Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?
As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.
So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.
The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:
Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.
Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama…
I know, I know.
Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…
Okay, smart guy.
Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.
Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.
Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.
Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?
In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….
The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.
Scripture. God’s word.
Show me where it says that Mary had children other than Jesus. :)
You love Rome and division more than you love Jesus. Pathetic. Maybe spend a bit more time promoting Jesus than your denomination.
Seriously. I assume you care about Jesus. Why do you disregard Him so much, and instead promote division?
The Holy Spirit will lead you to those scriptures if you choose to listen to Him rather than the RCC. It’s not my job to convince you. If you truly want truth you will ask Him to show you. Surely you would want to submit to Him rather than the RCC wouldn’t you? Or not?
So you don’t have any evidence that supports your view. Shame.
Dear boatbums. That does not follow logically at all. Polemicists routinely cite statements from their opponents that are favorable to their argument without incurring any moral obligation to accept all of the oddities and heresies and evil of their opponents that they cited.
You have very odd ideas but you, contrary to what the malevolent mad man, Luther, averred, have Free Will and you can say and do as you please.
As to your source, I find it amusing not authoritative. You first cited it when it had not one thing to do with a quote I posted but you cited it with what seemed a sense of triumph; Take that, Vermont Crank
That site specialises in gainsaying every thing any Catholic source documents as the mad man saying or doing.
A a man with Free Will, you have leave to pursue and believe every risible claim that cite makes but you wildly err in thinking that source is authoritative or normative. What is clear is that your defense of the Heresiarch reveals that he is your moral and doctrinal progenitor but, were I you, as an adult, I'd rhetorically declare emancipation from such an obviously inane and abusive Father.
You claim to love Jesus ... yet how did you learn about Him? Through scripture. Who compiled the Canon of the New Testament? The Catholic Church.
Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible.
Catholics love Jesus more than the Church. To suggest otherwise, is ignorance.
Once again you prove you do exactly as I stated in smearing by association (no matter how slight or antiquated) all those who may (or may not) have come after a certain "Reformer". I had already said I was not a Lutheran, I don't follow any men as my "Pope" and I reject the bigoted and hostile denigration of a man, who history as well as his own writings, prove to be no such person as you ignorantly attest. You prefer writings from Catholic sources only, who obviously have skin in the game to portray men such as Luther in the most audacious and malevolent ways so as to detract from what he taught that truthfully described the degeneracy and depravity of the Roman Catholic Church of his day.
I have been reading an online version of Luther's letters and in them he describes the blatant unChristian manner in which he was treated from the very start of his posting his concerns over the misuse and abuse of indulgences. It is quite eye-opening and if you are in any way genuinely interested in knowing ALL sides to the issue, I'd be happy to point you to them so you might speak in the future more kindly and knowingly about events that happened five centuries ago. You have a free will and aren't duty-bound to the version Rome puts forth, aren't you? Perhaps it is you who needs the emancipation?
I think we are disagreeing as to what “priest” means.
Hebrews 7:14-17
“For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies:
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”
What is a priest? It is one who offers sacrifice for sins. Before the Levitical priesthood, we see heads of households such as Job and Abraham offering sacrifices for themselves and their households. Then came the Levitical priesthood, instituted by God through Moses, and the temple worship, and the sacrifices going 24/7, and the priests were there, and rightly so, and doing their priestly duties.
Then comes Jesus, and the temple is destroyed and the priesthood is ended. Jesus is our high priest forever, according to the order of Melchizideck (he was not a Levite).
“This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 6:19-20)
My FRiend Annalex, Jesus is our High priest forever. He is the one behind the veil, it is His sacrifice that satisfied entirely and forever the wrath of God against our sins.
Jesus said “It is finished.” His work was done. The price was paid.
“Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened,and the VEIL OF THE TEMPLE was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into your hands I commit My spirit.” (Luke 23:44-46
The priesthood is over, in that sacrificing sense. The sacrifice has been made, and accepted. The veil of the temple is torn in two. The temple is shortly thereafter to be destroyed. We are no longer making sacrifices for sin.
We see men called as elders/presbyters/bishops. Are they told to continue to act as priests, to make sacrifices, to go to the temple and slaughter something? No. They are to teach and preach the gospel, exercise discipline, baptize new believers, etc. . . not act as any sort of priest.
Where are any apostles at any time acting as a priest? They enter a town, they begin to witness or teach or exhort, they even testify before crowds, before kings. . . but do they ever sacrifice anything? No. There is nothing to sacrifice.
Do the descriptions of the duties of these ordained men ever include anything about doing priest work?
The priesthood now is of all believers, who offer the sacrifice of praise, as we read in 2nd Peter. That’s it. The penalty has been paid. Victory has been won.
The priesthood is over, in that sacrificing sense.
as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come (1 Cor. 11:26)
As often as you shall. The Bible shows you wrong about Catholic priesthood.
“s often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come (1 Cor. 11:26) “
Yes, you eat the bread and drink the cup, and show the death of the Lord.
You aren’t re-sacrificing anybody, and no priest is involved.
Not, "Do this to re-sacrifice me."
Not, "Do this to make my sacrifice present."
Not , "Do this in order to get your allotment of grace for the week."
The Lord's supper is not a reiteration, but a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ. By eating the bread, which represents his body broken for us and drinking the cup, which represents his blood shed for our sins, we demonstrate we have already received his gift of everlasting life by grace through faith in him.
From Matthew Henry's Commentary: The Lord's supper is a sign or memorial of Christ already come, who by dying delivered us; his death is in special manner set before us in that ordinance, by which we are reminded of it. The breaking of Christ's body as a sacrifice for us, is therein brought to our remembrance by the breaking of bread. Nothing can be more nourishing and satisfying to the soul, than the doctrine of Christ's making atonement for sin, and the assurance of an interest in that atonement. Therefore we do this in remembrance of what He did for us, when he died for us; and for a memorial of what we do, in joining ourselves to him in an everlasting covenant.
he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor. 11:29)Read: there is the Body of Christ in it; the Eucharist is Itself the judgment. Therefore the priest offering the Holy Communion is doing so in the person of Christ; one receiving It is at the Sacrifice of the Cross. As is written:
Amen, amen I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. (John 13:20)
Read the Holy Scripture once in a while with honesty of heart and you, too, will be Catholic and drop the Protestant lies.
“u don’t just eat a memorial snack. St. Paul goes on to say:
he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor. 11:29)”
I would not mock it as a memorial snack.
We read of the Last Supper (I read my Bible daily, I don’t know why the sarcastic “read your Bible once in a while” comment) - and Jesus took the bread and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said take, eat, this is my body. . . and afterwards he took the cup and said take, drink, this is my blood -
I’d like to point out that Jesus was sitting there breaking, pouring and serving, talking, and his body was intact; he was not physically being sacrificed at the Last Supper. His sacrifice was yet to be made.
I would not call the last supper event some sort of silly snack, it was the last meal Jesus ate with his disciples before his death. Nothing to make light of. And so He instituted the communion sacrament - and so we keep it until He returns.
The Body of Christ in palpable form was not in the bread and wine. The Body of Christ was physically serving it, see 1st Corinthians 11 (and other accounts if you prefer) to see for yourself.
Jesus is not being re-sacrificed. He is being remembered, and celebrated, and there is indeed a great danger in eating or drinking unworthily, not discerning the body of the Lord. What is it to discern the body of the Lord? A deep question.
To know Him; to know what He did; to take Him on in faith; to trust in Him; to be aware of what his sacrifice was.
But it does not mean that Jesus is being continually re-sacrificed for our sins. His death, one time, was sufficient to save us. Just as Adam’s sin, one time, was enough to damn us.
“This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (1st Cor 11:25) In remembrance, indeed, and solemnly so. Not in re-sacrifice.
Because you read it and substitute meaning for what you have been trained to think about it. This is the essence of Protestantism: reading the Bible not for what it says but for some imaginary false theology that is not there, the theology invented in 16th century by some charlatans in Germany. In this case, you read a clear reference in 1 Cor. 11 of the Christ's sacrifice being really present in the Eucharistic bread and the cup and you substitute for it your ideas of "being remembered, and celebrated".
The Body of Christ in palpable form was not in the bread and wine
Your position is without biblical merit. At the Last Supper Jesus said two things: (1) this meal is His body and blood and (2) the disciples are to "do it in commemoration" of Him.
Now, because I am an authentic Catholic Christian and not a Protestant, I take the Bible very seriously and I believe what it says fully. If Jesus said that the bread and the wine were His body and blood then I believe Him and not you who decides in his own head that because "Jesus was sitting there breaking, pouring and serving, talking, and his body was intact", then therefore "[H]e was not physically being sacrificed at the Last Supper". Jesus was present and also His sacrifice, His body and His blood were present in the Last Supper meal. This is not the only time the Holy Eucharist is described as a necessary for salvation actual meal being at the same time His actual blood and flesh, see John 6, second half of the chapter.
And likewise if Jesus tells his disciples to "do it" then I take that part seriously also. I do not imagine that anyone eating a matzot and drinking grape juice is "doing it" while not believing himself it is His body and His blood and His Holy Sacrifice. I don't deny that you are commemorating Christ, but the entire meaning of the Last Supper you pervert. I think in order to "do it" one has to be properly consecrated priest by a bishop, who comes in the unbroken line of succession from the Holy Apostles (2 Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5) and believes the Gospel as written (Luke 22:19, john 6:51ff): the Eucharist is THE saving sacrifice of the Cross.
Jesus is not being re-sacrificed.
Of course not. The Holy Mass is not a re-sacrifice. The Last Supper was not a pre-sacrifice. Every Holy Mass is THE same sacrifice, "as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice". St. Paul said this clarification for a reason, because he knew there will be people like you imagining re-sacrifices. Jesus worked the miracle of multiplication of loaves and fish (the first half of John 6) before He explained the miracle of the Holy Eucharist (in the second half of John 6) for the same reason: because he knew there will be people like you denying His power.
Be ashamed of the Protestant faith-killing rot and flee it if you wish to be saved.
“Because you read it and substitute meaning for what you have been trained to think about it. “
That’s what I perceive you to be doing with it.
In 1 Cor. 11, you say there is a clear reference to Christ being actually present in the bread and wine. And there he is, actually serving the bread and the wine. He is bodily there, doing this.
And you say I am substituting meaning?
Indeed: "discerning the body of the Lord" is what 1 Cor. 11:29 admonishes us to be lest we are not taking the Holy communion "worthily". St. Paul would not be telling the Corinthians to "discern" something that was not there for them.
And there he is, actually serving the bread and the wine
That would be the scene of the Last Supper (Luke 22:7-23 and similar in other synoptics), not the discourse in 1 Cor. 11. Yes, at the Last Supper Christ was present both in His natural body celebrating the Eucharist and in His Eucharistic body and blood in the Last Supper meal. That is what Jesus Christ said, so I believe it. You should believe it too.
“That is what Jesus Christ said, so I believe it. You should believe it too. “
I do believe it. He was saying it as he was passing it out. Obviously he did not mean that his body was somehow physically in the stuff he was passing out. His body, with Him in it, was standing or sitting right there.
Obviously He did since He said it:
[19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20)
I believe it. You believe Luther and other charlatans.
He also said,
“I am the vine, you are the branches.” Which does not mean He was made of wood.
He also said,
“I am the door,” obviously he is not made of wood and hinges.
Jesus often used metaphor and simile.
When He is standing there serving bread and wine, and says, “This is my body, this is my blood,” it is an obvious case. His blood and flesh are on his frame at the time, and it is apparent to all present.
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.