An Opinion about rituals "in religions:"

[FHII]

Mungo, the Bible doesn't need much interpreting IF you believe what it says. It only needs interpreting if you have another doctrine which doesn't line up with it. Then, you have to explain why the bible doesn't mean what it says and you have to claim it isn't the only source of truth. That's what Catholics do.

I'm not a protestant. That would require some kind of acknowledgement that the catholic church has authority.

It doesn't.

 

[Mungo]

Mungo, the Bible doesn't need much interpreting IF you believe what it says. It only needs interpreting if you have another doctrine which doesn't line up with it. Then, you have to explain why the bible doesn't mean what it says and you have to claim it isn't the only source of truth. That's what Catholics do.

I'm not a protestant. That would require some kind of acknowledgement that the catholic church has authority.

It doesn't.

No Catholic doctrine (properly understood) conflicts with the Bible (properly interpreted).

The Bible isn't the only source of truth and it doesn't claim it is.

 

[Born_Again]

No Catholic doctrine (properly understood) conflicts with the Bible (properly interpreted).

The Bible isn't the only source of truth and it doesn't claim it is.

So what proper interpretation influenced the Pope to commission the crusades/ Massacre?

 

[tom55]

Are you a Jew?

I am not nor am I a Catholic but I strive to do all that Jesus teaches us and that includes following a heretical gospel that is not the true gospel of Christ. In order to know the true from the false I must test the spirit of that gospel in order to see if it is from God or from humanity. Scripture serves as a tool in that endeavor.

If those that sit in Moses command me to sin then I will not do what they say but if they tell me to do right I will. Such is my goal.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

You said: I believe the Jews go by it (Sola Scriptura) as well so it is an older claim than the reformation.

What you BELIEVE and what is the TRUTH are two different things.

Jesus said the opposite of what you are saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do".

Because they had the authority, based on the position of occupying Moses’ seat, they were to be obeyed. No where in the Old Testament does an individual Hebrew question the teaching authority of the scribes and Pharisees. No matter how hard you try to read it (sola Scriptura) into the Old Testament, it cannot be done. Nor can it be read into the New Testament. Only the Church leaders had the authority to read and interpret scripture. Sola Scriptura is NOT in the NT or the OT.

IF you believe the Law or the truth of Scripture is self-evident simply by reading it (which is the sola Scriptura theory), we see according to Chronicles in the Old Testament you are wrong because it says that priests and Levites “taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the LORD with them; they went about through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people” (2 Chron 17:9), and that the Levites “taught all Israel” (2
Chron 35:3). They didn’t just read, they taught, and that involved interpretation. The people had no right of private judgment/interpretation nor could they dissent from what was taught.

[SIZE=11pt]What Jesus did in that verse was to encourage submission to the teaching of the Pharisees on the basis of their sitting on Moses’ seat, not submission to the teaching of the Old Testament. According to Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees that occupy “Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2) have the authority and ability to interpret the law of Moses correctly. In this passage “seat” is a metaphor for judicial authority AND a reference to a literal stone seat in the front of many synagogues that would be occupied by an authoritative teacher of the law.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

 

[Mungo]

So what proper interpretation influenced the Pope to commission the crusades/ Massacre?

The Crusades were not a doctrine and so irrelevant to this issue.

 

[tom55]

So what proper interpretation influenced the Pope to commission the crusades/ Massacre?

What is the Christian criteria for a legitimate exercise of violence?

The Crusades were started because of the violent aggression of Islam which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land, North Africa and in parts of Europe within a century of Muhammad’s death.

Do you, Born_Again, support the Muslims who conquered Jerusalem in 638AD, destroyed over 300 churches and monasteries killing almost 100,000 Christians?

Did you know The Crusades were also a response to the severe persecution of indigenous Christians living in the occupied territories?

Do you support the Muslim al-Hakim who ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem?

Did you know Christian pilgrims were subjected to harassment and violence? Do you think this would demand a defensive response from Christendom or a tepid retreat?

Do you support the Seljuks who massacred a group of 12,000 Christian German pilgrims in 1065 on Good Friday?

Do you support the Muslim warlord Zengi who massacred 6,000 Christian men, women, and children on Christmas Eve 1144 when he conquered the city of Edessa?

Is the invasion of Christian territory, Muslim persecution of Christians and pilgrims, the threat posed to the Christian Byzantine Empire legitimate reasons to engage in defensive warfare? Pope Urban II cited them as justification for the First Crusade. Do you disagree with Pope Urban? Or would have you made a hasty retreat and begged for mercy when the Muslims came knocking on your door?

The Crusades were defensive wars with the main goal of the recovery of ancient Christian territory. They were heroic men and women of faith, who had a love of Christ and neighbor. They undertook the Crusades as acts of self-defense and recovery of stolen property. Do you support your Christian brothers or the Muslims?

The Crusades era was an era in which people made radical life decisions (such as going on Crusade) because of their faith in Jesus Christ. The modern secular-humanist world, which lacks faith, has trouble understanding the religious worldview of the medieval period and so it is handicapped when trying to understand the Crusades. I do not believe we should ignore the bad parts of the Crusades but we should give due attention to their importance in the history of Christianity.

The Glory of The Crusades is that the Popes of the time had the balls to stand up and say to the Muslims, 'Enough of this crap. I am going to be a leader and do what I can to defeat these heathens'. However, you want to place blame on the Popes for the bad things that men did in battle?

 

[Born_Again]

The Crusades were not a doctrine and so irrelevant to this issue.

It is relevant because it is character reference to the leadership of your organization.

 

[Born_Again]

What is the Christian criteria for a legitimate exercise of violence?

The Crusades were started because of the violent aggression of Islam which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land, North Africa and in parts of Europe within a century of Muhammad’s death.

Do you, Born_Again, support the Muslims who conquered Jerusalem in 638AD, destroyed over 300 churches and monasteries killing almost 100,000 Christians?

Did you know The Crusades were also a response to the severe persecution of indigenous Christians living in the occupied territories?

Do you support the Muslim al-Hakim who ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem?

Did you know Christian pilgrims were subjected to harassment and violence? Do you think this would demand a defensive response from Christendom or a tepid retreat?

Do you support the Seljuks who massacred a group of 12,000 Christian German pilgrims in 1065 on Good Friday?

Do you support the Muslim warlord Zengi who massacred 6,000 Christian men, women, and children on Christmas Eve 1144 when he conquered the city of Edessa?

Is the invasion of Christian territory, Muslim persecution of Christians and pilgrims, the threat posed to the Christian Byzantine Empire legitimate reasons to engage in defensive warfare? Pope Urban II cited them as justification for the First Crusade. Do you disagree with Pope Urban? Or would have you made a hasty retreat and begged for mercy when the Muslims came knocking on your door?

The Crusades were defensive wars with the main goal of the recovery of ancient Christian territory. They were heroic men and women of faith, who had a love of Christ and neighbor. They undertook the Crusades as acts of self-defense and recovery of stolen property. Do you support your Christian brothers or the Muslims?

The Crusades era was an era in which people made radical life decisions (such as going on Crusade) because of their faith in Jesus Christ. The modern secular-humanist world, which lacks faith, has trouble understanding the religious worldview of the medieval period and so it is handicapped when trying to understand the Crusades. I do not believe we should ignore the bad parts of the Crusades but we should give due attention to their importance in the history of Christianity.

The Glory of The Crusades is that the Popes of the time had the balls to stand up and say to the Muslims, 'Enough of this crap. I am going to be a leader and do what I can to defeat these heathens'. However, you want to place blame on the Popes for the bad things that men did in battle?

You ever accuse me of supporting Muslims again, I will ban you faster than lightning can strike you! You could have made your point without ever making or suggesting such statements.

 

[tom55]

You ever accuse me of supporting Muslims again, I will ban you faster than lightning can strike you! You could have made your point without ever making or suggesting such statements.

I see questions. No accusations. No answers to my questions.

 

[Born_Again]

I see questions. No accusations. No answers to my questions.

You know full well the answers to those questions. You are goading me. That is in direct violation of CyB rules of conduct. As i stated, you could have made your point without even entertaining the idea.

 

[tom55]

You know full well the answers to those questions. You are goading me. That is in direct violation of CyB rules of conduct. As i stated, you could have made your point without even entertaining the idea.

I "know full well the answers to those questions"?

I believe you do not support the Muslims slaughter of Christians and the destruction of their churches. Neither did the Catholic Church.

I believe you would have done the same as the Popes did and ordered the Crusades.

I believe when the men that participated in those Crusades conducted illegal, immoral or anti-Christian acts during those wars you would have disagreed with those men and condemned those men, just like the Popes did.

 

[Mungo]

It is relevant because it is character reference to the leadership of your organization.

Again it has nothing to do with doctrine.. As far as I can see raising the issue of the crusades is just a red herring.

 

[tom55]

Again it has nothing to do with doctrine.. As far as I can see raising the issue of the crusades is just a red herring.

A red herring or goading?

Goading defined: provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction

 

[kerwin]

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

You said: I believe the Jews go by it (Sola Scriptura) as well so it is an older claim than the reformation.

What you BELIEVE and what is the TRUTH are two different things.

Jesus said the opposite of what you are saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do".

Because they had the authority, based on the position of occupying Moses’ seat, they were to be obeyed. No where in the Old Testament does an individual Hebrew question the teaching authority of the scribes and Pharisees. No matter how hard you try to read it (sola Scriptura) into the Old Testament, it cannot be done. Nor can it be read into the New Testament. Only the Church leaders had the authority to read and interpret scripture. Sola Scriptura is NOT in the NT or the OT.

IF you believe the Law or the truth of Scripture is self-evident simply by reading it (which is the sola Scriptura theory), we see according to Chronicles in the Old Testament you are wrong because it says that priests and Levites “taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the LORD with them; they went about through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people” (2 Chron 17:9), and that the Levites “taught all Israel” (2
Chron 35:3). They didn’t just read, they taught, and that involved interpretation. The people had no right of private judgment/interpretation nor could they dissent from what was taught.

[SIZE=11pt]What Jesus did in that verse was to encourage submission to the teaching of the Pharisees on the basis of their sitting on Moses’ seat, not submission to the teaching of the Old Testament. According to Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees that occupy “Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2) have the authority and ability to interpret the law of Moses correctly. In this passage “seat” is a metaphor for judicial authority AND a reference to a literal stone seat in the front of many synagogues that would be occupied by an authoritative teacher of the law.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

The Bereans are called noble for using Scripture to tests what Paul,, the apostle, taught.

No leader today can compare even the least the apostles.

 

[FHII]

The Bereans are called noble for using Scripture to tests what Paul,, the apostle, taught.

No leader today can compare even the least the apostles.

Well. Yes, the noble bereans did that. But what happened once the Jews posed a threat? How noble were they?

It is true that the leaders today don't compare to the apostles. But today's leaders know what the apostles did and they eould marvel at what today's leaders can do.

 

[tom55]

The Bereans are called noble for using Scripture to tests what Paul,, the apostle, taught.

No leader today can compare even the least the apostles.

And you changed the subject because _____________(fill in the blank)

 

[Born_Again]

Again it has nothing to do with doctrine.. As far as I can see raising the issue of the crusades is just a red herring.

Again... It is a character reference for credibility of leadership. Leadership that establishes doctrine. So IT IS relevant. Not a red herring.

 

[Mungo]

Again... It is a character reference for credibility of leadership. Leadership that establishes doctrine. So IT IS relevant. Not a red herring.

That may be so for man made churches but the Catholic Church is guaranteed by Christ that His Church will not teach erroneous doctrines.

 

[kerwin]

And you changed the subject because _____________(fill in the blank)

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

You said: I believe the Jews go by it (Sola Scriptura) as well so it is an older claim than the reformation.

What you BELIEVE and what is the TRUTH are two different things.

Jesus said the opposite of what you are saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do".

Because they had the authority, based on the position of occupying Moses’ seat, they were to be obeyed. No where in the Old Testament does an individual Hebrew question the teaching authority of the scribes and Pharisees. No matter how hard you try to read it (sola Scriptura) into the Old Testament, it cannot be done. Nor can it be read into the New Testament. Only the Church leaders had the authority to read and interpret scripture. Sola Scriptura is NOT in the NT or the OT.

IF you believe the Law or the truth of Scripture is self-evident simply by reading it (which is the sola Scriptura theory), we see according to Chronicles in the Old Testament you are wrong because it says that priests and Levites “taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the LORD with them; they went about through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people” (2 Chron 17:9), and that the Levites “taught all Israel” (2
Chron 35:3). They didn’t just read, they taught, and that involved interpretation. The people had no right of private judgment/interpretation nor could they dissent from what was taught.

[SIZE=11pt]What Jesus did in that verse was to encourage submission to the teaching of the Pharisees on the basis of their sitting on Moses’ seat, not submission to the teaching of the Old Testament. According to Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees that occupy “Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2) have the authority and ability to interpret the law of Moses correctly. In this passage “seat” is a metaphor for judicial authority AND a reference to a literal stone seat in the front of many synagogues that would be occupied by an authoritative teacher of the law.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

I was answering the claim " Nor can it [Scripture Alone ]be read into the New Testament" as clearly the Bereans saw Scripture as more authoritative than Paul and God calls them noble for doing so.

My claim about Jews came from outside the OT. The Torah has more weight than the Talmud because the earlier was given by God and the later by the rabbis, i.e. scribes. The Pharisees were a Jewish denomination of the first century. He did not mention the Saducees; some whom sat in the Sanhedrin; but those particular individuals were probably also scribes.

If I keep going this way I will end up chasing a butterfly.

 

[Born_Again]

That may be so for man made churches but the Catholic Church is guaranteed by Christ that His Church will not teach erroneous doctrines.

Yea, Okay. You bet! This is what blows my mind. You assume that your church leadership is incapable of making a mistake. Yes, Christ' church is infallible. But just because you ride under the same flag Christ handed to Peter does not mean you (i.e. the RCC) is flawless in its teachings. The RCC took this "claim to fame" and used it as an umbrella of protection to push anything it wants.