Posted on 11/19/2004 8:21:22 AM PST by Stubborn
Well-meaning, not highly educated Catholics who eagerly joined bible-study groups after the Council not uncommonly found their inherited faith shaken, as they were invited -- by group leaders and by written materials -- to scrutinize Catholic teachings and practices sceptically and to measure them against the New Testament in classical Protestant fashion, a scrutiny which usually seemed to work to the Church's disadvantage. Although this was not their original intention, many people became liberal Catholics through the medium of Bible study. (Thus liberal Catholics are quick to ask, for example, "Where does the New Testament condemn homosexuality?" or "Where does it say that women cannot be ordained priests?")
(Excerpt) Read more at cwnews.com ...
The fact is, they were removed from the NKJ version. Some will say they did not belong etc. etc. but that does not change the fact that they were there and later removed from non-Catholic Bibles.
Yes, I have read them. They are Jewish texts, not Catholic, with very little "doctrine" present in them.
Having said that, the Maccabees books are very valuable, in that the historical accounts of Antiochus (sp?) are illuminating.
Peter couldn’t accept this simple statement of God, and he may never have been able to, but it was God’s word to the Gentiles that the Levitical Dietary laws were lifted.
There had never been anything wrong with eating unclean animals in the first place, since God had given Noah all living things for meat, it was only wrong for the Hebrews because God told them it was unclean to them, but no one else.
God had declared certain animals to be unclean, just as the Gentiles were unclean and common, and He lifted that law just as easily as He had made it in Leviticus 11.
The vision had NOTHING to do with eating unclean foods. In Acts 10:28-29, Peter told Cornelius the interpretation fot the vision he received from G-d which proceeded the visit from Cornelius representatives, "And he said to them, 'You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me.'"
Even when Peter retold the story to the other Apostles in Acts 13:11-12, said, "And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea. "The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man's house."
When Peter retold the story of the vision and the harvest of souls he reaped at Cornelius' home, he never mentioned that it the vision meant it was ok to eat unclean meat, Peter only said that G-d had showed him throught this incident that the Gentiles were not "unclean" and that Yeshua's gospel was for the Gentiles too.
The vision was given to Peter so he would not have "misgivings" about going to a gentile home, which was prohibited not in Torah but by the Rabbinic "Oral Torah".
Yeshua's death on the cross didn't change the definition of sin, it took away the penalty of sin.
"For starters, you read the Bible. The whole Bible. From cover to cover. Over and over. And while you read it, you pray. You pray to the very God that provided the Bible for YOU to read. You pray directly to Him. Over and over. He will show you how to understand His Word. Have faith in His plan and your own God given intelligence. He hasn't provided His children with guidance that only a few can understand."
It really shouldn't be that hard for you to understand what I am saying. It is not a complicated statement.
With regard to the Eucharist...as I've said, I don't really care that much about the issue. I am satisfied that both Protestants and Catholics are accomplishing what Jesus asked them when he spoke to his disciples at the "first" Lord's Supper. But thank you for the information. I will take a look at it later this evening.
Yes
"Interpretations that can not both be, objectively speaking, true?"
That depends.
"About very important issues regarding salvation?"
Could you name one?
Yes buttttt…………………..you’ll both have come to your conclusions through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not some man who you thought was probably holier then you, but you have no idea of what God saw in this persons heart.
You may come to the same conclusions that they came to, but you’ll know that you’ve taken charge of your own salvation, and not left it up to someone you have no idea of their true relationship with God, or what was in his heart.
My argument isn’t that your Mass is totally outside of reason or scripture, the reason I critique your Churches position, is because they tell all other Christians that outside of their method, there is no communion with Christ.
This attitude forces us to either accept what you say as true, or to prove to our selves that you are wrong and we are right, otherwise we condemn ourselves as being hypocrites and searing our own conscience.
Paul said Romans 14:22-23 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
When we doubt those things we do are right, we condemn our selves before God.
JH :)
I forgot to post this with my earlier comment on this subject.
St Augustine wrote about the presence:
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." [John 6:53] This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." Christian Doctrine (3:16)
JH :)
Since he had yet to be crucified, I'm not sure how anyone could argue that his presence at the Last Supper was anything but a real physical presence. I would have to say that in this case, anyone who argues differently is simply wrong. Who claims otherwise?
With regard to Paul...I believe his letters to the new and growing Church are absolutely vital to understanding our relationship with Christ. The book of Romans was like the Rosetta Stone for me to understanding the rest of the Bible. I personally don't know anyone who believes that once you are saved you are always saved. Certainly Christ or Paul never said such a thing. In Jesus' Words, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." If I once believed that Christ died for my salvation, but then I decided that was not actually true, I have rejected Christ, and am no longer saved. Who believes differently?
Paul clearly does not believe justification and salvation are the same thing. Take a look at the book of Romans. He starts by explaining justification. He then discusses salvation. Never does he say we are saved by faith alone. Anyone who would argue that, is ignoring the words of Christ and Paul. But let me add here, Paul also says very specifically that we are NOT saved through acts. The penalty for sin is death, and we are all sinners. In God's eyes, sin is sin. We have all fallen short, and there are no acts that could change the fact that we are sinners. It is only because Christ's sacrifice has paid the penalty for our sin that we are justified, and even with that, if we reject Christ as our savior we are condemned.
Sorry, but the vision had everything in the world to do with eating what was previously considered unclean foods.
When the Lord chose a method to communicate with Peter that, that which had always been unclean to him, the Gentiles, was no longer unclean, He used an example that Peter could understand, he told him to eat unclean animals, and this certainly got Peters attention.
Peter said, “not so Lord for I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” The Lord made him go through this three times, then it ended.
Then Peter found out there were Gentiles coming to see him, and that he was to go doubting nothing Peter had to be saying to him self, Gentiles unclean, animals unclean, what’s God trying to tell me?
The Lord told me it was alright to eat unclean animals if He has cleansed them. How could the Lord just cause unclean animals suddenly become clean after they’ve been unclean for over 1500 years?
How is it possible that I’m to go with Gentiles after they’ve been unclean equally as long as the animals?
Then the Lords words came to Peter, “ What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”
Peter realized that the Gentiles, and unclean animals, were not unclean in and of them selves, but they were unclean because God had declared them unclean. Since something became unclean by Gods words, then Gods words could just as easily reverse the condition.
Peter could now socialize with those of an unclean nation, or eat animals he had always considered unclean, by Gods simple pronouncement that they were no longer unclean.
This whole story was about God being able to declare something clean or unclean by His word.
When Peter retold the story of the vision and the harvest of souls he reaped at Cornelius' home, he never mentioned that it the vision meant it was ok to eat unclean meat,
The Jews weren’t ready for this knowledge, but God did it in a way that it was right there in front of nose if they had been able to accept it.
Acts 11:2-3 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,* saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
I always chuckle when I read this, Peters friends are saying, (my paraphrase) You were there four days, in the same house with those uncircumcised Gentiles, and not that that’s not bad enough, you even ate with them. :)
What did a kosher Jew eat for three or more days in a non-kosher Gentile home?
I’ll bet he had his first taste of eggs and bacon. Lol
Yeshua's death on the cross didn't change the definition of sin, it took away the penalty of sin.
And the definition of clean and unclean was changed when God said “ What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”
Note God didn’t specify man, he said “that call not unclean”.
Why would God tell Peter to eat unclean meat, then tell him to fellowship with unclean men, then take back the fact he had told Peter to eat unclean animals.
There is no where in the NT that God changes his command to Peter to eat of the unclean animals. The command still stands.
Tamar, give me your understanding of a passage in Deut.
Deut 14:21 Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
Why did God tell the Israelites not to eat animals that had become unclean by a natural death, but it was alright for them to give or sell these unclean animals to the alien/Gentiles?
Did God hate the alien/stranger/Gentile, and want them to get sick when they ate the unclean meat?
JH :)
How could I possibly answer that question if you don't tell me who they are and what they disagree about?
You quote these two scriptures because to you they contradict each other, but they don’t.
Paul said we are saved by faith alone not that of works.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
James 2:17-18 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Paul is talking about eternal salvation that is by faith alone, and James in talking about Godly works that all believers should have, since that’s the only way others can identify us as believers.
Some cannot seem to differentiate the difference between salvation by faith, and the Godly works the Holy Spirit will lead us to do in our Christian life.
They read the Gospels and the Epistles, and came up with what they believed was the proper teaching. Was their interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit?
That’s certainly a loaded question. Your saying that the Holy Spirit guided them, and if I disagree, and if I’m wrong, I’m taking credit away from God and either saying that it was the work of man, or of Satan, so I’ll stay away from that one.
Because honestly, thats how the "original" Catholics came up with this stuff. They didn't just invent salvation by faith and works for the fun of it, or because they were unholy people bent on deforming scripture.
Tell me something, when your Church fathers read Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
What reason did they use to go ahead and allow the people to call the priest father?
Wouldn’t you have thought someone would have stood up in the back and yelled, But the Bible says were not to call any spiritual man our father?
I would have loved to been there when the decision was made to ignore the scripture. Lol
Can you give me a scenario of how that could have happened under the watchful eye of the Holy Spirit?
So the fact he contradicts himself means nothing to you?
JH :)
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.