The Passion of the Christ

[Snakum]

And to this day the most controversial figure in history is Jesus of Nazareth.

Uhhh ... in the West, maybe. You guys fail to realize that there's a big wide world out there, and I've been MANY many places in it where people don't know who he is ... nor do they care.

Assumptions people ... assumptions.

Minh

 

[TWA Dude]

My apology, dude. I was inferring intent or motivation to you. Of course, I have no ability to be able to read your mind, much less get how much you feel from something as sterile as a message board.

Apology accepted.

I was struck however that you started a response and failed to follow through. You responded to the Catholic issues raised here by Tony C, and you responded to Timebuilder by chiding him for quoting the New Testament, however, you failed to respond to my post in answer to yours whereby I kept myself within the bounds of the Tanach.

I chided Timebuilder because he's unable to respectfully discuss any issue with me. I don't take anything he says seriously anymore.

I've tried to explain why I won't get into Biblical debates with you. Sorry if it seems that I'm backing down. It's a tightrope walk with me because sometimes I'm speaking for myself and sometimes I'm relaying what I believe Judaism teaches. I can defend myself if you challenge my beliefs (which may or may not match Judaism) but if you challenge Jewish belief in general I must refer you to an expert.

I fail to see where discussing what is written in the Prophets shows disrespect for your ancestors.

If I try to discuss Biblical verses I may "lose" the discussion but only in the sense that I'm not learned enough to counter your arguments. The implications of me losing this discussion would be an embarrasment to the memory of my ancestors who could've easily "won" the discussion. So I'll leave the debating to the experts.

didn't God in conjunction with the servant passages proclaim that there would be something new?

I'm once again caught in a place without the full Tanach translated. My Torah translation happens to have Isaiah 42:9 so I can actually agree with your version. So what does "something new" mean? Well, golly, it could mean anything, couldn't it? There; that's the extent I'm able to debate this verse.

And against your fear that "many more will come along to reinterpret the Hebrew," the Christian's goal is to try to remain faithful to the teaching of Jesus which in part He said was not to do away with the Law, but to fulfill it.And to this day the most controversial figure in history is Jesus of Nazareth.

It's not a fear; it'a prediction that more sacred texts will materialize in the future. You don't accept Islam as the Truth, do you? Muslims believe they've "got it right". Well, who the heck doesn't believe they're right? "Proof" requires a court to verify it but in the case of religion the Judge is keeping mum these days.

 

[Timebuilder]

"Proof" requires a court to verify it but in the case of religion the Judge is keeping mum these days.

He has already told you, in fact, He was telling your people far longer than anyone else.

It's a shame it didn't "stick." That's why He has others reminding you. He was prepared.

 

[Herman Bloom]

Timebuilder

Your last post really scares me. And it sould scare a whole lot more of you folks out there.

These guys are dangerous, and they don't even know it.

 

[Timebuilder]

Oooooh. Scary!!!!

OOOga, Boooga, BOOOO!



Seriously, Herman old man, there is no need to fear any of this. God has made a very meaningful sacrifice on your behalf. He asks you, not forces you, to take Him up on His free gift. That's it.

Scary, huh?

 

[TonyC]

surplus1 3 parts...

No, I didn’t give up on this thread or loose interest in the subject. I had a 3-day trip with no computer access, and I must say - - I missed a lot. I almost don’t know where to start, and I don’t want to start off with a half dozen posts. So, I think I’ll work my way from the most recent post backwards, and try to keep this all to one post.

I am very much aware that it was evil and errant Popes who gave rise to the reform movement and Protestantism.

It happens that I think Luther had a very valid point when he objected to the "sale of indulgences" by the Medici Pope. The Pope was wrong and Luther was right. However, let us not forget that Luther was a Catholic long before he became a reformer. Luther was not anti-Catholic, he was anti-a crooked Pope.

If the Pope is infallible, as I understand the Catholic Church to believe, how could there have ever been a “crooked Pope”?

These are just a couple of the Biblical objections that we have against the Catholic Church that lead me to conclude that Catholicism contradicts Christianity.

Your response, attacking Protestantism, hinges on the assumption that we cannot take words of the Bible literally, and I believe Super 80 has done an excellent job of answering that charge, so I’ll not belabor the point. I WILL point out, though, that you must rely on literal translations of scripture, yourself, to arrive at your own beliefs.

For example,

I rarely quot Scripture, but here is something thay you might find of interest.

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:19

I respectfully submit that presuming you accept that quote as accurate, it serves to confirm the problems I have raised.

OK, let me ask you this: In the first phrase, which book is referred to? When we’re talking about taking away from the book, are we talking about the Bible? Or the New Testament? Or the Book of Revelation? If you’re wondering now what the original words were (Greek) and what they meant, and how they would best be translated to English, then you’re on the same sheet of music with me, and Super 80, and most other sincere students of the Word. It doesn’t matter, you see, what the NIV says, or what the KJV says, or what the Catholic Bible says, or what any of the footnotes or commentaries might say. It doesn’t matter what the priest says, or what a preacher says. The ONLY thing that matters here is what God meant when He delivered the Revelation to John.

Now… in that same vein, we can consider similar passages. The preceding verse addresses the opposite of “taking away”:

Rev. 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Similar admonitions concerning the commands of God are contained in Deuteronomy and Joshua:

Deut. 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Deut. 12:32
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Joshua 1:7
Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Although it might be argued that the admonition in Revelation applies only to that book, and the admonitions in the Old Testament apply only to that law, we might agree that the same principle applies to the New Covenant. If such is the case, how does one justify adding other books, or doctrines, or even creeds as an essential part of their faith?

Continued…

 

[TonyC]

Re: surplus1 3 parts...

Continued…

Are there certain things that people who call themselves Christians should believe. Yes, in my opinion, there are. What I personally, and people who share my Faith believe, can be summed up in the Nicene Creed. Here it is.

As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381), it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations.

The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Isn’t this adding to the commandments of God? And isn’t it convenient that this Creed, borne of man, requires belief in a “catholic” church? (And yes, I know it’s lower-case, and can mean “universal.”)

But it boils down to this. If you believe the Bible is inspired by God, profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness, and that it thoroughly equips us for every good work, then you must reconcile this belief with the position that the addition of a Creed can be pleasing to God.

When a Bible version condones divorce, and adultery, I find that Bilble to be in error to a degree that renders it useless. If that offends anyone, I make no apology. I don't take any of the Bible "literally", but there is nothing "muddy" about the basic teachings of the Christ. When someone tells me that the Commandments are no longer valid because they are the "old law" and Jesus did away with them, I say that's baloney. Jesus did not eliminate the Commandments, He merely defined the two most important and showed us by example how to live the rest. We don't have the luxury of excluding the things that we find objectionable to our lifestyle. "Versions" of the Bible that change that meaning are erroneous, regardless of whether they were translated from Hebrew, Greek, or any other language.

Were a version of the Bible to condone remarriage after unscriptural divorce, or were it to condone adultery, I would agree - - that version would be in error. (Jesus taught of certain circumstances under where divorce is allowed, and remarriage after that divorce. If your partner commits adultery, you may divorce and remarry. Your partner, however, may not. (Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-11)) Now, have we gotten muddy here? You see, you just can’t take a simplistic view of issues as you understand them to be and divorce yourself of the teachings of the Bible. The supreme authority is the Bible - - what the Bible says, goes.

Now, for the bologna. The Law of Moses is no longer in effect. Jesus Christ fulfilled that law when he was nailed to the cross. As a type of the New Law, it embodied the same principles that the same God requires of those who worship Him today. We no longer, under the New Law, observe the Passover, or the Sabbath, or any other day or feast, for that matter, that was proscribed by the Law of Moses. We do not offer animal sacrifices, though we do recognize them to be the TYPE of the ultimate sacrifice that was offered for our sins - - Jesus Christ. The so-called Ten Commandments were part of that Law of Moses, and have in effect the same force of law as any other element of the Law of Moses - - none.

Does that mean it’s OK now to kill? Certainly not. Jesus instructed us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and certainly that prohibits murder. Does that mean we are not required to love God, or that we should worship other Gods? Certainly not. He taught us to love God with all our heart soul and mind. (Matthew 22:34-40)

Does it mean we’re no longer required to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy? Yes. Why yes here, and no in the previous examples? Because the New Testament contains no instruction to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

Nothing required of worshippers under the Old Law is required of worshippers under the New Law BECAUSE it was in the Old Law. The mere fact that it was part of the Old Law, apart from any New Testament teaching, is insufficient to bind that practice on the New Testament Christian. That is to say, apart from instruction under the New law, all of the Old law is set aside.

Many Christians of the first century did not fully understand this concept, as we can see from Acts and several of Paul’s epistles. The topic in Acts 15 was circumcision, and the questions was, shouldn’t we be circumcised in order to completely serve God and be saved? Circumcision was certainly required under the Law of Moses, so why isn’t it required of Christians? Some of the believers who were also Pharisees asserted that circumcision was necessary in order to keep the law of Moses. Peter, Barnabus, Paul, and James spoke out to explain that the requirement to keep the Old Law does no longer exist. The same issue was addressed in I Corinthians 7:18-19, Galatians 2:3-4, Galatians 5:2-11, Galatians 6:12, Ephesians 2:11-16, Colossians 2:11, and Colossians 3:11. Paul writes to the Christians in Corinth (I Cor 7:18-19) that circumcision counts for nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is the important thing. In his letter to the Christians in Colossi (Col. 2:11-12), he explains that the physical circumcision of the old law is but a type of the spiritual circumcision we perform when we put off the flesh, taking on a new body when we are buried with Him in baptism, and raised to walk with Him in faith. He instructed the Christians in Galatia (Gal 5:2-11) that any man who accepts circumcision as a requirement for salvation is obligated to keep the whole law of Moses, and that doing so severs one from Christ and His gift of grace. (Since no man has ever kept that law perfectly, save Christ, that would put one in a terrible predicament.) In his letter to the Christians at Ephesus (Eph 2:11-16) he explained that Christ abolished the law of commandments and ordinances so that we are no longer strangers and aliens to God, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.

If that’s bologna, wrap it up, I’ll take it.

It is equally right for either of us to "cling to a tenant of faith", just as it is equally right for TWA Dude to cling to the tenants of Judaism, which is his faith.

What happens, then, one my tenant of faith is in direct disagreement with your tenant of faith. Can they both be true? Can they both be right? Can they both be correct? If yes, then we can end the discussion and carry on about our own happy ways. If no, then it would behoove us to determine which of the two is correct, right, and true, or if there is another that neither of us has yet discovered which is true, right, and correct. If adherence to truth is important, and I believe it is, then we must diligently pursue the truth. And the only true source for that truth, of which I am aware at least, is the Bible. As such, as the source of truth, then I feel it is worthy of much study. I share your skepticism about various versions of the Bible, and you might have seen me discussing that very topic with Super 80 some time ago. Where we might not agree to the voracity of a particular translation, or even mode of translation, we DO agree that a disagreement between different versions requires a study of the original texts, and that the text of the original author is the only thing that matters - - not the opinion of King James’s scholars, and not the opinion of any other group of translators.

Continued…

[Edited for punctuation and grammar (Spellchecker seems to like "fro"... )]

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: surplus1 3 parts...

Conclusion...

Since we are sharing opinions, I don't hesitate to tell you that I think most Protestant denominations are in fact centered around some particular preacher. That is especially true of the "born again" variety. That is exactly why you have so many different denominations. A "preacher" comes up with some new "interpretation" that is popular and before you know it you have a new Church. Is that a shallow perspective? Yes it is, but no more so than your perspective of my adherence to the word of some priest. That my friend is one of the very basic differences between us. Catholics don't form "churches" or religions around preachers. Our Faith is universal and it does not change from country to country, language to language, preacher to preacher, church to church, day to day. We don't start a new "religion" because we don't like what some preacher preaches or because we do "like" some other preacher more. The "pastor's" name is not emblazoned on the church's front door, for the Pastor is Jesus himself. There is no such thing as "my priest", they are all the same. The house of God is not in any particular church, it is every church and the world at large.

I share your opinion that most Protestant denominations are centered around some human being, from Martin Luther on down the line. You are correct in surmising that this is NOT the pattern of New Testament Christianity. What you are wrong in doing is assuming that I am Protestant, and that an attack on Protestants constitutes a defense of Catholicism. I do not subscribe to the creed of any human - - only to the teachings of the Bible. I do not wear the name of any human being, or any movement. I am a Christian. I can join you in criticizing many aspects of Protestantism. But I cannot join you in defense of Catholicism. I have seen nothing in your discussion that really appears to defend the Catholic Church.

Your idea that Catholics believe whatever some priest tells them to believe demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding of the catholic Faith. In nearly 60 years as a Catholic, I have never been told what part of the Bible I should read or how I should interpret it by any priest. I have been told that the Bible contains the "Word of the Lord", and that I should read it and accept The Word. I have also been told, and studied in depth, what my "Church" professes and believes and, that if I choose to be a part of that Church, then I should believe those things as well. What "the priest" believes or doesn't believe is irrelevant.

In other words, it is a question of Faith. The choice is mine to make. I do not have to believe everything that the Catholic Church does or says in order to be a "good Catholic". I don't have to believe anything that any priest says either. The Faith of Catholics is not centered on or around priests. They are simply people that have chosen to dedicate their entire lives to the service of God. Stewards of the Faith, not creators of the Faith.

We might be talking about two separate, although similar concepts here. I’m talking about Catholicism, and you’re talking about your faith. I believe Catholicism requires that you believe everything that the Church says or does, and that a good Catholic does not have a right to deviate from those tenants as he sees fit. If you don’t believe everything that the Catholic church teaches, then you must have an objection to Catholicism yourself. Perhaps you have made my point for me.

I cannot by generalization speak for all men and women who claim to wear the label Catholic, no more than you can by generalization assign a set of beliefs to all those who claim to be Protestant. When I compare Christianity to Catholicism, I can only compare the Bible to the Catholic church. I am not a Protestant, and you apparently have some reservations about the Catholic church. Let’s keep this in mind as we continue this discussion.

 

[PurpleInMEM]

Whoa...

Dude, you've obviously not been hub turning enough.

Other dudes...let it go already...

 

[Timebuilder]

You're the first Penn guy I've seen here. It was once my second home.

Good to see this meeting of the minds, guys. It could lead to a better understanding. Over 4,000 views. Wow.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Whoa...

Dude, you've obviously not been hub turning enough.

LOL That's an oxymoron, you know, like military intelligence. There's no such thing as not enough hub turning!

Actually, I was scheduled last week for my first hub turn in several years. The second trip was changed to a Bus, so I got to go home and cross my fingers they wouldn't call me for 4 hours. Hub turns are why most commuters hate Memphis - - and I can't say I blame 'em!

There ain't enough free poprcorn, free coffee, or free movies to EVER make hubturning worth it! Show me the money!

 

[enigma]

Is there an easy way to save an entire thread?


enigma

 

[enigma]

Gentlemen, I stopped weighing in on these matters some time ago because I believe that they had degenerated into a disagreement between only a very few individuals. But I decided to read this thread after noticing that it had grown to eight pages. I still don't have much to add, because others are much more informed, or smarter, than I.

My only point will basically the same as I posted on one of the other long religion strings. If you want to gain my agreement, (advocates of all sides), you will need to show me that your side can be supported and verified. Don't tell me that you are correct, show me. TB, I support you, but you've got to stop quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. As TWA stated way back on page 7, he doesn't accept(or maybe he said believe) the Bible, so quoting from it won't change his mind. Show him how the Bible can be supported.

Now, I'll shut up and go back to my Calvinistis upbringing. That means that I believe that we should witness to others about Jesus the Savior. (BTW, mission accomplished for this forum.) But, after we witness, it's up to God. After the witness, continued preaching seems to be counterproductive. If someone wants to know more, they will ask. In other words, I won't try and save someone from himself but once. Anyone listening?

regards,
enigma

 

[Timebuilder]

TB, I support you, but you've got to stop quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. As TWA stated way back on page 7, he doesn't accept(or maybe he said believe) the Bible, so quoting from it won't change his mind. Show him how the Bible can be supported.

Others are better than I am in trying to give an earthly support to a Godly document. Even if you are successful, you will be doubted when doing so. Some are called to do this, like Super 80.

I stick to communicating the message, and let God work in the hearts that hear. Not everyone will hear, and many hearts will remain hard. I can't change that.

The fact that TWA Dude doesn't accept the scripture as true does not change its truth in any way. I've told Him the truth just as it is told to me; no more, no less. I'm not expecting him to change his heart because of what I have done, but because God can use this to help him to accept the truth he has heard. What he does, having been told the truth....well, that's up to him, isn't it? Romans, 10:17.

I'm not posting in this thread to win a debate, only to give the message. Remember the parabel of the sower? Matthew 13:18, or Luke 8:5 explain this principle well.

I can't control where the seed falls, but I can distribute it well when it is time to sow.

 

[enigma]

Timebuilder, Don't misunderstand. But I want you to think of the issue this way: people like TWADude are interested enough to continue the dialoge (sp?), but have not been swayed by your proclamations of truth. I think that it is time to try another approach. I'm afraid that an otherwise receptive heart may be turned away because they perceive us to be arrogant about the truth. Again, telling them that the Bible is true because it says it is true doesn't appear to be working. Try proving that it is true.

regards,
enigma

 

[TWA Dude]

I support you, but you've got to stop quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. As TWA stated way back on page 7, he doesn't accept(or maybe he said believe) the Bible, so quoting from it won't change his mind. Show him how the Bible can be supported.

Thank you for succinctly stating what I've tried to state numerous times. In reality though it's a setup: I know full well that the Bible can't be proven in any conventional sense. One has to believe it's divine origin to believe it's words. That's why I have no desire to prove that my religion is correct; it's impossible. In any case one needn't believe in my religion in order to be a good person and to reap whatever benefits await us. G-d chose the Jews to set an example of behavior for the rest to follow. Nowhere does G-d insist that all must adhere to Judaism. In fact, if one consults a rabbi for conversion tradition dictates that s/he must be talked out of it three times! To become a Jew is to assume a burden rather than a priviledge.

I wonder if it's unique to Christianity to believe that one must follow only it's tenets to achieve salvation. Most other religions aren't nearly so concerned with what others believe.

Dude

 

[Super 80]

I wonder if it's unique to Christianity to believe that one must follow only it's tenets to achieve salvation. Most other religions aren't nearly so concerned with what others believe.

I'm sorry but you can't put this off on Christians. This is the exclusive claim of Christ Jesus.

Jesus said He was the only way to the Father. He said the only way was to believe in the One that God sent. This is the whole message behind the Servant passages in Isaiah and elsewhere in the Prophets.

Now how many ways are there to God?

Each religion has its own set of rules. Each religion has differing obligations you must do. They are all at odds with each other.

This sets up the Law of Mutual Exclusivity.

Either all of them are wrong and one right, or all of them wrong. But they cannot all be right or even have two right because they contradict each other.

Furthermore, all the world's religions will tell you what to do to get to heaven, only one says it's been done for you.

Jesus said He was the Way, the Truth and the Light. That all men come to the Father through Him. He paid the price one time for all! He said in a loud voice: "It is finished!" and then commanded His Spirit to God. (Yes, I know this is a little different than what's in the movie.) This word finished has the same meaning in the Aramaic as being "paid in full."

This is why He can redeem us - that is to literally buy us out of the market place of slavery (sin).

HOS 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death.
Where, O death, are your plagues?
Where, O grave, is your destruction?

 

[TWA Dude]

I'm sorry but you can't put this off on Christians. This is the exclusive claim of Christ Jesus.

Sorry, but that's circuitous reasoning. Similar to Enigma's point about the claim that the Christian Bible is true because it says it's true, how can you put this off on Jesus when all we know of his teachings is what was written by Christians? To say something's true "because Jesus said it was true" is not an argument; it's a belief.

Furthermore, all the world's religions will tell you what to do to get to heaven, only one says it's been done for you.

And you consider this to be a good thing?

 

[Timebuilder]

I think that it is time to try another approach. I'm afraid that an otherwise receptive heart may be turned away because they perceive us to be arrogant about the truth. Again, telling them that the Bible is true because it says it is true doesn't appear to be working. Try proving that it is true.

I understand what you mean, but I leave that to others who do a better job at that aspect than I.

I'm informational. If they think that's arrogant, then it is God that seems arrogant, because it is His word being declared.

Without the great commission, I'd just be watching TV and waiting for the trumpet.

 

[enigma]

I know full well that the Bible can't be proven in any conventional sense.
Dude

Dude, I believe that the Bible, both the Jewish version, and the Christian additions can be shown to be reliable. I am not a scholar (although I have read enough to become comfortable with my belief), so I will have to speak sort of generally here and make a more detailed post at some later date that will be more specific.

First. The Bible, {including the Jewish Old Testament , (if I tried to refer to it by its Jewish name, I might get it wrong), the Catholic New Testament, and the slightly smaller non-Catholic New Testament] has been proven to be a highly accurate work of history. Other histories, as well as archeology, have proven that accuracy.

Second. A great deal of the OT is prophecy, of which a great deal has already come true. Even one doesn't accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, the rest of the fulfilled prophecy is undeniable.

Third. The Bible is perfectly harmonized. It was written by numerous authors over a couple of centuries, yet each verse is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. Not one human author contradicts any other author.

Fourth. The Bible is full of hidden meanings. The geneology of Genesis for example. If you take the meaning of all of the names, and make a sequential sentence out of them, they make sense and have a message.

In my way of thinking, if the Bible can be verified to be accurate in it's historical and prophetic terms, I am happy to accept that it's other, non-provable contents are also true. Also, the continued existence of the Jewish people shows me that there is something to the Bible story. No other people/race has endured the persecution that the Jews have endured and survived. Without exception, other persecuted races from ancient history disappeared. The Jews are not only still here, but they have even been returned to their ancient homeland. If they weren't the people God choose to bring his message to the World, they'd have been extinct long ago.

I will attempt to do some more research and back up my writings later.


regards,
enigma