Posted on 12/10/2012 9:27:44 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Oh, I’m referring to Jesus Christ’s One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian) — and for you to say Christ’s Church has errors is a compliment. I’d rather we follow Christ’s words than yours, thank you. As you said in your posts above, if God is not with one of the denominations, it crumbles and collapses. Well, God is with His Church and it has survived — due to no effort on it’s own — by its own right it should have collapsed under the hits by external enemies and internal human failings, but thanks to God’s grace it hasn’t and won’t....
Good! Start with these words:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 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.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
What does Jesus say saves us?
| 13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. |
Acts 2:38,
| 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. |
| 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name. |
| 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. |
| 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God |
| 13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. |
| 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ |
| to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, |
| 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by[b] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. |
| 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, |
One cannot even say this was a symbol -- look at all of the examples above, look at the language, consistently same the same in each, that in baptism we are saved and buried with Christ, washed of our sins by this and born again
Remember, the words of Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 28:19
| 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, |
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.”
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12
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.
Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that
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" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.
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.
Yes... a virtual wall of text in three posts... none of which addresses the fact of the primary error: ignoring the direct commandment of your Master to do and teach the Torah...
“Not according to the Word, it doesn’t.”
Where does the Word give a list of the books that count as the canon?
“The Oracles of YHWH are committed to the Hebrews, not the Romans.”
Where is that in Scripture?
“And the Word certainly DOES define itself.”
Where? Show me.
“Nonsense. The Protestant tradition has not been without examination since the time of Luther.”
Yes, it is Luther’s tradition. The tradition was created by Luther, and you still use Luther’s tradition. Prior to Luther, it did not exist.
“Everything they do accept IS Word.”
Yes, but they do not accept everything that is the Word of God. That is the problem. It is no different than if another church were to arise and proclaim that Romans was no longer the Gospel and ought to be excised. And publish bibles without Romans.
“What y’all accept is questionable”
According to whom? Scripture?
“I didn’t say that either canon was correct.”
Then you’ve already conceded the point. Without a universal standard, there is really, no ‘Word’. There is just opinion and personal desire. That is all.
“You admit that the books within are Word”
I have asserted that the Canon established by Pope Damasus in the 4th century is the Word. The entirety of the Word. Luther mutilated the Canon by removing books that he did not like. It is no different then if someone were to remove Romans from the Canon today.
“You would add others to it”
No. We add nothing. The Canon of Pope Damasus has been in existence since the 4th Century, 11 centuries prior to Luther and his canon. It is you who remove books, not we who add them. The obligation is to accept the entirety of the Word, not just that which you personally believe.
“I most certainly can. And I most certainly DO.”
Then you do not follow the Word. You follow yourself, not God, and how God has written that his Church must govern itself.
Scripture to you is meaningless should it contradict what you yourself believe.
Hey, if your cult ignores teaching the Torah, it's your problem, right? The Church, Christ's Church is the repository of the teachings of Christ through His Apostles and yup, we in orthodoxy know the Bible quite well -- that "wall of text" contains some excerpts. If you don't recognise these as the Bible, perhaps you need to actually pick one up and read it?
Without the Torah to anchor it, that wall of text can be interpreted any way you like. And therein lies the problem.
STILL no recognition of your Master's direct commandment to DO and TEACH the Torah.
Again, I don’t know any Christian who defends drinking and who drink who don’t drink to the point of intoxication. That is drunkenness.
With the exception of internal reference, it doesn't. But that is the point. For over two thousand years there was no canon. There was no concept thereof. Only the Torah was considered to be inviolate instruction. ALL the rest were judged by their conformity to the Torah. The idea of 'canon' is foreign.
[roamer_1:] The Oracles of YHWH are committed to the Hebrews, not the Romans.
Where is that in Scripture?
Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
(e-Sword:KJV)
[roamer_1:] And the Word certainly DOES define itself.”
Where? Show me.
I already told you.
Yes, it is Luther’s tradition. The tradition was created by Luther, and you still use Luther’s tradition. Prior to Luther, it did not exist.
If it were Luther's, Hebrews would still be in the back of the NT. And the Masoretic Text, which is where your contention resides, existed long before, as the Dead Sea Scrolls proclaim, with the lion's share being proto-masoretic, and a meager 5% aligning with the Septuagint.
And it is hardly a novel idea for Protestants to prefer the original texts to the Greek, as your own Jerome did the very same thing.
Yes, but they do not accept everything that is the Word of God. That is the problem.
Well, y'all have seen fit to omit books that are quoted and directly referenced BY NAME as well - Don't you think that such books would have direct authority? So you may not have 'accepted everything that is the Word of God' either.
[roamer_1:] What y’all accept is questionable
According to whom? Scripture?
As a whole, yes. I do not have time to critique the Apocryphal books in detail, and while I would even lend more weight to some (I favor Baruch, Greater Esdras, and Tobit[in part] as examples), my overwhelming observation is that the large portion of the books have been Hellenized so drastically as to have no reliable value (and I am by no means alone in that verdict, by any means).
But the first measurement has to be if they confound the Torah, and (taken as a whole) they do not meet that criteria. So YES. Scripture stands against them. However, I would like to sit down to a direct Hebrew to English translation (where available, as some are outright composed in Greek), wherein I might change my mind in some degree.
Then you’ve already conceded the point. Without a universal standard, there is really, no ‘Word’. There is just opinion and personal desire. That is all.
The universal standard must in fact be the Torah. That is what removes opinion and personal desire - And it also removes pronouncements made for power, political convenience, and compromise as well. THAT is all.
I have asserted that the Canon established by Pope Damasus in the 4th century is the Word.
Your assertion is without merit, as you are using the psuedepigraphal Gelasian Decretal as your resource. It is without attribution or provenance, and is more than likely a sixth century work.
And considering the Roman church's penchant for inclusions and outright forgery, I would appreciate your understanding in my rejection of any historicity proven upon your church fathers... Unless you are referring to documents with extant copies prior to 350AD... of which there are but a very few.
But, your point is made, nonetheless. There is a longstanding thread to your canon, albeit that it is not as universal as you would seem to claim. Even at Trent, the vote was won on a plurality, IIRC.
However, 'longstanding' does not necessarily equal 'true'.
No. We add nothing. The Canon of Pope Damasus has been in existence since the 4th Century, 11 centuries prior to Luther and his canon.
Your insistence here is off point. I was merely comparing the Protestant canon to your own, and drawing the point that you accept all the books the Protestants do - My comment that 'you would add others' was specific to the Protestant canon, and *not* suggesting that you added anything. As to the rest, Gelasian Decretal... see above.
Then you do not follow the Word. You follow yourself, not God, and how God has written that his Church must govern itself. Scripture to you is meaningless should it contradict what you yourself believe.
Your statement is most emphatically wrong. On all counts.
“With the exception of internal reference”
Then my point is well taken. There is nothing within the Word as you define it that defines which books count as the Word.
“For over two thousand years there was no canon.”
You are wrong. There has been a Canon since the 4th century with Pope Damasus.
“Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”
Does that mean that Romans is not Canon?
“I already told you.”
You admitted it says no such thing.
“If it were Luther’s, Hebrews would still be in the back of the NT.”
Yes, it is Luther’s canon, for the books you use matches his. Exactly so.
“And the Masoretic Text, which is where your contention resides, existed long before”
And the Vulgate predates the Masoretic text, and the Septuagint predates the Vulgate. Both the Vulgate and the Septuagint contain the books that Luther stripped away.
“And it is hardly a novel idea for Protestants to prefer the original texts to the Greek, as your own Jerome did the very same thing.”
You cannot cite the Church where she agrees with you and ignore where she disagrees with you. Yes, Jerome stated that he did not possess hebrew manuscripts of certain books. That is because we know know now that the originals were written in Greek, not Hebrew, which is something that Jerome did not.
Given that the Bible itself, much of it uses Greek originals, I see no problem with using Greek originals alongside Hebrew originals.
In any case, the matter was settled by Pope Damasus (whom you seem reluctant to cite), who established that the Canon were the books of the Vulgate, in the 4th Century, 11 centuries prior to Luther. Why? For the reason I cite above. There are no hebrew originals of these books because they were written in Greek.
“So you may not have ‘accepted everything that is the Word of God’ either.”
Yes, we have accepted all the books that are the word of God, because the Canon of the Church establishes such. What rationale do you have to include the books that you do? Because Luther said so?
“my overwhelming observation is that the large portion of the books have been Hellenized”
That is not a charge against their reliability, given that they were written in Greek originally. You are assuming they were written in Hebrew and then corrupted into the greek which we know now to be false. The Septuagint (which is far more ancient than the Masoretic text), cites them as scripture and includes them. Ergo, the Word of God itself proclaims that these books are a part, and ought not be removed, and certainly not by Luther coming some 1700 years after the Septuagint, and 1100 years after the Vulgate established the Canon.
“But the first measurement has to be if they confound the Torah”
The Septuagint argues otherwise.
“The universal standard must in fact be the Torah.”
The Septuagint, again, cites these as scripture on par with the Torah.
“Your assertion is without merit”
No, I cite the existence of the Vulgate which uses precisely this canon and not another canon. There are plenty still available.
“I would appreciate your understanding in my rejection of any historicity proven upon your church fathers”
Historical evidence we do possess corroborates with Pope Damasus and his canon given the existence of Vulgates from close to a thousand years, and they all share the same Canon. Perhaps you argue that this is due to mere chance that this arrangement arose.
“Unless you are referring to documents with extant copies prior to 350AD”
There are two large bibles from this period, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Both contain the so-called apocryphal books, indicating that the church of this period did regard them as canonical.
“Even at Trent, the vote was won on a plurality, IIRC.”
Once again, you cite the Church where it suits you and ignore where she does not. If Trent is authoritative, then you must abide by her statutes. If Trent is not authoritative, then appealing to her authority will not work.
“Your statement is most emphatically wrong. On all counts.”
Then why do you reject the clear text which outlines the three-fold organization of the Church in Acts? Because it would mean conceding that you are wrong? Let God be true, and every man a liar.
ok, perhaps you don’t, but I do — from the various denominations and from Catholic/Orthodox perspectives as well. Defending the right to imbibe a bit or two is not the same as drinking to drunkenness...
From a legal standpoint in many states, a BAC of 0.08 is considered too intoxicated to drive, but many here would probably contend that that blood alcohol level does not reach to the point of intoxication. Again, it's a complete judgment call, and the person assuming judgment is the one who's ability to objectively judge is impaired by the time he reaches that boundary.
If drinking is condoned by these Christians, what about marijuana use, assuming it is made legal in a jurisdiction? Will these Christians also say that using marijuana "in moderation" is not sinful? How about Cocaine? Crack? Speed? Everyone has his justification with this leaven.
The Bible speaks of "drunken" but also of an exceeding state of that: 1 Samuel 25:36 "And Abigail came to Nabal; and, behold, he held a feast in his house, like the feast of a king; and Nabal's heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken" The "very drunken" state is most obvious, but drunken might not be quite as readily observable.
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.