On another blog, a fellow JoeUser asked the following questions and made the following comments:
I am irritated with the closed-mindedness of organizations with causes. If there is only one way (YOUR way) to reach God … why are there so many divergent paths and religions making the same claim? What makes you think it is even conceivable that a paper trail in excess of 2000 years could contain much resemblance to the original fictions?
I am sure you have heard of the test that goes like this: Get a group of 10 people in a circle and whisper a statement to one person. Then they whisper it to the next and so on. There has never been a valid documented case where the original statement bore much resemblance to the 10th person’s statement. This is simply explained with the fact that people are different and they think ‘differently’. Organizations do not like this concept which they classify as ‘self-serving individualism’.
I must be a fool (as you are want to tell me) because I do not believe that the concepts of lying, deceit and conspiracy, power struggles, suppressing the masses, limiting real knowledge, murder, deception and intrigue are new to this century or any other for that matter. But of course, religious theology was not susceptible to human contamination … of course. I believe these concepts were in existence long before recorded time. Why would this befouling of the truth affecting all of human history, exclude ONLY Christian Doctrine? Only mind dead robots could believe this absurdity.
All I had to do was listen to the first section about breaking the 4th commandment (Sabbath) to know that this is someone who has NO clue about what the bible says.
If you're listening to this stuff, and believing it, it's because you wish to be deceived. It's tickling your ears. They are saying what you wish to hear.
The bible, on the other hand, is truth and makes total sense.
Usually when one wishes to attack the bible they do go to the OT which is what was happening here. We are NOT under the Old System (OT laws) anymore although there is very good useful information still for our benefit.
In the NT, the Apostle Paul very clearly speaks about the New Covenant and how the Old has passed away.
For instance, the Sabbath, instituted right at creation was to point to the Creator. God made the earth and all in it in six days and on the 7th he rested. Man was to take that day and celebrate the creation. A Sabbath is to worship God and give him credit for all he's done.
There's tons of avenues I could go down here, using mental, emotional and physical well being showing us that it's very helpful to have a rest period after six days of work and it's been proven scientifically by many who are NOT Christians and are not looking at this from a biblical POV. A rest day is very beneficial showing that the bible written thousands of years ago is in tune with what the doctors say even today.
In the NT, the New Christians (after the death of Christ) celebrated the First day of the week (Sunday) to commemorate the resurrection which was on a Sunday. So while the Jews in the OT celebrated the Sabbath, the Christians NEVER were commanded to do so. The Sabbath was FOR THE JEWS. Never the Christians.
See, the narrator of your video has NO clue what he's speaking about when he speaks about stores and stuff being open. There is NO command in the NT for the Christians to keep Holy a certain day. But they did choose to keep Sunday as a day of rest celebrating the resurrection which was a GREATER work of God than even creation.
This is where I'm saying, do your research. Don't just listen to what man is telling you. If you do, you are not different than the religious folks like Lula, who are listening to their religious leaders telling them what to do and believe. We are, one day, going to each stand in front of our creator and we will be standing alone. No excuses.
The clip was just a poke in the eye to express my dissatisfaction. It was something I was working with at the time is all? I know it is silly to ask but did you actually watch it and if so ... got any comments.
Thanks KFC that answered some questions I had. But then you say something like “The bible, on the other hand, is truth and makes total sense.” We both know the Bible does not make sense at all and that is why you Lula needs a Church to interpret it for her, go figure. I do find it strange that only upstanding Catholics are all that can go to Heaven … just doesn’t seem right considering their role in human history.
I don’t know if reading the bible qualifies for research material or not but I didn’t make the clip, I just thought it brought up some very interesting things; you know negative things which you glossed over very nicely I might add. As much of it that I researched, I didn’t find one lie or misrepresentation … but attacking the author does seem to be the way of Religions I suppose. Forgive me for my ignorance, but I was under the impression that your God was incapable of error so riddle my why the OT is obsolete and contains impertinent data coming straight from the mouth of God and all? Who closed that era any way, God or the Church? And why am I supposed to believe the NT is impervious to such a mundane thing like time?
Prove that God came first in your scheme of things oh; you cannot use the Bible because it didn’t exist way back then and yet there seemed to be no lack of knowledge of God during the times considering all the “begots” and 900 year life spans and all.
To show the importance of unity in the one Church of Christ, St.Paul taught that "There is one body and one Spirit....one hope...one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all who is above all and through all and in all." St.Paul got this teaching from Christ and then he in turn taught it to the Church in Ephesus. Ephesians 4:4-6,
Keeping this passage in mind....I will press the distinction between the one Christian religion (Christianity) and the many, many sects within the Protestant religion.
I'm a stickler for details and here they are.
Christianity is the one holy religion of God's making, the one Christian Faith Christ taught and it was first called Catholicism in 107 AD by St.Ignatius. Jesus Christ established one definite Church to which He gave His teaching authority to teach all Truth until the end of the world. St.Mat. 16:15-19 and 28:16-20.
Quoting Smoothseas, reply 242I don't know what sect of Christianity KFC belongs to
This is no doubt a popular expression but an incorrect one.
In popular usage, Christianity is used in reference to all those forms of religion which profess belief in Christ. This way of speaking lacks precision and correctness. In reality, Christianity rightly signifies only the religion of Christ..His truths and teachings correctly and completely presented.
Christianity CANNOT signify a multitude of sects blending isolated truths of the one true religion of Christ with various errors which form the basis of division amongst the Protestant sects themselves.
For example the Baptist sect accepts such truths as the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth of Christ, but these truths are not what defines the Baptists. What defines the Baptists are those truths of the one true religion of Christ they reject...namely the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, and specifically of baptizing infants. This rejection is heretical and an error.
Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 235Christ certainly did not establish any one of the thousands of Protestant sects so they are not of God's making.
The first traces of the Baptist sect appeared in 1521. Martin Luther began the Protestant revolt against the CC in Germany in 1517. In 1521, Thomas Munzer set up as a prophet on his own account claimed that Luther did not go far enough in establishing his ideas. He taught that no one who had been baptized as an infant was really baptized at all. His adherents had to be baptized again. From this his followers got the name of "Anabaptists" or the "Rebaptizers". It was almost 100 years before this Protestant movement spread to England. The first English Baptists were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. The Baptist church therefore traces itself back to 1611 in England and indirectly to 1521 on the continent. Prior to that, the various Baptist sects, the various Baptist churches were non-existent.
no we don't. Why doesn't it make sense? Have you read it? Studied it at any length?
What did I gloss over? I told you upfront I only watched the beginning part and noticed immediately that whoever was behind it had no grasp of the scriptures. Not even close. So why would I watch more? He was going back to the OT which was given to the JEWS, not the Christians which is a fundamental error.
I showed you one. Of course you didn't find one because you want to believe this. You wish to be ignorant on purpose. That's ok if that's what you wish. I'm a truth seeker. I have to know/understand the truth not what I want it to be. It's not about my truth, but THE TRUTH.
He is incapable of error. Who said it was impertinent data? The OT was a temporary system set up before the Messiah would come. When the Messiah (Jesus) would come he would replace the Old Covenant with a New Covenant. In the Upper Room Discourse (before he died) in the gospels he mentions this. The Old Covenant sacrificial system and all that it entails looked forward to the Cross when Christ would come and shed his own blood for mankind. The OT system of killing lambs and goats for sin would no longer be necessary. That was an ongoing system replaced by the atonement for sin at the Cross; a once and for all deal. His sin for ours.
That's why John said when he saw Jesus coming "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." John 1:29
If you read Acts (the beginning of Christianity) Chapter 15, you'd see there was turmoil among the new believing Jews. They saw these Gentiles filled with the HS and knew that God's hand was upon them. So they were confused. What do we do with these Gentiles? Do they have to come under the OT system, get circumsized, abstain from certain foods etc? The answer was no from Peter and James (Apostolic leaders of the new church). Paul later wrote a letter to the Galatians about this very subject and the letter of Hebrews written to the Jews also had much to say about this new better covenant that replaced the Old. Christ fulfilled the old. It wasn't that it was impertinent or irrelevant but that there was a better system. All was planned from the get-go right from the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve sinned.
So instead of keeping the OT law, the Apostles wrote that the church was now under Grace. They were NEVER under the Old Covenant system which is where you get the 10 commandments.
In your video, the first part of it, his argument for dissing scripture was that the Christians don't keep the Sabbath. Well, go ahead and read Acts 15, written 4,000 years after Exodus (which they quote in the video) to see what the real truth is.
That is if you're even interested in truth.
As far as religion I'm talking about true Christianity which is Christ's truths given us both written (Bible) and oral (Tradition).
Hebraic Judaism was God's holy revealed religion. It had both written and oral Tradition as its deposit of the Jewish Faith and so too does Christ's New Testament religion. Like it or not, accept it or not....that's just the way it is.
One Tradition of Hebraic Judaism was the Passover meal. God instructed how it would be and then the specific way they celebrated it was passed down from generation to generation. That's sacred Tradition. Another example of Tradition is that God taught the Israelites how He wanted them to be in the Temple for worship and sacrifices. That was passed on from generation to generation down to the time of Christ. That's sacred Tradition.
We agree that Christ warned against "traditions of men". Totally agree.
Those Pharisees and were rebellious and not in line with Hebraic Judaism as God had laid out. So they weren't being religious, they were being irreligious. Big difference. When in the Temple, instead of following Tradition, and doing what they were supposed to be doing there; what they had been taught; they had turned the Temple into a marketplace, a den of thieves. That's why Christ took his cord and made a whip and threw them out.
So there are two types of traditions...sacred Tradition and traditions of men. You are rightfully warning against traditions of men, but seem to know nothing of sacred Tradition that is found in the Bible.
The Bible does in fact state that some of Christ's teachings were committed to Tradition, that is His teachings were transmitted and handed down by the Apostles orally.
"Stand firm, and hold the traditions you have learned, whether by word or of letters of ours". 2Thess. 2:51.
"And we charge you, brethren, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother who lives irregularly, and not according to the traditions received from us." 2 Thess. 3:6.
There is no questioning the meaning of those texts. Here St.Paul specifically states that there are not one but 2 criteria of Christian truth; that which was left to the Church via Sacred Scripture, via the written word, and that which was left to the Church via tradition, via the unwritten word, in other words by word of mouth, both of which he says are of equal importance to the Christian deposit of Faith.
And why was it necessary to give some of Christ's truths to the Chruch via the unwritten word by word of mouth rather than by letter?
The BIble furnishes us this answer....
"This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things, and who has written these things and we know that his witness is true. There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if everyone of these things should be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written." St.John 21:24-25.
So we have the Bible's own word for it that there were some things which Christ said and did that were not written down, that did not find their way into the Bible. Not becasue they were unimportant but rather becasue it would have involved an impossible writing assignment.
Had the Apostles and their disciples attempted to record all of Our Lord's doings and teachings, they wouldn't have had time for preaching, teaching and organizing and administering the Sacraments to the soul starved masses, the majority of whom could not read anyway.
They did however transmit all that Christ taught via Tradition, that is by word of mouth. Those truths of Christ have been transmitted to Catholics since Apostolic times.
The Church transmits the fullness of Christ's truths through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We call the fullness of Christ's truths, the Deposit of Faith.
Right or true religion is important because God's plan of Salvation is important. Salvation is about practicing Christ's New Covenant religion which is the way we get to know, love and serve God here in this world so we can be with Him in eternity.
This is not the problem. Anything OUTSIDE of scripture is tradition of man. The letters mentioned here are the same scriptures we hold in our hands today. Their word is NOT going to contradict or go outside what is written down. The RCC has a boatload of traditions that have NOTHING Scriptually to base them on and actually contradict scripture which we've been over and over before.
The whole RCC "pillar of tradition" thing is nothing but a convenience to do/say what they want. The Pharisees did the same thing. They took the Word of God and made their own traditions from them. For instance, the one command about honoring the Sabbath turned into hundreds of man-made laws making sure the Jews honored the Sabbath as they saw fit.
Like I said many times..there's nothing wrong with tradition as long as it doesn't usurp or contradict the written Word.
I read this today and paid particular attention to the last part which I take very seriously...
Someone has said, "The Bible is God's Word to us. We are to read it to be wise, beleive it to be safe, and study it to be approved. It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's character. Christ is the grand subject, our good is its design, and the glory of God is its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, prayerfully. It involves the highest responsibility, will reward the greatest labor, and condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents."
and Jesus condemned their oral tradition all over the gospels. That's what I'm saying about the RCC. Just like the religious leaders of Judaism had their oral traditions and outside books, so too does the RCC.
You're defending what Jesus condemned. That's just the way it is.
Here's an example of an oral law. They honored their traditions more than written scripture:
"Then came to Jesus, scribes and Pharisees (religious elect) which were of Jerusalem saying, why do the disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But HE (Jesus) answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? " Matt 15:1-3
so the question is...how do you know the oral tradition you so love, isn't exactly the same type of thing the religious Jews not only set up themselves but were burdening their people to follow? By doing so, they were in effect, the blind leading the blind.
May I remind you of what the Protestants did with God's written Word?
The Protestant King James Version in verse 13 has added “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever and forever. Amen.”
This addition was not Christ’s word and not part of His "Our Father" prayer, yet it's found in the KJV in bright red as though they were Chrst's words.
How about the fact that Protestant revolutionaries ditched 7 OT Books of God's Word?
How's that for trifling wiht its Sacred contents? How pleased do you think Our Lord is with that?
KFC, I don’t have a bone to pick with religion in general, it is just not for me. However whenever you guys quote your holy words, it always brings me back to what came first the chicken or the egg. In the real world, you cannot just write something down in a book and then just use that book alone to prove anything is even valid let alone true. I am not a theology major nor do I study scripture … why should I as it serves no useful purpose??? You know, it doesn’t matter who I seek out for material because if the material isn’t in compliance with Religious dogma, well then, the author is stupid, doesn’t know anything about scriptures or hates the Church, etc. etc. Even stranger is when one quotes the Bible itself (the presumed word of God), they get slammed for misusing the ‘meaning’ of God’s word, go figure. Creationists are the worst skeptics in the world concerning everything that is not Church sanctioned, but sadly all it takes for absolute proof for you guys is to find what you want in some vague form of scripture or in the Bible and presto it is the undeniable truth. Obviously you do not understand the word ‘proof' in the real world. “I showed you one. Of course you didn't find one because you want to believe this.” Unlike you, I do not have an agenda so I am open to the word of man which you (Church and Co.) openly despise. I cannot believe you actually wrote the underlined words, hehehe. And how is it that this doesn’t apply foremost to you and your religious co-conspirators I wonder indeed??? Well like it or not, the Age of Aquarius is fast approaching and this God issue will be decided for you by the followers of the next messiah (not going to be one though). That is the way of religions as history teaches us. If you wipe out the last few hundred years of reality (bet you wish you could) you might still be riding high but … reality came to pass anyway and you cannot deal with it but I can. The next ‘religion’ (as you are want to classify it) is already here and flourishing and it is this 'new religion' that will ensure no more superstitions gain seats of power in the New Age. Humm … Sacred traditions passed down through hundreds of generations of infallible and incorruptible human beings living in a world of sin (like today). You do remember one of those spreaders of the truth betrayed your Jesus … but he was the only one. Well, there was Judah too among many others so what goes. I know how you can cite number and accompanying parable with nary a falter even though you probably have to look most of them up just the same as I do … but they couldn’t write … or read … or use a Xerox machine. Continuity my butt … but it must be true … Just remember what I said above as you try to mask the Age of Aries but that is alright because all you are charged to do is contend with your ‘two fish’. Maybe you forgot that God supposedly destroyed all living creatures on the Earth because of rampant human materialism (not sure of the fish though for obvious reasons) except for the contents of the Ark ... so how was it that these Sacred Traditions were maintained, just a thought.
Lula, you need to go back to your Sanctum Sanctorum for a recharge of your CSC (Catholic Superiority Complex), where you can be comfortably insulated from reality, science and common sense. I am just not sure how this can be done is all??? You might ask yourself whether it was God who created dysfunctional man … or was it dysfunctional man who created a dysfunctional God … or my favorite one … that it was dysfunctional man who created a dysfunctional Church who created a dysfunctional God … just for benign purposes of continuity to be sure, hahaha. Anyway you spread it, dysfunctional man was always at the center ... Sacred Traditions like hell.
Flakey101,
Sorry I've taken so long to reply...
Lula posts: Quoting Flakey101, reply 244Yes, indeed...the choice for God or against God is set before us. We have the power to choose. It's called free will. God doesn't force Himself on us, so it is an either/or situation.
Quoting Flakey101, reply 244Not forced at all. You just have to spend all of eternity in hell if you do not.
God is the Creator and we are His created ones. For what purpose was man created? Was it for anything in the world? No. God created us for Himself and so our end is God and supernatural happiness. We were created in the image and likeness of God. Likeness, in that we have a spiritual soul which is immortal, makes the body live, endowed with reason and is also gifted with free will.
We were made for God and He has willed that we shall have an opportunity to know, love and serve Him in this world to be with Him in the next...a great destiny. We owe all we have to God and reason and justice demands that we render a suitable acknowledgment to the fact of God which must be expressed in the duties of true religion which implies acts of worship of God, both private and public and obedience due Him in the way prescribed by Him.
God will not have any forced love or service and so we are at liberty to freely side either with God or against Him and to choose between good and evil.
If man were not free he could not be held responsible for his conduct and could neither merit commendation by good actions nor condemnation for evil actions.
To all men, God gives sufficient grace for their salvation.Again, one spends his time in this life freely choosing for or against God.
Then comes death, judgment, Heaven or Hell.
If one goes to Hell, it will be because he/she freely chose to do so.
The oral "traditions" which St.Paul is referring to here have indeed been held and practiced from St.Paul's day through today and will until the end of time by the Catholic Church.
These "traditions" in which St. Paul was exhorting the Thessalonians (and us) to hold and keep are Sacred Traditions, NOT the "traditions of men" which Christ railed against when He was speaking to the Pharisees. Two traditions...one Sacred the other not.
No, I'm not defending what Jesus condemned. You are wrong and it's clear you are sorely confused about the difference between the "traditions" St. Paul is exhorting the Thessalonians to keep and hold on to and the "traditions of men"
The "tradition" I'm defending was taught first by Jesus to His Apostles and disciples, including St.Paul. The "tradition" I'm defending is the same "Traditon" of 2 Thess. 3:6 and 2:51 in which St. Paul is exhorting the Thessalonians to stand firm on and hold on to. This is hardly the tradition of men that Jesus was condemning!!!!!!!!!
You say:
Good for you for saying so so many times. It's for sure, "tradition" that St. Paul speaks about does not usurp or contradict the Bible.
Catholics have indeed followed St.Paul's exhortation and stood firm and held on to those Traditions as part of the deposit of Faith of Christ.
How exactly do Protestants follow St.Paul's exhortation and stand firm and hold (Apostolic) tradition?
Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 258so the question is...how do you know the oral tradition you so love, isn't exactly the same type of thing the religious Jews not only set up themselves but were burdening their people to follow? By doing so, they were in effect, the blind leading the blind.
God's supernatural (Divine) Revelation to us is a big thing. It's the way we "know" God other than by natural reason.
Yes, I love both Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition which the Church recognizes as equal and must be believed as firmly as the Bible because it contains the unwritten word of God. I'm Divinely guided by both. Can't have one without the other if you want the fullness of God's Divine Revelation. Seems to me a truth seeker who truly wants to "know" God would want the fullness of His Divine Revelation.
Remember there are 2 traditions mentioned in the Bible...Sacred Tradition and "traditions of men." As far as not religious but rather the irreligious Jews, you've given the texts which condemn their "traditions of men" and I've said I absolutely agree.
At the same time, as far as Sacred (Apostolic)Tradition, I've shown that Scripture itself states that it does not contain all that Christ revealed. These truths not found in Scripture are found only in Apostolic Tradition. I've also shown that Scripture itself guarantees Apostolic Tradition to be a sound source of Christian faith and doctrines. That's because Christ Himself established Sacred Tradition as the main vehicle by which His teachings would be preserved in the Church and communicated to all throughout the ages until the end of time.
He demanded Faith in His doctrines as they were preached by the oral teaching of His Apostles.
Remember that the first Christians owed their Faith, not to the written word, but to the Church and its Divine authority to preach and teach all that Christ has taught. Before a line of the NT was written, it was the early Church who preached Christ to the first converts. Jesus commanded no writings but told them to preach and teach His truths...all of them...the total deposit of Faith. Jesus promised, "He who hears you, hears Me". It was on the Apostles and disciples testimony that the first converts believed in Christ. The point is Faith didn't come from reading Sacred Scripture for it hadn't been yet written! The early converts accepted the teaching authority of the CC represented by the Apostles.
The Apostolic Traditions St.Paul was exhorting the Thessalonians to stand firm and hold on to were not included in the New Testament but have been preserved and handed down completely in the CC.
So, Apostolic Tradition as opposed to Pharisaical "traditions of men" is the revealed truths taught by Christ and His Apostles which were given to the Church only by word of mouth, though they were later put in writing by the Fathers of the Church who were disciples of the Apostles or comtemporaries of those disciples.
Besides the writings of the Fathers, the truths of Apostolic Tradition may be found in the writings of the Doctors of the Church, decrees of Popes and Councils, and the liturgy of the Chruch as found in the Missal and rituals.
Next up I'll give you some specific examples of the Divine truths of Apostolic Tradition.
I can find no Biblical passages that show Christ's teaching of tolerance.
What I did find is that Christ said, "I am the truth". Truth excludes error. In St.Matthew, I read that Christ founded His Church and said, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen." That doesn't sound much like tolerance to me.
Again, He said to His apostles, "He who despises you despises Me, and he who despises Me, despises the One who sent Me."
And if it's true that Sunday should be observed by Christians, would Christ be tolerant for the those in a church who still insist on the Jewish Saturday?
If Christ is really present in the Blessed Eucharist as per St.John 6, would He be tolerant of those who deny His Real Presence there?
Christ would say, I don't blame those who are mistaken through no fault of their own, but I object to doctrines that deny the truth I revealed (both written and non written) to mankind. And I cannot be tolerant of those devoted to the diffusion of error.
The Catholic Church affirms truth...Christ's truth. It always has and always will. When the CC denies that all the other religions and churches are right and true; it's really an invitation to the supporters of those others to come to her and get the full truth..the full deposit of Faith.
This is not prompted by hatred, but rather fidelty to and love of Christ and by a desire that all should possess the truth.
Slavery is an interesting word don’t you think? Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery and yet it was the mainstay for labor throughout these tumultuous times. Nothing is simple when dealing with religions, go figure. Whenever you guys communicate with us mortals you just take the high road. You will accept absolutely nothing outside your particular circle of influence as even remotely-possibly true simply because you claim that only you (and you and you and…) are capable of telling the truth??? From this self-imposed omnipotent (usurped) attitude and with the demeanor of a badger … you expect to communicate with the human race … how??? You belittle and deride everything anyone says contraire to your beliefs (not against you) or anyone you perceive as a threat to your specific dogma … and you classify everything contraire to your specific superstitions as ‘enemies of the Church (surely someone’s Church). This is important … it was never their (our) decision, that onus falls on your shoulders alone (you are your own worst enemy). Anyway … it is not because their arguments lack merit; it is always because of your pompous claims of ‘the truth’ and your inability to concede merit to anyone besides yourselves. You people are so enlightened that you argue particulars ‘of the truth’ even amongst yourselves, go figure. You do not deal well with logic, science, common sense or man’s knowledge because you feel that man is little more than a pet.
Besides knowing God by our natural reason, we can also know Him and His truths from supernatural (Divine) revelation that God has made known to us through written Scripture and unwritten (oral) Tradition...also called Sacred Tradition, Divine Tradition, or Apostolic Tradition. So Tradition begins the gift of GOd the Father at the moment of salvation history when He intervenes and reveals Himself by event and word to His people, and it's accomplished by the incarnate and personal intervention of Jesus Christ.
Pre-Christian revelation may be divided into 3 parts...which I've already mentioned earlier in the discussion.
Primitive revelation made to Adam and Eve. God spoke to them in the Garden of Paradise. Patriarchial revelation made to the Patriarchs. God spoke to Abraham and Noe (Noah). Mosaic revelation made to Moses and the Prophets.
Ancient Israel's Tradition was formulated to make the liturgical acts, demands and legislations of God known and incorporated to the Chosen people. The main purpose of Sacred Tradition is to actualize events and put the believer in contact with the saving work of God.
Tradition is capable of development. The account of the call of Abraham rested on Tradition that goes back to the Patriarchial period, reveals insights required in the light of later events. The Passover meal was one such sacred Tradition. The essence of Israel's Traditions and the OT is a summary of the ancient Jewish Faith.
God inspired men to write down His revelations.
For pre-Christian written revelation there were 45 Sacred Books composing the OLd Testament. over the centuries they were meticulously guarded by the Israelites, the Chosen people whom God had chosen to keep His truths intact for the instruction of future generations.
CHristian revelation contains the truths revealed to us by Christ, either directly or through His Apostles passed down by word of mouth. Tradition in the NT builds on the OT, but it is unique becasue its essential content is the saving work of God in Jesus Christ.
You mention Judas, well, an example of Apostolic Tradition at work is in the early Church, one of the first acts of the Apostles was to choose a replacement of Judas. Since the Church was to continue preaching and teaching and bear witness to the work of CHrist until the end of time, the Twelve has to appoint and ordain by the laying on of hands new successors. This is Sacred Tradition.
Sacred Traditions are maintained by the Church for strengthening the faith and the salvation of our souls much the same way ordinary traditions are maintained by people. On Oct. 31, the world celebrated the tradition of giving treats to "trick o treaters". Another human tradition that was maintained for generations but is falling by the wayside is the tradition of families sitting down at a table and eating meals together at home.
OK. I understand that now!
Then why hit and run?
The clip does no such thing. It is merely someone's opinion and he is entitled to his opinion as you are yours.
But here is the point. When it comes to Almighty God and His revelations it is not a matter of human opinions. It's a matter of God's teaching and neither your opinions nor my/KFC's opinions have any value if they contradict that.
As far as your slam against the CC....
The CC and Catholic doctrine is not my opinion, but rather Christ's doctrine who sent the Church to teach in His name.
Until we prove a thing it's a matter of opinion. If Almighty God had never given a revelation about His true religion and Church, it would be a matter of opinion. When the Creator speaks the creature must simply accept. God sent His Son Jesus Christ who establishe done definite Church to which He gave His teaching authority. So here we have God's decision and we must accept it.
If our human opinions suggest anything against the teachings of Christ, or against the teachings of His Church as per Sacred Scripture and Tradition, we just renounce our own fallible ideas as being foolish notions of untaught or ignorant children.
Every one of the person's in the clip claims can be refuted with the effort of a little research.
As I see it, the clip is just your way of shooting and reloading!
All these slams against God, mocking the Bible and the Chruch as KFC has already said, tickle only the ears of those who want desperately to hear his opinions.
Yes, the Holy Bible makes sense...perfect sense.
But making sense is one thing and being easy to understand is another. The Bible is NOT easy to understand and that's why we need the Teaching magisterium of the Church to help us understand it and to interpret it for us. Although people regard themselves as authorities in interpreting the Scriptures, this isn't so....the CC is the authority on the Holy Bible.
The Bible itself states that it is hard to understand.
The Book of Acts is a true account; a short view of the first stages of the early Church. In chapter 8, there is an account of the deacon St.Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Th eHoly Spirit leads Philip to approach the Ethopian. When Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaias, he asks him a very telling question:
Do you think you understand what you are reading? And even more telling the Ethiopian answers, How can I unless some man show me? And he desired would tell him what Isaias meant. Now Philip was one of those who was commissioned by the Apostles to preach and teach with authority. 8:4-6. His explanation of what the Scriptures meant was legitimate Apostolic teaching.
The point here is that the Ethiopian verifies the fact that the Bible is hard to understand; is not sufficient in itself as its own interpreter or as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and needs an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand the true meaning what the Bible says.
I wrote an article about this very topic....you may find it interesting.
https://forums.joeuser.com/307297
As to the first question, God closed the Mosaic era of the Jewish Church and religion (Hebraic JUdaism) for a more perfect one. The religion of Christ was its perfect fulfillment. Christianity is the perfect development of the Jewish religion just as the perfect tree is the perfect development of the seed from which it grew.
Slavery was a legal, accepted institution in the ancient world and during the first few centuries after Christ. Slavery was deeply interwoven with the Roman Empire when the Catholic Church came into existence in 33AD. Manual labor was beneath the dignity of the Roman citizens under their emperors. The Church labored to better the lot of slaves by teaching their equal human dignity and working for their emancipation came from the very beginning.
In St.Paul's letter to Philemon in which St.Paul asks him to welcome back a runaway slave named Onesimus whom St.Paul had converted to Christ....and to welcome him not just as a slave, but as a brother in Christ and "to do even more than I say" which implies giving Onesimus his freedom. Phil 16:21.
The CC ordained them as priests and by the year 225 even as Pope, to the Chair of Peter. We also know that while the Church was living in the catacombs a religious Order was established for the redemption of slaves by the outright purchase and by the working of liberators as substitutes for them.
In the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine was successful in removing the legal restrictions agains tslaves, recognized that they were men made in the image and likeness of God,and were no longer branded with hot irons or thrust into gladiatorial contests with wild beasts for the amusement of a pagan populace.
By the 5th century.the Church working in these ways led to the virtual eradication of slaves.
But it was short lived becasue slavery returned when the barbarians invaded Europe. Later in history, the inroads of Islam revived slavery for the Moors regarded it as a duty to enslave captive Christians.
When Spain and Portugal captured the new world colonies, slavery surfaced and the Popes did their utmost to prevent slavery. Eugene IV in 1435, Pius II in 1482, Paul III in 1537, (he imposed excommunication on those who took part in the slave trade), Urban VIII in 1689, Benedict XIV in 1741 and Gregory XVI in 1838 all condemned slavery.
The Catholic condemnation of slavery can be found in the Catechism of the CC # 2414,
The Seventh Commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason---selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian, --lead to enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold, and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit."
Bl. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have also condemned this tragic commerce in human misery. In short the CC has condemned slavery everywhere for over 2,000 years.
No government in the world officially sanctions slavery ...it's banned worldwide...yet slavery thrives in every nation on the face of this planet because of organized crime, corruption and insatiable greed.
The Old Testament isn't completely obsolete because some of it contains the Natural Law, so, in that way, it has perennial value. The OT is the Word of God and will always until the end of time be the Word of God and still deserves total respect.
The Old Mosaic Covenant enjoined moral, legal and liturgical precepts. The legal and liturgical precepts are done, over with, since there is no longer the Temple, the Aaronic Priesthood, etc. However, the moral precepts of the OT, namely the 10 Commandments, still hold in the New Covenant. They must for they are, for the most part, Divine positive promulgations of the Natural or Moral Law. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave them greater weight and meaning.
The guy in the clip is decrying the legal precepts of the OT but what he doesn't understand is that the legal and liturgical precepts were laid down by God for a specific stage in salvation history, that is, up to the coming of Christ and Christians are not obliged to observe them.
Anyway, through Christ, in Christ, and with Christ, the New completes the Old.
I'm thinking of St.Matt. 5:17-18.
In the Old, God spoke through His law and the prophets, but in the New, He speaks through His Son. Christ completes what went before and puts it in new light. Such is what happened with the Sabbath observance. The whole law is brought to perfection and the process begins with Christ. Everything must be accomplished and not one word of God will pass away until "all is accomplished".
God, Creator of all things, including time and space, is eternal. He is, always was and always will be. Time and space are co-terminus with creatures and they too had a beginning and they too will have an end.
The enemies of Almighty God will try to get rid of Sacred Scripture and the CC for that matter, but they are both here and will be until the end of time. We have Christ word on that.
Don't need the Holy Bible to prove that God came first in all things.
Sacred Tradition helps though in the person of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Here's what he has to say more or less.
RIGHT REASONING asserts every effect has a cause.
Primary effects relate back to First Primordial Cause.
Secondary effects relate back to First Primordial Cause.
Extended effects relate back to First Primordial Cause.
Fire, mist, Time, Matter, or a tree on a hillside all are effects of ONE FIRST CAUSE.
The Universe presupposes a casue, a being necessarily outside the thing produced. All creation stands in contrast to the cause of its production; one produced the other unproduced.
This uncreated cause...this being having no cause, no beginning, Christians name God. Almighty God, the Eternal Creator is necessarily sovereign Lord and Master over all created beings.
I guess it won't surprise you that I disagree with some of this and the reason is that the Third Commandment of the Old Law goes to Natural or Moral Law and that part of it can not be changed or abrogated for it's one of God's unchangeable commandments. I think we may disagree over what "keep holy" means.
"Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day" was partly moral, the natural law, obliging all men to devote some time exclusively to the worship of GOd and partly ceremonial in as much as the Jews had a divine authoritative right to detemine the time and the details of its observance.They chose the 7th day in honor of God's completion of His Creation as you said.
For Christians, the Sabbath became the Lord's Day and the commandment is "Remember thou keep holy the Lord's day."
The Church would not/could not ever abrogate the natural law part of God's command which obliges all Christians to devote some time exclusively to the worship of God, and that Scripture testifies the Apostles did. Acts. 20:7. So for the early Chruch and the Chruch today, it wasn't just a matter of rest, it was also a matter of worshipping God on the Lord's Day. That's what "keep holy" means.
The Lord's Day is celebrated in the CC, "from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof" (Malachais) as it was celebrated by the Apostles and the Christians in the catacombs by the "Breaking of Bread", later called the Holy Mass.
With the end of the mission of Hebraic Judaism came a change, not in the Commandment, but rather the selection of Sunday to supercede the Saturday sabbath of which, as you said, was selected by the Jews for the Jews only.
What the sabbath was to the Jews, while they were "a kingdom of priests, a holy nation" Ex. 9:16, the sabbath of the New Covenant is to the Christians, since they became the "chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation." 1St.Peter 2:9.
Re: the highlighted:
While the NT does not contain the word, Sunday, it has in it the equivalent, "the Lord's Day". While there is no announcement of a change of sabbath day there, it does not lack evidence the first Christians assembled on the first day of the week for their religious solemnities.
The Apostles, to whom Our Lord gave the power to "bind and loose" met on the first day of the week, the Lord's Day to fulfill the requirements of the Third Commandment. They who were the teaching body of the universal Church Christ established, the Catholic Church, exercised their infallible power of changing the seventh day sabbatical reckoning.
The Apostles could and did change the time, the motive and the details of the Sunday observance. The day of the week to Sunday. They made it commemorate the Resurrection of Christ instead of the Creation. they mitigated in great measure the severity of the Jewish law, abolishing for example, the death penalty Ex. 31:15 and certain prohibitions. Ex. 35:3.
Now, Apostolic Tradition absolutely confirms what is here.
The Didache, Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles written between 65 and 80 reads, "On the Lord's day come together and break bread. And give thanks, offering the Eucharist, after confessing your sins that your sacrifice might be pure."
In 110, St.Ignatius, a contemporary of St.John, spoke of Christians as "not sabbathizing" but living in the spirit of the Lord's Day." In 112, Pliny wrote much the same, in 140, Justin Martyr, in 170, St.Melito, Bishop of Sardis, in 200, Tertullian of Carthage, in 253, St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in 300, St.Peter of Alexandria, and the list goes on.
The Catholic Church requires Catholics to keep Sunday by hearing Holy Mass, and by resting from servile work.
The abstention from servile work is first mentioned by Tertullian who speaks of "deferring even our business on the Lord's Day. lest we give place to the devil.".
Catholics are told from the pulpit that they should not work on Sunday unless it is absolutely necessary. Yet we see so many that do and this is an absolute scandal. That's why the guy in the clip had at least half a point on this one.
You know I remember that it used to be that everything was closed on Sunday. No one rests anymore...and it shows!
Show me anywhere in the NT where it says that we are to Keep the "Lord's Day." I've already given you ACTS 15 where there were ONLY two requirements for the Christians coming into the faith as far as the Old Covenant was concerned.
1. Avoid idolatry
2. Avoid sexual immorality
Now I'll give you the scriptures that show that we are NOT under the OT law when it comes to the Sabbath..
Paul wrote in Romans 14:1-5
Him that is weak in the faith receive but not to doubtful disputations. For one believes that he may eat all things; another who is weak, eats only herbs. Le not him that eats despise him that eats not; and let not him which eats not judge him that eats for God has received him....one man esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regards the day regards it to the Lord and he that regards not the day to the Lord he does not regard it. He that eats eats to the Lord for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks...
Basically what Paul is doing in v1-12 (more than the above) is giving us the proper attitude Christians should have toward each other in debatable areas of conduct (things that are not clearly stated to be wrong). God has received both the weaker and stronger believer.
Speaking to the Galatians who were trying to adhere to the Mosaic Law (Old Covenant) he wrote this in 4:9-11:
"But now, after that you have known God or rather are known of God, how turn you again to the weak and beggarly elements where you desire again to be in bondage? (OLD LAW) You observe days and months and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."
He's telling them that they are not acting like heirs of God and are being influenced by the Judaizers observing the days and festivals of the Jewish calendar.
and my favorite verse that is very clear..
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us which ws contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a holyday or of the new moon or the Sabbath days. Which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ. Col 2:16-17
False teachers were insisting on abstinence from certain foods (RCC did this on Fridays with no meat) and observance of certain days. These Pauls says are shadows that have been dispersed by the coming of Christ. The command to observe the Sabbath is the ONLY one of the 10 commandments NOT repeated after Pentecost.
Paul was saying also that all those ordinances (now blotted out) were a shadow of what was to come but now that we see the body (Christ came) we no longer look at the shadow but the real thing in front of us.
You will find no scriptures at all about keeping the "Lord's Day" or the "Sabbath" directed to the New Covenant. We are under grace, not the law.
The closest you will come is found in Hebrews where it says "do not forsake the gathering together." But that can be anywhere, anytime or place. A field, a tent, a building etc. on a regular basis. Could be weekly, (preferably) monthly, yearly. There are no specifics. This is where legalism sets in when man dictates outside of what is in scripture. That's what the Pharisees did constantly.
See the problem with having one day set aside for God is that for many the rest of the week they live like the devil. God says whatever we do, eat, drink, sleep etc we are to do for Him. So instead of giving God one day, we should give Him all week. We shouldn't be limited by one day in lieu of the great work done for us on the Cross.
"Let every man be persuaded in his own mind."
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
