Why I'm discontent with my Protestantism

[Tone]

I agree 100%. God's intention was no divisions. That, however, would require following God's word by all, therefore there's no input from man regarding doctrine. When man decided it was up to him to not only interpret doctrine but create it also, unity was sacrificed by them. No psuedo Pope or regional bishop or high priest (other than the owner, Christ) is in authority to make any calls regarding His church.
In Him

Yeah I think He would like all to be Firstborn, but we have the war between the seeds...

 

[FireDragon76]

One of the same reasons that the Greeks split from the Jewish sect of Messiah.

That's simply oversimplification, and ignores the role that mainsteram Judaism had in persecuting the Church. It also ignores that Christianity did preserve Jewish religious forms. The traditional liturgy is based directly off synagogue worship, and some forms of Christianity preserved elements of Judaism as well. Even some of the clothing that pastors/priests wear, such as the stole, or the miter that a bishop wears, comes from Judaism.

 

[Tone]

Can you show me an example of even a few Christians agreeing on doctrine or biblical interpretation, for more than a few minutes, without any kind of teacher or pastor?

Yeah...me and my fellow prisoner brothers.

*Also, I'm sure there are many in hiding across the world, with only their Bibles (maybe), the Spirit (Teacher), and each other...

 

[Tone]

That's simply oversimplification, and ignores the role that mainsteram Judaism had in persecuting the Church. It also ignores that Christianity did preserve Jewish religious forms. The traditional liturgy is based directly off synagogue worship, and some forms of Christianity preserved elements of Judaism as well. Even some of the clothing that pastors/priests wear, such as the stole, or the miter that a bishop wears, comes from Judaism.

Exactly...Rabbinic Judaism...the traditions of men, that Messiah confronted...and the weightier matters were violently cast aside.

 

[ripple the car]

Thing is, non-Protestant Christian faith is valid. It is ok to deeply question the Reformation. It is ok to read a Bible with 73, or more, books. It is ok to realize that Christ is referred to as the Rock in Scripture, and yet that Christ was refering to Peter when He said specifically "Thou art Peter, and on this Rock...".

It is ok to be Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox, too. It is ok to pray to Mary. It is ok to believe that we need not rely soley on Scripture to live out our Christian faith.

 

[Tone]

If the Apostles considered the Hebrew context of the New Testament Scriptures essential, they not not have written them in Greek, in largely Gentile terms.

Debatable...

*"The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (or proto-Gospel hypothesis or Aramaic Matthew hypothesis) is a group of theories based on the proposition that a lost gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic lies behind the four canonical gospels. It is based upon an early Christian tradition, deriving from the 2nd-century bishop Papias of Hierapolis, that the apostle Matthew composed such a gospel. Papias appeared to say that this Hebrew or Aramaic gospel was subsequently translated into the canonical gospel of Matthew, but modern studies have shown this to be untenable.[1] Modern variants of the hypothesis survive, but have not found favour with scholars as a whole."
Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - Wikipedia

**"New evidence indicates that the Gospel of Matthew was an original Hebrew composition. Indeed, it is now possible to recover much of this original Hebrew composition from an extant manuscript. But before explaining how this can be done, let me set the stage with a little background. Until now, the four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—have come down to us only in Greek. The Gospels we use today—in English or in other languages—are translations from old Greek manuscripts. By contrast, what Christians call the Old Testament—the Hebrew Bible—was written in Hebrew, with a few short sections in a sister language called Aramaic."
Was The Gospel of Matthew Originally Written In Hebrew?

***"The historical literary evidence indicates that the early church fathers believed that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic) and then wrote a Greek translation. Based on the originality of Greek Matthew, it would have been an expanded version, which would certainly be the case if you were expanding the purpose and audience of the work. The Hebrew Matthew was not widely used because few in the Christian world could read Hebrew Aramaic and the Greek Gospel of Matthew was more suitable for both Jewish and Gentile Christians who lived across the Roman Empire. The Greek Matthew was the Gospel circulated with the other three New Testament Gospels, which were in the Greek language."
Hebrew Matthew

****Personally, I believe that all the books in the Bible were written in Hebrew/Aramaic early on, but have been lost/destroyed during the persecutions and dispersion of the early followers of Messiah.

Either way, we now have the tools to go back to the Hebrew, as it is unique in that it has been revived (resurrected)...we can read it all in Hebrew ("You know, the people that wrote the Bible"), with a Hebrew perspective, which is pretty fitting, all things considered...don't you concur? Because, even if the Gospels were written in Greek only, they were written by Hebrews--with a Hebrew worldview...the Bible is also their (ours, if we have been grafted in) holy land!

 

[actionsub]

I didn't mention John Michael Talbot because he has become more contemplative and I had heard he had stopped touring. But I just checked and he is touring again. Wonderful. We have several of his CDs.

I had never heard that Phil Keaggy was Catholic. In a brief search I could not substantiate it either. Can you provide any evidence? I know he once attended a church called 'Love Inn'. I found one reference that he grew up in a Catholic family of ten children. So it looks like he may have started Catholic but I see no evidence that he is Catholic now. Still, great music that has influenced me, mostly back in the 1970's and 1980's.

Rich Mullins, the writer of 'Awesome God' and other great even awesome music, was going to officially enter the Catholic Church but died in a car accident just days before. Rich Mullins, Asymptotic Catholic | Patrick C. Beeman

There was a book Keaggy's wife had written in the 90s regarding their struggles to have a child. I thought it had said that they were Catholic then (this would have been after Love Inn), but it's possible she may have been talking about their religious background.

 

[Halbhh]

Listening to that 2nd one now -- nice! :=)

 

[Halbhh]

Now hearing this one! good stuff!
"...the free gift of living water"!

 

[Root of Jesse]

If what you are wanting to do is follow Jesus as closely as possible, all you need for that is God's word. Study God's word and compare what you see. The New Testament church had one head, Christ, no pope, no regional bishops, dioceses or anything of the sort. Each individual congregation was completely autonomous in nature and responsible for it's own spiritual health, Christ being the head and mediator. Look at the hierarchy of the New Testament church. Christ has ALL authority. Not some and some delegated elsewhere. God knowing the nature of man, Adam, the Israelites and all the rebellion over thousands of years; you honestly think God is going to require the life of His only begotten son and turn right around and give total power of the church over to man? Not a chance! Not to mention Peter told the church to not let our liberty to become a cloke of maliciousness; indulgences is the exact epitome of maliciousness!! God's word is the blueprint for the church, not some man.
In Him

God's word is more than the Bible, friend. The word of God shows that the Pope is the head of the Church on Earth, the Vicar of Christ. How could each individual congregation be autonomous when they went to such great pains to teach and believe the one true faith? Christ has all authority, true, but just because you delegate authority doesn't mean you're not still the authority. That means that the delegate must look to Christ to know the Truth.

 

[Halbhh]

12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

----------------

God's word is more than the Bible, friend. The word of God shows that the Pope is the head of the Church on Earth, the Vicar of Christ. How could each individual congregation be autonomous when they went to such great pains to teach and believe the one true faith? Christ has all authority, true, but just because you delegate authority doesn't mean you're not still the authority. That means that the delegate must look to Christ to know the Truth.

Well, sadly, friend, if one posits there is a certain one church that is the only true one, then this idea would then imply to us that the modern Catholic Church cannot be the One True Whole Church, because of the clear and dramatic wrongs it has done.

Rather, His Church is better than those wrongs.

But I've no doubt that Catholics are in His Church, and very many, in great numbers.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There was a book Keaggy's wife had written in the 90s regarding their struggles to have a child. I thought it had said that they were Catholic then (this would have been after Love Inn), but it's possible she may have been talking about their religious background.

Thanks for the info. Keaggy is still alive and has an active website, so I would have expected something there one way or another, but really nothing. Duck-Duck-Go found someone who speculated about it based on a newer song of his that quoted a Saint. Also someone heard from a religion teacher that he was coming back to the Catholic Church. But that was third hand. He did a concert in a Catholic church in Ohio in 2012. So who knows. Rich Mullins, by comparison, his plans were almost certain when he died a few days before his scheduled reception.

 

[Mary Meg]

*"The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (or proto-Gospel hypothesis or Aramaic Matthew hypothesis) is a group of theories based on the proposition that a lost gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic lies behind the four canonical gospels. It is based upon an early Christian tradition, deriving from the 2nd-century bishop Papias of Hierapolis, that the apostle Matthew composed such a gospel. ...

Yes, that is the tradition, but whether it was or it wasn't, it was the only book of the New Testament that was every even claimed to have been originally written in Hebrew.

Personally, I believe that all the books in the Bible were written in Hebrew/Aramaic early on, but have been lost/destroyed during the persecutions and dispersion of the early followers of Messiah.

There's no evidence of that, either in surviving Hebrew or Aramaic texts or fragments or early sources referring to Hebrew versions of the texts.

It appears, in fact, that the New Testament writers intentionally chose Greek, perhaps in an effort to reach a wider audience.

Either way, we now have the tools to go back to the Hebrew, as it is unique in that it has been revived (resurrected)...we can read it all in Hebrew ("You know, the people that wrote the Bible"), with a Hebrew perspective, which is pretty fitting, all things considered...

Even if Hebrew texts once existed, how do you "go back" to or "revive" lost texts?

I know that people have written "Hebrew New Testaments" -- in which they essentially paraphrase the New Testament, interpolating Hebrew words and terms where they think appropriate. But it's just that, a paraphrase. It's not the actual text of the Bible in Hebrew, it's somebody offering a Hebrew interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

God's word is more than the Bible, friend. The word of God shows that the Pope is the head of the Church on Earth, the Vicar of Christ. How could each individual congregation be autonomous when they went to such great pains to teach and believe the one true faith? Christ has all authority, true, but just because you delegate authority doesn't mean you're not still the authority. That means that the delegate must look to Christ to know the Truth.

If you have God inspired writings where He endorsed a "pope", simply produce it. It never happened. God's word being more than the Bible is opinion at best; God never contradicts Himself. The man made papal office is part of the falling away Paul warned the New Testament church of in 2nd Thessalonians. If God endorsed a "pope" indulgences would have never been taught as doctrine and that, my friend, is only the tip of the iceberg. The falling away occured and the church has yet to repent of such.
How could the churches be autonomous in nature? Very easily, the church Christ died for is still autonomous in nature. Read Revelation it's plain as day, the warning are to a specific congregation. The New Testament uses the word bishop and elder interchangeably; they are both overseers and Timothy was told to ordain elders in every town/city in which Paul was preaching.
In Him

 

[prodromos]

Thanks for the info. Keaggy is still alive and has an active website, so I would have expected something there one way or another, but really nothing. Duck-Duck-Go found someone who speculated about it based on a newer song of his that quoted a Saint. Also someone heard from a religion teacher that he was coming back to the Catholic Church. But that was third hand. He did a concert in a Catholic church in Ohio in 2012. So who knows. Rich Mullins, by comparison, his plans were almost certain when he died a few days before his scheduled reception.

I thought the four fingered one only did instrumentals. That should give you an idea how long it is since I've listened to any contemporary Christian music.

 

[Tone]

@Mary Meg ...what did you think about the music?

 

[Mary Meg]

@Mary Meg ...what did you think about the music?

It's nice, but if I'm going to go that direction, I think I'd much prefer something like this:

 

[Tone]

It's nice, but if I'm going to go that direction, I think I'd much prefer something like this:

Nice, but haunting...

 

[Chris V++]

It's nice, but if I'm going to go that direction, I think I'd much prefer something like this:

Ok, today I'm Orthodox. That is amazing.

 

[Tone]

Yes, that is the tradition, but whether it was or it wasn't, it was the only book of the New Testament that was every even claimed to have been originally written in Hebrew.

The history you choose is tradition also.

There's no evidence of that, either in surviving Hebrew or Aramaic texts or fragments or early sources referring to Hebrew versions of the texts.

Did you read all the info. in my post?:

New evidence indicates that the Gospel of Matthew was an original Hebrew composition. Indeed, it is now possible to recover much of this original Hebrew composition from an extant manuscript.

It appears, in fact, that the New Testament writers intentionally chose Greek, perhaps in an effort to reach a wider audience.

Actually, there is abundant evidence that much of the "New Testament" was written in Hebrew idiomatic language, that would/does not make much sense in Greek.

Even if Hebrew texts once existed, how do you "go back" to or "revive" lost texts?

There are Hebrew texts today. The Hebrew language itself was once considered "dead", but is alive and well today, despite many attempts to leave it dead and buried!

I know that people have written "Hebrew New Testaments" -- in which they essentially paraphrase the New Testament, interpolating Hebrew words and terms where they think appropriate. But it's just that, a paraphrase. It's not the actual text of the Bible in Hebrew, it's somebody offering a Hebrew interpretation of the Bible.

I guess we may just boil it down to an observation @Gracia Singh made:

This is, in part, what many of us on here would say about trusting and living out what our Churches have always taught, and done.

The difference is that I have chosen to trust in Who I know Messiah to be, namely, the Lion of the tribe of Judah...a Jew, Who spoke and thought as an Hebrew...teaching Torah and seeking the lost sheep of the house of Israel.