P
PRmerger
Guest
I have never been rude or uncharitable, happyme.
And if you are indeed threatened by the moderators then it is only because you have violated a forum rule, so it is not of my doing, but of yours.
- Status
And if you are indeed threatened by the moderators then it is only because you have violated a forum rule, so it is not of my doing, but of yours.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then one has to wonder why you would post such an intentionally provocative statement about people being threatened with censure “for disagreeing with someone”.
I am quite certain, since you say you have truly read all the way through, that you understood quite clearly that it was for rudeness and uncharity that Little Star was being rebuked, not for disagreeing.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I am not understanding your position, mek.Would you please explain how you figure I posited that? And are you, PRmerger, using the second “you” in your quoted text to mean me personally? (I assume from context that the first one is.)
Did the Catholic Church get it right in discerning for you and me the 27 book canon of the NT? Are you comfortable in the assurance that when the Church states that, say, the Gospel of John professes that Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commands."
Or are you unsure that the Church discerned correctly that this is the Word of God?
J
Jcc1960
Guest
Here is the cogent response:
- Why bother? Because it is the Word of God, it is how we learn about God’s Will. God’s Will permeates all of the Bible. He has guided the Prophets as well as the scribes and theologians who compiled it. Historicity is not a requirement for the Bible’s purpose. Histories are written by historians, not Prophets.
- Should you always dismiss Biblical scholarship wherever it differs from traditional understanding? People learn new things by studying, compiling evidence, developing theories and seeking to prove them. There are archaeological discoveries that shed light on Biblical times and subjects. I don’t think you should dismiss all of that as “liberal scholarship.” Knowledge is light. Don’t fear it.
- if you are claiming that Baha’u’llah was wrong about or didn’t understand some of the things mentioned in His scriptures, I beg to differ. Baha’u’llah often quoted scripture. In your view, He did so “as if it were literal”, and sometimes He cited Quranic versions that differ from Biblical versions, or referred to interpretations that were current among the people of that time and place. He did that because His purpose was to teach spiritual lessons, not to fact check the material knowledge of that time. I would have to show you in detail each specific instance, where when something is mentioned which, if taken on face value might be considered incorrect, but in every case the subject matter was not that material fact. To correct the material knowledge would have distracted from the spiritual subject being discussed.
One example is when He mentioned transmuting copper into gold. Alchemists believed that there were ways of doing that literally, and alchemy was still a current belief in19th century Persia and the Ottoman Empire. Does that mean Baha’u’llah believed in Alchemy? Of course not, he was talking about transforming the human spirit, improving morals.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
- Concerning the historical approach to the bible it most certaintly does matter. If God of Israel did not release the Hebrews from Egypt then why are we to fear him? What does this god do? As far as I know, from the bahai perspective he puts some closer him when they die and others further away, whatever that means, so obstensibly your fine either way. God’s wrath then doesn’t matter, but the problem for bahai here is that the Old testament is predicated on God establishing his wrath on his people, his demands on his people and the failure of his people to live up to those demands. So yes the historicity does matter because if it did not happen there is no other meaning by which any value can be derived from it, because that is ultimately the central point of the Old testament, God’s justice, wrath and yet hope for the Messiah. But the idea of allegorizing everything in it, seeking the spiritual interpretation over God’s actual doings and deeds takes away the spiritual impact that would not be there without those physical actual deeds he did. What is the spiritual meaning of depicting God defeating hte gods of egypt and the pharoah if it didn’t really happen? Basically your God is a deistic God with good intentions but doesn’t actually do anything, thats how I see your God. Oh he may occassionally act and embarress himself via a virgin birth or creation of the world ex nihilo but other than that he doesn’t do anything, he doesn’t punish anyone, he doesn’t have wrath and ultimately he’s the incompetent father who feels cross with people but can’t actually bring himself against anyone.
- Whoever said anything about rejecting biblical scholarship because I disagree with it? I do disagree with the majority of biblical critics but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not this happened, this event in the life of Moses by which he is revealed to be a man with flaws, not a perfect manifestation masquerading as a man. Is this scripture inspired or not? Bahai can maintain that this was only an example set by God, but that doesn’t address the other problem I have presented in that interpretation on an earlier post. So I’m not dismissing liberal scholarship, what I am accepting for the time being is that this is inspired scripture and should be considered as being of more fruit than those scholars, unless you think the torah is no such thing in which case I ask why do bahai bother with it in the first place?
- Now, mirza hussain like a six year old child can quote something, but doesn’t mean he understands it. He may have pretensions to talk about Christianity, but that doesn’t mean he understands it. When he tells the Chrsitian Pastors to leave their churches, I get the impression he did not understand the office of the Presbyrate be it of any denomination (mine included), when he speaks about immaculate conception as being true I get the feeling he didn’t know what this would imply, ie original sin. So its not him quoting I have a problem with, he was a man and is allowed to have his own opinions but what I object to is the idea that bahai have surrounding him that he was a perfect manifestation who has been watching over all humanity for all eternity, basically a god but not the God. That this entity who displays no real knowledge of Christianity is as you describe him, a perfect mirror of God, that entity would know how to talk to Christians, but the man Mirza Hussain did not know how to talk to Christians and that is evident in some of the statements he made towards Chrsitians.
D
daler
Guest
My friend, This is a very valid question to ask. I will answer it as best and as honestly as I can and will ask you to follow my logic as best you can, ok? Thank you for that.
I “do” believe in the Resurrection of Christ, but not as interpreted by most. That is, that His physical body arose, that He walked around on earth again in the same" physical" body. It does not make rational sense to me.
What does make rational sense to me is to try and resolve the various descriptions which are recorded in the Scripture, such as “He entered the room, not using the door.”
I fully appreciate the complexity of this, and assure you that I was raised in a Christian Church to believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, but that I now see it differently, for several reasons, which I believe are rational.
Only “believers” “saw” Jesus after the Resurrection. There is no account of non-believers ever “seeing” Him. If the Jews or Pharisees “saw” Him walking around again, they would have crucified His body again, and there would surely be a record of it. Don’t you think so?
Mary was walking along the road and did not know that it was Jesus “walking” with her. Then, at some point, she realized that her Lord was “with” her. She, and the other believers “saw” that He was indeed alive.
Let us put that into another context.
“Wherever two or three gather and make mention of Me, there am I also.”
Have you ever gathered with one or two others and made mention of Him? I have. Many times. I can honestly say that I “saw” that He was present with us and that the Lord lives.
I am not however, referring to His physical body, which I do not “see” with my physical eyes. What I “see”, and the words I use to describe the vision, are parallel to the language used in describing that which I use for physical vision. This, for me, is in complete accord with truly comprehending His reality when He Himself says, “Wherever two or three gather and make mention of Me, there I am also.” He enters the room, mine or yours, not using the door. Do you follow? I am not asking you to make a decision or anything, but do you follow the logic?
When we know that He “came down from Heaven”, yet was born from the womb of Mary, we know that His descent was describing His Heavenly Reality, not His physical form. Are you with me on this so far?
We know that when He said “even the Son of Man, which “is” in Heaven”, we know that He was “physically” on earth at the time. Would you agree?
When He says that He will “ascend to Heaven”, I assume that He is referring to His Heavenly Reality, which “came down from Heaven”, describing His Heavenly Reality.
Now I understand that the story of Him eating, etc is what is written in the Gospels. I have read that, grew up with that, and believed that while growing up. Therefore, how do I deal with what I have read in your Bible and mine? How do I resolve this part of the puzzle?
I resolve it by recognizing that people have ways of speaking and telling stories, and that there is a wisdom behind stories being told in the manner they are. Also, that the Jewish people were extremely literal in their understanding of the world. They were so literal, in fact, that they were completely confounded by Jesus’ words, “Ye must be born again.”
Also, when He said, “Let the dead bury their dead” What was He talking about? What does “Raising the dead” actually mean here? For me, it is referring to those who are spiritually dead, separated from reality, living only physical lives, speaking of physical understanding, incapable of comprehending spiritual truths of which He spoke.
I’m not sure if you are following me on this or not, but would like to ask if you understand the “logic” of the discussion thus far.
Thank you, brother.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
You cannot expect the pharisees to have put out a record of the ressurection, history bares little and even little from the pharisees of the time of Jesus. Who would preserve such a document? But we have to remember the apostles state of mind, they were not believers in any sort of ressurected christ, they were in hiding, the concept of ressurection for them was one of bodily ressurection (anastasis) that would happen at the end of time when God righteously judges the world. You cannot place your own beliefs on to the apostles.
And why are we to assume out of the five thousand who saw Christ none were pharisees? I garuntee you most of them were pharisees, maybe not the educated one or the high priest but pharisees nontheless.
Now what no bahai can do is contradict what Luke presents, a physically ressurected Christ who eats fish and blatantly says “I am not a ghost, because Ghosts do not eat fish.”
And why are we to assume out of the five thousand who saw Christ none were pharisees? I garuntee you most of them were pharisees, maybe not the educated one or the high priest but pharisees nontheless.
Now what no bahai can do is contradict what Luke presents, a physically ressurected Christ who eats fish and blatantly says “I am not a ghost, because Ghosts do not eat fish.”
L
Little_Star_1
Guest
Daler,
I think one of the primary places of misunderstanding is that there are many Christians, and people of other faiths, that do not understand that it is possible for everyone of us to be transformed and transfigured and that is what the goal is. When Jesus said to eat of his flesh, he meant to become as much like him as possible, to allow his spirit to be alive in you so that your flesh is his flesh. He walks and lives in the world as you. Unless people understand that each man is capable of transformation in this way, they are going to stick to the script of the church. They read the words but do not digest them. They don’t see that it can be even more than digesting, it can be more than becoming a God fearing rule obeying transformed person. It can be your own transfiguration.
So they will argue endlessly over terms and forms of ritual and the purpose of this and that and the superiority of this and that. They don’t see what we have been invited to do. Reading the word and ritual certainly have a place. Transforming one’s moral character is a miracle. Yet, when it can be so much more, when we have been shown through Jesus who we are already, not who we have to become, but who we are–children of the Creator. The realization of this by each and everyone of us is why we are here. It is the purpose of prayer, the purpose of meditation, the purpose of ritual. So, why stop on the road to Him at the point of being a good human and why not open up the place within you where God lives and be One with Him, not in ritual, but in Being?
When I read the Baha’i literature, this is what I get from it, not a denial of Christian ritual and beliefs but a coming forth as a being of light as he was. Not many of us make it. I clearly see this is what Jesus was talking about when he said eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, not something that we hold in our minds or practice with a wafer and grape juice, be transformed, experience transfiguration with me–remember I walked with you on Earth and I left to be with the Father, but yet, I am still with you, in you, and will bring you before the Father, but you have to come. He doesn’t do it for us because we practiced a ritual.
Maybe where many have a hurdle in handling the Baha’i texts is not in the texts themselves, beyond that they are a bit over the heads of a lot of people, it could be in that Baha’i faith is not part of Christianity in their minds because you don’t call yourselves Christian but rely on Christian principles as a path along the road to your journey to God. It could be that they think that you can’t do this and be true to Christ’s word and that you have to stop with Christ to be saved. What they can’t see is there is no stopping point. We put Paul on Christ’s level when we treat his teachings as Scripture. They don’t see the contradiction of putting down your leader and exalting Paul and the disciples. It is the words you use to describe your leader, not the message itself because they can’t get beyond how they think you regard your leader. Yet, Christians do this with Paul, Mary, most of the Disciples, and the Pope if you are Catholic, and the Saints. They may say well Jesus and the Holy Spirit were with Paul and the Disciples. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are with us all.
It is all very confusing and there is no logic in it. You have to first accept a bunch of suppositions so that you can discount so much else. Suppositions that basically limit a person to seeing most of what Christ spoke of as symbolic. If they didn’t see it as merely symbolic, they would not just go through a ritual and think that it got them anywhere in terms of spiritual growth. They would not keep saying well we have communion and that makes us one with Christ in body. It is more than that.
The Catholic faith, all of Christianity, does not really teach in this limiting way. But most folks think that it does and so they stop there and call you a heretic or a New Age person or something because you get more out of it than they can begin to see is there.
For me, my Christianity is to know that Jesus went before me to show me that there is a way. Anything that helps to nurture me along the path is of great value.
I think one of the primary places of misunderstanding is that there are many Christians, and people of other faiths, that do not understand that it is possible for everyone of us to be transformed and transfigured and that is what the goal is. When Jesus said to eat of his flesh, he meant to become as much like him as possible, to allow his spirit to be alive in you so that your flesh is his flesh. He walks and lives in the world as you. Unless people understand that each man is capable of transformation in this way, they are going to stick to the script of the church. They read the words but do not digest them. They don’t see that it can be even more than digesting, it can be more than becoming a God fearing rule obeying transformed person. It can be your own transfiguration.
So they will argue endlessly over terms and forms of ritual and the purpose of this and that and the superiority of this and that. They don’t see what we have been invited to do. Reading the word and ritual certainly have a place. Transforming one’s moral character is a miracle. Yet, when it can be so much more, when we have been shown through Jesus who we are already, not who we have to become, but who we are–children of the Creator. The realization of this by each and everyone of us is why we are here. It is the purpose of prayer, the purpose of meditation, the purpose of ritual. So, why stop on the road to Him at the point of being a good human and why not open up the place within you where God lives and be One with Him, not in ritual, but in Being?
When I read the Baha’i literature, this is what I get from it, not a denial of Christian ritual and beliefs but a coming forth as a being of light as he was. Not many of us make it. I clearly see this is what Jesus was talking about when he said eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, not something that we hold in our minds or practice with a wafer and grape juice, be transformed, experience transfiguration with me–remember I walked with you on Earth and I left to be with the Father, but yet, I am still with you, in you, and will bring you before the Father, but you have to come. He doesn’t do it for us because we practiced a ritual.
Maybe where many have a hurdle in handling the Baha’i texts is not in the texts themselves, beyond that they are a bit over the heads of a lot of people, it could be in that Baha’i faith is not part of Christianity in their minds because you don’t call yourselves Christian but rely on Christian principles as a path along the road to your journey to God. It could be that they think that you can’t do this and be true to Christ’s word and that you have to stop with Christ to be saved. What they can’t see is there is no stopping point. We put Paul on Christ’s level when we treat his teachings as Scripture. They don’t see the contradiction of putting down your leader and exalting Paul and the disciples. It is the words you use to describe your leader, not the message itself because they can’t get beyond how they think you regard your leader. Yet, Christians do this with Paul, Mary, most of the Disciples, and the Pope if you are Catholic, and the Saints. They may say well Jesus and the Holy Spirit were with Paul and the Disciples. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are with us all.
It is all very confusing and there is no logic in it. You have to first accept a bunch of suppositions so that you can discount so much else. Suppositions that basically limit a person to seeing most of what Christ spoke of as symbolic. If they didn’t see it as merely symbolic, they would not just go through a ritual and think that it got them anywhere in terms of spiritual growth. They would not keep saying well we have communion and that makes us one with Christ in body. It is more than that.
The Catholic faith, all of Christianity, does not really teach in this limiting way. But most folks think that it does and so they stop there and call you a heretic or a New Age person or something because you get more out of it than they can begin to see is there.
For me, my Christianity is to know that Jesus went before me to show me that there is a way. Anything that helps to nurture me along the path is of great value.
S
Servant19
Guest
Thank you Little Star, that was an accurate representation of what the Bahai Faith is truly about…
…to create 6 billion jesus’s in deed, and submissive to Him in station.
Yet there will always be those who nitpick and quibble over other things which really has no relevance when it comes to the purpose of religion…
…transfiguration of the spirit
God bless you in your journey
…to create 6 billion jesus’s in deed, and submissive to Him in station.
Yet there will always be those who nitpick and quibble over other things which really has no relevance when it comes to the purpose of religion…
…transfiguration of the spirit
God bless you in your journey
D
daler
Guest
Wow! What insight… The goal is to learn and grow. It is apparent that you have been connecting the dots on a lot of things for some time, getting more out of it than most. The following comes to mind:
O CHILDREN OF MEN!
Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory.
D
daler
Guest
AtomicB Could I ask you to be specific in your view of what is lacking in a “cogent response” to?Philo
“These are the sorts of things I see the worst in, when it comes to Bahai and as of yet there is no cogent responce”
I really have a hard time following Iggy because there are usually a whole bunch of things being thrown up at once. Also, amidst all of the hostility, prejudice, and continuous barrage of insults, which are not in the spirit of “Come, let us reason together”, there is much to overcome in even addressing seriously the valid concerns he seems to have. I mean no disrespect to Iggy, for he has a find mind. But then, so did the Pharisees.
D
daler
Guest
Ignatio. I am not discounting what is plainly written in Luke. That has always been a challenge to deal with because we begin with the assumption that what is being said is what transpires in our ordinary physical world which we experience daily.
So I try to “make sense” of the “whole” of it, not just the parts. What my conclusions are is that when it is also stated before hand, that “He entered the room, not using the door”, there is a cohesion with “Whenever two or more gather and make mention of Me, there I am also.”
Soooo, have “you” ever seen “Him” when you make mention of Him with another soul?
. How would you describe to someone that He was “in the room” with you, not having used the door? How, 2000 years ago, would a very literal people describe such a spiritual experience? That is what I am getting at.
. Mary at first did not recognize that it was Jesus who was walking with her along the road. What is it that she is trying to say if not what is meant by “Whenever two or more gather and make mention of Me, there I am also.” ?
I believe this is exactly what she was trying to say: That “He” has arisen. Not physically, because that doesn’t even matter. He “did” triumph over death. The point being, that you could crucify His body, behead Him as they did John the Baptist, or saw Him in half as they did Isaiah, and He would still be alive.
That some of His followers “saw” and recognized that “He” was “still” with them, had to be communicated in words. The only words they had to communicate this transcendent truth was in the language that they spoke. So it comes across as if when they say “I have seen the Lord” that it means with physical eyes in the ordinary way.
I don’t believe that is what they were trying to say. Also, I believe that however many souls to whom He “appeared”, He appeared in this same way as He did to Mary walking along the road. He appears this way to me. I know He is present. I can say that I “see” Him, and you will take it to mean that I saw Him with my own physical eyes, although that is not what I am saying.
Paul “saw” Him on the road to Damascus. One translation then adds: “Something like scales fell from his eyes” This is a way of expressing something unknown to them which they then expressed in the only intelligible way they could. “Something like scales fell from his eyes” The meaning of this is that the “veils” which intervened between His recognition of His Lord had been lifted. There were no physical “scales”. It is a manner of speaking.
There is another way of resolving the rest of what was said in Luke, but I’ll leave that for later. When you want it addressed, I will be happy to address it.
Thank you
H
happyme
Guest
Thank you for your thoughts here Little Star, how I agree with your words.
As I have said before you are a bright star in this thread.
I applaud what you say that not all Catholics or Christians believe as some here in this thread appear to think, I see many heart warming things that the new Pope and others are doing to try and return people to a spiritual path.
But of course I understand we are all at different levels of spirituality and capacity.
Anyway thank you again for your post, so wonderful insights.
I wish you lived near me I would love to sit and chat over a cuppa, I feel you truly would be a friend to assist me on my journey.
Blessings to you.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Your reasoning could just as easily be applied to the Virgin birth account yet you believe that to be a real miracle(although I believe that account totally embarresses bahai as they are not proud of it). That is mary was questioning the angel because she had not had relations how could she give birth? Why is this narrative in the same gospel to be real and the later narratives of miracles to not be real? Bahai cannot give a good reason for this, its their interpretation that has become main way of interpreting for them, Luke cannot be allowed to present actual history despite him writing as a historian from the beginning, he must be a mystic.
Why are we to believe anything in the accounts of the new testament as actually happening? It seems to me that the only criteria bahai have is that when it contradicts the gnostic interpretation of the bahai therefore it is a spiritual and or non physical or non real message that is vague and mysterious. It is my contention that the early Christians, those who received these books were in the best position to understand these works not only because they understood the language and culture of the time it was written int, but because they were taught by the apostles themselves.
What is the mystical meaning of “I am not a ghost because ghosts do not eat fish?” What value is of that to the person who says that Luke wasn’t trying to present something real? Was it imppssible for Luke or the gospel writers to have written it in the way it should be for the bahai? IE a basic account of the teachings of Jesus and his interactions with others but he perfomed no miracles except being born of a virgin? We have to ask ourselves, at what point are we trying to justify our interpretation over common sense.
Why are we to believe anything in the accounts of the new testament as actually happening? It seems to me that the only criteria bahai have is that when it contradicts the gnostic interpretation of the bahai therefore it is a spiritual and or non physical or non real message that is vague and mysterious. It is my contention that the early Christians, those who received these books were in the best position to understand these works not only because they understood the language and culture of the time it was written int, but because they were taught by the apostles themselves.
What is the mystical meaning of “I am not a ghost because ghosts do not eat fish?” What value is of that to the person who says that Luke wasn’t trying to present something real? Was it imppssible for Luke or the gospel writers to have written it in the way it should be for the bahai? IE a basic account of the teachings of Jesus and his interactions with others but he perfomed no miracles except being born of a virgin? We have to ask ourselves, at what point are we trying to justify our interpretation over common sense.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Little star, this is hardly the thread for discussing your new perspective on Christianity verses the traditional and historical perspective. Would you be open to discussing it there?
P
Porknpie
Guest
Little Star,
Of course we should imitate Christ by striving for Holiness. Receiving Christ in he Eucharist helps us on our journey.
Do you believe that Jesus taught his apostles without error and the apostles faithfully passed on what Jesus taught to their descendants?
See the words below. St Ignatius was a disciple of St John…the apostle of Jesus.
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
And Justin Martyr writes that they have been taught (from the apostles & their descendants) that the Eucharist* is truly the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.*
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
And why is receiving the Eucharist so important? Well first Jesus told us to do it and it cleanses us from sin…drawing us closer to Christ in Holiness.
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
So Christ said he would be with his Church until the end of time. He is doing so in a significant way through the Eucharist. The Eucharist was prophesied in Malachi 1. The Eucharist is celebrated world-wide, from the rising of the sun to its setting and is the only “pure offering” ever to do so.
10 Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not indle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. 11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.
L
Little_Star_1
Guest
I never put down the Eucharist. My point was that you will not become of his flesh simply through a ritual. My point was that through our behavior and our attitudes we show the world, even if we as individuals are deluded into thinking that we are true Christians because we practice the right rituals and say the right prayers, through our behavior how much of his light we reflect. If someone’s behavior shows a total lack of respect for others, one cannot but conclude they fail to truly grasp the message of our Savior. If they did, they would behave otherwise. If they did, they would have been transformed and that which is He alive in them would prevent them from speaking to others with arrogance and disdain. It would prevent them from seeing evil where there is nothing but good. We all have a ways to go on our journey. To come to the conclusion that one has already arrived when they haven’t even begun, and this is clear from their attitudes, is to ensure they will never get there.
The very fact that all you took from what I said was an incorrect impression that I was saying that the Eucharist was without merit is telling. You quote scripture to prove its importance, but say little of what it is to do to evolve the human spirit. It does nothing if you don’t understand it or even realize Jesus was directing us towards the growth of our spirit, in addition to worshiping his memory. It is about taking steps towards Becoming. But, first you have to know what you are to Become or that it is even possible. You can whisper his name, shout his name, gravel on the floor in rapture all day and all night but it wont get you anywhere if you don’t truly believe. Most folks miss what it is he wanted us to, not just believe, but to Know.
All kinds of peoples perform rituals and burn incense and say incantations. That you say you are doing it in his name is that what you think makes a difference? Or, it is the words that you choose to use? At what point do you stop lighting candles and instead light the flame within your heart? If you have lit it, then at what point do you begin to live as if you have, to treat others as if you have? It is sad to think that so many folks have reduced his ministry to the performance of ritual and after two thousand years profess to love him and yet treat others with such animosity and believe they do it in his name. Read Isaiah. What did the Father say he thought of our rituals? How did He say we should honor Him? Can we not get it right? WE ARE TO LOVE ALL OTHERS AND TREAT THEM AS MUCH LOVED. LOOK TO YOUR OWN HEART.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
If you think liturgical expression is nothing but a mere performance I suggest you don’t know the first thing about worship in the ancient church and orthodox and Catholic churches today. It is not mere performance, it is not merely going through the motions, it is divine worship. Would you like to open this discussion in a thread that is for this specific topic?
P
Porknpie
Guest
One could argue that it takes the ascent of faith to believe that God became man, suffered, died and was resurrected to take away the sins of the world. But not blind faith as the bible and the tradition of the church including the early Church fathers all speak of Christ dying, being resurrected, returning to earth and ascending back to the Father. In fact, 11 of the 12 apostles were martyred for their beliefs in this being fact as well as 19 of the first 20 popes. Reason does not need to be in conflict with scripture nor Tradition.
What about Saul? Now there is one who was literally persecuting the Christians and Christ after his death changed his name to Paul.
Great example of him returning after his death and appearing to those closest to him.
Of course…this is biblical and thus very Catholic.
I understand you to be saying that you felt his presence. Even if you did not, we can trust that his words are true.
On his ascension, he was taken “up” to heaven in bodily form. The bible records his apostles as witnesses to this happening.
Number of interpretations here but he ate to show his apostles that it was indeed him, in bodily form and not just a spirit or ghost.
Born again…refers to sacramental baptism of the water and Spirit. It is required just as the bible says for salvation (normative means of salvation). This is what Christ taught his apostles and what the apostles taught their descendents (and so on). No matter where the apostles went (and they split up), their teaching was the same across the world on this fact as well as the other sacraments, Eucharist included.
He’s saying that one should drop everything … all worldly attachments…he more important than attachment to material goods…more important than family…and follow him…that he is what is most important in life. He’s making a definite point
Daler, so are my answers below correct for what you believe?..
Do you believe that Christ was resurrected? (ANSWER= Yes)
That three days after his resurrection he appeared on earth in bodily form? (ANSWER= No)
And after appearing on earth and spending forty days with his apostles, that he ascended to heaven? (ANSWER = No?
Pork
P
Porknpie
Guest
Little Star -
We are all called to Holiness and to follow the commandments, the two most important of which are to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Do we agree?
That said, to follow Christ is to follow all that he told us to do…among others:
- Keep the commandments
- Forgive one another (like he forgave us)
- Confess our sins
- Pray…
- Receive him in the Eucharist
- Be baptized and cleansed of original sin
- To be part of the Church Catholic he established on earth (he prayed that we would be one)
It’s not either or Little Star. It’s both. Catholics have candles and the flame in their hearts. Do you understand what the candles, incantations and incense represent and why Catholics have them (plus Orthodox and others)?
Pork
- Status