Posted on 05/10/2011 6:26:58 PM PDT by grumpa
In 1993 Hank Hanegraaff (“The Bible Answer Man”) wrote a book entitled Christianity in Crisis. In the book he exposed problems within evangelicalism. Many think that in actuality Hanegraaff understated the problems of both doctrine and practice within Christianity, and time has made the issues even more acute.
Forgive us for saying so, but perhaps it is time to be honest with ourselves. American Christianity is a mess. It is separated into divisive sects, giving the world the impression that we don’t know what we are doing. And maybe we don’t. Some serious introspection is in order.
(Excerpt) Read more at faithfacts.org ...
I always get a good chuckle out of Protestant websites and writers who pontificate (the word is chosen deliberately) about what "the Roman Church" teaches or believes, "according to the Roman Church," without ever citing, and most likely without ever reading, an official teaching document of "the Roman Church".
They all just assume they know what Catholicism believes and teaches, because, by golly, they're wrong and we're right. I mean, Pastor Jones told us what the Romanists believe, and Pastor Jones knows all about that stuff.
Fact: "The Roman Church" indulgences Bible reading by the laity, which is just about the highest approbation it can give. Of course, she reads it out loud to her members at every Mass and every celebration of the Divine Office.
Fact: Anyone who reads the Bible is thereby necessarily interpreting it.
In view of those facts, the bald proclamation in the article of what "the Roman Church" allegedly teaches is clearly nonsense.
Not too surprising, since many of the Jewish Christians apostatized and returned to Judaism. The oldest extant manuscripts of the Syriac (= Aramaic) Peshitta date from the 5th C, I think.
But this is an amusing discussion, since it's usually Catholics who take the position that Matthew may have been originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). Composition in either language destroys the usual Protestant argument that petros in Mt 16 means "little pebble".
You have posted this same nonsense numerous times and been corrected each occasion. Are you being intentionally incorrect or are you incapable of comprehending the truth? Constantine DID NOT create the Roman "church". He simply changed the law so that is was no longer illegal to be Christian.
The similarity to modern day Communist China is stark. Catholicism is illegal. If Wen Jiabao became a Catholic and repealed the laws against the practice of Catholicism would you then, similarly, credit him with creating the "Roman "church"" too?
Could you point me to the citations.Interesting.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
I seem not to be able to locate such.
Thank you, however, whether the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic is a moot point with folks from the Apostolic Age with arguments on either side. However, they were not “missing” or destroyed.
You have posted this same nonsense numerous times and been corrected each occasion. Are you being intentionally incorrect or are you incapable of comprehending the truth? Constantine DID NOT create the Roman "church". He simply changed the law so that is was no longer illegal to be Christian.
The similarity to modern day Communist China is stark. Catholicism is illegal. If Wen Jiabao became a Catholic and repealed the laws against the practice of Catholicism would you then, similarly, credit him with creating the "Roman "church"" too?
NEVER ADDRESS THE ISSUES. Is the translator no longer a homosexual ? Was Constantine not clear in impugning YHvH's Holy WORD ? Did not Constantine create the Pagan feast of Easter You seem to have failed to either read the document provided or Mazol Tov ! As always ATTACK THE MESSENGER.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
based on something other than the Word of Elohim ?
have proven unable to comprehend the written word as provided.
The following link offers a sold rebuttal to the catholic position of literally eating the flesh and blood of Jesus
http://www.justforcatholics.org/bread.htm
You are at liberty to believe that or any other fable
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
The Emperor Constantine was not a Pontiff of the Church. Which part of Bizzaroworld did you get that from? Furthermore, you do realise that Constantine was part of God's plan to further His Church? Just like the Kings of Armenia, Georgia and Ethiopia who made Christianity the state religion of their countries? Just like Cyrus the Great of Persia was part of God's plan to free the Judeans from the Assyrians?
And you call Constantine a sun-worshipper when he was the one who fought under the sign of the cross?
The Bishop of Rome is the Pope. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Since you agree that Constantine was not the Bishop of Rome, you must agree that he was not the Pope. St. Sylvester was pope during the reign of Emperor Constantine
You've been repeating this both in your previous incarnation as XeniaST and now and have been shown irrefutably a number of times that you were wrong, yet you repeat it
Proverbs 26:11
11As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
If you wish to believe that Christianity is false, that's your own fable to believe in.
Citations for what, exactly?
First, the website says Jesus used figurative language to emphasize these great spiritual truths. -- BUT, it forgets that
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirstyThey asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" -- why if this is not the Body and Blood of Jesus?
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
Can you answer any of these points? Your website certainly can't
I guess Jesus is a loaf of bread afterall! Who knew!
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ"-- crystal clear again
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction"-- very clear, eh?
I would suggest that you read through and doubt these liars who tell you such lies that Jesus did not inaugurate the Eucharist. Truth in Jesus Christ, the Lord, God and SAvior. To the Glory of GOD, not man.
Why do you deny Christ's very own words? Can you refute what he said, repeated and emphasized?
St. Paul reiterates the meaning and yet you deny Christ's words and St. Paul's statements?
I addressed the error of what you posted. Constantine did NOT create the "Roman "church""! Getting some of you to stay on topic is like trying to nail a fart to the wall!
"Is the translator no longer a homosexual ?"
What translator are you referring to, you?
"Did not Constantine create the Pagan feast of Easter based on something other than the Word of Elohim ?"
If I recall you used to post some nonsense about Easter being intentionally established so that it would NEVER occur on the same date as the Passover until someone pointed out to you that it did exactly that last year. The falsehood of "pagan" origins of Easter are based upon the English word "Easter". The Catholic Church officially used the word "Pascha" which is derived from the Hebrew. Evidence of a Christian Easter celebration can be traced to mid-2nd century Paschal homily attributed to Melito of Sardis, which characterizes the celebration as a well-established one by the 2nd century.
only in the German/English languages is it called Ostern or Easter
Even in Danish and Norwegian it is called påske , in Swedish påsk, in Estonian it is lihavõtted in Finnish pääsiäinen in Dutch it is called Pasen -- so your entire post is utterly wrong as you're just looking at it from an English perspective
You do realise that Modern English only dates from the 1600s and prior to that it was Latin then French that was the official language, right? Hence even the English celebrated Pascha
You do realise that High German was the liturgical language only post the 1500s and prior to that it was Latin, right? hence the Germans celebrated Pascha too
Your post 112 If God intended for the Passover to be named Easter, he would have used the biblical term for it. But he didn’t now did he. is hilarious -- the English language itself didn't reach "Modern English" until 1600 years AFTER Christ and even Modern English is shakespearen English, which many Anglophones can't understand.
You want to call it by the correct term, Pascha, go ahead and do so, that's what we Christians have been calling it for centuries.
let's look at the word for Passover in various languages:
Christians speaking Arabic or other Semitic languages generally use names cognate to Pesaḥ.
I’m not being flippant with the Gospel. The Gospel message is that Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of the world, and by repentance and placing trust in Christ a person is born again into the family of God. I’m not denying anybody’s words....I’m just following the proper understanding of the passages, which use figurative language.
And yet, what about Matt. 16:5–12
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
In the case of John 6, he is CRYSTAL clear -- repeating it twice even after some disciples have left.
If you wish to disregard Christ's words, well, that is your choice
And yet, what about Matt. 16:5–12
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
In the case of John 6, he is CRYSTAL clear -- repeating it twice even after some disciples have left.
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
furthermore, dear Turtlepower, READ the Bible, read to the end what Jesus Himself says
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic that you are doing -- he's already told them TWICE to ensure that they realise this is not metaphor he's talking about,
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
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.