Posted on 02/13/2015 10:04:31 AM PST by WXRGina
We live in strange times. When I became a born-again believer nearly four decades ago following thirty years as a Roman Catholic, not one non-Catholic Christian chided me for leaving the Church of Rome. In those days it was fairly obvious to evangelicals that the teachings and practices of Roman Catholicism were at odds with the teachings of the Bible. Yes, there were a few things, at least superficially, that Catholics and Bible-believing Christians held in common. The virgin birth of Christ, which involved the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit, is one example. Yet, regarding Christ’s miraculous birth, the Catholic Church added to the virgin Mary the dogmas of her Immaculate Conception, i.e., her having been conceived without sin, and her perpetual virginity. Although those extra-biblical teachings are serious errors, they do not directly contradict the gospel that is essential for salvation.
I would hope that everyone who is reading this article, (particularly if they profess to be Bible-believing Christians) has understood and received the true gospel, which requires the belief (and belief alone) that Jesus, through His sacrificial death and resurrection, paid the penalty for sin in full for every man, woman, and child. That is the gospel that the Bible teaches explicitly in more than one hundred verses and implies in hundreds more. However, that is not the gospel according to the Roman Catholic Church. In truth, the Catholic Church’s opposition to the biblical gospel in its teachings and practices has been made evident through its councils and murderous inquisitions down through history.
During the Reformation, many individuals (primarily former Catholics) worked to restore the biblical gospel. In truth, it had never ceased to be believed by a remnant outside the Catholic Church. Yet the Reformation helped to get the Scriptures back into the hands of multitudes of believers. In response, the Church of Rome made its official position on the gospel crystal clear in its counter-reformation Council of Trent (1545-1563). Here are just three of the so-called infallible Council’s more than one-hundred condemnations for those who believe what the Bible teaches about the gospel: “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification...let him be anathema” (6th Session, Canon 9). It is because the Catholic Church requires far more than faith for salvation that it must anathematize (condemn) those who reject its sacramental works.
“If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema” (6th Session, Canon 12). Again we see that according to Rome, belief alone in Christ’s finished sacrifice on the cross is condemned.
“If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema” (6th Session, Canon 30). Though many Catholics wrongly believe that their Church has moved beyond the declarations of its Councils such as Trent, they nevertheless cling steadfastly to the necessity of Purgatory in the hope of burning off their residue of sins, thus making them fit to enter Heaven. That is a rejection of the finished work of Christ and therefore a “gospel” that will save no one.
It is essential for everyone who claims to be a Christian and says that they love Roman Catholics—and who believe that most Catholics are saved simply because they “love Jesus”—to understand the official Catholic “gospel” (which every Catholic is obligated to believe) and to realize how diametrically opposed it is to the biblical gospel. To truly love Jesus means to love Him as the Scriptures declare: “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life” (1 John:5:20). The Catholic “Jesus,” who did not pay the full penalty for sin and who remains on crucifixes above the altars in Catholic churches is said to be “immolated” during the Mass. Immolation means to be killed—and not simply as a symbolic gesture, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ the high priest by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal Father, as he did on the cross. ‘It is one and the same victim; the same person now offers it by the ministry of his [Catholic] priests, who then offered himself on the cross. Only the manner of offering is different’” (pp. 445-46). This direct denial of the finished sacrifice of Christ takes place daily on millions of Catholic altars in clear-cut contradiction to Hebrews:10:10: “By [God’s will] we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
The truth is that if we honestly love Catholics and want them to receive the forgiveness of their sins and the gift of eternal life that Jesus has paid for and that He offers through a simple act of faith on their part, then any form of encouraging the false gospel of Rome (no matter how well-intentioned) by those who profess to know Christ is a betrayal of the truth and insures for Catholics eternal separation from God. Tragically, that leaven of compromise is what has been infiltrating the church for the last three decades.
Through its newsletter articles and resource materials over many years, TBC has addressed such lethal appeasement of Roman Catholic dogmas by highly visible leaders in their evangelism efforts—men such as Billy Graham, who used Catholic priests and nuns as counselors at his crusades; Bill Bright, who placed practicing Catholics in Campus Crusade leadership positions in Ireland; and Luis Palau, who collaborated with Catholics in South America. Under the leadership of Chuck Colson and Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus, among others, influential evangelical and Catholic leaders signed the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, thereby committing themselves to working together to convert the world to Christ. Promise Keepers, led by Roman Catholic Bill McCartney, strived to break down the historic wall of division between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians. Hank Hanegraaff’s Christian Research Journal ran a series on Roman Catholicism, declaring that the Church held a biblical view of justification by faith. It was written in part by apologist Norm Geisler and defended by Hanegraaff on his radio program, claiming that the gospel of Rome is fundamentally biblical. Tridentine Catholic movie writer and director Mel Gibson won the hearts of multitudes of evangelicals with his The Passion of the Christ, which was based on the sacred Catholic ritual of the Stations of the Cross, a rite that is dedicated to Mary as co-redemptrix with Jesus.
Dave Hunt, writing about the response to the death of Pope John Paul II, noted,
The praise heaped on the pope upon his death by evangelical leaders is incomprehensible! Incredibly, Billy Graham praised John Paul II for “his strong Catholic faith.” Increasing numbers of evangelicals are joining Colson, [J. I.] Packer, Billy Graham, and others in accepting as fellow Christians Roman Catholics who embrace this false gospel…. Pat Robertson said that “the most beloved religious leader of our age [has passed] from this world to his much-deserved eternal reward.”…Mark Oestreicher, president of Youth Specialties, called the pope’s death “a key point in history where we have the opportunity to embrace [Catholics as] fellow children of God.” That is like failing to set up flares and warning signs for motorists traveling along a highway where a bridge is out and waving them on to their death instead!
Like Billy Graham, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, emphasized that any disagreements Protestants may have had “with John Paul II are [irrelevant] to the foundations of the faith.” Land praised the pope’s “staunch defense of traditional Christian faith....” Yet John Paul II, on more than one occasion, gathered together for prayer witch doctors, spiritists, animists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and other leaders of world religions, declared that they were all “praying to the same God” and credited their prayers with generating “profound spiritual energies” that would create a “new climate for peace.”
The 4,000-member Evangelical Philosophical Society’s president Francis Beckwith resigned to return to his Catholic roots (with the official blessing of EPS’s leadership). Rick Warren brought his Purpose Driven church-growth program to the Catholic Church showing no apparent concern for that church’s false gospel.
But that was then; so what is the situation now? Anyone who is saddened over what has taken place in the recent past, e.g., the blatant disregard of the biblical gospel as the only hope for the salvation of mankind, should be deeply grieved at what’s taking place today. The Vatican appears to be turning up the heat in its efforts to romance “Protestants,” a misnomer for non-Catholic Christians. Vatican II’s declaration referring to baptized non-Catholic Christians as “separated brethren,” a change from their having been referred to historically as “heretics” as defined by the Council of Trent, has been surprisingly successful in endearing many evangelical leaders to Rome. There is a saying related to this approach that is borne out in the Church of Rome’s practice: “Rome, when in minority is as gentle as a lamb, when in equality is as clever as a fox, and when in the majority is as fierce as a tiger.” We seem to be in the “clever as a fox” stage here in the US, if what is taking place is any indication.
The “retired” Benedict XVI, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (with its roots in the Roman Inquisition), surprised many by his extraordinary ecumenical efforts as pope. Doctrine became a nonissue, at least on the surface. His successor, Pope Francis, has not only followed the lead of popes John XXIII, John Paul II, and Benedict, but he has put ecumenism in warp speed. Early last year, Francis sent an iPhone video greeting to the audience at a Kenneth Copeland Conference via Anglican-Episcopal bishop Tony Palmer (now deceased), who was also a director of the Kenneth Copeland Ministries in South Africa. For those not aware, Copeland and his wife, Gloria, have led millions into their unbiblical prosperity-and-health doctrines, which feature a false gospel and “another” Jesus who paid for sins by being tortured by Satan in hell. The greeting led to an invitation from the pope to Copeland and some of his false teaching compatriots (James Robison, Geoff Tunnicliff, John and Carol Arnott) to meet with him at the Vatican. Influential Charismatic mystic and false prophet Kim Clement declared that God told him that He had chosen Pope Francis to bring Spirit-filled Protestants and Catholics together.
Rick Warren has hardly taken a back seat on the journey to Rome. In a series of interviews that he gave last year to EWTN, the Catholic network (which, by the way, he confessed was one of his favorite TV channels), Rick defended Catholicism and attempted to explain the misconceptions held by evangelicals. In keeping with his unbiblical Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan, which stresses the cooperation of the world’s religions, he spoke at the Vatican’s International Religious Colloquium on the Complementarity of Man and Woman. He later “called for adherents of various Christian denominations to unite with Roman Catholics and Pope Francis to work together on three shared goals, focusing on the sanctity of life, the sanctity of sex, and the sanctity of marriage” (http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/megachurch-pastor-rick-warren-joins-pope-francis-in-support-of-common-mission).
Hopefully, every believer reading this is asking “What of the sanctity of the biblical gospel?” Without that, all other attempts at “sanctity” are a temporal delusion and an eternal tragedy! Yet fewer and fewer of those who profess to be Bible-believing Christians seem to be concerned about this and are comfortable with what has become Warren’s ecumenical mantra: “If you love Jesus,” he claims, “we’re on the same team.”
If you are puzzled or perhaps even dazed by what’s going on in Christendom, the Scriptures supply the answers: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy:4:3-4). Where sound doctrine has given way to experientialism, subjectivism, and emotionalism, as it has among the millions of followers of the false Signs and Wonders teachings, biblical discernment has been abandoned; being a Berean is impossible.
However, hyper-Charismatics and Pentecostals are not the only ones ripe for Rome’s seduction. Consider again conservative theologian Francis Beckwith, the former head of the Evangelical Philosophical Society who returned to his earlier Catholic faith (emphasis added). How could he have done this if he had truly understood and received the simple and foundationally sound doctrine of salvation? How could one rationally give up the unfathomable free gift that Christ provided and turn instead to a salvation by works—unless he had never received that gift? You could also ask how Beckwith could have been elected president of such a prestigious “Protestant” organization.
Beckwith, however, provides some insights that are reflective of the attitude and beliefs of most Christians today. When asked if he thought the historic hostility between Catholics and evangelicals is eroding, his response was: “Yes. I think it is largely the result of working together on cultural questions [Rick Warren’s approach], which has led to more careful and charitable reading of each other’s beliefs. So, for example, it is rare today to a find a serious Evangelical accusing the Catholic Church of believing in ‘works righteousness.’ Sure, the more flamboyant voices say such things, but most sophisticated Evangelicals do not take them seriously” (The Catholic World Report 11/5/2014). “Flamboyant voice” here refers to a vocal, narrow-minded fundamentalist, versus “sophisticated Evangelical,” which describes one who takes “more careful and charitable reading of each other’s beliefs.” Tragically, such a mindset is the growing trend among professing evangelicals.
I thank Jesus every day that the evangelicals who witnessed to me more than three decades ago loved me enough to reject such soul-damning “sophistication” and to minister to me in truth. For this I am eternally grateful, and I pray that my fellow believers will do the same for their Catholic acquaintances, friends, and loved ones.
One of the ways Jesus taught was to use sayings that would capture the attention of the people. This was part of the oral way of teaching in Judaism. By using words to refer to Himself as "the bread of life", "the good Shepherd", "the door of the sheep", "the true vine", etc., He was drawing upon images the people were familiar with. They would be able to understand His meaning with this style of teaching.
For example, if you were a shepherd you would understand what "the Good Shepherd" was. Someone who took care of the sheep and provided for their needs while protecting them.
If you worked in a vineyard you would understand the idea of vines and branches and how they were intertwined together and what it meant to have a branch as part of the vine.
Now, did Jesus mean He was literally any of these things? Or the people who He was talking to....did they literally think they were these things? Do you think you are a branch or a sheep? Of course not.
So when He said He was the bread of life the people understood that.
You have to keep John 6:22-71 in context to understand the meaning of Jesus' message in this text.
How does one "eat His flesh" and "drink His blood"? He answered that in John 6:40.
"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.
He reiterates this necessity of belief in Him again John 6:47, "Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
By equating Himself as the bread of life and linking that to the bread that sustained the Jews in the wilderness, He was saying belief in Him was the bread of life.
In John 6:50 He said, "this is the bread which comes down out of Heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die."
How does one eat of it? Belief in Him.
It has always been about faith in Jesus. That is how we come to have eternal life.
No false Christ. The one and only Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
Where do you get all your mistaken information?
**Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Holy Trinity.**
Why is he always ‘second person’ to you folks? Why can’t he be ‘first person’ some of the time?
No records from the Synod of Rome or the Councils in Hippo or Carthage?
This precisely why internet-theology is no substitute for a thorough historical and theological scholarship based on serious scholarship. This is why Bible-Christianity fails and this is why eminent Protestant theologians have converted to Catholicism.
But if you care to inform yourself here’s the proof.
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I.
Council of Rome. 382 A.D.
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I
AD 393:
Council of Hippo. “It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books.”
(canon 36 A.D. 393). At about this time St. Jerome started using the Hebrew text as a source for his translation of the Old Testament into the Latin Vulgate.
The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I.
AD 397:
Council of Carthage III. “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.”
(canon 47 A.D. 397).
You misunderstand the existence of texts with that of infallible Petrine authority during these Councils that assembled together and solemnly declared the authenticity of the canonical texts they put together. Even Luther admitted to this.
These books did not falls from the skies and self-assemble themselves.
Poor Markusprime and Idaho_cowboy as well since they are unfamiliar with liturgical customs and rituals that went back to the time of Christ. The Catholic Church follows many of these rituals dating from the early Jewish rabbis such as the wearing of vests and veneration. There are libraries of books on these customs including the kissing of rings.
As you can see from the decrees of the Catholic Church listed above the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419).
In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church’s decision in this matter.
By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)—and thus considering them inspired—for more than 1100 years.
This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.
One of the two “pillars” of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or “the Bible alone”) in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God’s Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.
.
There is no guesswork.
Yeshua provided a university of his narrow path: Torah.
That has been the Gospel of the Kingdom of God for 3500 years.
.
.
Catholics have to have a pecking order.
.
.
Read Matthew 7 until it sinks in.
What do you think “iniquity” is? (living without Torah)
.
The New Testament introduces the Incarnation. The Word was made “flesh.” The God of the Torah becomes Man as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. No guesswork here. Christ is True Man and True God. The Resurrection was real enough that as Pope Benedict XVI put it, it created a seismic effect among the Jewish Christians that Sunday rather than Saturday became the new Sabbath. Up until then for centuries the Sabbath was a Saturday. Something major happened on Easter Sunday.
.
>> “ that Sunday rather than Saturday became the new Sabbath.” <<
.
The lie from the pit of hell that is demolished by every epistle in the New Testament, plus the book of Acts.
There are far too many mentions of Sabbath worship, and not even one for “sunday.”
Throughout the NT they are attending the feasts, and keeping the Sabbath, so where is your sunday?
Sunday has absolutely nothing to do with Yeshua. He was resurrected at the end of the third day, the Sabbath, as the sun set, beginning the Biblical “first day of the week” on the catholic saturday night.
Easter was thrown over Constantine’s cult in the 4th century, along with Satan’s “christmas.”
The two days of the dead babies.
Billions of Christians today celebrate Sunday and not Saturday as the Sabbath. Why?
Because those Jews who witnessed the Resurrection, now changed hundreds of years of religious and cultural practice where the Sabbath was on a Saturday.
Only a seismic event could have caused this. Benedict XVI, called a theological Einstein of our times, says this is because the resurrection was real, and witnessed by thousands of Jews. His book, the Early Apostles is heavily footnoted with hundreds of references to just about every available historical document and tradition.
Torah means “the law”. Here’s something Paul said about the law, maybe let this sink in:
“3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
Romans 10:3-4
This is also a good one to have “sink in”:
“10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Galatians 3:10-14
Torah is the righteousness of God. The apostles called it “instruction in righteousness.”
You misunderstand the apostles constantly.
Yeshua truly is the “end” of the law of righteousness. The “end” means the goal, the purpose, the reason, the end that truly does justify the means.
The “works of the law” have nothing to do with Torah; the works of the law are the false commandments of men, the Takanot, and Ma’asim of the Pharisees that Yeshua took to the cross.
Your choice of verses all prove my points solidly.
You read the word completely without understanding.
Paul taught Torah everywhere. That is the reason that he was chosen as an apostle.
1Corinthians 11
[1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Acts 28:
[23] And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
[24] And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
.
It pays to know the whole word, not just the misunderstood clips that the hell-bound easy believers constantly post to confuse their own. .
.
>> “Billions of Christians today celebrate Sunday and not Saturday as the Sabbath. Why?” <<
.
Because they have been confused by false prophets.
Yeshua said that only the few will find his narrow path, not the masses that worship men by the words of men.
Saturday is no more the Sabbath than Sunday.
The Sabbath begins and ends at sunset, as all of God’s days do. That is why the traditional meeting Havdalah, that ends the Sabbath and begins the work week occurs on what you call Satturday evening, but is called “coming together on the first day of the week.”
That is the meeting where Paul had to resurrect one of his followers from the dead because he fell asleep and fell out of an upper story window to the ground below.
That is “first day of the week worship.”
Benedict knew only the nonsense he was taught by the lost. The blind leading the blind into the ditch.
.
Just throwing around random conclusionary thoughts does not make for reasoned argument. You may just try reading Benedict’s book which is part of the theological curriculum in many colleges and universities around the world.
“Yeshua truly is the “end” of the law of righteousness. The “end” means the goal, the purpose, the reason, the end that truly does justify the means.”
I think you are missing the key to that passage. Read the context, where Paul begins speaking of the “law of righteousness” in chapter 9:
“30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”
Clearly Paul is contrasting attaining righteousness through faith versus through works. The Jews had the law of righteousness, but without faith, it was of no avail to them, since it is not the law that saves us, but faith, and without faith, we cannot attain righteousness.
“The “works of the law” have nothing to do with Torah; the works of the law are the false commandments of men, the Takanot, and Ma’asim of the Pharisees that Yeshua took to the cross.”
This is completely ludicrous. Read the context of the verses, Paul is speaking of Jewish Christians, who were treating Gentile Christians differently, not of the laws of the Pharisees! These verses precede the ones I quoted, and make the subject abundantly clear:
“11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
Galatians 2:11-21
Now, as for the verses you cite, it seems you misunderstand them.
“[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”
What ordinances did he deliver to them? You seem to assume these ordinances were the Mosaic law, but that is not stated. In fact, the following verses immediately go on to speak of ordinances concerning whether men or women should wear head coverings while praying or prophesying, and specify rules that are not derived from the Mosaic law. So if you bother to read the context, it is clear that Paul is talking about ordinances that HE delivered, for Christians, not the ordinances that Moses delivered, for Jews.
Now for the verses from Acts:
“[23] And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
[24] And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.”
Read it carefully. Was Paul teaching them to obey the Mosaic law? No! He was “persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” So, he was preaching not the Mosaic law, but the gospel of Christ, using illustrations from the Old Testament, much as Christians still do today, to show that Christ was the fulfillment of the messianic promises and prophecies.
“It pays to know the whole word...”
Surely, and I think that is demonstrated quite well by how you have misunderstood some of these passages by ignoring the context.
http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH-hebrew-matthew.htm
But the evidence I am seeking is an actual MSS ... from the time period of the first that presumably made the claim (article says Irenaeus ~180 AD).
P46 is circa 2nd century ... its Greek.
Anyway ... I do notice that most Catholics who take the 'Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic' view eventually use it to make the lexical claim in Matt 16 that "Peter is the rock."
However, I believe in this case ... Necessity truly is the Mother of Invention.
And many disciples left Him for claiming they had to eat His flesh and drink His Blood. And yet He didn’t call to them and explain how they misinterpreted Him.
Christ also declared all foods clean when the Old Law is very clear that certain foods are not clean.
The point is that He is God. His commands supercede the Old.
He explained why also.
John 6:64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."
He knew they would betray Him because they hadn't actually been enabled by the Father to believe.
>>Christ also declared all foods clean when the Old Law is very clear that certain foods are not clean.<<
Please show one instance from scripture that blood was considered a food.
>>The point is that He is God. His commands supercede the Old.<<
The point that He was God would have required Him to abide by all the laws in order to fulfil the law.
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.