Posted on 01/29/2005 6:12:28 AM PST by NYer
Good to see you here! God willing, this is one area where we can begin to agree on the Truth! Bless you!
Don't waste your breath. Theogarchs aren't answerable to you, only you to them. They interpret dogma to their advantage and strut about self-satisfied, how wise am I. They are the one's due for a surprise, not you.
Good job!
The meaning of "trogo", the Greek word John uses, can only be taken literally. It can have no metaphoric intent. It means to "chew" or to "gnaw".
The Eucharist thus is the physical union of the communicant with Jesus--in a bond of intimate love. If you want to call this cannibalistic, that would be exactly as the disciples who left Jesus understood his meaning. But, in fact, since the accidents of bread and wine remain after the words of Consecration, Catholics understand Transubstantiation as a union of love which is essentially spiritual in its effects, though it is a physical bond. To them it means an identification so close that the Father Who sees the Son, also sees us in Jesus--which becomes our ticket to eternal life.
Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets.
He is the Paschal lamb - not figuratively: literally. He was sacrificed on the the cross of calvary for the sins of many, and his blood is the atonenement for sins.
In the Old Testament we read of the Passover supper - wherein the lamb is slain and eaten, and its blood smeared upon the door posts of the house so that death will pass over the occupants.
Ritual Cannibalism.....equal with holy Communion? Only in the eye of the unbeliever.
In the Roman Catholic Mass the sacrifice of Calvary is both mystically and literally re-enacted in an unbloody manner. The bread and wine are literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ - totally......body,blood, soul and divinity. All of him - yet under the appearance of bread & wine.
Christ is immolated upon the altar, in a representation of the sacrifice of Calvary.....the reshowing of it to the Father as an act of love, and atoning sacrifice for sin.
Yes, the Eucharist is real food....literally the flesh and blood of Christ. At the same time it is tremendous outpouring of spiritual grace to the recipient. God literally dwells within the recipient.
The Blessed Sacrament is a true mystery.......a paradox. it is also a stumbling block to faith to some. For Christ is sacrificed hundreds if not thousands of times a day around the world - 24 hours a day - in the unbloody sacrifice of the mass. He is then eaten, consumed by the faithful at mass.
Like the proverbial pelican - who gives its own flesh for the food of its children, so the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, feeds its spiritual children with the flesh of the Son of the living God.
It is the most beautiful thing in the world.
Please show me where I attacked Christ's church.
Those who believe only by accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can one get Eternal Life are seriously mistaken. There are at least two other criteria they mysteriously overlook, good works and anti-materialism/anti-wealth.
The only mystery is the refusal to accept the sacrament of Communion as ritual cannibalism. It doesn't look good to call it that but strip it down to its most basic and that's what it is.
It starts out as a wafer and wine and stays the same. When you get communion its still bread and wine, not flesh, furthermore God is a spirit...therefore your objection is weird
"How do you know which books belong in the Bible?" ~ Fatheroffive
There is no part of the OT which was not given by the prophets. That the apocryphal books were not written by the prophets are clear and certain. All confess that Malachi was the last Jewish prophet.
Between Malachi and John the Baptist, no other Jewish prophet arose, but the writers of the apocryphal books lived after Malachi.
It is significant that the Council of Trent was the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the teachings of Martin Luther and the rapidly spreading Protestant Reformation, and the fact that the books of the Apocrypha contain support for the Roman Catholic Church's teaching of prayers for the dead and the justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone.
In spite of the fact that even Cardinal Cajetan, himself, Luther's famous opponent, rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha, in 1546, at the time they affirmed the Apocrypha to be within the canon, the Roman Catholic Church said that they had the authority to constitute A LITERARY WORK to be "Scripture". ..." Wayne Grudem [paraphrased from Systematic Theology-Zondervan] See #246
The fact that these books were included by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (completed in A.D. 404) gave support to their inclusion, EVEN THOUGH JEROME HIMSELF SAID THEY WERE NOT "BOOKS OF THE CANON", but merely "books of the church" that were helpful and useful for believers.
The earliest Christian list of OT books that exists today is by Melito, bishop of Sardis, writing about A.D. 170. It is noteworthy that Melito names none of the books of the Apocrypha, but he includes all of our present Old Testament books except Esther.
Eusebius also quotes Origen as affirming most of the books of our present Old Testament canon (including Esther), but no book of the Apocrypha is affirmed as cononical, and the books of Maccabees are EXPLICITLY said to be "OUTSIDE OF THESE (canonical books]" ~ Ecclesiastical History 6.15.2 (Origen DIED about A.D. 254).
These books were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture.... but the use of the Apocrypha gradually increased in some parts of the church UNTIL the time of the Reformation.
In A.D. 367 the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius contained an exact list of the twenty-seven New Testament books we have today. This was the list of books accepted by the churches in the eastern part of the Mediterranean world.
Thirty years later, in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage, representing the churches in the western part of the Mediterranean world, agreed with the eastern churches on the same list. These are the earliest final lists of our canon of Scripture.
"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...". [Heb. 1:1-2]
God's speaking to us by his Son is the culmination of his speaking to mankind and is his greatest and final revelation to mankind.
(The exceptional greatness of the revelation that comes through the Son, far exceeds any revelation in the Old Covenant as noted over and over again in the first and second chapters of Hebrews.)
Once the writings of the New Testament apostles and their authorized companions were completed, we have everything that God wants us to know about the life, death, & resurrection of Christ, and its meaning for the lives of believers for all time. In this way Hebrews 1 & 2 shows us why no more writings can be added to the Bible after the time of the New Testament. The canon is now closed.
I am an Episcopalian in Seattle Washington. Those of us who hold the orthodox views are in a small minority. But we are called to lead our brothers and sisters in Christ to the truth in a loving – determined, but not judgmental – way.
This is not ideological warfare; it is a battle for souls against the Evil One. We are called to rescue the lost sheep, not despise them.
Professor Adams and his team of colleagues have found information that points to the existence of the Biblical Kingdom of Edom existing at precisely the time Scripture claims it existed.
I think these Canuckistanis are going too far. I've seen The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Story Ever Told, and I'm certain that the events in The Bible took place in California and not Canuckistan! Next thing you know is they'll be claiming Bullwinkle as their own!
It is not in the interest of any religious group to recognize Prophets born within the past 2000 years.
Moses was real. Noah was real. Abraham was real. King David was real. Isaiah was real. Ezekial was real. Zecharia was real etc. etc.
The "Old" Real Testament is real !
"This differs from the 20,000 plus churches which each divulge a different doctrine based on interpretation." ~ Counciloftrent
20,-30,000 Protestant Denominations is a LIE.
Due to popular request and to the ongoing distortion of figures from uninformed Roman Catholic apologists writing on this issue, I am posting the following excerpt from my forthcoming book, Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press, 2002).
Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologist’s primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown thateven if this figure is correctthe Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.
When this figure first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000 Protestant denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000 Protestant denominations. More recently, that figure has been inflated to 28,000, to over 32,000. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel content simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous adherence to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a basis for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or will be, in any given year. But just where does this figure originate?
I have posed this question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic apologists, none of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases, one Roman Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another Roman Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic apologist about the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the former apologist as his source for the figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long suspected that, whatever the source might be, the words “denomination” and “Protestant” were being defined in a way that most of us would reject.
I have only recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 19002000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work is both comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite enlightening. However, the reader who turns to this work for validation of the Roman Catholic 25,000-Protestant-denomination argument will be sadly disappointed. What follows is a synopsis of what Barrett’s work in this area really says.
First, Barrett, writing in 1982, does indeed cite a figure of 20,780 denominations in 1980, and projects that there would be as many as 22,190 denominations by 1985. This represents an increase of approximately 270 new denominations each year (Barrett, 17). What the Roman Catholic who cites this figure does not tell us (most likely because he does not know) is that most of these denominations are non-Protestant.
Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.
According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantismnot 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim. Barrett is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this number will continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic projection of an annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this figure is misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).
No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet that is precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate “denominations”and that was only in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant denominations; a difference of only 352 denominations. If we were to use the Roman Catholic apologist’s method to “project” a figure for the current day, we could no doubt postulate a number upwards of 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations today! Hence, if Roman Catholic apologists want to argue that Protestantism is splintered into 8,196 “bickering” denominations, then they must just as readily admit that their own ecclesial system is splintered into at least 2,942 bickering denominations (possibly as many as 8,000). If, on the other hand, they would rather claim that among those 2,942+ (perhaps 8,000?) Roman Catholic denominations there is “unity,” then they can have no objection to the notion that among the 8,196 Protestant denominations there is also unity.
In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.
However Barrett has defined “denomination,” it is clear that he does not think of these as major distinctions; for that is something he reserves for another category. In addition to the seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above), Barrett breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have significant differences (what he calls “major ecclesiastical traditions,” and what we might normally call a true denomination) (Barrett, 14). Referring again to our seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above, but this time in reverse order): For (1) Catholic (Non-Roman), there are four traditions, including Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old Catholic, and Conservative Catholic; for (2) Marginal Protestants, there are six traditions; for (3) Anglican, there are six traditions; for (4) Non-White Indigenous, which encompasses third-world peoples (among whom can be found traces of Christianity mixed with the major tenets of their indigenous pagan religions), there are twenty traditions, including a branch of Reformed Catholic and a branch of Conservative Catholic; for (5) Orthodox, there are nineteen traditions; for (6) Protestant, there are twenty-one traditions; and for (7) Roman Catholic, there are sixteen traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic. It is important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic traditions (i.e., true denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant traditions (i.e., true denominations). In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that puts the total number of actual denominations in the world at ninety-twoobviously nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists constantly assertand that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman Catholicism (Barrett, 15)! Barrett goes on to note that this figure includes all denominations with a membership of over 100,000. There are an additional sixty-four denominations worldwide, distributed among the seven major ecclesiastical blocs.
As we have shown, the larger figures mentioned earlier (8,196 Protestant denominations and perhaps as many as 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations) are based on jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs and practice. Obviously, neither of those figures represents a true denominational distinction. Hence, Barrett’s broader category (which we have labeled true denominations) of twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation.
Moreover, Barrett later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations is concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality). Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome. An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However, when he addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).
In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal forceand perhaps even greater forceagainst the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.
If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition).
In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelesslyand, as a result, irresponsiblyglanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this errorand correct iteach time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum. ~ Eric Svendsen http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm
Meaning?
Absolutely. But the significance of what I posted in #333 regarding "prophets" specifically had to do with this question: "How do you know which books belong in the Bible?"
The answer again: "There is no part of the OT which was not given by the prophets. That the apocryphal books were not written by the prophets are clear and certain. All confess that Malachi was the last Jewish prophet.
"Between Malachi and John the Baptist, no other Jewish prophet arose, but the writers of the apocryphal books lived after Malachi."
See #333 for more.
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.