Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
***”Tell me about the direct word of God. How did it get to the pages of your Bible? Tell me about the exact process.”***
There is a school of thought (NOT derived from Protestant sources) that suggest the answer to this question can be found in Scripture itself.
~”Bereshit Bara Elohim Et.....”~ begins the Book of Genesis. Of particular interest is the little word “Et” spelled in Hebrew “Aleph-Tav.” The Rabbis of the Zohar see the letters of the Aleph-Bet in much the same way as we look at the elements of the Periodic Table. They regard them as the foundational building block of the universe itself.
In reading the first line of Genesis, it is interesting to note that the word “Et” in addition to being a marker denoting specificity (*the* heavens and *the* earth) is also an acronym for the Aleph-Bet itself. Read in this way, the opening would be “In a beginning God created the Aleph-Bet...”
The concept fills out even further in the New Testament with the Gospel of John referring to Christ as “Logos” - pre-exsting and causitive of the creation of which we are part.
This theme is repeated in the Book of Revelation with the statement “I Am the Alpha and the Omega.” (The Greek equivalents of Aleph and Tav.)
The Word of God did not “get to the pages of your Bible”(sic) - it is the Logos manifested as Scripture. This is how we can be sure of the authenticity of Y’Shua, the Christ, as He is the perfect fulfillment of a document that is both inspired and revelatory. Like the Logos Himself, the manifestation of Scripture only occurs from our perspective, not the timelessness of the divine Mind.
In short, the Word of God did not need a “process” to “get to the pages of your Bible.” They are one in the same, and pre-existed our limited temporal perception of them.
For those interested in a bit of Baptist history, reflecting in staements of faith:
“The creation of the 1689 Confession is linked to Early English Baptist history and the differences between the “General” and “Particular” brands of Baptist belief. In the early 17th century, English Baptists were mainly a loose organisation of churches, rather than an established denomination. With the advent of Arminianism at around the same time, many Baptist churches adopted the stance that a Christian’s salvation was ultimately contingent upon his own choice. These Baptist churches were considered “General Baptists” due to their belief in a “general atonement” for all men without exception. On the other hand, many Baptists rejected the teaching of Arminianism and asserted that a Christian’s salvation was ultimately contingent upon God and his sovereign choice (Grace or Mercy). These Baptists were called “Particular” because they believed that the death of Christ and his atonement was limited only to those whom God had chosen beforehand. The terms Particular Baptist, Calvinistic Baptist and Reformed Baptist are essentially synonymous.
While these differences in theology were serious, both General and Particular Baptists suffered overt and covert persecution from the established Church of England. Virtually all Baptists had left the established church because they were convinced that the Bible did not support either an episcopal form of church government, nor the role of the Monarch in determining the affairs of the church. Other Puritans at the time, the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, also suffered persecution, but their numerical strength and influence allowed them to escape much of the persecution that Baptists suffered at the time. The assertion by Baptist churches that only believers could be Baptized put them at odds not only with the Church of England, but also the Presbyterians and Congregationalists – all of whom supported infant baptism.
As the 17th century continued, relations between the Puritans and the Monarchy deteriorated. Many Puritan leaders were members of Parliament and this tension eventually resulted in civil war, which lasted from 1642 until 1649. King Charles I lost the conflict and was executed, and England entered into a short period of Republicanism. These events are recorded in more detail elsewhere.
With this rise in civil unrest, Particular Baptists took the opportunity to write their own statement of faith. Seven congregations sent representatives to write the document. The purpose of the document was to formally differentiate the beliefs of the Particular Baptists from the General Baptists. This was completed in 1644, and, while not very detailed, was clearly Calvinistic in tone. This was known as “The First Baptist Confession”, and predates the far more well-known Westminster Confession of Faith which was written in 1646.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith
The 1689 Baptist Confession, which I often quote, is a revision of the 1644 one, and remains “particular”. But like Calvin’s commentaries, I still often refer to it, ‘general’ baptist that I apparently am.
ping to post #2,781.
I invite your comment or criticism, and value your opinion.
But looking at this more closely, what does this mean? The ultimate reward for a person is to be in the company of God. How in the world can one have levels of being in the company of God?
The works that are tested in fire are that of the individual, sure. But the works are then judged by Christ. Matthew 25 is quite explicit in the three Judgement parables.
Dante and much popular Catholic speculation has graduated levels of heaven. In Dante's book it was modeled off of the planets.
And the nine circles of hell, as well. There is really no compelling theological argument to either speculation. Especially if one believes that being in the company of God is the ultimate reward and being deprived of the company of God the ultimate torture.
There is the claim that God dictated the Torah to Moses, something that I am willing to consider. But as for the rest?
The concept fills out even further in the New Testament with the Gospel of John referring to Christ as “Logos” - pre-exsting and causitive of the creation of which we are part.
John 1 is pretty explicit in explaining that the Word is actually Jesus Christ Himself, not the written word.
In short, the Word of God did not need a “process” to “get to the pages of your Bible.” They are one in the same, and pre-existed our limited temporal perception of them.
With the knowledge that we have of the changes in the various NT books, with the knowledge that we have of the selection of Scripture by the Church, with the knowledge of the various faulty (sometimes deliberately faulty) translations, we have to focus back in the idea that Jesus is the Word; scripture is the word.
Well put.
It is interesting that the
Vatican’s power mongering took deep root at the Council several hundred years after Christ . . . which made decisions on the composition of The Canon.
And, it’s interesting that such a conflab somewhat parallels I Cor 12-14 about deciding on what msg ostensibly via Holy Spirit in the Church Era really qualifies.
Translators translated the writings into English. There are quite a few versions of these writings; however, the message is the same.
With respect, the wording is sufficiently different to have the readers understand differently. For example, Martin Luther added 'alone' to Romans 3:28. How do the two verses read?
28 For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
28 For we consider that a person is justified by faith alone apart from works of the law.
Do you see how these verses read? What differences might readers see between them? What about the exclusion of Maccabees from the Protestant Bible? What implications does that have? If the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) handed down from the Apostles, is regarded as the authority, then subtle translational differences mean nothing, or little, anyway. If the interpretation is done by Luther's any milkmaid, the ramifications are enormous.
How do you suppose the bible was compiled from among the hundreds of prior and contemporary works and by whom? When you answer that ask yourself if or why that process has stopped.
It was a meal. A meal shared by Christ and his disciples. They broke bread and they passed around a cup, in remembrance of Him
No, that's not clear. He told them to do it remembrance of him. Maybe they didn't need to have a remembrance when he was right there. So maybe it wasn't "in remembrance of him," the first time, but it would be when they did it in future in obedience to what could be construed as a command to do "as oft as ye shall ..."
When did it become an actual crucifixtion?
Would you agree that He said "which is given for you," and "which is shed for you"? In a way his whole life from Annunciation to death and harrowing of Hell was "given for us," but in another way the only shedding of His blood of which we have a scriptural record is in his self-offering on Good Friday.
The word "actual" is difficult, and I wouldn't want to limit Our Lord's sacrifice to His torture and death, but I wouldn't want to exclude the crucifixion from His sacrifice.
So I answer that he made it so when he said "Which is given," and "which is shed."
Who's idea was this?
His.
Where is the scripture?
Don't ask me to look up where he says the words of institution.
You say the priest is not another Christ.
I do? That's news to me. All the baptized are another Christ in my view.
Then the priest has the power, over God, to call Him down from heaven and offer Him up as a sacrifice.
That's not what I think. Who thinks that?
Do you see anything wrong with this?
I see a lot wrong with people telling me what I think and say when I don't think and say those things. I also see lots of things wrong with thinking anyone can command God. I ALSO see a lot wrong with thinking God does not keep His promises.
To get around that, then the priest himself becomes Christ and offers Himself up. You then all get to participate in the original crucifixtion. Where is the scripture to support this rite?
Asked and answered.
Nothing in any of these NT verses say that God told anyone what to write down. John was told in Revelation to write what he saw, but no NT book was written or dictated by God.
Interesting statement. What Bible do you use and why?
Do you see a little irony criticizing Petronski and Catholics in general for exercising the free will to choose a Church other than yours because you claim free will does not exist?
Now wait a minute here...You're jumping all over the place to claim you have some proof of something...Which you don't...
We were discussing the verse you posted and claimed it speaks of Christians...
Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Are you going to be in the grave with your dead body after you pass??? Sorry to tell ya but there won't be any Christians in any grave after they pass on...
Even you claim your saints are in heaven while their dead bodies are not but the verse says those that are in the graves will hear God's voice...
If you apply this verse to dead Catholics, it applies to dead Catholic saints as well...
The saints hear God, — and you and me, too,— but not with their bodies. How, we don’t know, but we know even from the scripture that they do:
Not in any scripture I've ever seen...And I'll guarantee that you can't post a scripture that says your saints in heaven hear you, or me...
You can't make stuff up to prove your point...
And the pumpkin with the six mice was the coach of Cinderella...Is there a connection there???
Why then do you guys deny that it is past tense when John tells us we hath eternal life by believing on Jesus Christ???
He does.
You're on the wrong radio station...
I have photocopies of all the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts along with several Torah Scrolls and a hand transcribed copy of the Great Isaiah Scroll in my basement in a hermetically sealed and environmentally controlled room, which I had constructed at great expense.
<;^)
“I haven’t been able to figure this out yet either.”
Blasphemy against the Spirit was the warning by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees when they were ascribing his miracles and exorcisms to the power of Satan. Much to our poverty we rarely see that evidence of the Holy Spirit’s working today so that it is almost impossible to blaspheme Him as was done at the time of Jesus.
Notice in Eph. 4:30 it is grieve not the Holy Spirit; 1 Thessalonians 5:19 it is quench not the Spirit (2 Sam. 21:17 ....that thou quench not the light of Israel.).
Plenty of prophecy in the OT that hasn't taken place yet...And plenty of it in the book of Psalms...
2)The Tradition and Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a product of man. Through Apostolic Succession and the every present Holy Spirit it is the word of God by the same authority and same process as compiled the Bible.
And who told you this??? Some Catholic men told you this...
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.