PDA

View Full Version : The Pope



Fenris
May 13th 2008, 12:11 PM
What are people's feelings on the position?

I know you're nearly all Protestant, so I expect the feelings to be predominantly negative. But I'm curious as to why.

Steve M
May 13th 2008, 12:15 PM
What are people's feelings on the position?

I know you're nearly all Protestant, so I expect the feelings to be predominantly negative. But I'm curious as to why.
Let me put my (admittedly negative) position to you this way.

How would you feel if a Jew arose, a rabbi, and declared that he had authority from God above to declare that you were not a Jew any longer, but were anathema, and that he could decide which parts of the scripture were actually right and wrong, and could declare with divine authority how to interpret the difficult parts. Then he declared that unless you declared your allegiance to him, you couldn't really be a Jew any more. In fact, your entire relationship to God would have to be through him. This is not simply a position like the High Priest, which was filled by fallible men rendering a service as their fathers had done, but he declared that God made him infallible.

That's exactly how I feel about the position. No more, no less. :)

Fenris
May 13th 2008, 12:22 PM
Heh.

That's pretty bad. :hmm:

Steve M
May 13th 2008, 12:35 PM
Heh.

That's pretty bad. :hmm:
:lol:

That's what Protestants say, and that's how we consider it... pretty bad. Which is why I always laugh a little when people talk about reconciliation between the Roman Church and the many Protestant sects. Sure, we can be friends, but we can't really assemble together until one or the other declares ourselves to be wrong. And you can pretty much guess from my post how long it would take for me to decide I was wrong...

Of course, the flip side is that Catholics think that Protestants have no respect for authority. :)

Fenris
May 13th 2008, 12:39 PM
Well, being Jewish I can sympathize with the Protestant position. No one rabbi has the authority to act as the Pope does. Legal rulings have to rely on precedent (of course) and when there is serious doubt the majority rules.

Steve M
May 13th 2008, 01:13 PM
Well, being Jewish I can sympathize with the Protestant position. No one rabbi has the authority to act as the Pope does. Legal rulings have to rely on precedent (of course) and when there is serious doubt the majority rules.
Well, *cough*, the other side is that in Protestantism there is no such unity as you describe there. Pretty much every person is left with the final decision in every ruling....

Fenris
May 13th 2008, 01:20 PM
Well, *cough*, the other side is that in Protestantism there is no such unity as you describe there. Pretty much every person is left with the final decision in every ruling....Hmm. So who decides what is normative?

daughter
May 13th 2008, 01:23 PM
Well, of course the main reason I fear and dread the Pope is because he's the Evil Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB7WcGvxQ9w

daughter
May 13th 2008, 01:24 PM
Let me put my (admittedly negative) position to you this way.

How would you feel if a Jew arose, a rabbi, and declared that he had authority from God above to declare that you were not a Jew any longer, but were anathema, and that he could decide which parts of the scripture were actually right and wrong, and could declare with divine authority how to interpret the difficult parts. Then he declared that unless you declared your allegiance to him, you couldn't really be a Jew any more. In fact, your entire relationship to God would have to be through him. This is not simply a position like the High Priest, which was filled by fallible men rendering a service as their fathers had done, but he declared that God made him infallible.

That's exactly how I feel about the position. No more, no less. :)
Isn't that what Jews feel Jesus did? (Obviously Jesus had the right to do so, but seen in that light you can understand the Jewish position.)

In which case, isn't Popatine... sorry, the pope, putting himself on a par with Jesus?

Fenris
May 13th 2008, 01:28 PM
Well, of course the main reason I fear and dread the Pope is because he's the Evil Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB7WcGvxQ9wAha! I knew there was something about that guy...:lol:

Fenris
May 13th 2008, 01:29 PM
Isn't that what Jews feel Jesus did? (Obviously Jesus had the right to do so, but seen in that light you can understand the Jewish position.)
Heh. Interesting observation. :hmm:

You're a very intelligent woman.

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 01:39 PM
Isn't that what Jews feel Jesus did? (Obviously Jesus had the right to do so, but seen in that light you can understand the Jewish position.)

In which case, isn't Popatine... sorry, the pope, putting himself on a par with Jesus?

Well, Jesus didn't declare parts of scripture wrong. Nor did he make being Jewish conditional. Other than that, Jesus did a lot of things that Steve is suggesting.

Steve M
May 13th 2008, 01:41 PM
Well, Jesus didn't declare parts of scripture wrong. Nor did he make being Jewish conditional. Other than that, Jesus did a lot of things that Steve is suggesting.
A simple matter of authority, of course. I can accept that the Son of God has authority to tell me I cannot find salvation without him.... but I can't really find anyplace where a man was given that authority.

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 01:55 PM
A simple matter of authority, of course. I can accept that the Son of God has authority to tell me I cannot find salvation without him.... but I can't really find anyplace where a man was given that authority.

Correct. And when Jesus taught, people recognized his authority. They saw in his teaching, power and authority and that was different than the kind of teaching others did.

Of course, the idea that the Pope is seen as a mediator between God and man is scary indeed. For only one position ever held that and only one man fulfilled it. Jesus, as high priest.

Fenris
May 13th 2008, 02:01 PM
Correct. And when Jesus taught, people recognized his authority. They saw in his teaching, power and authority and that was different than the kind of teaching others did.Well, to play devil's advocate here, about one billion Catholics do recognize the Pope's authority.

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 02:05 PM
Well, to play devil's advocate here, about one billion Catholics do recognize the Pope's authority.

They sure do. And about 2 billion recognize the authority of Mohammed as well. My point wasn't that so many people recognized only his authority as a position, but that they were awed at the power and authority in his teaching. In other words, it was his position that had authority, it was when he taught, the people felt the authority of his words and the power of his words.

Even many modern folks that don't believe in Jesus as Christ, recognize the power in his teachings.

Fenris
May 13th 2008, 02:08 PM
They sure do. And about 2 billion recognize the authority of Mohammed as well. My point wasn't that so many people recognized only his authority as a position, but that they were awed at the power and authority in his teaching. In other words, it was his position that had authority, it was when he taught, the people felt the authority of his words and the power of his words.

Even many modern folks that don't believe in Jesus as Christ, recognize the power in his teachings.Hmm.

Many thoughts come to mind on your post, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with my OP. So I shall leave it be.

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 02:10 PM
Hmm.

Many thoughts come to mind on your post, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with my OP. So I shall leave it be.

Well, it's your thread. ;) Start anther one if you like.

Fenris
May 13th 2008, 02:17 PM
Well, it's your thread. ;) Start anther one if you like.Nah, it's too divisive a topic and no one is going to leave it feeling good.

To go back to your post that led me astray, one of the complaints I have against the Pope is that for the most part they have not spoken out with power and authority on moral issues.

Pope Pius XII was particularly bad in this regard. God's representative on earth could not speak out against the destruction of an entire people?

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 02:21 PM
Nah, it's too divisive a topic and no one is going to leave it feeling good.

To go back to your post that led me astray, one of the complaints I have against the Pope is that for the most part they have not spoken out with power and authority on moral issues.

Pope Pius XII was particularly bad in this regard. God's representative on earth could not speak out against the destruction of an entire people?

That's why we have to be careful of the "church" or the "chosen" declaring someone of God. We follow instead, His spirit. Throughout the OT, the chosen people rejected the spirit of the prophets until calamity came their way. Even today, we see the same thing occurring. God's Spirit will rest on a man and we need to recognize when He does. That man may not get the recognition from an organization or a nation. But those in touch with the God will see and recognize him, right? Because God will speak against atrocities so a man with God on him, will do the same. Yet, the position does not guarantee that God will be on him. Look at Eli's children. They had the position, but not the Spirit of God.

Fenris
May 13th 2008, 02:42 PM
That's why we have to be careful of the "church" or the "chosen" declaring someone of God. Well, yes and no...


We follow instead, His spirit. Throughout the OT, the chosen people rejected the spirit of the prophets until calamity came their way. I would say that they rejected the word of God. I know because of your Christian beliefs you perceive that the Jewish failing was based on rabbinical seizing of God's authority and the consequential burden of man-made laws that reject the spirit of God's will. That, and the Jewish rejection of Jesus.

But Jews don't see it that way. We acknowledge the obvious failings of our ancestors, and ourselves. But those failings have little to do with the 'spirit' of the law. We have failed following the word of the law. We have, quite simply, not done what God has tasked us with. And that alone is responsible for the Jewish tragedies over the last 2500 years. And let's face it- as an explanation, it lacks nothing. You may not agree with it, but there it is.

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 02:52 PM
Well, yes and no...

I would say that they rejected the word of God. I know because of your Christian beliefs you perceive that the Jewish failing was based on rabbinical seizing of God's authority and the consequential burden of man-made laws that reject the spirit of God's will. That, and the Jewish rejection of Jesus.

But Jews don't see it that way. We acknowledge the obvious failings of our ancestors, and ourselves. But those failings have little to do with the 'spirit' of the law. We have failed following the word of the law. We have, quite simply, not done what God has tasked us with. And that alone is responsible for the Jewish tragedies over the last 2500 years. And let's face it- as an explanation, it lacks nothing. You may not agree with it, but there it is.

I can go with that. I wasn't actually thinking of all that when I wrote it. I was actually just thinking of folks like Jeremiah who preached repentance and was rejected. God's spirit was on him and he preached God's word. I have no issue with the the "word of the law". I wasn't really addressing the "spirit of the law" in my post. But rather, the Spirit of God on a man.

For instance, the Spirit of God on Jeremiah gave him words of warning to us. The same can be said of Isaiah. So when a man has the Spirit of God on him, he will speak the words of God to us. And those words are pleasant when we walk in obedience and unpleasant when we are not.

Sorry for the confusion.

Fenris
May 13th 2008, 02:58 PM
Sorry for the confusion.
No problem. It just goes to show that two people can read the same paragraph and take away something completely different from it.

Anyway, (reiterated) your central point remains correct. The Popes seldom seen to have spoken with a true Godly spirit. I'll make exception for Pope John XXIII.

Brother Mark
May 13th 2008, 03:04 PM
No problem. It just goes to show that two people can read the same paragraph and take away something completely different from it.

Yea. Happens to me more often than I wish it did, even in real life. ;)


Anyway, (reiterated) your central point remains correct. The Popes seldom seen to have spoken with a true Godly spirit. I'll make exception for Pope John XXIII.


Agreed. (Though I don't know much about Pope John XXIII.) When someone is teaching it is not difficult to see if they are teaching in the power of the Spirit of God. One thing I look for is, are they teaching from their mind and thus, relating to me on a mind to mind basis. Or are they preaching from their Spirit and is the Spirit of God working in my heart and circumcising the flesh of my heart.

Ta-An
May 13th 2008, 06:02 PM
Wellllll, the Pope had the right to change the Calender to the Gregorian calender, the RCC also was responsible for the Sabbath on the Sunday, and changing Pesagh to Easter :( SO what kind of authority is that!! :help:

The trinity according to the RCC / Pope is Father Mother Child :rolleyes: I bet not many of you knew that :note:

The pope is said to have the position of Jesus Christ on earth.... :eek:

Only G_d can forgive sin..... who in the RCC forgives your sin?? :hmm:

I believe the RCC is behind the downfall of Protestantism in the world.

The Pope represents the RCC, and they are ultimately behind the Freemasons!! Did you now that??:hmm:

Many occultic signs are displayed in the RCC cathedrals..... so what does the Pope represent??

Jerome1
May 13th 2008, 06:57 PM
The trinity according to the RCC / Pope is Father Mother Child :rolleyes: I bet not many of you knew that


The Trinity was defined by early church councils otherwise you wouldn't even know what the word Trinity meant.


The pope is said to have the position of Jesus Christ on earth

Either Christ gave Peter and his successors the authority to govern the church or he didn't. It's up to you what you believe.


Only G_d can forgive sin..... who in the RCC forgives your sin

Was Jesus lying when he gave the disciples the authority to forgive sins in John20:22-23?

There are two opinions regarding the pope, either he is what he claims to be or he isn't. It is up to each individual to weigh the evidence and decide for themselves.

Ta-An
May 13th 2008, 08:28 PM
The Trinity was defined by early church councils otherwise you wouldn't even know what the word Trinity meant. and please explain that :idea:
Either Christ gave Peter and his successors the authority to govern the church or he didn't. It's up to you what you believe. And you say that Peter is that rock???? Read the previous verses::::: Matthew16:15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. This is the Rock (truth) Jesus referred too :::
1 Cor 10:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

So what Christ said to Peter was that His church will be built on the truth of Christ being the Son of the Living G_d!!! That is what was said :idea:


Was Jesus lying when he gave the disciples the authority to forgive sins in John20:22-23? It is the Blood of Christ that cleanses us from all our sins...... we receive forgiveness form our sins from Christ alone

There are two opinions regarding the pope, either he is what he claims to be or he isn't. It is up to each individual to weigh the evidence and decide for themselves. So you say the Pope is Christ embodied?? :hmm:

Steve M
May 14th 2008, 01:34 AM
The Trinity was defined by early church councils otherwise you wouldn't even know what the word Trinity meant.



Either Christ gave Peter and his successors the authority to govern the church or he didn't. It's up to you what you believe.



Was Jesus lying when he gave the disciples the authority to forgive sins in John20:22-23?

There are two opinions regarding the pope, either he is what he claims to be or he isn't. It is up to each individual to weigh the evidence and decide for themselves.
False dichotomy in the middle, Jerome. Even if I were to concede that Jesus gave Peter's successors any such authority, all evidence I've seen with my own eyes suggests that it is impossible to form a link between the Popes and Peter.

Jerome1
May 14th 2008, 01:46 PM
and please explain that


The first recorded use of the word was by Theophilus of Antioch to describe the first three days of creation.

Turtullian and the early councils used the word to describe the relationship between the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.


So what Christ said to Peter was that His church will be built on the truth of Christ being the Son of the Living G_d!!! That is what was said

I'm familiar with the arguments as i'm sure so are you, it won't accomplish anything to rehash them.

The meaning doesn't change for me even if Christ was referring to himself as the rock. He changed Simons name to Peter which meant rock, and the emphasis of the keys given to Peter signifies the passing on of authority from Isaiah22:22.

John15:20 Remember the word that I said to you, 'Servants are not greater than their master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.

There is debate whether the original gospel was written in Aramaic or Koine Greek. If it was written in Aramaic the translation would have been very clear. in Koine Greek there is a problem because masculine and feminine nouns are used to describe the same word. I believe the exact translation of, "petra," in Koine Greek is a smaller rock/stone taken from, "petros."

What is interesting is this symbology describes exactly how Eve was created in Genesis, as a part taken from Adam.

If Christ did refer to himself as petros(masculine) and Peter as petra(feminine) this could have a symbolic meaning for Christs relationship with his church, often described in the feminine as the bride.



So you say the Pope is Christ embodied


No Christ is the head of the Church, any authority that the Pope has is derived from God. This includes for catholics the abilty to pronounce doctrines without error.


False dichotomy in the middle, Jerome. Even if I were to concede that Jesus gave Peter's successors any such authority, all evidence I've seen with my own eyes suggests that it is impossible to form a link between the Popes and Peter.

I don't know what you have read or what evidence you have to support your opinions, so i can't really comment unless you give me a source?

Ta-An
May 14th 2008, 04:36 PM
No Christ is the head of the Church, any authority that the Pope has is derived from God. This includes for catholics the abilty to pronounce doctrines without error.
:eek:
You call changing the Biblical year to suit their preferences :rolleyes: this being but one example

danield
May 15th 2008, 04:06 AM
First of all let me say that I am Protestant, and one of the things that struck me completely off guard was the fighting between the Protestants and the Catholics still going on today. It has led me to start reading several books on the history of the development of these conflicts, and let me say it has been fascinating.

My personal feelings on the Pope is that I love him with all my heart, and I am proud of him for trying to save as many as he can for Christ just as I am proud of my fellow Protestant brothers striving to do the same. Anyone that loves the lord and dedicates their life to Jesus is a hero in my eyes. I disagree with some of the things that the Pope says, and I guess that is what makes me a protestant. But I still see kindness and generosity and love for our lord and savior when he speaks.

I always try to just leave the judgmental issues to Christ because he knows what is right and what is wrong. I love to hear people talk about the Lord, but when I get confused with what is being preached; I take a close look at scripture. It is only healthy to be carful what you bring into your heart in today’s ministries, Protestant and Catholic alike. I think there are many who do boarder on autopsy either by genuine mistakes or by genuine deceit. I listen to it all but I guard my heart only after I know I have confirmed it with the Bible and looked closely a their logic as to how they derived at their conclusion of their interpretations of that particular scripture. I also look at the Fruit of the Spirit of a minister to help me consider if his or her message is truly from the Holy Spirit.

But as far as the Pope, he seems to be a great person. He has tried to address the child abuse scandal going on in the Catholic Church head on which is a big plus in my book. All in all, he is a person who helps inspire others to lead decent life for God. I just wish he wasn’t mixed up on some of those doctrine issues!! However, I am sure that he knows more about the bible in his little finger than I could ever know in my lifetime. I wish him the best of luck.

To God be the Glory!

markedward
May 15th 2008, 05:12 AM
What are people's feelings on the position?

I know you're nearly all Protestant, so I expect the feelings to be predominantly negative. But I'm curious as to why.My biggest beef is that the popes, through the Catholic church as a whole, teach things that are completely unBiblical (limbo, purgatory, indulgences, etc.).

Also, the fact that some really evil men have been in the office of pope before, and that many popes have taught contradictory things.

Then Catholics use the cop-out response of "Yes, evil men were in the office, but God protected the office itself." Well if God "protected" the office of 'pope,' why didn't He protect it from evil men? Or contradictory teachings?

I don't think Catholics are unsaved just like I don't think Baptists or Methodists or Whoever are unsaved. I just think they're one of the more offbase denominations. Certain Baptists over-emphasize on baptism so that you get infants being baptized when that wasn't what was Biblically taught, certain Pentecostals over-emphasize on gifts of the Spirit so that they think you have to speak in tongues or you aren't saved, and Catholics over-emphasize hierarchal authority so that wrongful men twist the Truth and then it gets stuck that way because "What the Pope says isn't wrong" since he's supposed to be the one man God speaks through.

Revinius
May 15th 2008, 05:13 AM
At the same time he must be rebuked for his sin, as we are for our sins. The fact that he does not acknowledge his sin leads me to the conclusion (via Pauls guidelines on how to rebuke) that i should not consider him brother.

Steve M
May 15th 2008, 12:28 PM
Originally Posted by Steve M
False dichotomy in the middle, Jerome. Even if I were to concede that Jesus gave Peter's successors any such authority, all evidence I've seen with my own eyes suggests that it is impossible to form a link between the Popes and Peter.
I don't know what you have read or what evidence you have to support your opinions, so i can't really comment unless you give me a source?

Well, for starters, how about everything the Orthodox Church says on the subject? For a second step, let's talk about the difference between a negative and a positive. I said that I don't see any such link. To prove that I would have to post ... what? A link to a primary source who failed to refer to the Pope in Rome as the authority? I would say the burden lies on you to provide an early source who refered to any such position (there was no such position in the early church) to show that the Bishop of Rome was held higher than the others (he was not) or to show the Apostolic link (again, you can't default to an apostolic link there when the Orthodox church makes the same claim; you have to somehow distinguish yourself from them, something I have never even seen a Catholic TRY to do)

Jerome1
May 15th 2008, 02:35 PM
There is debate whether the original gospel was written in Aramaic or Koine Greek. If it was written in Aramaic the translation would have been very clear. in Koine Greek there is a problem because masculine and feminine nouns are used to describe the same word. I believe the exact translation of, "petra," in Koine Greek is a smaller rock/stone taken from, "petros."

What is interesting is this symbology describes exactly how Eve was created in Genesis, as a part taken from Adam.

If Christ did refer to himself as petros(masculine) and Peter as petra(feminine) this could have a symbolic meaning for Christs relationship with his church, often described in the feminine as the bride.


Couldn't edit my post.

I meant to write, if Christ did refer to himself as petra(large rock/feminine) and Peter as Petros(smaller rock/masculine) the symbolic meaning still remains the same.

Petros is a part taken from petra.

Jerome1
May 15th 2008, 02:49 PM
Well, for starters, how about everything the Orthodox Church says on the subject? For a second step, let's talk about the difference between a negative and a positive. I said that I don't see any such link. To prove that I would have to post ... what? A link to a primary source who failed to refer to the Pope in Rome as the authority? I would say the burden lies on you to provide an early source who refered to any such position (there was no such position in the early church) to show that the Bishop of Rome was held higher than the others (he was not) or to show the Apostolic link (again, you can't default to an apostolic link there when the Orthodox church makes the same claim; you have to somehow distinguish yourself from them, something I have never even seen a Catholic TRY to do)

The RCC accepts that the Orthodox church has lawful apostolic succession and valid sacraments. I believe they regard the Oriental Orthodox and some other groups as well as having lawful apostolic succession and valid sacraments also.

The Orthodox church to this day labels the pope as the, "first among equals." The distinction between the Orthodox Church and the RCC is that the RCC is subject to the Roman Pontiff and don't just hold the first seven or three/four ecumenicals councils as authoritative for the whole church. The RCC has had many councils since the seventh ecumenical council which protestants and the Orthodox church do not accept as ecumenical.

The distinction is that the RCC believes that Christ deferred a certain authority on Peter and his successors to guide the church. The Orthodox church and protestants don't accept this, so they are not in union with the RCC/Roman pontiff.

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 03:34 PM
Ephesians explains what Jesus was saying.

Eph 2:20
20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
NASB

Peter, being an apostle, would be part of the foundation of the church as were all the other apostles and prophets.

Steve M
May 15th 2008, 08:05 PM
The RCC accepts that the Orthodox church has lawful apostolic succession and valid sacraments. I believe they regard the Oriental Orthodox and some other groups as well as having lawful apostolic succession and valid sacraments also.

The Orthodox church to this day labels the pope as the, "first among equals." The distinction between the Orthodox Church and the RCC is that the RCC is subject to the Roman Pontiff and don't just hold the first seven or three/four ecumenicals councils as authoritative for the whole church. The RCC has had many councils since the seventh ecumenical council which protestants and the Orthodox church do not accept as ecumenical.

The distinction is that the RCC believes that Christ deferred a certain authority on Peter and his successors to guide the church. The Orthodox church and protestants don't accept this, so they are not in union with the RCC/Roman pontiff.
Yes, that's exactly what I just said. That's what you asked, right? For a special link between Peter and the Pope? If it's a general succession of apostleship shared by all bishops, THEN IT'S DILUTED AND THERE IS NO SPECIAL AUTHORITY. Which is what I meant. Stretching out to a level of connection that doesn't hold that same special authority is not the question I asked; we're talking about the pontiff of Rome as the authority.

Jerome1
May 15th 2008, 10:08 PM
Yes, that's exactly what I just said. That's what you asked, right? For a special link between Peter and the Pope? If it's a general succession of apostleship shared by all bishops, THEN IT'S DILUTED AND THERE IS NO SPECIAL AUTHORITY. Which is what I meant. Stretching out to a level of connection that doesn't hold that same special authority is not the question I asked; we're talking about the pontiff of Rome as the authority.

No there is a direct line of succession from Peter to the present pope, even orthodox christians and many protestants would accept that.

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 10:55 PM
No there is a direct line of succession from Peter to the present pope, even orthodox christians and many protestants would accept that.

So who rebukes the Pope when he is wrong as Paul rebuked Peter when he was out of line? God gave apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelist. I can't find the scripture where he gave us a pope. And as I said about, God built the church upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which includes Peter.

Jerome1
May 15th 2008, 11:37 PM
So who rebukes the Pope when he is wrong as Paul rebuked Peter when he was out of line? God gave apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelist. I can't find the scripture where he gave us a pope. And as I said about, God built the church upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which includes Peter.

The RCC teaches that it is the Holy Spirit that prevents the pope from teaching error.

The authority of Peter and his successors, and those in union with him is a contentious issue. You can evaluate the evidence and accept or reject it.

Brother Mark
May 16th 2008, 11:44 AM
The RCC teaches that it is the Holy Spirit that prevents the pope from teaching error.

How does that square with Paul rebuking Peter?

Steve M
May 16th 2008, 12:33 PM
No there is a direct line of succession from Peter to the present pope, even orthodox christians and many protestants would accept that.
Do they? Or do they accept that there was a bishop in Rome? Those are two very different propositions.

Free Indeed
May 16th 2008, 06:18 PM
The Pope represents the RCC, and they are ultimately behind the Freemasons!! Did you now that??:hmm:



No. I'm a long-time Mason and researcher of Freemasonry. The RCC has long had it in for us.

They still have us on their excommunication list, but at one time we were on its list for the Inquisition.

Teke
May 16th 2008, 07:31 PM
No there is a direct line of succession from Peter to the present pope, even orthodox christians and many protestants would accept that.

Have you seen the succession on paper? As one who's looked into successions, it is very unlikely that the pope is in the succession of Peter. However, there are some successions that are directly from some of the Apostles. Peter just isn't one of them for various reasons.

Ta-An
May 16th 2008, 07:41 PM
In the RCC the Pope has the equal position as the King of Israel would have :note:

Fenris
May 16th 2008, 09:27 PM
In the RCC the Pope has the equal position as the King of Israel would have :note:The king of Israel was a military and political leader, not a religious leader.

Joyfilled
May 17th 2008, 04:48 AM
:lol:

That's what Protestants say, and that's how we consider it... pretty bad. Which is why I always laugh a little when people talk about reconciliation between the Roman Church and the many Protestant sects. Sure, we can be friends, but we can't really assemble together until one or the other declares ourselves to be wrong. And you can pretty much guess from my post how long it would take for me to decide I was wrong...

Of course, the flip side is that Catholics think that Protestants have no respect for authority. :)
The bible tells us which ones are right. And considering that the Catholics have now omitted one of the commandments, they have defied God to the highest degree. But pride keeps the Catholics from caring whether or not they break God's commandments. So they'll never admit they shouldn't do that even though it's as obvious as the pope's self-righteousness. "He who exalts himself will be humbled." It's too bad that the pope doesn't believe Jesus because he'll have to find out the hard way just exactly where disagreeing with Jesus will get him.

Ta-An
May 17th 2008, 12:36 PM
The king of Israel was a military and political leader, not a religious leader.:hmm: .

Jerome1
May 17th 2008, 04:05 PM
Do they? Or do they accept that there was a bishop in Rome? Those are two very different propositions.

I believe the Orthodox church accepts him as the rightful successor to Peter. You might get a difference of opinion regarding the various protestant denominations.


How does that square with Paul rebuking Peter?

Mark are you a moderator, i'm trying to abide by the rules and not turn this into a RC apologetics debate.

The RCC teaches that the pope has to meet specific criteria in order for his pronounements to be regarded as infallible. He can err when not meeting this criteria(I'm sure you have heard of the term Ex Cathedra). There are plenty of sources out there with information on this subject, it is pretty complicated.

Teke
May 17th 2008, 05:46 PM
I believe the Orthodox church accepts him as the rightful successor to Peter.

Orthodox accept him as a bishop of the Roman church. And he likely has a legitimate succession, meaning from those the Apostles ordained. But as I stated, it is highly unlikely that his succession is from Peter specifically. Peter is a traditional bishop according to the church, and specifically tied to Antioch, which is where Peter ministered mostly (scripture bears this out as well). Antioch and Jerusalem were under rule of the Roman empire at one time, but that doesn't mean that those patriarchates belong to Rome. Rome is also a city like Jerusalem and Antioch. Look at it in perspective.

Though Peter was given a vision by God that Gentiles were part of the church, he mainly dealt with Jews.

Jerome1
May 17th 2008, 07:20 PM
Orthodox accept him as a bishop of the Roman church. And he likely has a legitimate succession, meaning from those the Apostles ordained. But as I stated, it is highly unlikely that his succession is from Peter specifically. Peter is a traditional bishop according to the church, and specifically tied to Antioch, which is where Peter ministered mostly (scripture bears this out as well). Antioch and Jerusalem were under rule of the Roman empire at one time, but that doesn't mean that those patriarchates belong to Rome. Rome is also a city like Jerusalem and Antioch. Look at it in perspective.

Though Peter was given a vision by God that Gentiles were part of the church, he mainly dealt with Jews.

As far as I am aware the Orthodox church accepts that Peter was the Bishop in Rome and that he was executed along with Paul in Rome. From what i remember the ECF's and the Orthodox church accept that the pope is the lawful successor to Peter.

Teke
May 17th 2008, 07:50 PM
As far as I am aware the Orthodox church accepts that Peter was the Bishop in Rome

To be clear. Peter was never a bishop at all. He is seen to be bishop by church tradition. Meaning it is a title given to honor him and his work.


and that he was executed along with Paul in Rome.

Your speaking of the Roman Empire now, in which many were martyred. That doesn't make a direct tie with the city of Rome. Peter never lived and ministered in the city of Rome.


From what i remember the ECF's and the Orthodox church accept that the pope is the lawful successor to Peter.

I think your confusing that ("lawful successor to Peter") with their belief in prayer for emperors and empresses. Or I don't know how your seeing this.

The ECF's and Orthodox recognize that the Roman Empire was the first place of a patriarchate. Meaning the birthplace of Christianity and the Church. This is further put in perspective by their references alluding to a second Rome, Constantinople, and a third, Russia. These three all being empires.

However, there is no empirical ruler of the Church except God.

Jerome1
May 18th 2008, 12:54 AM
To be clear. Peter was never a bishop at all. He is seen to be bishop by church tradition. Meaning it is a title given to honor him and his work.


The title of bishop was usually honoured to those apostles who were responsible for looking after the flock of a particular city. Just as James was the bishop of Jerusalem.



Your speaking of the Roman Empire now, in which many were martyred. That doesn't make a direct tie with the city of Rome. Peter never lived and ministered in the city of Rome.


It is a church tradition, and there are countless sources affirming that Peter ministered in Rome. Have you looked at the evidence? Are you affirming that Peter was never in Rome?



I think your confusing that ("lawful successor to Peter") with their belief in prayer for emperors and empresses. Or I don't know how your seeing this.

The ECF's and Orthodox recognize that the Roman Empire was the first place of a patriarchate. Meaning the birthplace of Christianity and the Church. This is further put in perspective by their references alluding to a second Rome, Constantinople, and a third, Russia. These three all being empires.

However, there is no empirical ruler of the Church except God.


I think James was the first one allocated as a bishop to Jerusalem. Constantinople/Moscow was always seen as the Byzantine Empires Rome. The reality is that there have been several conflicts between the eastern and western empires, they both claim to be the continuation of the eastern and western Roman Empires.

You seen this with the Napoleonic, Crimean and both world wars as well as others.

The Tzars(Caesars of Moscow) and the Kaisers(Caesars of Germany)

Steve M
May 19th 2008, 01:35 PM
I think James was the first one allocated as a bishop to Jerusalem.

Just to be clear, Jerome...

I think Teke represents the Orthodox Church's opinion here, and the split between what they think and what you think they think is kind of important. The Orthodox Church recognizes that there was a bishop in Rome; to say from that they recognize him as directly succeeding Peter is to go beyond what they say.

The line I quote above is one of my pet peeves. And this extends to the Roman Church, the Orthodox Church, and almost 90% of the Protestant Church.

This is an anachronism. I see no evidence in early Church writings that James was considered 'the' bishop of Jerusalem. However, beginning in the fourth century I see people taking up the position of bishop of Jerusalem and saying that is what James had done before, despite a lack of any writings saying that before that time.

Here, our difference of opinion becomes even further divided; because where you would see the works of the fourth-century writer as conclusive evidence that this had been the tradition before that, I see this evolving pattern in Church History, one which claims everything was always the way it is now.

We were always at war with the East; we were never at war with the West.

Brother Mark
May 19th 2008, 01:39 PM
Here, our difference of opinion becomes even further divided; because where you would see the works of the fourth-century writer as conclusive evidence that this had been the tradition before that, I see this evolving pattern in Church History, one which claims everything was always the way it is now.

We were always at war with the East; we were never at war with the West.

Not sure this scripture applies entirely, but it is interesting nonetheless.


2 Peter 3:3-7
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
NASB

Jerome1
May 19th 2008, 02:09 PM
The Orthodox Church recognizes that there was a bishop in Rome; to say from that they recognize him as directly succeeding Peter is to go beyond what they say.



I know that the Orthodox church don't accept the pope as universal leader of the church. I do believe that they recognize that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and that the present pope is his lawful successor.

The Orthodox church like protestants argue that Christ did not make Peter the universal leader of the church. I think it was the Orthodox church that agreed that it was Peters confession of faith that was the rock, and not Peter himself. Maybe Teke could verify this.



This is an anachronism. I see no evidence in early Church writings that James was considered 'the' bishop of Jerusalem. However, beginning in the fourth century I see people taking up the position of bishop of Jerusalem and saying that is what James had done before, despite a lack of any writings saying that before that time.


I'm not as familiar with the evidence regarding James as the first bishop of Jerusalem, but he presides over the council of Jerusalem in Acts15:13. I believe that this is the still the custom today among bishops, where the bishop of a particular city is mentioned before the pope.



We were always at war with the East; we were never at war with the West.


If you are American you were at war with the West, during the American war of independence. Since the Roman Empire spilt into the eastern and western halves, there have always been wars between the east and west. This is explained better in the EU thread in the end times section.

Steve M
May 19th 2008, 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by Steve M

We were always at war with the East; we were never at war with the West.
If you are American you were at war with the West, during the American war of independence. Since the Roman Empire spilt into the eastern and western halves, there have always been wars between the east and west. This is explained better in the EU thread in the endtimes section.

Sorry, I should have attributed that better. I was making reference to George Orwell's 1984, and the Ministry of Truth, always redacting history so that what appears now is what has always appeared; I wasn't trying to make a statement about East and West. (I should have realized that was confusing in a thread about the Eastern and Western church... but, typical me, I just shoehorned it in there...)

Steve M
May 19th 2008, 02:17 PM
I'm not as familiar with the evidence regarding James as the first bishop of Jerusalem, but he presides over the council of Jerusalem in Acts15:13. I believe that this is the still the custom today among bishops, where the bishop of a particular city is mentioned before the pope.Well, for certain values of the word 'preside,' I suppose. James certainly is the one who brings forth the ultimate decision; however, again, we're reading rather heavily into that to find from there that his is the pre-eminent voice or the presiding voice. Specifically, we're reading into it later views... rather than letting it speak for itself.

tgallison
May 19th 2008, 02:30 PM
The king of Israel was a military and political leader, not a religious leader.

Fenris did you know you were going to start all this when you posted?

The king of Israel was a military and political leader only because they rejected God as their king. They wanted a king similar to the other nations. They couldn't see God, nor could they recognize Him.

terrell

Fenris
May 19th 2008, 03:08 PM
Fenris did you know you were going to start all this when you posted?Obviously not. :lol:

These discussions take a life of their own...


The king of Israel was a military and political leader only because they rejected God as their king. They wanted a king similar to the other nations.
True. And yet, God knew this would happen, and gave special Laws that applied only to a king.

See Deuteronomy 17: 14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say: 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me'; 15 thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother. 16 Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you: 'Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.' 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them; 20 that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left; to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel. {S}

In other words, like many other aspects of the Law, this is a concession that God grants to human weakness.



They couldn't see God, nor could they recognize Him.We'll have to disagree on this point. Just because God held the Jews to a higher standard does not mean that they didn't believe in Him.

Steve M
May 19th 2008, 03:10 PM
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
The king of Israel was a military and political leader, not a religious leader.

PS: another accusation levelled at Rome by Protestants. :)

Teke
May 19th 2008, 03:43 PM
Well, for certain values of the word 'preside,' I suppose. James certainly is the one who brings forth the ultimate decision; however, again, we're reading rather heavily into that to find from there that his is the pre-eminent voice or the presiding voice. Specifically, we're reading into it later views... rather than letting it speak for itself.

Jerome is missing the point that the church has always been conciliar, which is a tradition passed on from Israel's practice of taking council when deciding matters.

A council may preside in a specific location, but the location doesn't decide particular persons as presiding over others. That just wouldn't make sense, as councils were held at different locations. The whole point of the council is to get a unanimous decision. This follows suit with the Jewish praxis. Without a unanimous decision the council cannot proceed.
Protestants, RC's and EO's are all at fault for this obstacle in the church.

tgallison
May 19th 2008, 06:12 PM
[quote=Fenris;1644085]

We'll have to disagree on this point. Just because God held the Jews to a higher standard does not mean that they didn't believe in Him.

They believed in God, they just didn't know Him. The proof is that they rejected God as king, and took a man as king. To know God is to love him.

Brother Mark
May 19th 2008, 06:14 PM
[quote]

They believed in God, they just didn't know Him. The proof is that they rejected God as king, and took a man as king. To know God is to love him.

A remnant knew him. But as you say, Israel knew his acts but Moses knew his ways. There is a difference.

I would think that Naomi, Samson, Ruth (not a Jew), Boaz, and many others knew God. But as is always the case, it is generally a remnant. God even told Elijah he had a remnant of several thousand that had not bowed to Baal.

Jerome1
May 19th 2008, 06:20 PM
Jerome is missing the point that the church has always been conciliar, which is a tradition passed on from Israel's practice of taking council when deciding matters.

A council may preside in a specific location, but the location doesn't decide particular persons as presiding over others. That just wouldn't make sense, as councils were held at different locations. The whole point of the council is to get a unanimous decision. This follows suit with the Jewish praxis. Without a unanimous decision the council cannot proceed.
Protestants, RC's and EO's are all at fault for this obstacle in the church.

I know that the church has always been concilliar. Isrealites also had people higher up the hierarchical chain when it came to conciliar decisions.

Like i said i believe it is/was customary for the resident bishop to speak in favour of a regional or ecumenical councils decision.

When i said James presided, i meant in the sense that it was customary for the resident bishop to support the decisions of the council.

Fenris
May 19th 2008, 06:43 PM
They believed in God, they just didn't know Him. The proof is that they rejected God as king, and took a man as king. To know God is to love him.Just because God held the Jews to a higher standard doesn't give you the right to, either.

tgallison
May 19th 2008, 06:59 PM
Just because God held the Jews to a higher standard doesn't give you the right to, either.

I look at Job as a picture of Israel. To whom much is given, much is expected.

Job was the epitome of that higher standard, yet all men have a limit to their righteousness.

Fenris
May 19th 2008, 07:13 PM
I look at Job as a picture of Israel. To whom much is given, much is expected.To whom much is given from God, much is expected from God. Not from you.

Apparently one is not allowed to judge history's worst dictators and tyrants ('judge not lest ye be judged'), but judging the Jewish people is ok. I learn something new every day.

tgallison
May 19th 2008, 07:21 PM
To whom much is given from God, much is expected from God. Not from you.

Apparently one is not allowed to judge history's worst dictators and tyrants ('judge not lest ye be judged'), but judging the Jewish people is ok. I learn something new every day.

But I am not judging Israel they are God's chosen. I would be very fearful to judge Israel.

Fenris
May 19th 2008, 07:25 PM
But I am not judging Israel they are God's chosen. I would be very fearful to judge Israel.And yet, you say "The proof is that they rejected God as king, and took a man as king..." and "I look at Job as a picture of Israel. To whom much is given, much is expected.

Job was the epitome of that higher standard, yet all men have a limit to their righteousness ."

That sounds like judgment to me.

tgallison
May 19th 2008, 07:29 PM
And yet, you say "The proof is that they rejected God as king, and took a man as king..." and "I look at Job as a picture of Israel. To whom much is given, much is expected.

Job was the epitome of that higher standard, yet all men have a limit to their righteousness ."

That sounds like judgment to me.

Was not Job the most upright man in the earth? Who can condemn the most upright? If there is none greater, where is the one that can judge him?

Fenris
May 19th 2008, 07:49 PM
And yet you have no problem passing judgment on the Jews for wanting a human king.

tgallison
May 19th 2008, 08:04 PM
And yet you have no problem passing judgment on the Jews for wanting a human king.

No, I just believe we all fall short of the righteousness of God, as Job proves, and need a saviour.

Psalm 51:1-2 "Have mercy upon me, O God according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin."

Plsam 51:17 "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

Fenris
May 19th 2008, 08:12 PM
No, I just believe we all fall short of the righteousness of God, as Job proves, and need a saviour.


You weren't talking about 'we all falling short', you were talking about one specific group falling short.

Whatever, I'm done with this topic.

tgallison
May 19th 2008, 08:24 PM
You weren't talking about 'we all falling short', you were talking about one specific group falling short.

Whatever, I'm done with this topic.

Sorry if you took offense Fenris. It had to do with Israel, because that is what the conversation was about. It was about Israel in a point in time. Doesn't the Bible teach that it was wrong for Israel to pick a king, but God allowed it.

tgallison
May 19th 2008, 08:30 PM
[quote=tgallison;1644339]

A remnant knew him. But as you say, Israel knew his acts but Moses knew his ways. There is a difference.

I would think that Naomi, Samson, Ruth (not a Jew), Boaz, and many others knew God. But as is always the case, it is generally a remnant. God even told Elijah he had a remnant of several thousand that had not bowed to Baal.

Agreed, there has always been a remnant, but Israel as a nation, rejected God. In that point in time.

God deals with nations and God deals with individuals.

Job 34:29 "--whether it be done against a nation, or against a man only:"

Fenris
May 19th 2008, 08:32 PM
Sorry if you took offense Fenris. It had to do with Israel, because that is what the conversation was about. It was about Israel in a point in time. Doesn't the Bible teach that it was wrong for Israel to pick a king, but God allowed it.
It's also wrong to keep slaves, but God allowed it. Eating mean was not permitted until Noah's time.

Many things in the bible are concessions to human shortcomings. That doesn't give one the right to use God's concessions to humans as a point of prosecution.

tgallison
May 19th 2008, 08:58 PM
It's also wrong to keep slaves, but God allowed it. Eating mean was not permitted until Noah's time.

Many things in the bible are concessions to human shortcomings. That doesn't give one the right to use God's concessions to humans as a point of prosecution.

But Fenris, I am not the prosecutor, God is.

Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

The Psalmist said, "Judge me, O Lord my God, according to thy righteousness; and let them not rejoice over me."

It was not the Psalmist's righteousness that he wanted to be judged on. It was God's. As a Christian I see the righteousness of God, as being his right arm, his Son, Jesus Christ. The stumblingblock laid before Israel.

Ezekiel 3:20 "Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock, before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand."

Please do not consider this proselyting, consider this a warning, and I mean no offense. It is how I understand scripture.

terrell

Fenris
May 19th 2008, 09:31 PM
But Fenris, I am not the prosecutor, God is.
Ahem. Again. God may hold His people to a higher standard. By what right do you do that?

tgallison
May 19th 2008, 09:52 PM
Ahem. Again. God may hold His people to a higher standard. By what right do you do that?


Fenris I do not hold your people to a higher standard. I see them as a type of Saul, whom God chose, and to whom David would not lift a hand because he was God's chosen.

All men are the work of God's hands. If God makes you wealthy he will hold you accountable for how you handle what he has given you. It is in this respect that God holds Israel accountable, because He has given you the Law, and the saviour of the world.

I do not understand what you mean, when you say I hold his people to a higher standard.

Fenris
May 19th 2008, 11:51 PM
Who copied down Isaiah and Jeremiah and all the other prophet's words? Who canonized those words and made them into holy text?

Was it Christians?

No, it was Jews. (it was actually those rabbis so many rail against)

Did they do it so that other people could read it and say, "Look what terrible people those Jews were"? (Alternatively, "Look what terrible people those Jews are", as was said so many times in the middle ages).

No, they canonized those words so that Jews could read them and meditate about what God wants of us and how we fell short in the past.

Just something to think about.

tgallison
May 20th 2008, 11:47 AM
Who copied down Isaiah and Jeremiah and all the other prophet's words? Who canonized those words and made them into holy text?

Was it Christians?

No, it was Jews. (it was actually those rabbis so many rail against)

Did they do it so that other people could read it and say, "Look what terrible people those Jews were"? (Alternatively, "Look what terrible people those Jews are", as was said so many times in the middle ages).

No, they canonized those words so that Jews could read them and meditate about what God wants of us and how we fell short in the past.

Just something to think about.

I am very thankful to the Jews, and I truly respect them. My Lord became a Jew. He became a Jew because of a covenant. The covenant is the same reason the Jews canonized the words of God. Those canonized words became flesh and dwelt among men. He came, but only, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And because his own rejected him, He turned to us dogs, of whom I am one. And He told us not to take any pride in that, it was to make you jealous. You have a higher standing, because of a covenant. You broke the covenant, but He is waiting for your return.

terrell

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 12:02 PM
I am very thankful to the Jews, and I truly respect them. My Lord became a Jew. He became a Jew because of a covenant.
he did not 'become' a Jew. he was born one.


The covenant is the same reason the Jews canonized the words of God.They canonized their worst critics. Something to ponder.


Those canonized words became flesh and dwelt among men. He came, but only, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Right, I understand this is a cardinal Christian belief.


And because his own rejected him, He turned to us dogs, of whom I am one.That might actually be my least favorite line in the NT. Non Jews are dogs? No Jew thinks this way. We are all created in the image of God- Jew and gentile. God forbid I think any less of someone because of their perception of God.


And He told us not to take any pride in that, it was to make you jealous.I'm not jealous.


You have a higher standing, because of a covenant.I do not think I have a higher standing. I have more responsibilities. That is just teh way it is.


You broke the covenant, but He is waiting for your return.Since most Jews aren't religious, I tend to think that's what God is waiting for. Not for us to be Christian. Again, time will tell.

Teke
May 20th 2008, 01:00 PM
Who copied down Isaiah and Jeremiah and all the other prophet's words? Who canonized those words and made them into holy text?

Was it Christians?

No, it was Jews. (it was actually those rabbis so many rail against)

We call them saints of God. Saints always give witness to Him, hence the NT canon addition.


Did they do it so that other people could read it and say, "Look what terrible people those Jews were"? (Alternatively, "Look what terrible people those Jews are", as was said so many times in the middle ages).

No, they canonized those words so that Jews could read them and meditate about what God wants of us and how we fell short in the past.

Just something to think about.

Christians could say the same. ie. Look what terrible Christians compared to scripture. Just look at in fighting among the churches of Christianity and how the canon of scripture is used against one another.
We all fall short. Something to think about as well. ;)

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 01:19 PM
We call them saints of God. Saints always give witness to Him, hence the NT canon addition. Christians did not exist when those Jewish prophets lived. In any case, those prophets did not criticize Christians, they criticized Jews. That made it easy to add them as NT canon.



Christians could say the same. ie. Look what terrible Christians compared to scripture. Just look at in fighting among the churches of Christianity and how the canon of scripture is used against one another.But the Christian holy text do not criticize Christians.



We all fall short. Something to think about as well. ;)
Obviously. Why the wink?

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 01:29 PM
But the Christian holy text do not criticize Christians.

Greetings Fenris! The text sometimes do criticize Christians. Paul criticized Peter and did so publicly. Jesus taught that not not all who claimed to be Christian were Christian. Peter's books warned about those who go back. So does 1 John and Jude and others.

When I read about king David's failures. I don't see him as a Jew. I see him as a man of God that stumbled. In the big picture, I know he was a Jew. But for me, the scriptures are about God's relationship with His people. So I often read it that way. Because of folks like Ruth, and Rahab and others, I take great comfort in the fact that I can be accepted into God's family through faith, just like Abraham was.

Anyway, back to the point. I love that God doesn't hide his men's weaknesses. He writes about them as much as he writes about our virtues. In this way, we all learn. Paul wrote of his pride. The gospels covered Peter's denial and Judas betrayal. Corinthians covered the immorality of the Church.

In the end, we must all cry out like David "create in me a pure heart" and "a broken and contrite heart you will not despise" and "forgive me for my iniquities". Faith and repentance are the key to knowing God for Jew and Gentile.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 01:47 PM
Greetings Fenris! Good morning.


The text sometimes do criticize Christians. Paul criticized Peter and did so publiclyThat is A Christian, not Christians.

One of the unique things about the Tanach is that it criticizes the very people who made it part of their canon.



When I read about king David's failures. I don't see him as a Jew.I do. I am sure he saw himself as one too.


I see him as a man of God that stumbled.He was that, too.


In the big picture, I know he was a Jew. But for me, the scriptures are about God's relationship with His people. So I often read it that way.That hey are.


Because of folks like Ruth, and Rahab and others, I take great comfort in the fact that I can be accepted into God's family through faith, just like Abraham was.
Judaism allows converts.



In the end, we must all cry out like David "create in me a pure heart" and "a broken and contrite heart you will not despise" and "forgive me for my iniquities". Faith and repentance are the key to knowing God for Jew and Gentile.
That is true.

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 02:07 PM
I didn't mean to suggest David wasn't a Jew. I was just getting at that he had a relationship with God and what was written about him was related to that relationship. If it was all about David being a Jew, then for me, what hope do I have? If I seem him as a Jew and not a man of God, then can I learn from him? King David and Moses were Jews through and through. But they were also men of God. I see that Naaman, the widow woman in Sidon that Elijah was sent to, Rahab the harlot and know that there is grace for me as well.

When we read the OT, and we see God writing about and convicting the Jews, we also see ourselves because we see Rahab and Ruth grafted in. It is said in the OT "We all like sheep have gone astray". In the NT it is written that there is none righteous, no not one. God wrote against the entire church at Corinthians. Of the 7 churches in revelations he found fault with all but 2 (if my memory serves me correctly). In the gospels he speaks of a great falling away. All those are corporate convictions written to show the church her weaknesses. Just as Israel had and has her faults so too does the church. God spoke about both in his word. For he is just and holy and righteous. More than that, he is kind and loving to point out the ways in us that lead to death.

I have jumped in because I wanted to give you another perspective.

Teke
May 20th 2008, 02:09 PM
Christians did not exist when those Jewish prophets lived.

Didn't prophets speak by inspiration of the Spirit/God. If they followed God, they were Christians. If they followed anything else they were just men with an imagination.


In any case, those prophets did not criticize Christians, they criticized Jews. That made it easy to add them as NT canon.

Christianity doesn't use the OT to criticize Jews, least that is not it's purpose. It's a liturgical book.


But the Christian holy text do not criticize Christians.

As Brother Mark has pointed out, it does.


Obviously. Why the wink?

There is no division with God on humanity. It is what it is, irregardless of national identity.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 02:18 PM
I didn't mean to suggest David wasn't a Jew. I was just getting at that he had a relationship with God and what was written about him was related to that relationship. If it was all about David being a Jew, then for me, what hope do I have?
David was held to a higher standard than you or I specifically because he was a prophet.

I am held to a higher standard than you because I was born a Jew.

That is just the way it is. I have much more to worry about than you do.



When we read the OT, and we see God writing about and convicting the Jews, we also see ourselves because we see Rahab and Ruth grafted in.
I don't see them as 'grafted in'. They were converts to Judaism.



I have jumped in because I wanted to give you another perspective.

Well, I don't agree with it but it is an interesting way of looking at it.:hmm:

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 02:23 PM
Didn't prophets speak by inspiration of the Spirit/God. If they followed God, they were Christians. Heh. So Christians existed before Christ?


Christianity doesn't use the OT to criticize Jews, least that is not it's purpose. It's a liturgical book. Yeah, generally that is true. Certainly today. In the past it was used for attacking Jews by many. Some still do, apparently.



As Brother Mark has pointed out, it does.
I already refuted that point.


There is no division with God on humanity. It is what it is, irregardless of national identity.
We've been down this road in the past. I feel that God does diffrentiate between different peoples. Not in their value to Him, but in what He expects of them.

I know you disagree with this.

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 02:29 PM
David was held to a higher standard than you or I specifically because he was a prophet.

I am held to a higher standard than you because I was born a Jew.

That is just the way it is. I have much more to worry about than you do.

God judges us by the light we are given. I would agree with you on the standards being higher for those that have more light.


I don't see them as 'grafted in'. They were converts to Judaism.

Is that not what grafted in means? Was Abraham or Enoch converted to Judaism? My point? Our desire is not to convert one to Christianity. But rather, to convert them to God himself! Judaism predated Christianity. Abraham's religion predated Judaism. But, the same God ruled over all three.

God has always shown favor to those that sought him. Naaman and the woman from Sidon were both Gentiles. Yet God healed them but not Israel. We see the same thing in church. I can tell you I have been and seen folks that walk in the righteousness of their own pride. Yet, they are as empty of God as full of themselves as a farm bucket. I've been there Fenris and it was an unpleasant place to be. But God, in his mercy, reached down and pulled me out from defiled Christianity and religion and placed me into right standing with Him.

Look at it this way... when David sinned with Bathsheba, he said "sacrifices and offerings you don't want" but a "broken and contrite heart you will not despise". To me, when David sinned, he turned not to religion, but to God. No sin sacrifice, no going to a priest. No grain offering or any other offering. Just a broken heart before God. And he ended the Psalm with an interesting note.

Ps 51:18-19

18 By Thy favor do good to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then Thou wilt delight in righteous sacrifices,
In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then young bulls will be offered on Thine altar.
NASB

Build the walls of Jerusalem! During his time, the walls were not torn down. They were fine. But he was speaking of right worship. God, when you create in me a clean heart, and build the walls of my heart, from which worship springs, the walls of Jerusalem, then will I offer righteous sacrifices.


Well, I don't agree with it but it is an interesting way of looking at it.:hmm:

Good. I consider you an internet friend and am always honored to speak with you, even when we disagree.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 02:42 PM
God judges us by the light we are given. I would agree with you on the standards being higher for those that have more light.Ah, so in this point we fully agree.




Is that not what grafted in means? Was Abraham or Enoch converted to Judaism? My point? Our desire is not to convert one to Christianity. But rather, to convert them to God himself! Judaism predated Christianity. Abraham's religion predated Judaism. But, the same God ruled over all three. From the Jewish perspective, conversion means accepting the covenant made at Sinai. That means full acceptance of the Law. One can also accept the Jewish view of God without accepting the Law. Those are what Jews would term 'Noahides'.


God has always shown favor to those that sought him. Naaman and the woman from Sidon were both Gentiles. Yet God healed them but not Israel. We see the same thing in church. I can tell you I have been and seen folks that walk in the righteousness of their own pride. Yet, they are as empty of God as full of themselves as a farm bucket. I've been there Fenris and it was an unpleasant place to be. But God, in his mercy, reached down and pulled me out from defiled Christianity and religion and placed me into right standing with Him.I am glad you found God.


Look at it this way... when David sinned with Bathsheba, he said "sacrifices and offerings you don't want" but a "broken and contrite heart you will not despise". To me, when David sinned, he turned not to religion, but to God. No sin sacrifice, no going to a priest. No grain offering or any other offering. Just a broken heart before God.
Interesting observation, especially coming from a Christian. No sacrifice needed? Not even Jesus?:hmm:





Good. I consider you an internet friend and am always honored to speak with you, even when we disagree.
Oh, believe me, the pleasure is all mine. :)

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 02:51 PM
From the Jewish perspective, conversion means accepting the covenant made at Sinai. That means full acceptance of the Law. One can also accept the Jewish view of God without accepting the Law. Those are what Jews would term 'Noahides'.

I understand that concept. But look at Naaman, did he convert? Yet, God blessed him. :hmm:


I am glad you found God.

Radically changed my life. I am happy about that too.


Interesting observation, especially coming from a Christian. No sacrifice needed? Not even Jesus?:hmm:

Yes indeed an interesting observation! Yet, here we see David rightfully recognizing that it was not the Mosaic law concerning sin that was important. I think David saw Jesus but we will disagree on that. ;) The thing I find interesting, is David knew God. In knowing God, he knew that it wasn't sacrifices that God really wanted. He wanted truth in the inward parts. He wanted a clean heart. God wanted a new creation. A new place of worship if you will. I think David saw past the sacrificial laws and knew, like Abraham, that God would provide for himself a Lamb. But the first necessary sacrifice to God is a broken and contrite heart. The blood of sacrificial lambs is meaningless without a heart sacrifice to go with them.

Wasn't it also interesting about the building of the walls of Jerusalem, the place of worship?

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 03:01 PM
I understand that concept. But look at Naaman, did he convert? Yet, God blessed him. :hmm:
Of course. Because one does not need to be Jewish to have God's favor.

Who do you think God loves more: Meyer Lansky, a Jewish gangster? Or Raoul Wallenberg, a gentile who saved tens of thousands of lives?




Yes indeed an interesting observation! Yet, here we see David rightfully recognizing that it was not the Mosaic law concerning sin that was important. I think David saw Jesus but we will disagree on that. ;) The thing I find interesting, is David knew God. In knowing God, he knew that it wasn't sacrifices that God really wanted. He wanted truth in the inward parts. He wanted a clean heart.So far, so good...


God wanted a new creation. A new place of worship if you will. I think David saw past the sacrificial laws and knew, like Abraham, that God would provide for himself a Lamb. But the first necessary sacrifice to God is a broken and contrite heart. The blood of sacrificial lambs is meaningless without a heart sacrifice to go with them.
Well, a Jewish person would not disagree.

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 04:10 PM
Of course. Because one does not need to be Jewish to have God's favor.

Who do you think God loves more: Meyer Lansky, a Jewish gangster? Or Raoul Wallenberg, a gentile who saved tens of thousands of lives?

He loves them both the same. Yet, one's actions were more pleasing than the other.


Well, a Jewish person would not disagree.

I think there are two traps I see we are warned about in scriptures. On the one hand, I see those that work hard at doing things they think will please God. Yet, in their own righteousness, they fall short. Our righteousness is not enough. We need God's righteousness. The other extreme is the one who simply says "I will trust God", without ever having the broken and contrite heart that God cherishes.

In other words, it is not only obedience, it is faith. It is not only faith, it is obedience.

One difference in our two ways of thinking is that I believe the object of our faith is as important as our obedience.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 04:14 PM
He loves them both the same. Yet, one's actions were more pleasing than the other.I don't think God loves wicked people. If they can't show love for God's creations, they get none from their Creator- Measure for measure.

It's one of those differences between Judaism and Christianity, I guess.




I think there are two traps I see we are warned about in scriptures. On the one hand, I see those that work hard at doing things they think will please God. Yet, in their own righteousness, they fall short. Our righteousness is not enough. We need God's righteousness. We do the best we can. God, having created us, knows that we are not perfect. Does He expect perfection?

Christians say yes, Jews say no.




One difference in our two ways of thinking is that I believe the object of our faith is as important as our obedience.
True, in this we do differ.

tgallison
May 20th 2008, 04:22 PM
[quote=Fenris;1645122]he did not 'become' a Jew. he was born one.

Fenris you see him only as born a Jew, I see Him as both. He is both son of man and Son of God.

To me, Job is a picture of Israel, and Israel a picture of Job. I see a lot of similarity between you and Job, though I believe he was not a Jew.

Are you offended to be compared to Job?

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 04:25 PM
I don't think God loves wicked people. If they can't show love for God's creations, they get none from their Creator- Measure for measure.

What was Abraham before he met God? Does God love a man based on his performance? Or does he love a man and enable him to perform?


It's one of those differences between Judaism and Christianity, I guess.

Yea. Probably so.


We do the best we can. God, having created us, knows that we are not perfect. Does He expect perfection?

Christians say yes, Jews say no.

Well, we don't say God expects perfection (though some do). It's that he is holy and just and righteous. We are not. How is the gap to be bridged? God deals with us in the only way he can, through grace and mercy. So while his justice desires perfection, he deals with us in grace and mercy. That is why he established a high priest over Israel. So that our imperfections could be dealt with and covered. Yet, his holy requirements were seen in how he commanded that the ark and the holy of holies were dealt with.

For instance, we see God's severity in the flood. Yet, Methuselah was the oldest man in scripture. His name means "When he dies, it will come". After he was born, Enoch was warned of God and named his son accordingly. Enoch walked with God after that time. But God, being rich in mercy and patience, waited and waited. It was no accident that Methuselah was the oldest man to ever live. Knowing that when he died, the flood would come, God insured that man had ample time for repentance. And Noah took 120 years to build the ark and to preach. God did this because not only did he love Noah, but he loved man. But man would not listen and as a result, only 8 were saved.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 04:28 PM
[quote]

To me, Job is a picture of Israel, and Israel a picture of Job. I see a lot of similarity between you and Job, though I believe he was not a Jew.I believe you are correct, he was not a Jew. Although the Talmud states that he never existed at all.


Are you offended to be compared to Job?Me personally? Or the Jewish people as a whole?

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 04:35 PM
What was Abraham before he met God? Does God love a man based on his performance? Or does he love a man and enable him to perform?From the Jewish perspective? God cares more about what we do than what we believe. People who inflict human suffering are not beloved by God. Especially people who inflict massive human suffering.

I've seen Christians who beat themselves up and state that they are no better than Hitler. I consider such thinking to be not only unhealthy but also morally backwards. Anyone who loves God and their fellow man should not compare themselves to a mass murderer.




Well, we don't say God expects perfection (though some do). It's that he is holy and just and righteous. We are not.Human beings can be holy too. I'm not sure that a gap needs to be bridged here.



For instance, we see God's severity in the flood. Yet, Methuselah was the oldest man in scripture. His name means "When he dies, it will come". After he was born, Enoch was warned of God and named his son accordingly. Enoch walked with God after that time. But God, being rich in mercy and patience, waited and waited. It was no accident that Methuselah was the oldest man to ever live. Knowing that when he died, the flood would come, God insured that man had ample time for repentance. And Noah took 120 years to build the ark and to preach. God did this because not only did he love Noah, but he loved man. But man would not listen and as a result, only 8 were saved.

Right... God does love man.

tgallison
May 20th 2008, 04:43 PM
[quote=tgallison;1645398]I believe you are correct, he was not a Jew. Although the Talmud states that he never existed at all.
Me personally? Or the Jewish people as a whole?

I understand why the Talmud would not want to accept the Book of Job. They understood it well, and they rejected it for the same reason they rejected Jesus the Christ, as the Son of God.

You personally.

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 04:45 PM
From the Jewish perspective? God cares more about what we do than what we believe. People who inflict human suffering are not beloved by God. Especially people who inflict massive human suffering.

I've seen Christians who beat themselves up and state that they are no better than Hitler. I consider such thinking to be not only unhealthy but also morally backwards. Anyone who loves God and their fellow man should not compare themselves to a mass murderer.

Yet, God loved me when I hated him. I don't understand it but he did. Because of that, I am no longer the man I once was.

As for what we believe, I would say this... the body will refuse to do what the mind and heart does not believe. In other words, what we really believe is demonstrated in what we do. Abraham believed God when God promised to build a nation through Isaac. Then he prophesied to those around him "The lad and I are going to worship God and we will return." He fully intended to offer Isaac as a sacrifice to God. Yet, had he not believed God would have raised him from the dead, he would not have been able to do so. So his works lined up with his beliefs.


Human beings can be holy too. I'm not sure that a gap needs to be bridged here.

Right. When Moses approached the burning bush, God said the ground was holy. What made it holy?


Right... God does love man.

Correct. And in Noah's day, violence filled the earth to the extent that man's every thought was evil. Yet, God patiently waited because he loved those evil folks. But his love for them did not keep him from judging them.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 04:59 PM
I understand why the Talmud would not want to accept the Book of Job. They understood it well, and they rejected it for the same reason they rejected Jesus the Christ, as the Son of God.The Talmud does not reject the book of Job. Hello, it's part of our bible:rolleyes:

The Talmud says it was written by Moses, but it's a parable, not a set of events that actually happened.

And the Jewish rejection of Jesus is not because Jews 'understand him well' (whatever that means). It comes from a different reading of the bible.

Has my presence here amounted to nothing?



You personally.I am not Job. I do not pretend to by especially righteous and I do not desire his suffering either.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 05:05 PM
Yet, God loved me when I hated him. I don't understand it but he did. Because of that, I am no longer the man I once was.I am glad you feel that life is a process of improvement.

But it's one thing to hate God, and another entirely to cause suffering to people. God can forgive you for sins you did against Him. God cannot forgive you for sins you did against other people. Only the aggrieved party can forgive.


As for what we believe, I would say this... the body will refuse to do what the mind and heart does not believe. In other words, what we really believe is demonstrated in what we do."By their fruits shall you know them". I am familiar with this verse.


Abraham believed God when God promised to build a nation through Isaac. Then he prophesied to those around him "The lad and I are going to worship God and we will return." He fully intended to offer Isaac as a sacrifice to God. Yet, had he not believed God would have raised him from the dead, he would not have been able to do so. So his works lined up with his beliefs.I disagree. Abraham was relying on God to tell him not to do the sacrifice.




Right. When Moses approached the burning bush, God said the ground was holy. What made it holy?Uhh God's presence? I don't know, it's a metaphysical concept I can't wrap my mind around...




Correct. And in Noah's day, violence filled the earth to the extent that man's every thought was evil. Yet, God patiently waited because he loved those evil folks. But his love for them did not keep him from judging them.

I don't know if He 'loved them', but he gave them a chance to repent.

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 05:14 PM
I am glad you feel that life is a process of improvement.

But it's one thing to hate God, and another entirely to cause suffering to people. God can forgive you for sins you did against Him. God cannot forgive you for sins you did against other people. Only the aggrieved party can forgive.

How then do we deal with Psalms 51? and more specifically vs 4?


"By their fruits shall you know them". I am familiar with this verse.

yea. that's part of it. But I am talking about something far deeper. Would the Arabs try to destroy Israel if they believed God wanted Israel to live? They think they are doing God a favor. In other words, their actions are following their beliefs. IMO, one's beliefs cannot be separated from one's actions.


I disagree. Abraham was relying on God to tell him not to do the sacrifice.

That's OK. The main point still stands. Abraham was determined to obey God because he knew that Isaac was the child of promise. He KNEW God was going to intervene in some way so his obedience was complete. In other words, he walked the whole way till the end because of what he believed. His action and obedience followed his belief.


Uhh God's presence? I don't know, it's a metaphysical concept I can't wrap my mind around...

Yes. It was God's presence. We see the same thing with the Holy of Holies. When the Spirit of God came on Samson, Samson was holy as the bush was. When the Spirit of God left Samson, Samson was no longer holy.


I don't know if He 'loved them', but he gave them a chance to repent.

But we can at least agree he didn't hate them, else he would have not had patience at all.

daughter
May 20th 2008, 05:20 PM
But it's one thing to hate God, and another entirely to cause suffering to people. God can forgive you for sins you did against Him. God cannot forgive you for sins you did against other people. Only the aggrieved party can forgive.

Hi Fenris... just a quick thought... David as you know sinned terribly, both by taking another man's wife, and by murdering the man.

When David repents of his sin, he says to God, "against you, you alone have I sinned."

A man can forgive someone for sinning against him... but only God can wash away the sin (as He does with David, since David truly repents.)

Uriah never had an opportunity to forgive David - God, praise Him, did.

tgallison
May 20th 2008, 05:22 PM
[quote=Fenris;1645456]The Talmud does not reject the book of Job. Hello, it's part of our bible:rolleyes:

I see no difference if you are going to call it a fable.


The Talmud says it was written by Moses, but it's a parable, not a set of events that actually happened.

What do they say it is a parable of?


And the Jewish rejection of Jesus is not because Jews 'understand him well' (whatever that means). It comes from a different reading of the bible.

Well as a Nation, it had nothing to do with reading, it had to do with believing. He came, and he was rejected.


Has my presence here amounted to nothing?

What do you mean by this statement?


I am not Job. I do not pretend to by especially righteous and I do not desire his suffering either.

Do you believe you will be weighed in the balances, and God will find you worthy?

terrell

daughter
May 20th 2008, 05:26 PM
Hey, I need to track back a bit and see what you've been saying to Fenris that he feels he's under attack! Just for the record, fellow proddies... he's not the pope! :hmm:

Jerome1
May 20th 2008, 05:54 PM
When David repents of his sin, he says to God, "against you, you alone have I sinned."



Just a thought, but Uriah was dead at that stage.

daughter
May 20th 2008, 06:10 PM
That was the absolute point of what I was saying...

Only God is the ever living one, the only one who is utterly alive, utterly vibrant, and utterly able to forgive all those who truly repent.

I've sinned in my life, against many people, including those who are not yet able to forgive, not because they are physically dead, but because they are dead in sin. They think that I sinned against them... yet ultimately I sinned against only one. And He, thank God, can forgive me.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 06:11 PM
How then do we deal with Psalms 51? and more specifically vs 4?God forgives sin. The entire David/Uriah situation is not comparable to anything in the modern day because David was a king and therefore had permission to do certain things that would be sin for others.




yea. that's part of it. But I am talking about something far deeper. Would the Arabs try to destroy Israel if they believed God wanted Israel to live? They think they are doing God a favor. In other words, their actions are following their beliefs. IMO, one's beliefs cannot be separated from one's actions.Nevertheless. People can do good deeds and not be Jewish or Christian.




That's OK. The main point still stands. Abraham was determined to obey God because he knew that Isaac was the child of promise. He KNEW God was going to intervene in some way so his obedience was complete. In other words, he walked the whole way till the end because of what he believed. His action and obedience followed his belief.But God didn't reward him for his beliefs, but for what he did.




But we can at least agree he didn't hate them, else he would have not had patience at all.No, He could hate them and still give them a chance. I don't see a problem with that.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 06:16 PM
Hi Fenris... just a quick thought... David as you know sinned terribly, both by taking another man's wife, and by murdering the man.

When David repents of his sin, he says to God, "against you, you alone have I sinned."

A man can forgive someone for sinning against him... but only God can wash away the sin (as He does with David, since David truly repents.)

Uriah never had an opportunity to forgive David - God, praise Him, did.Again, David was an exception because he was a king. I'll go into it, but not now, it is a long discussion.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 06:20 PM
I've sinned in my life, against many people, including those who are not yet able to forgive, not because they are physically dead, but because they are dead in sin. They think that I sinned against them... yet ultimately I sinned against only one. And He, thank God, can forgive me.
If one is truly contrite and asks for forgiveness 3 times, and is turned away, they have fulfilled their obligation. But to say that one has made peace with God and therefore they are absolved of sins against their fellow man is not a Jewish concept.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 06:24 PM
I see no difference if you are going to call it a fable. Fine, whatever. I'm not going to belabor the point.




What do they say it is a parable of?The human condition? The existence of evil in the world?




Well as a Nation, it had nothing to do with reading, it had to do with believing. He came, and he was rejected.
So every person who claims to be God must be accepted as God? Or does their claim have to agree with their reading of holy scripture?



What do you mean by this statement?I would like to believe that my being here has led to a better understanding of Judaism, just as it has led to my better understanding of Christianity.




Do you believe you will be weighed in the balances, and God will find you worthy?Could I be better? yes. Am I expected to be perfect? No.

daughter
May 20th 2008, 06:32 PM
When you have time, I'd love to see your rational. You see... I often find myself arguing to athiests etc, that God can do whatsoever He pleases because HE IS GOD! (That is to say King.)

Could you explain how things are different to David because he is king... and how does that relate to modern political ruler?

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 06:35 PM
God forgives sin. The entire David/Uriah situation is not comparable to anything in the modern day because David was a king and therefore had permission to do certain things that would be sin for others.

Where is that written? Of course authority can play a roll and folks in authority can do things by nature of that authority. But, David confessed his sin to God not to Bathsheba or Uriah (who was dead). God forgave him for it. Did you limit God earlier by saying that God could not forgive sins committed against others? If all belong to God, then it is against God whom we sin, and against each other.


Nevertheless. People can do good deeds and not be Jewish or Christian.

There are plenty of deeds people who are neither Christian nor Jewish can do that we would call good.


But God didn't reward him for his beliefs, but for what he did.

His actions cannot be separated from his beliefs. That's the point. Oh, and we do know that God granted him righteousness because of his belief.

tgallison
May 20th 2008, 06:43 PM
[quote=Fenris;1645572]Fine, whatever. I'm not going to belabor the point.

OK



The human condition? The existence of evil in the world?

How about the most righteous man in the world was headed for the pit.



So every person who claims to be God must be accepted as God? Or does their claim have to agree with their reading of holy scripture?

No! Only the one who fulfilled all the prophecy of the prophets about the saviour.


I would like to believe that my being here has led to a better understanding of Judaism, just as it has led to my better understanding of Christianity.

I appreciate that.



Could I be better? yes. Am I expected to be perfect? No.

I was asking if there is a weigh of the balances, where a person would be rejected by God. Is there measure of height which one must reach. And if so, does it apply to everyone, or to Jews only?

terrell

Jerome1
May 20th 2008, 06:54 PM
Where is that written? Of course authority can play a roll and folks in authority can do things by nature of that authority. But, David confessed his sin to God not to Bathsheba or Uriah (who was dead). God forgave him for it. Did you limit God earlier by saying that God could not forgive sins committed against others? If all belong to God, then it is against God whom we sin, and against each other.


You say God forgave David for his sin, but in 2Samuel it states that the Lord struck the child and it became ill and eventually dies,(2Samuel12:15)
David is also told that the Lord will raise up trouble for him from within his own house,2Samuel12:11. Shortly after this Davids son Absalom usurps the throne from his father and David is forced to fight against his own son.

It would seem that Davids sin was met with retribution.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 06:55 PM
When you have time, I'd love to see your rational. You see... I often find myself arguing to athiests etc, that God can do whatsoever He pleases because HE IS GOD! (That is to say King.)Right, but God has obligations just as man does. God is obliged to be fair. Forgiving a bad person because he asked God but neglected to ask the person he sinned against is not really fair.


Could you explain how things are different to David because he is king... and how does that relate to modern political ruler?A king in biblical times had certain powers. It's a long subject which we shall visit at a later date.

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 06:57 PM
Right, but God has obligations just as man does. God is obliged to be fair. Forgiving a bad person because he asked God but neglected to ask the person he sinned against is not really fair.

Where is God obligated to be fair? How was it fair that Jonathan, who was to be king, lost the kingdom because of his father's sin? The covenant with Saul was meant to be eternal but Saul blew it and Jonathon suffered as a result.


A king in biblical times had certain powers. It's a long subject which we shall visit at a later date.

Authority is an interesting topic. I look forward to the discussion.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 06:59 PM
Where is that written?
It is part of the oral law I believe.


Of course authority can play a roll and folks in authority can do things by nature of that authority.
Yep.


But, David confessed his sin to God not to Bathsheba or Uriah (who was dead). God forgave him for it. Did you limit God earlier by saying that God could not forgive sins committed against others? Yes, but there are exceptions made.


If all belong to God, then it is against God whom we sin, and against each other.Which as a Jew I find disturbing because many bad people have done bad things and then reconciled with God but not with man. Especially not with their victims. I do not feel that they deserve a free pass.




His actions cannot be separated from his beliefs. That's the point. Oh, and we do know that God granted him righteousness because of his belief.
So people who do the right thing for the wrong reason deserve no credit?

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 07:03 PM
Which as a Jew I find disturbing because many bad people have done bad things and then reconciled with God but not with man. Especially not with their victims. I do not feel that they deserve a free pass.

They don't. When a man is sinned against, God requires the sinner to make it right with the one he sinned against. However, that does not mean that God does not have the power to forgive the sin. In David's case, the one he sinned against was dead. David could not go against him. Oh how his heart must have hurt as he thought upon how he had destroyed one of his mighty men. Uriah wasn't just anyone, he was mighty for David. But like this sin, some are so grave, that one cannot make it up. One must simply acknowledge it to both God and the one whom he sinned against. Can a man do away and make right the wrong and pain he caused? No, but he can try.


So people who do the right thing for the wrong reason deserve no credit?A clean heart was what David asked for. A clean heart has right motive. God desires truth in the inward parts. Do not cleanness and truth speak to motive?

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 07:15 PM
Where is God obligated to be fair?
Abraham, to God: "Will the judge of the entire world not do justice?"

The whole concept of God having obligations is another difference between Judaism and Christianity.

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 07:20 PM
Abraham, to God: "Will the judge of the entire world not do justice?"

The whole concept of God having obligations is another difference between Judaism and Christianity.

But justice and fairness are two different things. It was just for God to remove Saul from the throne. But it wasn't fair that Jonathan missed out on being King because of his Dad's sin. Jonathon was an exception man. No wonder David thought highly of him.

And is there a greater story in all of scripture than how David dealt with Mephibosheth? (I know I butchered his name.)

God keeps covenant and with covenant, comes obligations. I believe that God has obligated himself.

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 07:22 PM
They don't. When a man is sinned against, God requires the sinner to make it right with the one he sinned against. However, that does not mean that God does not have the power to forgive the sin. In David's case, the one he sinned against was dead. David could not go against him. Oh how his heart must have hurt as he thought upon how he had destroyed one of his mighty men. Uriah wasn't just anyone, he was mighty for David. But like this sin, some are so grave, that one cannot make it up. One must simply acknowledge it to both God and the one whom he sinned against. Can a man do away and make right the wrong and pain he caused? No, but he can try.

A clean heart was what David asked for. A clean heart has right motive. God desires truth in the inward parts. Do not cleanness and truth speak to motive?Excepting David, do we have another example of God forgiving a sin of that magnitude committed against another man?

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 07:26 PM
But justice and fairness are two different things. It was just for God to remove Saul from the throne. But it wasn't fair that Jonathan missed out on being King because of his Dad's sin. Jonathon was an exception man. No wonder David thought highly of him.

We don't know that Jonathan wanted the kingship.

Is it justice that someone who inflicted massive human suffering have the same end as his victims?

Theophilus
May 20th 2008, 07:30 PM
Excepting David, do we have another example of God forgiving a sin of that magnitude committed against another man?
Well, Cain killed his brother by his own hand...and God did not require his life. In fact, God marked Cain for his own protection.

Not sure if that's forgiveness, but it's surely merciful...

daughter
May 20th 2008, 07:31 PM
Jonathon didn't want the kingship... something that struck me very powerfully was that he knew who God had annointed King (David) and he was commited to follow him.

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 07:32 PM
Excepting David, do we have another example of God forgiving a sin of that magnitude committed against another man?

Jesus on the cross when he prayed "Father forgive them, they know not what they are doing".

I will ponder you question more and slowly search for it in my readings for an OT example. But always keeping in mind that David was a prophet and as such, God reveals more about him than others. Is it not always so with God and his men? He lifts them up and displays them in both their glory and their weakness.

When I read Daniel 9, I see a prayer of repentance for the sins of the fathers of Daniel. And how did they sin? They did not keep the sabbath year. Nor did the keep the Jubilee year, which is the sabbath of sabbath years. These sins against God would have been against the poor and underprivileged as well. God put Israel in bondage for 70 years, 1 year for each sabbath they did not keep. We know that God commanded that we are to love Him and love our neighbor. In not keeping the sabbath years and the jubilee years, Israel sinned against God and the fellow man whom might have sold his land to another. The land was supposed to be restored on the Jubilee year according to law.

Yet, in Daniel's prayer, he confessed to God and asked for forgiveness. Over and over again Daniel said Israel's sin was against God. Yet, the law that was broken was a merciful law for man and field. God showed him many things as a result.

Perhaps there is more but I will have to ponder it. It may take me a while to as I will slowly look for such a thing as I read through the OT again.

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 07:33 PM
Jonathon didn't want the kingship... something that struck me very powerfully was that he knew who God had annointed King (David) and he was commited to follow him.

Jonathon knew he would have to die in order for David to be king. He made David promise to remember his kids after he was dead. Jonathon was an awesome man!

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 07:36 PM
Well, Cain killed his brother by his own hand...and God did not require his life. In fact, God marked Cain for his own protection.

Not sure if that's forgiveness, but it's surely merciful...Perhaps. But Cain could claim ignorance. He had never seen a person die or be killed. Anyway, we don't know that Cain was forgiven.

Theophilus
May 20th 2008, 07:39 PM
Perhaps. But Cain could claim ignorance. He had never seen a person die or be killed. Anyway, we don't know that Cain was forgiven.
I'm sorry, Fenris...You just inspire me to post. It's that avatar.

;)

Fenris
May 20th 2008, 08:03 PM
Jesus on the cross when he prayed "Father forgive them, they know not what they are doing".Uh...I'll pass on this one for obvious reasons. Any others?


I will ponder you question more and slowly search for it in my readings for an OT example. But always keeping in mind that David was a prophet and as such, God reveals more about him than others. Is it not always so with God and his men? He lifts them up and displays them in both their glory and their weakness.Of course. Still, that does not make David an 'everyman', as it were...


When I read Daniel 9, I see a prayer of repentance for the sins of the fathers of Daniel. And how did they sin? They did not keep the sabbath year. Nor did the keep the Jubilee year, which is the sabbath of sabbath years. These sins against God would have been against the poor and underprivileged as well. God put Israel in bondage for 70 years, 1 year for each sabbath they did not keep. We know that God commanded that we are to love Him and love our neighbor. In not keeping the sabbath years and the jubilee years, Israel sinned against God and the fellow man whom might have sold his land to another. The land was supposed to be restored on the Jubilee year according to law.Right, and how did they atone? through suffering. It wasn't that easy to get a clean slate for that one.



Perhaps there is more but I will have to ponder it. It may take me a while to as I will slowly look for such a thing as I read through the OT again.

This is an involved topic, no doubt about it. It also lays out some of the big differences between our faiths...

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 09:11 PM
Right, and how did they atone? through suffering. It wasn't that easy to get a clean slate for that one.

I see a difference between atonement and chastisement/punishment. Had they repented by listening to Jeremiah and Isaiah, God would not have had to intervene.


This is an involved topic, no doubt about it. It also lays out some of the big differences between our faiths...

I am sure it does. It certainly has my interest at this moment. I doubt I will be able to have a more adequate answer to you in any short time. Even so, Christianity requires that one make it right with both God and his fellow man. Yet, we also understand that a deed can't undo a thing that has been done.

Oh, I saw where you posted about Jonathan above. I think Jonathan so much wanted to please God, that when he saw Saul had broken the covenant with God, he was quite willing to submit to the consequences. He knew he was in line to be king and also suspected that would cost him his life though he hoped to be by David's side. He also probably knew the words of Samuel and that God intended for Saul and his kindred to reign over Israel forever. Anyway, I find this verse very revealing.

1 Sam 20:13-17
And may the Lord be with you as He has been with my father. 14 And if I am still alive, will you not show me the lovingkindness of the Lord, that I may not die? 15 "And you shall not cut off your lovingkindness from my house forever, not even when the Lord cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth." 16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May the Lord require it at the hands of David's enemies." 17 And Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.
NASB

He asked David to take care of his kids if he died. Jonathan was a mighty man and often overlooked in scripture. The kingdom was his and would have rightly been his and was God's will for it to be his, until his father sinned. But he loved David as he loved himself and fully kept the command to "love your neighbor as yourself".

Jerome1
May 20th 2008, 10:05 PM
Excepting David, do we have another example of God forgiving a sin of that magnitude committed against another man?

God brought retribution on David. He killed the child conceived with Bethsheba. Then David's daughter was raped which eventually leads to war between David and his son Absalom.

Teke
May 21st 2008, 12:59 AM
Heh. So Christians existed before Christ?

Yes, they waited for Him to come. They have been called many things, saints, prophets, angels, patriarchs.....
.


We've been down this road in the past. I feel that God does differentiate between different peoples. Not in their value to Him, but in what He expects of them.

I know you disagree with this.

The Vatican holds similar thoughts. Apparently such thinking is met with resistance.

Jerome1
May 21st 2008, 03:31 AM
Perhaps. But Cain could claim ignorance. He had never seen a person die or be killed. Anyway, we don't know that Cain was forgiven.

In an apocryphal book i am reading Cain is killed accidently.


Yes, they waited for Him to come. They have been called many things, saints, prophets, angels, patriarchs.....

They adhered to Judaism, they were Jews, that is why you call it the Judeo/Christian religion.



The Vatican holds similar thoughts. Apparently such thinking is met with resistance.


I don't understand what you mean, do you care to explain?

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 11:04 AM
God brought retribution on David. He killed the child conceived with Bethsheba. Then David's daughter was raped which eventually leads to war between David and his son Absalom.Very interesting facts, but they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 11:05 AM
Yes, they waited for Him to come. They have been called many things, saints, prophets, angels, patriarchs.....
.

Muslims believe the same thing. Abraham/Jesus etc were waiting for Mohammed.

daughter
May 21st 2008, 11:29 AM
I don't think that Cain could claim ignorance. He'd seen plenty of death before, I assume, in the offering of sacrifices. Nobody had seen a human die, but by that stage everyone must have known that death was all around them.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 11:37 AM
Plenty of death? He'd never seen a human die, that's for sure. And he never brought an animal sacrifice either.

daughter
May 21st 2008, 11:55 AM
Well, I presume he had clothes like his parents, and that animals were running around killing each other. But I could be wrong...

You are right though that no human had yet died. So what he thought he was doing when he shed his brother's blood is a mystery...

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 12:10 PM
Imagine how Adam and Eve felt on that day. They knew that if they had not eaten of the tree of knowledge, and instead had taken the Tree of Life, both sons would still be with them.

How heart breaking it must be to see one son murder another and know that, as their parent, the root fault laid with you.

Teke
May 21st 2008, 12:49 PM
Muslims believe the same thing. Abraham/Jesus etc were waiting for Mohammed.

Perhaps, but not for the same reason.
Are you suggesting that religious difference is irrelevant?

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 12:52 PM
Perhaps, but not for the same reason.
Are you suggesting that religious difference is irrelevant?No, I'm saying that Muslims anachronistically place their religion just as you do.

daughter
May 21st 2008, 01:00 PM
Hi Fenris...

What do you think happened to persuade so many people to follow a crucified carpenter? It does strike me as perhaps the most bizarre thing in history, and rather different from the invention of Islam.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 01:05 PM
I'm not sure the powers that be here would be happy with my answer...

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 01:09 PM
One key (but not the only one) difference in Islam and Christianity... Jesus was a Jew but Mohammed was not.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 01:14 PM
One key (but not the only one) difference in Islam and Christianity... Jesus was a Jew but Mohammed was not.True, true.

Still, it isn't a point in favor or against either religion.

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 01:15 PM
True, true.

Still, it isn't a point in favor or against either religion.

Sure it is. The Messiah has to be a Jew. Right?

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 01:18 PM
Sure it is. The Messiah has to be a Jew. Right?
Unless our bible is wrong, as Muslims state.

daughter
May 21st 2008, 01:22 PM
Well, you know as well as I do Fenris, that Muslims are talking out of their collective rear ends when they attack the Jewish Scriptures. There is absolutely no way that all those Torah scrolls, scattered through the world, could have been altered consistently.

And if you were going to alter them, then we wouldn't have things like David's adultery, Israel grumbling in the desert... Humans writing about themselves are always trying to make themselves look good. Something very different about the Hebrew scriptures, compared with other ancient accounts... you'd almost think Someone else was overseeing the production of the account!

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 01:23 PM
Unless our bible is wrong, as Muslims state.

And Christians, by and large, love the Jews. Now, Christianity has been used for political purposes in a wrong way. But when the NT is studied, it reveals that we are to love not only our friends, but even our enemies. I would argue that true Christians love even their enemies.

So without denying that "christians" have persecuted Jews in the past, I think it safe to say that Islam hates Jews while Christianity loves Jews.

Another very, very important difference. We keep the Jewish OT as the word of God. I would argue that while we think Jesus to be God too, we also recognize God of the Jewish OT as God and take him as our own. The God of Islam claims the God of Abraham however, his character and the character of the God of the OT bible are not the same. IOW, it is arguable that the Jews and Christians worship the same God while Islam worships a different God. (Yes, I know the sorts of trouble such a statement is likely to stir up. But hey, this is the contro section. :D)

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 01:24 PM
Well, you know as well as I do Fenris, that Muslims are talking out of their collective rear ends when they attack the Jewish Scriptures. There is absolutely no way that all those Torah scrolls, scattered through the world, could have been altered consistently.

And if you were going to alter them, then we wouldn't have things like David's adultery, Israel grumbling in the desert... Humans writing about themselves are always trying to make themselves look good. Something very different about the Hebrew scriptures, compared with other ancient accounts... you'd almost think Someone else was overseeing the production of the account!
Absolutely correct.

And yet, you think that the text of the bible is correct but the understanding of it is not?

Teke
May 21st 2008, 01:27 PM
They adhered to Judaism, they were Jews, that is why you call it the Judeo/Christian religion.

I do not call it Judeo/Christianity.



I don't understand what you mean, do you care to explain?

Do you think the Vatican is fulfilling a purpose for God, I don't.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 01:27 PM
And Christians, by and large, love the Jews. Now, Christianity has been used for political purposes in a wrong way. But when the NT is studied, it reveals that we are to love not only our friends, but even our enemies. I would argue that true Christians love even their enemies.
True today, especially in America. Historically it was not true, particularly in Europe.


So without denying that "christians" have persecuted Jews in the past, I think it safe to say that Islam hates Jews while Christianity loves Jews.True today, yes.


Another very, very important difference. We keep the Jewish OT as the word of God. I would argue that while we think Jesus to be God too, we also recognize God of the Jewish OT as God and take him as our own. The God of Islam claims the God of Abraham however, his character and the character of the God of the OT bible are not the same. IOW, it is arguable that the Jews and Christians worship the same God while Islam worships a different God. (Yes, I know the sorts of trouble such a statement is likely to stir up. But hey, this is the contro section. :D)I'll give a controversial reply: In some ways Christianity is closer to Judaism, and in other ways Islam is closer to Judaism.

daughter
May 21st 2008, 01:28 PM
Whose understanding?

(Obviously, I'm right and everyone else is wrong! :lol: )

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 01:29 PM
Absolutely correct.

And yet, you think that the text of the bible is correct but the understanding of it is not?

Who can possibly completely understand all the Holy Writ?

Now, having effectively avoided your question with that answer, the long and short of it is this... I find your take on scriptures very interesting. It is one reason I engage you in conversation concerning them. If I never learned anything from you, I would post less often.

But of course, we both believe the other has some lack of understanding when it comes to scripture. I am not offended by that, nor do you appear to be either. ;)

The overall point I wanted to make is that Christianity can, I believe, say that Judaism is in our history. But Islam, it is just out in left field.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 01:35 PM
Who can possibly completely understand all the Holy Writ?Why would God give us something intentionally confusing? :lol:


Now, having effectively avoided your question with that answer, the long and short of it is this... I find your take on scriptures very interesting. It is one reason I engage you in conversation concerning them. If I never learned anything from you, I would post less often. Why, thank you.:kiss:


But of course, we both believe the other has some lack of understanding when it comes to scripture. I am not offended by that, nor do you appear to be either. ;)
I try to keep an open mind on things.

Perhaps it's easier to be Christian if you're protestant, because you're claiming that the Catholic church was wrong for 1500 years or so. So how difficult is it to say that the Jews were wrong, too? But for me it's difficult to say that a well-established and already ancient religion was wrong all along, which is what the early Christians said about Judaism...

Teke
May 21st 2008, 01:40 PM
No, I'm saying that Muslims anachronistically place their religion just as you do.

I believe you see me as a religious person rather than just another human being. Anachronistically, I don't recall human beings ever being anything other than human beings.

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 01:43 PM
Why would God give us something intentionally confusing? :lol:

I don't know. But David himself said "I have not concerned myself with things too great for me." Go figure. :D


Perhaps it's easier to be Christian if you're protestant, because you're claiming that the Catholic church was wrong for 1500 years or so. So how difficult is it to say that the Jews were wrong, too? But for me it's difficult to say that a well-established and already ancient religion was wrong all along, which is what the early Christians said about Judaism...

I have never said that the ancient Jews were wrong. Nor do I believe it was wrong all along. I think many Jews were right on the money (i.e. David, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, etc.) I know we disagree about Christ, and I see that as a big disagreement. But I do know this... God promised that if we seek him with our whole heart, we will find him. We also know that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter but the heart of a king to search it out. If one is truly seeking God, one will find what God has hidden.

Sadly, I doubt many christians truly seek him, whether they be protestant or catholic or some other branch. IMO, God is not beyond leaving a man deceived in any religion, including my own. The single requirement for knowing God is to seek Him and what He wants. If that is our true motive, then repentance and belief will happen. If it is not our real motive, then we are doomed to the fate that God decides.

Jerome1
May 21st 2008, 02:05 PM
Very interesting facts, but they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Don't want to derail the thread, altough it kind of has been derailed already, but you said earlier.



Excepting David, do we have another example of God forgiving a sin of that magnitude committed against another man?


Did God forgive David, or did he bring retribution on David for his sins, that was my point.

In 2Samuel Nathan tells David that the Lord has put away his sin, but he also tells him how the Lord intends to punish him.

Jerome1
May 21st 2008, 02:09 PM
I do not call it Judeo/Christianity.


Thats what it is Judaism went before christianity.


Do you think the Vatican is fulfilling a purpose for God, I don't.

Ofcourse you do or you wouldn't accept the first seven councils as ecumenical and authoritative.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 02:10 PM
I believe you see me as a religious person rather than just another human being. Anachronistically, I don't recall human beings ever being anything other than human beings.You are a religious person who believes in a God that was unknown to the patriarchs.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 02:13 PM
I don't know. But David himself said "I have not concerned myself with things too great for me." Go figure. :D
So be it.

Well, the Jewish understanding is somewhat different. Obviously.



I have never said that the ancient Jews were wrong. Nor do I believe it was wrong all along. I think many Jews were right on the money (i.e. David, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, etc.) I know we disagree about Christ, and I see that as a big disagreement. But I do know this... God promised that if we seek him with our whole heart, we will find him. We also know that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter but the heart of a king to search it out. If one is truly seeking God, one will find what God has hidden.Ergo, Christians seek God with their whole heart and Jews don't? :hmm:


Sadly, I doubt many christians truly seek him, whether they be protestant or catholic or some other branch. IMO, God is not beyond leaving a man deceived in any religion, including my own. Interesting point. I won't disagree.


The single requirement for knowing God is to seek Him and what He wants. If that is our true motive, then repentance and belief will happen. If it is not our real motive, then we are doomed to the fate that God decides.
This begs certain questions, as I stated above.

daughter
May 21st 2008, 02:16 PM
Hey Fenris... I read a rabbi (I'm sorry, I don't know who) who said that God "plays hide and seek with His children." God has not given us simple scripture that answers every question, because He wants us to play, grow and and learn through His word as we seek Him.

I like that idea... God wants us to be delighted, and to wonder.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 02:24 PM
Hey Fenris... I read a rabbi (I'm sorry, I don't know who) who said that God "plays hide and seek with His children." God has not given us simple scripture that answers every question, because He wants us to play, grow and and learn through His word as we seek Him.

I like that idea... God wants us to be delighted, and to wonder.
I never said that God made things simple for us. Of course He wants us to delve into His word day and night.

But that doesn't mean that every reading of the bible is correct. If someone wants to read the bible do they have the right to break with traditional understanding?

daughter
May 21st 2008, 02:29 PM
But there are so many "traditional" interpretations.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 02:35 PM
But there are so many "traditional" interpretations.
Which ones are the oldest?

daughter
May 21st 2008, 02:39 PM
:D
You know the answer to that question! And if I weren't Christian, I'd be an orthodox Jew, since that is obviously the oldest faith based on the God of the Bible.

I've got a longer answer in me, but I am having to dash now, as I've got a taxi arriving any minute now, but I'll look at this thread later to see where else it wanders.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 02:45 PM
:D
You know the answer to that question! And if I weren't Christian, I'd be an orthodox Jew, since that is obviously the oldest faith based on the God of the Bible.Which is why I say that one needs strong reasons for breaking with established understanding of the text. It doesn't mean that Christians (or Muslims for that matter) are wrong, of course. But it is something to ponder.


I've got a longer answer in me, but I am having to dash now, as I've got a taxi arriving any minute now, but I'll look at this thread later to see where else it wanders.
Long answers are nice too!

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 02:56 PM
So be it.

Well, the Jewish understanding is somewhat different. Obviously.

With God's help, we can understand. For instance, it is the glory of God to conceal a matter but the heart of a king to search it out.


Ergo, Christians seek God with their whole heart and Jews don't? :hmm:

Did I say that? I thought I said that many christians don't know God nor seek him. You know my opinion is that Jesus is God. Therefore, IMO, those that earnestly seek God will find the Messiah. But I did emphasize OT scripture that we will find him when we seek him with our whole heart. We disagree Fenris, but we already knew that. As for the Jews, doesn't the OT show us that only a remnant really sought after God? Should we be surprised today that only a remnant of Christianity is truly seeking God?

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 03:06 PM
With God's help, we can understand. For instance, it is the glory of God to conceal a matter but the heart of a king to search it out.OK, so the bible can be understood then.




Did I say that? I thought I said that many christians don't know God nor seek him. You know my opinion is that Jesus is God. Therefore, IMO, those that earnestly seek God will find the Messiah. But I did emphasize OT scripture that we will find him when we seek him with our whole heart. We disagree Fenris, but we already knew that. As for the Jews, doesn't the OT show us that only a remnant really sought after God? Should we be surprised today that only a remnant of Christianity is truly seeking God?No...similarly, most Jews today are not religious either.

Teke
May 21st 2008, 03:10 PM
Ofcourse you do or you wouldn't accept the first seven councils as ecumenical and authoritative.


The Vatican didn't decide those councils, the whole Christian church did.

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 03:17 PM
OK, so the bible can be understood then.

Yes. But sadly, most are blinded to it. While I think reason helps, I think more importantly, the Spirit of God reveals himself and his word to us. That's what Isaiah was getting at when he spoke about hearing but not understanding.


No...similarly, most Jews today are not religious either.I am not just speaking of those that are not religious. But even those that are religious, yet are not seeking God. Religion often has it's own rewards.

Jerome1
May 21st 2008, 03:18 PM
The Vatican didn't decide those councils, the whole Christian church did.

The Roman church was part of them though.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 03:21 PM
Yes. But sadly, most are blinded to it. While I think reason helps, I think more importantly, the Spirit of God reveals himself and his word to us. Hmm. I'm not sure if I agree or not. I'll let it be for now.


I am not just speaking of those that are not religious. But even those that are religious, yet are not seeking God. Religion often has it's own rewards.If they're not seeking God, they're not religious. Even if they do all the rituals as proscribed.

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 03:26 PM
Hmm. I'm not sure if I agree or not. I'll let it be for now.

Ok.


If they're not seeking God, they're not religious. Even if they do all the rituals as proscribed.


By that definition of religion, I would agree. Or as God would say, he hates our rituals and he hides himself from us. He desires to reason with us, but often, we don't listen.

Teke
May 21st 2008, 03:32 PM
You are a religious person who believes in a God that was unknown to the patriarchs.

If a human being, like the patriarchs, builds an altar to worship God, are they religious. No, they are just being the human beings that God created. We do what God created us to do irregardless of philosophical speculation (theology).

I don't consider what is anthropic to be religious. One is created by God the other by man.

Being joined to God in communion is not religion. If it were I could only do so within religion.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 03:38 PM
Brother Mark, here's a snippet from a Jewish prayer recited daily, asking for enlightenment:

With abundant love have you loved us, O Lord our God; with exceedingly great pity have You pitied us. Our Father, our King, for the sake of our forefathers who trusted in You and whom You taught the decrees of life, may You be equally gracious and teach us. Our Father, our merciful Father, Who acts mercifully, have mercy on us and instill in our hearts to understand and elucidate, to listen, to learn, teach, to safeguard, perform, and fulfill all of the words of Your teachings with love. Enlighten our eyes in Your Torah, attach our hearts to Your commandments, and unify our hearts to love and fear Your name...

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 03:39 PM
If a human being, like the patriarchs, builds an altar to worship God, are they religious. No, they are just being the human beings that God created. We do what God created us to do irregardless of philosophical speculation (theology).

I don't consider what is anthropic to be religious. One is created by God the other by man.

Being joined to God in communion is not religion. If it were I could only do so within religion.This is another one of your posts I just don't understand.

Teke
May 21st 2008, 03:41 PM
The Roman church was part of them though.

"Was" being the key word here. ;)
Good intentions aside, now they are their own entity. They allow worldly influence into the church. Follow the period of Charlemagne and you will find this is true.

To an Orthodox, this falls under the category of adultery.

Teke
May 21st 2008, 03:44 PM
This is another one of your posts I just don't understand.

Why, can't you separate religion from humanity.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 03:45 PM
Why, can't you separate religion from humanity.I don't understand this one either.

Teke
May 21st 2008, 05:16 PM
I don't understand this one either.

Is humanity religion to you?

Jerome1
May 21st 2008, 05:37 PM
"Was" being the key word here. ;)
Good intentions aside, now they are their own entity. They allow worldly influence into the church. Follow the period of Charlemagne and you will find this is true.

To an Orthodox, this falls under the category of adultery.

I'm not as familiar with the various Emperors of the Byzantine Empire and their relationship with the Orthodox church. I am more familiar with the various Western Emperors and their relationship with the RCC.

The facts are that those who considered themselves to be Emperors of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires persecuted both churches, you seen this with the Nazi regime in the west, and the communist regime in the east. Something that i did not know until recently was that in 1666 the Patriarch Nikon was disposed by the Russian tzar(Caesar) and until the Russian revolution of 1917 the Orthodox church was basically a branch of the State.

Teke
May 21st 2008, 06:46 PM
I'm not as familiar with the various Emperors of the Byzantine Empire and their relationship with the Orthodox church. I am more familiar with the various Western Emperors and their relationship with the RCC.

Then you should know Charlemagne well, as he had a great deal to do with the establishment of the Roman church as we see it today.


The facts are that those who considered themselves to be Emperors of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires persecuted both churches, you seen this with the Nazi regime in the west, and the communist regime in the east. Something that i did not know until recently was that in 1666 the Patriarch Nikon was disposed by the Russian tzar(Caesar) and until the Russian revolution of 1917 the Orthodox church was basically a branch of the State.

Christianity went through quite a bit in Russia, but it survives still. To much to go into here. They still fight to keep church and state separate. Now they do this mainly in the juridical courts there.

Russian Christianity began in Georgia with king Mirian (324 AD) and a miracle which caused him to convert, as there was no such nation called Russia as yet.

However, Russia is not like a Vatican to EO Christians. Nor do they believe in nationalism and being tied to this world. Our Lord said we are not of this world.

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 07:07 PM
Is humanity religion to you?I don't understand this question either.

Teke
May 21st 2008, 07:36 PM
I don't understand this question either.


I can only conclude that you "don't understand" the difference between humanity and religion. :hmm:

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 07:45 PM
I can only conclude that you "don't understand" the difference between humanity and religion. :hmm:

Teke, in fairness to Fenris, I didn't understand what you were asking either. There is a huge difference in "are humanity and religion different" and "is humanity religion to you". But neither are very clear in what they are asking. Perhaps you could explain a little better and ask it in a different way.

Teke
May 21st 2008, 08:07 PM
Teke, in fairness to Fenris, I didn't understand what you were asking either. There is a huge difference in "are humanity and religion different" and "is humanity religion to you". But neither are very clear in what they are asking. Perhaps you could explain a little better and ask it in a different way.

It's two words, "humanity", and "religion". I suppose I could put it in three questions. What is humanity? What is religion? Are they the same thing?
Rather than "are humanity and religion different". The "is humanity religion to you" question was in response to his response. I'm clueless what he thinks on the subject since he didn't address either one.

I didn't think it was a difficult question. :dunno:

Fenris
May 21st 2008, 08:26 PM
Humanity is a group of people.

Religion is a set of beliefs.

So your question, Is humanity religion to you? reads as

"Is a group of people a set of beliefs to you?"

Which makes no sense at all.

daughter
May 21st 2008, 08:55 PM
I didn't understand the question, until I considered that perhaps you had intended to write "humanism" rather than humanity. Humanity is a collective noun referring to the mass of human beings in the world. It is sometimes used adjectivally, but it's not obvious from the grammar of your question how you intended to use the word, and humanism would have been a better choice.

Jerome1
May 21st 2008, 10:48 PM
Then you should know Charlemagne well, as he had a great deal to do with the establishment of the Roman church as we see it today.



Charlemagne united much of the western Roman Empire, how is he any different from Constantine for example? How is he different from the Russian Tzars who ran the Russian Orthodox church?

Did Charlemagne have any say in doctrines of the church? It's convenient to label him as the person to establish the Roman church because you don't accept the ecumenical councils after this period. That is historical revisionism. What about the popes being sent into exile during the French revolution? What of the Nazi's persecution of the RCC in Poland?

What of the Russian Orthodox churches relationship with the Russian tzars from 1666? Do you think the three sixes in the year is significant?

Here is a link to an interesting article i read about the Russian governments relationship with the Orthodox church, and Russia's protestant minority. If the link is against the rules feel free to remove it.

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/1135/53/

daughter
May 22nd 2008, 08:49 AM
Which is why I say that one needs strong reasons for breaking with established understanding of the text. It doesn't mean that Christians (or Muslims for that matter) are wrong, of course. But it is something to ponder.

Long answers are nice too!Hi Fenris

Not sure if this will be a long answer... I've got a lot of running around to do! But just to let you know, yes... I agree that one needs strong reasons for breaking with the established understanding of a text.

My strong reason is that I genuinely believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and that He was annointed by God, and therefore was in a unique position to interpret the texts as no-one before or since could.

I know that you don't think He was the Messiah, and I understand that you are doubtful as to the historicity of some of the New Testament (by the way... I dislike the term "new" testament, but I do use it because people get all shirty with you if call it the Greek Testament or something else along those lines... but for the record, I don't think that the "Old" Testament is a helpful term either.)

Even looking at Jesus from a non faith point of view, there is something about this man that is utterly different from any other character in history. Before Him there had never been a biography written of someone who wasn't famous... generals, princes, kings. The "little" people didn't matter to history.

Then we have four biographies of a carpenter from Nazareth in very short order after His death. That's such a strange historical anomaly that we have to account for it somehow... historical logic doesn't account for it. I realise that you don't believe He was the son of God, and believe that this title was a justification by His followers, stuck on to appeal to pagans. Even if it was... what was it about this carpenter that so impacted society that two thousand years later He's considered the pivotal figure in history? Whether you use BC or BCE, or whatever... the event that divides time through much of the world is the birth of Jesus.

That provides a strong reason to believe that He was special, of unique importance in God's plan for the nations of the world.

That's the strong reason why I prefer to follow His interpretation of scripture, rather than become an Orthodox Jew.

Another thing that I've considered... a while back someone on this thread said that salvation had come to the gentiles to make the Jews jealous, and you said that you were not jealous.

I believe you... I think that we have misunderstood "jealous."

This interpretation you may agree with.

If God has allowed the gospel of Christ to flourish, whether you believe He is Messiah or not, there must be a reason for it. I believe that God has preserved the Jews, and that Jews will still be Jews when Christ comes again. For the last two thousand years Judaism has continued a faith that is jealous of the name of God, in the same sense that God is jealous of His people. Faithful Jews will not allow the God who led them out of Egypt to be profaned, they have painstakingly transcribed the Tanukh over many centuries: we wouldn't have a bible today if it were not for this fidelity. In reacting against the perceived blasphemy of Christianity Jews have become more "jealous of the Name" than any other people, and this obviously is God's will.

I do believe that there is a great sadness in the fact that Jews have been forced to react against Christ though. For example, there are Orthodox rabbis who argue that if a Jew becomes a Christian, ie, accepts that Jesus is Messiah, they are no longer a Jew. I know that some Jewish Christians (I don't like the term Messianic... all Jews are Messianic after all, or should be) have been persecuted for their faith, and I know that there are arguments in Israel that Christian Jews should not be allowed to become nationals.

This wouldn't bother me, if it weren't for the fact that Jewish buddhists, witches, athiests, etc have no problem returning to the land. For example, my son's paternal grandfather would have no problem emmigrating to Israel if he wanted to, because his mother was Jewish... however, the man is a devout athiest, who supports Palestine, and who believes that anyone who thinks God gave the land to Israel is living in a fairy land,.

Why should he be considered Jewish, when he doesn't believe in God or His promises, and is in fact ashamed of his Jewish heritage... whereas a devout Jew who believes Jesus is the Messiah is considered a traitor?

I believe that there is something about the person of Jesus that exposes the hearts of the people, both for good and ill.

I also believe that God preserved the Jews specifically for His purpose, and that we are right on the brink of seeing that purpose revealed in our life time. I'm sure I'm as excited about this as you are!

Teke
May 22nd 2008, 01:22 PM
Since this thread is on papism and you've accused me of historic revisionism I feel inclined to respond to this post of your opinion.


Charlemagne united much of the western Roman Empire, how is he any different from Constantine for example?

Charles the Great (Charlemagne) was crowned by pope Leo III (800). The reasons have been controversial. It would seem since Charlemagne instituted reforms with his uniting, the western pope saw something to take advantage of to reform the western church as well. This is actually when the west broke ties with the east. IOW they appointed themselves a king. It is said the pope did this to exert his own authority and it be seen as having power over the government as well.

This is the historic difference. The emperor of Constantinople thought of his power outside the church, while the western leaders was within the church.
This is how the western reform spread producing the Protestant reformation. Awakening of national consciousness, a merchant class, and secular reforms produced in the west, reform of church, nationalism, and the spirit of capitalism.




How is he different from the Russian Tzars who ran the Russian Orthodox church?

Let's put this thinking in historic perspective. The eastern and western church both had a lot of power in that they owned a lot of the land and the people listened to them. Government is always going to respond to this type of power because they want to be seen as the governing factor among the people.


It's convenient to label him as the person to establish the Roman church because you don't accept the ecumenical councils after this period. That is historical revisionism.
There were no ecumenical councils after the period. The western church has severed ties with the rest of the church. IOW the pope established himself.


What about the popes being sent into exile during the French revolution? What of the Nazi's persecution of the RCC in Poland?

What about it....these are the results of western reform.


What of the Russian Orthodox churches relationship with the Russian tzars from 1666? Do you think the three sixes in the year is significant?

I'm not superstitious so the sixes don't mean anything to me. As I've already stated, when the church is as powerful as the government they tend to clash.


Here is a link to an interesting article i read about the Russian governments relationship with the Orthodox church, and Russia's protestant minority. If the link is against the rules feel free to remove it.

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/1135/53/

This is like asking if Russian people are suspicious of American organizations. Doesn't their government have the right to decide if a group is suspicious or not for the good of their people.
To them it is a bit insulting to come to their country which has been Christianized longer than ours and tell them they are wrong about Christianity. So the government is going to see it as suspect American organizations moving in on their people under disguise of religion.

Sometimes Americans have to understand that everyone doesn't run their country like we do. For instance, in other countries things like natural remedies, acupuncture, massage therapy etc are closely overseen by the government. Not like America where anything goes for the people.

Nations are like people, they have their good and bad points and their never exactly alike.

Teke
May 22nd 2008, 01:36 PM
Humanity is a group of people.

Religion is a set of beliefs.

So your question, Is humanity religion to you? reads as

"Is a group of people a set of beliefs to you?"

Which makes no sense at all.

Actually is does make sense if you see people as religious. However, this was not the original question. The question was is there a difference between humanity and religion. From what you've posted you do see the difference.

Religion is not just a set of beliefs, it is an organized structure. Theology, the study of God, would be a set of beliefs based on study. A set of beliefs alone would be philosophy.

While there are authoritative organized structures such as religion, Christianity is a way of life, IOW it's anthropic.
Without the anthropic ingredient, it would just be eastern philosophy. Meaning without the human witness there is no factual basis.

Teke
May 22nd 2008, 01:38 PM
I didn't understand the question, until I considered that perhaps you had intended to write "humanism" rather than humanity. Humanity is a collective noun referring to the mass of human beings in the world. It is sometimes used adjectivally, but it's not obvious from the grammar of your question how you intended to use the word, and humanism would have been a better choice.

I meant it how I wrote it, as a noun.

Fenris
May 22nd 2008, 02:58 PM
Hi Fenris

Not sure if this will be a long answer... I've got a lot of running around to do! But just to let you know, yes... I agree that one needs strong reasons for breaking with the established understanding of a text.OK.


My strong reason is that I genuinely believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and that He was annointed by God, and therefore was in a unique position to interpret the texts as no-one before or since could.But that alone breaks with Jewish understanding. Deuteronomy says that the torah "is not in heaven". It was given to man to interpret. And that interpretation is binding, we understand. God does not need to come down and 'correct us' because no correction is needed.

So we believe.



even looking at Jesus from a non faith point of view, there is something about this man that is utterly different from any other character in history. Before Him there had never been a biography written of someone who wasn't famous... generals, princes, kings. The "little" people didn't matter to history.

Then we have four biographies of a carpenter from Nazareth in very short order after His death. That's such a strange historical anomaly that we have to account for it somehow... historical logic doesn't account for it.Well, it certainly was God's will that this new religion be founded. Everything that happens in this world is. That doesn't mean that everything that happens is correct or true.

I have stated many times that Christianity is a fine religion that has done a better job of spreading God's word than Judaism has. That is certainly part of God's purpose for this world.

None of that makes Jesus the son of God though.




That's the strong reason why I prefer to follow His interpretation of scripture, rather than become an Orthodox Jew.Fair enough.


I do believe that there is a great sadness in the fact that Jews have been forced to react against Christ though. For example, there are Orthodox rabbis who argue that if a Jew becomes a Christian, ie, accepts that Jesus is Messiah, they are no longer a Jew. I know that some Jewish Christians (I don't like the term Messianic... all Jews are Messianic after all, or should be) have been persecuted for their faith, and I know that there are arguments in Israel that Christian Jews should not be allowed to become nationals.

This wouldn't bother me, if it weren't for the fact that Jewish buddhists, witches, athiests, etc have no problem returning to the land. For example, my son's paternal grandfather would have no problem emmigrating to Israel if he wanted to, because his mother was Jewish... however, the man is a devout athiest, who supports Palestine, and who believes that anyone who thinks God gave the land to Israel is living in a fairy land,.

Why should he be considered Jewish, when he doesn't believe in God or His promises, and is in fact ashamed of his Jewish heritage... whereas a devout Jew who believes Jesus is the Messiah is considered a traitor?
That's probably because of the history between or faiths, which has been pretty rocky over the last 16 or so centuries. Also, Buddhism/atheism/whatever do not go out to missionize Jews. Christianity does, and it's a major sore point even amongst Jews who love Christians (like myself!).




I also believe that God preserved the Jews specifically for His purpose, and that we are right on the brink of seeing that purpose revealed in our life time. I'm sure I'm as excited about this as you are!Oh, absolutely!

Jerome1
May 22nd 2008, 04:21 PM
Charles the Great (Charlemagne) was crowned by pope Leo III (800). The reasons have been controversial. It would seem since Charlemagne instituted reforms with his uniting, the western pope saw something to take advantage of to reform the western church as well. This is actually when the west broke ties with the east. IOW they appointed themselves a king. It is said the pope did this to exert his own authority and it be seen as having power over the government as well.


How do you explain the RCC's persecution under people who regarded themselves as a continuation of the Western Emperor's, such as Hitler and Napoleon? There was no difference between the RCC's relationship with these various leaders of the west and their relationship with them previously under the Western Roman Empire. Meaning some persecuted the RCC and others were more favourable towards it.


Let's put this thinking in historic perspective. The eastern and western church both had a lot of power in that they owned a lot of the land and the people listened to them. Government is always going to respond to this type of power because they want to be seen as the governing factor among the people.

The facts are the Russian Tzars appointed the patriarchs of Moscow. Where as in the western empire the secular government didn't have any say as to who was elected pope.


There were no ecumenical councils after the period. The western church has severed ties with the rest of the church. IOW the pope established himself.

The Oriental Orthodox church only accepts four ecumenical councils, according to you there were no ecumenical councils.


What about it....these are the results of western reform.


It shows that the RCC is a completely separate entity from the dictators or people who claimed to be the Emperors of the west. This is in contrast to the Orthodox church, who's patriarchs were appointed by the government.


I'm not superstitious so the sixes don't mean anything to me. As I've already stated, when the church is as powerful as the government they tend to clash.


There is a difference between clashing and the Patriarchy becoming another branch of the Russian government.



Sometimes Americans have to understand that everyone doesn't run their country like we do. For instance, in other countries things like natural remedies, acupuncture, massage therapy etc are closely overseen by the government. Not like America where anything goes for the people.

Nations are like people, they have their good and bad points and their never exactly alike.


It's called democracy and freedom of religion. I am a RC but i don't think people should be prohibited from practicing what ever they believe, as long as it is not harmful to others. It seems to me that the Russian Orthodox church is fiercely nationalistic.

Fenris
May 22nd 2008, 04:28 PM
How do you explain the RCC's persecution under people who regarded themselves as a continuation of the Western Emperor's, such as Hitler Wait, what?

The Catholic Church persecuted Hitler? When did that happen?

daughter
May 22nd 2008, 04:33 PM
I meant it how I wrote it, as a noun.
As a collective noun referring to the human race? If so it was a difficult question. Apologies that I didn't understand.

Teke
May 22nd 2008, 06:05 PM
How do you explain the RCC's persecution under people who regarded themselves as a continuation of the Western Emperor's, such as Hitler and Napoleon? There was no difference between the RCC's relationship with these various leaders of the west and their relationship with them previously under the Western Roman Empire. Meaning some persecuted the RCC and others were more favourable towards it.

What can I say, the church, or religion in general for that matter, is persecuted everywhere in some form or fashion.


The facts are the Russian Tzars appointed the patriarchs of Moscow. Where as in the western empire the secular government didn't have any say as to who was elected pope.

No, they didn't appoint them, but they disposed them if they didn't agree with them. It's a legitimate thing to do. They have individual soul liberty like anyone else.


The Oriental Orthodox church only accepts four ecumenical councils, according to you there were no ecumenical councils.

I'm aware of what councils the different branches of Orthodoxy accept.


It shows that the RCC is a completely separate entity from the dictators or people who claimed to be the Emperors of the west. This is in contrast to the Orthodox church, who's patriarchs were appointed by the government.

I never said they were the same entity. And no patriarch, whether they are Orthodox or RC is appointed by government, but from the ranks of bishop. They would not go against canon on that.


There is a difference between clashing and the Patriarchy becoming another branch of the Russian government.

You are far to focused on Russia as an example of Orthodoxy. Russia is the strictest sect of Orthodox on the planet.

If you were an Orthodox clergyman in Russia, and the country took all your churches away, there is nothing you can do about it but work with them. Look at Constantinople, now Istanbul governed by Moslem's. yet the patriarchates still exists there, because the church works with the government to allow them to be there.




It's called democracy and freedom of religion. I am a RC but i don't think people should be prohibited from practicing what ever they believe, as long as it is not harmful to others. It seems to me that the Russian Orthodox church is fiercely nationalistic.

Look at your statement.:eek:
All religious people are fiercely nationalistic. They all believe that their country with it's values and it's religion is best for everyone.

I can tell you that the Russian Orthodox church teaches their people not to be nationalists. They have been and continue to be tried on this. While under communism they still held onto their Christian identity even though it had to be hidden from the government.

Jerome1
May 22nd 2008, 06:29 PM
Wait, what?

The Catholic Church persecuted Hitler? When did that happen?

No Hitler persecuted the RCC, he stopped the ordination of preists in Poland, and sent thousands of RC's(including priests) to the death camps.

Fenris
May 22nd 2008, 06:37 PM
No Hitler persecuted the RCC, he stopped the ordination of preists in Poland, and sent thousands of RC's(including priests) to the death camps.
Oh, that.

Well, that's what happens when you elevate the State over God.:hmm:

Jerome1
May 22nd 2008, 08:00 PM
What can I say, the church, or religion in general for that matter, is persecuted everywhere in some form or fashion.


I still fail to see the significance of your earlier comment about the emergence of Charlemagne and his relationship with the RCC. Other than there being various people who claimed to be the continuation of the Western Roman Emperor's, who either supported or persecuted the church. This is no different from the earlier Roman Emperors of both the East and West.


No, they didn't appoint them, but they disposed them if they didn't agree with them. It's a legitimate thing to do. They have individual soul liberty like anyone else.


Weren't many of the people who voted for there to be another patriarch of Moscow installed by the government? Doesn't that mean that inadvertently the government had a major say in who was appointed to the patriarchy?

Isn't that the reason the Russian Orthodox church abroad didn't recognize the patriarchy of Moscow, because they believed the secularist government was involved to much in the affairs of the church?

When Peter the Great came to power and he abolished the patriarchy, didn't he have to ratify all of the decisions reached by the Holy Synod?


I never said they were the same entity. And no patriarch, whether they are Orthodox or RC is appointed by government, but from the ranks of bishop. They would not go against canon on that.

Wasn't that one of the reasons for the Russian schism, many people belonging to the Russian Orthodox church abroad believed the patriarch was appointed by the government?


You are far to focused on Russia as an example of Orthodoxy. Russia is the strictest sect of Orthodox on the planet.

Doesn't the Russian Orthodox church have jurisdiction over the vast majority of Orthodox christians?

Like you said earlier it is regarded as the third Rome, and most significant of the Orthodox churches.



I can tell you that the Russian Orthodox church teaches their people not to be nationalists. They have been and continue to be tried on this. While under communism they still held onto their Christian identity even though it had to be hidden from the government.


How many of the Moscow patriarchs have been of non Russian ethnicity?

Teke
May 22nd 2008, 08:18 PM
I still fail to see the significance of your earlier comment about the emergence of Charlemagne and his relationship with the RCC.

The pope used him and his power to establish the Roman papacy. That is the significance. The pope also used his reforms to establish his own new reforms.
Latin was born and later Augustine's theology became the cornerstone of Latin and/or western theology.



Weren't many of the people who voted for there to be another patriarch of Moscow installed by the government? Doesn't that mean that inadvertently the government had a major say in who was appointed to the patriarchy?

Isn't that the reason the Russian Orthodox church abroad didn't recognize the patriarchy of Moscow, because they believed the secularist government was involved to much in the affairs of the church?

When Peter the Great came to power and he abolished the patriarchy, didn't he have to ratify all of the decisions reached by the Holy Synod?



Wasn't that one of the reasons for the Russian schism, many people belonging to the Russian Orthodox church abroad believed the patriarch was appointed by the government?



Doesn't the Russian Orthodox church have jurisdiction over the vast majority of Orthodox christians?

Like you said earlier it is regarded as the third Rome, and most significant of the Orthodox churches.



How many of the Moscow patriarchs have been of non Russian ethnicity?

I really don't believe the mods will tolerate me going any further into this subject (Orthodoxy), or I'd answer you. :)

Jerome1
May 22nd 2008, 09:54 PM
The pope used him and his power to establish the Roman papacy. That is the significance. The pope also used his reforms to establish his own new reforms.
Latin was born and later Augustine's theology became the cornerstone of Latin and/or western theology.

Like i said before, Emperors in both the East and West either persecuted or helped to establish the church. To act like this was some kind of new phenomenon during the reign of Charlemagne isn't true.


I really don't believe the mods will tolerate me going any further into this subject (Orthodoxy), or I'd answer you.

I'm not asking you to explain Orthodox theology, i'm asking you about the historical accuracy of my statements. I don't see how answering how many non ethnic Russians have been patriarchs of Moscow is against the rules?

If the moderators think any of my questions or this discussion is out of bounds feel free to delete them, or tell me.

Teke
May 23rd 2008, 01:34 PM
Like i said before, Emperors in both the East and West either persecuted or helped to establish the church. To act like this was some kind of new phenomenon during the reign of Charlemagne isn't true.

The new phenomenon is what the papacy came to be. They are the first reformed Christian church in history. Orthodoxy gained a lot of new converts from the Roman church with another reform, Vatican II.

I'm not speaking of just reforming the structure of the church, but theological dogma's previously established by council, as well. The papacy's later statement of infallibility of the pope is of the greatest error and against established church canons. Just in the beginning of the canons, ref. Apostles Canons, this is quite evident.



I'm not asking you to explain Orthodox theology, i'm asking you about the historical accuracy of my statements. I don't see how answering how many non ethnic Russians have been patriarchs of Moscow is against the rules?

If the moderators think any of my questions or this discussion is out of bounds feel free to delete them, or tell me.

The Russian Church became autocephalus in 1589, when the patriarchate there was established. Tsar Aleksey defrocked and exiled Pat. Nikhon because he (Nikhon) wanted to steer the country to a theocratic government. Aleksey still upheld some of Nikhon's innovations.


With the ascension of Emperor Peter the Great to the throne of Russia (1682-1725), with his radical modernization of Russian government, army, dress, and manners, Russia became a formidable political power. The "Autocrat of All the Russias" decided to establish control over the Church as well. He abolished the office of patriarch (the formal name of the Russian archbishop) and limited the power of bishops as well as dioceses. He also curtailed the independence of ordinary parishes, who had earlier had the right to choose their priests and manage their finances in the spirit of sobornost. Now, instead, all power in spiritual matters was centralized in the Most Holy Synod, a creation of the emperor in co-operation with the bishop of Novgorod, Feofan Prokopovich. Bishop Feofan had studied western Protestantism, and was influenced by it (He was not alone, Protestantism had a strong impact on the Russian Orthodox Church in the 18th century). The Holy Synod became the highest governing instance of the Orthodox Church. The emperor's representative in the meetings of the Holy Synod was the chief-procurator, a layman chosen by the emperor, who had direct access to the him. All decisions of the Holy Synod had to be ratified by the emperor. This pertained also to the Orthodox Church of Finland until its independence in 1923.


In 1700, after Patriarch Adrian's death, Peter the Great prevented a successor from being named, and in 1721, following the advice of Feofan Prokopovich, Archbishop of Pskov, the Holy and Supreme Synod was established under Archbishop Stephen Yavorsky to govern the church instead of a single primate. This was the situation until shortly after the Russian Revolution of 1917, at which time the Local Council (more than half of its members being lay persons) adopted the decision to restore the Patriarchy. On November 5 (according to the Julian calendar) a new patriarch, Tikhon, was named through casting lots.


The year 1917 was a major turning point for the history of Russia, and also the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom of "religious and anti-religious propaganda". This led to a marked decline in the power and influence of the Church. The Church was also caught in the crossfire of the Russian Civil War that began later the same year

Does that put it in historic perspective for you. And no, there were never any patriarchs of Moscow who weren't Russian.

America was first missionized peacefully by the Russian Orthodox. Not like the power hungry Roman church's approach, who came later and forcibly tried to place both Orthodox and those native American's they had converted to submit to the Roman papacy.

Rome is not autocephalus nor conciliar with the universal Church, yet they call themsleves "catholic". The Christian church in the world is not over the beating that Rome has given it over the centuries.

Personally Rome can do whatever they like, they have no power over me. They are just a power hungry religion. An example that Protestantism, or Christianity in general, shouldn't follow.

Jerome1
May 23rd 2008, 03:31 PM
The new phenomenon is what the papacy came to be. They are the first reformed Christian church in history. Orthodoxy gained a lot of new converts from the Roman church with another reform, Vatican II.

I'm not speaking of just reforming the structure of the church, but theological dogma's previously established by council, as well. The papacy's later statement of infallibility of the pope is of the greatest error and against established church canons. Just in the beginning of the canons, ref. Apostles Canons, this is quite evident.


What church canons contradict the claim of infallibility when pronouncing mattes on faith and morals?

Did Orthodoxy claim converts from the RCC because Greek catholics followed catholic priest Alexis Toth into the Orthodox church, or because they didn't agree with the pronouncments of Vatican II?


The Russian Church became autocephalus in 1589, when the patriarchate there was established. Tsar Aleksey defrocked and exiled Pat. Nikhon because he (Nikhon) wanted to steer the country to a theocratic government. Aleksey still upheld some of Nikhon's innovations.

The facts still remain Teke that the Orthodox church was highly influenced by the secularist Russian government, and many Orthodox christians did not recognize the patriarchy of Moscow because of it. You cannot accuse the RCC on one hand of having a favourable relationship with certain Western Emperors, and not also accuse the Orthodox church of having the same favorable relationships with various Eastern Emperors. Even during the protestant reformation the Anglican church had a previleged position within the United Kingdom, and elsewhere where various secularist governments adopted protestantism as the State religion.

If anything it could be argued that the Orthodox church was more influenced by the secularist government than the RCC.

Did you also know that China discourages the promotion of Orthodoxy in China, because of it's ties with Russia, and the negative influence it may have on it's citizens. This is in contrast to China's growing diplomatic ties with the Vatican, and plans from the Vatican to move their permanent base from Taiwan to mainland China.


Does that put it in historic perspective for you. And no, there were never any patriarchs of Moscow who weren't Russian.

America was first missionized peacefully by the Russian Orthodox. Not like the power hungry Roman church's approach, who came later and forcibly tried to place both Orthodox and those native American's they had converted to submit to the Roman papacy.

Rome is not autocephalus nor conciliar with the universal Church, yet they call themsleves "catholic". The Christian church in the world is not over the beating that Rome has given it over the centuries.

Personally Rome can do whatever they like, they have no power over me. They are just a power hungry religion. An example that Protestantism, or Christianity in general, shouldn't follow.

You evaluate the evidence and either decide that the RCC's claims are false or true. You are intitled to your opinion, and that is what it is an opinion. It does seem to me that you have not studied the facts objectively, but you are free to arrive at whatever conclusions you think seem right.

Teke
May 23rd 2008, 03:55 PM
What church canons contradict the claim of infallibility when pronouncing mattes on faith and morals?

No one man makes such pronouncements. We're talking about the pope, not the church.


Did Orthodoxy claim converts from the RCC because Greek catholics followed catholic priest Alexis Toth into the Orthodox church, or because they didn't agree with the pronouncments of Vatican II?

Because they didn't agree with the pronouncements of Vatican II.


The facts still remain Teke that the Orthodox church was highly influenced by the secularist Russian government, and many Orthodox christians did not recognize the patriarchy of Moscow because of it. You cannot accuse the RCC on one hand of having a favourable relationship with certain Western Emperors, and not also accuse the Orthodox church of having the same favorable relationships with various Eastern Emperors. Even during the protestant reformation the Anglican church had a previleged position within the United Kingdon, and elsewhere where various secularist governments adopted protestantism as the State religion.

Your being single minded about this. Russia is not the focus of Orthodoxy. There are other patriarchates.

Your just missing the point on this subject because you want to defend the pope. You cannot have one single central patriarchate for the whole world. This is what the Vatican wants to do.


If anything it could be argued that the Orthodox church was more influenced by the secularist government than the RCC.

Maybe so, depending on how you mean that statement, but they're not influenced theologically. Their still teaching exactly what the Apostles taught.


Did you also know that China discourages the promotion of Orthodoxy in China, because of it's ties with Russia, and the negative influence it may have on it's citizens. This is in contrast to China's growing diplomatic ties with the Vatican, and plans from the Vatican to move their permanent base from Taiwan to mainland China.

China wouldn't be in line with the Russian patriarchate, if it was to tie into a patriarchate at all, it would be with the Oriental Orthodox.


You evaluate the evidence and either decide that the RCC's claims are false or true. You are intitled to your opinion, and that is what it is an opinion. It does seem to me that you have not studied the facts objectively, but you are free to arrive at whatever conclusions you think seem right.

Well, I'll tell you this. America would sooner have their own patriarchate with the Orthodox than with the RC, who wants to run the churches of the world from Rome. And that just isn't kosher.

For now the Orthodox in America will continue to remain autocephalous (subordinate to no superior authority; self-governing).

Jerome1
May 23rd 2008, 05:24 PM
No one man makes such pronouncements. We're talking about the pope, not the church.



You said the claim was in error against established church canons, which ones?


Because they didn't agree with the pronouncements of Vatican II.


I think you have overplayed the significance of any catholics who left the RCC to join the Orthodox church. Ofcourse i can't comment until you post a source. It works both ways, RC's leave to join various protestant denominations and the Orthodox church, and likewise many protestants and Orthodox christians decide to join the RCC.


Your being single minded about this. Russia is not the focus of Orthodoxy. There are other patriarchates.

Your just missing the point on this subject because you want to defend the pope. You cannot have one single central patriarchate for the whole world. This is what the Vatican wants to do.

When Constantinople and the RCC were in disagreement, the other Orthodox churches followed the patriarch of Constantinople into schism. Constantinople and now Moscow would be considered the patriarchy with most influence over the EOC. I think i read before that around 90% of Orthodox christians indentify themselves as Russian Orthodox, maybe you could shed some light on the numbers.



Maybe so, depending on how you mean that statement, but they're not influenced theologically. Their still teaching exactly what the Apostles taught.


Both Orthodox christians and the mainline protestant denominations accept the first seven councils as authoritative. What you are saying is that you believe the church has no more authority to decide on matters pertaining to faith and morals since the seventh century. These councils expounded on devine revelation, meaning they didn't change the truth of devine revelation given to us through the scriptures, but they explained revealed truths with greater clarity.


China wouldn't be in line with the Russian patriarchate, if it was to tie into a patriarchate at all, it would be with the Oriental Orthodox.

Are the Orthodox christians in China under any of the patriarch's jurisdiction now?


Well, I'll tell you this. America would sooner have their own patriarchate with the Orthodox than with the RC, who wants to run the churches of the world from Rome. And that just isn't kosher.

For now the Orthodox in America will continue to remain autocephalous (subordinate to no superior authority; self-governing).

Isn't Roman Catholicism the biggest christian denomination in America today. You seen for yourself the support the pope garnered when he came to America.

Also i recently read that the EOC are in the process of building a cathedral not very far from the Vatican. I have also read of the objections of the Russian Orthodox church to plans from the RCC to establish a greater presence in Russia. I don't think the differences between both the RCC and the EOC are purely doctrinal issues, there is also an element of nationalism involved.

Teke
May 23rd 2008, 08:23 PM
You said the claim was in error against established church canons, which ones?

The ones that state all bishops are equals.


I think you have overplayed the significance of any catholics who left the RCC to join the Orthodox church. Ofcourse i can't comment until you post a source. It works both ways, RC's leave to join various protestant denominations and the Orthodox church, and likewise many protestants and Orthodox christians decide to join the RCC.

My source is a former RC person who spoke out on Vatican II in Canada at the time. I don't have stats if that is what you mean.


When Constantinople and the RCC were in disagreement, the other Orthodox churches followed the patriarch of Constantinople into schism. Constantinople and now Moscow would be considered the patriarchy with most influence over the EOC. I think i read before that around 90% of Orthodox christians indentify themselves as Russian Orthodox, maybe you could shed some light on the numbers.

Hmm, let's see why that was.....maybe because more error came from Rome. Read the history.


Both Orthodox christians and the mainline protestant denominations accept the first seven councils as authoritative. What you are saying is that you believe the church has no more authority to decide on matters pertaining to faith and morals since the seventh century. These councils expounded on devine revelation, meaning they didn't change the truth of devine revelation given to us through the scriptures, but they explained revealed truths with greater clarity.

No, I just mean there have been no more ecumenical councils since then. If the whole church isn't united, that can't happen.


Are the Orthodox christians in China under any of the patriarch's jurisdiction now?

Sure. But just as sure the RC presence is there as well.


Isn't Roman Catholicism the biggest christian denomination in America today. You seen for yourself the support the pope garnered when he came to America.

I don't really see it that way. Certain parts of America are more RC than others, that's all.


Also i recently read that the EOC are in the process of building a cathedral not very far from the Vatican. I have also read of the objections of the Russian Orthodox church to plans from the RCC to establish a greater presence in Russia. I don't think the differences between both the RCC and the EOC are purely doctrinal issues, there is also an element of nationalism involved.

It's not nationalism, it's jurisdictional. The pope only has power over his jurisdiction.
Really Rome wouldn't be a problem if they kept it in Rome. The pope is a bishop of Rome, not the universal church.

And yeah, if Russian Orthodox don't want Protestants and their theology there, then they also don't want it's source, Roman theology, either.

Jerome1
May 23rd 2008, 09:58 PM
The ones that state all bishops are equals.


I was looking more for specifics.


Hmm, let's see why that was.....maybe because more error came from Rome. Read the history.

Well at least now you agree that Constantinople and the other Orthodox churches weren't as autocephalous as you claimed them to be.

The other Orthodox churches didn't have a problem with the RCC, until the disagreements with Constantinople.


No, I just mean there have been no more ecumenical councils since then. If the whole church isn't united, that can't happen.


You know the position of the RCC, that the church is united and that the EOC became schismatics when they left it.


I don't really see it that way. Certain parts of America are more RC than others, that's all.


It doesn't matter what way you see it, the RCC is the single biggest denomination in the United States as far as i am aware.



It's not nationalism, it's jurisdictional. The pope only has power over his jurisdiction.
Really Rome wouldn't be a problem if they kept it in Rome. The pope is a bishop of Rome, not the universal church.


Jurisdictional comes under the guise of nationalism. All those in union with the pope strecth far and wide beyond Rome.

Teke
May 25th 2008, 11:13 PM
I was looking more for specifics.

Then look them up. :)


Well at least now you agree that Constantinople and the other Orthodox churches weren't as autocephalous as you claimed them to be.

What do you mean, they did what they thought best.


The other Orthodox churches didn't have a problem with the RCC, until the disagreements with Constantinople.

Don't know what you mean.


You know the position of the RCC, that the church is united and that the EOC became schismatics when they left it.

So the RCC gives communion to schismatics....but EO doesn't.


It doesn't matter what way you see it, the RCC is the single biggest denomination in the United States as far as i am aware.

I sure you believe that.


Jurisdictional comes under the guise of nationalism. All those in union with the pope strecth far and wide beyond Rome.

Just as EO are not Judeo Christian, in the sense that it associates with a national identity. Neither are they Roman Catholic. Beyond Rome or otherwise.

Jerome1
May 26th 2008, 05:48 PM
Then look them up.


Why would i waste my time looking up something that doesn't exist?;)


What do you mean, they did what they thought best.


They followed Constantinople's lead because Constantinople was seen as the leader of orthodoxy.



So the RCC gives communion to schismatics....but EO doesn't.


I'm not sure what you are asserting here, are you saying that EO priests have not given the sacraments to those outside the EO church?


I sure you believe that.

You'll find the numbers in any census.

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article with numbers and percentages of the various religious branches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States



Just as EO are not Judeo Christian, in the sense that it associates with a national identity. Neither are they Roman Catholic. Beyond Rome or otherwise.


The term Judeo/christian has nothing to do with national identity, it's just a term that means christianity stems from Judaism. Religion can be viewed as a form of national identity. The vast majority of popes have been born in Italy, many weren't and the last two have been Polish and German.

Teke
May 27th 2008, 02:44 PM
Why would i waste my time looking up something that doesn't exist?;)


It would be better if you just stated that your not interested in the canons of the church, just what you believe. The canon is based on Jesus words to the Church. The bible is canon as well.

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and those who are great exercise authority over them, yet it shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.”
Matt. 20:25,26

A snip of canon....

From the second ecumenical council, the first in Constantinople (381).
"Canon II
The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches,......."

There are many ways this is related in the canons, all of which were before any Vatican pronouncements. Truth is the Roman bishop has ignored canon and caused much confusion among the churches in doing so.



They followed Constantinople's lead because Constantinople was seen as the leader of orthodoxy.

Again, your historically wrong.



I'm not sure what you are asserting here, are you saying that EO priests have not given the sacraments to those outside the EO church?

EO do not give communion to those they believe to be schismatics. Meaning they don't give communion to Roman Catholics.
You have declared that Roman Catholics consider Orthodox to be schismatics and yet they give them communion in any of their churches (I know this to be a fact). EO see this as false ecumenism.


You'll find the numbers in any census.

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article with numbers and percentages of the various religious branches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States


I'm not interested in debatable statistics.


The term Judeo/christian has nothing to do with national identity, it's just a term that means christianity stems from Judaism. Religion can be viewed as a form of national identity. The vast majority of popes have been born in Italy, many weren't and the last two have been Polish and German.

Christianity was born of God, not the world. I don't know about you and what you believe the Church is, but I understand it as the Body of Christ, Jesus Christ being the center of all dogma pronounced by the Church.

There is a difference in saying "Jesus was a Jew" and "Jesus is the Son of God". You should know this by Trinity theology. It is heresy to diminish His divinity even in the RC.

I seriously doubt even a Jew would say that God is Jewish.:cool:

Jerome1
May 27th 2008, 04:29 PM
It would be better if you just stated that your not interested in the canons of the church, just what you believe. The canon is based on Jesus words to the Church. The bible is canon as well.



Ofcourse i'm interested in the canons of the church, i'm simply stating that i don't believe any exist that contradicts the popes claims of infallibility. The canons you quoted don't contradict those claims, and i don't think you can show me any that do. Peter claims that God chose him to bring the gospel to the Gentiles at the council in Jerusalem.

You claimed the RCC's claims contradicted established church canons, so the onus is on you to prove it. I don't have to disprove it, that would be considered RC apologetics and that isn't allowed on here.


There are many ways this is related in the canons, all of which were before any Vatican pronouncements. Truth is the Roman bishop has ignored canon and caused much confusion among the churches in doing so.

The churches in union with the pope all teach the same things, how can this cause confusion? It does exactly the opposite and only helps to clarify what the church's position is on a number of issues.

Does the EOC have a united voice on issues such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, stem cell research, etc etc.....?


Again, your historically wrong.

So they didn't follow Constantinople into schism?


I'm not interested in debatable statistics.

Those statistics have been printed on several other sites, i believe they were conducted by the American religious identification survey(ARIS).

Here is a link containing more information:

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm



Christianity was born of God, not the world. I don't know about you and what you believe the Church is, but I understand it as the Body of Christ, Jesus Christ being the center of all dogma pronounced by the Church.

There is a difference in saying "Jesus was a Jew" and "Jesus is the Son of God". You should know this by Trinity theology. It is heresy to diminish His divinity even in the RC.

I seriously doubt even a Jew would say that God is Jewish.


Jesus was born a Jew, and kept all of the Jewish customs and traditions that were given to the Jews by God. Christ was born into a Jewish family, but he was also the Son of God, there is no paradox.

Teke
May 27th 2008, 06:10 PM
Ofcourse i'm interested in the canons of the church, i'm simply stating that i don't believe any exist that contradicts the popes claims of infallibility. The canons you quoted don't contradict those claims, and i don't think you can show me any that do. Peter claims that God chose him to bring the gospel to the Gentiles at the council in Jerusalem.

To keep reverting back to your Petrine theology won't help your case on this. If anything it can only injure it further. Peter himself never claimed infallibility.

Because you "don't believe' doesn't mean it isn't true.
Actually I wasn't looking for canons to contradict the infallible claim, as that is a later Roman canon of Vatican I. The canons I refer to are on a bishops jurisdiction and how far that is allowed to reach. IOW the earlier canons.


You claimed the RCC's claims contradicted established church canons, so the onus is on you to prove it. I don't have to disprove it, that would be considered RC apologetics and that isn't allowed on here.

It is obvious to the rest of the church, just from biblical canon (as the universal church doesn't adhere to all canons of all churches except those of scripture), that the RC claims are bogus.



The churches in union with the pope all teach the same things, how can this cause confusion? It does exactly the opposite and only helps to clarify what the church's position is on a number of issues.

No. When the Roman church separated itself and began to teach it's own form of theology, known as scholasticism, only the west followed them along with Augustine. This is why looking at Protestantism you can clearly see the western influence of Augustine in the teachings and theological mindset.

Rome's offspring, Protestantism is a mass of confusion because they followed Romes lead.


Does the EOC have a united voice on issues such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, stem cell research, etc etc.....?

Yes, in the biblical canon. EO do not feel it is the churches responsibility to make a judgment call on everything man does. Scientific research can only further prove God. It is not the churches responsibility to disprove such things, nor to judge the conscience of others. We all have free will.



So they didn't follow Constantinople into schism?


They didn't follow Rome into schism.


Those statistics have been printed on several other sites, i believe they were conducted by the American religious identification survey(ARIS).

Here is a link containing more information:

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm


I'm not playing this evangelical game with you.


Jesus was born a Jew, and kept all of the Jewish customs and traditions that were given to the Jews by God. Christ was born into a Jewish family, but he was also the Son of God, there is no paradox.

Umm, yeah, Jesus in His humanity never committed adultery.
That doesn't amount to Judeo Christianity, unless your a Jew.

-----------------------------

If you want to prove your point of papal supremacy, then all you need are witnesses. There are four other patriarchates besides Rome. Do any of them agree and witness to papal supremacy. No, so all you have is your word against the rest of the Christian world, which includes Protestantism.


Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


The Roman church refuses to hear the church, which makes them schismatics.

Jerome1
May 27th 2008, 09:17 PM
To keep reverting back to your Petrine theology won't help your case on this. If anything it can only injure it further. Peter himself never claimed infallibility.


Did Mary ever claim she was a perpetual virgin? Did Christ ever expressly explain his human and devine nature? You believe both don't you? Your argument that Peter never claimed to be infallible proves nothing, he never claimed not to be infallible.



It is obvious to the rest of the church, just from biblical canon (as the universal church doesn't adhere to all canons of all churches except those of scripture), that the RC claims are bogus.


I could post countless quotes from scripture that supports the RC position of Peter. Have you ever studied the evidence? If it is a debate you want, i'm quite happy to debate with you on a forum that allows it.


No. When the Roman church separated itself and began to teach it's own form of theology, known as scholasticism, only the west followed them along with Augustine. This is why looking at Protestantism you can clearly see the western influence of Augustine in the teachings and theological mindset.

Rome's offspring, Protestantism is a mass of confusion because they followed Romes lead.


Protestantism was and is influenced by western and eastern theology. Namely the rejection of papal authority which the east adopted. Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't it the eastern church that claimed that the rock in Matthew16:18 was Peters declaration of faith?



Yes, in the biblical canon. EO do not feel it is the churches responsibility to make a judgment call on everything man does. Scientific research can only further prove God. It is not the churches responsibility to disprove such things, nor to judge the conscience of others. We all have free will.


There shouldn't be any ambiguity pertaining to important moral matters, that is why Christ gave us the church. If the church doesn't guide people in matters of faith and morals it leads to moral relativism.


I'm not playing this evangelical game with you.

You questioned the authenticity of the statistics, and i gave you the source.



Umm, yeah, Jesus in His humanity never committed adultery.
That doesn't amount to Judeo Christianity, unless your a Jew.


I have no idea what you are arguing about, Christ was a Jew and he kept the laws given to the Jews by God. That is why Christ was considered an acceptable and perfect sacrifice, a lamb without blemish who was crucified for our sins.

Teke
May 28th 2008, 02:25 PM
Did Mary ever claim she was a perpetual virgin? Did Christ ever expressly explain his human and devine nature? You believe both don't you? Your argument that Peter never claimed to be infallible proves nothing, he never claimed not to be infallible.

Claims and explanations are matters of witnesses. And your avoiding the truth of the matter, that the pope has overstepped his bounds in matters of faith concerning the church.


I could post countless quotes from scripture that supports the RC position of Peter. Have you ever studied the evidence? If it is a debate you want, i'm quite happy to debate with you on a forum that allows it.

Been there, done that, read the threads.



Protestantism was and is influenced by western and eastern theology. Namely the rejection of papal authority which the east adopted. Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't it the eastern church that claimed that the rock in Matthew16:18 was Peters declaration of faith?

The east rejected papal supremacy before a Protestant ever walked the earth friend.
One piece of scripture doesn't establish a doctrine, the whole of scripture does. That faith is human belief (faithfulness) is supported by all of scripture.



I have no idea what you are arguing about, Christ was a Jew and he kept the laws given to the Jews by God. That is why Christ was considered an acceptable and perfect sacrifice, a lamb without blemish who was crucified for our sins.

The western juridical approach has no bearing on the power of God. It leads to ancient pagan thinking and enslavement of the soul. The Church is called to a higher state of mind and heart (noetic).

Nowhere in scripture is a lamb a sacrifice "for sin". From Genesis throughout, a lamb is a peace offering. I don't know what the RC has taught you about the Incarnation, but God made peace with man. That is the reality of the truth, not that a sacrifice was made "for" (a prepositional error) sin. Scripture clearly teaches this truth throughout. The enmity is destroyed between God and man, and the devil is bound in defeat. IOW death has been defeated by life.

"Christ is risen from the tomb. Trampling down death by death. And upon those in the tombs bestowing life." (EO are still chanting this from Pascha until Pentecost now approaching)

Papal supremacy holds no merit and is without witness, except for the confusion and destruction it brings.

Jerome1
May 28th 2008, 06:20 PM
Claims and explanations are matters of witnesses. And your avoiding the truth of the matter, that the pope has overstepped his bounds in matters of faith concerning the church.



You still havn't quoted me the canons of the church that contradict papal infallibility? If the RCC's claims are of human origin they will fail, if they are from God you will not be able to overthrow them(Acts5:35-39).

Acts5:38 So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them-in that case you may even be found fighting against God!"



The east rejected papal supremacy before a Protestant ever walked the earth friend.
One piece of scripture doesn't establish a doctrine, the whole of scripture does. That faith is human belief (faithfulness) is supported by all of scripture.


That was my point, protestantism took a lot of their theological arguments from the orthodox church.


The western juridical approach has no bearing on the power of God. It leads to ancient pagan thinking and enslavement of the soul. The Church is called to a higher state of mind and heart (noetic).

Nowhere in scripture is a lamb a sacrifice "for sin". From Genesis throughout, a lamb is a peace offering. I don't know what the RC has taught you about the Incarnation, but God made peace with man. That is the reality of the truth, not that a sacrifice was made "for" (a prepositional error) sin. Scripture clearly teaches this truth throughout. The enmity is destroyed between God and man, and the devil is bound in defeat. IOW death has been defeated by life.

"Christ is risen from the tomb. Trampling down death by death. And upon those in the tombs bestowing life." (EO are still chanting this from Pascha until Pentecost now approaching)

Papal supremacy holds no merit and is without witness, except for the confusion and destruction it brings.

Leviticus4:32 If the offering you bring as a sin offering is a sheep, you shall bring a female without blemish.

Genesis4:3 In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offfering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry and his countenance fell.

Leviticus5:6 And you shall bring to the Lord, as your penalty for the sin that you have committed, a female from the flock, a sheep or a goat, as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement on your behalf for your sin.

Numbers6:14 and they shall offer their gift to the Lord, one male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering, one ewe lamb a year old withoug blemish as a sin offering, one ram without blemish as an offering of well being,

Teke
May 29th 2008, 01:38 PM
You still havn't quoted me the canons of the church that contradict papal infallibility? If the RCC's claims are of human origin they will fail, if they are from God you will not be able to overthrow them(Acts5:35-39).

Acts5:38 So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them-in that case you may even be found fighting against God!"


I quoted you one. There are many in the early canons, but all the early canons are on jurisdiction, not infallibility or supremacy. The pope isn't even mentioned in the early canons of the church. And BTW, truthfully, I have never heard of an infallible pronouncement by the pope. Can you site one?

However perhaps you should read some of what RC's have to say in opposition to such notions, since you (an RC) and I (an EO) use different canons. An RC can relate the problem much better than I.
Here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Opposition_to_Papal_Infallibility) is a well referenced article by an RC in opposition to such a notion.



That was my point, protestantism took a lot of their theological arguments from the orthodox church.

No, though they were greatly influenced by western thinking (RC), they all took their decisions from scripture. I only know of one reformer who came to the EO for consideration of his theology, that was John Wesley.


Leviticus4:32 If the offering you bring as a sin offering is a sheep, you shall bring a female without blemish.

Genesis4:3 In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offfering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry and his countenance fell.

Leviticus5:6 And you shall bring to the Lord, as your penalty for the sin that you have committed, a female from the flock, a sheep or a goat, as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement on your behalf for your sin.

Numbers6:14 and they shall offer their gift to the Lord, one male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering, one ewe lamb a year old withoug blemish as a sin offering, one ram without blemish as an offering of well being,

Scripture with no explanation is your explanation....:hmm:

Since you don't seem to understand the sacrifices, let me explain a bit. Sin offerings in the OT were for sins committed involuntarily, that is, sins committed in ignorance of the law. So they are peace offerings, or offerings for mercy.
No provision was made in the law of Moses for sins committed willfully, called sins of arrogance (Num. 15:30)

But in Christ all sins are remitted, voluntary sins, involuntary sins, and sins in thought, word or deed, if there is appropriate repentance. This is why Jesus called for repentance to enter the kingdom of heaven, and not for animal sacrifice (which was part of a system done by the people to sustain the priesthood, and isn't necessary any longer, as Christ Himself sustains His priesthood).

Again I tell you, God and man are at peace with one another by the Incarnation, Transfiguration, and Resurrection. Not by any animal sacrifice, of which Jesus' human sacrifice is beyond compare. As the Lord said, "My peace I give unto you...", not 'my sacrifice for sin I give unto you'.

Jerome1
May 29th 2008, 05:11 PM
I quoted you one. There are many in the early canons, but all the early canons are on jurisdiction, not infallibility or supremacy. The pope isn't even mentioned in the early canons of the church. And BTW, truthfully, I have never heard of an infallible pronouncement by the pope. Can you site one?


There are no early canons that i am aware of that contradict the claim of papal infallibilty. It's been a while since i read the early ecumenical councils, so i'd need to refresh my memory on how they viewed the pope. Infallibility is a complicated issue in the RCC, i'd suggest if you want to learn more about it to read about it for yourself. I believe everything regarded as infallible by the RCC are decrees defined by the magisterium of the church through ecumenical councils. Things such as the immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, the duel nature of Christ(human and devine), the adherence to scripture and sacred tradition etc etc....

All the ecumenical councils are available online. The moderators wont tolerate me going into to much detail regarding the infallible pronouncements or decrees of the RCC.



No, though they were greatly influenced by western thinking (RC), they all took their decisions from scripture. I only know of one reformer who came to the EO for consideration of his theology, that was John Wesley.


Protestantism was influenced by the RCC, because leading reformers such as Martin Luther were former catholic clergy. I am stating that protestantism also seemed to take some theological arguments from the orhtodox church regarding papal infallibility.


Since you don't seem to understand the sacrifices, let me explain a bit. Sin offerings in the OT were for sins committed involuntarily, that is, sins committed in ignorance of the law. So they are peace offerings, or offerings for mercy.
No provision was made in the law of Moses for sins committed willfully, called sins of arrogance (Num. 15:30)

I don't see how this has anything to do with your assertion that lambs were'nt used as a sin offering. I quoted the scriptures to contradict you, i don't need to explain them as well, the contradiction was self evident.

grit
May 29th 2008, 05:46 PM
What are people's feelings on the position?

I know you're nearly all Protestant, so I expect the feelings to be predominantly negative. But I'm curious as to why.
Being of a Reformation tradition that sometimes characterizes the Pope in extremely negative language, I like having the Pope around. If there wasn't one already, I'm sure we'd eventually come up with one and find Scripture to support our having one just the same. It's got to be a hard job being the embodied spiritual leader of the Earth. Having a Pope hasn't always been fun, and there's still far too many rough patches to make it ideally spiritually advisable, but hey, I'm mostly glad we got one in the Family. Not to be too much The Joker, but I'm thinking of writing a song about him that speaks 'of the Popetus of love'. :D

Teke
May 29th 2008, 06:06 PM
The moderators wont tolerate me going into to much detail regarding the infallible pronouncements or decrees of the RCC.

Like you said to me in another post, it's just history, I'm not asking for a doctrinal position. Surely they're not against history being cited.
Can't you cite ONE.


I am stating that protestantism also seemed to take some theological arguments from the orhtodox church regarding papal infallibility.

If so it was because they had scripture and the Holy Spirit same as the rest of the church does. Not because they follow any Orthodox teaching.


I don't see how this has anything to do with your assertion that lambs were'nt used as a sin offering. I quoted the scriptures to contradict you, i don't need to explain them as well, the contradiction was self evident.

If scripture was self evident then everyone would understand it and there would be no need for the Holy Spirit or the Church. Surely this is not what you are implying.

Jerome1
May 29th 2008, 07:58 PM
Like you said to me in another post, it's just history, I'm not asking for a doctrinal position. Surely they're not against history being cited.
Can't you cite ONE.


Lol, i just gave you four.



Things such as the immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, the duel nature of Christ(human and devine), the adherence to scripture and sacred tradition etc etc....



If so it was because they had scripture and the Holy Spirit same as the rest of the church does. Not because they follow any Orthodox teaching.

Oh right so when protestanism agrees with the doctrines of the RCC it's copying, but the Holy Spirit lead them if they happen to agree with the orthodox church.:hmm:



If scripture was self evident then everyone would understand it and there would be no need for the Holy Spirit or the Church. Surely this is not what you are implying.


I never said scripture was self evident, i said the verses i cited clearly contradicted your earlier statement about lambs not being sacrificed for the atonement of sin.

Teke
May 29th 2008, 08:31 PM
Lol, i just gave you four.

Those were not pronounced by the pope, but by ecumenical council. (I assume by immaculate conception you mean Jesus')




Oh right so when protestanism agrees with the doctrines of the RCC it's copying, but the Holy Spirit lead them if they happen to agree with the orthodox church.:hmm:

Well, most Protestants know nothing of Orthodoxy.


I never said scripture was self evident, i said the verses i cited clearly contradicted your earlier statement about lambs not being sacrificed for the atonement of sin.

I suppose we see scripture differently then.

Jerome1
May 29th 2008, 09:08 PM
Those were not pronounced by the pope, but by ecumenical council. (I assume by immaculate conception you mean Jesus')


I think specifically the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary were defined by the pope. The other two i mentioned, i think were defined at ecumenical councils.

The immaculate conception was in regard to Mary, i can't go into details. I'd need to refresh my memory on the orthodox view of the RC doctrine.


Well, most Protestants know nothing of Orthodoxy.


Todays protestants maybe, but a lot of the early reformers would have had a good grasp of orthodox theology.


I suppose we see scripture differently then.

Which part of scripture do we see differently, did the Jews sacrifice lambs for the atonement of sin, yes or no?

Teke
May 30th 2008, 12:16 PM
I think specifically the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary were defined by the pope. The other two i mentioned, i think were defined at ecumenical councils.

The immaculate conception of Christ is an ecumenical decision, not the immaculate conception of Mary. The assumption of Mary was never clearly defined by ecumenical council. The traditional teaching is that she was assumed sinless after her death.

Point is that just because the pope says something doesn't necessarily make it true for the whole church. IOW he can't make dogmatic statements without an ecumenical council.


Todays protestants maybe, but a lot of the early reformers would have had a good grasp of orthodox theology.

Actually they didn't. They were western thinkers. Only John Wesley looked at eastern thought.


Which part of scripture do we see differently, did the Jews sacrifice lambs for the atonement of sin, yes or no?

No. They also sacrificed bulls, but like scripture says, it didn't atone for sin, God found no pleasure in it. There are threads in this forum on the subject.
Christianity is not from pagan concepts of appeasing the gods. The distinction has to be made looking at ancient Israel and their worship of different gods, three specifically, Baal, Ashtara, and Yhwh.

The Passover lamb is the specific lamb Jesus relates to. That lamb was to grant mercy from death, a sign of obedience. This is the truth of Jesus Christ.:)

Jerome1
May 31st 2008, 01:56 AM
The immaculate conception of Christ is an ecumenical decision, not the immaculate conception of Mary. The assumption of Mary was never clearly defined by ecumenical council. The traditional teaching is that she was assumed sinless after her death.

Point is that just because the pope says something doesn't necessarily make it true for the whole church. IOW he can't make dogmatic statements without an ecumenical council.


The RCC teaches that the pope is a kind of safety net at ecumenical councils, meaning he can either ratify or reject it's decisions.

He has made dogmatic statements without an ecumenical council, i just gave you examples.


Actually they didn't. They were western thinkers. Only John Wesley looked at eastern thought.


Former catholic clergy such as Martin Luther would have been aware of the doctrinal divisions that separated the eastern and western churches.


No. They also sacrificed bulls, but like scripture says, it didn't atone for sin, God found no pleasure in it. There are threads in this forum on the subject.
Christianity is not from pagan concepts of appeasing the gods. The distinction has to be made looking at ancient Israel and their worship of different gods, three specifically, Baal, Ashtara, and Yhwh.

The Passover lamb is the specific lamb Jesus relates to. That lamb was to grant mercy from death, a sign of obedience. This is the truth of Jesus Christ.

It did atone for sin, but it had to be repeatedly done, after Christ was sacrificed there was no need for further sacrifices for atonement of sins.

Hebrew7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he had no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself.

Teke
May 31st 2008, 01:44 PM
The RCC teaches that the pope is a kind of safety net at ecumenical councils, meaning he can either ratify or reject it's decisions.

You mean like the emperor of patriarchates. :rolleyes:
I believe we both know this isn't possible. One patriarchate cannot over rule or out rule all others. Even the pope is accountable to the church.


He has made dogmatic statements without an ecumenical council, i just gave you examples.

Vatican statements made, apply only to RC's, without an ecumenical council. Since without the whole council, it's not dogma. ie. immaculate conception of Mary is not a dogma, and only is taught by the RC


Former catholic clergy such as Martin Luther would have been aware of the doctrinal divisions that separated the eastern and western churches.

Luther's era would be to late for that to be true. He followed Augustine like the rest of the western church.


It did atone for sin, but it had to be repeatedly done, after Christ was sacrificed there was no need for further sacrifices for atonement of sins.

Hebrew7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he had no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself.

I'm going to leave this since it's not the subject of the thread.

Jerome1
Jun 1st 2008, 01:04 AM
You mean like the emperor of patriarchates. :rolleyes:
I believe we both know this isn't possible. One patriarchate cannot over rule or out rule all others. Even the pope is accountable to the church.



You may believe it isn't possible, i obviously do, or i would'nt be a RC.
There have been numerous disputes within the church, so ofcourse it is possible for one bishop to be wrong and for one or more bishops to correct him. The difference being that the RCC teaches that it is God who uses the pope to protect the church from error. I understand that you and many other people find that hard to accept, but as i have said before, if it is a RCC invention they will fail. If God does protect the RCC from error then there is nothing you or anybody else can do about it.


Vatican statements made, apply only to RC's, without an ecumenical council. Since without the whole council, it's not dogma. ie. immaculate conception of Mary is not a dogma, and only is taught by the RC

It isn't considered dogma according to you and people who reject the popes and the RCC's authority.



Luther's era would be to late for that to be true. He followed Augustine like the rest of the western church.


I think an educated guess would be that seminarians and priests would have learnt about the theological differences that caused the biggest spilt in church history.

Teke
Jun 2nd 2008, 01:12 PM
You may believe it isn't possible, i obviously do, or i would'nt be a RC.
There have been numerous disputes within the church, so ofcourse it is possible for one bishop to be wrong and for one or more bishops to correct him. The difference being that the RCC teaches that it is God who uses the pope to protect the church from error. I understand that you and many other people find that hard to accept, but as i have said before, if it is a RCC invention they will fail. If God does protect the RCC from error then there is nothing you or anybody else can do about it.

Actually it is the Lord, of which the Church is comprised as His Body, which keeps the Body itself from harm, whether that be by a man or a false spirit. IOW there can be corrupt men, such as bishops, in the church and it can't effect the Body which the Lord is Head of.

So if the RC believes the pope keeps the church from error, they are wrong.


It isn't considered dogma according to you and people who reject the popes and the RCC's authority.

Because it isn't an ecumenical decision. Mainline Christianity accepts most all ecumenical decisions.


I think an educated guess would be that seminarians and priests would have learnt about the theological differences that caused the biggest spilt in church history.

If they did it isn't evidenced in their philosophy and sociology of their theological statements. IOW what we see today from western religion in general.

Jerome1
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:09 AM
Actually it is the Lord, of which the Church is comprised as His Body, which keeps the Body itself from harm, whether that be by a man or a false spirit. IOW there can be corrupt men, such as bishops, in the church and it can't effect the Body which the Lord is Head of.

So if the RC believes the pope keeps the church from error, they are wrong.

I agree with you, even if certain popes were corrupt, it wouldn't nullify God's promise to the church.

The RCC teaches that God uses the pope as an instrument to prevent the church from teaching error. You believe that God uses priests as instruments to forgive sins, same thing.



Because it isn't an ecumenical decision. Mainline Christianity accepts most all ecumenical decisions.


I know the Orthodox church's position regarding the ecumenical councils, you don't have to keep rehashing it. I understand you don't accept them as ecumenical. I do, and so do millions of other people, do you understand that?


If they did it isn't evidenced in their philosophy and sociology of their theological statements. IOW what we see today from western religion in general.

People such as Martin Luther would have been aware of the theological differences that existed between the eastern and western churches. The reformed churches did retain a lot of western theology, they also rejected the authority of the pope. Similar arguments are used by protestants regarding their rejection of papal authority, that were first used by the Orthodox church.

Teke
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:03 PM
You believe that God uses priests as instruments to forgive sins, same thing.



I don't see it.:confused

Jerome1
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:09 PM
I don't see it.:confused

You believe that God uses a preist as an instrument to obsolve your sins. In other words the priest is just an instrument, it's God who forgives your sins. In the same way, the RCC teaches that the pope is just an instrument, it is God who protects the church from error.

TrustingFollower
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:03 PM
OK guys, this discussion is getting way off track from what the OP asked. Please get this turned back to the OP and not a discussion on the differences between the RCC and EO churches. If you want to discuss the differences then start a thread of that nature in the World Religions forum.

Thank You,
TrustingFollower

Jerome1
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:48 PM
OK guys, this discussion is getting way off track from what the OP asked. Please get this turned back to the OP and not a discussion on the differences between the RCC and EO churches. If you want to discuss the differences then start a thread of that nature in the World Religions forum.

Thank You,
TrustingFollower

I think the EO church and protestant churches have a similar opinion regarding the pope. Iv'e heard exactly the same arguments from both regarding his position. I don't think a lot of protestants realise they have adopted EO theological objections regarding the popes position, and whether his authority and position was devinely given or if it is a RCC invention.

Teke
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:53 PM
OK guys, this discussion is getting way off track from what the OP asked. Please get this turned back to the OP and not a discussion on the differences between the RCC and EO churches. If you want to discuss the differences then start a thread of that nature in the World Religions forum.

Thank You,
TrustingFollower

The OP was to express our feelings and why on the position of the pope. I believe I've done just that.
It would seem that Jerome is now expressing that the pope is like confession. I'm not going to continue in that Petrine cycle of speculation, as this is the sort of reasoning it leads to. :rolleyes:

The RC's Petrine theology of scripture using the verses which express the gravity of Peter's confession of Christ, is not grounds for a pope, nor the infallibility of such an individual. This is where I stand on the subject.

Teke
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:56 PM
I think the EO church and protestant churches have a similar opinion regarding the pope. Iv'e heard exactly the same arguments from both regarding his position. I don't think a lot of protestants realise they have adopted EO theological objections regarding the popes position, and whether his authority and position was devinely given or if it is a RCC invention.

It's likely cause we read the same scriptures.

Jerome1
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:58 PM
The OP was to express our feelings and why on the position of the pope. I believe I've done just that.
It would seem that Jerome is now expressing that the pope is like confession. I'm not going to continue in that Petrine cycle of speculation, as this is the sort of reasoning it leads to. :rolleyes:

The RC's Petrine theology of scripture using the verses which express the gravity of Peter's confession of Christ, is not grounds for a pope, nor the infallibility of such an individual. This is where I stand on the subject.

Not just scripture Teke, countless quotes from the ECF's and evidence besides, that can't be discussed here. If you want to delve further into that evidence there are numerous sources to do so, or you are welcome to debate with me on a site that allows it.

quiet dove
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:44 PM
I'm thinking this thread has run it's course folks