WHEN THE POPE KISSED THE KORAN

TCR News ^ | Stephen Hand

[NYer]

When the Pope Kissed the Koran

By Stephen Hand

Back in 1999, on the 14th of May, according to the Patriarch of the Chaldeans, at the end of an audience between the Pope and some delegates of the Islamic Shiite and Sunni factions, the Pope bowed as “a sign of respect” toward a copy of the Koran which was presented to him as a gift. When the book was officially “presented to him,” the Pope, perhaps a bit perplexed concerning the appropriate protocol for such an official gesture, kissed it; again, as a “sign of respect toward the 34 million followers of Islam”. The event was reported by the Fides news service. It turned out to be more controversial a sign than the Pope and Vatican ever expected, since both Neomodernist and Integrist reactionaries pounced on it. The former to suggest that all religions were essentially one, and the latter to suggest that the Pope had, well, er, left the Faith.

Both, of course, were utterly wrong, and both---who are temperamentally and psychologically joined at the hip in not a few ways---refused to look long at the Church’s actual teachings, the texts which clearly explain what the Church’s attitude toward other religions is-----and is not.

It is the reaction of the latter which concerns us here.

Every religion, sadly, has its Pharisees, the ones who are more royal than the king, the (only) “true” believers. It is an attitude, a psychological type, which comes in degrees of severity and is tied up with legalism, a preference for the letter as opposed to the spirit of the law. What the Taliban is to Islam, Integrism approximately is to Catholicism.

Pharisees, thinking themselves the only true observers of the law, love to debate, to bait and trap the unwary victim, as they tried to do with our Lord on many an occasion. This attitude finds its logical completion in the Essenes who broke off entirely from the Temple (unlike Jesus, His Mother and St. Joseph) and fled to the desert proclaiming themselves the true temple, the remnant of Israel. They are, it is obvious, seldom aware of the pride which feeds such behavior or the logs in their own eyes.

In Catholicism, if the Neo-modernists are the Saducees, i.e., the rationalists who tend to doubt articles of Faith, then the Integrists are very clearly our modern Pharisees, the ones who fancy themselves the true interpreters of the “fathers” and of the letter of the law.

The Pharisee wants an easy, hyper-logical world, a world of airtight Yes-No compartments, where people are either “in” or “out”. In Our Lord’s day they considered Jesus lax with sinners and heathen, dubious in doctrine, fickle regarding the inviolable law. They viewed him with suspicion and ultimately felt he had to be removed altogether. They preferred a religion where the question of the "spirit," or the heart of the law----the ultimate telos / goal to which the law tends----was not welcome, despite the warnings of the major and minor prophets. For the Pharisee it is easy: The woman sinned against her husband? Stone her. The Pope kissed the Koran? Throw him out, follow the law. Such is the spirit of the Pharisee, then and now.

The Pharisee is more comfortable with executing judgment than mercy which is considered a complicating factor. He prefers a simple world where one always knows what to do. That makes debating easier; and our modern Pharisee loves to debate. He wakes up in the morning and aims straightway for the computer to either engage the debate or aid his fellows in it. His religion often exists in chat rooms or on email lists where he seeks to draw the first blood. Mercy is like an ‘X’ in the equation of justice and makes the Pharisee uncomfortable. Just the same with love and the kind of religion as described in Isaiah 58 or Matt 5-7. Such concepts complicate their neat rule book (though most of these guys have never been trained in Catholic theology and hermeneutics).

The Pope Kissed the Koran

The Pope kissed the Koran. Our new version Pharisee immediately salivates. He is ready to pounce and add such an indictable emblem to his files. And what does it prove? That the Pope is a secret Muslim maybe? That the Pope doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ maybe? That the Pope is a relativist, perhaps? A syncretist for sure? That all religions are one in the Pope’s mind? The Pope also kisses the ground upon landing in various countries on pastoral visits. A secret pantheist?

The Pope, of course, teaches the very opposite everywhere. The facts are well known, if one would take the time to learn. Yet the Pharisee has a penchant for turning ones eyes from anything that will reveal his opinion to be an absurdity. Even authoritative texts matter little if they can be simply brushed under the rug of bigotry.

Yet facts are stubborn. The gesture of the Pope by no means indicates syncretism, relativism, or anything of the sort. Cynical Integrists simply seek to make hay of it, as they do of everything else. It is the way of the Pharisee. That way they sell their papers to the gullible. They would rather not believe that the kiss was merely a gesture, as one would bow before a king, or a President, or even kiss the Pope’s ring. They would rather put the worst and most absurd construction on it, like with everything else. Had they been there they would have sent the Three Wise Men---heathens---packing; the Roman Centurion whom our Lord helped too (pagan). And the good Samaritan would have been viewed very simply as a dismal heretic. I know rigroist Feeneyites who must first baptise (in their minds) the good thief on the Cross before they will concur with our Lord's pronouncement concerning him. Legalism...

I adduce the following texts, from innumerable others, not for debate, but to show those confused by them that the Pope’s teaching is nothing like the accusations and framing of the Integrists.

For the Holy Father, dialogue does not substitute for evangelism/mission, but is a part of that mission of evangelism, divorced from neither love nor truth.

The emphasis is mine throughout below.

NOSTRA AETATE

2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

From Redmptoris Missio:

55. Inter-religious dialogue is a part of the Church's evangelizing mission. Understood as a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment, dialogue is not in opposition to the mission ad gentes; indeed, it has special links with that mission and is one of its expressions . This mission, in fact, is addressed to those who do not know Christ and his Gospel, and who belong for the most part to other religions. In Christ, God calls all peoples to himself and he wishes to share with them the fullness of his revelation and love. He does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression, even when they contain "gaps, insufficiencies and errors."(98) All of this has been given ample emphasis by the Council and the subsequent Magisterium, without detracting in any way from the fact that salvation comes from Christ and that dialogue does not dispense from evangelization.(99)

In the light of the economy of salvation, the Church sees no conflict between proclaiming Christ and engaging in interreligious dialogue. Instead, she feels the need to link the two in the context of her mission ad gentes . These two elements must maintain both their intimate connection and their distinctiveness ; therefore they should not be confused, manipulated or regarded as identical, as though they were interchangeable

CDF’s Dominus Iesus: See CDF document here

4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction — of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.

6. Therefore, the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith. Such a position would claim to be based on the notion that the truth about God cannot be grasped and manifested in its globality and completeness by any historical religion, neither by Christianity nor by Jesus Christ.

7. ...Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.

Most critical to our concern:

8. The hypothesis of the inspired value of the sacred writings of other religions is also put forward. Certainly, it must be recognized that there are some elements in these texts which may be de facto instruments by which countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God. Thus, as noted above, the Second Vatican Council, in considering the customs, precepts, and teachings of the other religions, teaches that “although differing in many ways from her own teaching, these nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”.23

The Church's tradition, however, reserves the designation of inspired texts to the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, since these are inspired by the Holy Spirit.24 Taking up this tradition, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council states: “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself”.25 These books “firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures”.26

Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”.27 Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.

It is very clear, then, that neither the Pope nor Vatican II promotes doctrinal relativism, much less syncretism. This is why the neo-modernists consider the Pope a veritable inquisition. They can read. Yet the joyless Integrist can be counted on to always put the worst possible construction on any event or text (even if they usually prefer to simply ignore than compare texts). Thus they alleviate some of their anxiety for airtight security, even if it means fleeing from the vulnerability and suffering of the cross in our time. The Integrist is never so gleeful as when in [the diversion of] debate. Those of us who have known them intimately consider this one of their most striking and constant characteristics. To debate them is to feed their pride. Better to sincerely pray for them often. It is tragic beyond words when truth itself is inconsequential to the act of debating.

The Church, then, rejects nothing which is good, true or holy in other religions, but condemns all syncretistic theology as it did with Frs. Anthony de Mello's and Tissa Balasuriya's writings; see also the CDF's warnings to the bishops of India regarding syncretism and erroneous christologies; also its warnings about eastern meditation, etc.

---

[man of Yosemite]

Ishmael knew the God of Abraham and had the faith of Abraham. When Hagar was sent out with him, he prayed unto God, and the Lord heard the child and showed Hagar a well of water.
Jethro, the father in law of Moses, performed a burnt offering when Israel was delivered from Egypt. He also gave wise counsel to Moses to divide up the responsibility over the people.
The early Arabs knew the God of Israel, but their hatred of their cousins has blinded them from the fact that Jesus said,"Salvation is of the Jews." It is faith in the promised Seed, the Redeemer, the child of promise, the Seed of David, which saves the soul. They have left off faith in the promises of God, to please God with their own works of righteousness, which works fall terribly short of the glory of God, unable to satisfy the righteous requirements of the Holy One of Israel.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Perhaps you could point us to the verse that commands the Sabbath to the church and the changing of the day to Sunday?

There is NO verse changing the Sabbath from Saturday. The day was changed not by God, but by man.

In those very early Roman Pope times, some strangeness occured. Besides changing the Sabbath, they also eventually changed the calendar, another prophesy fulfilled. But, they brought 'sun worship'/'paganism' into the church, which kind of goes along with the kissing of the Koran. I can't help but question both the kissing of the Koran when combined with so much Babylonian sun worship emblems brought into the church.

Here's a little history.

A the left is a sculpture by Gian Lorenzo Bernini decorating the tomb of Pope Alexander VII. At the four corners surrounding the enthroned Pope, are the four virtues, Charity, Prudence, Justice and Truth. Charity is on the front left side and "La Verita", which means "The Truth" is on the right front side.  On the right is a close up of "La Verita".
Notice that the woman is embracing a 'sun-burst'.  Clicking on the large image will take you to an art gallery where
you can click on the image and zoom for a closer look.

Pagan Babylon worshipped the sun as a deity, and pagan Rome also worshipped the sun.  The Roman Catholic Church, with the assistance of Constantine, changed the day of worship from Sabbath to the Sun Day and commonly used images and symbols of the sun.

Constantine placed no Christian appellation upon the worship on the first day of the week,  referring to it as the "venerable day of the sun."
 

Let all judges and all city people and all tradesmen rest upon the venerable day of the sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their field; since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain or the planting of vines; hence, the favorable time should not be allowed to pass, lest the provisions of heaven be lost.  Quoted in Blakely, p. 269

Or if you prefer the Codex Justinianus:
 

On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time [A.D. 321].)  Source: Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3 (5th ed.; New York: Scribner, 1902), p. 380, note 1.

 

At the left is a tablet from the early 9th century B.C. which depicts the Babylonian sun-god Shamash seated on the right, holding emblems of his authority, a staff and ring, and the king with two attendants on the left. In the center, on an altar, is a large 4-point sun image, with additional small wavy rays between the points.  Clicking on the image will take you to the British Museum, where you can see and read about this tablet depicting the sun god, Shamash.
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

The symbol again appears on the pope's mitre.  Note also the small black cross on his shoulder (compare below), on what is called a Pallium :  "The modern pallium is a circular band about two inches wide, worn about the neck, breast, and shoulders, and having two pendants, one hanging down in front and one behind. ... The ornamentation of the pallium consists of six small black crosses -- one each on the breast and back, one on each shoulder, and one on each pendant."

Below on the left is a Neo-Assyrian standing stone (stele/stela) dating from about 824-811 B.C., which depicts King Shamshi-Adad V.   Note the necklace the King is wearing. On it is what today is called a Maltese cross. Twenty-eight hundred years ago that shape was symbolic of pagan sun worship.  
 

Clicking on the above image will take you to the British Museum.  Today the Pope wears a similar symbol around his neck, on the Pallium, which the Pope also confers on selected bishops as an ornamental token of his favor, and it is also worn by archbishops and  patriarchs as a symbol of their authority as a metropolitan, derived from unity with the Pope.  The Pope also has a ring and staff of authority, remarkably similar to the depiction of the sun god Shamash on the Babylonian tablet shown previously.

Note the lower hand of King Ashur-nasir-pal II in the above stele. On the wrist is the sunburst symbol. On the right, the pagan sunburst is on the glove of Pope John XXIII.  Clicking on the image of the stele will take you to the British Museum.

 
 
 

The depictions of the pagan kings on the ancient standing stones (stela) above, show a strip of cloth (lappet) hanging from the rear of the headgear. These lappets are also present on the papal mitre and tiara, shown at left, and partially visible in the photos of popes above.

[ET(end tyranny)]

It may go just a little deeper:

Go back to Genesis, and the 2 creations. One a little more expansive than the other. Right off the bat there is light, to seperate the darkness. Meaning all was darkness at first. Since the sun and moon didn't come along til later... this 'light' and 'darkness' to me indicate 'good and evil' or 'right and wrong'. Duality.

Next thing that stands out is obedience. Or more precisely 'dis-obedience'. Adam and Eve are kicked out of the garden.

Now, this is just an observation, and one I noticed several years ago, and that is, that in the 1st creation all animals including and Adam and Eve were told to go forth and multiply. In the 2nd creation, these words are missing.

Now, I suppose one could look at things from different perspectives, but we don't have a whole lot of 'time' involed, to compare data, so it would only be a supposition to say, that had they not partaken of the tree of knowledge, they wouldn't have known of evil, or procreation.

The first creation being 'carnal/flesh/darkness'?, (be fruitful and multiply) and the second not.What we might consider 'spiritual/light'?

I also noticed something else, Adam and Eve's first born is Cain. Second born is Abel. Cain kills Abel. Just as the first creation was carnal/flesh, so too, was Adam and Eve's first creation, Cain 'carnal or bad/evil', committing the first murder, because of 'jealousy'.

Did Eve partake of the tree of knowledge because she wanted to be 'better' than what she was? 'Pride'? Is there where we get the saying, 'Pride goeth before a great fall'?

Then we get to Abram and Hagar. Hagar becomes prideful when she conceives, eventually giving birth to Ishmael. Later Abram, now called Abraham and Sarah give birth to Isaac. Ishmael's birth is 'carnal/of the flesh/darkness', while Isaac's birth was based on a Promise/spiritual/light from God.

God reinforced the separation of the child of 'flesh', from the Child of 'Promise', when Hagar and Ishmael were sent off to wander. Another separation of darkness from light.

Arabs are descended from Ishamel. I don't know if all muslims believe that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins in Paradise/Heaven, but Islam is the only 'religion' that I can think of that wants to continue the carnal/fleshly desires in Heaven/Paradise. How spiritual is that??

Romans 13:12
The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

Ephesians 5:8
For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

2 Corinthians 6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

1 John 1:6
If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

I think that were are witnessing a war between the children of light and those of the darkness. Is it the final war? Who knows. But, I do think this is a war between good and evil.

jmho

[Quester]

First of all, Jesus clearly tells those asking about eternal life to follow the commandments, follow the law. PERIOD.

When JESUS talked with Nicodemus about eternal life, He spoke of the need to be born again, ... to be born of the Spirit. He spoke of the Son of Man being lifted up. He said ...

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

When JESUS spoke to the woman at the well at the well, He said ...

John 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

When JESUS answered the hypocritical Pharisees, He said ...

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

When JESUS addressed the crowd after He had fed the 5000+, He said ...

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

When JESUS, on another occasion , addressed the Jews, He said ...

John 7:37b If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

When JESUS, yet again, spoke to the Jewish religious leaders, He said ...

John 8:23b Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

When comforting his friend Martha, in regard to her recently dead brother Lazarus, He said ...

John 11:25b I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

When informing His disciples as to His imminent death, He said ...

John 14:6b I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Truly JESUS' sacrifice was a sacrifice like non other in the history of the world. Referring to this, He said ...

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

[RnMomof7]

That I obeyed God rather than man. By obeying his commandments, and doing the works asked of me, my love and respect for him is shown. And I have 'faith' that he is telling me the truth, to follow his 'way'.

I believe God will say to you "I never knew you"

Read Galations..

Read Romans

If a man choses to live by the law he will be judged by the law...and as we are told if you break ONE law you have broken them all and are guilty before God for them all.........the only man that could keep that law perfectly was Jesus Christ, God incarnate.

I will stand at that gate and Jesus will say "Thats fine she may come in..I have paid the price for her"

That is why we need a savior

That is why Christ came to pay a debt we could not pay

Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
Rom 3:13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
Rom 3:14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
Rom 3:15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
Rom 3:16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
Rom 3:17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
Rom 3:18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."
Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
Rom 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law {comes} the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now apart from the Law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
Rom 3:22 even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. {This was} to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
Rom 3:26 for the demonstration, {I say,} of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Hasn't it occured to you that Jesus was SHOWING us how to live our lives and that THAT is THE WAY? And that putting your faith in Him to tell you the truth about 'the way' that is how you show your belief in him????

We've already covered these verses, and their contradicting verses. And yes, some of them do contradict, whether we want to admit that or not.

I am quite comfortable with my belief, trust and faith in GOD. Where there is any perceived contradiction, I go back and look at what GOD said. God gets the final word.

As I also said earlier, it seems that we will just have to agree to disagree. I am also very pleased to see no name calling. *smile*

[RnMomof7]

That is why Jesus came. To SHOW us, through his life, how to live our lives. He showed us THE WAY.

Jesus did not say he came to teach you the way he said he IS THE WAY. , not a way, not a map..Look at your own definations

Jhn 10:9   I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Act 4:12   Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Hbr 7:25   Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

  1Jo 5:13   These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Jesus did not come here to teach Et a lesson in ethics..He came to carry your sins and your transgressions and be the wrath bearer for your sin . The wrath of God against man is great, your good works do not satisfy it....On Good Friday think on these things as you look at that cross..you nailed him to that tree ET. Jesus the perfect lamb hung on that cross not to teach you a lesson..but to take your punishment for you

[ET(end tyranny)]

I think there have been certain deceptions by the church. I'm just not sure how much these deceptions affect the salvation of 'christians'. I think its entirely possible that the followers of Jesus were a sect 'within' Judaism, and never intended for there to be a 'new religion' called Christianity, based on the teachings of a Jew, yet removing his Judaic beliefs, customs, religious faith and upbringing, and basically stripping him of all his Jewishness. How does one base a religion on a Jewish Rabbi and yet ignore how this Rabbi lived and what he represented??

According to Acts 21:17-25, the apostles were causing Jews to become eager for the Torah (Law) and to pursue it gladly.

Christianity, generally, requires that a Jew convert to Christianity before he could become a member of the church, or be saved. This conversion process would force the Jew to renounce his or her Judaism and terminate or change any Jewish practices. Or would your church or any church, allow a jew to continue to be a rabbi? Wear his prayer shawl? Practice Judaism? Teach the Torah? Teach the members that they were under the Law? Or observe all the Jewish festivals?

Would your church or any church allow this jew to be a member and continue the above practices, or would they tell him he had to change?

Even if this Jew was Jesus? As far as I know, Christians are not allowed to practice Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other religion while they are 'Christian'. If Christians were to attain their goal of converting every person on the face of the earth to believe in Jesus, according to their beliefs, including all the Jews, Judaism would be totally destroyed and cease to exist. This would accomplish something that Hitler, the inquisition and Islam have failed to do. And the ironic part is that it would all be done in Jesus' name!? And yet, this religion wouldn't even allow Jesus to be a member UNLESS HE RENOUNCED ALL HE WAS AND STOOD FOR--JUDAISM!

Just a few things to think about. FWIW

[Quester]

Hasn't it occured to you that Jesus was SHOWING us how to live our lives and that THAT is THE WAY?

Frankly, ... yes, such a thing has occurred to me. In fact I was taught this. However, at some point, I decided to do my own study of what God has to say in the Bible. I modified my beliefs based upon what God showed me.

The apostles ... those who walked with JESUS daily for three years as He taught and ministered testify that JESUS came for a variety of reasons, all of them in harmony with one another. Some of these are ...

... to SHOW to us (humanity) the character of the one true God

... to bring heavenly enlightenment into the world as to what God expects from us

... to walk in our shoes so that we might KNOW that He feels our pain

... and, finally, ... to be the WAY for us to reunite with God. He did this by allowing His earthly life to be taken from Him, ... only to ultimately take it back up again.

JESUS came to do ALL of these things ... and He accomplished this mission ... with such grace and truth as befits the only begotten Son of God. Prayerful study is the key to understanding this.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Prayerful study is the key to understanding this.

Been doing that for years now.

[ET(end tyranny)]

What gets me is WHY did the early church distort WHO was in charge after the crucifixtion? Why did they say it was Peter, when it wasn't?

[RnMomof7]

I am quite comfortable with my belief, trust and faith in GOD

I was going to respond to this last night , but I could not..

I just wanted to say that it sounds like you are trusting yourself and not God. You are trusting in your keeping the law and being "good enough" to please God

We can really trust that he is faithful to save those that are His..and that is the "Good news"

[ET(end tyranny)]

I think I made it quite clear that my faith, love and trust are IN GOD.

[RnMomof7]

Paul taught at the synagogue as a custom (we know that from scripture) and I believe were originally seen as a sub-sect I would think.But we quickly see home meetings with a sermon (sometimes hours long). I suspect that Peter saw circumcision as a "sign" of the covenant.  

I do believe Peter thought that the Jews were still the elect of God,not understanding all the teachings of Jesus about "other flocks" etc.I do not think Peter understood completely the change in the Covenant and what that meant. Paul did! (As did the author of hebrews)

Of Course the gentiles had to be encouraged to study the OT. That was the primary souce of knowing God. Look to see the number of times it is quoted by Jesus and the disciples..It is the fulfuilled prophecies that point to Jesus.

So now we must look at that in light of what we do know that Peter did not. We know from the words of the New testament that we are saved by grace not works a new Covenant

That does not nullify the need to conform to the Commandments or the "great commandment". But the law was never given by God with the expectaion that man could ever keep it. It was a school master that showed man he was a sinner.

As His people we desire to be obedient to Him as a sign of our love. But I think it is His grace working in me that conforms me (progressive santification)to His image..

I will have holiness folks disagree , but I think no matter how much we desire to keep His commandment..we all fall short..as you might say "sins of ommission" as well as sins of commission. I read once that the only thing that God really takes great pleasure in is the work of His hands .So what please Him is to see his grace changing us.

You are right a Jew could not convert and keep believing that keeping the day of atonement was the means of forgiveness (that would be denying Christ). If he did not understand that he is saved by the grace of God he would in reality not be a chrsitian

[Quester]

What gets me is WHY did the early church distort WHO was in charge after the crucifixtion? Why did they say it was Peter, when it wasn't?

The early church (as depicted in the New Testament) showed that leadership was shared between a number of persons ... including Peter, James, John, Paul, Barnabas, Silas, etc.

James is, indeed, depicted as the head of the church in Jerusalem, so, I don't know how it came about that a portion of the church came to believe that Peter had any pre-emminence.

My personal opinion is that it came about as the result of an early power play by the leadership of the church in Rome. If you'll notice, that theme has played across the centuries, even to this day. The church of Rome continues to grasp for power and dominion, insisting that all christians yield to her claimed authority.

Fortunately, all christians do not follow Rome, or her example.

We follow JESUS instead.

[RnMomof7]

ET..read what you wrote in response to my question

ET when you die and go to heaven and God asks why you should be given admittance what will you say?

That I obeyed God rather than man. By[ me implied here] obeying his commandments, and [me implied here] doing the works asked of me, my love and respect for him is shown. And I have 'faith' that he is telling me the truth, to follow his 'way'.

It seems clear to me from that answer that you are not trusting in the grace of God to save you..You are trusting in your ability to keep the rules and play nice :>)

This salvation is all about you and not a bit about the Grace of God

[ET(end tyranny)]

But the law was never given by God with the expectaion that man could ever keep it.

Then why does GOD keep telling us to KEEP the commandments. To obey them. Are you suggesting that God says things that he doesn't mean?

Deuteronomy 12
32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

[ET(end tyranny)]

That I obeyed God rather than man. By[ me implied here] obeying his commandments, and [me implied here] doing the works asked of me, my love and respect for him is shown. And I have 'faith' that he is telling me the truth, to follow his 'way'.

Now, your putting words in my mouth. I think God calls that 'false witness'. By obeying his commandments... you presume the 'me implied here', yet YOU willfully ignored the 'obey HIS COMMANDMENTS part'. It is ALL ABOUT GOD, and what God wants and asks, even commanded us to do.

You have shown your true colors and your fruits! And there seems to be some mold upon them.

Perhaps you should WORK more on your own salvation. It is clear to me, that YOU are NOT playing fair or nice, and thus our conversation has ended.

[Quester]

But the law was never given by God with the expectaion that man could ever keep it.

Then why does GOD keep telling us to KEEP the commandments. To obey them. Are you suggesting that God says things that he doesn't mean?

God's knowledge that we couldn't completely keep His Law in no way invalidates His requirement that we keep it ...

... any more than knowing that people will violate speed limits invalidates the posting of such speed limits.

God knew that the result of the giving of the Law was that it would be imperfectly (0 - 99%) obeyed. The transgression of the Law God calls sin. God has instituted penalties for the trangression of the Law (just as there are penalties for exceeding the speed limit).

Unfortunately, for us, the penalty for sin (i.e. the transgression of the Law) is death.

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ JESUS our Lord.

Fortunately, God, in His grace, sent His only Son to die in our place, so that the penalty (of death) for the transgression of the Law would be met.

When we place our belief and trust in JESUS and His sacrifice (to pay the penalty for our sin), we are freed from having to pay that penalty (of death) ourselves.

[man of Yosemite]

I do believe the war between darkness and light is reaching a fevered pitch. It was clearly evident in our last presidential election, when so many were angered (which anger is still being manifest daily on any internet message board) at Bush's win.
The Essenes, who hid the Dead Sea Scrolls, had a book that mentioned this warfare between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness.
The hatred of this country is more than just a bunch of people who don't like our politics; it's pure evil being manifested. Even many people in America have long forgotten 9/11, to bash and defame our country.
Ultimately, the whole creation is waiting for the manifestation of the Sons of God, which will take place at the appearing of Christ to claim his bride, the church. Until that day, troubles and persecutions shall increase.
I enjoyed reading your comments.