Ship of Fools: "Front section of the pew Bible"

Thread: "Front section of the pew Bible" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028681

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

It has been suggested that using the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" in the weekly printed Order of Service might be confusing and off-putting for those new to the church.

Is "First reading Genesis a b. This can be found on page c of the front section of the pew Bible"

and

"Second reading Matthew x y. This can be found on page z of the rear section of the pew Bible"

more accessible for those visiting a church for the first time? Are "Old Testament" and "New Testament" confusing terms for visitors?

How many churches use "front section" and "rear section" in preference to "Old Testament" and "New Testament"? Is it widespread?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I've heard it in evangelical churches. Mind, they're the only ones I've known have pew bibles.

You can solve the problem by using an edition that doesn't restart the page numbering at Matt 1.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

It's a Presbyterian church; they all have pew Bibles. I hadn't realised that other churches didn't.

Replacing 100+ Bibles would be expensive!

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Why would anyone be confused by the terms OT and NT? Surely everyone knows what they are? Even non-Christians.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Perhaps. But I well remember a boy in my Bible class, many years ago who, on being asked to read the first words in the Bible, began, "To the most high and mighty Prince James by the Grace of God ...".

So we mustn't make assumptions.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

What I've never understood is the idea that when you go to a new thing for the first time, you should understand absolutely everything that happens. Lots of popular activities are a little bit confusing the first time you go to them, despite actually being far simpler than Christian theology.

As others have said, non-Christians expect that the page numbers in books don't unexpectedly go back to 1 when you're most of the way through the book. That's the source of confusion, not what the 2 parts of the book are called. The question is whether the confusion is enough to justify the cost of fixing it.

Pew sheets with the week's readings are another option, but some people seem to like readings being literally 'from the bible', not 'from a piece of paper that we're assured contains words found in the bible'

Also, there seems to be an assumption that no-one actually listens to the reading at all, and hence it can't be understood unless you're also reading it yourself. There may be advantages to following along the reading, but it's not so essential that you need to worry if a couple of newbies can't find the page.

If there are pew bibles, I tend to always follow on my smartphone, as pew bibles tend to be translations I don't trust (NIV).

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

OP questions

quote:

Is "First reading Genesis a b. This can be found on page c of the front section of the pew Bible"

and

"Second reading Matthew x y. This can be found on page z of the rear section of the pew Bible"

more accessible for those visiting a church for the first time?

Answer YES

quote:
Are "Old Testament" and "New Testament" confusing terms for visitors?

Answer Possibly

Leon writes:

quote:
If there are pew bibles, I tend to always follow on my smartphone, as pew bibles tend to be translations I don't trust (NIV)

Whole other thread here..What criteria for 'trust' do you use? I'm not asking for a debate on the 'best' translation, but wonder if your smartphone text is in the 'original' Hebrew or Greek texts, and if so which versions?

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:

Leon writes:

quote:
If there are pew bibles, I tend to always follow on my smartphone, as pew bibles tend to be translations I don't trust (NIV)
Whole other thread here..What criteria for 'trust' do you use? I'm not asking for a debate on the 'best' translation, but wonder if your smartphone text is in the 'original' Hebrew or Greek texts, and if so which versions?

Not the original I'm afraid; NRSV or ESV.

To be honest, my trust is somewhat misplaced; more often than not when I read something in the NIV and find myself checking it, all the translations I reach for agree.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

And I would add: the correct choice of bible to read would be a translation using modern scholarship that isn't favored by the wing of the church whose building you're in. That way if there is a debate about translating a passage, you're most likely to see it.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Most Anglican churches I've been to have pew Bibles, including A-C churches.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... being asked to read the first words in the Bible, began, "To the most high and mighty Prince James by the Grace of God ...".

At least it was the Correct Version™ [Devil]

Sorry - as you were. I'll get my coat.

[ 05. November 2014, 13:21: Message edited by: Piglet ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Our pew sheet has the bible reference and then "(p. ## OT/NT)" - which may be less than helpful for visitors. In announcing page numbers, though, I tend not to add anything for the Old Testament readings, on the assumption that people are starting to look from the front. For the NT readings I tend to give the page number and say it is at the back or rear of the pew bibles.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've heard it in evangelical churches. Mind, they're the only ones I've known have pew bibles.

You can solve the problem by using an edition that doesn't restart the page numbering at Matt 1.

I've never heard this, but then again I tend not to frequent evangelical outlets. However, I find pew bibles in about half of Anglican churches, as well as in the Presbyterian and UCC outlets I have attended in recent years; I can think of two local RC (Latins, not easterns) which feature pew bibles, as well as the local Ordinariate franchise. I always like the pew bibles with the apocrypha, as Bel and the Dragon have sustained me through many a sermon.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
And I would add: the correct choice of bible to read would be a translation using modern scholarship that isn't favored by the wing of the church whose building you're in. That way if there is a debate about translating a passage, you're most likely to see it.

My approach exactly which is why I always take my own Bible to church.

Jengie

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

What? Doesn't everybody?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Nope. Never have done.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
What? Doesn't everybody?

My hearing is sufficiently good that I don't need to.

(The most gimlet-like look anyone ever got from me in church was when I was reading one of the Lessons at evening prayer, and I heard the squeeeeeeeeeee of a highlighter pen coming from the front row, courtesy of an earnest-looking bloke who was following every word in his floppy leatherette-covered NIV.)

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Never have. Don't agree with it.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Hebrew Scriptures / Christian Scriptures ... but we don't have pew bibles, and print the readings in the weekly pew sheet

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I've never heard the terms back and front sections of the Bible and would find it very childish to be presented with such a way of using the Bible in church. We always have the readings printed out in our pew sheets and the advantage of this is that people can take the readings home with them. There are many people who don't choose to look at a complete Bible at home and who maybe don't even possess one. We tend to find that the pew Bibles are rarely used on Sundays, wheras people are happy to follow the pew bulletin.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.

To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Our pew sheet has the bible reference and then "(p. ## OT/NT)" - which may be less than helpful for visitors.

That's what we do in our bulletin. As a result, very few readers actually announce the page numbers before the reading, just as the hymn numbers are never announced. We simply annouce the reading and then read it. For those who want to read along, the bulletin tells how.

I have thought many times that it certainly would be easier if they didn't start renumbering pages with Matthew. Seems pointless to me.

And fwiw, our pulpit Bible and pew Bibles are all NRSV. Readers are instructed not to use any other translation unless specifically asked to do so by the minister, in which case the reader will announce the translation being used.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

In our case, at least at Mass, the lessons are for the most part printed in the BCP in full. Most people who attend holy day services or the Office seem fine with just listening to the readings; I've never had a request for page references from anyone.

I know that some evangelical preachers conduct their sermons almost like a Bible study, but that's pretty far from our homiletic tradition. Occasionally we do get guests who will bring their Bibles along, but we're not the sort of place that asks people to open them up and follow references.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I know that some evangelical preachers conduct their sermons almost like a Bible study, but that's pretty far from our homiletic tradition.

This is a debate I am having with a recently-joined member of our church, who cannot understand why I do not make more specific references to the Bible during most of my sermons. But they are usually thematic rather than exegetical - and, I hope, thoroughly infused with the Bible!

BTW I like to simply listen to the Bible read in church; my wife prefers to follow along.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

Is "First reading Genesis a b. This can be found on page c of the front section of the pew Bible"

and

"Second reading Matthew x y. This can be found on page z of the rear section of the pew Bible"

I'd agree with those who say that the issue isn't that people don't know what Old and New Testament mean, but that they don't expect a book to reset its page numbers halfway through. How about:

"1st reading: 2 Kings 2:23-25, page nnn of the Old Testament

"2nd reading: Luke 4:27, page mm of the New Testament.

"(Our Bibles contain the Old Testament before the New Testament, and reset their page numbers to 1 at the start of the New Testament)"

Less confusion, more education.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

An interesting sideline: Does your favorite edition start numbering pages afresh at the beginning of the New Testament? If the pages are all numbered consecutively, why not just say "Page X"?

The church I attend (United Methodist) does have pew bibles, but they do not include the Apocrypha.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

In the one of my churches which has bibles which re-number, we do what it says in the OP except that instead of saying "First reading" etc, we say "Old Testament" or "New Testament" so people get the hang of where these things are if they don't know. And most un-churched don't. And while you perhaps shouldn't expect to understand everything the first time you go anywhere, the more you do understand the more likely you are not to feel so alienated that you won't come back.
I don't like the idea of saying Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Scriptures because that implies that Christians do not look on the Old Testament as scripture.

[ 05. November 2014, 18:39: Message edited by: Cathscats ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Relying on Pew Bibles makes it a bit confusing when the reading is something like the Book of Whoever, Chapter 2 verses 1-3,6-7,12-16, Chapter 3 verses 1-2, and 16. I think that's a major advantage of having printed sheets.

For those who use Pew Bibles, don't most congregants know how to find the books of the Bible without relying on page numbers?

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Relying on Pew Bibles makes it a bit confusing when the reading is something like the Book of Whoever, Chapter 2 verses 1-3,6-7,12-16, Chapter 3 verses 1-2, and 16. I think that's a major advantage of having printed sheets.

For those who use Pew Bibles, don't most congregants know how to find the books of the Bible without relying on page numbers?

Yes and they are more likely to bring their own. Visitors from off the street are a different matter altogether.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

Is "First reading Genesis a b. This can be found on page c of the front section of the pew Bible"

and

"Second reading Matthew x y. This can be found on page z of the rear section of the pew Bible"
I'd agree with those who say that the issue isn't that people don't know what Old and New Testament mean, but that they don't expect a book to reset its page numbers halfway through. How about:

"1st reading: 2 Kings 2:23-25, page nnn of the Old Testament

"2nd reading: Luke 4:27, page mm of the New Testament.

"(Our Bibles contain the Old Testament before the New Testament, and reset their page numbers to 1 at the start of the New Testament)"

Less confusion, more education.

Wow! Is it really that difficult? Or is the world really full of helpless people who know how to do absolutely nothing? Oh well!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

In our church here they say the Bible verse, and the first person who managed to look it up says the page number. It's always a bit of a race who this first person is [Smile]

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Most Anglican churches I've been to have pew Bibles, including A-C churches.

That's interesting. Episcopal churches in the US generally don't have pew Bibles. Too much space taken up by prayer books and hymnals.

When I was a teenager (in a non-denom. church) we used to sneer a bit at Catholics and others who didn't take their Bibles to church. At the time I was unaware that many churches either had pew Bibles or printed out the readings in the Sunday bulletin.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
That's interesting. Episcopal churches in the US generally don't have pew Bibles. Too much space taken up by prayer books and hymnals.

Pew Bibles seem to be fairly common in Episcopal churches in these parts. May be a regional thing.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.

Well not so sure about that. I think the term 'Old' is fairly loaded in this case and many Christians down the ages have taken it to mean 'superceded', with Jews no longer to be considered people of God.

This said, I don't think 'front section' and 'back section' are very useful terms. If a church has pew Bibles then continuous numbering would seem logical!

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Wow! Is it really that difficult? Or is the world really full of helpless people who know how to do absolutely nothing? Oh well!

Agreed, mostly.

quote:
What I've never understood is the idea that when you go to a new thing for the first time, you should understand absolutely everything that happens.

Agreed, entirely.

It really is okay if a newcomer doesn't entirely understand what is going on the first time they show up. Coming as I did from a nonliturgical tradition, I didn't understand the first half-dozen masses I attended, but I trusted that I would understand eventually and just went with it.

Incidentally, the number of people who grasp desperately for their pew bible to follow along with the readings, at least in my experience, is pretty small.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
It really is okay if a newcomer doesn't entirely understand what is going on the first time they show up. Coming as I did from a nonliturgical tradition, I didn't understand the first half-dozen masses I attended, but I trusted that I would understand eventually and just went with it.

I agree to a point. But I'd suggest there's a line between some lack of understanding and a feeling of being completely clueless. There's also a difference between those who come from a different Christian tradition who have some frame of reference and the increasing part of the population that is unchurched and has no frame of reference at all for what we do in church. I think, too, that there are considerations of hospitality.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

This mania for having the entirety of the Holy Scriptures bound up in one book is relatively recent. Perhaps since after the dawn of printing?

Otherwise, we have had a huge number of lectionaries, where the scriptures were divvied up according to when and who read them in the divine service. We've had Gospel Books and Apostoloi. Anciently the NT was divided and bound into Gospels, Acts, the Catholic Epistles, the Pauline Epistles, and the Apocalypse. The Hebrews scriptures were divide into Torah, Prophets, and the Writings.

It was all a function of what one wanted close to hand and how big and cumbersome a scroll or codex one was willing to put up with.

There is no reason one cannot be comfortable with just the pericopes printed in a bulletin for that particular Sunday or Holy Day. Or to do what the Roman Catholics do in the US, print a seasonal missalette that has everything one needs for that season.

Prest-o-change-o. No need for page numbers.

I realize this wouldn't work for all congregations, especially those whose preachers specialize in "flipper sermons," but its worth a thought.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... 'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.

Not to me - doesn't it just refer to the chronological order, i.e. that the people and events described in the Old Testament were earlier than those in the New?

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[

(The most gimlet-like look anyone ever got from me in church was when I was reading one of the Lessons at evening prayer, and I heard the squeeeeeeeeeee of a highlighter pen coming from the front row, courtesy of an earnest-looking bloke who was following every word in his floppy leatherette-covered NIV.)

Was he highlighting the reading as you went along? Seems to me that he'd end up with a highlighted bible?

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

On further reflection, to me 'the front section of the bible' would be the bit that explains the approach taken by the translators and why they're cleverer translators than in rival translations. 'The back section' is the maps.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Was he highlighting the reading as you went along? Seems to me that he'd end up with a highlighted bible?

Maybe he was keeping track of which passages in the bible he'd heard sermons preached on. When he had a highlighted bible, he'd know he understood it all. When he has a nearly-highlighted bible, he knows to search out the church doing a sermon series on Numbers.

(This is a guess; I don't have any evidence that people do that)

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Was he highlighting the reading as you went along? Seems to me that he'd end up with a highlighted bible?

I don't know, but he came dangerously close to me finding him a new place to keep his pen.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In our church here they say the Bible verse, and the first person who managed to look it up says the page number. It's always a bit of a race who this first person is

I like this! It wouldn't fit in the A-C place I go to now, but in others it certainly would have.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

We just say "today's reading is taken from the Fifth Book of Derek, which can be found on page n of the church bibles", and then put it up on the Powerpoint screens which are sited on strategic pillars in the church, so there really is no excuse for not being able to follow along!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
For those who use Pew Bibles, don't most congregants know how to find the books of the Bible without relying on page numbers?

No they don't. For many 'non-evangelicals' the only time they encounter the Bible is when it is read to them in church.

It's a shame, in my opinion, bu it's true.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.

not 'signed up to' but grafted into.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... 'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
Not to me - doesn't it just refer to the chronological order, i.e. that the people and events described in the Old Testament were earlier than those in the New?

In which case, calling them 'the first/second testament' would be less supercessionist.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Oh for goodness sake.

The Old Testament is so-called because that's the title - just like the book about the orphan who weds Mr Rochester is called Jane Eyre.

If newcomers aren't familiar then they can learn, can't they? After all, you wouldn't expect to know everything, including chapter headings about a book you hadn't read so why should they?

I'd have thought there are more important things to worry about than this.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.
not 'signed up to' but grafted into.

Eh?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh for goodness sake.

The Old Testament is so-called because that's the title - just like the book about the orphan who weds Mr Rochester is called Jane Eyre.

If newcomers aren't familiar then they can learn, can't they? After all, you wouldn't expect to know everything, including chapter headings about a book you hadn't read so why should they?

I'd have thought there are more important things to worry about than this.

At the risk of prolonging the tangent, it really isn't the title is it, as much as what we have chosen to call it. You will agree that Jews don't call it that, for example?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Most Anglican churches I've been to have pew Bibles, including A-C churches.

That is not my experience. I dimly remember pew bible in an evangelical church about 39 years ago but I don't remember them in more recent visits to evangelicals. I thought they put everything on a screen nowadays.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by dj_ordinaire

quote:
At the risk of prolonging the tangent, it really isn't the title is it, as much as what we have chosen to call it. You will agree that Jews don't call it that, for example?

And the correct title of the work by Marx and Engels is [I]Das Kommunistische Manifest[I] but if you say 'The Communist Manifesto' people know what you mean because it has entered into common usage.

Yes, I'm aware that my Jewish cousins call The Old Testament the Tanakh.

But to return to the original point: if newcomers don't know the terms they can learn them.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.
not 'signed up to' but grafted into.
Eh?

Romans 9:11

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

Gentiles have been grafted onto the body. It doesn't say anything about the same covenant.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.
not 'signed up to' but grafted into.
Eh?
Romans 9:11

I'm well aware of the passage you link to. It says nothing of being grafted into the old covenant. We have a new and better covenant. The old covenant is dead.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.
not 'signed up to' but grafted into.

We're grafted into the Israel of God. The two covenants are different; they promise and require different things.

And frankly, I don't see how you can be a Christian and not be at least a soft supersessionist; you can believe that the Old Covenant continues to be valid for those Jews who wish to continue to follow it, but the Epistle to the Hebrews is pretty clear about the superiority of the New to the Old.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Might I suggest that, for most visitors to Church (and even many Christians), the terms "Old" and "New" Testament communicate little meaning except for the "front" and the "back" of the Bible!

[If this is true of Christians, it hints at a lack of education by their churches].

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

The terms "Old" and "New" do rather obscure the meaning: the portion of the Bible that dates from about 2300 years ago (or much more) and the portion that dates from about 1900 years ago. How about "very old" and "not quite as old"?

I suppose the Mormons and the Christian Scientists must be amused.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The old covenant is dead.

That is the exact opposite of what Paul argues in Romans where he says that God's promises, the covenant etc. are for ever. Romans 10: 29 says it is irrevocable

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I don't see how you can be a Christian and not be at least a soft supersessionist; you can believe that the Old Covenant continues to be valid for those Jews who wish to continue to follow it, but the Epistle to the Hebrews is pretty clear about the superiority of the New to the Old.

So Roman Catholic aren't Christians? Evangelii Gaudium - their covenant with God has never been revoked

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

And that's why it's a heretical piece of nonsense.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And that's why it's a heretical piece of nonsense.

My Jewish friends lament the orthodoxen for being rabidly antisemitic.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?

leo, the Roman Catholic Church does not believe what you purport and project it to believe. Saying that the Old Covenant was never revoked does not mean we believe it's just the same as the New. Just as saying that baptised Anglicans are members of the Church does not mean the Anglican Church is a branch of the Catholic Church.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So Roman Catholic aren't Christians?

My comment is orthogonal to the thread topic.

Not in some folks' mind. I get asked several times a month, Are you Christian or are you Catholic? in my addiction chaplaincy in an area where ethnic Catholics are thick on the ground. It is evidence of self-serving troublemaking of many of the independent churches working the mission field of prison- and halfway-house-ministry.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?

Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And that's why it's a heretical piece of nonsense.
My Jewish friends lament the orthodoxen for being rabidly antisemitic.

See above.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?
Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.

So God changes his mind?

Jengie

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?
Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
So God changes his mind?

Jengie

It's not a case of God having changed his mind. This is the way it was always meant to be.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?
Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.

Wow. I never had S. Paul down as a heretic.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?
Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
Wow. I never had S. Paul down as a heretic.

Indeed he isn't because this is exactly what he says, that they have been cut off from the olive tree and the way back is through the new covenant.

[ 09. November 2014, 15:09: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?
Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
So God changes his mind?

Jengie
It's not a case of God having changed his mind. This is the way it was always meant to be.

Then God entered the covenant with the Jews on false pretenses. That is to deliberately mislead them about the nature of the covenant.

Jengie

[ 09. November 2014, 17:00: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?
Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
So God changes his mind?

Jengie
It's not a case of God having changed his mind. This is the way it was always meant to be.
Then God entered the covenant with the Jews on false pretenses. That is to deliberately mislead them about the nature of the covenant.

Jengie

Not at all. It was always the intention of God that the old covenant was merely a precursor of the new or a pedagogue, as the Apostle calls it. That the Jews are blind to it is not the fault of God but rather a stiffnecked nation.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Excuse me, but the portrayal of the first covenant is that it is totally God's doing. It is God who promises the Jews that they will be his people. This is the promise to Abraham not the later experience of Sinia with Moses. He makes no condition on that. This is the covenant St Paul refers to in the New Testament by faith. If God can prove faithless in that whatever else, may he not also prove faithless in the present covenant and supplant the church because it was stubborn necked.

Nothing is easy.

Jengie

[ 09. November 2014, 17:21: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Well then, our faith is for nothing, bcause he had regard for people because they've chopped a bit of their willy off. May I suggest that you stop eating bacon butties and start observing the sabbath. But really, if you can't see the absurdity of what you're saying you really haven't understood the gospel.

[ 09. November 2014, 17:35: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

And another thing, if the old covenant is still valid for the Jews, why on earth did our Lord preach the new to them? It just doesn't make sense.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Did Jesus preach a new covenant though? Or did He preach a call to return to the Covenant that the people already had, with an emphasis on the spirit of that Covenant rather than the detail? His public preaching was largely indistinguishable from the Prophets, and no one would claim they were preaching a new covenant.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
the Epistle to the Hebrews is pretty clear about the superiority of the New to the Old.

At the risk of travelling further down south to Kerygmania, the Book of Hebrews was an exhortation, a desperate sermon written and spoken for a rapidly apostatising congregation in a particular context, a part of which was probably situational conflict with the continuing synagogue Jews (even if an early pre-Temple sacking date is posited). As such it is unlikely to be conciliatory. Whether we can maintain that unconciliatory supersessionist soteriology post Auschwitz, and post 1700 years of misguided anti semitic (or more accurately anti-Jewish) hatred that led to Auschwitz, is at the very least rather unlikely and profoundly unchristlike.

[Edit: anti-Semitic, not anti-semiotic ... though perhaps ... ]

[ 10. November 2014, 06:29: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
His public preaching was largely indistinguishable from the Prophets, and no one would claim they were preaching a new covenant.

Surely what is significant about Jesus is not what he taught but his incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection?

Because that is the basis of my faith in God, I use the scriptures that formed him and his community (ie the Hebrew Scriptures) in my worship and understanding of God.

On their own they do convince me.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
the Epistle to the Hebrews is pretty clear about the superiority of the New to the Old.
At the risk of travelling further down south to Kerygmania, the Book of Hebrews was an exhortation, a desperate sermon written and spoken for a rapidly apostatising congregation in a particular context, a part of which was probably situational conflict with the continuing synagogue Jews (even if an early pre-Temple sacking date is posited). As such it is unlikely to be conciliatory. Whether we can maintain that unconciliatory supersessionist soteriology post Auschwitz, and post 1700 years of misguided anti semitic (or more accurately anti-Jewish) hatred that led to Auschwitz, is at the very least rather unlikely and profoundly unchristlike.

[Edit: anti-Semitic, not anti-semiotic ... though perhaps ... ]

So whether or not supercessionism (as you call it) is true is completely irrelevant?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

The whole point of the notion of a Covenant between God and his people, particularly the revelation of same in the Old Testament is that it is predicated on the faithfulness of God in the face of the manifest inability of His people to live up to it. If we are going to predicate a God who institutes a Covenant with His people and then turns around and announces that they are all accursed Christ Killers, bound to walk the earth with ever hand against them, save where the Mass Media has convinced the peons to support the state of Israel, and that he has announced another Covenant, thank you very much, then what criteria do we have for establishing that the Second Covenant counts for Sweet Fanny Adams. Either both the New Testament and the Old Testament are predicated on the faithfulness of God or neither are. Emeritus Pope Benedict may have been a little bit tactless in his phrasing but he was essentially correct when he stood up at Auschwitz and announced that the Nazi attack on the Jews was an attack on the relationship between God and His people.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Well then, Christ died in vain and my faith is also, or so it would seem if the dispensationalists are to be believed. We have a God who distinguishes between Jew and Gentile, holding them to different standards. If you're a Jew all you need to do is cut your foreskin off, not eat pork etc and you'll be alright, even if you conspire to put your Messiah and God to death: you don't need to repent, have faith and be baptised.

Or, what seems more likely to me, it's just crypto-Judaism under guise of Christianity, completely detached from the ancient faith of the Church.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Ad Orientam:

quote:
If you're a Jew all you need to do is cut your foreskin off, not eat pork etc and you'll be alright, even if you conspire to put your Messiah and God to death: you don't need to repent, have faith and be baptised.

Just so we don't misunderstand one another. All Jews, qua Jews are responsible for conspiring and putting the Messiah to death?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Ad Orientam:

quote:
If you're a Jew all you need to do is cut your foreskin off, not eat pork etc and you'll be alright, even if you conspire to put your Messiah and God to death: you don't need to repent, have faith and be baptised.
Just so we don't misunderstand one another. All Jews, qua Jews are responsible for conspiring and putting the Messiah to death?

As a nation, at least, yes.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
His public preaching was largely indistinguishable from the Prophets, and no one would claim they were preaching a new covenant.
Surely what is significant about Jesus is not what he taught but his incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection?

Yes, I agree. But the statement I was commenting on only mentioned His preaching.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As a nation, at least, yes.

What nation? The modern state of Israel? Irrelevant. The people living in Judea at the time of Christ, well at least they had some limited involvement but the surely the majority were unaware of the events in Jerusalem until long after any opinion they had could make a difference? The Sanhedrin who sat in judgement of Jesus? Ah, now there's a group who could mostly be guilty of killing their Messiah. Though, the blame can't be levelled against members of that council not present at the time, nor the few who spoke up for leniency. Much less the entire Jewish people since then. Now, do you have any other insights you'd like to share from your reading of Mein Kampf?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As a nation, at least, yes.
What nation? The modern state of Israel? Irrelevant. The people living in Judea at the time of Christ, well at least they had some limited involvement but the surely the majority were unaware of the events in Jerusalem until long after any opinion they had could make a difference? The Sanhedrin who sat in judgement of Jesus? Ah, now there's a group who could mostly be guilty of killing their Messiah. Though, the blame can't be levelled against members of that council not present at the time, nor the few who spoke up for leniency. Much less the entire Jewish people since then. Now, do you have any other insights you'd like to share from your reading of Mein Kampf?

Then maybe you should condemn St. Peter and St. Stephen then. Read what they have to say in the Acts of the Apostles, or maybe they read Mein Kampf too? It might be handy to get rid of the Gospel according to St. John as well. This is nothing more than the ancient faith of the Church which has been disregarded by some because they have fallen under the influence of the Judeo-masonic lodge.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Then maybe you should condemn St. Peter and St. Stephen then. Read what they have to say in the Acts of the Apostles

Yes, Peter addresses a crown in Jerusalem only a few months after a similar crowd had called for Barrabas to be freed, saying "you asked that a murderer be freed to you". Stephen stood before the Sanhedrin no more than a couple of years after the same council condemned Jesus to death and says "you have betrayed and murdered [the Righteous One]". Yep, quite clearly speaking to all Jews everywhere and all subsequent generations.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

[dons Hostly Maple Leaf Tuque]

(Nice, isn't it -- the Tuque, I mean -- last used a couple of years ago in Purgatory, but now, for the first time...)

Enough. This is not the place to discuss anti-semitism or not. It is not the place to discuss the meaning of scripture passages. It is not the place to indulge in covert personal attack.

If I could move this to an appropriate board I would, but none of the other boards covers all the ways in which this discussion has moved on from a perfectly acceptable OP.

If I thought that exhortation would haul the discussion back to what this board is about, I would exhort you all. But I don't. So instead, I'm closing the thread.

John Holding
Ecclesiantics Host
[removes hostly Maple Leaf Tuque]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0