Posted on 10/25/2009 9:52:48 AM PDT by narses
You don't have to convince me. I am not Catholic.
Peter, being a minister to the circumcision (Galatians 2), fades in emphasis, while the emphasis on the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, expands.
Well, if Matthew's Great Commission has any credibility (which it doesn't), the eleven disciples were told to go to all the "nations/tribes" which could be understood any way you wish, either as all the people of the world or just the tribes of Israel, the word ehtne is not specific.
So, there would have been no reason for anyone to only deal with the circumcision, In addition to that, Acts 13:26 clearly tells you why Paul went to the Gentiles: the Jewish rejection! But if he and Barnabas were already apostles to the Gentiles, why did it matter what the circumcision believed; it was not their concern! or it shouldn't have been.
Bottom line is, Jesus never said anything about going to the gentiles; on the contrary, he forbade it. He also specifically picked 12 disciples for each tribe of Israel. He never said anything about having more. The whole thing is a story that was ad-libed as time went on.
As for Peter and Paul receiving "messages" in different chronological order, that is just pure nonsense: the HS was supposed to teach them all things they needed to know. They sure didn't act like they did.
None of them knew that there would be a “Church Age,” much less one that would last for 2,000 years,
Oh, yeah, the HS kept that from them. That was a special surprise reserved for other times...Rather, it seems to me the HS let Paul teach that Christ was coming back soon...
I am n to sure what your point is, but thanks anyway.
We are writing, of course, as non-Catholics. I am also non-Protestant. Non-Catholic and any sense related to the Vatican; non-Protestant in any sense related to Geneva.
Oh, well, I protest a whole lot of clerical, sacramental, and formal religion. According to people like Ian Paisely, that would make me a “PROTESTant.” But in the sense of Geneva Protestantism . . . I am not one.
I don’t know where the passage in Matthew ch. 28 ever first got the description, “The Great Commission.” When comparing the four Gospel accounts, the commissions at the end of each are different, and for a purpose.
Believing Israelites, those who accepted Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of Messianic Prophesy, headed by the Twelve Apostle of the Lamb, under that commission of Matthew 28, were to go to the nations with that message of the King. It was the Gospel of the Kingdom, which has nothing to do with either Vatican or Genevan theology.
The Gentile nations would be blessed in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as they would believe in the Seed of those three, Jesus Christ. This was nothing new in Matthew. The Old Testament was clear that as Israel believed, obeyed, and received the national promises, the Gentiles who followed suit would be blessed as well.
The commission was to go to dispersed Israel among the nations and then to the Gentiles of those nations. It had nothing to do with the Church (Body of Christ) of the current dispensation. It is not the Catholic Church, it is not ANY Protestant church or denomination, nor any Baptist or Brethren church or denomination. The Eleven who heard the commission new nothing of these things.
There is no requirement to day to preach anything special to the Circumcision, for today is not their day. Any Jew must receive Jesus Christ as the Sin-Bearer/Saviour, on the same basis as any Gentile. In the matter of Gospel evangelism today, there is no distinction.
There was a Gospel of the Circumcision and a Gospel of the Uncircumcision. Three men continued in the former, and Paul and others went on to the other (Galatians 2). It was a time of transition, and revelation by the Holy Spirit was progressive; God did not make everything known to all of the Apostles at the same time.
God did hide some things from the original Twelve. The Gospels and the epistles will attest to it. Just run the words “hide” and “hid” and “hidden” in the New Testament.
Example: When Christ first told the original Twelve that He was going to Jerusalem, would be killed, and rise again the third day, the text clearly states that they understood NONE of these things, and these things were “HID” from them.
The doctrine of the Body of Christ was a “hidden” from ages and generations before being revealed first to the Apostle Paul (Ephesians ch. 3).
There is no evidence that they understood that there would be a “Church Age.”
My point? Bible-literalism.
>>When there is a plethora of religious threads on FR that are closed to argument FR seems to become an agent of that religious sect.<<
That is my take as well. There is a guy named Vision that posts Joel Olsteen articles every day as “devotional” and he has to include in his first post the “devotional” rules.
They go against the spirit of what this site is. But I now just ignore the threads.
I wonder if I could post muslim tripe under a “devotional” thread. ;)
FWIW - and I know you will disagree, and that is OK - I tried hard in the first phrase to get it IAW Catholic teaching. However, when someone believes this ‘multiple participation’ results in multiple forgiving of sins, and that it is a requirement for forgiveness of sin as one goes through life, I think the Catholic Church in fact, if not in word, considers them multiple sacrifices. At a bare minimum, the Catholic Church teaches that God views the sacrifice of Jesus as an ongoing sacrifice, always before Him (since He is supposed to be outside of time, and seeing all times at once).
However, there is no place in scripture where it is described thus. Even when speaking from the perspective of God in Heaven, it is always ‘the Lamb that WAS slain’. Or it says ‘AFTER his sacrifice, he sat down at the right hand of God and waits...’ - indicating that either God’s nature involves a sequential perspective, or that God has completely shut up the sacrifice of Christ and refuses to look at it.
In practice, Catholics treat it as a repeated sacrifice. There are Vatican approved books talking about a repeated sacrifice, offered again and again - which I think more accurately reflects what the Catholic Church believes. I find the whole ‘re-presentation’ argument disingenuous.
That is why I sometimes speak of it two different ways. One is what the Catholic Church - which has had Hebrews stuffed in its face many times - SAYS. The other is what I believe the Catholic Church PRACTICES.
And even when one uses the first phrasing, I think it doesn’t appreciate what Jesus did at the cross. When it says he has made us perfect forever, that means he has forgiven our sins - if we have truly believed, and are born again as a new creation. If the ‘re-presentation’ is for remembrance and thanksgiving, as Eucharist suggests, then it is fine. If it is for atonement, then it misses what Jesus has done.
Because there are multiple sins. That does not multiply Calvary. The Mass applies the one historical sacrifice to the faithful. When the Eucharist is consecrated, the language is both in the past tense and in the present tense, and it is straight from the scripture:
Priest: ...On the night he was betrayed, he took the bread and gave youthanks and praise. He broke the bread gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take this all of you and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.” ...When supper was ended, he took the cup; again he gave you thanksand praise; gave the cup to his disciples and said, “Take this, all of you, anddrink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlastingcovenant. Do this in memory of me.Priest: Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.
Everyone: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Priest: Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, allglory and honor is yours, almighty Father, forever and ever.
Everyone: Amen.
Priest: Let us pray for the coming of the kingdom as Jesus taught us.
Everyone: Our Father...
Priest: Deliver us Lord from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior Jesus Christ.
Everyone: For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.
Priest: The peace of the Lord be with you always.Everyone: And also with you.
Priest: Let us offer each other a sign of peace.
Priest: This is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.Happy are those who are called to his supper.
Everyone: Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word andI shall be healed.
Further, the Mass is a celebration of sacrifice and through it the victory of Christ. It does not itself absolve any sin, at least not any serious sin, for that a separate sacrament exists, Confession.
“Bottom line is, Jesus never said anything about going to the gentiles; on the contrary, he forbade it. He also specifically picked 12 disciples for each tribe of Israel. He never said anything about having more. The whole thing is a story that was ad-libed as time went on.”
You won’t be surprised that we disagree again!
“17The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?” - Gen 18:18
The prejudice of the Jews didn’t negate God’s plan. The ministry of John the Baptist was a sign. Jews had started baptizing converts to their faith, but didn’t baptize themselves since they had already arrived, so to speak. For John to insist they needed baptism and repentance and a new start was radical.
Jesus concentrated on ministry to the Jews, because it was through the Jews that all nations would be blessed. He had to get them ready for the indwelling Holy Spirit, who would take them where they needed to go - reluctantly, at times, but I can be pretty reluctant in following God myself, so I can’t point fingers!
Nor was it just Jesus that concentrated on the Jews. Paul ALSO went first to the Jews: “Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
Yes, Jesus’ earthly ministry was to Jews only, with the exception of one Gentile woman and one Gentile man who confessed their position under Israel.
And the “church” discussed in Matthew 16 describes the called out assembly of a believing Israeli nation, and that will take place in the future.
The “church” of Matthew 16 doesn’t describe anything we see on earth today that calls itself a church.
That was during His earthly ministry to the nation who should have received Him first.
Paul went to Jews first because Israel should have received Christ first. Then Israel would have been the evangelistic people to the remainder of the world.
The temple was supposed to be a house of prayer for ALL nations. It was unbelieving Israel that prevented this.
I don’t know if you quoted Geneis 18:17, 18 as a proof text that God doesn’t hide anything from anybody. That reference refers only to Abraham about the matter of Sodom. It doesn’t refer to every one of His servents in every situation in all times.
The disciples asked Christ (just prior to His Ascension) whether He would AT THAT TIME restore the kingdom TO ISRAEL. Our Lord told them that God was keeping that in His own power. Christ didn’t tell them whether it was now or later. The timing remained hid — a mystery.
I may be confused by terminology. You write:
“Further, the Mass is a celebration of sacrifice and through it the victory of Christ. It does not itself absolve any sin, at least not any serious sin, for that a separate sacrament exists, Confession.”
The Council of Trent said:
“CHAPTER II. That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.”
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html
I was thinking more along the lines of “all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him”. That promise is to ALL nations, not just Israel.
Also, when one belief spawns from a previous one it is common for each of them to condemn the other in the harshest terms possible, e.g. heretic, anathema, apostate, cult, Satanic.
Those terms often become part of the official doctrines and Freepers' deeply held religious beliefs - and whereas some conservatives take no offense at the use of the terms against their beliefs, others do.
For all these reasons, the Religion Forum approximates the venues available for free religious speech by providing these thread types in the RF:
2. Only members of a specified caucus are to post on RF threads tagged "caucus" - e.g. "Catholic Caucus." These are treated as if they were occurring behind the closed doors of a church. It would be inappropriate to tear down the doors of another's church in order to protest his beliefs. But because a cyber-church is transparent or visible, the beliefs of any non member must not be mentioned in either the article or in the replies. When that happens, the thread must be "opened" so that the non-members can speak for themselves.
3. Antagonism is not allowed on threads labeled "ecumenical." These threads are treated as if they were an open panel among polite academicians. Loud, abusive, antagonistic behavior is inappropriate for that venue and thus disruptors are instructed to leave the thread.
4. All other threads are "open" and are treated like a town square. Antagonistic beliefs can be aired. Posters may argue pro or con. Deities, religious authorities, authors and documents may be cruelly ridiculed. It can become rowdy and contentious. Thick skin is required. Thin skinned posters are the disruptors on open RF threads and they may also be instructed to leave the thread.
Since both of you are "old-timer" Freepers, you may find the open threads more to your liking.
>>These are treated as if they were occurring behind the closed doors of a church.<<
Yeah, I read the rules when I started seeing those early morning things from Vision. I have a problem with the phrase above becuase of the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Specifically, they are NOT behind closed doors.
What they potentially allow is someone to say anything they want in their “not closed door” area and nobody is allowed to call them on it. No problem, I just ignore the threads. I responded today to a new post on an old thread, but kept it out of the context of the thread itself to obey the rules.
>>Since both of you are “old-timer” Freepers, you may find the open threads more to your liking.<<
That’s been my MO on these. My only concern is that it implies that one really could open an Islamic “devotional” thread and pretty much say whatever they want and the rest of us would be forced to “ignore” it. Without getting into specifics, that sort of thing - but at a much “reduced” level - has sometimes happened in the religious “closed door” threads.
You can’t ignore them because they come up in “recent posts”. Yet you are required to.
Anyway, just sayin’.
I’d love to see a feature where “devotional, etc.” threads did not show up in “recent posts”. But I ramble. I’m done here and will continue to ignore these threads until I think someone actually does cross a line. Then I’ll just post something to the religious moderator in freepmail.
The sacrifice of the Mass is what Trent said, but I did not say anything different. I simply reminded you that individual sins are lifted at confession (if it results in absolution). The Eucharist then, if validly received following a confession if necessary, provides the spiritual nourishment and opens doors to supernatural grace. It is because of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which the Mass makes present to us, that we are able to receive forgiveness and are better equipped to resist sin.
But since the last major software change, Religion Forum posts are served up automatically because the default browse is "everything."
If you do not wish to see RF posts, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
Thank ewe!
Thank you for your observation, but in what way does it have any relevance to the current dispute? There is no disagreement contrasting translations, nor is there a reference to Magisterial teachings.
I appreciate your "weighing in" but these pointy headed pharisees seem to be content with nothing more than an opportunity to accuse, so your observation neither helps them, nor corrects me.
It is not relevant to your argument with the Orthodox, really. I simply like to explain icons, and since one inscription appeared, I commented on it.
This conversation had more than two sides. When the Orthodox are involved that is often the case.
Because I have learned, in over a decade of FReeping, the "spelling cop" is wiser in his own eyes than seven men that can give a discreet answer...
For example: your definition of "heresy" above is as ludicrous and self-negating as the statement "there are no absolutes," but demonstrating that fact for you would be "teaching a pig to sing" so I'll keep my pearls to myself despite your numerous fatuities after post #200.
That explaination was much appreciated. Thank you.
That's about as lame as it gets...
For example: your definition of "heresy" above is as ludicrous and self-negating as the statement "there are no absolutes,"
My definition of heresy is correct: teaching that which is contrary to the teaching of the Church. The only thing that is ridiculous is your negation of it.
but demonstrating that fact for you would be "teaching a pig to sing" so I'll keep my pearls to myself despite your numerous fatuities after post #200
So instead of substance you have to resort to insults (never even attempting to answer or document any of your answers), I suppose in hopes that you will bait me to respond in kind. I won't stoop down to your level. In fact, I couldn't even if I wanted to.
Your replies are void of any substance, or meaning. You fail to answer straightforward questions such as why do you persistently write Greek with a lower-case letter g, or how many languages do you know expertly. You don't reply to historical facts with historical facts but with out-of-context fables. You claim that you studied Greek, yet you are unfamiliar with variant transliterationsal forms of the same. You use well known words in a supposedly colloquial manner when such colloquial usage is not documented in dictionaries. You insinuate that I said apostasy is dependent on geography, yet you will not provide where I supposedly make such a claim. In short, you don't answer anything. You just spill out your vomit and insults for whatever reason once a week. That's pathetic.
How much effort am I suppose to expend on you? If you will not acknowledge patristic silence is not the same thing as contradicting those fathers, you are accepting the same false logic of the sola scriptura crowd. That's not insult: that's fact.
You get the insults when you refuse to acknowledge such simple, straightforward, self-evident facts.
Furthermore, it is not my responsibility to powder your bottom everytime you wet yourself over my references to what other posters have claimed (like the geography comment).
You use well known words in a supposedly colloquial manner when such colloquial usage is not documented in dictionaries.
Gee, you're right. It would be pretty stupid to try to find colloqialisms in a dictionary. Maybe that means the inquirer needs to look up "colloquialism" first.
Be that as it may, would telling you to add something like "personality" to "solipsistic" as a search term satisfy your appetite for citation, or would you prefer I make your petulance even more explicit with copy/paste?
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.