Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Especially considering my normal error rate. Unfortunately, each word was probably typed four or five times before I could move on.
And thanks for your last post above, I found it very helpful. I'd appreciate a conversation (at some point in the future...I'm off to bed), regarding the Jewish understanding of Covenant and perhaps a look at the Seder.
Havoc, public schools were an innovation of the mid-1800's. They were not a part society in colonial or early republic times. Schooling was either at private institutions or done at home.
And as a Christian I have no problem with the notion of a child of mine being in a public school. They have to learn what the world is like sometime. Denying that experience is damaging.
I cannot believe you are really in favor of our public school system. I also can't believe that you would expose the young minds of your children to secular/socialist indoctrination. Let them grow strong in truth first, and THEN let them face the world, armed with the tools required to deal with it without caving. No child of mine will ever set foot in a government school.
By George, I think you've got it, that is a good summation of what sola Scriptura does and doesn't teach. (Now feel free to pass this understanding around to your RC brethren, please.) It does mean we believe the first, but not the second.
Just as there is a difference between "if the Bible says it it is true" and "It is only true if it is found in the Bible".
Yes you do understand it. See it's not that hard.
The other problem is denominationalism.
If you mean there are problems inherent to denominationalism, I agree, and I don't belong to any RC or Protestant denominations (but you do!). Like it was in the pioneer days when this country was first being settled, most of the towns were founded and put up a town church and all different types of Christians had to find a way to agree and worship together in one place at one time. And they did. But the Protestants didn't stop being Protestant either and agree with the Catholics on doctrines (or vice versa - it wasn't necessary).
There are so many different interpretations of Scripture and no guidance under the common Bible Christian understanding of this theology. Some even lay the responsibility of determining the Cannon on each individual believer and most claim that the individual works out Biblical interpretation through Faith and prayer (a worthy goal). But you've seen these threads...The Baptists disagree with the Presbyterians (on infant Baptism say...) then they gang up on a Pentecostal on fruits of the Spirit etc... Sola Scriptura - by the definition you give - still leaves holes (or is it wholes?) in the fabric of the argument.
Your church has the same problem with this "interpretation problem" as any other church, you are just the only one (that I know of) that is arrogant enough to declare yourselves as "infallible" and "the one true Church on earth", even though claiming it doesn't make it true.
Thank you, that was pretty well what I thought, but correct me again if I'm wrong, but when the Torah says their was no fire to be kindled on the Sabbath, before there was a Talmud, or oral law, if a Jew had owned a car, and started it up on the Shabbat, and they had never dealt with this situation before, it would not be a sin until the sages or elders determined it was one, am I right?
You deserve a longer answer, but there isn't time tonight. I'll leave it at this:
If you didn't eat the lamb... your first-born son was dead. Call that symbolic if you like, but it's a symbolism I'm willing to call reality.
Re-read my previous post in light of that understanding and the point may make sense. Christ was completing the sacrifice and taking the place of the Lamb (it's also interesting to see the progression from each family having a lamb, through all of Israel sharing the sacrifice, to finally... Christ becoming one sacrifice for all - but that's a different discussion).
I don't disagree with much of your continued post - Christ IS in each of us (those in the body anyway), but probably would waste your time trying to pick at the nuances of our disagreement and then drop you for bed (a man must have priorities).
'Night.
Second is the socialist/environmentalist indoctrination that goes on there. I reckon you'll find more goddess worship in the public schools than you will in the Catholic Church.
You missed one:
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever..
What is the bread? Read on down to verse 63, cause you overlook it too. 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. .
He just contradicted your literal translation - the words are spiritual in meaning, not literal and of the flesh. The flesh profiteth nothing. Jesus own words, bud. The bread he spoke of is not carnal that it can be touched and injested as the mana, it is Spiritual. What is it that we know gives us life - the confession of the sacrifice. And he who partakes of his sacrifice by confessing and accepting the sacrifice has eternal life. Baked bread and pressed wine cannot save your soul. Nor can the communion, by Jesus own words. It is the sacrifice that must be partaken of. And partaking is in the confession, not the communion. Without this there is no life. Read it. Jesus said it plainly and boldly. The sacrifice has ended long ago. Now there is only acceptance or rejection of it. Upon acceptance, we are saved. Upon salvation, we are indwelt. And because we are thankful, we partake of communion in rememberance of the sacrifice - not to extend it, not to eat Jesus as cannibals, Not to pretend that in it he is present. All those latter things entirely miss the importance. It is a rememberance just as the passover meal is a rememberance. Just as many jewish meals are symbolic, jesus says this one is.
He's an artist and in denial.
Problems, yes. The same problems? ...no.
A common sin of mankind is that instead molding our desires to God's will, we try to mold God's will to our desires. My younger brother is an unfortunate example of this problem. Becasue he believes that it is merely his understanding of the nature of God (and believe me it bears little resemblance to Catholic or Protestant theology) that is the dividing line between Heaven and Hell, not any measure of absolute truth. I've tried to get him into any decent church of any denomination praying that he will hear the Gospel in a way that finally reaches him, but the harder I try, the more he resists (I - and he - could use great prayer on this topic. Am I planting a seed for someone else to water? Or am I damaging the cause of Christ because listing to his big brother is the last thing he wants to do?)
In Protestant theology, the "problem" is that you are free to define God's will in a way that suits your own will (see for example the splits in formerly solid denominations over the ordination of homosexuals, the role of women in the church, abortion etc. etc. etc.).
The "problem" for Catholics is that we must accept that God placed a structure within his church that can be relied upon (despite the sinfullness of many of it's members) to interpret Scripture corectly even when we don't agree with a particular decision.
I'll take door#2 any day.
I wrote: I reject a metaphorical understanding of John 6 in particular and the Eucharist in general because, in the Bible, to eat a person's flesh and drink his blood in a metaphorical sense means to persecute him in a bloody manner and to destroy him.
Your response: Not always, dignan. For instance, does "O taste and see that the Lord is good!" mean that we are persecuting or killing the Lord? (or perhaps you employ this verse as a eucharistic blessing?) There are some other instances in the Word which don't agree with your rule, but I can't think of even one at the moment. (I took an Ambien a while ago) Help me out, Protties!
I respond: Sorry, but "Eat my flesh" is a very specific idiom and your "O taste and see..." example doesn't fit the mold of the "eat my flesh" idiom at all.
I wrote: I also reject a metaphorical understanding of John 6 because of the way the listeners of Jesus reacted to His statements...they abondoned Jesus over a gross misunderstanding with possible eternal consequences. My Lord is not that reckless.
Your response: Yes, some of His listeners were offended by Jesus' suggesting that they eat him and drink His blood. But Jesus did correct their thinking when He proclaimed that there is nothing profitable in flesh; rather it is THE SPIRIT who gives life---and the words He had been speaking were of a spiritual nature which would bring life to the hearers...if they believe. They didn't abandon Jesus because they misunderstood; it clearly says that they left because they did not BELIEVE.
I respond: You're right that they did not believe. Both before and after Christ's supposed clarification in verse 63 they couldn't believe what they were hearing. Even the Apostles weren't too sure what the heck the deal was which is evident in Peter's "Lord, to whom shall we go..." in verse 68-69. This event, to my knowledge, was the only time that the Gospels record people who withdrew from following Christ over doctrinal(for lack of a better word) teaching, with eternal consequences no less. Obviously the message you think that Jesus was trying to convey in verse 63(It is the Spirit that gives life... == Don't take this literally) wasn't so clear to the people that abandoned Him. This is important stuff that Jesus said. If He was to be taken metaphorically, wouldn't you think He would exhaust all possibility for further explanation in order to get to message right?
But He didn't do that. He gave a single, somewhat cryptic, in relation to His other past explanations over confusion regarding His teaching, clarification and that was that. He was so sure of His teaching that He risked(insofar as God can risk:)) losing the Apostles.
I wrote: Also, the Greek word used for "eat" is trogo which literally means "to gnaw". Pretty graphic, and dare I say literal, description, if you ask me.
Your response: This doesn't prove anything. Aren't there several Greek words for "eat"? They are all basically the same, Just because "gnaw" is graphic, doesn't mean He was speaking literally. In the figurative sense, "gnaw" is just as graphic!
I respond: There is one more point which I forgot to add. In verse 55 Jesus says, "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."(KJV) while other translations render verse 55 as ""For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.". Regardless, the Greek that is translated as indeed/true is alethos. Strong's concordance gives the definition of alethos as "truly, of a truth, in reality, most certainly".
With that said, it makes no sense for Jesus to say that His Body is true food which we must "gnaw" on in order to have life and be raised on the last day if what He was saying was meant to be taken symbolically or metaphorically. Bread and wine, even if it is symbol of something, has no objective reality beyond its "breadness" and "wineness". It's still just bread and wine so how can a mere symbol give us eternal life? So for Jesus to be speaking symbolically is nonsense. Also, the fact that Jesus basically repeats himself 4 times in verses 53-57 displays the forcefulness of what He is trying to convey.
To use a math analogy(since I'm a perpetual geek) of John 6:53-64:
Jesus: 2+2=4But if you're correct, then Jesus, in verse 63, is saying, "Hey 2+2 doesn't really equal 4. You guys misunderstood."
the Jews: How can 2+2=4?
Jesus: 2+2=4
Jesus: 2+2=4
Jesus: 2+2=4
Jesus: 2+2=4
the Jews: This is some whacked out stuff. Who can believe it?
Jesus: You think that's whack? What if I were to tell you that the integral of x^2 over the interval of 0 to 5 equals 125/3? You must change the way you think in order to believe that 2+2=4.
the Jews: Forget this guy; I'm out of here.
I wrote: due to the fact that the historical understanding and teaching of Christianity is that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Christ, I reject a symbolic or metaphorical Eucharist.
You responded: OK---please show me the historical record which indicates that the first century Christians really believed in this hocuspocus. Draw the record from the book of Acts or the epistles...or even from Clement or some other early church father's writings in that century.
I respond: I would ask you to show a little bit of respect by not calling the Eucharist, "hocus pocus". The history of the Real Presence of the Eucharist will be on the way shortly. Thank you, in advance, for your patience.
His Flesh is true food and His Blood is true drink.
And pray for JP II
No, sorry. There can only be one correct interpretation of the Bible. The problem I speak of is: "Is ours right"? The RC has exactly the same problem as any other "church" with this question, even though you fail to recognize it.
LOL!
And thanks for your last post above, I found it very helpful. I'd appreciate a conversation (at some point in the future...I'm off to bed), regarding the Jewish understanding of Covenant and perhaps a look at the Seder.
You're welcome. Anytime you want to talk, just flag me. I'm around here 'most every day.
Essentially, yes, since it is not explicitly prohibited in the Law, and not covered under previous interpretations. Similar to the way our common law works; once there is a "ruling", then there is precedent. The scriptural basis for the authority to interpret the law is:
[8] "If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns which is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God will choose,
[9] and coming to the Levitical priests, and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.
[10] Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place which the LORD will choose; and you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you;
[11] according to the instructions which they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the verdict which they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. (Deuteronomy 17:8-11)
No, I don't think I am a God. I have the Lord in me. There is a pretty vast difference. Satanists think themselves gods because they are deluded into believing they control demons and have power. Witches believe similarly but think their powers come from nature. I have no powers and my only divinity is in my eternal soul which was saved by Jesus. I am a son of God. I am not a god. Nor would I claim to be. That said, I take God for His word - that He works through His people to accomplish His ends. If that manifests in miracles and the like, it's his business. But no one may claim his power as their own and stand. Blasphemy is a pretty serious thing.
Spiritual knowing and identity? I know who I am with and without the Lord. And I know the difference between my own thoughts and the leading of the Spirit of God. The key is in obeying. The Spirit of God does not mislead. It cannot be mistaken for heartburn, and ticking God off is something you are immediatly made aware of. The closer you get to the wrong, the more God protests. Christians know full well when they are doing wrong. If they don't, their in deeep doodoo, cause the grieved spirit won't stick around.
No. I know who I am in Christ. I know my authority in Christ. When I tell the devil to Go in Jesus name, he has to listen. When I tell him to shut up, he has to listen. Most don't know these things cause they aren't taught it. I have the authority and I use it. Knowing it and experiencing it in action give rise to a refusal to buy frauds. And Jesus didn't die on the cross for me to be ignorant of his word or his authority. Word games are for the wise in words. The Spirit is for the saved and obedient. Wisdom of words is no match for the Spirit of God. But, I'll caution anyone that doesn't know what they are doing - authority in Jesus exists only for the saved. Using that authority absent Jesus can get you in big trouble....
How old is he? Pray for him, but don't push him. God will find him. Sometimes we have to be stupid first. God's way of making sure the lessons we learn are particularly memorable!
Sheesh, such impatience! I had about 100 replies to read through tonight... ;o)
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.