Posted on 04/04/2008 11:29:53 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
Baloney.
The one single authority to which all the early church fathers deferred was Scripture. They didn't quote each other as if they were all equally authoritative [Tradition], nor did they appeal to their offices [if they held any] as if people should listen to them as some kind of Magisterial supremes because of the garments they wore, but they all with few exceptions cited Scripture as that single Authority for the things that they wrote.
You guys are living in a fantasy of your own making and breathing in too much of that Vatican thin hot air.
It certainly replaced the Jewish calendar and holidays (and the commandments and rituals for each).
- Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr ca. 50 A.D. - 98 A.D.
Ignatius and St. Polycarp knew the Apostle John personally.
“In matters of importance one should defer to the writings of the apostles” — Irenaeus [who was quite familiar with Ignatius and didn’t cite any writings from him as authoritative.]
Regarding the calender, it certainly changed when they had the number of days in the year figured out. Is the Jewish calender the same as it always was? did they have to add days or months to their year?
Even between eastern and western Christendom the Easter holiday is different. Most of the Jewish ethos is maintained in the New Testament but Grace and Mercy are emphasized more. Stoning is no longer as popular as it once was, how do the Torah respecting Jews handle some of the prescriptions for infractions found in the Old Testament?
There is still a lunisolar calendar, though on a fixed pattern rather than by observation. It preserves the original Biblical months and holidays.
Even between eastern and western Christendom the Easter holiday is different. Most of the Jewish ethos is maintained in the New Testament but Grace and Mercy are emphasized more. Stoning is no longer as popular as it once was, how do the Torah respecting Jews handle some of the prescriptions for infractions found in the Old Testament?
I am maintaining that Judaism is already "complete" in and of itself, however much of the "Jewish ethos" the nt "preserved."
In order to execute the death penalty a number of contingencies must be met (the sacrifices being brought on the altar, the Great Sanhedrion sitting in the Lishkat HaGazit, etc.). In past times even in the Exile the Jewish community (then a sovereign, self-governing entity) could execute the death penalty with permission of the host government. Needless to say, I advocate this until the Temple is rebuilt.
For some reason you don't seem to understand my main point: whatever merit you claim for the rituals and commandments of the "new law" was already there in spades for the original Biblical law.
Lets get this settled once and for all. The Greek word Anothon occurs exactly 12 times in 12 verses in the New Testament. The four words we are concerned with are Anothon which the Catholics contend means "From above" and the Fundies contend means again. The second word is Apanow, which means above/ over The third word is Palon- that really does mean again and Deuteron that means secondly. If the protestants are correct when we look at each of these verses we should be able to substitute either word and have it make perfect sense. I have included several verses that use the word Palon to document the common use of that word. You will also notice that in John 3:4 that Nicodemus does not use either Palon or Anothon, but rather Deuteron, meaning secondly or second. Matt 27:50 But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit. Mat 27:50 o de ihsouv palin kraxav fwnh megalh afhken to pneuma Matt 27:51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anothon) to bottom. 31 The earth quaked, rocks were split, Mat 27:51 kai idou to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh ap eiv duo apo anwqen ewv katw eiv duo kai h gh eseisqh kai ai petrai esxisqhsan Mark 15:38 16 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above Anothon) to bottom. Mar 15:38 kai to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh eiv duo ap apo anwqen ewv katw Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source Anothon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, Luk 1:3 edoxe edoxen kamoi parhkolouqhkoti anwqen pasin akribwv kaqexhv soi grayai kratiste qeofile John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (Anothon)." Joh 3:3 apekriqh o ihsouv kai eipen autw amhn amhn legw soi ean mh tiv gennhqh anwqen ou dunatai idein thn basileian tou qeou John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" Joh 19:11 apekriqh autw o ihsouv ouk eixev exousian oudemian kat emou oudemian ei mh hn soi dedomenon soi anwqen dia touto o paradouv paradidouv me soi meizona amartian exei John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anothon) down. Joh 19:23 oi oun stratiwtai ote estaurwsan ton ihsoun elabon ta imatia autou kai epoihsan tessara merh ekastw stratiwth merov kai ton xitwna hn de o xitwn arafov arrafov ek twn anwqen ufantov di olou Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anothon, From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion. Act 26:5 proginwskontev me anwqen ean qelwsi qelwsin marturein oti kata thn akribestathn airesin thv hmeterav qrhskeiav ezhsa farisaiov Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anothon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)? Gal 4:9 nun de gnontev qeon mallon de gnwsqentev upo qeou pwv epistrefete palin epi ta asqenh kai ptwxa stoixeia oiv palin anwqen douleuein qelete James 1:17 all good giving and every perfect gift is from above (Anothon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change. Jas 1:17 pasa dosiv agaqh kai pan dwrhma teleion anwqen estin katabainon apo tou patrov twn fwtwn par w ouk eni parallagh h trophv aposkiasma James 3:15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anothon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. Jas 3:15 ouk estin auth h sofia anwqen katerxomenh alla all epigeiov yuxikh daimoniwdhv James 3:17 But the wisdom from above (Anothon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity. Jas 3:17 h de anwqen sofia prwton men agnh estin epeita eirhnikh epieikhv eupeiqhv mesth eleouv kai karpwn agaqwn adiakritov kai anupokritov Conclusion: The only reasonable definition of the word "Anthon" is "From above/ from the source or beginning", There is a perfectly good word for "again" but, neither Nicodemus, or Jesus use that word, instead Nicodemus uses Deuteron.
Being "born again" or "born from above" or even "born anew" is the same basic idea.. The point of; born of water as 1st birth and born of the Spirit 2nd birth is still precient.. I add that "born again" is a metaphorical verbal instrument since all humans have a human spirit from birth.. Being born again is an "identity" issue.. Either you are flesh or spirit.. Baptism is not being born again.. it is a "ceremonial death" of the "old man".. from the first birth.. i.e. immersion(baptismo)..
What are you?.. <<- rhetorical question..
Okay. Good point: If the merit of rituals and commandments was there already, what then is the point of this outspoken Nazarean?
OTOH, if Judaism is complete in itself why all the fuss in their prophecies about some Messiah or "chosen one"? Or rebuilding the Temple for that matter? Really, when something's complete it's complete, no?
Jesus and Nicodemus never said “again” Jesus said “from above” and Nicodemus misunderstood the “born” part, he asked if he could re-enter his mothers womb.
The mis-understanding was about the word born
Is he authoritative, or not?
This is precisely my point. I find it most frustrating that Catholics and Orthodox don't understand this.
I grew up in the Bible Belt believing the outspoken Nazarean had died in my place, making all human activity towards "salvation" utterly unnecessary. However, from the Catholic and Orthodox Churches I learned that he didn't die in my place but apparently merely replaced one calendar with another, one legal system with another, and one set of rituals with another. What was the point? If chr*stianity is merely a cheap inauthentic imitation of Torah then it most certainly was never needed.
OTOH, if Judaism is complete in itself why all the fuss in their prophecies about some Messiah or "chosen one"? Or rebuilding the Temple for that matter? Really, when something's complete it's complete, no?
Because a messiah is coming who will rebuild the Holy Temple and restore the full Temple service. This hardly means the Torah is incomplete; the Torah is eternally valid. He will merely restore the situation where all the mitzvot, including those which can't be observed right now (ie, the qorbanot) will once again be observable.
Honestly, I don't see anything in your questions/arguments that go against a single thing I've said. The Prophets prophesy a restoration of full Torah observance, not Torah's replacement by a "superior" religion (G-d forbid!).
So it's either Protestantism or Judaism, no other. Protestantism easily degenerates into Christ as fetish: as long as I say Jesus is my personal savior, I'm saved. No ethical observation or consideration is necessary on my part. Whereas, the Orthodox and Catholic believe in working out our salvation. God gave us salvation like paying off all our debts and giving us a million $$$. Do we then go into more debt and spend our inheritance like prodigals? I think not. What we are is God's gift to us, what we become is our gift to God.
If chr*stianity is merely a cheap inauthentic imitation of Torah then it most certainly was never needed.
Indeed.
Actually, the best analogy is that it's either Fundamentalist Universalism or Judaism, no other. But yes, Catholicism/Orthodoxy is in a pickel because it preaches Judaism to the Protestants and Protestantism to the Jews.
Protestantism easily degenerates into Christ as fetish: as long as I say Jesus is my personal savior, I'm saved. No ethical observation or consideration is necessary on my part. Whereas, the Orthodox and Catholic believe in working out our salvation. God gave us salvation like paying off all our debts and giving us a million $$$. Do we then go into more debt and spend our inheritance like prodigals? I think not. What we are is God's gift to us, what we become is our gift to God.
If it 'tweren't broke, it didn't need fixin'. The Noachide Laws (for non-Jews) and Torah (for Jews) provide all that is necessary for making oneself a gift to G-d. It certainly wasn't necessary to come up with a whole new religion to do what was already being done.
Still... many are confused about what this means.. as it should be.. Some "get it" some do not.. according to plan..
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
“You honor God with your lips but your hearts are far from him, your teachings are simply rules taught by men.
These are not my revelations, it’s right there in the bible....the words you work so diligently to minimize.”
It was men who wrote the Bible, you apparent dimwit. You think you can interpret what those men wrote just as you wish. Then you sir, are an anarchist. No rules, just interpret as you wish. That’s why we have Heinz 57 varieties of religions ever since the Reformation. What a joke. The Protestants started up their “religions” from the 1500’s on out of thin air, or should I say out of the somewhat demented mind of Martin Luther. No direct succession from the time of the Apostles was he. So you just skip a thousand years plus of Tradition and development of the Christian religion via the Catholic Church and frog jump into your own new made-up puddle and call it a Church. As Martin Luther himself complained, paraphrasing, even a milk maid can now start up a church.
What cracks me up is that all of the Protestant Churches ended up doing exactly that which they condemned the Catholic Church for, by interpreting the Bible through their Pastors each according to its own sect, so that there are now a multitude of interpretations of the Bible. Who has the correct one pray tell? Who is to judge? So each sect (Christian Protestant Church) now has its own traditions, while condemning the Catholic one, the original one, as being false, even though the Catholic one is the one true line of succession from the time of the Apostles and the beginning of Christianity. There is no royal lineage for the Protestant Churches. They are bastard children of the Catholic faith, IMO, who have made up their religions based on the false belief that they could interpret the Bible however they wished to. Moral relativism, the very sin we condemn the Dems for time and again. No moral absolutes, just interpreting the Bible however you feel like on any given day.
Unless of course you follow the teachings of your individual religious sect (Reverands, Preachers, Pastors), which means you are following a set of your sect’s interpretation of the Bible, and thus living by the very traditions you deny should exist, as only sola scriptura counts, not tradition. But I know you hard core sola scriptura types and I am merely whistling in the wind here.
“You honor God with your lips but your hearts are far from him, your teachings are simply rules taught by men.
These are not my revelations, it’s right there in the bible....the words you work so diligently to minimize.”
You know, I have come to the conclusion that you haven’t any idea what you are talking about, at least not with any lucidity so that we mere mortals could understand your gibberish. But, maybe it makes sense to someone, somewhere.
“The New Testament just says what happened right or wrong.. There MUST BE sheep pens.. and there also must be the flock outside of the sheep (and goat) pens.. following the shepherd.”
Well, I guess those Apostles who wrote the Bible were just a bunch of sheep according to you. So you are basing your beliefs sola scriptura on a book written by sheep in a pen, as they passed down their beliefs by appointing those to keep the Christian religion going, and thus created the eventual hierarchy that became the Catholic Church. So your Bible you believe in was bleated out by a bunch of sheep who flocked together to create the Christian religion. Or was the Bible written magically, with no men involved. Maybe magical mystery men.
Paul did not condemn the Torah... As the Torah was NEVER the vehicle to salvation, rather it was the 'Divine' system by which a 'freed' people would be blessed and protected when they 'at least' sought to adhere. All but the blood sacrifices still hold "IF" an individual or a nation expects those blessings Moses described.
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.