Posted on 05/10/2013 10:47:38 AM PDT by NYer
****The concept of a developing doctrine simply has no place within Rome’s claims of authority.****
If this were true, Gentiles would still need to be circumcised before becoming Christian.
Not necessarily. The bishops decide. How they decide is exactly how they decided 2000 years ago.
Quite a lot of words to reveal to us what we already know, in that, not only does each and every one of these passages in fact affirm the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, unless one reads with the eyes and sees with the heart of faith, the words are gibberish.
You'd make more money with the cereal box...
It was all black and not underlined in the preview pane...
You are right.
The MAJORITY of them.
You are right. The MAJORITY of them.
Negatory. They go into a room and close the door. Then they come out. Nowhere in the last 2000 years has there been an explanation of the decision.
Okay, if you would take this to the decision of the definition of Scripture, or the definition of the Nicene Creed, tell me the procedure as you understand it.
And, we had wonderful leg o’lamb at Easter. I’m looking forward to the next holiday. But I’ve got to clean my oven first - the smoke from 500 degrees F for 45 minutes tends to get the smoke alarms ringing...
Zechariah 14:20–21 states prophetically: “On that day … all who come to sacrifice [in Jerusalem] will take some of the pots and cook in them.” Most premillennialists agree that this passage is speaking of a time after Christ’s first coming. Why is it so problematic for them? Because they understand these events to occur during the 1000-year reign of Christ over an earthly kingdom with its capital at Jerusalem.
Here’s the rub. After Christ has died and set up His kingdom, why would sacrifices be resumed? There is absolutely no good Protestant response to that question. Evangelicals are adamant about the fact that priesthood here on earth is no longer needed. Sacrifices after the passion of Christ are unnecessary. The crucifixion of Christ was the last sacrifice ever needed. So why rebuild Jerusalem’s temple? This verse had remained an enigma to me for sixteen years, ever since seminary. When I was investigating Catholic Church teaching, I realized that Zechariah was actually talking about a sacrifice offered in Jerusalem every day now. He was referring to the Eucharist!
This sounds like a wannbe RC who is desperate to find some text of Scripture to justify his claim to be a fundy who found Scriptural basis for Rome, but fails in his attempt to do so, and who also must misrepresent evangelical teaching in so doing, or display an ignorance that is contrary to the claims of his testimony.
Unless one makes this allegorical, Zech. 12 is clearly referring to the future as anyone who understands context (and a fundy harps on that) should be able to tell you, even amazingly describing what sounds like a nuclear holocaust almost 200 years before such as known.
Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. (Zechariah 14:3)
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. (Zechariah 14:4)
And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth. (Zechariah 14:12)
And the sacrifices are not referring to the Catholic mass, but the reinstitution of Jewish sacrifices consistent the rebuilt tempt and David reigning as king, as Ezekiel describes. Thus before we get to Currie's out-of-context verses, Zechariah states,
And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. (Zechariah 14:16-17)
And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. (Zechariah 14:18-19)
Then we come to Currie's proof text,
In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE Lord; and the pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts. (Zechariah 14:20-21)
But regardless of how much Curries wants this to confirm to his belief, rather than Zechariah actually talking about the Eucharist being offered in Jerusalem every day now, it is clear he was referring to a future temple and time when Jewish sacrifices take place. For as the "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in,"(Romans 11:25) and then the curse of blindness is removed, then the remnant of Jews that remain shall believe (and the CCC supports a latter-day Jewish conversion).
And in the millennium, in which believers will be reigns as kings and priests, (Revelation 5:10) many texts teach that the Jews will manifest their faithfulness in that period. And for saints to rule they must have someone to rule over, and it is evident in Rv. 20:7-9 that unbelievers are part of the population, and who will be temporally punished as Zechariah foretells, before being burnt by fire from Heaven at the end.
Some do spiritualize this all, but not only are the specs for the temple Ezekiel describes at length different than that of Exodus, but the description by Ezekiel in cps 36-48 (besides other prophecies) would be unique for figurative language in their extensive detail, and do not lend themselves well to the extensive figurative interpretation required, but correspond well to the futurist understanding of Revelation with its Jewish tribes.
In addition is the absurd claim of this sppsd fundamentalist, that
There is absolutely no good Protestant response to that question. Evangelicals are adamant about the fact that priesthood here on earth is no longer needed. Sacrifices after the passion of Christ are unnecessary.
For the belief in a future temple and Jewish priesthood offering memorial sacrifice is quite common among fundamentalists, while the fact that the NT nowhere refers to pastors distinctively as priests does not pose a problem as futurist fundies understand that the coventantal changes that the 1k year reign of Christ signifies allow for a sacerdotal priesthood offering memorial sacrfiices, and it seems incongruous that Currie would not know this was not a problem if he was as learned as he seems to convey.
The popular Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown states on Zechariah 14:16:
every one ... left — (Isa_66:19, Isa_66:23). God will conquer all the foes of the Church. Some He will destroy; others He will bring into willing subjection.
And on Zec 14:20:
The priesthood of Christ will be explained more fully both by the Mosaic types and by the New Testament in that temple of which Ezekiel speaks. Then the Song of Solomon, now obscure, will be understood, for the marriage feast of the Lamb will be celebrated in heaven (Rev_19:1-21), and on earth it will be a Solomonic period, peaceful, glorious, and nuptial. There will be no king but a prince; the sabbatic period of the judges will return, but not with the Old Testament, but New Testament glory (Isa_1:26; Eze_45:1-25) [Roos].
And more recently, about a year ago wmfights posted "Theological Implications of Zechariah 14" from fundamentalist Michael J. Vlach, with a Ph.D.from in Systematic Theology from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, which holds the futurist position, and many more could be added, including futurists from both Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2420732/posts?page=67#67, which Currie lists in his parent pedigree
As a former weekly RC (who had became born again while still a Catholic) and fundamental Baptist, i am skeptical of this man's testimony.
I agree. In fact I’m more inclined to out and out believe he has been deceived.
“Quite a lot of words to reveal to us what we already know, in that, not only does each and every one of these passages in fact affirm the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, unless one reads with the eyes and sees with the heart of faith, the words are gibberish.”
The Catholic position is transubstantiation. Therefore, the Eucharist is not a symbol of a higher reality, that takes its name of that “reality” in a “certain manner” of speaking. It is literally the blood and body of Christ. Nor is the Eucharist, in Catholic thought, bread and wine AND the body of Christ.
“All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.”
“God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.”
“If this were true, Gentiles would still need to be circumcised before becoming Christian.”
At no time did the Apostles teach that circumcision was required for salvation before deciding that it was not required for salvation.
“I will congratulate you on your admission of your misunderstanding of the Magisterial office. Individual doctrinal opinions do not a Church make.”
And I am sure you will find for me where those Popes and Bishops were condemned by the Magisterium they were a part of. After all, they were teaching contrary to the long-held tradition of the church.
“This is the first admission of misunderstanding that I have seen you make since you have rejoined FR under another name. I must pat you on the shoulder and call you George.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen you resort to pathetically weak arguments followed up with an Ad-hom.
Many do show variance, but the fine print says "only when speaking infallibly," and if you can say with certainty that a teaching was infallible, such as some hold Boniface 8 statement on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, then you have an entity which can later autocratically define that to mean something that sounds rather contrary to what it says.
And while we know it is not the church "father's" that really determine doctrine (and the stipulated "unanimous consent" does not actually mean unanimous ), nor the weight of Scriptural substantiation, or history, but Rome's decree (having infallibly declared herself conditionally infallible), yet you have RCs that insist on arguing for the veracity of a doctrine based on sppsd support from such sources, but which cannot be the means by which RCs ascertain their truthfulness of official RC teaching, and the basis for their full assurance. And attempts to support added traditions by Scripture are an argument against them being warranted by Scripture.
Manning said it best in his oft posted quote,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I never said they did. Gee how words do get twisted.
There was a question as to whether a Gentile had to be circumcised in order to be a Christian. Must they first be subject to the old covenant before being received into the new.
Some said yes. Paul said no. The Council of Jerusalem was called to decide this issue. The Holy Spirit led them to the answer.
That is a development of doctrine under the authority given the Apostles by Christ and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
That is the pattern set and since followed by the Church.
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.