Are Protestants dead?

[straykat]

Whoa, you need to reread what I wrote.

Many Gentiles just assume that the Jews are blinded and THAT is the sole reason they reject Yeshua.

That is the only place I spoke about being blinded and it is in reference the JEWS being blinded. Instead what places a much, much more significant role in the Jews rejection of Yeshua is that the mainstream church has 1) Turned him into a gentile. And before you tell me I am wrong you need to consider what THEY see. They see a religion whose "Messiah" teaches that the Law is done away with. They see a group of people who largely reject the Torah and have done away with the Feast days of G-d (Note, they are NOT the feast days of the Jews.)

Based upon G-ds warning to the children of Israel that G-d would test them to see if they would obey, the churches Jesus would be a false prophet.
Deut:13 “If a prophet or someone who has dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, 2 and that sign or wonder he has promised you comes about, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us worship them,’ 3 do not listen to that prophet’s words or to that dreamer. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul. 4 You must follow the Lord your God and fear Him. You must keep His commands and listen to His voice; you must worship Him and remain faithful to Him.

So by default, since much/most of the "church" teaches that the Torah is done away with, the Observant Jew will NEVER accept "jesus"

Sorry for jumping the gun. Really.. I'll go back and re-read.

 

[BukiRob]

It is the other way round. People are trying to understand Jesus through Paul! They are bent upon defending Paul at any cost. Notice in the entire Bible, only Paul's letters are titled to specific people. So the Bible itself is giving a hint that they are meant for problems faced at those places. It is like hearing one-side conversation in a phone talk. No wonder Peter warned about twisting of Paul's letters leading to destruction.

I accept his only when it complements Jesus' words. I am not interested in creating the situation Corinthians had now!

2 Peter 3:15 Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. 16 He speaks about these things in all his letters in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

If those learning directly from Paul who were almost CERTAIN speaking Greek (in other words their level of understanding of Greek was that of a near-native speaker) and Paul was still GREATLY misunderstood at the time of his teaching then it is sheer FOLLY to assume that we have a better grasp today!

Paul was a student of Gamaliel who was the grandson of Hillel arguably the greatest Jewish sage of all time... (clearly in the top with scholars like Rashid, Maimonides etc)
Paul would be the equivalent of a leading PhD scholar teaching at a graduate level. Paul is almost all of his writings is assuming you already KNOW the basics concerning Torah.

This confusion was so great that we see right before his arrest that James and the elders say to Paul “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs."

Notice that if you read the entire comments of James that NOWHERE does even suggest that those that are "Zealous for Torah" are in ANY WAY wrong!

Confusion regarding Pauls teachings was present DURING Pauls ministry how much so more today!

then James says: SO THEY MAY KNOW THAT THESE THINGS ARE NOT TRUE... he then commands Paul to take the vow of the Nazarene along with 2 other men who had dedicated themselves to do so and then make SACRIFICE in the Temple after becoming ritually pure.

Now you are left with 1 of only 2 options. A) Paul and James are concocting a deception and acting out a lie... or B) Paul was a Torah observant believer and taught others to do so likewise but as a matter of walking on obedience and that Salvation comes by faith and not by works.

 

[straykat]

So by default, since much/most of the "church" teaches that the Torah is done away with, the Observant Jew will NEVER accept "jesus"

OK... Apologies again, but I hear you on the above. I actually just posted something recently addressing that in another thread. I think it comes from a misreading of Paul..where some people equate his use with "works" with ALL kinds of ethical teachings. When he was concerned with racially significant works. Things that said in the flesh/material sense, "I am a Jew". Like circumcision. In Paul's teaching, this was not going to save anyone. In Christ, the racial divides no longer existed. And as John the Baptist said, "God could make children of Abraham from these stones." It was no longer the dividing line. Christ is the dividing line. "There is no longer Jew or Gentile". But that didn't mean we drop works in the sense of "morality"!

That said, even when the Church teached this before Protestantism, many Jews rejected them anyhow. So there's something else at work here as well.

Barring some exceptions at least. I'm not a Catholic, but one of my favorite Catholic saints is without a doubt St. Teresa of Avila -- a Jew. Or rather, from a family of conversos. Same with St. John of the Cross.

 

[John tower]

I started this thread as a spin off thread from another thread i have going. As i was discussing the Lords supper, I was told by Catholics that Protestants dont actually partake of the real Lords supper. If this is true then doesnt that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

John 6:53 New King James Version (NKJV)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

He was talking about his spiritual word : These words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life and being born again by the word of God : the flesh profits nothing He was not talking about a physical meal !

 

[W2L]

He was talking about his spiritual word : These words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life and being born again by the word of God : the flesh profits nothing He was not talking about a physical meal !

I agree.

 

[BukiRob]

OK... Apologies again, but I hear you on the above. I actually just posted something recently addressing that in another thread. I think it comes from a misreading of Paul..where some people equate his use with "works" with ALL kinds of ethical teachings. When he was concerned with racially significant works. Things that said in the flesh/material sense, "I am a Jew". Like circumcision. In Paul's teaching, this was not going to save anyone. In Christ, the racial divides no longer existed. And as John the Baptist said, "God could make children of Abraham from these stones." It was no longer the dividing line. Christ is the dividing line. "There is no longer Jew or Gentile". But that didn't mean we drop works in the sense of "morality"!

That said, even when the Church taught this before Protestantism, many Jews rejected them anyhow. So there's something else at work here as well.

Barring some exceptions at least. I'm not a Catholic, but one of my favorite Catholic saints is without a doubt St. Teresa of Avila -- a Jew. Or rather, from a family of conversos. Same with St. John of the Cross.

I think that we are missing what Paul is saying. Again when we fail to look at it from the perspective of the Israelite, we MISS what he is saying.

Prior to G-d directly working in the lives of Gentiles (redemptive) G-d ONLY had a covenant with Israel. The Goy (Nations) COULD NOT be saved. They first had to convert and if male, become circumcised, begin walking in Torah, belief in the promise of Messiah.

This is exactly what led to the Acts 15 debate which is NOT doing away with the Commandments. In verse 1 we are clearly told what the debate is about... WHO CAN BE SAVED?
1But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

circumcised= converting to become a Jew.

Almost ALL of Pauls teachings surrounding the Jew/Gentile issue were centered in the fact that one did not need to convert to be saved... hence there is now NO DISTICITION... meaning G-d no longer only interacted with the Jew.

 

[Righttruth]

No, they're not saying that you have never been saved, nor never will be.
But to identify yourself as a Christian on this forum, and be able to use the faith icon of Christian, a person needs to accept and affirm the Nicene creed and accept Paul's apostleship and the validity of his writings.

The Nicene creed states Jesus' divinity - with Scriptures that show this; this is a central Christian doctrine. Whether you think it should be or not, is not the point. It is; accepted, believed and affirmed by many churches.
Some of the Scriptures that affirm Christ's deity are found in Paul's letters. If someone doesn't accept that he was an apostle and that his epistles are inspired and valid, apart from affecting other doctrines, that is casting doubt on the inspiration and reliability of Scripture - i.e the Bible includes writings that are not true.

Argue about it with the Mods if you like - that is a fact.

So, it is like a majority group among children deciding on the sex of an animal in a zoo during a visit! It is also like a lone baby crying out that king is naked in a public parade!

 

[Righttruth]

If I wish, and choose, to post in these forums, I obey the forum rules.
Apart from anything else, it's courteous. I have not put the money and work into creating these forms; someone else has.

You may not wish to obey the rules and may repeatedly break them. If so, you risk being reported, warned, banned and maybe finally excluded - or you can do as you have been asked and take your beliefs to the appropriate forum; your choice.

My choice is crying in the wilderness even it amounts to that. I am least bothered about the reactions based on man-made rules. Nevertheless, I have never been offending or insulting to anybody.

 

[Righttruth]

No I don't, because Scripture doesn't. The Spirit is the Spirit, the Word is the Word.
The Word became flesh - Jesus, conceived by, and filled with, the Holy Spirit.

But that doesn't mean Word = Jesus. Your Scripture doesn't say that.

 

[Righttruth]

agreed


Not exactly what it says.
And lest I should be exalted above measure through
the abundance of the revelations,
there was given to me a thorn in the flesh,
the messenger of Satan to buffet me,
lest I should be exalted above measure.

I don't believe Paul had a boastful nature, I
think this thorn story has been misinterpreted
Even if I wanted to boast, I would not be a fool,
because I would be speaking the truth.
But I refrain, so no one will credit me with more
than he sees in me or hears from me,

A humble disciple of Jesus will not even think of using the word 'boast'. Paul goes off limits in his self assessments!

 

[Righttruth]

The book was Philippians and it was about the nature of Christ. As I stated in the post that this reply is to this statement from Paul is obviously not only relevant to the Philippians.

“Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2:6‬

How would this statement change in any way if Paul were writing to a different group of people? Would Jesus not be God if Paul was writing to the Romans or the Galatians? Would Jesus all the sudden think that equality with God is something to cling to if Paul had been writing to someone else? I mean c’mon your not making any sense at all.

Does it mean Paul knew more about God than Jesus? Don't you think we should give utmost importance to Jesus' words? Only the Son of God has seen the God the Father. At best people can only speculate like four blind men with an elephant!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Does it mean Paul knew more about God than Jesus? Don't you think we should give utmost importance to Jesus' words? Only the Son of God has seen the God the Father. At best people can only speculate like four blind men with an elephant!

Your mistake is thinking that they are contradicting each other. God’s Word never contradicts itself. Therefore if your beliefs don’t coincide with ALL of the scriptures they are wrong.

 

[Righttruth]

Your mistake is thinking that they are contradicting each other. God’s Word never contradicts itself. Therefore if your beliefs don’t coincide with ALL of the scriptures they are wrong.

2 Corinthians 3
6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Many wacky and convenient concepts and theologies have been developed solely based on Paul with misinterpretations. No wonder Martin Luther wanted James, Hebrews and Revelation to be removed from the canon.

 

[Righttruth]

2 Peter 3:15 Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. 16 He speaks about these things in all his letters in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

If those learning directly from Paul who were almost CERTAIN speaking Greek (in other words their level of understanding of Greek was that of a near-native speaker) and Paul was still GREATLY misunderstood at the time of his teaching then it is sheer FOLLY to assume that we have a better grasp today!

Paul was a student of Gamaliel who was the grandson of Hillel arguably the greatest Jewish sage of all time... (clearly in the top with scholars like Rashid, Maimonides etc)
Paul would be the equivalent of a leading PhD scholar teaching at a graduate level. Paul is almost all of his writings is assuming you already KNOW the basics concerning Torah.

This confusion was so great that we see right before his arrest that James and the elders say to Paul “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs."

Notice that if you read the entire comments of James that NOWHERE does even suggest that those that are "Zealous for Torah" are in ANY WAY wrong!

Confusion regarding Pauls teachings was present DURING Pauls ministry how much so more today!

then James says: SO THEY MAY KNOW THAT THESE THINGS ARE NOT TRUE... he then commands Paul to take the vow of the Nazarene along with 2 other men who had dedicated themselves to do so and then make SACRIFICE in the Temple after becoming ritually pure.

Now you are left with 1 of only 2 options. A) Paul and James are concocting a deception and acting out a lie... or B) Paul was a Torah observant believer and taught others to do so likewise but as a matter of walking on obedience and that Salvation comes by faith and not by works.

James is more reliable than Paul since he associated with Jerusalem church right from the beginning and headed that. Paul was a rank outsider who took short cuts against the directive of Jesus.
Salvation is from the Jews.

I believe in many cases when the word 'work/s' is mentioned in the NT,it refers to the OT rituals, and it doesn't forbid good works and charity.

 

[Strong in Him]

So, it is like a majority group among children deciding on the sex of an animal in a zoo during a visit! It is also like a lone baby crying out that king is naked in a public parade!

If by "majority group" you mean all the mainstream Christian churches - Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, URC etc etc,AND the moderators of these Christian forums, and possibly others; then, yes.
If by "lone baby" you mean the early church, who decided to draw up this creed so that they, and others, would know what they stood for in a world of unbelief and false teaching, then yes.

Personally, I'm not confident, or arrogant, enough to stand on my own against a sea of Scriptural Christian teaching and tradition and say "MY interpretation of Scripture, alone, is correct - all you many many clergy, theologians and fellow Christians are wrong."

Like I say, choosing to ignore the facts doesn't change them, or mean they are incorrect - only that you choose not to believe them.

 

[Strong in Him]

But that doesn't mean Word = Jesus. Your Scripture doesn't say that.

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us", John 1:14.
If this wasn't Jesus, who was it?

John the Baptist testifies to Jesus. Peter says that he is the Lamb "chosen from before the foundation of the world", 1 Peter 1:19-20. John says that the Word was with God in the beginning and was God, John 1:1-3. Jesus said that he shared the Father's glory before the world began, John 17:5. He also said, "Before Abraham was, I AM, John 8:58 - and the Jews picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy.

Even if you don't trust Paul, that's 4 other witnesses to Jesus' divinity and eternal nature - 5 if you include the Holy Spirit who inspired these things to be written.

 

[Micah888]

...I was told by Catholics that Protestants don't actually partake of the real Lords supper. If this is true then doesn't that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

The Roman Catholic Mass is clearly not the Lord's Supper so there is no reason why Catholics (or to be more precise the RCC) would accept the Lord's Supper as valid, just as Protestants and non-Catholics do not accept the Mass as valid.

As to Protestants being "dead" in the eyes of the RCC that pretty much is summed up in Roman Catholic doctrine. Protestant beliefs were deemed heretical by the RCC and nothing has changed.

 

[Righttruth]

If by "majority group" you mean all the mainstream Christian churches - Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, URC etc etc,AND the moderators of these Christian forums, and possibly others; then, yes.
If by "lone baby" you mean the early church, who decided to draw up this creed so that they, and others, would know what they stood for in a world of unbelief and false teaching, then yes.

Personally, I'm not confident, or arrogant, enough to stand on my own against a sea of Scriptural Christian teaching and tradition and say "MY interpretation of Scripture, alone, is correct - all you many many clergy, theologians and fellow Christians are wrong."

Like I say, choosing to ignore the facts doesn't change them, or mean they are incorrect - only that you choose not to believe them.

I believe in Jesus and His words. Rest is of no consequence. You seem to ignore the long history of how people side tracked the words of Jesus for convenience. It happens in all religions, Christianity is no exception.

 

[Righttruth]

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us", John 1:14.
If this wasn't Jesus, who was it?

John the Baptist testifies to Jesus. Peter says that he is the Lamb "chosen from before the foundation of the world", 1 Peter 1:19-20. John says that the Word was with God in the beginning and was God, John 1:1-3. Jesus said that he shared the Father's glory before the world began, John 17:5. He also said, "Before Abraham was, I AM, John 8:58 - and the Jews picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy.

Even if you don't trust Paul, that's 4 other witnesses to Jesus' divinity and eternal nature - 5 if you include the Holy Spirit who inspired these things to be written.

Can Son can be the same as the Father? I think you are missing out the concept of incarnation or manifestation of the great God. The divinity of Jesus is not disputed. God cannot die. Whereas the Son did to raise again.

 

[W2L]

The Roman Catholic Mass is clearly not the Lord's Supper so there is no reason why Catholics (or to be more precise the RCC) would accept the Lord's Supper as valid, just as Protestants and non-Catholics do not accept the Mass as valid.

As to Protestants being "dead" in the eyes of the RCC that pretty much is summed up in Roman Catholic doctrine. Protestant beliefs were deemed heretical by the RCC and nothing has changed.

Thanks for the reply.