Problems with the Reformation

[Josiah]

I am a little confused now ... what were the problems with the reformation again?

read this thread for some opinions.

 

[Josiah]

God is a gentleman, and will not go against your will. If you will not, then He won't.

I respectfully disagree. Our "old nature" (before God acted) is to sin, to hate God, to run from God. God loves and acts IN SPITE OF our will - or none of us would be Christians, none of us would be here. "He died for us while we were ENEMIES...." "NOT because we love Him but rather because He loved us."

This is foundational to the Reformation, foundational to Luther and Calvin.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

As a Catholic what problems do you see with the Reformation and how it changed your church?

There are a few; mostly associated with a lack of authority. For example, there are several major schools of biblical interpretation and several major branches of Protestantism but no authority but the individual to decide what is true and what isn't. Each time a major dispute arises it is not settled instead the denomination splits.

At the time of the reformation there were Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Zwinglians, and Anabaptists. The last two had numerous sub-branches. Now there are more.

 

[visionary]

After many decades of pondering over the Scriptures, it almost seems as though the English had an intent on translating the original Scriptures to make them of English origin. For instance, if you speak to a Christian today, they will tell you that the first "believers" were first called "Christians", when in fact, no such terminology was around util the English translators put that into the Scriptures. "Elohim was replaced with "God" and "Yeshua" was replaced with "Jesus". In doing so, we have English "characters" and not Hebrew characters. This has resulted in such that even the Jew today has to become a "Christian" in order to be saved.

 

[Josiah]

There are a few; mostly associated with a lack of authority. For example, there are several major schools of biblical interpretation and several major branches of Protestantism but no authority but the individual to decide what is true and what isn't. Each time a major dispute arises it is not settled instead the denomination splits.

At the time of the reformation there were Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Zwinglians, and Anabaptists. The last two had numerous sub-branches. Now there are more.

Of course, the RCC only agrees with itself - in spite of enormous, egotistical, divisive claims of it itself being the unmitigated, unaccountable AUTHORITY - still, zero unity beyond it itself exclusively (and even that is pretty meaningless). No different than the LDS and a host of "cults" I could name which also claim that it itself exclusively is THE mouth of God, THE Authority of God but (like the RCC) still has zero unity beyond it itself alone, is in agreement with NONE but it itself exclusively. The RCC is simply is egotistical disunity in the same way as the LDS and additionally all the "cults" known to me that also claim it itself exclusively to be the Authority. My experience is that dictatorships have little (to nothing) to do with truth - just power, the quest to lord it over others, to control - all about others SUBMITTING to it itself. See the latest edition of the ever-changing RCC Catechism # 87, see "The Authority of the Church" by LDS prophet and apostle Bruce McConkie, see the claims of nearly every "cult." Same/same. And in each case, unity with NONE, agreement with NONE. There is no non-RCC , non-"cult" denomination worse off in this regard than the RCC or LDS or additionally any "cult" which might be named. IMO, you are confusing ego and an unmitigated quest for POWER and CONTROL and LORDSHIP with truth and unity. But I'm sure we disagree.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[visionary]

I respectfully disagree. Our "old nature" (before God acted) is to sin, to hate God, to run from God. God loves and acts IN SPITE OF our will - or none of us would be Christians, none of us would be here. "He died for us while we were ENEMIES...." "NOT because we love Him but rather because He loved us."

This is foundational to the Reformation, foundational to Luther and Calvin.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah.

I obviously wasn't clear, because I agree with you. What I am saying is that while God "woos" us, he doesn't force us.

 

[TurtleHare]

I obviously wasn't clear, because I agree with you. What I am saying is that while God "woos" us, he doesn't force us.

What do you mean by force us? I'm trying to see how you view that in light of thinking how Adam was born and didn't have to choose God or give his heart to him, right? Do you see the connection between the old Adam of the old testament and how we are the new adam being born with faith from God?

 

[MoreCoffee]

After many decades of pondering over the Scriptures, it almost seems as though the English had an intent on translating the original Scriptures to make them of English origin. For instance, if you speak to a Christian today, they will tell you that the first "believers" were first called "Christians", when in fact, no such terminology was around util the English translators put that into the Scriptures. "Elohim was replaced with "God" and "Yeshua" was replaced with "Jesus". In doing so, we have English "characters" and not Hebrew characters. This has resulted in such that even the Jew today has to become a "Christian" in order to be saved.

In the old testament scriptures the English translators translated "elohim" to "God" and what you spell as "yeshua" with "Joshua" but in the New Testament there is no "yeshua" at all. The New testament has Greek letters corresponding to "Iesous" which the English translators translated as "Jesus". It is misleadinng for people to claim that the holy scriptures refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as "yeshua" because they do not.

 

[psalms 91]

Well what do you suggest? As being true to the original. what they wopuld have called Him back then

 

[MoreCoffee]

Of course, the RCC only agrees with itself - in spite of enormous, egotistical, divisive claims of it itself being the unmitigated, unaccountable AUTHORITY - still, zero unity beyond it itself exclusively (and even that is pretty meaningless). No different than the LDS and a host of "cults" I could name which also claim that it itself exclusively is THE mouth of God, THE Authority of God but (like the RCC) still has zero unity beyond it itself alone, is in agreement with NONE but it itself exclusively. The RCC is simply is egotistical disunity in the same way as the LDS and additionally all the "cults" known to me that also claim it itself exclusively to be the Authority. My experience is that dictatorships have little (to nothing) to do with truth - just power, the quest to lord it over others, to control - all about others SUBMITTING to it itself. See the latest edition of the ever-changing RCC Catechism # 87, see "The Authority of the Church" by LDS prophet and apostle Bruce McConkie, see the claims of nearly every "cult." Same/same. And in each case, unity with NONE, agreement with NONE. There is no non-RCC , non-"cult" denomination worse off in this regard than the RCC or LDS or additionally any "cult" which might be named. IMO, you are confusing ego and an unmitigated quest for POWER and CONTROL and LORDSHIP with truth and unity. But I'm sure we disagree.

Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah

When the Catholic Church proclaimed dogmas about the core teachings of Jesus Christ there was only one Church and no matter how many rhetorical flights of verbal fancy one may produce to denegrate that one church it remains true that there is exactly one holy catholic and apostolic church just as there is one Christ and one body of Christ so it seems to me that the critique offered in the above post is mainly about the body of Christ having a way of deciding disputes that the writer of the post dislikes. Personal tastes amount to nothing in a discussion/debate since everybody has tastes but none is "better" or more true than any other as long as they are merely tastes.

Latter Day saints, Jehovah's witnesses, and whatever other heresy one may allude to as "similar to" or "like" the Catholic Church in this or that respect tells us nothinng about the Catholic Church because LDS is not Catholic and being "like" something means it is not the thing it is like. Thus strawberries are red like tomatoes but they are not tomatoes. One can say "Protestants are like communists" in so far as both arose from an attempt to overthrow an old-order and replace it with a "better" one and neither succeeded.

The authority by which the Catholic Church decides disputes is not solitary and individualitstic any more than the decision of a judge in a court of law is.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well what do you suggest? As being true to the original. what they wopuld have called Him back then

I suggest (in fact I stated it in an earlier post) that we do not know how Hebrew or Aramaic words were pronounced in the first century AD because neither language used vowels in their written forms and all we have to go by is what is written. But the new testament was written in Greek and it has vowels and we have a fairly good idea about how first century Greeks pronounced the Lord's name, the Latins spelled it "iesu" and the Greeks (translitereated) spelled it "Iesous" and we pronounce it as Jesus. If you replace the J with an I then you'll have a fairly close approximation of how the Greeks pronounced Jesus name, "Iesus" is rather close. Personally I prefer Jesus to Iesus because it is familiar and the name (in English) is immediately recognisable as the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Yeshua" is a conjecture about pronunciation and not the "original" any more than "Yahweh" is the "Original" name of God.

 

[visionary]

Yeshua was a common name in Yeshua's day. While the pronounciation is like my name in another language is not my name in its native tongue, I would soon learn from those who speak another language that is how they would call me. It was a Greek lady who explained to me that my name is not found in the Greek language and the closest they can come to which Greeks would be familiar with is this other name. She said don't be surprised if everyone calls you by that name rather than trying to pronounce your name. I think it is very likely that happened in this case too.

Yeshua's name is found in a synagogue of the first century. It was inscribed in the synagogue floor.

 

[psalms 91]

I suggest (in fact I stated it in an earlier post) that we do not know how Hebrew or Aramaic words were pronounced in the first century AD because neither language used vowels in their written forms and all we have to go by is what is written. But the new testament was written in Greek and it has vowels and we have a fairly good idea about how first century Greeks pronounced the Lord's name, the Latins spelled it "iesu" and the Greeks (translitereated) spelled it "Iesous" and we pronounce it as Jesus. If you replace the J with an I then you'll have a fairly close approximation of how the Greeks pronounced Jesus name, "Iesus" is rather close. Personally I prefer Jesus to Iesus because it is familiar and the name (in English) is immediately recognisable as the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Yeshua" is a conjecture about pronunciation and not the "original" any more than "Yahweh" is the "Original" name of God.

Wow, I think that this was an effort by the Catholic church to eliminate anything Jewish which is funny as a lot of their service contains elements of a Jewsih service

 

[MoreCoffee]

Wow, I think that this was an effort by the Catholic church to eliminate anything Jewish which is funny as a lot of their service contains elements of a Jewsih service

In Medieval times Catholics as well as Orthodox were quite anti-Jewish on the whole, but there were exceptions in various lands. Since the middle of last century very few Catholic lands have had anti-Jewish ideas promoted by churchmen but there are always bad apples in the barrel and no doubt some existed and continue to exist but the teaching of the Catholic Church - her dogma and her moral teaching - is not anti-Jewish. The explanation I gave in the post you quoted is neither "Catholic" nor "anti-Jewish" it is historical. It is simply true that the new testament is written in Greek and it is simply true that Hebrew and Aramaic in the first century AD had no vowel points and no vowel letters so we do not know how words were said back then. Modern Hebrew is a reconstructed language - Jewish people in the East of Europe and in the middle East ceased speaking Aramaic some time between 200 AD and 600 AD. In Eastern Europe and in many western lands Jewish people sometimes spoke Yiddish (which is neither Hebrew nor Aramaic) but most spoke the language of the surrounding culture. None of this is "anti-Jewish" it is just what happened.

By the way, all of the ancient churches have many elements in their liturgy and ceremonial practises that are derived from both the temple and the synagogue rites and ceremonies.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yeshua was a common name in Yeshua's day. While the pronounciation is like my name in another language is not my name in its native tongue, I would soon learn from those who speak another language that is how they would call me. It was a Greek lady who explained to me that my name is not found in the Greek language and the closest they can come to which Greeks would be familiar with is this other name. She said don't be surprised if everyone calls you by that name rather than trying to pronounce your name. I think it is very likely that happened in this case too.

Yeshua's name is found in a synagogue of the first century. It was inscribed in the synagogue floor.

Interestingly the letters in that image are the Aramaic "square script" rather than ancient hebrew script which looks more like Phoenician letters than like the square-script. Below is an image of ancient Hebrew script. But in Jesus' time the lettering was square-script borrowed from the Aramaic speaking people North-east of Judea.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here's a map showng the 12 (13) tribes and to the north east you can see where Aramaic (the language) comes from - the territory of the Arameans.

 

[visionary]

Notice that it was in a synagogue of the fifth century, It wasn't Greek.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Notice that it was in a synagogue of the fifth century, It wasn't Greek.

Synagogues would quote the old covenant scriptures and they were mostly written in Hebrew with some in Aramaic and some in Greek.

 

[visionary]

Synagogues would quote the old covenant scriptures and they were mostly written in Hebrew with some in Aramaic and some in Greek.

And in this case, name their Messiah, whose name is not in OT..

 

[MoreCoffee]

Notice that it was in a synagogue of the fifth century, It wasn't Greek.

By the fifth century (401-500 AD) Judaism was separated from Christianity and the language of "sacred writings" was considered to be Hebrew/Aramaic by the Jews of that time. In the times when Jesus and the apostles lived Greek and Latin and any other language would be accepted if God chose to inspire sacred scripture in that language. Naturally enough Christians believe that God did in fact inspire the writings of the new covenant but in the fifth century Jews did not. I am not sure why Jewish beliefs and practises in the fifth century AD ought to play much of a role in deciding Christian doctrine and practises.