Atonement or Human Sacrifice on the Cross?

[NormATive]

The Catholic Christianity I grew up in is not at all apocalyptic and intensely interested social ministry, as are many non fundamentalist mainline churches, I think. I do not believe the two religions can be reconciled except at the individual level and in some small groups.

My best friend growing up was Roman Catholic. I had many occasions to join him at Church. They most definitely taught that there was a real Heaven and a real Hell. The main point of the Mass, in my understanding, was in the mystical transubstantiation of the Host and Wine becoming the actual body and blood of Jesus - sacrificed for our sins. And further, if one were to die without confession, one would be assigned to Purgatory. If one were guilty of a Mortal Sin would spend eternity in Hell. And, if one were not "converted to the faith of Christ," while on this Earth, one would not partake in the Glory of God, but spend eternity in Hell.

Now, while it is true that the Parish was very active in a benevolent attitude toward those less fortunate; salvation was a mystical thing, and eternity was not on this Earth, but in Heaven or Hell. Did I miss something? How is this not Apocalyptic? They also believed in the final battle of Armageddon, though it was somewhat murkier than how big of a deal it is in Protestant churches.

I think it is commendable that most Catholic Churches have aggressive outreach to those least fortunate. I think this is what it actually means to "follow Jesus." But, you still cannot divorce Christianity from the apocalyptic nature of salvation and eternity.

NORM

[jordanriver]

It's kind of funny, actually. The Church leaders came up with the idea of the Virgin Birth in an attempt to sidestep the lineage question ......

NORM

say what????

[Christianbookworm]

Though, it seems we have been off topic for a while...

[robrecht]

My best friend growing up was Roman Catholic. I had many occasions to join him at Church. They most definitely taught that there was a real Heaven and a real Hell. The main point of the Mass, in my understanding, was in the mystical transubstantiation of the Host and Wine becoming the actual body and blood of Jesus - sacrificed for our sins. And further, if one were to die without confession, one would be assigned to Purgatory. If one were guilty of a Mortal Sin would spend eternity in Hell. And, if one were not "converted to the faith of Christ," while on this Earth, one would not partake in the Glory of God, but spend eternity in Hell.

Now, while it is true that the Parish was very active in a benevolent attitude toward those less fortunate; salvation was a mystical thing, and eternity was not on this Earth, but in Heaven or Hell. Did I miss something? How is this not Apocalyptic? They also believed in the final battle of Armageddon, though it was somewhat murkier than how big of a deal it is in Protestant churches.

I think it is commendable that most Catholic Churches have aggressive outreach to those least fortunate. I think this is what it actually means to "follow Jesus." But, you still cannot divorce Christianity from the apocalyptic nature of salvation and eternity.

NORM

Most of what you are describing is eschatology but not apocalyptic. You're using apocalyptic in an unusual way. Eschatology pertains to the 'last' things, but usually with no sense of immediate imminence. Apocalypticism usually indicates that the end times are already upon us or will be very soon.

[Tassman]

Here's my source for the idea. http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php
With Jesus being Wisdom incarnate. No wonder he easily pwned the Pharisees. They are still fully God. One God, three persons. One what, three whos. You really expect a Being that exists outside of Space-time to have a human psyche? If you atheists had undeniable proof, you guys might just stupidly cally him a sufficiently advanced alien or something else dumb.

http://christianity.about.com/od/glo...tydoctrine.htmhttp://www.gotquestions.org/filioque...ntroversy.html

[Christianbookworm]

Anything that lessens the full personhood of the Son (or the Holy Spirit) is heresy. One does not refer to the Father as an “attribute of the Son” and yet your source sees no problem with referring to the Son as an “attribute of the Father” and in doing so subordinates the Son to the Father.

“The word "Trinity" comes from the Latin noun "trinitas" meaning "three are one." The Trinity expresses the belief that God is one Being made up of three distinct Persons who exist in co-equal essence and co-eternal communion as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.

http://christianity.about.com/od/glo...tydoctrine.htm

In the same vein the filioque clause split the Eastern Church from the Western Church over the status of the Holy Spirit in relation to the other two persons of the Trinity:

“The question is, “from whom did the Holy Spirit proceed, the Father, or the Father and the Son?” The word filioque means “and son” in Latin. It is referred to as the “filioque clause” because the phrase “and son” was added to the Nicene Creed, indicating that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father “and Son.” There was so much contention over this issue that it eventually led to the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches in A. D. 1054. The two churches are still not in agreement on the filioque clause”.

http://www.gotquestions.org/filioque...ntroversy.html

The quote explained that it doesn't. Go bug JPH about it then.

[jordanriver]

people forget (or never knew) that the term used the most times for "GOD" in the Old Testament is A PLURAL TERM, elohiym

that term "elohiym" "occurs over 2000 times. Elohim is first used in Gen 1:1."

and a few times in the OT, God/elohiym refers to itself as plural (as a group) using "us" and "our"
like Genesis 1:26 (....let US make man in OUR image....)

and Genesis 3:22 (...the man is become as one of US ...)

AND Isaiah 6:8 uses both "I" and "us" , this time One member of group addressing the rest of the group:

"Also I heard the voice of the Lord (Adonay), saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me."

then as pointed out in POST 200 , where in Isaiah chapter 48 all THREE MEMBERS are accounted for

....and in Psalm 110 TWO of the members are accounted for, as Jesus, claiming that David referred to Him/Jesus
IOW, Jesus is not just a "son of David", but in the past was also the "Lord of David", cited this in the 3 Synoptic gospels Matthew 22:41-46
Mark 12:35-37
Luke 20:41-44

I hope this helps

[shunyadragon]

people forget (or never knew) that the term used the most times for "GOD" in the Old Testament is A PLURAL TERM, elohiym

that term "elohiym" "occurs over 2000 times. Elohim is first used in Gen 1:1."

and a few times in the OT, God/elohiym refers to itself as plural (as a group) using "us" and "our"
like Genesis 1:26 (....let US make man in OUR image....)

and Genesis 3:22 (...the man is become as one of US ...)

AND Isaiah 6:8 uses both "I" and "us" , this time One member of group addressing the rest of the group:

"Also I heard the voice of the Lord (Adonay), saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me."

then as pointed out in POST 200 , where in Isaiah chapter 48 all THREE MEMBERS are accounted for

....and in Psalm 110 TWO of the members are accounted for, as Jesus, claiming that David referred to Him/Jesus
IOW, Jesus is not just a "son of David", but in the past was also the "Lord of David", cited this in the 3 Synoptic gospels Matthew 22:41-46
Mark 12:35-37
Luke 20:41-44

I hope this helps

I believe you are over reaching the interpretation of these references as being definitive as references to justify the Trinity (?). Interesting topic for a thread.

[Christianbookworm]

Yeah. Can a mod do a thread clean and split please?

[jordanriver]

Yeah. Can a mod do a thread clean and split please?

sorry for participating in off topic exchange.

But I don't know what else to do when the Bible is attacked in discussions not of my choosing.

...cant just let them get away with it...

[jordanriver]

I believe you are over reaching the interpretation of these references as being definitive as references to justify the Trinity (?). Interesting topic for a thread.

off topic but I cant let you get away with this

The verses may not prove TRINITY only, but I don't know of a 4th Member of the group of persons that call themselves elohiym (or inspired the writers to use that PLURAL term)

BUT, the verses do demonstrate that when the English word "God" is translated from the Hebrew "elohiym", it refers to not one single person, but a group, and the verses using "us" and "our" demonstrate a plurality, and the exchange in Isaiah 48 demonstrated a plurality and the exchange in Psalms 110 and quoted by Jesus in the synoptic gospels demonstrates the 'GOD' is more than one person

[Christianbookworm]

sorry for participating in off topic exchange.

But I don't know what else to do when the Bible is attacked in discussions not of my choosing.

...cant just let them get away with it...

No need to apologize to me. I've been doing it too. Just wondering if a mod could split off the Trinity discussion.

[NormATive]

Most of what you are describing is eschatology but not apocalyptic. You're using apocalyptic in an unusual way. Eschatology pertains to the 'last' things, but usually with no sense of immediate imminence. Apocalypticism usually indicates that the end times are already upon us or will be very soon.

Sorry, I was using the standard dictionary (Merriam-Webster) definition of apocalyptic, with no time element, although it is true that Paul assumed that it was imminent .:

forecasting the ultimate destiny of the world : prophetic

Eschatology, in my recollection, refers to the "how and when" of the apocalypse.

In Judaism, we don't dwell on the afterlife - many of us don't believe in one. That's my only point. Christianity is ALL ABOUT the afterlife.

This is the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity.

Yeah, I know - there is the "World to Come" in mystical versions of Judaism, but it is still on this Earth.

NORM

[robrecht]

Sorry, I was using the standard dictionary (Merriam-Webster) definition of apocalyptic, with no time element, although it is true that Paul assumed that it was imminent .:



Eschatology, in my recollection, refers to the "how and when" of the apocalypse.

In Judaism, we don't dwell on the afterlife - many of us don't believe in one. That's my only point. Christianity is ALL ABOUT the afterlife.

This is the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity.

Yeah, I know - there is the "World to Come" in mystical versions of Judaism, but it is still on this Earth.

NORM

I do not agree that Christianity is all about the afterlife. There is much more to the teachings of Jesus than that, and belief in the afterlife was not original to him but shared by the Pharisees and some other Jews of his time.

[NormATive]

I do not agree that Christianity is all about the afterlife. There is much more to the teachings of Jesus than that, and belief in the afterlife was not original to him but shared by the Pharisees and some other Jews of his time.

First, I am not talking about then. We don't live in those times. Not one of my Jewish friends goes around talking about the afterlife.

Secondly, you are out of step with your fellow Christians when you say that Christianity does not place emphasis on Heaven and Hell - eternal salvation / damnation. Sure, there are rules you "should" obey in the here and now, but, as has been explained to me over and over and over ad-nausea here on T-Web, they are optional and not required for salvation. Salvation comes from believing in your heart that Jesus is God, that he was crucified as a sacrifice for our sins, that he rose from the dead, and that unless you confess with your mouth these "truths" and repent, you will NOT spend eternity in Heaven (the stated goal).

If you have a different understanding of Christianity, then you should probably be posting in Unorthodox Theology.

NORM