DescentBB

Kiran wrote:Yeah it's what the church has decided, as said in one of my posts.

Hey!, all kidding aside, I hope you make it.

Bettina

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Where in the bible does it say that people must observe Lent? Or is this something that the church made up?

Where in the Bible does it say that "sola Scriptura" is the only way to go? Wasn't that made up by a certain person as well?

I'm Lutheran, so I don't really understand Lent. I am currently avoiding any type of candy at all costs though. I am doing this just to make sure my special girl isn't suffering alone.

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I have to keep up my image for my dad and the church

Why don't you try giving up lying for lent?

That includes to yourself, too. (Oh, yes, you are the authority on what's best for yourself and everyone else, I forgot.)

I gave up my morals for lent. So far so good.

Beowulf wrote:I gave up my morals for lent. So far so good.

Maybe you just traded them in for different ones.

Where in the Bible does it say that \"sola Scriptura\" is the only way to go? Wasn't that made up by a certain person as well?

(Mark 7:6-7) 6 He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with [their] lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 7 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.. . .

[grenade]
Nuff said. A lot of religions have been doing a pretty good job of what this scripture brings out.
[/grenade]

Not to drive things too far off-topic, but...

Matthew 16: 18-19 wrote:"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 28: 19-20 wrote:"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Man was given authority over the Church on earth by Christ himself. And you still haven't answered my other point; before Luther, the whole concept of "sola Scriptura" was completely nonexistent.

Man was given authority over the Church on earth by Christ himself

Perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see exactly where it said for man to introduce teachings and doctrines that weren't outlined in the bible as things to practice.

Besides, God is perfect, Jesus is perfect. Why would they give \"authority over the church\" to imperfect men. Perhaps that's what the churches keep telling themselves in order to justify their teachings that originate from sources other than the bible. The true head of the congregation is actually Christ himself, not man. Besides, there's been a lot of bloodshed in the name of \"Christianity\" and other major religions, especially in the major wars of this world. Way to go guys!

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you

If there were a pop quiz, many religions would have a big fat Red \"F\" on their answer paper for that subject. That's why so many people are apathetic towards religion.

\"And you still haven't answered my other point; before Luther, the whole concept of \"sola Scriptura\" was completely nonexistent.

I admit, I wasn't familiar with the term \"Sola Scriptura\" before you mentioned it, but I did a little reading up on it. Pretty Interesting. How about this part

\"The intention of the Reformation was to \"correct\" the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible\"

In English, that sounds like to me that someone got smart and said \"Hey! The Church is feeding all of this to us, but is it right? Let's check bible teachings to see if this stuff in in harmony with the bible\".

And as far as the concept of it being non-existant, the bible itself gives advice that people should be cautious of everything they hear and to COMPARE the teachings of the prophets with the bible to see if they do originate with God. Apparently, your pastor doesn't want you to see that part, because your eyes would be open to a LOT of things at that point. If you have trouble finding it, here it is

(1 John 4:1-3) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world. 2 YOU gain the knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, 3 but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s [inspired expression] which YOU have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world. . .

In other words, double check everything that your church teaches you with biblical references. Many people listen and allow themselves to be influenced by churches who are doing nothing but pouring honey in their ears. Everyone who actively participates in something should solidy their conviction in what they do and why they do it.

Top Gun wrote:Matthew 16: 18-19 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church"

Note that in the Greek, it comes out as a pun:

The word translated "Peter" is petros = "a rock"
the word translated "rock" is petra = "a large stone, or a cliff"
the word translated "and" is kai and usually means "and", but can also be translated as "also, indeed, even, OR BUT"

Peter is a small rock, Christ is the large stone. To paraphrase (badly) the joke:

Peter, you are a small rock, but upon this large stone (Myself) I will build my church.

Of course, the problem here is that Christ was almost certainly speaking Aramaic, not greek, so the joke may not have been intended quite this way in the original, we can't be certain. But Matthew translated it that way, and I assume he did so in an attempt to capture the flavor of the original statement.

Peter himself used the "Stone" analogy for Christ, Acts 4:10-11 1 Peter 2:4-8, and Christ used it as well Matt. 21:42 the word used in all of three of these examples is actually lithos, another word for stone, but, again, whatever Christ said was probably translated from Aramaic, so this is adequate to show that the "stone" analogy was applied to Christ quite frequently.

It's interesting to note that none of the other disciples present seem to have taken this statement of Christs to have established Peter's "headship", since they were still continually bickering about who would be the greatest. Take Matt. 18:1 for example.

And, most telling of all in my opinion, is that the new testiment implies James (the brother of Christ) ended up leading the early church, not Peter. See
Acts 12:17 Peter wants "James" and the brothers informed, the implication is that he is informing the leader, and all the others.
Acts 15:13-20 Clearly James is the leader here, note especially verse 19 where James says, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God"
Acts 21:18 Again, it's "James and the Elders"
Galatians 2:9 James is mentioned first of the three "pillars" of the church.

Top Gun wrote:before Luther, the whole concept of "sola Scriptura" was completely nonexistent.

Mt 15:7-9 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

It's not a NEW idea. However now, I must be fair to the other side. You can argue that the old testament was fairly well set by the time Christ said this, but the new testament wasn't around at all. And exactly how the "canon" of the Bible was chosen is a long and complicated topic. It's a topic that most Christians have no knowledge of and are quite uncomfortable with when you bring it up.

Never-the-less, Christ statement still stands quite plainly for me. The source of Doctrine is to be God, not man. We can have lengthy discussions on exactly what constitutes "coming from God", but when a new doctrine contradicts or deliberatly changes something clearly laid down by God, we can have little doubt it falls into the area Christ was attacking in Matt. 15.

Which is one of the reasons I'm a protestant!

Oh, and just to clarify, this is NOT a "I hate Catholics and all Catholics are going to hell!" post. I can disagree with you and still get along just fine.

Kilarin wrote:The source of Doctrine is to be God, not man. We can have lengthy discussions on exactly what constitutes "coming from God", but when a new doctrine contradicts or deliberatly changes something clearly laid down by God, we can have little doubt it falls into the area Christ was attacking in Matt. 15.

Totally agreed.

The idea of "sola scriptura" is an overreaction to past excesses. "Sola scriptura" would have been a bad idea for people in Jesus' time (because the NT hadn't yet been written), and IMO it remains a bad idea now. There are many sources of inspiration and information other than scripture: the Holy Spirit, advice from other Christians, history and tradition, etc.

None of these should be discounted. Rather, they should all be viewed in light of each other. They should all be used to refine understanding of each other. Scripture doesn't make sense in a vacuum; it's part of history, part of church culture, and needs to be read by someone who knows its Author. Tradition shouldn't contradict scripture, but it can clarify it. Do not toss it aside lightly.

-----

The very next verse, after the one discussed in the last couple posts, reads thusly: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Some people take this to mean Peter is being granted authority over the church, and over all sorts of spirits to "bind" and "loose" them, and so on. I don't think so. I think Jesus is stating very natural consequences -- whatever things Peter (and the rest of the disciples) focus on, those things will shape what the church is, and shaping what the church is will also shape what heaven is. That doesn't necessarily mean Peter will make the best choices, it just means that his choices will shape the church.

13 Days later... and not a single bon bon!!! *cries*

Kilarin wrote:Of course, the problem here is that Christ was almost certainly speaking Aramaic, not greek, so the joke may not have been intended quite this way in the original, we can't be certain. But Matthew translated it that way, and I assume he did so in an attempt to capture the flavor of the original statement.

Actually the odds are fairly high that they could have been speaking greek. At that time greek was the universal language, spoken by both Romans and others in that part of the world (contrary to the "Passion of Christ," Romans in the provences did not usually speak latin - Mel Gibson was shown the evidence for this and he rejected it for theatrical reasons). The ability to write it may have been limited, but most people could speak greek at that time.

Kilarin wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Matthew 16: 18-19 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church"

Note that in the Greek, it comes out as a pun:

Peter is a small rock, Christ is the large stone. To paraphrase (badly) the joke: ...

... Oh, and just to clarify, this is NOT a "I hate Catholics and all Catholics are going to hell!" post. I can disagree with you and still get along just fine.

On Peter and the Rock.
Yes, we'll disagree (and still get along!); and doubt we'll solve this here. *sigh*

Kilarin wrote:Of course, the problem here is that Christ was almost certainly speaking Aramaic,..

Would he have been speaking Hebrew? or at that time jewish?

Duper wrote:

Kilarin wrote:Of course, the problem here is that Christ was almost certainly speaking Aramaic,..

Would he have been speaking Hebrew? or at that time jewish?

I believe that Hebrew was at that time a more formal language, reserved for religious ceremonies; the common people spoke Aramaic in their day-to-day lives.

...

Kiran wrote:...

You never said whether you were giving up all chocolates or just bon bons. Either way, I really hope you make it. No joking around.

Bet

Kilarin wrote:Of course, the problem here is that Christ was almost certainly speaking Aramaic, not greek, so the joke may not have been intended quite this way in the original, we can't be certain. But Matthew translated it that way, and I assume he did so in an attempt to capture the flavor of the original statement.

I assume he didn't want to give Peter a girlie name, so he used the masculine form of rock instead of the feminine form. It just happens that the masculine form refers to a smaller rock than the feminine form. In Aramaic, there would be no difference.

Shoku wrote:Actually the odds are fairly high that they could have been speaking greek

Oh, absolutely agreed that they all were likely to know greek. But would they have been likely to speak it among themselves? A large percentage of Europeans can speek English, and may use it when in a mixed crowd, but are they likely to use it when speaking to others who share the same native tounge as themselves? The several times that Christ's statements are preserved in Aramaic seem to indicate to me that among the Jewish disciples he was likely to be speaking in that tounge.

dissent wrote:On Peter and the Rock.

Mercury wrote:I assume he didn't want to give Peter a girlie name

A very nice link, thank you! I'll have to look into his point about the change in "Petros" between Attic and Koine Greek. It doesn't change any fundamental points for me since I already acknowledged the translation issue and find the other points of the argument to be more convincing than the "Petros - Petra" issue, but still, interesting and needs research, thank you!

dissent wrote:Yes, we'll disagree (and still get along!); and doubt we'll solve this here. *sigh*

Ha! Very true. But for me it's not a *sigh* issue. I LIKE religious debates, and find that I almost always walk away from them with more knowledge than I had going in. Your "Attic vs Koine" issue being a good example. My Greek is limited to understanding how to use Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

22 days and counting. Last week I just literally ate a whole bag of oreos by myself. Couldn't stop eating it. Now I gotta workout harder
Bettina, it was just bon bon that I gave up, not chocolate. I'm really not into chocolate that much, just the peanut butter bonbons.

By the way, guys, try not to get too far off topic in this thread.

/me gets ready to buy stock in bon bons ...

Kiran, when your restriction is up, are you planning on eating enough bonbons to compensate for the time off?

Heck no, Test. I'll get fat!

So is any one giving up Sex for 40 days.

Kiran wrote:Heck no, Test. I'll get fat!

Tis ok Kir, I've got a workout planned out for you, and I promise you'll love it.

Ah... no thanks, MD. I'm fine on my own with my workout schedule....

Three weeks of Lent left. Still no bon bons. This is starting to drive me a little bit crazy.... I want bonbons!:(

Three weeks still? 40 days goes along pretty slow, eh?

Aside: Don't mind my previous comment, I was being incredibly sarcastic, but only generally. I was not targeting you (unless you answered 'yes' )...there are real losers out there who would say 'I'm giving up xxxxx for Lent', then when the 40 days goes by, they engorge themselves with xxxxx, and still feel like they're closer to their god. Pathetic, eh?

In a way, yes, because it gives them a reason to do that, to do something that they want to do.

I have gone forty days and forty nights without a bon bon.

Now I shall indulge myself with a whole bagful of bonbons to make up for the days I've gone without it...nah I'm kidding. Going off to enjoy a bonbon...*munches*