Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
WELL PUT, ALL.
THX.
I think I understand the idea here, let’s see....MY PEOPLE preserved the plays allegedly written by William Shakespear since I speak and read English and have some English ancestors.
For a start then, “The Real Presence”. What is it and when does it happen? You know, beginning, end, how we know this. In a few simple sentences as befits the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants.
Yes, indeed I have seen this as well...and we know what Jesus had to say to them. Not much as they were unteachable.
Additionally, their questions to Jesus were intended to trip Him up in view of the people. They were not interested in the truth. They knew they were losing power over the people which was at the heart of their questions...... Many times they put Jesus in a delima where no matter how he might answer, or if He acted, would be wrong or unacceptable according to the law. The one story of Jesus healing a mans hands on the sabboth is a good example....Jesus never touched Him nor did He proclaim any words which would indicate He was healing the man directly, rather He simply told the man to stick out his hand.... and it was healed.
“O.K., I’m game, just which one of “your people” have made which manuscripts available to us today?”
Monks at the Monastery of +Catherine at Sinai and at a number of monasteries at the Holy Mountain. BTW, learn Greek and you can read the Byzantine Text at any Greek Orthodox Church.
The most accurate? Well, the most accurate of a very bad lot, but I'd say the NKJV so long as one has a good listing of the variant readings. As for what the major issues are, well, mm, with all due respect, we've been talking about them for several years here now. I didn't keep a list of them. I can tell you that anything which translates εστιν as "symbolizes" or "represents" or "signifies" is garbage.
"But yeah,..... we can all see that you're so much better than everyone else. So much superior to all the rest of us peons because of your knowledge of Greek. Even though koine Greek isn't actually modern Greek, but details, details......"
Koine is different from modern Greek and both are different from Byzantine Greek. I have degrees in ancient, koine and Byzantine Greek.
"Alleged to be written? Only alleged? What good would it do you to know the language as you claim, if you apparently don't even trust what was transcribed?"
Yes, only alleged. I say this because there are simply too many variant manuscripts to determine which one, if there is one, was actually written by any given author. For example, do you believe that +Paul wrote Hebrews? If so, why? What about Matthew? Did +Matthew write it? And which version is correct? I suppose it's a safe bet that +John wrote his gospel, but which version? I honestly don't care whether or not the various books of the NT were really written by the authors to whom the works are attributed. I also don't loose any sleep over whether or not the Johannine Comma, for example, is original or spurious. I am not a bible worshiper. Treating the bible like a Mohammedan treats the koran is heresy. My Faith comes from the Holy Spirit as a free gift through The Church.
I have said much on this already, with the main point being that it is not historical linkage that is the determining factor for essential authenticity, but manifest faith in the Biblical gospel. The apostles persuaded souls by “manifestation of the truth,” and so must we, in dependence upon God to confirm His word. But when one infallibly defines that they are assuredly infallible according to their infallibly defined formula, implicit assent of faith is required, and nothing need be verified. Even the father’s basically must submit to this, as even non -unanimous consent of them can be defined as being unanimous:
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/ray4intro.html
http://www.equip.org/articles/apostolic-tradition
Other pertinent issues:
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/livingtradition.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/violent-tendency-of-western.html
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html
Here’s a good and patristic overview for you from +John of Damascus:
“But if you inquire as to how this takes place, it is enough for you to know that it is effected by the Holy Spirit. The manner of the change can in no way be understood. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature, bread, by eating, and wine and water, by drinking, are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, yet not becoming a different body from the former one; so the bread of the Table, as also the wine and water, are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are not two, but one and the same.”
This occurs, by the grace of God alone, at this point during the Divine Liturgy:
“Priest (in a low voice): It is proper and right to sing to You, bless You, praise You, thank You and worship You in all places of Your dominion; for You are God ineffable, beyond comprehension, invisible, beyond understanding, existing forever and always the same; You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You brought us into being out of nothing, and when we fell, You raised us up again. You did not cease doing everything until You led us to heaven and granted us Your kingdom to come. For all these things we thank You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit; for all things that we know and do not know, for blessings seen and unseen that have been bestowed upon us. We also thank You for this liturgy which You are pleased to accept from our hands, even though You are surrounded by thousands of Archangels and tens of thousands of Angels, by the Cherubim and Seraphim, six-winged, many-eyed, soaring with their wings,
Priest: Singing the victory hymn, proclaiming, crying out, and saying:
People: Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna to God in the highest.
Priest (in a low voice): Together with these blessed powers, merciful Master, we also proclaim and say: You are holy and most holy, You and Your only-begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You are holy and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He came and fulfilled the divine plan for us. On the night when He was betrayed, or rather when He gave Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke, and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles saying:
Priest: Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.
People: Amen.
Priest (in a low voice): Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:
Priest: Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
People: Amen.
Priest (in a low voice): Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming.
Priest: We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all.
People: We praise You, we bless You, we give thanks to You, and we pray to You, Lord our God.
Priest (in a low voice): Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.
Priest: And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.
Amen.
Priest: And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.
Amen.
Priest: Changing them by Your Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen.
Amen.”
+Gregory Palamas wrote in the 14th century: “... by this flesh [of Christ in the Eucharist] our community is raised to heaven; that is where this Bread truly dwells; and we enter into the Holy of Holies by the pure offering of the Body of Christ”
How do we “know” this? It’s a matter of faith, cyc, not knowledge, at least not knowledge of a mundane variety. Christians, the overwhelming majority of Christians including a number of Protestant type Christian groups, have always believed in the Real Presence. Well, I say always, let’s say since the year 100 or so at least (+Ignatius of Antioch). The Church teaches about all sorts of miracles, big and small and personal, which have occurred during the Liturgy and surrounding the Eucharist. They are not really uncommon, cyc. They have actually been experienced by people who are posters on this website. Beyond that, I have no “proof” at all for you.
Faith has a basis unlike credulity.
Damascus makes the statement, “.......supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are not two, but one and the same.”
Upon what basis? The words of Christ? Then the Christ is law breaker and his disciples as well.
By divine inspiration? Does Damascus claim such? Are his words more inspiried than the Gospels?
A simple meal of remembrance, and remembrance was its stated purpose, becomes by retrospective elaboration into a mysterious, throw up the hands—no one can understand this! ritual due to insistance that “is” can only mean one thing despite evidence to the contrary.
I don’t ask for proof but simply consistancy with God’s own word.
What Christian would deny such?
The interesting implicit assumption in your remarks is that the Church is somehow revelatory without Scripture. All of the Old and New Testaments are merely incidental to the traditions of the Church that followed?
Do you know how the Holy Spirit works? Does your theology set limits on what our Triune God can do? As for "evidence to the contrary", other than the "translations" of propagandists and liars, what "evidence" do you have for your innovative, Western, modernist position? It's modern origin lies in Zwingli's comic book theology that God can't be in two places at once. That, cyc, is a fact. No Christians, before Zwingli believed what you claim to believe. Outside of Christianity, the heresy is much older. In fact, +Ignatius of Antioch, around 100, warned the Christians at Smyrna about groups, not Christians but rather others who followed Simon Magus and any of a number of Gnostic preachers (and even some who claimed to follow +John the Bapstist)who denied the Real Presence:
"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
"I don’t ask for proof but simply consistancy with God’s own word."
No you don't, cyc. 2000 years of Christianlife has, in overwhelming numbers, accepted the words of Christ as establishing that the bread and wine on the altar table become truly the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. For 1900 years we have been warned against those who do not. What you want is for submission of Christians to what a tiny, virtually 100% American version of Protestantism holds about the Real Presence. I can assure you that Orthodoxy feels no need at all to convert you to our way of thinking and believing. What we have is available to you. If you reject it, that really is OK with us.
Sort of the same excuse for breaking the Eighth Commandment used to justify the actions of that equally disgusting thief and liar Elgin. At least we have the satisfaction, courtesy of +Paul, of knowing the eternal destination of those two heterodox thieves.
I believe it is. The Church determined what Christians would read for Scripture according to God's Will as determined by The Church. "All of the Old and New Testaments are merely incidental to the traditions of the Church that followed?"
Not incidental at all; quite important, but still part of Holy Tradition, not apart from and opposed to it.
Joseph Smith believed the same as well.
The earliest Church Fathers believed Scripture was something more than “quite important”.
But modern Oriental and Latin churches have evolved to the point that Scripture no longer means: God speaking.
It all seems quite ahistorical to me. As if the Church popped up out of time as either the start of the history of the Church or some new dispensation that has no correspondence to the earlier history of the Church as found in Scripture.
Yes, yes, and the Indians want Manhattan back and the Egyptians want all that gold that left with the Israelite exodus.
Maybe when Greece makes reparations to the peoples used as slaves to build those grandiose works.
Thr (ROMAN) Catholic doesn't use the Septuagint when it is not favorable to their "special" interpretation.
Look at Douay Rheims. Mom is correct.
Really? Which ones?
"But modern Oriental and Latin churches have evolved to the point that Scripture no longer means: God speaking."
You may want to read this. Its just a page or so but it will explain fairly well where The Church stands vis a vis the Scripture it canonized for The Church and the various ecclesial groups which have sprung up since the 16th century. http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm
I believe it is. The Church determined what Christians would read for Scripture according to God's Will as determined by The Church. "All of the Old and New Testaments are merely incidental to the traditions of the Church that followed?"
Not incidental at all; quite important, but still part of Holy Tradition, not apart from and opposed to it.
And yet all the writers of the NT continually referred to Scripture as the standard by which they operated. They did not reference *tradition* or *the church* when it came to matters of doctrine.
The Bereans were of more noble character because they searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true.
If church tradition or hierarchy were the criteria, they would have taken Paul at his word, or checked with Peter or some other apostle. They didn't but rather were commended for searching SCRIPTURE.
There is inherent danger in making Scripture subservient to the *church* or *tradition* no matter how holy someone claims it to be. The written word was written down and because we can go back to those manuscripts, has remained unchanged for thousands of years, unlike tradition.
Relying on tradition and apostolic succession to determine truth is a recipe for disaster. There's no failsafe to keep it pure and all the nonsense about God maintaining that integrity through the church is just that. Nonsense.
Church history and the immorality and corruption so frequently associated with the papacy, gives no one any reason to presume that they are in a decent enough spiritual state to be considered a reliable conduit for God to speak through.
Nor is the present state of the church any evidence of God maintaining it for all these centuries, therefore the Church must be of God. Really? With the secrecy regarding their finances, and the abominable job the Roman Catholic church has done in dealing with its pedophile priests, I find it almost impossible to believe the claim that that organization is indeed the bride of Christ and that He is responsible for its continued existence. There are plenty of other good explanations for why it's still here and they don't invoke God.
Hinduism, Buddhism, islam, animaism, etc, have all been around for centuries as well. By the erroneous appeal to age as the criteria as evidence that its continued existence is the result of God's hand in it, then one could just as easily conclude that God kept those other false religions in existence and maintained them for so long because they are right, too.
Nor do they use Scripture at all when it is not favorable to their *special* interpretation. For the REALLY *special* interpretations, they refer to the so-called *holy* tradition to usurp Scripture.
And God have mercy on your soul if you reject the Catholic church dictates on any matter of spiritual concern, even when it DOES contradict Scripture.
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.