Question for our non-Catholic Friends please

[meltzerboy]

GREAT comeback

But if God can’t make mistakes [which we agree on]

The the bible in its entirety ought to be valid right?

God Bless,
patrick

While Christianity accepts the Hebrew Bible (OT), Judaism does not accept the New Testament, including the Gospels, as the Word of G-d. For Judaism, the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), particularly the Torah (Pentateuch), plus the Oral Law is a done deal. That’s it for us: no New Testament, no Book of Mormon, no JW interpretation, no Qur’an. We may study these books, respect the wisdom contained in them, never deface them, but we do not believe they are valid in the same way as the Hebrew Bible.

One of the challenges throughout the history of Christianity (Catholicism, in particular) is that it accepts the Hebrew Bible and believes the Church founded by Jesus (or Peter) is the fulfillment of the Bible’s prophecies as the “new Israel”; but, all the same, Christianity is uncertain what to make of the fact that Judaism is still a living religion which is distinct from Christianity. The Mosaic Covenant or significant parts of it have been abrogated to varying degrees, depending on which specific Christian religious viewpoint is examined, whether the Mosaic Covenant is believed to have been fulfilled by Jesus and expanded by St. Paul to include Gentiles, or outmoded as a cultural relic of a bygone era during which the Jewish people were not yet prepared to accept such ideas as a Trinitarian G-d or a Messiah who was also a Savior, or replaced by a New Covenant which, according to some Christian interpretations, focused more on love than on justice. And so the uneasy tension between Christianity and Judaism persists to this day.

 

[meltzerboy]

Would there be an understanding, though, of the differing covenants? As I understand it, the commands given to Noah would stand as a specific covenant, and then there is the Mosaic covenant. Are these two not different in who they cover and what it takes to uphold the human side of the covenant?

Good point, and I would also add the Abrahamic Covenant. However, the difference does not consist of nullifying any of the specific commandments of the Mosaic Law. Thus the Noahide Law, applicable to all of humanity including Jews as well as all living creatures, is contained within the Mosaic Law, as is the Covenant of G-d with Abraham.

 

[Servant19]

While Christianity accepts the Hebrew Bible (OT), Judaism does not accept the New Testament, including the Gospels, as the Word of G-d. For Judaism, the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), particularly the Torah (Pentateuch), plus the Oral Law is a done deal. That’s it for us: no New Testament, no Book of Mormon, no JW interpretation, no Qur’an. We may study these books, respect the wisdom contained in them, never deface them, but we do not believe they are valid in the same way as the Hebrew Bible.

One of the challenges throughout the history of Christianity (Catholicism, in particular) is that it accepts the Hebrew Bible and believes the Church founded by Jesus (or Peter) is the fulfillment of the Bible’s prophecies as the “new Israel”; but, all the same, Christianity is uncertain what to make of the fact that Judaism is still a living religion which is distinct from Christianity. The Mosaic Covenant or significant parts of it have been abrogated to varying degrees, depending on which specific Christian religious viewpoint is examined, whether the Mosaic Covenant is believed to have been fulfilled by Jesus and expanded by St. Paul to include Gentiles, or outmoded as a cultural relic of a bygone era during which the Jewish people were not yet prepared to accept such ideas as a Trinitarian G-d or a Messiah who was also a Savior, or replaced by a New Covenant which, according to some Christian interpretations, focused more on love than on justice. And so the uneasy tension between Christianity and Judaism persists to this day.

This sounds familiar doesn’t it?

The adherents of every religion say “That is it! It is finished”

Is it possible for us to cling onto the eternal truths and accept, rather than cling onto the “kingdom of names” and reject?

Can we look beyond the name of Moses, or the name of Jesus and find what makes us one?

.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Can we look beyond the name of Moses, or the name of Jesus and find what makes us one?

.

No.

I will not, I refuse to look beyond the name of Jesus.

Those who do not gather with Jesus, scatter (Luke 11:23). And those who are not with Jesus, are against Him (Matt 12:30).

I will see us as one in Christ. Not ever without Christ. Christ and the Father are one, Christ is the only begotten son of God. Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Without Christ, there is no other.

 

[Servant19]

No.

I will not, I refuse to look beyond the name of Jesus.

Those who do not gather with Jesus, scatter (Luke 11:23). And those who are not with Jesus, are against Him (Matt 12:30).

I will see us as one in Christ. Not ever without Christ. Christ and the Father are one, Christ is the only begotten son of God. Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Without Christ, there is no other.

Perfect!!

You will notice I am fully agreeing with you.

May I ask what does “gathering with Jesus” mean?

.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Perfect!!

You will notice I am fully agreeing with you.

No.

You do not fully agree with me.

You are not only willing but calling to look beyond the name of Jesus.

You do not fully agree with me.

May I ask what does “gathering with Jesus” mean?

It means that whatever I do in this life, if it’s not done for Jesus and for the glory of God, even if it’s good, is not sufficient enough.

It means that whatever I do in my spiritual life, if it’s not done for Jesus and for the glory of God, is not sufficient enough.

It means that my life is not mine, but Christ’s. There is one body, one Spirit, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all. Not many.

It means that even when I disagree with you I need to look beyond myself and see you as Christ would see you.

Christ is one. Not many.

 

[Kliska]

Good point, and I would also add the Abrahamic Covenant. However, the difference does not consist of nullifying any of the specific commandments of the Mosaic Law. Thus the Noahide Law, applicable to all of humanity including Jews as well as all living creatures, is contained within the Mosaic Law, as is the Covenant of G-d with Abraham.

Thank you for your reply! So if God presents us with these ‘later’ covenants, then we can say He wasn’t being incomplete, or mistaken, with the earlier ones. In like manner, if there is a further covenant after the Mosaic one, it doesn’t mean the Mosaic one was incomplete or “wrong.” And of course, that is where we will diverge; Christianity does see a new covenant introduced.

 

[Lokadottir]

Thank you for your reply! So if God presents us with these ‘later’ covenants, then we can say He wasn’t being incomplete, or mistaken, with the earlier ones. In like manner, if there is a further covenant after the Mosaic one, it doesn’t mean the Mosaic one was incomplete or “wrong.” And of course, that is where we will diverge; Christianity does see a new covenant introduced.

Except for that thing with circumcision and unclean foods in Acts…

 

[Kliska]

Except for that thing with circumcision and unclean foods in Acts…

There are still teachings that expound upon those things, as with the differences between the covenant with Noah, Abraham, Moses. There are more covenants than just the one with Moses. There are reasons for the various things found within the various covenants, the New Covenant is no different.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Christianity does see a new covenant introduced.

Hmm…

*Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

Hebrews 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant.*

Sounds like a new convenant to me.

 

[PJM]

=Lokadottir;11650469]:banghead:

I think it can be used but I’m not about to base my religious decisions on YOUR religious text.
I want to see and give opposing opinions I think its a very healthy exercise. Plus I get bored very easily and debate keeps me engaged.

OK

However its NOT mine, its God’s:thumbsup:

So what other evidence meets your criteria?

God Bless,
Patrick

 

[Lokadottir]

OK

However its NOT mine, its God’s:thumbsup:

So what other evidence meets your criteria?

God Bless,
Patrick

Says your religious texts.
Philosophy is better for arguments but I’m not converting again except by the way I did before: personal experience.

 

[PJM]

=Lokadottir;11652001]Says your religious texts.
Philosophy is better for arguments but I’m not converting again except by the way I did before: personal experience.

Is totally subjective, and I’ll say good buy on that note.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Servant19]

No.

You do not fully agree with me.

You do not fully agree with me.

Please see below

It means that whatever I do in this life, if it’s not done for Jesus and for the glory of God, even if it’s good, is not sufficient enough.

It means that whatever I do in my spiritual life, if it’s not done for Jesus and for the glory of God, is not sufficient enough.

It means that my life is not mine, but Christ’s. There is one body, one Spirit, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all. Not many.

It means that even when I disagree with you I need to look beyond myself and see you as Christ would see you.

Christ is one. Not many.

I absolutely agree again. …

So when you do a spiritual act (which is not sufficient enough) what are you thinking?

On a day to day basis, what would a day living “in Christ” look like?

.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Please see below

I absolutely agree again. …

So when you do a spiritual act (which is not sufficient enough) what are you thinking?

On a day to day basis, what would a day living “in Christ” look like?

.

It looks like not willing or suggesting to look beyond Christ.

 

[Servant19]

It looks like not willing or suggesting to look beyond Christ.

Dear friend, I’m asking you what does that mean to you on a day to day basis?

What does “not looking beyond Christ” look like please?

.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Dear friend, I’m asking you what does that mean to you on a day to day basis?

What does “not looking beyond Christ” look like please?

.

Rather simple:

To see Christ in everything.

 

[SteveVH]

On a day to day basis, what would a day living “in Christ” look like?

It would look like forgiving one’s enemies, feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, consoling the sorrowful, asking for forgiveness for offending God in any way, falling on one’s knees in worship, receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, conforming one’s life to the teachings of Christ’s Church. It would look like loving God with all of our heart, mind and strength and our neighbors as ourselves. It would be recognizing and accepting Jesus for what he is, the only begotten Son of God who has given us the new and everlasting covenant in his blood and never forsaking him for another. Should I continue?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

----trimmed for space’s sake— Should I continue?

Well, there are not enough books on earth to cover all that Christ did, can there be enough posts to hold what such and an imitation and aspiration be like?

 

[Annie39]

I am so sorry, Annie, that you were so poorly catechized in whatever parish you were in. Luther’s Small catechism is typically the model for catechetical instruction in the Lutheran Church, regardless of synod.

#Every Divine Worship has a corporate Order of confession and Holy Absolution.

Absolution includes the words from the pastor: ** “As a called an ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of your sin, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”**

#The Lutheran Service Book provides an order for Private Confession, again based on Luther’s Small Catechism

Honestly, I can’t imagine a Lutheran pastor being allowed to so dramatically mislead his parish as your LCMS pastor apparently did. The district president should have been called in!

Jon

Well Jon, I did some research regarding the information above. I called an LCMS Pastor near where I live and I also called the Pastor of the Lutheran Church where I was a member for most of my Lutheran days. I got two different replies. The Pastor of the Lutheran Church near me agreed with you. He quoted the bible regarding whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven whose sins you shall retain they are retained. I asked him if he had ever retained a sin. He said yes when a person confessed to him that he would not stop an adulterous affair. He said that the “sin still clinged to him” (I believe that I have quoted him verbatim) I began to explain what I learned in the Lutheran Church. As I understood it, a believer cannot lose his salvation for any reason except for apostasy. He agreed to this but when I questioned him further I asked if the person who refused to end his adulterous affair had put his salvation in jeopardy he said yes. I asked him how he reconciles the teaching of the Lutheran Church regarding the fact that only through apostasy can one lose salvation. He said that a man who refuses to repent is demonstrating apostasy.
The pastor of the Lutheran Church that I attended disagreed with the other pastor. He reiterated the teaching that I was taught. In the liturgy that I attended the pastor announced that we were forgiven he did not use the phrase that he forgives or absolves.
He did say that they have private confessions but he described what happened in those confessions as counseling sessions where he announced that the person’s sins had been forgiven that he did not give absolution.
Either way I wonder how this can be if Luther taught that our sins were covered over rather than being removed
At the time that I left the LCMS and rejoined the Catholic Church there had just been a debate between John Warwick Montgomery and a Catholic Apologist whose name I don’t recall. In the debate Mr. Montgomery’s explanation regarding salvation coincided with that which I learned when attending the Lutheran Church.
One other thing, I did not receive Confirmation instruction. I was just received into the Lutheran Church at a public service where I and several others made a profession of faith.

Annie