Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
No fair.
Babelfish doesn’t work.
***I have seen the same at some relatives Catholic “mass” (not as bad as some of the head exploding nuttiness that some have posted around hear, but bad). I have also seen a Lutheran “service/liturgy” that was so bad I walked out before communion. Much to the dismay of my friend the pastor.***
Really? If I remember correctly, you are LCMS - more Catholic than many Catholics. Surely you wouldn’t have seen anything like this at an LCMS or Wisconsin Synod service.
***And yes, it does look like a concert or Nazi rally at times, for a reason. They are using the same sort of crowd control that many others have used. Get a good beat going, power words, and if you hit the cadence right you have the crowd eating out of your hand. To call it scary is an understatement.***
Tell me that Reverend Jesse Jackson is Christian. Go on...
Yet the Pope can speak ex cathedra where his word is literally law, and cannot be questioned. No absolute authority there! And that is one of the biggest contentions between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches - the absolute infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra.
In this case, I believe the Protestant and Orthodox churches get it right - NO MAN has authority to speak without error, without question. It's not Biblical, and it has led - and will lead again - to evil being ensconced in the Church.
Some of those in Germany in the Church were corrupt; they were rooted out.
And the other parts of Catholicism? Spain, Italy, France, all were blameless and pure? Just those evil Germans? The selling of indulgences, the purchase of bishoprics, the graft and corruption certainly didn't stem from Rome... Wait, isn't a major part of this thread how bishops must be approved by other bishops of their higher ups (like cardinals, or the Pope)?
To try to insinuate that the Vatican was blissfully unaware of hundreds of years of corruption is simply not a tenable position.
Did Luther contribute to it? Certainly, he did. But, given the damage that he has caused to Christianity, was it worth the evil he did?
In fact, I think it is the arrogance and willful unrepentance of the Catholic Church that has continued hundreds of years of evil. Look at the loathing of your own Church to own up to its complicity in the sexual abuse of thousands of children.
My own church - the very place I worship - had a pastor 10 years ago who was caught in adultery. Rather than shuffle him off to another church to offend again, he was called out, confronted (as we are told to do in Acts), stripped of his commission (defrocked), and until he completed a restoration process was barred from being a member of any church in our denomination.
That's how you deal with evil; you don't simply say "it was over there" and go about your merry, hypocritical ways...
But what do I know, I'm just an illegitimate Christian, now apparently a bastard child of evil, too!
No, it was an ELCA service. My friend was studying to be an ECLA pastor, till he realized that was an incompatible posistion to be as a Christian.
Not that there isn’t some rock and roll LCMS services..
If you want to post in another language, then also interpret your post to English.
Veneration of the Saints - Stephen died early enough, as did James and some others - if we were supposed to give them veneration, there was ample opportunity for us to be given that example in the Scriptures. We were not.
I fully agree we should reflect on the example of those who have gone before, but veneration (”venerate: to regard or treat with reverence; revere. Origin: L veneratus, ptp. of venerari to solicit the goodwill of (a god), worship, revere”) goes too far. It may be that Catholics use veneration in a different sense than the current dictionary definition, in which case we might agree.
““Specifically about the Blessed Virgin Mary, we have an assurance that “all generations will call her blessed” (Lk 1),””
True. And it has pretty much NOTHING to do with how Catholics view Mary. She was blessed (favored) BY God. But we shouldn’t lose our focus, as Jesus pointed out in Luke 11: “27As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
There is nothing there to encourage us to pay attention to Mary. On the contrary, Jesus tells the woman to focus on God instead.
“she leads the Church in her battle with Satan (Rev. 12)”
No. See: http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=012
“and she is given us as our mother (Jn 19)”
26When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”
Nothing in there about her becoming a mother to us all...
34And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed 35(and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”
From Barnes:
Verse 34. Simeon blessed them. Joseph and Mary. On them he sought the blessing of God.
Is set. Is appointed or constituted for that, or such will be he effect of his coming.
The fall. The word fall here denotes misery, suffering, disappointment, or ruin. There is a plain reference to the passage where it is said that he should be a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, Isaiah 8:14,15. Many expected a temporal prince, and in this they were disappointed. They loved darkness rather than light, and rejected him, and fell unto destruction. Many that were proud were brought low by his preaching. They fell from the vain and giddy height of their own self-righteousness, and were humbled before God, and then, through him, rose again to a better righteousness and to better hopes. The nation also rejected him and put him to death, and, as a judgment, fell into the hands of the Romans. Thousands were led into captivity, and thousands perished. The nation rushed into ruin, the temple was destroyed, and the people were scattered into all the nations. See Romans 9:32,33;; 1 Peter 2:8; 1 Corinthians 1:23,24.
And rising again. The word “again” is not expressed in the Greek. It seems to be supposed, in our translation, that the same persons would fall and rise again; but this is not the meaning of the passage. It denotes that many would be ruined by his coming, and that many others would be made happy or be saved. Many of the poor and humble, that were willing to receive him, would obtain pardon of sin and peace—would rise from their sins and sorrows here, and finally ascend to eternal life.
And for a sign, &c. The word sign here denotes a conspicuous or distinguished object, and the Lord Jesus was such an object of contempt and rejection by all the people. He was despised, and his religion has been the common mark or sign for all the wicked, the profligate, and the profane, to curse, and ridicule, and oppose. Comp. Isaiah 8:18; Acts 28:22. Never was a prophecy more exactly fulfilled than this. Thousands have rejected the gospel and fallen into ruin; thousands are still falling of those who are ashamed of Jesus; thousands blaspheme him, deny him, speak all manner of evil against him, and would crucify him again if he were in their hands; but thousands also by him are renewed, justified, and raised up to life and peace.
{q} “fall” Isaiah 8:14; Romans 9:32,33; 1 Corinthians 1:23,24; 2 Corinthians 2:16; 1 Peter 2:7,8
{r} “spoken against” Acts 28:22
Verse 35. Yea, a sword {s} , &c. The sufferings and death of thy Son shall deeply afflict thy soul. And if Mary had not been thus forewarned and sustained by strong faith, she could not have borne the trials which came upon her Son; but God prepared her for it, and the holy mother of the dying Saviour was sustained.
That the thoughts, &c. This is connected with the preceding verse: “He shall be a sign, a conspicuous object to be spoken against, that the thoughts of many hearts may be made manifest”— that is, that they might show how much they hated holiness. Nothing so brings out the feelings of sinners as to tell them of Jesus Christ. Many treat him with silent contempt; many are ready to gnash their teeth; many curse him; all show how much by nature the heart is opposed to religion, and thus are really, in spite of themselves, fulfilling the Scriptures and the prophecies. So true is it that “none can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost,” 1 Corinthians 12:3.
annalex - See 286 above...forgot to add you to the “TO” heading. Hate it when that happens!
I don't know, why don't you ask them? Would you want them to attack me for saying something that "scriptures are very clear on?"
Apparently you accept the idea that Peter and Paul were legitimately given the Post Resurrection instruction to take the Gospel to the Gentiles then discredit Paul's ministry because he may have made most of it up since his preaching didn't come directly from the mouth of Jesus...
No I don't, and neither does the EOC. Vast majority of EO primates do not accept Petrine primacy on biblical grounds. As for Paul I am at odds, because his "commission" was of a private nature. I see Paul as saving the Church, that's all.
What Paul did was mix Judaism with Platonism to make it both palatable and comfortable to pagans, something they could relate to and accept. In doing so he made Christianity completely unacceptable to the Jews. He in fact created a new religion which Christianity was not before Paul.
The Church doesn't treat his preaching as having come from the mouth of Jesus. Catholics and Orthodox sit when the Epistles are read and stand when the Gospels are read. The Epistles are read by lay people and the Gospels only by a priest. Only the Gospels sit on the altar. The Epistles (at least in the Orthodox churches) are by the choir, on the cantor's stand.
Most people it seems try to shove the two together (Jesus and Paul) making a big mess of the whole deal but you just eliminate Paul to solve the problem...
I don't "eliminate" Paul by giving him credit for saving the Church. I him for what he has done. I don't lump Jesus and Paul together because Paul isn't Jesus, and those who say his words are those of Jesus I ask how do they know that. That's where WE Dispensationalists come in...We accept the teaching of Paul as coming from the mouth of the Risen Savior but some of us can see it doesn't mesh so well with the Gospels where Jesus came to the Jews only...
The key to to reconciling this is Jesus' rather stunning Commission in Mat 28:19, which is why it is there because, by compelling accounts it wasn't there all the time! The Gospels had to be brought into some kind of harmony with Paul.
Not only does Mark's add-on Commission say nothing even closely resembling Matthew (who by the way notoriously copies verbatim whole paragraphs from Mark!), but latter-day evidence seems to suggest very strongly that the so-called Great Commission was not there for the first 300 years of Christianity.
Curiously, the oldest copy of Matthew's Gospel containing 28:19 is a 6th century page. But all the copies of the complete Bible (4th and early 5th century Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus) have the Great Commission. They also happen to be post Nicene (First ecumenical) Council of AD 325 that basically set Church dogma and the beginning of the Creed.
But, somehow, the writings of an (in)famous bishops from Cesarea by the name of Eusebius, who is also considered the first Church historian, quotes from none other than Mat 28:19 no less than seventeen times saying "Go, therefore, and teach all tribes in my name."
There is no Triniatrian formula. All 17 of these quotes were miraculously before the Nicene Council. However, the same bishop quotes Mat 28:19 no less than five times after the Nicene Council and miraculously (again!) this time all five references have the Great Trinitarian Commission as we know it!
And what does the book of Acts tell us how did the Apostles baptize? Surprise, they baptized accoridng to the "old" formula quoted by Eusebius—in the name of Jesus and not in the name of the Trinity!
Also, all our translations say "nations" when the term "ethne" really means tribes. And in the context of his ministry, Jesus would have meant the tribes of Israel, not all nations of the world because he didn't come for them by his own account.
But, suddenly faced with a new version of Mat 28:15, the Church now had scriptural evidence that Jesus "at first" came down only for the Jews, but his legacy, after the Resurrection, was somehow intended for the whole world. And who was going tom challenge that?! Finally Paul and the Gospels were on the same sheet of music.
I him=I credit him
Thew Jews pretty much know what messiah will be like: he will be mortal, human being, a warrior-king who will defeat Israeli's enemies and establish world peace and all the nations of the world will through him know (of) the God of Abraham.
A cursory search on Jewish messiah will yield biblical references to any of these and more knownfeaturesof him, such as that he must be of the David's line, that he must be Jewish, etc. Nothing much hidden about him except the date of his coming.
Again, the Jews don't consider the Christians anything even resembling family. The "elder brethren" is a one-way family affair, Mark.
And it's not that the Jews don't know or understand Christ (who understands Christ!?). They reject him! As they did for the last 2,000 years. >[? If there is anything all mainstream Jews have in common, no matter how liberal or orthodox they may be, it is their unequivocal and conscious rejection of Christ. Through baptism. The Jews are not baptized; they don’t need to be.
John the Forerunner (Baptist) would disagree with you! But, Mark, the original baptism wasn't anything close to that. Only Jews were called to be baptized.
Is Ann Coulter a Christian? Some days I’m not sure what she really believes; she thrives more on public notice than on consistency
Personally I think she is a recombinant android in need of some new software.
I think that's not giving Christians full "credit." The Christians did some really nasty things to the Jews. May God never give LDS such an opportunity!
Since I am Christian, I do not see it that way. And I sometimes disturb different rabbles than Kosta, anyway
Right on, Mark!
You are confusing the Hebrew scriptures with first-century Judaism. You are assuming that the Jews of the 1st century followed the Hebrew scriptures exactly. Paul would point out that the Hebrew scriptures themselves teach that God is satisfied with the faith of believers and that attempting to follow the law, and failing in the smallest point, subjects themselves to the curses in the law.
My point... and I get it from Paul...and from the author of Genesis 15...and from Habakkuk....and from pretty much the rest of the Hebrew scriptures... is that the Hebrew scriptures teach that when one believes God, it is reckoned to him as righteousness.
No, in study, I use the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia (BHS), and its apparatus.
But you raise a good point... which translation of the Hebrew scriptures is a good one? Surprisingly, in my humble opinion, the KJV does a better job of translating the Hebrew into the English than virtually any other.
... or another Greek translation of the Hebrew. There were 4 to 6 different Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures extant in the 1st century. The Septuagint (LXX) was allegedly miraculously translated by 70 scholars a couple hundred years B.C., but doesn't really show up in real textual form (like say, the Dead Sea Scrolls) anytime previous to the birth of Jesus... or even prior to the 3rd century A.D., for that matter. There is zero manuscript evidence that Ralf's Septuagint text ever existed at all, since he kind of "back-compiled" it by assuming the NT writers quoted from it, therefore using what appears in the NT and the church fathers' texts under that very assumption.
So what is used today as the "Septuagint" is a contrived compilation that assumes its textual conclusion.
Sorry to bore you with the jaunt into armchair textual criticism.
Pretty much.. and I'm saying the Christians have gotten much of it wrong as well. :) ... especially their ecclesiology and Israelology.
In that vein, the Hebrew scriptures also say over and over again that the Israelites got it wrong.. time and time again. This is why I am attracted to the Hebrew scriptures. The Jewish conveyors of the text didn't gloss over their own heroes' sins and errors. They displayed their failures, warts and all. There is no deification of Abraham, Moses, David, Hezekiah, etc. They are shown for what they are, flawed men who, nevertheless, knew their God.
I never said what you believed or not - that was a question.
There were many blame points — the Venetians turning the fourth crusade against Constantinople, the English and French supporting the Turks against Russia in the Crimean war (but for that, Constantinople could have been restored) and also WWI. A lot of this was really England’s fault.
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.