7,283 posted on 01/22/2007 6:00:38 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7245 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
I'm glad you have such an appreciation for the Jewish roots of our faith. I frankly am not concerned whether everyone becomes Messianic; I'm just trying to overcome some false perceptions some have developed of what the NT writers were saying because of a lack of knowledge of their culture and history, as well as the wrong-headed idea that the Apostles suddenly gave up Torah-based Judaism in favor of this new religion, Christianity.

I won't get into what +John Chrysostomos was sermonizing against save to say it wasn't the Jews, it was the Judaizers which I suspect in his times meant the messianic jews based on what you have said.

That was in fact what set him off: Apparently, quite a few Gentile Christians were joining their Jewish brethren in keeping God's Appointed Times. Since by this point the definition of "Judaizing" had morphed from the Biblical definition of "formally undergoing the ritual of circumcision to become a Jew in order to be saved" to "keeping the Torah"--which would of course make the Messiah and all of the Apostles Judaizers and heretics by the fourth-century Church's standards.

Therefore, the so-called "Golden-Mouthed" wrote his eight Homilies Against the Jews, which you can read here if you'd like. We can see his purpose in his opening homily:

(I.4) . . . Another very serious illness calls for any cure my words can bring, an illness which has become implanted in the body of the Church. We must first root this ailment out and then take thought for matters outside; we must first cure our own and then be concerned for others who are strangers.

(5) What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now.

Interesting, isn't it, that the mere thought of Christians keeping the same Feasts that their Lord kept, doubtless wanting to know more about Him and the way He lived, set him off so?

Read his work. Isn't it evident that in his mind the very concept of "Messianic Jew" is an oxymoron? It's not surprising. In his day the Church had adopted a stance of reconciliation towards the Roman Empire and hostility towards the Jewish people--even those who were believers in the Messiah Yeshua.

He calls the Jews demons (Homily I.vi.3), and repeatedly condemns them as the slayers of Christ--it apparently misses his attention that Yeshua Himself said, "No one takes [My life] from Me, but I lay it down of Myself" (John 10:18) and "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do" (Luke 23:34). He takes that which God commanded them to do, like the daily sacrifices, and twists it into a sin upon them. He acts as if those in the Bible who were righteous weren't Jews themselves.

In other words, he twists the Scriptures into an anti-Semitic parody of themselves. So I have no respect for him, and it saps my respect for the fourth-century church that they dubbed such a twit "the Golden-Mouthed."

7,284 posted on 01/22/2007 6:30:20 PM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7280 | View Replies]

To: annalex; kosta50; Kolokotronis; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix
It is not just St. Paul who saw a problem with the Judaizers. St. Peter received a vision that lead him to abolish the major tenet of Judaism, the dietary laws. It was adopted by the Jerusalem Council.

Uh, no, he didn't. Haven't you actually read Kefa's own interpretation of his vision? "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28).

Kefa himself said that his vision had nothing to do with food; that was just the symbol God used. Further, Kefa quotes the following in his first epistle: "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Pt. 1:16). Now go look up where that phrase occurs:

Lev. 11:44-45 - right in the middle of the kosher commandments.

Lev. 19:2 - heading up a section which reiterated commandments ranging from keeping the Sabbath, to treating your neighbor correctly, to not eating anything with blood (v. 26), a commandment linked back to the kosher laws.

Lev. 20:7 - heading up a second section reiterating commandments of both sexual purity and the kosher laws.

Hmm . . . he seems to have liked the kosher commandments, since two out of the three places he could have been referring to give them (two out of two if we consider Lev. 19 & 20 to be of a piece, as I do).

So, no, Kefa was most certainly not getting, "Go have a pork and lobster sandwich" out of his vision.

The moving of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday has nothing to do with St. Paul either.

It had nothing to do with any Apostle, nor the Lord, since no such change of the commandment is so much as mentioned in the NT--and in fact, Heb. 4:1-11 makes a point of saying that we should still rest from our works on the seventh day as God did from His.

7,285 posted on 01/22/2007 6:54:56 PM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7278 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; annalex; kosta50; kawaii

"Read his work. Isn't it evident that in his mind the very concept of "Messianic Jew" is an oxymoron?"

Indeed I have read his work; everything extant several times over. Christian Orthodoxy's roots are deep in Judaism, but we are not Jews of any kind and our covenant with God is not the covenant God made with the Jews. And yes, I do think to his mind the idea of a Messianic Jew is an oxymoron, but I believe he felt this way because to him if one believed that Christ was the Messiah, if one could sincerely pray the Creed, then one was not a Jew but rather a Christian. If one claimed to believe in the Messiah/Christ and could not recite the Creed and accept the The Church as the only sure venue of theosis, one was a heretic and heresy destroyed and destroys souls. He and the other Fathers, both before and after him, were equally outspoken about other heretics. By the way, I agree with him at least to some extent.

"So I have no respect for him, and it saps my respect for the fourth-century church that they dubbed such a twit "the Golden-Mouthed."

He is my patron saint. I celebrate my name day on his feast day and his icons hang in my home and office. I doubt we could be further apart in our estimations of him.


7,286 posted on 01/22/2007 7:44:18 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7284 | View Replies]

To: Quester

Good reply, Quester. They really don't understand that Protestants are just as in good stead as they are and will also be in heaven, if they put their faith in trust in Jesus. Sigh.


7,287 posted on 01/22/2007 8:15:41 PM PST by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7281 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Buggman; Kolokotronis; annalex; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
To me, dear kosta50, not translating tzur literally Rock - is in fact "erasing" a name of God in my view. That is why it bothers me so

You are presuming that it was there to be translated. You are presuming that the Pharisaical Hebrew text is the only "true" text and if it appears in the Masoretic it must have been in all of them.

You are also suggesting that the Apostles, knowing that tzur was 'erased' by the scholars who translated the OT into Greek 300 years before Christ, would use LXX nonetheless almost exclusively! You are suggetsing that the Apostles would have used a book that 'defaces' the name of God! Good Lord, A-G, this one takes the cake!

7,288 posted on 01/22/2007 8:20:33 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7254 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Buggman; Kolokotronis; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix
St. Peter received a vision that lead him to abolish the major tenet of Judaism, the dietary laws. It was adopted by the Jerusalem Council

I know, +Peter was in a "trance." Sometimes, biblical stories amaze me.

The problem I see with this (rather convenient vision) is why did God bother giving Moses the Law? In the Hebrews, it is clear that it was not the Covenant with God that was at fault but that the people of Israel made it faulty. The New Covenant prophesied in the Old Testament is for for the Jews, as the Old One was, and not for the Gentiles.

7,289 posted on 01/22/2007 9:05:03 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7278 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Kolokotronis; annalex; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix
But you are incorrect that Sha'ul did

I am certain, he said the Christians are not under the Law but under grace. In that same verse he said that because of this sin will not be their master (what a thing to say! Did God give Jews the Law so that sin may be their master?)

Where were they in disagreement?

Apparently they did not all have the same 'visions' (yet), so it took some gentle persuasion to resolve their inspired differences.

How then could it even enter your mind that grace and Judaism, built upon the Torah, are mutually exclusive?

Because there is no verse in the OT that says so? Judaism does not believe man needs to be saved. One does not even have to believe. If man is 'saved' it is because he was compassionate and merciful; certainly not by faith alone (as +Paul teaches).

In a beautiful simplicity, Judaism teaches that man is made acceptable to God, by his deeds, regardless if he is observant or not.

You speak of pre-Christ Judaism as a monolithic religion. If anything, Judaism was a sectarian religion, with widely divergent sects teaching and preaching very different stories. Of all these only the Pharisees survived and morphed into rabbinical Judaism known to us. Their counterparts in the Sadduccee ranks denied salvation and resurrection, immortality of the soul, and so on. You treat Pharisaical Judaism as the only true Judaism. I do not agree with that.

This is not a discussion about Judaism, but about +Paul 'freeing' Christians from the Law. Did God make the Law so that man can dispose of it?

Whatever you say, fact remains that Christians by the end of the 1st century did not consider themselves Jews and, in fact, while the Apostles were still walking the earth did everything to distance themslevs from the 'hypocrites' (as the 1st century Didache refers to the Jews).

Your Bible stops at Hebrews?

Between AD 44 and 65, +Paul was visiting Cappadocia, Ephesus, Greece and Rome preaching 'his gospel.' The eyewitness Gospels were not even written by that time. By the time +Peter arrived in Rome the Christians were not identified as the Jews but as an altogether different religion. To say that anyone but +Paul is responsible for that is naïve at best.

7,290 posted on 01/22/2007 10:09:18 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7259 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
What a glorious, informative post, dear Buggman!

Now, for some friendly advice: Put down Paul for a while; pretend that those pages don't even exist in your Bible. Then go study the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospel, and the other Epistles with all reverence and prayerfulness, asking God for wisdom (Jas. 1:5). Do a little historical study on the Jewish culture of the first century. Then return to Paul with fresh eyes, and see for yourself if he is really against the Torah, or if perhaps he was simply trying to return to a pure Torah.

Excellent suggestion for anyone who doubts Paul.

7,291 posted on 01/22/2007 10:10:57 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7259 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Buggman; Kolokotronis; kosta50; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix
the Church as a whole deprecated the Jewish tradition even though it did not wish to purge it

I'd say that summarizes is very well.

7,292 posted on 01/22/2007 10:11:16 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7274 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Buggman
[ Excellent suggestion for anyone who doubts Paul. ]

Paul wrote a letter to the Ephesians that is one of deepest pieces of literature ever penned by the hand of man.. ANY MAN..

7,293 posted on 01/22/2007 10:16:17 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7291 | View Replies]

To: Quester
Protestants agree with other (and with other christians) on far more than you think

Bits and pieces.

As for 'other Christians' (like Catholic and Orthodox), we agree with mainline Protestants on the Holy trinity and Dual Nature of Christ. This is where out agreement ends. Including the Bible versions.

Christ's mission was never to reform the world, ... but rather, ... to save souls out of the world.

That's why His parting words were "Baptize all nations..." from paganism into true faith. I would call that reforming the world. Since then, many have been saved by the Church, and many have been destroyed in the name of Christ.

7,294 posted on 01/22/2007 10:19:21 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7281 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Buggman; Kolokotronis; annalex; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; hosepipe
Thank you so much for your encouragement, Buggman!

kosta50: You are presuming that it was there to be translated. You are presuming that the Pharisaical Hebrew text is the only "true" text and if it appears in the Masoretic it must have been in all of them.

You cannot read my mind. Nor can I read your mind and declare that you presume it was not.

The evidence that the apostles understood tzur (ha tzur) to be a proper name of God is in the New Testament, for instance.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

This is no small matter, for the name is specially announced in the Torah (emphasis mine)!

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4

The Torah is unlike any other manuscript, God breathed and supreme as Christ underscored here:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matt 5:18

Jewish tradition holds that the Torah existed before the world, that every letter of it is a living creature and that altogether it, too, is a name of God. It is their – and by their hand to the world – greatest gift (since they don't receive Christ.) It is also their mission.

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. - John 4:22

Christ used the term Rock in two very important passages. If one misunderstands the Rock to mean something common or someone other than God, then it can lead to grievous error.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. – Matt 7:24-25

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. – Matt 16:17-18

kosta50 continued:

You are also suggesting that the Apostles, knowing that tzur was 'erased' by the scholars who translated the OT into Greek 300 years before Christ, would use LXX nonetheless almost exclusively! You are suggetsing that the Apostles would have used a book that 'defaces' the name of God! Good Lord, A-G, this one takes the cake!

I am not just suggesting it, I am declaring it. The Apostles and Christians to this very day have been quoting and translating out of a translation (LXX) which erased a specially announced name of God!

Moreover, I declare that has lead to millennia of misunderstanding and lost spiritual joy – not only of the two passages from Christ’s testimony above but also in understanding the Old Testament.

Consider anew, with the Spiritual eyes of Christ, this passage – understanding God is the Rock, Jesus on the Cross, Living Water (John 4, 7:38):

Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?– Exodus 17:6-7

Or perhaps this one:

And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. – Exodus 33:21-23

Nevertheless, I am also very, very sure that missing the mark on this name of God is also part of God's plan.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. - Romans 8:28


7,295 posted on 01/22/2007 11:39:48 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7288 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Oh yes, Ephesians is glorious! Thank you so much for your testimony!
7,296 posted on 01/22/2007 11:40:45 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7293 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Personally, I was hoping Frank Zappa would be elected Pope, but nobody ever listens to me.

LOL! I suppose if I had a vote, it would be for Kinky Friedman. :)

Thank you very much for your kind words.

7,297 posted on 01/22/2007 11:48:45 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5988 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan

LOL. Sounds suspiciously like Bill Clinton singing. I've wondered what he was up to since he's been out of sight for awhile. Maybe he's hanging out with Garth Brooks.


7,298 posted on 01/23/2007 12:38:43 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7226 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
If one does not have Scripture as one's base, then it is all just human invention and we have no foundation period.

Amen and absolutely. Good post, Blogger. Even on an issue as "big" as baptism itself, I have no problem with others of like minds who have different views. We all agree that it's not salvific.

7,299 posted on 01/23/2007 12:48:44 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5996 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; annalex; kosta50; kawaii
I doubt we could be further apart in our estimations of him.

Probably not. We'll leave it at that then.

7,300 posted on 01/23/2007 1:02:20 AM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7286 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 7,201-7,2507,251-7,3007,301-7,350 ... 16,251-16,256 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson