Let's see if I can play this game. I'll make up something about Protestants...hmmm...Protestants are sexual deviants and swindlers and I'll post pictures to prove my case:
Or that Protestants are homicidal maniacs:
Do I win?
Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
Not quite true. Though the RCC has not been so kind as to preserve their writings for us, we know that Messianic Jews, called Nazarines, existed in numbers right up through the fourth century. Shlomo Pines has found further evidence that they in fact survived until the 11th Century at least.
When the Inquisition broke out in Spain, its primary targets were Jews who had converted to Christianity while trying to keep their Jewish, Torah-based customs. So we know that there were what we might call "Messianics" then too.
Martin Luther wrote a pair of tractates in his own time called Against the Sabbath Keepers and Against the Judaizers. I don't think he would've found it necessary if there weren't those who were keeping the Sabbath and the "Jewish" Torah-commands.
My own Pilgrim ancestors had great regard for the Torah. They even originally set up Thanksgiving in October, and created it after the pattern of Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles).
I can't prove it with 100% certainty, but it seems to me that those we would call Messianics today--men and women who believe that Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus the Christ, is the Son of God and Redeemer of the World, but who also saw that God never abridged the Torah--have always been around. Heavily persecuted and forced to keep their heads down, but there nevertheless.
This was not due to any institution of Man, but rather, I believe, through the Holy Spirit writing the Torah on our hearts (Jer. 31:31-32, Ezk. 36:26-27, Heb. 8:8-12). Today's Messianic movement did not appear under any one leader, but was a spontaneous movement of the Spirit through the hearts of thousands of people who had never met, spread out around the world.
That's not to say that we're perfect or have completely recaptured the essence of the 1st Century Church, nor is it to say that all true Christians are Messianics or vice versa. We have our own problems. But the idea of being fully Christian and Torah-observant at the same time is nothing new.
That is, the Sabbath, a day to set apart from the pace of the rest of the week, a day to sleep in, to relax, and to be with God and your family and friends, is a blessing, not a burdensome religious duty.
Sounds like a gift from God to me.
I remember the first time I read the Scripture describing The Apostles walking and eating corn in the field on the Sabbath (I'm assuming the corn was really wheat?), and being called on it by the Pharisees. The way the scene is descibed what you get from it is this peaceful sense. And the Pharisees just come across like they're looking for conflict.
One last question, somewhat unrelated though to the topic at hand. You seem to know a bit about Aramaic and also Greek. And I was wondering what your opinion was regarding the standard translations of the Bible. For example, is the King James Version, an adequate translation for someone who is studying the Word?
Oh, and to go along with your nonsense, don't forget the Trinity!
Interesting view of History of the Gaps - impossible to prove or disprove. In your version: Except for those who kept their heads down, and about whom we have little record, the rest of Christianity went bad real early for you.
But I still have the same question, when did you guys, your church, come along and get it right again?
Again, no one is praying to a saint but talking to one. Didn't Jesus speak with some "dead" people during the Transfiguration? I think thats one time, or how about when they thought he spoke to the prophets during the crucifixion, thats another one
No, he just was the Rock the Church was built on, and the holder to the Keys of heaven. But I guess that's not much. Do you?
In the NT, Peter was not the first apostle to follow Jesus, but, whenever the apostles are listed, or mentioned, Peter is first, or the statement: "Peter and the apostles" is used.
How many times in the OT, did God change the name of His key person? Abram to Abraham., etc. In the NT, whose name did he change? The name Peter did not exist until that point in time, when Jesus changed Simon's name to Kephas ( Petros in greek ).
When asked about paying the temple tax, Jesus tells Peter to : go catch a fish, and in its mouth will be two coins, one for me, and one for you..".
When they were essentially ran out of the temple, where did they go? To Peter's house.
When Peter proclaims Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of the LIving God, what does Jesus do and say?
During the last supper, Jesus states, (luke)31. "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." In this passage, Jesus is stating that Satan wants to have all of the apostles, but Jesus thens prays for "thee" ( Simon Peter ), that Peter will then "strengthen his bretheren", the other apostles.
In John, after His resurrection, Jesus appears on the shore, cooking fish, whilst His apostles are out in a boat. Who jumped into the water and ran to Jesus ( reminds you who jumped into the water and walked on water?)? John21-11 "Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, and hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken." Peter alone brought in the net full of fish ( They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.). What does this mean- Peter has the strength that all of the others did not have? The "153" fish is said to represent the total number of different fish known in the old world.
When Jesus gives his commission on the shore, who does He give it to? "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. "
To Peter alone, Jesus says Feed My sheep. Some translations use "Tend my sheep , and another uses "shepard my sheep".
But then again, you are a Bible Christian, and you know all of this.
Christ's Church is not a false prophet.
But believe as you will.
The word you are looking for is heretical.....:)
(Diego's Church)
That's actually your best option for a couple of reasons: First, because while it has translation issues and errors like every other version, they're well known and documented. Secondly, because pretty much every lexicon out there is keyed to the KJV.
However, don't rely on it alone. One of the best ways I've found to study the Bible is to read multiple translations and pay special attention to where they differ (beyond simple word choice, like "mighty man" vs. "great man" for example) and figure out why.
If you want to get seriously into the langauges, you might want to pick up some Bible software. Some free versions are E-Sword and Online Bible. The Blue Letter Bible is an online version that you don't have to download which has a few tools that the others don't. I like the interface on E-Sword, but the Online Bible and Blue Letter Bible give you the added benefit of knowing what the tenses and voices of the Greek words and conjugations and voices of the Hebrew words, which is often a help. All of them include some good public domain commentaries.
I hope that helps. Have a blessed evening!
As opposed to Israel, who according to you guys got it wrong for 1500 years before the Church came along?
Show me where I'm wrong in any of this from the Scriptures.
Greetings...By small t i mean the oral tradition that was espoused by the Apostles to the early church...this oral tradition would be in lock step to the epistles and writings of the same apostles...this is different than big T Tradition in the sense that the church later 'realized', i guess is the word i've been told many times, things...such as the Dogma of Mary's immaculate conception and her assumption for instance...nothing in scripture is ever mentioned yet the church has declared dogma on that item...That is big T tradition, it's not in lockstep with any accepted Divinely inspired text...
I, for one have never said the small t tradition is any issue...One has to be completely naive that not all information was given in written text...that being said, the written text IS the Word of God...in it contains the knowledge of the promise and delivery of Salvation by God and we learn how His Grace will forgive those who believe on Him etc...any oral teaching MUST match this clearly and explictly, it cannot be 'sort of' shown thru the scriptures...
So in algebraic terms it's this:
small t = mirror image of written scripture
Big T = items transmitted to the church that is either not in the scriptures in any form or very loosely associated.
Either way, I believe what the Apostles preached...Christ is THE only way to salvation, there is none other...and our salvation does not depend on our works of love, but on a true faith that is alive with works of love...
Please feel free to comment...all my remarks are meant to be in the most respectful tone I can give...
Blessings to you and yours!
Given how prevailant simony was in the RCC at one time, the same could be said for you.
For example, in this article from www.catholic.com, the author admits that Catholics regularly bow to statues; he just tries to separate the bowing from worship:
Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.Of course, the author misses the point: God does not specifically forbid bowing down to a living person, like a king, in respect--but He does forbid doing so to an inanimate object, and calls it idolatry. All the justifications in the world (and we've seen a lot of them on this thread) don't change that fact.Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
"but as soon as people start performing physical acts of worship towards the artwork, it becomes an idol"
Sorry to contradict, but your oversimplification of the matter has led you to an incorrect conclusion.
One must distinguish between kneeling *to* a statue and kneeling *in the vicinity of* a statue.
Idolatry consists in kneeling *to* a physical object for the purpose of worshipping it. Kneeling *in the vicinity of* religious art so that one may gaze upon it while praying is not idolatry.
Another distinction you fail to make is that not all prayer is worship. In Elizabethan times, the word "pray" was widely used in conversation to make a request of another person, as in, "I pray thee, Lord Cromwell, slay us not for our Catholic faith."
Or perhaps, "Prithee, good wife, pray for me on the eve of battle."
Catholics ask (pray) saints to pray for them in the same way that protestants ask (pray) their fellow protestants to pray for them. The only difference is that protestants, having cast about half of God's blessings back in His face, don't understand that the Communion of Saints allows them to ask saints to pray for them.
And one can plainly see both in the picture I've provided earlier in this thread and in the quote from post 336 from a Catholic website that Catholics do indeed bow to statues.
I'm not even getting into the prayer issue; it's tangental to my point here, which is that your denomination violates the specifics of the Second Commandments. However, having said that, I've read many of the Catholic prayers to Mary, including the one at the end of the Rosary (see post 105), and they are worshipful, and attribute to her the things that belong to God alone.
Hmmm. Neither will you find "sola scriptura" or "sola fide" in Scripture. Oh MY goodness.
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.