Posted on 04/11/2006 3:41:19 PM PDT by Rockitz
WHAT ARE YOU DOING MAY 19TH?
May 19th is the date the Da Vinci Code movie opens. A movie based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a badge of honor.
What can we as Christians do in response to the release of this movie? I'm going to offer you the usual choices -- and a new one.
Here are the usual suspects:
A) We can ignore the movie. ........
The problem with this option: The box office is a ballot box. The only people whose votes are counted are those who buy tickets. And the ballot box closes on the Sunday of opening weekend. If you stay home, you have lost your chance to make your vote heard. You have thrown your vote away, and from Hollywood's point of view, you don't count. By staying home, you do nothing to shape the decision-making process regarding what movies will make it to the big screen.
B) We can protest. ........
The problem with this option: It doesn't work. Any publicity is good publicity. Protests not only fuel the box office, they make all Christians look like idiots. And again, protests and boycotts do nothing to help shape the decisions being made right now about what movies Hollywood will make in the next few years. (Or they convince Hollywood to make *more* movies that will provoke Christians to protest, which will drive the box office up.)
C) We can discuss the movie. We can be rational and be ready with study guides and workshops and point-by-point refutations of the lies promulgated by the movie. ........
The problem with this option: No one's listening. They think they know what we're going to say already. We'll lose most of these discussions anyway, no matter how prepared we are, because the power of story always trumps the power of facts (why do you think Jesus taught in parables?!). And once again: rational discussion of history does nothing to affect Hollywood's choices regarding what movies to make.
But there's a fourth choice.
D) On May 19th, you should go to the movies.
Just go to another movie.
Save the date now. May 19th, or May 20th. No later than Sunday, May 21st -- that's the day the ballot box closes. You'll get a vote, the only vote Hollywood recognizes: The power of cold hard cash laid down on a box office window on opening weekend.
Use your vote. Don't throw it away. Vote for a movie other than The DaVinci Code. If enough people do it, the powers that be will notice. They won't have a choice.
The major studio movie scheduled for release against DVC is the DreamWorks animated feature Over the Hedge. The trailers look fun, and you can take your kids. And your friends. And their friends. In fact, let's all go see it.
Let's rock the box office in a way no one expects -- without protests, without boycotts, without arguments, without rancor. Let's show up at the box office ballot box and cast our votes. And buy some popcorn, too.
May 19th. Mark your calendars now: Over the Hedge's opening weekend. Buy a ticket.
And spread the word. Forward this e-mail to all the Christians in your address book. Post it on your blogs. Talk about it to your churches. And let's all go to the movies.
When were the rules for Rabbis you refer to encoded and codified? When was the occupation of Rabbi first found or mentioned in Judaism?
If you've read the early church fathers and the councils, you know them. I am grateful for their work, and grateful such things as the Gospel Of Judas are not part of our cannon.
Now if you wish every person to be responsible for determining their own canon, then that's your choice. But you haven't convinced me yet that Hodar's Canon has more to recommend it than the one we have.
There was no "office" or "ministry" called "Jewish rabbi" in Jesus' day. The word "rabbi" simply means "teacher".
Since there was no office or ministry called "rabbi," there were no qualifications associated with it. (You had to be Jewish and you had to teach to be a "Jewish teacher," obviously. Beyond that, nothing was specified.)
There were certainly celibate Jewish holy men and teachers at that time. Big parts of the Essene community practiced celibacy, for one thing.
You are quite selective about which RCC doctrines you wish to compare to in your attempt to say that protestantism is not really much different than Catholicism. I can point out a vast number of differences in protestantism and the doctrines of the Early Church, which you claim is the seed from which all Christianity comes from. Such as the issue of transmutation, papal infallability, indulgences, Confession, the Sabbath Day and others. In fact, I know of some christian denominations which believe the pope is not only wrong, but is in fact the Anti-christ himself. Jehovahs Witnesses and SDA are a couple examples. For some of us, our rejection of the Authority of the Church extends to whether the RCC had the authority to determine what scriptures were worthy. I base my belief regarding THAT in this...
2 Timothy 3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
The above is from the KJV. Notice that the word "scripture" is a lower case "s" rather than an upper case "S". This means ALL THAT IS WRITTEN. An Upper case S is used in the Scriptures when it specifically refers to HOLY WRITINGS, and more specifically it is referring only to OLD Testament Scriptures, since the New Testament did not even exist at the time Christ spoke the above passages.
By the same criterion, ultimately, that the MEN at the Council of Nicea did, by studying them all, praying, and deciding what I believe based on the dictates of my conscience. I understand that many may have difficulty doing that since they may tend to view it in a way that they WANT to believe.. such as those who interpret things in such a way that they can convince themselves things they do are sinless. But one who is interested in the truth, and not just feeling good, will often interpret things, as I do, in a way which makes me think afterwards "Hmm.. maybe I should clean up my act in that regard". Now I am not interested in feeling good, I am interested in knowing the truth and serving it to the best of my knowledge. What I believe to be true, I will state, what I do not KNOW to be true or false, I will state as niether true or false (which is why, though I remain skeptacle about the Wife of Jesus thing, I am unwilling to declare it as false). Now, one may say, "the men at the Council of Nicea were motivated by the same motivations.. they wanted only the Truth".. and that MAY be true. But it MAY also be untrue. I cannot look into their hearts and determine their motivations and biases... but I can look into my own. I know very well the abuses of the RCC throughout the ages, the selling out on Principles in order to gain power and acceptance among the pagans. Such things as the Sunday Sabbath, Christmas, graven images, and other things. The motives of the RCC are HIGHLY suspect, and for good reason. When it comes down to it, I trust no man, except myself (though not much) and Christ.
But Christ did marry:
Eph 5:31-32 - “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”[e] 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Rev 21:9 - Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”
If the Church is the bride of Christ (as the NT teaches), and Mary Magdalene is the bride of Christ (as the DVC teaches), I guess that makes Christ a polygamist. But since Christ made it clear in Mt 19:1-10 that faithful monogamy is the divinely instituted norm, I guess he's a polygamist and a hypocrite.
Of course, the simpler answer is simply that the orthodox teaching is the truth.
I guess if you believe that God would consider it polygamy, a literal marriage to a woman, and a figurative marriage to a Church, then it would be exclusionary. But I am not sure I agree with that view.
Nice comeback! I'll use that.
1) I picked the core beliefs that define orthodox Christianity.
2) My point is that the foundation and core beliefs coming from same are identical.
If these are your examples of Christian denominations that do not share the foundation I described, I'll grant them. However, your omissions are proving my point.
You are not in this group of exceptions are you?
I, personally, subscribe to no denomination (which in my view is only 3 letters different from abomination for a reason). Sorry, but I do not hold by YOUR definition of what qualifies as a Christian. I believe in Christ, I believe he is the Son of God, I believe he died for our sins, and I believe in the resurrection. While I do not subscribe to the denominations of the SDA or JW's, there are many things in common between their beliefs and mine. I recognize no authority of man's, no matter how many robes, chants, ceremonies, councils, or declarations those men may perform. I especially do not accept as gospel those doctrines that followers of the Council of Nicea, and thus the "official" New Testament profess, when they cannot show me the authority for the doctrine in the scriptures that they themselves hold as the be all and end all of scripture.
I recognize no authority of man's
The AnnoyedOne excepted of course.
May I ask where you go to church? Also, do you subscribe to the doctrine of Trinity and is the New Testament holy scripture for you/your church?
Thanks again...
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
A similar idea is presented here as is presented in the book of Thomas, one of those (gasp) forbidden books that the council of Nicea rejected.
WARNING!! DANGEROUS HERETICAL SCRIPTURE ALERT!! HIDE YOUR CHILDREN, SHIELD YOUR EYES!!!
Thomas 77 Jesus said: I am the light that is above them all. I am the all; the all came forth from me, and the all attained to me. Cleave a (piece of) wood; I am there. Raise up a stone, and you will find me there.
This passage states that the Kingdom of God is not contained within the walls of wood and stone, but all around us. That is even the interpretation given to it by the RCC, and is the passage which knocked it out of the running for acceptance into the official canon. It teaches that wherever we seek, there we shall find.
As for any church I belong to... it may be in my car, home, at work, any place where I and another speak in His name (which yes, means even here, though this be a very irreverant church). The church is the family of God. There is only ONE Father in that family, and that is YHWH. Gathering with others of faith and sharing testimony is helpful to us to remain strong in our faith, but we need no intermediary to speak Christ or God on our behalf.. not the Pope, nor a confessor, nor Mary, nor any preacher or minister.
-----
I recognize no authority of man's
The AnnoyedOne excepted of course.
Nice try, but ultimately each of us must follow the dictates of our own conscience. One cannot choose what one believes to be true. One may disregard it, not follow in the path he believes to be right, but it will not change what he believes to be right. If your conscience tells you that placing your faith in men is the way to go, then by all means, go for it. Mine tells me otherwise, and I have no choice but to follw. I do not tell you what to believe. I do not tell you that you MUST believe in this or that to be a Christian, as you presume to tell me. The only thing I will tell you that you must do is read and study the scriptures for yourself, do your own thinking, examine evidence wherever it come from with a critical eye, and follow the dictates of YOUR conscience.
BTW, I claim that authority as a birthright. It is mine, and your's and everyone else's who seek the Truth. Nobody else has the authority to make such decisions as what scriptures are holy, in my stead. The council of Nicea has not the authrority, because they are not the one's who are going to take my place in Hell if I follow them and they are wrong. If I follow them blindly, then get to the Pearly gates and discover that we have been decieved.. do you think God will let us off the hook? "Gee, God, how unfair that we should be punished, THEY were the ones who told us wrong and we trusted them". Ultimately each one of us is the authority that decides what is legitimate or not, because we are the ones who will deal with the consequences. Place your faith in men, about whom you know nothing regarding their petty jealousies, biases, ambitions for power, political views, etc.. if you choose. I do not choose to do so.
It all sounds very lonely and fearful.
May God bless you, and thanks for your replies.
Not at all. I have faith that so long as I seek the truth in His name, He is walking beside me, and will guide me, and I am not alone at all.
May God bless you, and thanks for your replies.
Right back at ya.
Dunno if you have ever read this, so I will toss it up here. It is one of my favorite little stories. I thought you might enjoy it.
Footprints in the Sand
One night a man had a dream. He dreamed
he was walking along the beach with the LORD.
Across the sky flashed scenes from his life.
For each scene he noticed two sets of
footprints in the sand: one belonging
to him, and the other to the LORD.
When the last scene of his life flashed before him,
he looked back at the footprints in the sand.
He noticed that many times along the path of
his life there was only one set of footprints.
He also noticed that it happened at the very
lowest and saddest times in his life.
This really bothered him and he
questioned the LORD about it:
"LORD, you said that once I decided to follow
you, you'd walk with me all the way.
But I have noticed that during the most
troublesome times in my life,
there is only one set of footprints.
I don't understand why when
I needed you most you would leave me."
The LORD replied:
"My son, my precious child,
I love you and I would never leave you.
During your times of trial and suffering,
when you see only one set of footprints,
it was then that I carried you."
Written by Mary Stevenson
H>...a Rabbi must be married (by Jewish Talmudic laws)
R>Is there a specific reference for this? Thanks.
63 posted on 04/11/2006 5:48:35 PM MDT by Rockitz
But where is it stated in the Holy Word of G-d?
b'shem Y'shua
136 posted on 04/12/2006 11:13:29 AM MDT by XeniaSt
The source I used (also given in #66) can be found here . Please be aware that this is ... um, direct, blunt and to the point.
172 posted on 04/12/2006 5:53:33 PM MDT by Hodar
It is merely the Tradition of man. What you offered is not the Torah nor the Tanach thus not the Holy Word of G-d.
Have a Blessed Passover season.
b'shem Y'shua
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.