| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2010 11:20:43 AM · #651 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
Why is it that . . . the nicest people (with the best answering machine messages) are the ones in the supposedly most godless part of the country - The Pacific Northwest? |
I now live in Chicago, but am from the PNW/Seattle. The Pacific Northwest is a very live and let live culture, which can be great and can be frustrating (e.g., look up "Seattle way" in regard to politics - all process, no action). It also doesn't hurt living in what - to my humble opinion - is the most beautiful corner of the continental USA. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 09:03:22 PM · #652 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find this stuff very interesting and encourage Christians to understand it even if your church does not recite it (as most evangelical churches do not recite creeds in service). |
I'd imagine that most non-Catholic Christians would have a problem with "I believe in the ...the holy Catholic Church"
Being Catholic, I'm familiar with this and the Nicene Creed. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 09:52:30 PM · #653 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find this stuff very interesting and encourage Christians to understand it even if your church does not recite it (as most evangelical churches do not recite creeds in service). |
I'd imagine that most non-Catholic Christians would have a problem with "I believe in the ...the holy Catholic Church"
Being Catholic, I'm familiar with this and the Nicene Creed. |
I think you are confusing the catholic church with the Roman Catholic church. The term itself means universal and refers to the church as a universal body rather than to Roman Catholicism. History of ecclesiastical use of catholic.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2010 12:59:48 AM · #654 |
I misread the thread title ... I thought it was about Comcast's new xfinity service. Now that's a topic I might find mildly interesting.
Sorry for the interruption. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 03:20:27 AM · #655 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
Here's what I want to know (and I'm a Christian of the Quaker persuasion): I do telephone surveys at my part-time job. We call nationwide. Something I've observed over the last two years is that different states have different personalities. Example: Virginia is a very paranoid state.
So, here's my question: Why is it that the meanest/nastiest people in the country seem to be concentrated in the so-called Bible belt, but the nicest people (with the best answering machine messages) are the ones in the supposedly most godless part of the country - The Pacific Northwest?
Seriously - my full time job is facing serious budget cuts, and I've already decided if I get laid off I'm going to Oregon. I read somewhere that Eugene was laid out with getting around on bicycle in mind as opposed to getting around in a cage car. I'd love to live somewhere like that. |
Maybe Bible Belt folks are subject to more telephone surveys and are just more annoyed by them?
Jokes aside... There is a difference between claiming an affiliation with Christianity and actually being a Christian. There is an even greater difference between being a Christian and acting as a Christian should. I could move to Mexico and tell everyone that I'm Mexican, but that wouldn't make me a Mexican. I could even try adopting a Mexican lifestyle, but I still wouldn't be Mexican. |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 05:58:03 PM · #656 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=Nullix] [quote=DrAchoo]I think you are confusing the catholic church with the Roman Catholic church. The term itself means universal and refers to the church as a universal body rather than to Roman Catholicism. History of ecclesiastical use of catholic. |
True, whenever I here the term "Catholic" I always think of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't call myself Roman Catholic, I just call myself Catholic.
So I have an Xanity question for you. What did Jesus mean in Mathew 16 when he changed Simon's name to Peter and said: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
Or in his original Aramaic , "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church..."
(Kepha meaning rock in Aramaic) |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 06:08:25 PM · #657 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
So I have an Xanity question for you. What did Jesus mean in Mathew 16 when he changed Simon's name to Peter and said: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
Or in his original Aramaic , "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church..."
(Kepha meaning rock in Aramaic) |
Some interpret that in conjunction with the previous 3 verses where Jesus asks Simon "Who do you say that I am?" and Simon answers "You are the Christ. The son of the living God" and then Jesus goes on to say that it was God that revealed that truth to Simon and then he changes his name to Peter and says "On this rock..." - so, many people I know interpret the "rock" as being the revelation by God that Jesus is the Christ - the church is built on that revelation.
Obviously there are differing opinions. :-) |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 06:28:00 PM · #658 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=Nullix] [quote=DrAchoo]I think you are confusing the catholic church with the Roman Catholic church. The term itself means universal and refers to the church as a universal body rather than to Roman Catholicism. History of ecclesiastical use of catholic. |
True, whenever I here the term "Catholic" I always think of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't call myself Roman Catholic, I just call myself Catholic.
So I have an Xanity question for you. What did Jesus mean in Mathew 16 when he changed Simon's name to Peter and said: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
Or in his original Aramaic , "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church..."
(Kepha meaning rock in Aramaic) |
There are two typical interpretations for the passage. First, Jesus was promoting Peter as the head of the early church. One could interpret it this way without the added baggage of apostolic succession that many churches hold. Second, Jesus could rather have been referring to the conversation he was having with Peter and used a pun to make his point. The "rock" the church would be based on was the truth that (Simon Peter answered), "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
EDIT: I see Art beat me...
Message edited by author 2010-03-08 18:28:26.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2010 07:50:44 PM · #659 |
To add to what Art and DrAchoo said...
The passage says:
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." "Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
Notice that this conversation took place at Caesarea Philippi. At this particular location in the first century, a temple stood in front of an opening to a cave. This was a pagan temple, as Caesarea Philippi was a pagan area. In Jesus' day, the cave was believed to be the gate to Hades (note verse 18). So, we see Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ in a pagan area, at a pagan temple, at a place believed to be the gate to Hades (See this). When Jesus said, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it" he was probably making a reference to pagan ideology, not the cave itself (because that wouldn't make sense). Therefore, if Jesus was using a wordplay to tell Peter than paganism will not overcome the church, we can also assume that he was using a wordplay to tell Peter what the church will be built on. If Jesus wasn't referring to the actual cave when he said "gates of Hades" then he probably wasn't referring to Peter when he said "on this rock". So, the "rock" is most likely Peter's act of confessing Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. In other words, the church is not built on a person, rather it is built on a confession.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2010 08:02:50 PM · #660 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
To add to what Art and DrAchoo said...
The passage says:
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." "Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
Notice that this conversation took place at Caesarea Philippi. At this particular location in the first century, a temple stood in front of an opening to a cave. This was a pagan temple, as Caesarea Philippi was a pagan area. In Jesus' day, the cave was believed to be the gate to Hades (note verse 18). So, we see Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ in a pagan area, at a pagan temple, at a place believed to be the gate to Hades (See this). When Jesus said, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it" he was probably making a reference to pagan ideology, not the cave itself (because that wouldn't make sense). Therefore, if Jesus was using a wordplay to tell Peter than paganism will not overcome the church, we can also assume that he was using a wordplay to tell Peter what the church will be built on. If Jesus wasn't referring to the actual cave when he said "gates of Hades" then he probably wasn't referring to Peter when he said "on this rock". So, the "rock" is most likely Peter's act of confessing Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. In other words, the church is not built on a person, rather it is built on a confession. |
Pardon the Roman Catholic point of view, but all that sounds like a rationalization to discredit what the Catholic Church holds as it's justification and succession.
The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]
Pretty clear to most scholars for a lot of years that Peter is the 'rock'. Only when people tried to diminish the role and legitimacy of the Catholic church did this ever come into question. |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 08:14:00 PM · #661 |
Originally posted by scarbrdPardon the Roman Catholic point of view, but all that sounds like a rationalization to discredit what the Catholic Church holds as it's justification and succession.
The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and:
whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]
Pretty clear to most scholars for a lot of years that Peter is the 'rock'. Only when people tried to diminish the role and legitimacy of the Catholic church did this ever come into question. |
I think it's a reasonable interpretation and I do think the part about the keys does seem to refer to Peter (so why wouldn't the first part?). I'm not quite sure where apostolic succession comes from though, but it's not worth arguing over.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2010 08:39:53 PM · #662 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Pardon the Roman Catholic point of view, but all that sounds like a rationalization to discredit what the Catholic Church holds as it's justification and succession.
The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]
Pretty clear to most scholars for a lot of years that Peter is the 'rock'. Only when people tried to diminish the role and legitimacy of the Catholic church did this ever come into question. |
Well you know... Matthew 16:18 was not used to support the papacy until Stephen used it for the first time in AD 255. Historians generally agree that the Bishop of Rome did not gain superiority over other bishops until the middle of the second century. Up until that time the church was governed by collegial episcopacy (all the bishops had equal authority). |
|
|
|
03/09/2010 11:41:15 PM · #663 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Well you know... Matthew 16:18 was not used to support the papacy until Stephen used it for the first time in AD 255. Historians generally agree that the Bishop of Rome did not gain superiority over other bishops until the middle of the second century. Up until that time the church was governed by collegial episcopacy (all the bishops had equal authority). |
I wouldn't discount God's name change so easily. He changed another leader's name from Abram to Abraham to be the leader of the nation of Israel. Then he changed Simon's name to Peter (meaning rock) and says on this rock, I'll build my church.
Also, the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
The early church fathers seem to hold Peter as their leader.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2010 01:50:25 AM · #664 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I wouldn't discount God's name change so easily. He changed another leader's name from Abram to Abraham to be the leader of the nation of Israel. Then he changed Simon's name to Peter (meaning rock) and says on this rock, I'll build my church. |
Actually, I'm not discounting God's name change so easily. I'm merely saying that the purpose of the name change was not to establish Peter as the "rock" of the church, but to establish faith in Christ as the "rock" of the church. And by the way... Abraham was not the leader of Israel because Israel didn't exist yet. He was the father of Israel. The first leader of Israel was Moses.
Originally posted by Nullix:
Also, the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
The early church fathers seem to hold Peter as their leader. |
In Luke 9, only John and James were with Peter, not all the disciples. All three of the disciples were named in verse 28. The fact that that John and James were not named in verse 32 is probably because the author didn't need to name them all twice in the same paragraph. You wouldn't write, "Bob and Jim" a bunch of times in the same paragraph because it's repetitive. You'll probably refer to them as "Bob and his friend" or, "the two friends". This technique is seen in verse 33 when they are called "the men" and in verse 36 when they are called "the disciples".
In Acts 1, Peter is the one who spoke, but it is also clear that the decision to choose Matthias was a group decision. Luke writes that "they proposed two men" (verse 23), "they prayed" (verse 24), and "they cast lots" (verse 26).
In Acts 5, it's pretty clear that Peter inflicted no punishment. He merely asked Ananias and Sapphira questions. They just dropped dead, probably at the command of God.
The notion that Peter alone excommunicated Simon the sorcerer is simply false. See verse 14: "When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them." Also see verse 25: "When they had testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages." Once again, Peter spoke (probably because two people cannot speak at the same time) but John was also with him and there is no indication that John is lesser than Peter.
At the first Jerusalem counsel, it is clear that all the apostles and elders were involved in the decision making. Also, in verses 19-21, it is James who makes the final decision and says, "It is my judgment...", not Peter.
Dude, if you believe the first dogmatic decision in the Bible is in Acts 15, then you probably haven't read the rest of the Bible.
In Acts 10:44, it is clear that "the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message" not just Peter. Additionally, Peter was the only apostle at Cornelius' house so it only makes sense that he's the one who makes the decision.
Needless to say, these are all weak arguments that Peter was more authoritative than the other apostles. If Peter was so great, then why does the gospel writer Mark (a companion and disciple of Peter) portray him as weak and lacking faith? If Peter was so authoritative, one would think that Mark would have tried to build up his reputation. Also, if Peter was the first bishop of Rome (aka Pope), then why was Peter a leader of the Jerusalem church? If Peter was supposed to be the leader of the Roman Catholic church, why didn't he just go straight to Rome?
|
|
|
|
05/11/2010 05:39:07 PM · #665 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It has been a slow week at work and Rant has been quiet (actually that's been a good thing). I've toyed with starting a thread like this where people can basically ask whatever burning questions they have on their mind about Christianity. I've realized over the years in Rant and other conversations that lots of people never really have any real interaction with serious Christians and because of this uncertainties, stereotypes, or simple questions arise. It's possible I'm totally wrong and if so this thread can die in obscurity. OTOH, here is your chance to ask anything and everything. What's up with this belief? Why do you do this? Whatever. I not looking to launch into argument, so I may ignore purely antagonistic questions (eg. Why are you guys such idiots?)
Anyway, perhaps some good, constructive and even fun conversation can come from it. I started it in Rant just because of the religious nature of the thread.
Any takers? |
It has been slow. I'd like to know what non-catholic christians think of Matthew 18 15-17.
Originally posted by NIV: Matthew 18 15-17:
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. |
If I'm a Methodist and I have a problem with the teachings of the Baptist church down the street. I can visit the minister at the Baptist church and show him (or her) their fault. If they won't listen, I can take 2 others with me to witness to them. If they still won't listen, what church do I tell it to?
I'd rather not treat a fellow brother in Christ as a pagan or tax collector.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2010 06:09:31 PM · #666 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'd rather not treat a fellow brother in Christ as a pagan or tax collector. |
an old Emo Phillips joke
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservativeâ€Â Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over. |
|
|
|
05/11/2010 06:55:55 PM · #667 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It has been a slow week at work and Rant has been quiet (actually that's been a good thing). I've toyed with starting a thread like this where people can basically ask whatever burning questions they have on their mind about Christianity. I've realized over the years in Rant and other conversations that lots of people never really have any real interaction with serious Christians and because of this uncertainties, stereotypes, or simple questions arise. It's possible I'm totally wrong and if so this thread can die in obscurity. OTOH, here is your chance to ask anything and everything. What's up with this belief? Why do you do this? Whatever. I not looking to launch into argument, so I may ignore purely antagonistic questions (eg. Why are you guys such idiots?)
Anyway, perhaps some good, constructive and even fun conversation can come from it. I started it in Rant just because of the religious nature of the thread.
Any takers? |
It has been slow. I'd like to know what non-catholic christians think of Matthew 18 15-17.
Originally posted by NIV: Matthew 18 15-17:
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. |
If I'm a Methodist and I have a problem with the teachings of the Baptist church down the street. I can visit the minister at the Baptist church and show him (or her) their fault. If they won't listen, I can take 2 others with me to witness to them. If they still won't listen, what church do I tell it to?
I'd rather not treat a fellow brother in Christ as a pagan or tax collector. |
I think you have to pick your battles. The Christian faith has to be a balance between an inflexible core of truth and allowances for differences in expression of the faith. So the question becomes what "sin" the Baptists in this scenario are committing against the Methodists? If it's a core issue, then following along this path is reasonable. If it isn't, then I'd let it be. Being wise enough to differentiate between the two is always the sticking point. Personally I would tend to error on the side of reconciliation. While rifts have a place and purpose, they should be considered the "nuclear option" of interfaith relationships.
Message edited by author 2010-05-11 18:56:31.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2010 04:03:52 PM · #668 |
| Most Protestant denominations believe in "sola scriptura" but where in the bible shows this practice? |
|
|
|
07/29/2010 06:23:13 PM · #669 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Most Protestant denominations believe in "sola scriptura" but where in the bible shows this practice? |
Good question. There are passages, of course, that talk about the benefit of scripture as being "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". I don't necessarily think there are passages that clearly say nothing else counts. Personally I try to walk a middle line. What early Christians thought about things, I believe, should count for something. However, I would consider Scripture to trump everything else. That's my opinion anyway. |
|
|
|
07/29/2010 08:33:31 PM · #670 |
Don't know if you read This... but you might find it interesting Doc.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/09/2010 09:57:09 AM · #671 |
Noah's ark photos from inside
A couple of questions;
1. If this is the Ark, then how did the inhabitants descend from this elevation after coming to rest?
2. If this is the Ark, then what might we be able to learn of the "truths" behind the story?
3. What are the chances that those involved in this are perpretrating a hoax?
4. If it is not a Hoax and not the Ark, what is it and why is at this elevation on a Mountain recorded in 2 world texts (Bible and Koran)as having a large wooden structure (boat/ship/Ark)?
5. Even if it is the Ark, the same Ark mentioned in the Bible - would its existance change any non-believers (scoffers) mind? |
|
|
|
11/09/2010 11:14:22 AM · #672 |
Originally posted by Flash:
4. If it is not a Hoax and not the Ark, what is it and why is at this elevation on a Mountain recorded in 2 world texts (Bible and Koran)as having a large wooden structure (boat/ship/Ark)? |
The Old testament is considerably more ancient than the Quran, which actually was handed down 600 or so years after the death of Christ. The Quran makes a point of speaking well of the Torah and the Gospels. Mohammed and his followers would have been aware of the flood myth (if it is a myth) or reality (if it actually happened) and it is not surprising that the story made its way into the Quran. Flood myths go even further back than that; a worldwide flood catastrophe is mentioned in The Epic of Gilgamesh, which many scholars consider to be proto-biblical. So, really, similar flood stories in Quran and Old Testament don't prove anything, unfortunately.
Originally posted by Flash:
5. Even if it is the Ark, the same Ark mentioned in the Bible - would its existance change any non-believers (scoffers) mind? |
I doubt it; even if it could be proved that there was a flood, that a man built an ark, and that he stuffed it with animals and rode out the flood, this wouldn't prove anything about God speaking to him and giving him instructions regarding same. It wouldn't prove a blessed thing except that some stories in the Old Testament were based on real events, which should come as no surprise to anybody.
R. |
|
|
|
11/09/2010 04:52:21 PM · #673 |
Site like that always amaze me. I can see some obvious things in the photos that make me pretty suspicious they are a hoax, but then to what end? Religious conversion? Monetary gain? I don't quite get the mindset.
Pictures two and three have what looks like grass or hay? Isn't think thing supposed to be 4,000-5,000 years old buried in ice and rock? Picture six has what looks like a cobweb. Again, what spider is living in a 4,000 year structure buried in ice?
Picture 8 looks like a macro to me, doesn't it? I don't even get what I'm looking at, but it's supposedly a multimeter structure. What's with the texture on the floor? Looks sorta like a basketball to me. :)
Anyway, not to bust on this, but I can't be too impressed... |
|
|
|
11/09/2010 06:55:04 PM · #674 |
|
|
|
11/09/2010 07:33:29 PM · #675 |
| I heard about this ark when traveling in eastern Turkey in the early 80's. The thing has been up there for a long time, the legend of it was mentioned by Marco Polo, and has been visited enough to live as accepted fact locally. Why such a huge ship is that far up a mountain does defy expectations, but that it is there is hard to deny. |
|
