Posted on 09/19/2014 3:36:25 PM PDT by NYer
You objected to "4 man umbrella - added. Goofy outfits that look religious and worldy? added."
It's just as "added" to have a cross, as to have an umbrella. It's just as "added" to have academic robes at your Christian college graduation, as to have Franciscan religious habits. It's just as "added" to have pews OR folding chairs, since the first meeting-houses had neither.
You can't get away from it, AMPU. Open up your Bible. "Matthew," "Mark, "Luke" and "John" ascribed to Gospels which were written anonymously. Not attributed to any human evangelist in the text itself.
Do you object to that? It's added on.
“It’s just as “added” to have a cross, as to have an umbrella. It’s just as “added” to have academic robes at your Christian college graduation, as to have Franciscan religious habits. It’s just as “added” to have pews OR folding chairs, since the first meeting-houses had neither.”
I disagree with you.
Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is the central point of our faith and of history. The pagan 4 man umbrella (pictured) has nothing to do with Christianity, yet is placed at the forefront of a supposedly Christian act of worship.
Academic robes are not an act of worship. They are a tradition in the academic community.
Franciscans are a whole added topic without foundation in NT Christianity. Forget the costumes.
How people sit or stand while they worship is not central to Christian worship. Since the first churches were home churches, I can imagine there were chairs, but chairs or no chairs are not the center of worship or doctrine. If they are, there is something very wrong with the church that makes it so.
A better question to examine is why would a purportedly Christian church want to enshroud themselves in pagan religiosity? What do they gain by this other than diluting truth to appear as good as false religions?
“•The words “Incarnation” and Trinity.” Added on.”
Descriptive words like those above are used to account for the totality of what Holy Scripture teaches about a specific topic. It is a shorthand way of expressing the truth. It is not added on as a separate truth. It expresses what was revealed already.
“You can’t get away from it, AMPU. Open up your Bible. “Matthew,” “Mark, “Luke” and “John” ascribed to Gospels which were written anonymously. Not attributed to any human evangelist in the text itself. Do you object to that? It’s added on.”
Chapter numbers, page numbers, verse numbers, even many book names are added on later as matters of convenience.
They do not add to the truth of the book. They do not change the God’s Word.
Narses, old friend!
I have a question I’d like you to answer, if you can do so...
If I believe the same thing that hundreds of millions of other Christians believe, how is that my “own personal interpretation?”
Other than that, the premise of your post is false. We are supposed to study the Scripture to see what it says. We are commanded and encouraged to do that individually.
I look forward to hearing your insightful answer.
Snort.
Can you point to an online “credo” that agrees with your views?
“Snort.”
Bless you!
“Can you point to an online “credo” that agrees with your views?”
Can you not answer my question?
You are assuming I am alone in my beliefs, which is not true. Given that, please answer the question, if you are able. I suspect there is no legitimate answer.
And when others read Scripture and come to different conclusions? By what authority do you claim that your interpretation is the correct one?
“And when others read Scripture and come to different conclusions? By what authority do you claim that your interpretation is the correct one?”
There are some answers to your question I will share:
1. Which interpretation are you referring to? Which Scripture?
2. I don’t claim authority. I claim educated discipline to handle the Scriptures as a teacher, a spiritual gift and for personal maturity and feeding. The teaching occurs under the authority of my local church.
3. Presumably, you delegate the commanded task of studying the Scriptures to someone else. God commands each of us to “Love God with all our mind.” Why would you outsource your mind?
4. Someone will always come up with a different conclusion. It is the history of the church. Unless you know the Scriptures, all you can do is shrug your shoulders.
Funny how a thread about the (mostly) pan-Christian outrage against a black mass becomes yet another platform for your ongoing crusade against His Holy Church.
You are of course free to post on the thread, but I’m not going to lie - when I saw your comment I thought to myself, why would a self described Christian, in the face of such evil, choose to continue to sow seeds of bitter derision? When you’re picking fights with fellow Christians while they’re battling Lucifer you may want to reassess where you stand.
Seriously, man, this is THE DEVIL we’re talking about. SATAN. And he’s directing this at us. ALL OF US, this time through the Church. Do you think that because it’s not your particular little sect they’re mocking that you’re insulated from the threat?
This fight is bigger than you and me and the Bishop and the idiots who are supporting it - this is the eternal battle that the Church has been fighting since Her beginning. We’ll fight it now, just like we always have and always will. In the meantime, for your own sake I’d drop the polemics on this one and either step up and help, or sit quietly and let us do what we do. Anything else only plays to the dark side and furthers its wicked ends.
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:19 THEY WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
That scripture says an Antichrist can come from within...
And considering anti can mean ‘in place of’ and ‘instead of’ it is clear one would have to be pretty close to the real deal to deceive as scripture warns us.
The enemy without is easy to spot..
But strategos and antistrategos need not be on different sides in the Greek..
Antistrategos can also mean second in command under the commanding general..
The enemy within is the dangerous one because it is the counterfeit/ pseudo in the greek(false),
No, we are not talking about the devil. There is no “black mass”.
The kingdom of God will not stumble or fail because of this silliness any more than signs by atheists on buses.
Your very efforts are giving it the attention it craves.
That's a very mistaken assertion. The attribution of the Gospels to two of the Twelve Apostles (Matthew and John) stems from a tradition of the Church that the Gospels came from authentic, eye-witness sources who accompanied Jesus for the 2 1/2 years of His pulic ministry, and especially, from those who witnessed his post-Resurrection glory: t from the very Apostles to whom Christ gave such glorious privileges sand promises. It has an impact on whether we think they are genuine or spurious; whether we think the Apostolic tradition is authoritative, or it is not. It was, after all, only a couple of centuries after that that the 27 books of the New Testament were collected from hither and thither, and recognized as a unified Canon of sacred writings.
And two Gospels are attributed -- again, not by stated authorship in the text, but by Church tradition --- to two of the Apostles' disciples. Mark is secretary-disciple for Peter; and as for Luke, it's only according to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century that the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, was the same man who was the author of Luke-Acts.
The impact of this on belief cannot be overstated. If the early Church hadn't believed that these books came from eyewitnesses and their first-generation disciples, the books would not have been accepted into the Canon.
“The impact of this on belief cannot be overstated. If the early Church hadn’t believed that these books came from eyewitnesses and their first-generation disciples, the books would not have been accepted into the Canon.”
In studying the decision-making process of the canon - originally and subsequently through many iterations - ascribed authorship that was believable counted for a lot. It was not everything Mrs. Don-o. There are books without certainty of authorship - Hebrews comes to mind. There are things Apostles wrote that were not inspired and not included.
I commend to you the study of the canon process. As with much of our history, it is messy. God worked through it. Some errors crept in anyway and were corrected later.
For those reasons, when you read one of the four gospels today, you do not have to believe the authorship. Nor is it necessary to believe it for the words to be true.
Seriously, it surpasses good sense to think the Church canonized non-inspired books. If it had, even her reliability in canonizing the correct ones would have been fatally undermined. The whole thing would have been debatable and up for grabs: hurricane hits a double-wide.
“No, we are not talking about the devil. There is no “black mass”.”
How obtuse can you possibly be? There are people actively invoking the devil in the ceremony. Does he not hear? Does it not bring him satisfaction that people are willfully inviting evil into the world?
“The kingdom of God will not stumble or fail because of this silliness any more than signs by atheists on buses.”
Of course the Kingdom will survive and not fail. It can’t. That’s not the point. People can, and people will. Because of this. It is the efforts of the faithful that will prevent more from being unwittingly drawn in. Evil is an infection, and like an infection it must be treated quickly and with overwhelming force lest it gain a foothold. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending like it isn’t there will only let it fester and grow.
“Your very efforts are giving it the attention it craves.”
There are two sides - the side of the Faithful, and the side of evil. Ridicule the efforts of the Faithful, and you support the other side by default. There is no neutrality here. Where do you want to stand? If I didn’t know better, I’d begin to wonder.
“Seriously, it surpasses good sense to think the Church canonized non-inspired books.”
No. it was a process, starting with a list of books recognized by early church leaders. They early lists were not perfect.
“If it had, even her reliability in canonizing the correct ones would have been fatally undermined. The whole thing would have been debatable and up for grabs: hurricane hits a double-wide.”
But of course this reflects the underlying presuppositions of a faithful catholic. In history, nothing stops God’s work or will. He remains sovereign.
Your thinking here is circular. It was evidently His sovereign will to build His Church, which undeniably functioned in history as transmitter of the Scriptures, definer and guardian of the Canon. Because He guaranteed that His Church, built on "this Rock," would prevail: "The gates of Hell will not overcome it."
“How obtuse can you possibly be? There are people actively invoking the devil in the ceremony. Does he not hear? Does it not bring him satisfaction that people are willfully inviting evil into the world?”
Oh, he is probably quite pleased at the publicity your side is generating!
“Of course the Kingdom will survive and not fail. It can’t. That’s not the point. People can, and people will. Because of this. It is the efforts of the faithful that will prevent more from being unwittingly drawn in. Evil is an infection, and like an infection it must be treated quickly and with overwhelming force lest it gain a foothold. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending like it isn’t there will only let it fester and grow.”
I will disagree with you here. It is a very small group that gets involved and then, only for a short time. This goes back to Anton Lavay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey). Little came of that. He died in a Catholic hospital.
“There are two sides - the side of the Faithful, and the side of evil.”
I would phrase it as God’s side vs. Evil. It would be more accurate and carry the full sense of history.
“Ridicule the efforts of the Faithful, and you support the other side by default.”
Actually, sometimes Christians act like idiots. They do not further the cause of Christ when they do so. Not limited to Catholics by the way. Protestants sometimes do the same. Just read Church history. Sometimes both should be opposed and at times rightly ridiculed.
In the meantime, everyone should care more about the purity of their faith and oppose creeping paganism and worldliness.
“There is no neutrality here. Where do you want to stand? If I didn’t know better, I’d begin to wonder.”
Neutrality is the wrong issue. It is not evil. It is the appearance of evil, meant to tweak you as a Catholic. Only you can give that power to the organizers by reacting.
Your actions are giving life and energy to the very thing you claim to oppose by amplifying it in the public eye. Let it go. God can handle it.
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.