metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thank you so much for this as I am not familiar with it.Abraham Heschel and the Catholic Heart
(PDF) Abraham Heschel and the Catholic Heart (researchgate.net)
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thank you so much for this as I am not familiar with it.Abraham Heschel and the Catholic Heart
(PDF) Abraham Heschel and the Catholic Heart (researchgate.net)
Usually only because of the work done by scholars.I believe those theologians must have been brain dead because the words of Jesus are clear.
From scripture, it is apparent that the break away from Judaism saw the Christians as preachers and teachers, not so much as followers of ritual. The only observance that they were told to commemorate was the Memorial of Christ's death. That's it.What I stated is that the word sacrament was not in the Bible.
Of course he did....he was Jewish and so were all his disciples in the beginning. But that was to change with the inclusion of Gentiles and the full implementation of the “New Covenant”. No necessity was placed on the Christians to follow the ways of the “old covenant”.....not in their worship or adherence to the Law....which meant no circumcision, no Sabbath observance, no festivals, no sacrifices, no earthly priesthood, no distinctive garments or headgear, no temples or repetitive prayers or rituals.He offered his flesh and blood, within the Jewish liturgy of Passover. It was not then a 'sacrament' as he was still alive.
I believe it does....This may be the one area where there is agreement. I fully believe there exists a real and unique presence in the Eucharist. Jesus' words couldn't have been plainer, holding the bread, 'This is my flesh', the wine, 'This is my blood'.
Nowhere does Jesus state or imply that what he instituted was merely a symbol.
It is unfortunate that the church's attempt to explain many things fell short of the truth. After all, how on earth could they have introduced so many false beliefs if they knew what the Bible said, but defied it anyway. Show us please where Christ taught the church its beliefs....and how is it that I can trace every one of them back to pagan beliefs and worship? Is that just co-incidence?I do agree that the Church's attempt to define what is a mystery, and accepted as such, until the Reformation, was an unfortunate attempt to explain the 'how'.
You mean like Jesus "preyed" on those "lost sheep" of the house of Israel? Are you serious? Many of these people studied the Bible because they wanted to know what it taught....some even had a Bible study with us to show us how wrong we were....and guess what....as soon as the Bible was allowed to speak for itself, they soon saw that nothing they had been taught by their church was from the Scriptures. When they allowed the Bible to instruct them, like Paul, the scales fell from his eyes and he could see the truth of it.Imagine that, you preyed on those who did not know their own faith.
Who is "the church"? And how has the Catholic church changed its teachings in the last 1500 years or so? Seems to me like it is stuck in a rut.Exactly, and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in its constant interpretation for what it means for the life of Christians today and future generations, and every culture. Its why it is not closed in on itself, does not stagnate, but renews and develops its doctrine throughout the ages.
Just more of your anti Catholic dribble.
The Church is in dialogue with most if not all religions, unlike JWs there is nothing to fear, learning from conversing with others.
If you mean the Christian Church of the apostolic era of the first century, then you are correct.....but if you are talking about what the church became in later centuries, you can see clearly where they began to fail.....from the second century onward. This is when the "weeds" began to take over in the field as Jesus said they would. (Acts 20:28-30)The Bible did not come down from heaven, whole and intact, given by the Holy Spirit. Just as the experience and faith of Israel developed its sacred books, so was the early Christian Church the matrix of the Christian Scripture.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true. The letters from the apostles that are included in our scripture were circulating in the early congregations before the canon was established. The Bible is God's word, inspired by him and compiled by him under the influence of that same spirit. Who it came through is of no consequence. Not a single Catholic contributed to its contents. Like apostate Judaism in the time of Christ, the Catholic church was certainly not living by the standards set by Jesus, but it was the only "Christianity" there was...and there was "wheat" among them, often murdered because they dared to question the authenticity of the church's teachings......which were set by their own apostate hierarchy....again 'teaching the commands of men as doctrines'.The Catholic Church has authoritatively told us which books are inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore canonical. The Bible, then, is the church's book. The Christian Scripture did not come before the church, but from the church. Peter and the other apostles were given special authority to teach and govern before Scripture was written. The first generation of Christians had no Christian Scripture at all, only Hebrew Scripture -- but they were the church then, must as we are the church today. All that you quote from you have received from the Church.
How many times did Jesus quote the scriptures?
Am I not conversing with others right here and right now.....? Have I not been doing this here for over a decade? Have you found me fearful of what you believe? I'd say you have to be kidding. What do I have to fear from the truth?
I'm sorry but that is simply not true. The letters from the apostles that are included in our scripture were circulating in the early congregations before the canon was established.
He gave insight into what the Jews already knew from their own scripture, but only the “lost sheep” and those who saw the truth of his teachings, responded to them. Why were those ones spiritually “lost”, and why did Jesus consign their negligent leaders to ”Gehenna”? Can you tell me?He did more than quote Scripture, he interpreted anew.
For the same reason that Jesus chose uneducated men to be his apostles. What use was the education of the Pharisees to them? Jesus said it was corrupt....they disparaged the apostles for not being up to their standard of education.....so what’s new?A growth in knowledge. Why otherwise would you're group discourage higher education?
These are such ignorant second hand and extremely bigoted statements....they make me cringe, since your own church has demonstrated itself to be the most ignorant of all. The rest of Christendom has thrown out a good deal of what Catholicism teaches, so its not just us who think that your beliefs are not Christian....is it? On what basis then can any “dialogue” with other “Christians” take place?Obviously, it would not be good for you're group to apply any form of critical thinking, what other reason than fear of questioning?
I am wondering how you can possibly compare Roman Catholicism with first century Christianity? They are nothing alike!That's the whole point, we were Church before anything, including the writing of Christian Scripture.
Where were the Protestants until 1600, where was your group until 19 cent.?
They mirror one another in their reliance on man made traditions instead of the word of God. Only those who fear what the Bible says about their current worship, will ignore it, or twist what it says to excuse their failures.
What about today?
I am wondering how you can possibly compare Roman Catholicism with first century Christianity? They are nothing alike!
But I’m sure that you have no idea about that because your church has told you differently.
Have you studied the book of Daniel?
God has always revealed things at his appointed time and because his will is being fulfilled, it takes place in his own timeframe.
Huh?When we can name a thing, we can control a thing.
Greetings. You and I haven’t had much interaction on here between us, but I was just wondering... in line with this thread, what exactly do you think are ‘heavy burdens’?Jesus was faithful in following his tradition and form of worship. He chastised those who made it too heavy a burden that hindered them by laying a heavy burden on them making it impossible to achieve Kingdom ideals.
Hello, hope you’re doing well!Hi exchemist. Good evening. But He does have one Name and He expects His people to call upon His Name. Isaiah 42:8 says " I am Yahweh, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images." One of the reasons why there is so much idol worship is because people have forgotten the Name of the Most High. It's a real mystery to me how people can sit there and say Yahweh's Name is not important, when the Bible is full of scriptures which clearly reveal that the Name of Yahweh is of utmost importance. I don't know if people aren't reading the Bible or if there is a veil spread over the eyes of people. If we want a personal relationship with Yahweh, we should at least revere and call upon His Name. He has one Name and it means everlasting life. His Name is very important to Him and it holds power.
Psalm 86:7-9 says:
"In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee;
For thou wilt answer me.
8 There is none like unto thee among the elohim, O Yahweh;
Neither are there any works like unto thy works.
9 All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Yahweh;
And they shall glorify thy name."
People wonder why Yahweh doesn't answer their prayers. Yahweh expects people to have a level of sincerity when they come before Him and I can only imagine what He thinks of people who don't even call upon His Name. That's not to say Yahweh might not answer prayer, it's to say that if we want a personal relationship with Him, just as if we want a personal relationship with anyone, we have to call upon His Name. And it's a beautiful, glorious name. The abbreviated form Yah is also glorious and it can be shouted as a praise. Amos 5:8 says: "seek him that maketh the Pleiades and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night; that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth (Yahweh is his name);"
Wasn't there a time, recently, that your group predicted the absolute time when this end occur?
Wow, Deeje! You have a thoroughness about you when posting.... I just don’t have it.I'm sorry MI, but I think you are running away with a misunderstanding here...it is NOT the name that is in dispute at all...it is the pronunciation....whom even Jews admit is a guess. There are several possibilities as they will tell you. Yahweh can be said different ways depending on the vowels that are missing. The spoken word may not be as it appears in the English alphabet. The vowels may be spoken differently to how they appear in English. YHWH is all we have. No one knows if it was pronounced Yahweh or not.....some feel it may have been....others are not so sure. Write some English words without vowels and see what you end up with....vngr....or scl...or bckch...or fcs....what do you think....is it so easy?
Being a translation, like "Jesus" do people find it offense in using the Anglicized form of his name whilst claiming that he is God? Jehovah is no more offensive to God than Jesus is. Non Hebrew speaking people are not forced to use Hebrew names that are basically foreign in their language.
Oh dear....here you go again...this is an emotional response, not one that addresses the difference in translation between one language and another. Those who pray to "the Lord" are also substituting a title for the divine name in every passage of scripture, not to mention "Hasham" which I find completely ridiculous. You would call the Most High God "the name"? Seriously?
This is why we prefer "Jehovah" (the accepted English translation of Yahweh) to a nameless god who is just known as "Sir" or "Master" (the base meaning of the title "Lord"). Names have meaning and God's name is no different...it is the name he gave himself and one that he commanded to be used by his people in all their generations.....they failed to do this without a valid excuse.
Abraham...Avraham....Isaac...Yitzchak....Jacob...Ya’akov....Israel...Yisroel....David...Dovid...Solomon...Sh’lomo...Isaiah....Yeshayah....Jeremiah...Yirmeya....Ezekiel... Yechezkel....Daniel....Daniel....
Now how many of those names would an English speaking person recognize? Only a couple. Why did we need translations...? Because most of us could probably not pronounce any of those Hebrew names because they are foreign to our tongue.
The name of satan is not his name...it is the description of his character. "Satan" means "manslayer" and "devil" means "slanderer".....no one knows the name of the devil....only what he does to earn those titles. God has never allowed his personal name to be revealed.
The name of God was deleted from human lips by Jews. Their scripture still contains the tetragrammaton to this day...but they are still forbidden to say it or to even write GOD without eliminating the vowel..what kind of nonsense is that? Does God hate vowels for some reason?
The KJV actually managed to preserve the name "Jehovah" in 4 places but eliminated it altogether in later translations. Though you do not agree with our English pronunciation, we have restored God's name to all the places where it was taken out....and we have included it in passages of the Greek scriptures where quotations from the Hebrew scriptures originally contained it. We make no apology for that.
I know......but you haven't been listening....Don't you think if God wanted his name to be known in exactly the right pronunciation that he would make it known like he did in the days of ancient Israel.....God's people defended their homeland, going into battle in the name of YHWH.
When David came to fight Goliath, he said....
"You come to me with sword, spear and javelin, and I come to you with the Name of the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel which you have taunted. מהוַיֹּ֚אמֶר דָּוִד֙ אֶל־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֔י אַתָּה֙ בָּ֣א אֵלַ֔י בְּחֶ֖רֶב וּבַחֲנִ֣ית וּבְכִיד֑וֹן וְאָנֹכִ֣י בָֽא־אֵלֶ֗יךָ בְּשֵׁם֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת אֱלֹהֵ֛י מַעַרְכ֥וֹת יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר חֵרַֽפְתָּ:"
David knew well how to say God's name out loud and he did not hesitate to use it. He came to Goliath in the name of his God....יְהֹוָ֣ה
I have never denied it MI....not once...but this is about pronunciation, not the existence of the divine name which is clearly in the Hebrew text. We choose to pronounce it in the accepted English form, which to us is better than not using any name at all. We know who Jehovah is and so does he. He knows when we address him by that name, that we are speaking to him, and about him.
But they are studied, analyzed, and even rated as to strength. People can be evacuated appropriately and property guarded. We’re not entirely at the mercy of the hurricane. But we are entirely at the mercy of God, with little means to really understand God.Huh?
I see hurricanes being given names all the time. I have yet to see one being controlled, though.
Verifiably false.When we can name a thing, we can control a thing.
For most of them it's probably just a habit and not something thought through.......I wonder why they find his name so difficult to say, especially in view of the "Our Father" which is said repetitiously and meaninglessly by all of them?..
Wouldn't be a unique name, to be exact.Psalm 83:18...NRS Catholic Edition...
"Let them know that you alone,
whose name is the Lord,
are the Most High over all the earth."
The name Jesus also, in its original form, is not unique, but the Christians changed it as though in translation (do we usually translate names?) and made it unique.The name above all names is Jesus. This is the greatest name. This is the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Many scholars say He has more names than that.Here is a link to the 99 names of Allah in Islam
First of all, that's certainly not permissable in Islam, and secondly, if a person told you their name, would you consider it appropriate to choose to call them whatever you want? Makes no difference?If you want a name for God, choose anything you want. It makes no difference. It's not what counts.
No it isn’t. Look how the JWs control who has access to God through their special name. Muslims same thing with Allah.Verifiably false.
Again....it’s what you ignore that tells the story. Do you honestly think that these posts are an honest response to my questions and statements? Frankly this tells me that you have a party line but little understanding of what the Bible actually teaches about a lot of things. You seem to be oblivious to the clear breaches of Christ’s teachings in your faith. Can I ask if you were born a Catholic or did you choose to become one? Either way, I have to wonder how much scripture was the basis for your decision to stay or to join?Jesus was faithful in following his tradition and form of worship. He chastised those who made it too heavy a burden that hindered them by laying a heavy burden on them making it impossible to achieve Kingdom ideals. Jesus promised 'My yoke is easy and my burden light'.
Good grief! We have doctors and nurses in our ranks working alongside other educated medical personnel during this pandemic....did you miss that point? We have our own lawyers and scientists too.....these chose to become Jehovah’s Witnesses after their education was complete. And as for the current situation with vaccines......I'll leave mine until there is more testing done. I don't have a lot of confidence in the medical establishment as far as their medications go. They know how to treat symptoms with their drugs, but they can't seem to be able to cure anything. Or maybe there is no money in cures....?And what about today, where would we be without the highly educated doctors and nurses etc. during this pandemic? Or the highly educated scientists who developed a vaccine, or the highly educated lawyer to defend you when you're wrongly accused? You cannot hope to change the world by shutting the world out, only by being exposed to it.