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 ...
ping to #369 - re: LDS financials and percentages of charity.
Just and FYI re your earlier post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2408743/posts?page=369#369
No matter how much you want it to be Satan I can only think ye are of little faith.
- - - - - - -
What makes you say that? Hmm? My faith is not based upon subjective feelings.
Just because you have “good feelings” or “feel” it is true, that does not make it so.
What about muslims, who have feelings and “know” their faith is true? Or buddhists, or Jim Jones cult members who “felt” that JJ was a “true” leader?
The fact is you really DO NOT KNOW if it is the Holy Spirit, or Satan.
I have had positive feelings, but I do not base my faith or church membership on them. Feelings come after faith, not as a cause to faith.
Mormons put things in the following order: feelings, faith, then facts.
Christians put it in THIS order - facts, faith, then feelings.
We do not test God by feelings, nor are we to pray to know if the Bible is true.
We both have had spritual experiences, yet they testify of opposite truths, one of us is being deceived. My beliefs are in accordance with the Bible, the LDS are not.
Not difficult to figure out which feelings are from God.
Gal 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law
- - - - - - - -
Honey, Galations 5 is talking about the work of the Spirit in the lives of Christians. It is how Christians show they have the Holy Spirit.
It has nothing to do with feelings of “truthfulness”.
Satan could very well (and I believe He does) give the “burning the the bosom” the LDS claim is the Holy Ghost.
Oh gee wiz believe what you want but Satan has none of those qualities in him.
you cannot mimic that which you don’t have those fruits are not with him!
Satan is the father of lies also the merchant of doubt and fear!
Most of you knowing or unknowingly are the peddlers of doubt and fear!
Just go back to Genesis he parsed his words
He deals in lies or half truths
I'm glad 12 were...
Not really; I keep trying to get you to display the ACTUAL wording and where found of the things you post: i.e ---
While Jewishness is passed down through the mother, everything else (priesthood, kingship, tribal identity, family, inheritance) is passed down through the father. This means the messiah must be the son of a male human being who is a descendant of David and Solomon.
No, no.
Point to the EXACT verse and it's wording to make your point about this new relion and this new god.
(I'm trusting the rabbis have written it down correctly.)
Where is Elmer Elsie needs to be milked! :)
Then 'MOST' of us must be channeling JS; for that was his stock-in-trade!
That's the answer I was looking for, ZC. Now it makes perfect sense, at least to me. Some things just can't be translated. In some cultures, the writing itself has a meaning.
But you did not explain how can Jewish writing have been preserved theologically and morphologically from Moses when both the alphabet and theology changed. I will explain in the following post.
The Hebrew alphabet of Moses' time and post-Babylonian period are two different lettering systems. The shapes, etc. are different. The theology of Judaism also changed. Most of the misfortunes that befell on the Jewish people up to the more or less 2nd century BC, were interpreted as God's righteous wrath and punishment for disobedient and unfaithful Israel.
In other words, Judaism did nto see a generic evil competing with God, just disobedience Israel and God's just punishing in order that Israel may return to observing the Shabbat and so on, which is exactly what the Jews did prior to the Maccabean revolt.
But then Israel is exposed to massive assimilation and hellenization and punishment precisely because they were observing the Shabbat and God's commandments! It is at this point, following the Maccabean revolt that apocalyptic Judaism is born, introducing dualism which older Judaism did not theologically recognize at all!
So, I don't see how we can speak of the same theology, whether expressed in letters or verbally when the Pharisaical, rabbinic messianic or apocalyptic Judaism is basically a 2nd century BC phenomenon which happens to have survived as the Talmudic Judaism up to this day. I just don't see seamless theological continuity you suggest all the way to Moses.
It is not engaging. This is insulting and vulgar.
Satan is the father of lies also the merchant of doubt and fear!
- - - - - -
EXACTLY Resty. Since the Book of Mormon has been proven to be a fraud, and Joseph Smith a false prophet, and a teacher of things contrary to the Bible, then any “feelings” of truthfulness would be a LIE.
Therefore, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE HOLY GHOST that witnessed to you, since God cannot lie. It must have been Satan.
Orthodox Jews hardly ever are seduced by chr*stianity.
I'm glad 12 were...
Doubtless, though that still doesn't tell us they were right to be so seduced.
Not really; I keep trying to get you to display the ACTUAL wording and where found of the things you post: i.e ---
While Jewishness is passed down through the mother, everything else (priesthood, kingship, tribal identity, family, inheritance) is passed down through the father. This means the messiah must be the son of a male human being who is a descendant of David and Solomon.
Wasn't Aaron's priesthood passed down through him rather than his wife (when a priest's daughter married a non-priest she was no longer counted as a member of a priestly family, though she could return should her non-priest husband die)? Weren't the kings of Israel descended from male kings rather than king's wives? And the laws of inheritance are recorded in Numbers chapters 26, 27, and 36 (remember the daughters of Tzelofchad?). A special exception had to be made for fathers who had no sons so that their daughters could inherit their property.
In none of these cases is tribal identity, familial identity, priesthood, royalty, or inheritance passed through the mother. The exception is Jewishness itself, which is passed through the mother because the identity of the mother is always certain.
Do you know of a verse in the Hebrew Bible (not the "new testament") that authorizes chr*stianity? Why do you think chr*stianity is so much more "obvious" than that family identity is passed through the paternal line in the Bible?
When a prophet or a "dreamer of dreams" comes along and tries to inaugurate a new religion or a new "gxd" and works supernatural miracles to prove his authority, it is merely a test.
No, no.
Yes, yes.
Point to the EXACT verse and it's wording to make your point about this new relion and this new god.
(I'm trusting the rabbis have written it down correctly.)
You have just quoted the relevant passage from Deuteronomy 13. What more are you looking for?
At any rate, it's Deuteronomy 13:2-6. Verse 4 explicitly says that any miracles worked by the prophet are a test from G-d. Verse 5 instructs the people to stay with the G-d Who brought them forth from Egypt and spoke to them at Sinai.
That's about as plain as you can get.
As you know, I do not subscribe to the idea of Judaism/the Torah "developing" over time, nor do I subscribe to Biblical criticism. Even in "apocalyptic Judaism" (at least the non-heretical version as recorded in the Bible) there is no figure like the chr*stian version of Satan.
Now for your points on the letters themselves. Personally, I am surprised more people haven't brought that up, but you seem to be the first one in the ten years of my being here who has.
I once bought an entire book just to read the afterword because it dealt with this very issue. The book is The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet by Rabbi Michael L. Munk and the afterword (which runs from pages 232 to 236) was written by Rabbi Nosson Sherman. It gives the various Tannaic and Amora'ic sources for the various opinions. I can't sit here and type out the entire thing, but I'll try in my clumsy way to digest the contents.
Mar Zutra in Sanhedrin 21b says that the Torah was originally given in the Hebrew language and in Ketav `Ivrit (archaic Hebrew script), but in the time of `Ezra' the Jews chose to keep the Torah in the Hebrew language but in Ketav 'Ashurit ("Assyrian script") while the Samaritans kept the old alphabet but translated it into Aramaic. Rabbi Sherman notes the troubling theological implications and then delves into the Sages for the answer. He records three different Tanna'im, each with a distinct opinion.
1)Rabbi Yose says that Ketav 'Ashurit was introduced as the new script of the Torah by `Ezra', citing the expression mishneh HaTorah hazo't in Deuteronomy 17:18 as an authorization/prophecy of this (mishneh from the root word for "two," can mean to repeat, to copy, to make two of something; but it can also mean "to change").
2)Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi' was the compiler of the Mishnah. He said that the Torah was originally given in Ketav 'Ashurit which means not "Assyrian script" but "blessed script." When Israel began to sink into sin toward the end of the First Temple period G-d caused them to forget this script because they were no longer worthy; instead they used the mundane Ketav `Ivrit.
3)Rabbi Shim`on Ben 'El`azar, invoking two older authorities, said that the Torah was given in Ketav 'Ashurit and no other script had ever been used. This view is endorsed by four different 'Amora'im (Rav, Shemu'el, Yochanan, and 'Ashi).
However, the original opinion of Mar Zutra' still has to be explained. Rabbi Sherman says that "the preponderance of major commentators" explain Mar Zutra' in this way: The original script of the Ten Commandments was Ketav 'Ashurit. After the Golden Calf incident these tablets were smashed and the second tablets were written in Ketav `Ivrit. Until the time of `Ezra' the knowledge of the exalted Ketav 'Ashurit was reserved for pious sages who kept knowledge of it alive while the mass of Jews used theKetav `Ivrit. At the time of the Second Temple, when Israel was purified from idolatry, the Ketav 'Ashurit was restored to the people as a whole and it has been used exclusively ever since.
This is a mere summation. Orthodox Jewish FReepers will be able to give you much more information.
Again, if you are committed to traditional liberal critical studies of the Torah and of Judaism you simply are not going to accept this.
I guess I just have missed the NEW religion and the NEW god somewhere along the way.
You are trying to tell me that the HEBREW writings and oral history is unchanged, down thru history and yet you give examples of four OPINIONS?
I am confused as to just WHAT is supposed to be RIGHT about your argument.
Do you think chr*stianity is the same religion as that practiced by the Israelites in the days of Moses? If not it is a new religion.
I am confused as to just WHAT is supposed to be RIGHT about your argument.
Your preachers and theologians don't have opinions? There are no verses in the "new testament" that chr*stian theologians have argued about and disagreed on?
What is "RIGHT" is simply this: the Torah is eternal. It was given to Israel at Mt. Sinai and will never cease to be valid. In Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 beginning at verse 15 tell in the greatest detail the horrible fate that awaits Israel for deviating from the Torah--not for "rejecting the messiah." Anyone who can read those verses and not see that chr*stianity is unauthorized is merely--as I initially stated--assuming the chr*stian conclusion from the outset rather than getting it from the Torah itself.
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.