They actually call him Christ, the Messiah. المسيح al-Masīḥ. On the other hand, everybody keeps using that word, they do not think it means what you think it means & vice versa. I mean, Jews don’t think ha-Moshiach is God either.
Going back to the OP, I think there is a subtlety being missed: I’ve heard Evangelicals deny that Christianity is a religion. Their contention is that “religions” are human creations and by definition false, while Christianity is given by God and is therefore true. Thus denying what most people mean by both terms. I think most Christians would resist agreeing that Christianity is primarily a philosophy.
Of course. But then everybody says that about their own religion. ECs are nothing special in that.
The RC uses the passage where Jesus was supposed to have said when he changed Peter’s name from Simon and said: You are Peter(meaning rock) and on this rock I build my church. But It is my belief (and I could be wrong) but I think the word Peter comes from a form of latin for Rock, so doubt that Jesus would have used it!It is also quoted that He then gave Peter the right to bind or loose any thing etc. and it would be bound or loosend in Heaven.
The RC uses the passage that Jesus is supposed to have said to Simon(Jesus changed his name to Peter) and is quoted;" You are Peter(meaning rocK, and on this rock I build my church ans the gates of hell shall nort prevail against it, What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what you loose will be loosed in heaven, they claim that is Jesus making Peter the head of Jesus church.
I am not sure but I think the word petra means rock in Latin and so I doubt that Jesus would have used a latin word, but it could be in the translation of a monk who wrote the passage.
[QUOTE=monavis;15764371
]
Since the Bble was taught to be the word of God by the early bishops of the RC and Orthodox churches,( after Constine’s time), then, if one takes the Bible to be the word of God they are then believing in the Bishops, who used the bible for 700 years as such until the split with the Orthodox church. They also were responsible for stating that it was inspired by God, and many people belive in those humans!
[/QUOTE]
As a post script: When one uses the Bible as the word of God they are in reality taking the word of the Bishops of the early church so in a sense they are giving the Roman and Orthodox Bishops the rights to be called the author of the Bible. With out the early Bishops calling the Bible the word of God they would have no reason to believe it is inspired, or called the word of God, because it is in reality the word of humans!
Just to be clear, petrus is a Greek word, not Latin. Would Jesus have spoken Greek? Possibly. He grew up in Nazareth, not far from the city of Sepphoris, which was a cosmopolitan city. However it is more likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic - kepha is the Aramaic word, from whence we derive “Cephas” as another name for Peter.
It’s both. Petros is the original Greek form. Petra is the Latin loan version. It appears that Cephas was the name Jesus actually* gave Simon, and that it was translated into Greek or Latin later.
*assuming any of it actually happened, of course.
A Bloomberg article reported a charity where the head makes $20 million. The charity is in charge of shipping inspection. The author thinks that the operation was a for-profit one in everything but name and tax treatment. So, 401 3(c) abuse is rampant according to one reporter.
FYI only: I agree that if the IRS started cracking down, that religious organizations would be very far down on the list.
Don’t see anything about celibate old men in dresses speaking infallibly.
I think the words," what you bind on Earth would be bound in Heaven", would give the authority. At least that is my understanding of where infallibility comes from.
Well you can make anything mean anything you want if you try hard enough.
Celibacy and the language of the liturgy are not beliefs. They are disciplines of the church and no one in the church would claim otherwise.
The concept of saints begins in the letters of Paul which Christians certainly consider part of the bible.
The papacy issue is already being discussed in this thread.
The prohibition against ordaining women is rooted in a continuous practice of over 1900 years. (It is also being challenged–and the challenge is meeting strong resistance, of course.)
That is why Christianity is so divided,each person translates a passage to fit their beliefs. Few take it literally.
Could the Pope change them without speaking ex cathedra? If he cannot, then it would be hard to argue the distinction between disciplines and beliefs.
Do you know who else didn’t think their way of life was a religion?
That is a particularly odd view.
There is no “belief” in celibacy because it has been imposed (and relaxed) on several occasions by both popes and councils without ever being considered an ex cathedra proclamation. There have been many periods in history where celibacy was not enforced. What sort of “belief” is that? Even today, the Catholic Eastern Rite churches do not enforce celibacy. (We’re not talking about the Orthodox, simply Catholic churches that do not follow the Latin rite–Maronites, Chaldeans, Greek Catholic, etc.). In addition, priests from the Anglican communion have been permitted to “switch teams” remaining married if they were married before ordination.
Similarly, there has never been a “belief” that the liturgy must be celebrated in Latin. It was the practice of the Latin Rite church to celebrate it in Latin, (something that was changed at the urging of the people at the Second Vatican Council), but that was simply a hold-over from the ages when Latin was the common language in the Western Roman Empire. It was never a “belief” that God ordained it. There have been several other rites through the ages. Most of them died out when the languages faded out of use, (occasionally with politics getting involved). The Maronite Rite worships in Syriac. The Chaldean Rite worships in a separate dialect of Syrian. The Greek Catholics worship in Greek.
A belief is something that is propounded as a truth to be accepted from God. Neither language nor celibacy are considered anything of the sort and both are recognized as being human decisions to meet the needs of the various churches. (I am sure that there were some Catholics in the 1960s who thought that Latin had been handed down by Jesus and were upset by the changes made by Vatican II–just as one occasionally hears about Protestants who supposedly believe that the bible was handed down in English in the King James Version–but the church has always recognized that the language of worship was simply a choice to be made by the church.)
I’m a particularly odd person. As usual you’ve given me much to think about. It had never occurred to me to separate beliefs from disciplines. Not sure if I am comfortable with that, but Googling shows that it is a common way to thimk
Yeah, theory vs. praxis. The classic split, albeit the two are always intertwined, always good debate fodder. IIRC there was some principle from the early church onward that liturgy precedes theology, putting praxis over theory.