which is the true christian faith.

[Pogo]

By vic –

Do we do this?

Lev 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Do we do this?

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Anyone reading the Bible in a literalistic manner would indeed see these as binding, no? Surely, you can see the error in this. But, when one reads the Bible in a more literal way, they would take into consideration historical and cultural events and incorporate them into their understanding of the passage. Do you understand the cultural significance of a head covering for a female in the first century?

Evidently, this is not the place to express broad, all encompassing views.

Hopefully, whenever scriptural examples, commands, history, laws, prophecies, etc., are referenced, they will be considered in relation to the dispensation under which they occurred, and apply.

I do understand the point that you are making here, I just disagree with it!

Looking at your example literally, when one of our body parts offends us, a tooth, appendix, kidney, we have it removed! But, this is not what the above passage is talking about. Because enduring an abscessed tooth will not send us to hell.

Likewise, now looking at your example in a spiritual manner, when one discerns that they have commited sin, then they are to repent and abstain from it. And/or, if the congregation that they are assembling with is teaching and following error, barring repentance on their part, I think that they should surgically remove themselves from the assembly, or be stained as well. As I have done twice in the last several years.

So, following your NT example, both literally, and spiritually, HAS worked for me, as, after all, I AM living under the New Covenant.

However, this does NOT mean that I understand the cultural significance of a head covering for a female in the first century.

Now, having already satisfied the scriptural requirements of baptism, as a Christian, the main thing that I am currently concerned with is the SPIRITUAL significance of a head covering as it applies to both men and women, and, also, the Lord's Supper, under the New Covenant!

I would, however, like to know why you think that the cultural aspect of a head covering is more important than the spiritual aspect?

And, also, I would like to know why you deem the passages relating to head coverings as optional, and the passages relating to communion, in the very same chapter, as binding?

Especially, since my Bible tells me that Paul, himself, says…

1 Corinthians 14:37 KJV
(37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

BTW - I'm guessing that you also realize that I see your link's commentary as flawed.

cisco19 -

Hello again!

Thanks for offering a little more input here.

Once, again, I must say that you are exactly right regarding the issues you mention.

Just keep questioning and comparing everything, that Christians and churches say and do, against the scriptures.

They will not fail you!

May God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[Imagican]

Hi, i'm very confused on the subject of christianity. There are many sects and denominations in this religion, and i feel each one has their own errors. My mother and her family side is straight up roman catholic, while in my fathers side is straight up protestant baptist. I participate on both churches.

Catholicism
Anyway. My biblical point of view is almost similar to that of the roman catholic, they are more parallel to the original christians in the way they worship. Tradition! Whats wrong of protestants (imo) is the lack of traditions, w/c is something ordered by paul in his books. i believe that the doctrines of purgatory and justification. Justification is probably the most confusing subject to understand because catholics say faith and works (and they give their biblical evidence) while protestant say through faith alone (and they give their biblical evidence). Both have even points. I also sorta agree with the immaculate conception. It seems biblical illogical to me for anyone to say that mary ISN'T the mother of God and that she was free from original sin.

protestantism
while i agree more with the biblical point of view of catholics, i can't really accept their doctrines too much. I believe that now 60% of the doctrines in catholicsm have been corrupted; and it has to be known fact that allot of their doctrines go against scripture. From my knowledge... 1 of the main claims that the Catholics use against protestants is that they were the first church. I don't think this is entirely true. I believe the 1st/original church was the church of the Messianic Jews. I think, that when christianity started spreading and managed to win over rome is when catholicism was actually born. Either it was born in Rome or this is when it was getting corrupted. It seems to me, that the romans merged some of their beliefs and traditions with the christian faith. Adding new doctrines and allowing somethings (that the word of God was against) just for the sake of winning over the locals and the roman empire. I guess they had no other option at the time because of the harsh persecutions and prejudice the Romans had towards things outside their culture. This is who symbols and images got into the picture. If you notice most of the catholic images are very similiar to the baal faith (sun worship). From what i know, the lord forbids images. Because of this fact, allot of the things with in the catholic practices/faith is equivalent to idolization. Take a look how they treat the Pope; while i don't see anything wrong with having a representative of God. I think they go way to far on his image AND HIS ROLE. It seems as if they treat him as a pharaoh. More to idolatry is with the subject of mary and the saints. I understand their point of view that regardless of them being dead they are still alive (spiritually) and they are still part of the church. Ok. But prayers towards them is going too far. While i believe that Mary is the mother of God (since jesus is God) and while i accept that she was free of original sin, i find "the hail mary's" to be wrong. In churches and in prayer, everything should be dedicated to God and no one else. The "hail mary" is strictly dedicated to her and this is She is the mother of God, she was free of original sin... OK! Thats it. That's all we need to acknowledge about her, and it's not a need to add her in part of our faith and how we reach God. Sometimes, during mass or any important time (such as memorials, funerals) the verse In Luke 1:26-56 is recieted, w/c is the hail mary. And the Bible shows that this was not a prayer instructed but an address by the Angel Gabriel. No where in the bible do you see the apostles repeating what the angel said to mary in their times of worship so i don't understand why Catholics recite an angelic address and use it as prayer. So obviously, this was a doctrine made after the New testament was published. The way mary and the saints are being treated is of roman influenced and it isn't christian tradition. " You pray to St Joseph he is the patron of workers; you pray to saint michael, etc.. Through out time, catholicism have also given additional titles such (crystal fountain of faith, the heroine of faith etc). That's going to far. Their roles are said and done in the New testament, their is no need to honor them that way especially in church where it is God only that is given honor. Us Catholics need to admit that the majority of our traditions and our practices are out of biblical tradition. Most of our practices are roman-pagan influenced w/c is why it was so easy for atheists to attack us with Zeitgeist.

--
So to sum up that long post, i am very confused to w/c is the true christian faith. I belive Catholicism is corrupted and i also believe protestantism takes the bible out of context and don't follow biblical tradition with exception of baptism.

cisco,

you seem about as well informed as MOST in the respect of denominationalism. With that in mind, I would suggest that you seek FIRST the knowledge and wisdom that would make a 'choice' ACCEPTABLE in the eyes of God.

You are absolutely correct in that the Catholics as well as the Protestants have 'created' their OWN religions that EACH vary from the words offered in scripture. That is to be expected when MEN have their way in the teachings of others. In their quest to be FOLLOWED, many have introduced damnable heresy that 'others' ITCH to hear.

Read, my friend. Read and pray and then READ some more. About the time that you think that you have "some'' of it 'figured out', THEN it's time to start SERIOUSLY studying. That is if you wish to be able to gain what is offered WITHOUT the guidance of 'denominations'.

The factors involved with denominations are as varied as the people that have created them. MORE SO actually for even among members of the SAME denominations, you will find that there is 'argument' concerning doctrine. Makes it kinda tough on those that simply wish to congregate WIthout all the division.

And EACH will tell you that 'their way' is THE way. Making it even MORE difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. But as previously offered, READ FIRST. Study and THEN allow God to lead you where He will.

Oh, and beware, for where you see the masses gathering, RUN AWAY from such. For 'straight is the gate and narrow the way that leadeth unto life and FEW there be that FIND it'. A PURE indication that the MASSES are LOST and only THINK that they have 'found 'the truth. When in REALITY all that they have found is what they are LOOKING for. And that is MOSTLY acceptance of MEN.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Pogo]

By Francis –

“No. Everything in Scriptures are not "timeless universal moral laws". Jesus Himself states this when He discusses the idea of divorce. Polygamy, also, is another example of God revealing Himself gradually to mankind, taking into account where man is at.â€Â

â€ÂOr do you believe men should have several wives?â€Â

â€ÂAnother example of the Church's rule is not always meant to be "universal and for all time" is the example of the first Council held at Jerusalme, where we see James discussing the preparation of meats. Again, an interim order to account for weak Judeo-Christians and not for the universal Church of all time.â€Â

Please see my reponse to vic…above… about the timelessness of ‘universal moral laws’ being binding only within their dispensation.

“Nor do I find anything in Scriptures that tell me anything about the expiration of oral traditions taught by Paul, but over and over, I am told about sola scriptura... The Church is the interpreter of God's Word - such as in Mat 18:16-17. The Church has told us that Paul's advice to cover the heads of women at Mass is not a command, but advice. One is free to take up this devotion - or not.â€Â

The church is NOT the interpreter of the Word!

Philippians 2:12 KJV
(12) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Each and every person is responsible for their own salvation!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Pogo]

By DavidLee -

Pogo wrote:
Also, I must disagree with your position on James 2:17. The devils that James is talking about didn’t just BELIEVE that Jesus was the Son of God, they KNEW that Jesus was the Son of God!

I agree, but don't follow...
He's saying that while they say they believe, they really don't. If they did truly believe then they would be different.

Even though the devils/demons referenced in James 2:17 KNEW exactly who Jesus was, they still had no intentions of following Him.

Which means that they are doomed to death!

As I see it, the same fate also awaits those who say that they believe with their tongues, but don't follow through with obedience to God's word, such as those who think that 'once saved, always saved'.

Their lips move, and the words "I believe!" come forth, but they continue on in their sinful ways.

May God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[turnorburn]

No offense guys but don't you think this is far too long and drawn out to come
to a conclusion, it may run into that 20 page neighborhood, I only say this
because it took me forever to read everything in the posts. :

Thanks,
turnorburn

 

[Imagican]

but then 'turn', that IS the exact nature of such threads. 20 pages? This one could go on until Christ's return.

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

20 pages is a mere bag of shells. :-D

 

[sheshisown]

Gosh you guys I was learning alot and enjoying your discussions~ what happened to the bag of shells?

: bonnie

 

[Catholic Crusader]

which is the true christian faith?... ...Catholicism.. ..My biblical point of view is almost similar to that of the roman catholic, they are more parallel to the original christians in the way they worship......

Yes. I vote for that one. :-D

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Francis -

You stated...

"This smacks of legalism. Really, do you think such things matter 2000 years later?"

If each and every position that you hold on the scriptures isn't bound with legalism itself, then how can you point your finger at another's interpretations....

Because the Bible teaches that individual interpretations are wrong. The Bible is clear that Christ chose specific teachers; He did NOT mean for everyone to figure out what is correct and incorrect on their own. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Paul, Peter, and John to write all those letters of correction. They could have just said to those people that the Holy Spirit would guide them, and left it at that

 

[Pogo]

Catholic Crusader -

You posted...

Because the Bible teaches that individual interpretations are wrong. The Bible is clear that Christ chose specific teachers; He did NOT mean for everyone to figure out what is correct and incorrect on their own. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Paul, Peter, and John to write all those letters of correction. They could have just said to those people that the Holy Spirit would guide them, and left it at that

Ahhh, if it were only so simple!

It's too bad that I can't just appoint someone to steer me to heaven. Especially if it could be one who would take my place in hell if his navigation fell short.

But, the scriptures don't say that! My Bible tells me...

Philippians 2:12 KJV
(12) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

I'll not be placing my soul in the hands of those who are murders (the Inquistions, Crusades, etc.), and child molesters (any of today's newspapers).

I wish you, and yours, the worst of luck in your efforts to corrupt more souls,

Pogo

BTW - Does your church still practice the rite of selling indulgences? Would you mind checking the ledgerbook in the church's treasury and telling me how much Ted Kennedy's divorce/anullment netted the RCC? Thanks in advance!

Oh, yeah! One more thing, would you please provide the BCV for divorce/anullments, and the rates that apply for the same?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Ahhh, if it were only so simple!

It's too bad that I can't just appoint someone to steer me to heaven....

Ahh, but it IS that simple, except you don't do the appointing; Jesus already did. He established a Church and chose its leaders, and those leaders chose who would follow, laying hands on them and giving them the "spirit of truth" which Jesus gave the twelve. Its Biblical, and it is that simple.

If every Bible were to disappear from the face of the earth today, the faith - and Holy Mother Church - would go on. We didnt have a Bible in the first century, and we did just fine.

 

[Veritas]

We didnt have a Bible in the first century, and we did just fine.

Not bound in a single book, but we did have the Old Testament... and most the New Testament were in circulation by about 60 AD. Geography played an issue in getting those accounts and letters to all the churches but most were there. By about 100 AD there were really only 5 books that were in question at some churches (2 Peter, James, 2 Jn, 3 Jn, and Revelation)

 

[Catholic Crusader]

We didnt have a Bible in the first century, and we did just fine.

Not bound in a single book, but we did have the Old Testament... and most the New Testament were in circulation by about 60 AD. Geography played an issue in getting those accounts and letters to all the churches but most were there. By about 100 AD there were really only 5 books that were in question at some churches (2 Peter, James, 2 Jn, 3 Jn, and Revelation)

Circulation in THOSE days was pretty "iffy". Different regions had a different letter or two, and some letters were being read that were later rejected, such as the letters of Clement (which are a good read, by the by).
And in any case, INDIVIDUALS did not have these letters laying around their homes to read for themselves: The "word" was read during the Liturgy - the celebration held in homes and later in church buildings.
In fact, that was the real reason for canonizing the NT - not so people could read it, but rather so that the liturgies being held throughout the lands would all be reading the correct letters. Most people don't even know that this was the reason for canonizing the Bible. It was never meant to interpreted by individuals in their homes so that they could devise their own doctrines. It was always meant to be in the heart of the Liturgical celebration.

 

[Veritas]

Circulation in THOSE days was pretty "iffy". Different regions had a different letter or two, and some letters were being read that were later rejected, such as the letters of Clement (which are a good read, by the by).

My understanding is that churches had much more than just a letter or two. Even scripture points to that: 2 Peter 3:16 takes Pauls letters for granted. And Paul is already refering to Luke on the same inspired level as the Old Testament in 1 Timothy 5:18.

And in any case, INDIVIDUALS did not have these letters laying around their homes to read for themselves: The "word" was read during the Liturgy - the celebration held in homes and later in church buildings.
In fact, that was the real reason for canonizing the NT - not so people could read it, but rather so that the liturgies being held throughout the lands would all be reading the correct letters. Most people don't even know that this was the reason for canonizing the Bible. It was never meant to interpreted by individuals in their homes so that they could devise their own doctrines. It was always meant to be in the heart of the Liturgical celebration.

If the people were reading the scriptures for a Liturgy in the home as you said, then that is the same thing as individuals within a home reading letters that they have "laying around" (important letters laying around, mind you).

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...If the people were reading the scriptures for a Liturgy in the home as you said, then that is the same thing as individuals within a home reading letters that they have "laying around"....

Hmmm. I think it would be more like the equivalent of everyone in your neighborhhod gathering in one house, and when the celbration was over, the elder would take the letter with him

 

[Veritas]

Hmmm. I think it would be more like the equivalent of everyone in your neighborhhod gathering in one house, and when the celbration was over, the elder would take the letter with him

Huh... yeah... I could see that happening.... I'd probably be trying to copy it though.... or at least memorize some of the sayings and such if I couldn't write. I do know there are thousands of ancient manuscripts for the NT, so you'd think that copying would be going on when it could. It's cool these thousands of manuscripts all agree with one another very well...

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Hmmm. I think it would be more like the equivalent of everyone in your neighborhhod gathering in one house, and when the celbration was over, the elder would take the letter with him

Huh... yeah... I could see that happening.... I'd probably be trying to copy it though.... or at least memorize some of the sayings and such if I couldn't write. I do know there are thousands of ancient manuscripts for the NT, so you'd think that copying would be going on when it could. It's cool these thousands of manuscripts all agree with one another very well...

Interesting how are personal beliefs influence things. YOU think you would copy it because of your modern acceptence of being able to have a Bible in your home. It seems natural to us to have that convenience. Hence you think that way. I probably would not, though, because of my belief that the Church is the teacher, not the individual, and because I don't believe in Sola Scriptura.

I don't think the early Christians would have thought to copy them either (although a few may have): I believe they were used to hearing the Word read aloud, and then expounded upon by the elder, just as the Jews did in Synagogue.

 

[DavidLee]

Huh... yeah... I could see that happening.... I'd probably be trying to copy it though.... or at least memorize some of the sayings and such if I couldn't write. I do know there are thousands of ancient manuscripts for the NT, so you'd think that copying would be going on when it could. It's cool these thousands of manuscripts all agree with one another very well...

This is what happens in North Korea today. They pass around individual pages of the New Testament so that everyone can make their own copy. There is a house that was wall papered with the pages of the New Testament (I think it was only the New Testament) and people come from long distances to copy the pages (by hand) for themselves.

 

[KenEOTE]

So Pogo I am curious. You said that there is no experation date on teh Bible. Are you out there Healing the sick? Are you rasing the Dead? Jesus told us to do that. Are you drinking a little wine for your stomach? Paul told Timothy to do that. Let go furher Are you following the rules in the Law? (first five books of the Bible?) Jesus came to fulfill the law not do away with it. Do you celebrate the Feasts God commanded. I am curious, or do you also pick and choose which bits of the Bible you want to follow. I am not saying that I follow all teh law, but you took a stance and I am curious how far you go with it.