Posted on 12/16/2009 7:38:57 AM PST by PanzerKardinal
A "Progressive" Anglican church in Auckland New Zealand paid to have this billboard placed near their parish.
Here are some excerpts written by the Vicar, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy on the church's website touting what he did.
________________
To make the news at Christmas it seems a priest just needs to question the literalness of a virgin giving birth. Many in society mistakenly think that to challenge literalism is to challenge the norms of Christianity. What progressive interpretations try to do however is remove the supernatural obfuscation and delve into the deeper spiritual truth of this festival.
Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary. Although there were a series of miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ birth – like wandering stars and angelic choirs – the real miracle was his death and literal resurrection 33 years later. The importance of this literal resurrection is the belief that it was a cosmic transaction whereby the male God embraced humanity only after being satiated by Jesus’ innocent blood.
Progressive Christianity is distinctive in that not only does it articulate a clear view it is also interested in engaging with those who differ. Its vision is one of robust engagement. If every Christian thought the same not only would life be deadly boring but also the fullness of God would be diminished. This is the consequence of its incarnational theology: God is among us; even among those we disagree with or dislike.
(Excerpt) Read more at stmatthews.org.nz ...
Likewise, I could not prove the truth of the Torah to someone who doesn't believe it. My problem with chr*stianity (all forms of it) is that it claims to believe the Torah. This being the case, how does one read from the front of the Book and arrive at the conclusion that J*sus fulfilled all the criteria of the Torah and Na"KH without somewhere just jumping to the conclusion? And this is what chr*stianity does. It would make more sense if it didn't claim to believe the Torah, if it just popped out of nowhere. Because it does not fulfill the Torah's criteria. It fulfills its own interpretation of the Torah's criteria. And that's about all that can be said.
> It is thought that Joseph was just such a man, possibly even one who had already been married and had children.
That’s an interesting idea — I hadn’t heard that before.
It could explain Joseph’s apparent absence during Christ’s Ministry: he might have been dead already.
Now, now...That's just your private interpretation...Til does not mean til and firstborn does not mean firstborn...But yet son means son, name means name, and and means and...
It's like comedy central...Mary has to be sinless...Scriptural??? Of course not...But then you have to eliminate Jesus brothers and sisters, which IS scriptural...You have to eliminate Joseph consummating their marriage which is scriptural to keep Mary an unbiblical virgin...
This was indeed its claim. It claimed for fifteen hundred years--and the ancient versions of chr*stianity still claim--that all messianic prophecies were fulfilled at that one time, but fulfilled "spiritually" rather than literally. The notion that J*sus fulfilled only part of the prophecies (the literal ones) and will one day fulfill the rest of them in the future is a Protestant innovation (please note that I am not saying that "the second coming" is a Protestant innovation; rather the idea that the "conquering king" prophecies will literally be fulfilled in the future instead of already being fulfilled "spiritually" in the past is a Protestant innovation).
The Messiah did indeed come and suffered for the many as was foretold. He will come AGAIN and fulfill the conquering king prophecies.
First, until all the prophecies are fulfilled there is no messiah. If J*sus hasn't fulfilled all the prophecies yet, then he isn't the messiah yet. Second, how do you know he fulfilled the "first" part of the prophecies? All you can do is reason in circles: "he's the messiah because he said so and he's the messiah so he knows what he's talking about."
J*sus "fulfills" chr*stianity's unique (and erroneous) interpretation of the prophecies, not the prophecies themselves. And you continue to miss a very important point: one doesn't begin with the "new testament" or the Prophecies but with the Torah. Does the Torah authorize any such thing as chr*stianity? And "yes it does because the new testament says so" isn't an answer.
> Oh, come on. Everyone knows: ‘A double-entendre has only one meaning.’
French isn’t your strong suit, huh?
> That billboard has no Christian message whatsoever;
Sure it does, as explained abundantly up-thread.
> just because you don’t want to be seen as judgmental doesn’t change the fact that is is obviously (yet pointlessly) sexual.
I’m quite judgmental, and I don’t mind being accused of it either. In this case, it’s such an obvious double-entendre that I refuse to fall for the bait.
And I’m surprised intelligent people like you do.
I don’t like their billboard, but I must say their pastor appears to have been a Genius, and he *really* got his money’s worth on his billboard.
I might just call by, hear his sermon, and report back.
those who he reprimanded that way were the “orthodox” who sanctimoniously looked down on others.
__________________________________________
I always like to honor Jesus by making that “He”....
and as for the the “orthodox” who sanctimoniously looked down on others.”...
Mormons come to mind...
I might just call by, hear his sermon, and report back.
___________________________________________
Dont bother...
We already know he is unGodly and does not believe in Jesus...
But knock yourself out if you want to...
Go to the local mormon ward house while you’re at it...
They’ll be having a birthday party for Joey Smith...
Merry Smithmas...
mrreaganaut: That billboard has no Christian message whatsoever
____________________________________________
You are correct...
the billboard is
offensive to Jesus and Chrsitians...
Blasphemeous against the God of Roghteousness...
A lie about the conception of Jesus..
Pornography that should have been torn down by the city officials...
are there no decency laws in Auckland, NZ ???
> Then, since your chr*stianity isn’t based on the teachings of the Bible but rather because you assume it a priori, how do you know it is true?
Two can play that game. Since you make the same assumption of the validity of the Pentateuch, how do you know *it* is true?
BTW Christians do believe in the Bible, in its entirety, and that the parts of the Bible most important for us today are found in the New Testament. This does not invalidate the Old Testament — the one flows naturally on from the other.
Belief in the New Testament without the old is to lose much of the context. Such as “Where did the Pharisees come from?” and “Why would Jesus be upset with them?” And “Why was it important for the Jews to recognize Jesus as their Messiah?”, and “Why was the rejection of Jesus by the Jews as their Messiah both a tragic fatal mistake AND a fulfillment of prophecy?”
These answers are all found in the Old Testament. You can certainly get by without knowing any of these answers, but it makes for a much rougher ride.
Belief in the Old Testament without belief in the New Testament is like watching a great movie only half-way thru. You can get some value from it, I guess, but all the important bits — like the climax — will be found at the end.
And you won’t know that there’s an important twist to the plot that might have changed your opinions on the movie, if only you had watched the second half.
You are implying that you can find Mary's permanent virginhood in the scriptures which is FALSEHOOD...It's an untruth...
First: the word "till" (or "until") does not mean what you claim it to mean here. It describes what happened up to the time of Christ's birth, not what happened after that. We know this because it is used elsewhere in Scripture in this way. For example, in 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death." Now, unless you believe that Michal had children after her death, you have to admit to "till/until" can mean something other than what you claim.
According to your own Catholic author, Jerome, you are changing the words of scripture to lead the blind into the ditch...
2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michol the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
No 'til' in that verse...
Second: The Church teaches and has always held that Our Lady remained a virgin after the birth of our Lord. This teaching was handed down to us orally and in writing by those who knew the Apostles personally, for example in the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 120. Our Lady's perpetual virginity was also taught by the great Fathers and Saints, including Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and many others. Even the arch-heretics Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli held Mary to be perpetually virgin, and those among the early Protestants who did not explicitly teach this nevertheless remained open to it. Calvin, for example, wrote
All that proves is that each one followed the previous one off the cliff like a heard of buffalo...The first guy said it and everyone followed...
The problem with your oral tradition is that the written words of God contradict your oral tradition...So what do you do??? You throw out the God breathed scripture and go with what you claim someone (not God) said...
It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us.
Well yes, I guess it is said...Said by the hand picked Apostles of Jesus...The historian??? What historian???
Your historian may not have told you what happened next but God lets us know in the scriptures that Mary had a herd of kids...And we don't have to guess how that happened...
To sum up: the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is fundamental to orthodox Christian belief. Those who choose to reject it stray from that belief.
Doesn't matter what Orthodox Christianity believes...What God says is what's important...And if they don't agree, out goes Orthodox Christianity...
> and if you put baptism and a Church between you and Jesus, you’ll likely never will become a Christian...
You can never become Christian without Baptism. That is a fact. Jesus Himself sets that as a pre-requisite.
While I don’t have time to discuss your opinion on a point by point basis, I can say this:
1. The Church does not recognize the Torah as such. It recognizes the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) as an integral part of the complete scriptural Word of God, which is the whole revelation of Truth.
2. Christianity is not centered upon Scripture. It is centered upon the Person of Jesus Christ, who claimed to be the I AM and demonstrated it by healing the sick and lame, raising the dead, controlling the weather, transmuting matter, forgiving sin in His own right, establishing a Church and imbuing it with infallibility, and by bodily and physically returning from the dead in front of hundreds of eyewitnesses. It was only after His ascension into Heaven (again, in front of eyewitnesses) that His followers began to record His earthly words and deeds; later, these were collected into a series of writings which His Church deemed to be the completion of the written Word of God. It was during the course of compiling these Scriptures that the learned men of the Church carefully mapped out and noted how our the various circumstances of our Lord’s life, death, and resurrection were the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures.
In other words: Man met God face to face in the Person of Jesus. It was only through meeting Him that Man is able to understand what the Hebrew Scriptures really meant when prophesying of the Messiah.
The fulfillment of the Torah is a Man, and that Man is also God, in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, He who conquered the grave, Death and Hell. In the end, all human history, all life, and existence itself centers upon Him.
Christ is neither Liberal nor Conservative.
________________________________________________
God is not “pro-choice” anything...
Since by your own admission you admit to not reading the Bible lately...
I’ll tell you what is in it...
Jesus is conservative ...
Read His words for yourself...
Abortion...Thou shalt not kill...Exodus 20:13
Homosexuality, same sex marriage: “’If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:13
1st Amendment: Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature Mark 16:15
Death penalty: “But if any of you uses an iron weapon to kill another person, you are a murderer. Murderers must be put to death. Numbers 35:16
and so on...
Jesus is NOT a liberal...
So speaks Pope Iscool, the only person divinely inspired to interpret Scripture.
> We already know he is unGodly and does not believe in Jesus...
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
“For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (St Matthew 7:1-2)
> Go to the local mormon ward house while you’re at it...
>
> They’ll be having a birthday party for Joey Smith...
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
“Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (St Matthew 7:3-5)
You can never become Christian without Baptism. That is a fact. Jesus Himself sets that as a pre-requisite.
_______________________________________________
Kid you really need go find and crack open that dusty Bible...
The thief on the cross was not baptised...
Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:43
For myself, I was born again at aged 8, sprinkled as an adult at 14, and had a full sumersion baptism in water when I was 32...
But I was a Christian...in full commune with God...
Now that baptism and infilling of the Holy Spirit shortly after I was saved and all my early speaking in tongues may have made the difference there...
What do you think ???
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
___________________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
No scripture reference...
As I’m a Bible reader, I’ll supply that for you kid...
Here ya go...
Judge not, that ye be not judged. Luke 6:37
Meanwhile...
Were you talking to yourself ???
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
__________________________________________
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
again with the judging...
the scripture reference for that one is Matthew 7:3
And that scripture doesnt apply to what I said...
since mormons are not my brothers...
But they do have birthday parties for Joey Smith ...
while ignoring Jesus the real Reason for the Season...
Ya dont get out much do ya kid ???
“I always like to honor Jesus by making that “He”....”
So do I. I slipped up on that one and didn’t catch it until after I’d posted it.
We don't know that...It doesn't say...But other verses in the scripture pretty much let us know...
At least twice in the New Testament, faith/belief preceded baptism (Gal. 3:26-27; Acts 18:8);
...at least twice, the message was received first, and baptism ensued (Acts 2:41; 8:37)
...and 3-4 times people received the Holy Spirit, and THEN were baptized (Acts 10:47; 11:16-17; 9:5-6, 17-18;)
I'm trying to make sense of your criticism here...You seem to agree that baptsim is always after repentance/belief...And that's exactly what I have been saying...In addition, it's the belief that gets you saved, not the baptism...
But then when you get beyond the milk of the word, you can learn that the true baptism is immersion in Jesus, not water...
.. Jesus told Saul to be baptized and THEN call on His Name (Acts 22:16)
You are mistaken and that embarrasses me...
Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me,
Paul knew who the Lord was and he submitted himself to the Lord's will before he regained his sight and was baptized...In other words, Paul became a believer, first...
...and 3-4 times whole households were baptized simultaneously even when perhaps ONLY the parents expressed faith -- as these baptisms likely included children and perhaps infants (1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 16:14-15, 33)...making this family dynamic less individualistically 'decisions for Christ' than you'd like to present it;
Perhaps and likely don't cut it...Perhaps Jesus was a rock star afterall...
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
This person's entire family got preached to, obviously believed as they were told (and of course that would exclude anyone who was too young to understand ) and then they were saved...
You can't add perhaps and likely to the scriptures and come away with the truth...Just as you can't add the perpetual virginity of Mary and come away with the truth...
REPENT and be baptized...
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.