Posted on 10/25/2009 5:47:50 AM PDT by NYer
Did the Religion Moderator get a promotion?
NOTHING will ever top the “Roman Catholic website” that we were directed to last week.
It turns out that this “Roman Catholic website” is actually the homepage of a middle-aged woman from Brooklyn who is a Jew and believes she is a psychic. She also communicates on a regular basis with an entity named “Z”.
Yes, dear. Fair game also means your quitting your smarmy remarks about my pastor. Buh bye.
I’m sure some ARE true, but there are other reasons people leave.
It seems to me that if you posit a "god" wholly within time, then time is itself greater than that "god" -- IOW is the real "god", unless of course there's something even greater than time.
I believe the physicists who busy themselves with such things maintain that time began with the universe (some at least say it's not constant) and that it is, in fact, the fourth dimension -- like height, width, depth. Sub-atomic physics, so I hear, requires many more dimensions to account for/explain the quark.
Physics makes me dizzier than theology . . . ;-)
Only one cup of coffee, and you’ve already given me a day’s worth of work responding! That isn’t fair... ;>)
To start with, let us admit one truth: These arguments have been going on for hundreds of years, and neither of us is smart enough to invent a new argument that no one has ever heard of, but that will devastate their opponent’s case.
The Orthodox formally started ignoring - if that is the right word - the Bishop of Rome in 1054, but the divisions had been growing for hundreds of years. At least when I read it, it seems the Orthodox were upset at what they viewed as developing doctrine (a theory you mention in a previous post) and refused to ‘develop’ any further.
By roughly 1350, John Wycliffe was publishing the case for the Reformation, as found in scripture. I haven’t read his works, only summaries, but it seems clear that many Englishmen were rejecting Rome by 1400...so many brilliant men on both sides have argued for at least 600 years, and many did so at a time when the argument could cost them their lives. Wycliffe died naturally, but on orders of the Pope, his body was dug up, burned, and the ashes dumped in the river.
So no. Neither one of us, nor anyone else posting on these boards, will deliver a ‘knock-out’ punch. All any of us can do is post what we believe, why we believe it, and let anyone reading decide for themselves.
‘Jewish Traditions’: No, you cannot quote what isn’t written. However, there are a number of passages where he attacks the traditions as being of men, and quotes scripture to refute them. (Matt 15, Colossians 2 for Paul)
Off hand, I cannot come up with an instance of Jesus citing a tradition as a positive. And there is no case of Him citing tradition as being binding.
Remembrance: “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” — Luke 22, ESV (which is an updated RSV)
“(anamnesis -inadequately translated memorial or remembrance” - maybe, but the only lexicon I have access to has it “a remembering, recollection”. For the citation in Corinthians, Robertson has it:
“In remembrance of me (eiv thn emhn anamnhsin).
The objective use of the possessive pronoun emhn. Not my remembrance of you, but your remembrance of me. Anamnhsiv, from anamimnhskw, to remind or to recall, is an old word, but only here in N.T. save Luke 22:19 which see.”
There is a secular discussion of the word here:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Anamnesis
Perhaps the key line in that discussion is “In this way, anamnesis is introduced as the explanation for the success of the slave boy in acquiring the correct answer. The implication is, of course, that if the slave is able to acquire knowledge in this way, then others who inquire into the nature of concepts such as justice and knowledge may also succeed in remembering the answer.”
This would fit with the Lord’s Supper being a proclamation: in it, we understand the truth about the sacrifice of Jesus, and thereby may help others see the truth about it as well.
Wikipedia has it “An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church says of the anamnesis: “This memorial prayer of remembrance recalls for the worshipping community past events in their tradition of faith that are formative for their identity and self-understanding” and makes particular mention of its place in “the various eucharistic prayers”.[6]”
But let’s face it - for a single word translation, remembrance is pretty darn close.
As for the participation in 1 Corinthians...
“Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” - 1 Cor 10 (ESV)
I’m GUESSING that when you read “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”, you take it in a literal sense - that we are ACTUALLY taking in the blood and flesh of Jesus. Obviously, I take it in a spiritual sense, just as I assume ‘one bread’ doesn’t mean a universal loaf of bread, stretching around the world, but that our individual loafs represent the same idea to us.
And Paul goes on: “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.” So unless the offerings to idols are “anything’, then the analogy falls apart - and Paul denies the offerings to idols are “anything’. They only have meaning because of how the people giving the offering intend it - they have meaning in a spiritual sense, of how it impacts the idol-believer, not in a “real presence”.
If one assumes the Eucharist is “real presence”, then Paul’s analogy isn’t very good. If you assume it is a spiritual bonding, because of how we view it and our intent, then Paul makes perfect sense.
I cannot PROVE you wrong, but I argue that my interpretation makes more sense of the passage than the Catholic one.
Gotta go...there are horses needing to be exercised, and my youngest daughter has a dental appointment. May God bless you, and I’ll write more later. Thanks for your post.
I never said that ALL people claiming to be former Catholics were lying. Are you now trying to say that you accused me of bearing false witness due to a deficiency in your own reading comprehension?
I’d like to see your response to what I posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2370449/posts?page=360#360
Bzzzzt. Fail.
Next.
That's precisely what it means. As you admitted, you are going to keep hitting on me until I stop criticizing your cult...just like Uncle L.Ron used to teach.
Praying to dead saints for intercession, or to/for any dead person is an abomination to the Lord:
"When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you." (Deuteronomy 18:9)
There's a significant difference between hearing and reading....
Further, I submit there is a significant difference between hearing and reading...and studying! We are instructed to "compare scripture with scripture." That is study.
Sounds more to me as if you take it in a figurative sense, i.e., as a mere rhetorical flourish that doesn't really mean anything.
The Church has never disagreed with you on this.
It is truly a shame that non-Catholics deny themselves the abundance that our Lord promised and bind themselves to the false tradition of man that Heaven is a place of death.
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.