The Achilles' Heel of Protestantism

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Akragon

 

I know that they believe in hidden knowledge, and therefore think they are superior to the folk religions that they hijack. They subscribe to any number of beliefs, whether it is reincarnation, the idea that the physical is evil, or that they hold the secret teaching of mankind.

Gnosticism appeals to people who think of themselves wise or subscribe to conspiracy theories about the mainstream.

I know the mainstream is true because I myself notice how differently the bible reads depending on your state of mind. If you think the mainstream is wrong it reads one way. If you have faith that is traditional it makes sense. Jesus said you must enter the kingdom as a child, so I don't think all these knowledgeable elites understand the gospel.

edit on 23-2-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

Their knowledge is no longer "hidden" my friend...

True gnostics apparently...

• do not accept or believe ALL of the Bible

• do not believe in original sin.

• do not believe that mankind is inherently evil.

• do not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. For the doctrine of blood atonement presents a God who demands the human sacrifice of an innocent man, and any God who demands murder to appease justice is unworthy of worship or adoration.

• do not believe in hell or final judgment. For the doctrine of hell and eternal torment are immoral beliefs, and the doctrine of final judgment perverts and distorts mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.

• do not believe in Jehovah. However, true Gnostics do accept that the biblical Jehovah is a demiurge, an evil monster who would present himself as God in order to confuse mankind with regard to what is truly right and wrong.

• do not believe in a devil which leads people into sin. Humankind has produced enough devils of its own without having to create the fictional variety in order to explain the evil that people do against each other. We are accountable to God for our acts of inhumanity towards each other. There is no devil to bring to account


Not that im a gnostic.. but to disregard their scripture is an error in my humble opinion

reply to post by Akragon


The "Christianity" we know of today is absolutely 180 degrees to what Jesus and the Apostles actually taught 2000 years ago.

The modern shape of Catholicism and Protestantism are both severely heretical nowadays compared with the original articles of faith found in the Apostolic Acts, Gospels, writings on Creation, and Apocalyptic texts. It was Irenaeus himself who corrupted the true teachings of Jesus in the 2nd century with his persecution of the Gnostics.

Both Jesus and his Apostles knew the creator of this world (i.e.. the god of the Old Testament) to be the deciever Satan himself, the lesser god, YHWH, the spawner of Cain. The almighty Heavenly Father, the non-begotten supreme deity who exists yesterday, today and tomorrow is the God of the Apostles and is Christ in flesh. The followers of Jesus experienced the transformative power of the living Holy Spirit firsthand, conquering the profane and deceitful works of the prince of this world becoming reborn as Spirit.. Performers of honest-to-God miracles, they knew experientially of the mystery of the cross and of the mystery of the resurrection. Irenaeus and his successors put an end to the whole of it by bureaucratizing and privatizing the faith.

It behooves anyone who doubts this to read what is now considered by mainstream Christians as Apocrypha, those Apostolic Scriptural works omitted from inclusion in the Bible by iniquitous oligarchs. The mysteries of the Bible are readily unlocked when one is in possession of the key that fits. Those who are one with the Holy Spirit know this to be true.

Originally posted by Akragon
...
True gnostics apparently...

• do not accept or believe ALL of the Bible

• do not believe in original sin.

• do not believe that mankind is inherently evil.

• do not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. For the doctrine of blood atonement presents a God who demands the human sacrifice of an innocent man, and any God who demands murder to appease justice is unworthy of worship or adoration.

• do not believe in hell or final judgment. For the doctrine of hell and eternal torment are immoral beliefs, and the doctrine of final judgment perverts and distorts mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.

• do not believe in Jehovah. However, true Gnostics do accept that the biblical Jehovah is a demiurge, an evil monster who would present himself as God in order to confuse mankind with regard to what is truly right and wrong.

• do not believe in a devil which leads people into sin. Humankind has produced enough devils of its own without having to create the fictional variety in order to explain the evil that people do against each other. We are accountable to God for our acts of inhumanity towards each other. There is no devil to bring to account


Not that im a gnostic.. but to disregard their scripture is an error in my humble opinion

The Orthodox church doesn't believe most of those things you listed either - at least not as black and white as Catholics and Protestants believe them.

So if there are people who are Gnostics because they don't like those ideas you listed, then they might want to consider reading about Orthodoxy. The Gnostic church died and people are trying to reconstruct it from a few remaining scraps of information. Who knows if modern Gnostic beliefs are the same.

I suspect that the Gnostics switched to mainstream Christianity, but some of their ideas trickled into the mainstream in the areas where they lived - which was probably the Eastern churches. (I don't have any basis for that belief other than my intuition and the similarities I've noticed. For example the most important Orthodox church was the Hagia Sophia - "Holy Wisdom". Sophia of course was an important idea in Gnostic beliefs.)

My theory is the Gnostic dispute was actually political and theology was used to conceal this. So when the Gnostics were defeated they simply changed their political affiliation and brought their theology into the Church.

reply to post by cloudyday

. . . Sophia of course was a deity in Gnostic beliefs . . .

In Aristotelian Stoicism, sophia was science, and logos was reason.
I think people have a tendency to overlook what the mainstream philosophical meanings of those Greek words were at the time Christianity was starting out, and they don't have to be automatically looked at in gnostic terms.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by cloudyday

 

. . . Sophia of course was a deity in Gnostic beliefs . . .

In Aristotelian Stoicism, sophia was science, and logos was reason.
I think people have a tendency to overlook what the mainstream philosophical meanings of those Greek words were at the time Christianity was starting out, and they don't have to be automatically looked at in gnostic terms.

edit on 23-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

What you say is true of course. I just find it suspicious that the church was named Hagia Sophia instead of St. Peter's Cathedral or something. After all this was the most important church in Christendom. At that time Rome was very poor and insignificant.

Also there is a heresy in Orthodoxy called Sophianism. I've even read posts on orthodoxchristianity.net from people who apparently believe in a four part trinity with a female Sophia as one of the parts. People who think the Orthodox are just Catholics with more incense don't understand the differences.

On the other hand, I'm not claiming to be an expert on any of this. Personally, I think a Christian is somebody who tries to do what Christ said to do. If God exists, he isn't going to nit pick people about their theological beliefs after they die.

reply to post by wildtimes

. . . Church Practices by Frank Viola . . .

Apparently he is known as the home church guru.
I have this idea of a internet church, where the not so mainstream can get together where in the physical world they would be so sparsely spread out that such a thing would not be practical. I'm going to start up my version of it this Sunday and bought my internet space to run it on. (see my comment on my profile page for more info)

The God of the Old Testament IS the God of the New Testament.

Malachi 1:6-11

A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. You say, 'How have we despised thy name?' By offering polluted food upon my altar. And you say, 'How have we polluted it?' By thinking that the Lord's table may be despised. When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that no evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that no evil? Present that to your governor; will he be pleased with you or show you favor? says the Lord of hosts. And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the Lord of hosts. Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

This is about mass. Same with Daniel's claim of perpetual sacrifice. The only pure sacrifice can be the Lamb of God.

reply to post by 547000

The way this should be viewed is like this:

A son honors his father, and a servant his master.
If then I am a father, where is my honor?
And if I am a master, where is my fear?
says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name.
You say, 'How have we despised thy name?'
By offering polluted food upon my altar.
And you say, 'How have we polluted it?'
By thinking that the Lord's table may be despised.
When you offer blind animals in sacrifice,
is that no evil?
And when you offer those that are lame or sick,
is that no evil?
Present that to your governor;
will he be pleased with you or show you favor? says the Lord of hosts.
And now entreat the favor of God,
that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand,
will he show favor to any of you? says the Lord of hosts.
Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors,
that you might not kindle fire upon my altar in vain!
I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts,
and I will not accept an offering from your hand.
For from the rising of the sun to its setting
my name is great among the nations,
and in every place incense is offered to my name,
and a pure offering;
for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

This passage continues through 2:9, so it is really not right to isolate this part and act like this is all it is saying. The point is not that there was anything wrong with the concept they were instructed in but that the priests were negligent in how they carried it out.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You're missing the big part where is says there a perpetual offering by gentile nations, at all times from rising to setting.

reply to post by 547000

. . . You're missing the big part . . .

Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations," Says the LORD of hosts. (NSRV)

Psalms 50:1
The Mighty One, God the LORD, Has spoken and called the earth From the rising of the sun to its going down. (NSRV)

Isaiah 45:6
That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting That there is none besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; (NSRV)

The two above verses are examples of how this phrase is use to denote the concept of all inclusiveness.

Isaiah 21:2
A distressing vision is declared to me; The treacherous dealer deals treacherously, And the plunderer plunders. Go up, O Elam! Besiege, O Media! All its sighing I have made to cease.

What this above verse illustrates is a construct of participles to create what functioned as a noun in a sentence. This is a correlation with the verse under study in this post which was pointed out by Martin Rehm. The idea being, apparently, or how it seems to me he meant it, is that "In every place incense shall be offered to My name" is a participle that becomes one complete thing, making it a virtual noun, if I can describe it in such fashion.

1:7a You offer defiled food on My altar.
1:8a And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice,
1:8b And when you offer the lame and sick,
2:12c Yet who brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!
3:3d That they may offer to the LORD An offering in righteousness.

Above are the places in Malachi where the bringing of the offering is described.
In 1:11, the word the the thing, offering, as opposed to the act of offering, as in the presentation of the thing, is, ū·min·ḥāh.
In 3:3, the word is, min·ḥāh.

Leviticus 6:15
He shall take from it his handful of the fine flour of the grain offering, with its oil, and all the frankincense which is on the grain offering, and shall burn it on the altar for a sweet aroma, as a memorial to the LORD.

The above verse represents one other (from several) that makes use of the same sort of construct and the root word usage as in our subject verse, in the offering as in the presentation and the offering as in the thing offered, along with a description of what sort of offering it is in general, which is a burnt offering, which also matches up with the root word meanings where it is something that is left to go up in smoke.

The "pure offering" is in relation to the motives of the ones giving the offerings, where The Lord purifies the priests, as described by Malachi in 3:2-4.

Malachi 1:14
"But cursed be the deceiver Who has in his flock a male, And takes a vow, But sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished––For I am a great King," Says the LORD of hosts, "And My name is to be feared among the nations.

Above you see the ending of verse 11 echoed as a refrain. Can this be taken to indicate a status that will come about in the future? Seeing how everything in the passage before and after this verse are about present conditions, then it should be understood that this part about The Lord being great in the Nations are to be taken as speaking of current (to Malachi) times also. But, it should also be taken into consideration the general apocalyptic nature of the book, along with the "east and west" phrase as a device to set the tone, of a vision of the ideal, and the sentence construction which would allow for this ideal situation to be something coming about in the immediate future as an event which brings about those ideal conditions. Malachi is describing a sudden eschatological type event that forces a renewed attitude of trueness to the Law and attitude towards The Lord. It is not, in my opinion, describing a new kind of offering.

To get another break-down of what I am describing in this post, and my earlier post, see "Malachi: The Divine Messenger" by Beth Glazier-McDonald. Malachi and good luck with that, to anyone wanting to venture into it. (read my review on the linked-to page, and the comment to the review, also by me)

Read up on the church fathers. Because you insist on divorcing the Old Testament from Christianity you can't see it. It's quite clearly talking about God no longer accepting Jewish sacrifices but accepting a pure one from Gentiles. Of course it is referring to the future.

The messianic prophecies were written in present tense too. Jesus is quite literally the Word of God.

Originally posted by 547000
Read up on the church fathers. Because you insist on divorcing the Old Testament from Christianity you can't see it. It's quite clearly talking about God no longer accepting Jewish sacrifices but accepting a pure one from Gentiles. Of course it is referring to the future.

The messianic prophecies were written in present tense too. Jesus is quite literally the Word of God.

The last sentence here indicates to me that you have joined forces with the antichrist. You do have a chance to repent of your evil and to join Christianity. The reason I say this is that you are repeating this key slogan of Messianic Judaism which is neither Judaism or Christianity. The purpose of the slogan is to do two things at once: 1. to relegate the status of Jesus to a mere pattern of excellence (but an excellence in the already held beliefs of the Jews), and 2. vindicating them (what is in the preceding parentheses, the now defunct former religious system of laws). Neither of these are correct, in that Jesus never claimed to keep the Law as presented in his time, much less perfectly, and in fact Jesus pointed out the flaws in the Law and set himself above Moses and the Pharisees and the temple priests, as the giver of a New Law, one which preserved the fundamental spiritual principles behind them, that come from the true God, which he knew integrally since he was God.

What you are saying is "quite clear" is not seen at all by the academic level biblical scholars, so it puts your view on a level of fanatical partisanship where you are grasping at any Bible verse you feel you can bend to your will to support your untenable position.
This oracle of Malachi is harping on the priesthood for not performing their tasks rigorously according to the strictest instructions of the Law and attributes this to a general attitude of disrespect towards The Lord. Malachi is not about to accept some other service which is not according to the Law at all. Malachi is saying The Lord desires the offering that the Law spells out but requires a priesthood with the right heart to carry them out and will do what has to be done to change their hearts.

reply to post by jmdewey60


No, YOU are an antichrist because you listen to heretics. Marcionism is a heresy. Jesus' flesh and blood must be consumed because He is the pure offering, the Lamb of God. The Old Testament foreshadowed the New Testament. As long as the sacrifice is offered, we are protected from the Father's wrath. Jesus instituted the Eucharist as the new covenant. There will come a time when the proper sacrifice will be taken away

From apostolic times the Eucharist was seen as a true offering, that truly was the flesh and blood of Jesus. The disciples left in disgust when He told them they would have to consume Him, so your disgust is not a new thing.

reply to post by 547000

. . . your disgust is not a new thing.

You are making this up, where I never said anything about the flesh and blood of Jesus.
I do object to your interpreting the Old Testament to produce a justification for a practice that has gone on for so many centuries without any sort of OT justification.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You expressed disgust in another thread.

Again, I repeat, Marcionism is a heresy. Thinking that the OT was not inspired or that the OT has a different God is this error.

The messianic prophecies were written in the present tense, but Jesus fulfilled them in the future in His first coming. Simply because something is written in present tense does not mean it is not a prophecy about the future, as Isiah shows.

reply to post by 547000

You expressed disgust in another thread.

Thread?
I don't know what you are talking about.
I remember earlier supporting the sacraments of the Church.
I'm just not into deliberately misinterpreting the Bible to make it fit an already held belief.
I'm not a Marcionite.
I converted from a conservative Christian, to a liberal Christian, which means I don't believe in the infallibility of the Bible.
I think there can be things wrong with it such as mistakenly added books which are forgeries.

First of all that interpretation of Malachi has been around since the start of the church. It's certainly not novel.

Secondly you expressed disgust and other protestants called it cannibalism. I don't remember the thread but it was one of them.

reply to post by 547000

First of all that interpretation of Malachi has been around since the start of the church. It's certainly not novel.

How long ago someone made that interpretation, in my way of thinking, is irrelevant, unless it was done by Jesus or an Apostle. Can you cite a canon of a Ecumenical Council?

Secondly you expressed disgust and other protestants called it cannibalism. I don't remember the thread but it was one of them.

Your recollection of the thread is flawed since I would never say something like that. I did make a remark about how it is done, exactly, where I distinguished between two ways of doing it, one way being what the Catholics do is by having a single individual priest officiate over the mass, while the other way is to have a group of elders officiate over it, which was a traditional Reformed way, at least how it was done in the church I grew up in.

reply to post by 547000


54700, your panic is showing.
Dear heart, you are frantically trying to make sense of things that are brand new to your knowledge, and will take decades to 'decode'.

Please, don't dismiss out of hand the people who have been looking into these matters for longer than you've been alive. Try to keep an open mind and let go of your fear and zeal.
Keep asking, keep learning, keep seeking.....and in the meanwhile refrain from attacking others as "anti"-anything.
That tactic will only keep you in the dark.

reply to post by wildtimes


If one loves the truth one has to become a Catholic. What panic are you talking about? It's not my fault people ignore the logical implications of church history.

Before protestantism was born people knew Malachi was referring to mass. For some reason people accept the authority of the Church for NT canon but become stubborn about the authority of the Church for OT canon. The bible did not fall from the sky. Why is the NT canon decided the Word of God, but the OT canon is not?

And why not tell Dewey off about calling people anti-christs? Why only me? Because he agrees with you? Because you think I'm too young to know anything?

The Didache

Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist: but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23—24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, "Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations" [Mal. 1:11, 14] (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Clement of Rome

Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5 [A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice —even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles" [Mal. 1:10-11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist (Dialogue with Trypho 41 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "This is my body." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: "You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will no accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty" [Mal. 1:10-11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. I89]).

Cyprian

If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ (Letters 63:14 [A.D 253]).

Serapion

Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, "Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory." Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues. Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation (Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 13:12-16 [A.D.350]).

Cyril

Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need (Catechetical Lectures 23:7-8 [A.D. 350]).

Ambrose of Milan

We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered (Commentaries on twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389]).

www.staycatholic.com...