Old Testament Law and Sacraments end with Jesus

[Pax]

The example of Valentinus is at best problematic for your case. Valentinus was a Gnostic. Gnostics would naturally try to claim the apostles as their own for purposes of adding to their Gnostic credibility.

John was not a Gnostic and clearly saw the Gnostics as anti-Christ. John is anti-Gnostic. Valentinus or any other Gnostic that claimed that John was Gnostic had to be making a deliberately false claim or had to be doing what Peter says about the ignorant and unstable that “twist the scriptures to their own destruction.” The claim by Valentinus is similar to a hypothetical situation where Hillary Clinton would try to claim that George Bush is a democrat. There simply is no credibility to these kinds of things and it is obvious on its face.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

No, Pagels is not a Gnostic. I believe she is Methodist or Presbyterian…I don’t remember which, she gave her “testimony” of her return to faith after her sons death in her book “Beyond Belief”.

That just demonstrates that many Protestant communities have no problem with people who claim membership within them, and proclaim Gnostic, rather than Christian, doctrines. Catholics from the beginning would have none of that (cf: the New Testament Epistles).

I realize it is difficult for many Catholics to step outside of their comfort zone, but fortuneatly I am not Catholic so I have no such problems.

Well now that’s almost a confusion of categories. “Comfort” doesn’t mean “safety.” Catholics will not step outside the “safety” zone marked out by the infallible teachings of the Church – or at least, one hopes it is difficult for them to do so, even when that zone is “uncomfortable” (and it can be that, particularly when one is behaving shabbily or committing the intellectual sin of sloth). It can seem a lot more “comfortable” – in the immediate short term, at least – to step outside the “safety” zone.

Glad you have no zonal problems, except in differentiating between safety and comfort.

Blessings,

Gerry Hunter

 

[Publisher]

The example of Valentinus is at best problematic for your case. Valentinus was a Gnostic. Gnostics would naturally try to claim the apostles as their own for purposes of adding to their Gnostic credibility.

John was not a Gnostic and clearly saw the Gnostics as anti-Christ. John is anti-Gnostic. Valentinus or any other Gnostic that claimed that John was Gnostic had to be making a deliberately false claim or had to be doing what Peter says about the ignorant and unstable that “twist the scriptures to their own destruction.” The claim by Valentinus is similar to a hypothetical situation where Hillary Clinton would try to claim that George Bush is a democrat. There simply is no credibility to these kinds of things and it is obvious on its face.

I guess we’ll just disagree. With modern biblical scholarship, I don’t believe “Peter” wrote the letters abscribed to him…also, I seriously doubt the author of the Gospel of John is the same who wrote some of his letters or Revelation…and Revelation was another book “disputed” by the church to be included in the canon.

Again, I understand your stance…it is one your church takes as true.

 

[Publisher]

That just demonstrates that many Protestant communities have no problem with people who claim membership within them, and proclaim Gnostic, rather than Christian, doctrines. Catholics from the beginning would have none of that (cf: the New Testament Epistles).

Well now that’s almost a confusion of categories. “Comfort” doesn’t mean “safety.” Catholics will not step outside the “safety” zone marked out by the infallible teachings of the Church – or at least, one hopes it is difficult for them to do so, even when that zone is “uncomfortable” (and it can be that, particularly when one is behaving shabbily or committing the intellectual sin of sloth). It can seem a lot more “comfortable” – in the immediate short term, at least – to step outside the “safety” zone.

Glad you have no zonal problems, except in differentiating between safety and comfort.

Blessings,

Gerry Hunter

My safety is in Christ…not my church or it’s teaching body. I have “freedom” in Christ…freedom to even be wrong about many things, but it is He who sustains us…it is He that has all the answers…I can rest in this freedom I have in Christ Jesus, it frees me from any “fear” of “punishment” or “retribution”.

 

[Hellisreal]

No, Pagels is not a Gnostic. I believe she is Methodist or Presbyterian…I don’t remember which, she gave her “testimony” of her return to faith after her sons death in her book “Beyond Belief”.

She also was a guest on Bill Moyers panel in his “Genesis” series, which was wonderful.

I realize it is difficult for many Catholics to step outside of their comfort zone, but fortuneatly I am not Catholic so I have no such problems.

It is a strange thread, we have some denying that the Gospel of John was ever thought of being Gnostic and then you have me , I have always understood, even from my college days at George Fox College (now University) the problems the Gospel of John had.

Go figure.

Wiki may not be the most reliable source, But I will see what else I can find. I actually read about her holding on to and defending Gnostic beliefs in the newspaper some time ago.

Here you go:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels

I think I can find other sources as well.

 

[Publisher]

Wiki may not be the most reliable source, But I will see what else I can find. I actually read about her holding on to and defending Gnostic beliefs in the newspaper some time ago.

Here you go:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels

I think I can find other sources as well.

I think she “defends” the fact that the early “church” was not the homogenous group of believers the church has stated…she defends that there were many groups in those first decades and centuries that were every bit as “Christian” as the proto-orthodox.

It was the “proto-orthodox” that eventually won out because of some of the political ties it made in the 4th century…many of the 'heretical" groups held beliefs that prevented them from making such allies with governments and emperors.

The proto orthodox also sought to bind all “catholic” churches into one group, most of the “heretics” were content to “work out their own salvation” and not be concerned with who was “priest” or “bishop”.

The proto-orthodox also defined “true belief” and took the “guess work” out of it. The masses will always follow what they’re told to believe by percieved authority…which the proto-orthodox claimed…authority from the apostles…they built their own mythos to further their place as the dominant group in Christianity…the developed an heirarchy of deacons, priests and bishops, which most of the “heretics” rejected.

 

[Hellisreal]

You’re right, no one is certain, we can only infer from history that some felt the GoJ had Gnostic influence…some felt a few of Paul’s writings had Gnostic influence too, but were included in the NT. The info is out there…I just didn’t make it up…I realize we read different “scholars”…Bart Erhamn, Burton Mack, Jacob McCoby, Eilene Pagels, to name a few. Biblical scholarship has raised new and exciting questions…some of those questions that were “squelched” in the past are being raised again…

That you do not “believe” the scholarship exists, comes as no surprise…it would conflict with your faith and what your church teaches…that’s very understandable.

Mr. Erhamn is an agnostic now.

Great sources so far you use.

 

[Publisher]

Mr. Erhamn is an agnostic now.

Great sources so far you use.

Yes I know he is an agnostic, he has no preconcieved ideas that prevent him from arriving at the truth…just because truth is stated by an agnostic, makes it no less the truth.

We’re discussing history, verifiable facts and interpretation of those facts…I find his books very enlighening.

I’ve purchased his video series “Lost Christianities” and find it very facinating…especially in light of the newly discovered “Lost Scriptures” of early Christianity…while the proto-orthodox didn’t consider them “scripture”, many who professed to follow Christ and called themselves “Christian” did however…

“Victors” write the history…it is no secret the proto orthodox sought to eradicate every “heretical” writing that disagreed with their position…when they finally came to their own in the 4th century, the penalty of “heresy” was exile or worse.

 

[Hellisreal]

Yes I know he is an agnostic, he has no preconcieved ideas that prevent him from arriving at the truth…just because truth is stated by an agnostic, makes it no less the truth.

We’re discussing history, verifiable facts and interpretation of those facts…I find his books very enlighening.

I’ve purchased his video series “Lost Christianities” and find it very facinating…especially in light of the newly discovered “Lost Scriptures” of early Christianity…while the proto-orthodox didn’t consider them “scripture”, many who professed to follow Christ and called themselves “Christian” did however…

Lost Scriptures? The Nag Hamandi argument again?

 

[Hellisreal]

Burton Mack:

as.ua.edu/rel/aboutrelbiomack.html

I recall reading a fabulous rebuttal to this slop by Dr. Phillip Blosser. I will see if I can find it. The Jesus Seminar is absoulte falsity.

 

[Publisher]

Burton Mack:

as.ua.edu/rel/aboutrelbiomack.html

I recall reading a fabulous rebuttal to this slop by Dr. Phillip Blosser. I will see if I can find it. The Jesus Seminar is absoulte falsity.

I love their book “The Five Gospels.” One of my favorite authors and lecturers is Marcus Borg, also a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar…wonderful source of information on the formation of the Christian Church and Christian belief.

 

[Hellisreal]

I love their book “The Five Gospels.” One of my favorite authors and lecturers is Marcus Borg, also a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar…wonderful source of information on the formation of the Christian Church and Christian belief.

Your taste in scholars is getting worse by the minute.

Here is the refutation, I suggest you read it and if you dont like what you see, tell me where the good Dr. Blosser is wrong.

jesusseminar.blogspot.com/

I am curious how you will respond to this.

 

[NewPerspective]

I think I may word stuff in a way that allows you to misunderstand me time and time again. Im not saying that the law is no longer in affect, all i am saying is the obedience to the law is no longer the key to salvation but the belief in Jesus Christ being that which saves us. Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, but this event is also considered the end to the law, to merely emphasize the premise that Jesus’ death and resurrection was a complete redemption of a people that CANNOT stay under the law at all times as a result of the carnal aspect of our beings. God recognized our wickedness and understood, as He does all things, that we are a lost people as a result of the fall of Adam. Im not saying that the new covenant negates our commandment to remain under the law, im just saying that it, by grace and love from A Father whose mercies are new everyday, forgives us for our consistent inability to do so as a result of our weakness. Please dont think that i am saying that because God made His new covenant with His people that we no longer have to live under the law, but now we do it in reverence and awe of a Majestic God and because of our Fear of The Lord and not because of fear of damnation alone. I live under the law that I might advance in my pursuit of righteousness and that I can be at a place that God can use me as a vessel to win His people. Our heart needs to be His people. This, evangelism, is the one true ministry anyways. Everything we do needs to be of an example to others aiding us in the spreading of The Gospel of Christ. Loving one another was not a commandment of The Almighty for no reason. We need to have a genuine love and care for our bretheren and for those that have not found Jesus yet that we might be a blessing to them and show of Gods love through the example we set. I did not join this forum to argue or to debate doctrine guys. I love the heck out of each and every one of you and just want you to know what The Lord is laying on my heart. Please dont take anything I say as an attack because that is completely opposing of what I am actually tryin to do. I just want to reveal to those that havent found for themselves that God can and is willing to be as real in your life as He is in mine. Gods living reality can only be realized personally. You have to have a fresh encounter with God and discover for yourself how amazing He actually is. God Bless each and every one of you. I sincerely appreciate those that dont take offense to my comments but rather hear them and consider them and then comment in a mature way. I know you are all capable. I know sometimes this can be a frustrating subject because of the disagreements that reside in such a loaded thing. God Bless You all again. Sincerely
Jarred

 

[Publisher]

Your taste in scholars is getting worse by the minute.

Here is the refutation, I suggest you read it and if you dont like what you see, tell me where the good Dr. Blosser is wrong.

jesusseminar.blogspot.com/

I am curious how you will respond to this.

I enjoy most of the Jesus Seminar papers, I also enjoy most of Marcus Borg and John Spong…I like NT Wright and CS Lewis as well…they are all informative…but I make my own choices on what I agree with and what I don’t…but reading them as well as the rebuttals gives me an insight into what it is I base my faith on…it’s not history…nor the Church…nor the “magisterium” of any body of faith, but in the Holy Mystery of God as revealed in Christ Jesus.

When George Fox was trying to find meaning for his life, he sought out all manner of “religious” and they gave him all kinds of answers…some made sense…some didn’t…and he said that when all his hope had vanished and he felt he was sinking into the deepest despair…he heard a voice that spoke to him…“There is only One who can speak to thy condition, even Christ Jesus…” and he said “My heart leapt for joy…”…I became a Friend, not because it was the "cool’ thing to do during Viet Nam…or the “rebelious” thing to do from the church I was raised in…but because I too heard a voice…“There is One, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition…” And my heart leapt for joy!

 

[Hellisreal]

Bye New Perspective! You sound so nice. I never even read your posts.

I am responding to Publisher now.

Good night and nice meeting you!

 

[Hellisreal]

I enjoy most of the Jesus Seminar papers, I also enjoy most of Marcus Borg and John Spong…I like NT Wright and CS Lewis as well…they are all informative…but I make my own choices on what I agree with and what I don’t…but reading them as well as the rebuttals gives me an insight into what it is I base my faith on…it’s not history…nor the Church…nor the “magisterium” of any body of faith, but in the Holy Mystery of God as revealed in Christ Jesus.

When George Fox was trying to find meaning for his life, he sought out all manner of “religious” and they gave him all kinds of answers…some made sense…some didn’t…and he said that when all his hope had vanished and he felt he was sinking into the deepest despair…he heard a voice that spoke to him…“There is only One who can speak to thy condition, even Christ Jesus…” and he said “My heart leapt for joy…”…I became a Friend, not because it was the "cool’ thing to do during Viet Nam…or the “rebelious” thing to do from the church I was raised in…but because I too heard a voice…“There is One, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition…” And my heart leapt for joy!

If you make your own choices, why not challenge them a minute?

Did you read the link or not?

Where was the good Dr. Blosser in error please tell me.

 

[Publisher]

Bye New Perspective! You sound so nice. I never even read your posts.

I am responding to Publisher now.

Good night and nice meeting you!

OH, even though I don’t accept Peter as the author, I do like your scriptural tag…it speaks to my condition.

 

[Hellisreal]

OH, even though I don’t accept Peter as the author, I do like your scriptural tag…it speaks to my condition.

What? Dont you like my moniker?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus was the fulfillment of the law and the end thereof. Old Testament sacraments symbolic of sacrificial OT principle, are no longer needed as result of THE SACRIFICE JESUS CHRIST MADE FOR MANKIND.

Do I presume you know the Catholic faith better than a Catholic? The Catholic Church does not re-sacrifice the death of the Lord. The Mass is to Make Presence of the death at the Cross in an unbloody manner. It transends time and space. You are not the first NCC to say that we do re-sacrifice.

The observation of sacraments, charity, and baby baptism is not your ticket to salvation folks. Sorry to burst your bubble. You need to go ahead and read the whole Word of God and not just the OT and interpret it in a carnal way with no understanding of the New Covenant God made with His people through the sending of His Son to die for a people deserving of eternal damnation.

As St. Augustine said, the New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.

Jesus did not abolished the Law, he came to fulfill it. He suffered, dead, and was buried, and descended into the dead, and on the third day, he rose again. He then ascended into heaven and is sitteth at the Right Hand of God, the Father. When he ascended, he left his authority to the Apostles, who received the Holy Spirit and commence the birth of the Church.

The Church is established by Jesus Christ, and the Sacraments comes from Jesus Christ himself. Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Confession, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Annointing the Sick.

I can go in depth to those by I think the other Catholic apologist will explain your ridicules charge.

Im not here to attack i just want you to understand that sacraments are not synonymous with salvation any more. Jesus Christ is our salvation and our foundation and needs to be where our trust is. Not in sacraments and Hail Marys.
God Bless
P.S. Jesus had brothers
SIncerely
NP

Jesus established a Church, Jesus gave us Mary at the foot at the Cross as our spiritual Mother. And No, Jesus did not have brothers or sisters. He had second cousins.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You claimed to “know” what Catholics believed already, the second you posted on this forum, and then proceeded to lecture people on “Catholic” beliefs that were based on these incorrect assumptions - THIS is what I have a problem with. If you had been honest from the beginning and said you weren’t really aware of what Catholics believe, that would have been perfectly reasonable.

All of NewProspective’s post are presumed Catholic beliefs which hold no truth. I don’t think he truly understand what we Catholic believe. He is clueless about our faith. :ehh: :doh2: