Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

Crisis Magazine ^ | October 3, 2014 | RICHARD BECKER

[metmom]

Well done again. You put into words what I’ve been trying to with little success. Thank you.

So while it will no doubt fall on deaf ears, because as of yet, I haven’t encountered a Catholic with enough honesty and integrity to ever TRY to understand if from a non-Catholic perspective, it will reach someone.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Yeah, I noticed.

They tend not to respond to posted scripture. There's not much to say when you're confronted with His word.

I made a point of illustrating exactly what a particular poster did with a series of shifting “direct quotes” claimed by the poster.

Let's simply leave it to the RM's judgment.

[metmom]

The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.

John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

[metmom]

See 501 and 503. Please advise.

Backatcha.

I've seen you do the exact same thing.

Advice?

How about quit pestering the RM before you annoy him?

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

I was really stoked about doint italics. I'm somewhat computer savy; throughout my Air Force career I've had to work with some pretty messed up systems and had to get smart. I never had to do HTML.

But I don’t do photo-shopped cereal boxes. So many reasons not to ... :)

How about a bear on a unicycle? ;-)

[LadyDoc]

James tartly writes about christians who have christ.. col. 2:14-15)

And co redemptoris is not a catholic dogma. However, it only echoes Paul implying that we christians share in christ’s redeeming work col 1:24, plus all his writings about how god is working through his actions because he is cooperating with God’s grace.

catholics say we are saved by God’s grace.

by the grace of God I am what I am and his grace in me has not been fruitless.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

How about you.

“Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation. I, LadyDoc, do not need a coredemtrix for my salvation. Jesus alone is all I need to enter God’s Kingdom.”

Will you copy and paste?

[metmom]

Yeah. I felt the same way when I figured it out.

Did you know that if you replace the *i* with a *b* you get bold, and a *u* gets you underline , and a *s* gets you strike out and *p* gets you paragraph but you don't need to close is with the /p?

[metmom]

Yeah. I felt the same way when I figured it out.

Did you know that if you replace the *i* with a *b* you get bold, and a *u* gets you underline , and a *s* gets you strike out and *p* gets you paragraph but you don't need to close is with the /p?

[metmom]

How’d that get posted twice?????

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Cool! I’ve got to try all of that.

I learned about the paragraph breaks by looking back at the “your reply” window after looking at the preview.

[Springfield Reformer]

How about a bear on a unicycle? ;-)

LOL. No, I'm not much of one for that.

But as for html, I don't necessarily edit the html directly. It's all visual, just like working in Word, but it renders it in clean, lightweight, FR-compatible html, which I can then tweak if I absolutely have to. It's quite liberating. I highly recommend it.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Is it on a website or is it something you download?

[Religion Moderator]

Stop making this thread "about" individual posters.

Rides_A_Red_Horse, your post 433 contains the accusation at the root of this outrage.

narses, the statement was expressing her mind ("you sound exactly like...") it was not reading yours.

Nevertheless, it was making the thread "about" another Freeper personally and was therefore a form of "making it personal." And this entire sidebar continues in that error keeping the discussion away from the issues and centered instead on claims of indignation.

Discuss the ISSUES all you want, but do not make it personal. Discuss the MESSAGE, not the messenger. No ad hominems.

Also complaints about groups of believers are not "making it personal." For instance, "Baptists are heretics" is not making it personal whereas "You are a heretic" is making it personal.

That said, repeated childish insults and allusions (e.g. Godwin's law comparisons) even when addressed to a group of believers (e.g. they are mouth breathers) - serve no purpose other than to incite flame wars. Any such post may be pulled for trouble-making.

[Springfield Reformer]

http://www.kompozer.net/download.php

[boatbums]

Hey! I was thinking this exact same thing while showering tonight and planned to post it. I believe you are right.

[ronnietherocket3]

* The original Hebrew Matthew said "He," not "they."

Unless you post a link to the version of Scripture you want to claim as canonical and proof that it is canonical, please do not claim there are errors in the version of Scripture we have.

Concerning the list of woes, this reads more like a condemnation of behavior and priorities. Since the Pharisees were well known for believing that there was an Oral Torah, I would expect a very clear condemnation of that belief. Back to the Woes, I suggest you google the 7 types of Pharisees if you are interested in the Pharisaic view of the Pharisees. Here is one resource. The 5 bad types of Pharisees are very easy for a lot of Christians to fall into. Nicodemus and Gamaliel were Pharisees.

Concerning call no man father:
There are repeated references to Apostles addressing people as little children, e.g., "My little Children" (1Jn2:1). Since all the Apostles are men, they are calling themselves the fathers of those individuals.

Concerning sitting on Moses seat:
Since the Pharisees hold that there is and Oral and a Written Torah, it would be very odd to say they sit on Moses' seat if Jesus condemns their belief that God gave Moses two Torahs.



Concerning Matthew 15:
Jesus' specific condemnation is over them permitting someone to honor the Temple above their father and mother. There was a dispute in Pharisaic Judaism over whether this was permitted (Tractate Nedarim 9). The conclusion of this reasoning is that something dedicated to the Temple is dedicated to God. Honoring father and mother are not necessarily. Interesting to note, is that Jesus does not respond to their initial inquiry about the hand washing ritual. He ignores it. The parallel passage in Mark 7, has some of his disciples observing it and some not observing it.

However, this connects back to the other passage. First, what is the hand washing ritual? It is a ritual in Pharisaic Judaism involving washing hands because certain things imparted a minor ritual impurity on someone. Major ritual impurities required bathing in a Mikveh. Second, what does he say in Matthew 23 about washing? He criticizes the Pharisees for worrying about washing the outside rather than the inside. He does not criticize them for ritual washing. Back to Matt. 15, Jesus states that it is what comes out of the mouth, not what goes into the mouth, that defiles the body. So what does wash and how do we wash, the inside of the body? Rev 7:14 states that the blood of the Lamb washes. Specifically it says robes; however, I am uncertain what clothes represent in Revelation. It would appear that to wash the insides of our bodies, we need to drink the Blood of the Lamb. Rev. 7 also uses the active not passive; it says the people present washed, not were washed.

This would appear to be a significant fraction of the Catholic Eucharist. An objection that I have seen to the Eucharist is the lack of mention in John. If the Eucharist were as important as Catholics say it is, why is the institution left out of John?

There are a couple answers. The first is that it actually is not important. My answer is that it is in John, but not where we expect it to be. Instead it is at the beginning of John (ch. 2). In this scene Jesus takes water from the jugs used for ritual washing and converts it into wine and then has the steward of the feast taste it. The steward's response is that this is the best wine. So he has taken water used to wash the outside of someone and turned it into wine so it would wash the insides.

How do we get to the Eucharist? At the last supper, Jesus turns wine into his blood and then commands his Apostles to drink it.



To summarize, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for washing the outside not the inside. By this point, he had transformed the hand-washing ritual into a wine drinking ritual (which would wash the insides). At the very end of his ministry he transforms it into a blood drinking ritual. After his resurrection, he shows to John that his blood washes.

[metmom]

GMTA.

[boatbums]

Your wish is my command! ;o)

Or...how 'bout

[dsc]

“Any such post may be pulled for trouble-making.”

But 506, 515, 516, 519, and 521, all of which contain childish insults that serve no purpose other than to incite flame wars, pass without comment.