Confession in Protestant Denominations

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Beside the Greek Orthodox and Catholic denominations, do other Christian denominations have private confession?

I know that the Protestant Revolution/Reformation did not throw out private confession (although the theology behind absolution and the sacrament were), but over the years Protestantism has discarded more and more aspects of rituals and other aspects that "smack" of Catholocism. So what is the standard practices today in such denominations as the Protestants, Methodist, etc.?

God bless,

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 24, 2003

Answers

Typically they believe in direct confession to God, and they reject the concept of a "mediator" between them and God. Of course, the priest is not a mediator. He is a minister of God's grace, but they don't recognize the difference. They emphasize the scriptural injunction that "God alone can forgive sin" (Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21). Or, to be more accurate, they emphasize their own interpretation of those passages. Catholics of course also recognize that God alone can forgive sin - the idea comes from a Catholic book - but we allow Him the option of doing so however He pleases. And, we accept that His granting to priests the power to minister His forgiveness, as recorded in John 20:23, is a clear indication of how He intended to do so. The Protestant position not only acknowledges that God alone can forgive, but also demands that He do so the way they think it should be done.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 25, 2003.

Paul,

I appreciate your wonderful insights, but I'm looking for specifics. Do any other denominations beside Catholics and Greek Orthodox practice one-on-one confession with their ministers?

For example - Lutherans (possible), Methodist (really doubt it), High Anglicans (also doubt it), etc.

God bless,

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 25, 2003.


Paul or Hollis can you give any other scripitual refrences for confession through a priest? Ive struggled to understand the advantages of confession through a priest, if God is all powerful and all knowing then he must be aware of my willingness to seek forgiveness without a priest. God must be aware whats happening in my heart? Why is a third party necessary, placing a man between our private relationship with God. A cynic would se it as a ancient tool for man to control his fellow man and destort Gods wishes. Im sure theres a logical answer- confession is something Ive always taken for granted and never really though about. Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 25, 2003.

John 20 22-23

22 and 23 Refers to the power of the HOLY GHOST.

20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jesus empowered ALL of the disciples there. This power was not granted to "the priests" it was granted to APOSTLES. More accurately they were to preach salvation, that is the only way for sins to be remitted. The power they received was shown when Paul struck Elymas blind and Peter struck Ananias and Sapphira dead. Without the Holy Ghost in verse 22 they would have NO power.

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.


The Bible does teach us to confess to one another. However, it strictly says FAULTS. Meaning when offend someone to confess that to them.

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Confessing to a priest is not in the Bible. Sorry guys Paul won't be able to show you that.

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.



Bottom line is that the Word of God is unequivocal in this matter. If you're not Catholic, you may not understand or believe in the Word of God (i.e. Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition as faithfully handed on and interpreted by the Magisterium). But that is for another thread.

One thing to note here is that psychological studies have again and again shown the true effectiveness (just on a psychological level) of Catholic confession. So, Kiwi, it's shown to be a good idea (beside the fact it was instituted by Christ as the primary - under normal conditions - means for the forgiveness of one's sins). (Maybe God knew what he was doing when He instituted this?)

There are situations when going to a priest for sacramental confession is not possible. In such cases (e.g. you get in an accident and are at the point of death), a perfect act of contrition will suffice for the forgiveness of sins, but this also has the requirement to go to sacramental confession with a priest as soon as (if) the opportunity presents itself.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 25, 2003.


Once again, that is not the intent of this thread. I want specifics about denominations who have some form of confession.

For those wanting to read more about Catholics and the sacrament of confession, click here.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 25, 2003.


In a nutsheel Hollis said "you arent Catholic, the Catholic church is right, and sense you are not Catholic you are wrong".

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.

"One thing to note here is that psychological studies have again and again shown the true effectiveness (just on a psychological level) of Catholic confession."

Zen and meditation has be psychologically shown to calm and have psychological effectiveness however that does not remove sin. Again a moot point.

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.


thanks Hollis

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 25, 2003.


Hollis, I perhaps say a couple of things on this subject:

Anglicans can go to their priest for private confession, but in my experience and observation this is rare. The emphasis is on the public confession in the liturgy, and most are content with that.

In practice many Protestants go to their minister or more senior Christian layperson for counselling, and this often becomes a "confession" of sorts. But their Biblical interpretation don't allow the sort of pronoucement of forgiveness they would get in the Catholic confession (they'd be horrified!), so usually the minister prays with them for God's forgiveness, which they receive and accept directly from God through their faith in Christ.

This is the most common practice when one is overwhelmed by some crisis. Otherwise one just prays for forgiveness on one's own, directly to God through Christ.

It's also possible, and encouraged in some groups, to make a public confession before one's whole congregation. This dramatic event is usually reserved for big life changes, as you might imagine!

I can't say about the Orthodox, the Coptic, etc. I could ask one, but so could you. ;^)

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.


But how Scriptural is it to "go directly to God" for forgiveness, when Jesus instructed His Apostles (the first priests) to forgive sins? "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them, if you hold them bound, they are held bound." Why didn't He say, "If anyone is troubled by his sins, bring them directly to Me!" Clearly, he established confessing to His priests as the appropriate means to rid ourselves of the stain of sin. Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), February 25, 2003.

Hi Everyone:

I believe that the Lutherans practice confession (at least the Missouri Synod and perhaps Wisconsin Synod).

Kiwi, yes, you can go to God with your confession, but unless God speaks to you in an audible voice, you will not hear the words "You are forgiven!" Words are extraordinarily powerful. When the priest pronounces these words, he is breaking the chain of sin, releasing the captive, and setting him free. It is a great gift of grace to "hear" the words.

Anna brings up the best point, I think, scripturally. This admonition by Jesus to the apostles is the most troublesome for Bible believing Protestants -- that Christ gave extraodinary authority to the apostles with regard to forgiveness. I know, before I became Catholic, my friends and I would ponder that scripture, and never could come up with a believable interpretation. It NEVER occurred to us that it really meant what it seemed to mean.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 25, 2003.


Dear Anna,

You make a good point!

I should let the Protestants handle this one, but I'll make a stab.

The passage you quote (John 20:23), as argued above, is from the gift of Jesus's Spirit to the disciples in general, not just to the apostles. There's no reason to say this is an exclusive gift, only for priests.

In fact, Protestants (and Anglicans) believe that all Christians are priests, anyway -- "He made you a kingdom of priests ..." , etc. I'm not sure, but I believe that Catholic doctrine also allows any Catholic to act as a priest to administer sacraments in an emergency, if no priest is present.

The general theme of the New Testament is that forgiveness comes directly from God (as in the Lord's prayer, where no one waits for the priest to forgive them!) or through the intermediary of Christ (who is also God, of course), as in 1 Tim 2:5 or more generally as a frequent theme in the Apostle Paul's letters. Some, no doubt, could post very passionately on this subject, so I'll let them.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.


This is an interesting discussion folks.

The Charismatic Episcopal Church practices confession as a sacrament.

At one point a few years back, I did some research into early church confession practices. One thing I remember clearly was that it wasn't universally accepted right away, perhaps for the very reasons stated here on this thread. There are verses that direct our confession to God alone and others to one another (if we've sinned against each other) and others indicating the power to bind and forgive sins and having that honored in Heaven.

My denomination (the CEC referenced above) practices confession as a sacrament, but the way they teach it, it has a special authority and accountability to help people to break free from the bondage of habitual or serious sin that is not present with simple direct confession to God alone. Forgiveness can be achieved with direct confession, but some serious sins may require the anointing and unction of the sacrament of confession to break free from the power of sin's hold on us. Also, many sins have a demonic hold on people and when a priest prays for the confessor, there is an opportunity for deliverance from that hold - think in terms of alcoholism, drug addiction, pornography, adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft . . . such sins have such a powerful hold on people, that they need more than just forgiveness, they need deliverance.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.



Official states:
In a [nutshell] Hollis said "you [aren't] Catholic, the Catholic church is right, and [since] you are not Catholic you are wrong".
That's close, but not exactly right. More accurately, I'm saying that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church with the gift of preserving and handing on the Deposit of Faith without error (guided and protected by the Holy Spirit) to all generations until He comes again. So to disagree (or even obstinately disbelieve or doubt) anything held forth by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as being part of this Deposit of Faith makes one wrong. Being a Catholic doesn't make one right. Agreeing with the Magisterium does (whether you are Catholic or not). Hence, disagreeing with the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals does make one wrong (Catholic or not).
Zen and meditation has be psychologically shown to calm and have psychological effectiveness however that does not remove sin. Again a moot point.
I made it clear at the beginning what the theological reason was for this belief. My response about the psychological benefit was addressed to Kiwi stating a reason why God may have chosen to have confession and forgiveness of sins the way He did. It wasn't to argue "if", but "why".

God bless,

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 25, 2003.


Dave and Origen,

Thanks! Finally responses to the original intent of this thread!

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 25, 2003.


Gail,

Oops! Thanks to you also.

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 25, 2003.


Hi Hollis and everyone:

It seems to me the problem with interpreting the verse to apply to ALL believers, would also mean that ALL believers would have the ability, or right, to RETAIN sins. Because remember He says, "whosoever sins you retain are retained." That is the portion of the verse that is problematic for the broader interpretation. Then you have a situation where EVERYONE can withhold forgiveness. That seems inconceivable to me!

Also, as mentioned above, there was some dispute about confession and forgiveness, but the controversy was whether to continue the exasperating practice of confessing ones sins openly in front of the WHOLE congregation, which was the practice for many many years. The private confession was actually a concession from the rather brutal practice of public confession.

I think Dave had the most excellent point about being set free from bondages through verbal confession, and absolution. Even Alcoholics Anonymous knows that confession truly is good for the soul and requires such in the 4th step of the 12 step program.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 25, 2003.


"Paul or Hollis can you give any other scripitual refrences for confession through a priest? Ive struggled to understand the advantages of confession through a priest, if God is all powerful and all knowing then he must be aware of my willingness to seek forgiveness without a priest. God must be aware whats happening in my heart? Why is a third party necessary, placing a man between our private relationship with God. A cynic would se it as a ancient tool for man to control his fellow man and destort Gods wishes. Im sure theres a logical answer- confession is something Ive always taken for granted and never really though about. Blessings"

Hey Kiwi,

Sorry for responding so late. I hope Paul and Hollis donít mind me stepping in with my 2 pennies.

The way I see it, confession is not for the benefit of God, so much as it is for our own benefit. That is, we being creatures of the senses might not fully comprehend the forgiveness of God if we simply say, "God forgive me". To have the priest, a representative of God, say, "you are forgiven", gives us that human interaction to satisfy the need for forgiveness through tangible means.

Also noteworthy, is that even if you confess to God with your whole heart and soul and wish to change your ways, unless God shouts down to you, there is no feedback on how specifically you may mend your life. Usually when you confess to a priest, he also gives you tips on how to stay in a state of Grace.

Now I know that there will be those who post in response, "but God will be with you, and help you. And if you really pray, then God will be your counsel". And I know this... If this is how He wants to do it, then it will be done. However, if we note through history, and through the Bible, how specifically God works, we understand that God works with us through others. God didn't go directly to Mary, he sent her an angle. God didn't speak directly to Moses, it was a burning bush. God created our physical senses, and in communication with us, He tailors to these senses. Thus, the Seven Sacraments: Outward SIGNS, instituted by Christ, to give us grace.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.


Another point of Kiwi's comment has apparently not yet been addressed and it is an important one:
Why is a third party necessary, placing a man between our private relationship with God?
This concept of private relationship, although there is a valid aspect to it, often stems from a novel idea brought in by the Protestant "reformers" in an attempt to diminish the role and authority of the Church. That view is contrary to how God has continually revealed Himself and how He has work throughout Salvation History. The role of the community with a hierarchical authority and the special role of the priesthood can not be neglected. God has instituted His Church and the priesthood with a special role. We have a necessary (God ordained) dependence upon this. This concept of "we don't need 'religion'" or the "personal relationship with Jesus" (intentionally downplaying the role of the Church) is uniquely Protestant and not part of God's revelation.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 25, 2003.


God supplied a ram which was caught by its horns in a bush. Did God say "Abraham get that ram, form a church, get some members and then all those that go to that church and believe in that church symbolically get the blood of that you sacrificed as well" NO. He did not say that Abraham sacrifice the ram and it covered the sin. Time and time again the sacrifice of innocent blood covered sin in the old testament. No where in the old testament do you see Church affilation equated to blood and remission of sins.

Romans 10

That if thou shalt CONFESS with THY MOUTH the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the HEART man believeth unto righteousness; and with the MOUTH confession is made unto SALVATION

Explain that passage. How is that not personal?

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.


Thief on cross...

Luk 23:40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? Luk 23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Did the thief say, "Jesus I would like to be in the Catholic church, and would like a priest to forgive me of my sins through you and would like to be in the true church of God and I recognize the Catholic church as the true church"

Nope he didn't. He said something between him and Christ. He said this "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." THAT IS PERSONAL.

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.


Dear official,

The thief made a commitment to follow Jesus Christ. Belonging to the Church Jesus founded was the only way to live out such a commitment. Competing manmade churches had not yet been founded. Therefore, a commitment to Christ meant a commitment to the Church He founded, and full acceptance of everything that such a commitment entailed.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 25, 2003.


"The thief made a commitment to follow Jesus Christ. "

Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

That is all the thief said. He acknowledged Christ as the Saviour and his coming Kingdom. Paul don't read words that aren't there. Stop misquoting scripture.

-- official (official@official.com), February 26, 2003.


Dear official,

So you don't believe that accepting Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation?? Jesus told the man he was saved. Therefore the man must have accepted Jesus. What else could have been responsible for his salvation? What he said to Jesus was clearly an expression of faith, and Jesus, of course, recognized it as such.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 26, 2003.


"God supplied a ram which was caught by its horns in a bush. Did God say "Abraham get that ram, form a church, get some members and then all those that go to that church and believe in that church symbolically get the blood of that you sacrificed as well" NO. He did not say that Abraham sacrifice the ram and it covered the sin. Time and time again the sacrifice of innocent blood covered sin in the old testament. No where in the old testament do you see Church affilation equated to blood and remission of sins."

Christ was never equated to that ram. That ram wasn't sacrificed for all. Christ IS however refered to as the Passover Lamb, the Lamb of God. Now, during the Passover (refer to Exodus), God did indeed tell them to sacrifice a Lamb AND to do it over and over again in rememberance, which they did.

"The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbour, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the door-frames of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. 9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire&emdash; head, legs and inner parts. 10 Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. 11 This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover. 12 On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn&emdash; both men and animals&emdash; and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. 13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. 14 This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD&emdash; a lasting ordinance."

All of Isreal, the Jewish people, belonged to God's Church - the same Church that would later become the Catholic Church.

Christ became the Passover Sacrifice, His blood being shed for all.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), February 26, 2003.


Official said:

Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

That is all the thief said. He acknowledged Christ as the Saviour and his coming Kingdom. Paul don't read words that aren't there. Stop misquoting scripture.

Paul said:

So you don't believe that accepting Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation?? Jesus told the man he was saved. Therefore the man must have accepted Jesus. What else could have been responsible for his salvation? What he said to Jesus was clearly an expression of faith, and Jesus, of course, recognized it as such.

The thief made a commitment to follow Jesus Christ. Belonging to the Church Jesus founded was the only way to live out such a commitment. Competing manmade churches had not yet been founded. Therefore, a commitment to Christ meant a commitment to the Church He founded, and full acceptance of everything that such a commitment entailed.

What part of my post did you not understand? The part where I said he acknowledged Christ as the Saviour or the part where I said for you to not read words that aren't there? You are saying that basically that the thief was Catholic because of his profession of faith right before death. That is not true. The thief was on death row. Like many other death row inmates he made a profession of faith right before death. So if Charles Manson were to accept Jesus as his saviour right before death would he be a Catholic and go to heaven? Because that is all the thief on the cross did, nothing more.

-- official (official@official.com), February 26, 2003.


Dear official,

If someone accepts Jesus, they become Christian - would you agree? Now if that happened today, it would not automatically mean they would become Catholic, since there are now innumerable unauthorized, manmade versions of Christianity in addition to the Church Christ actually founded. However, for the first 1,000 years of Christianity the Catholic Church was the only show in town. If you became Christian, you became Catholic. There was NO other option. Therefore if the thief accepted Christ, and if he thereby became Christian, then by definition he became Catholic.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 26, 2003.


Paul,

What happened to a Jew that accepted Christ within that time period of 0-1000A.D were they Catholic too?

-- official (official@official.com), February 26, 2003.


Official,

It looks like Paul is doing a fine job here addressing some of the questions raised by my postings, so I'll let him continue to respond. But I do want to make one point about the "personal" aspect of Christianity. There is no and should not be a dichotomy between a personal relationship with Jesus AND membership in His Body, the Church. The personal act of faith once one has reached the age of reason is required for salvation and the Holy Spirit wishes to dwell within each person in an intimate union in a dialogue of love. But the Church is part of this and should not be seen as a hindrance, but via the sacraments, essential and a great aid in accomplishing this.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 26, 2003.


Dear official,

What happened to a Jew that accepted Christ within that time period of 0-1000 A.D.? Were they Christian? If "no", why not? If "yes", reread my post above.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 26, 2003.


So you are calling Jews that accepted Christ within that period Catholic? I'm sure that would get a good laugh out of them.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 27, 2003.

You don't seem to understand, Ric. Catholics are Christians.

That means that the Jews who converted, became Christians (Christ- followers). And due to the fact that there was only ONE Christian Church, the Universal (Catholic) Church, they were Catholics. The Church has always been Catholic (that is "universal"), it just took some time to adopt the actual name Catholic. If you told them they were Catholic, they'd agree! Because they belonged to ONE universal Church. Now, if you called them baptists, episcapalians, Lutherans, etc. then they might laugh. They might do worse if you called them Protest(ants).

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), February 27, 2003.


It actually didn't take that long for the word "Catholic" to come into the Christian vocabulary. St. Ignatius of Antioch is recorded to use the word around the year 100 and offers no explanation for the use of the word, assuming his audience (Christians) were well aware of the term.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 27, 2003.


Wrong again.

This is from a Jew.

Messianic Jews Among the 14 million Jewish people there is a group of perhaps twenty or thirty thousand people, born Jews, who believe in the Torah and the rest of the Tenach and practice Jewish customs and religion. They also believe in Jesus. Some, if not most of them, prefer to call Him by His Jewish name, Yeshua. Although small in number, they are a vocal group, constantly challenging the Jewish spiritual and secular authorities with their presence, demanding recognition as Jews. It would be easiest for these Jewish believers, among whom is also the writer of these lines, to accept the advice of rabbinic leaders and put aside our belief in Jesus. The Jewish authorities work very hard to achieve it. Organizations and individuals spend their time and hundreds and thousands of dollars towards this end. Among the best known are the Peilim, Karen Yeladdenu, supported by the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Israel, and many more who do it as a full or part time job.

Why do Messianic Jews resist? What lies behind their obstinancy, not only continuing to believe themselves but also spreading their faith to others? The answer as we see it is spiritual. This spiritual aspect can be summarized as follows:

Prophecies Demand It

We believe in Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah because He alone gives sense to the words of our Jewish prophets. There is Isaiah 53 with its minute description of the suffering servant who was despised and rejected, afflicted with pain and stripes, by whose "stripes we are healed." He then dies, is buried, yet is revived and suffers all this "for the affliction of my (Isaiah the prophet's) people." All this can best be applied to one person only - Yeshua of Nazareth. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 98) teaches that this chapter refers to Messiah. The Targum of Jonathan begins the passage with the words Ha yatslakh avdee Mashikha, "Behold my servant the Messiah shall prosper. .. " Common sense says it must refer to Jesus.

The same goes for many other prophecies which speak of the time of His birth, like Daniel 9:26: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, ... (The city and sanctuary were destroyed A.D. 70. Messiah had to come and be cut off before then.) The manner of His birth in a supernatural way is recorded in Isaiah 7:14: Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 9:6 (5 in Heb.) says:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. The place of his birth is foretold by Micah, the prophet in verse 5:2 (5:1 in Hebrew): But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

The manner of His death is found both in Psalm 2 2:17, "they pierced my hands and my feet" (Masoretic text - "Like a lion they are at my hands and my feet"), and in Zechariah 12:10, "They shall look unto me whom they have pierced," which the Talmud in Sukkah 52 applies to Messiah ben Joseph.

We have heard arguments against His Messianic claims by the fact that some prophecies like Isaiah 2 (breaking swords into plowshares) and Isaiah 11 Lamb and lion dwelling together) have not been fulfilled as yet and that our explanations for a future fulfillment by His second coming creates too long a hiatus (of close to 2,000 years). But what is 2,000 years in the sight of God, waiting patiently for His people to respond and accept His Anointed One - Yeshua, ben Elohim?

Reprinted from The American Messianic Jewish Quarterly Reprinted with permission of The Messianic Literature Outreach 6161 Busch Blvd., Suite 205 Columbus, Ohio 43229

Jews that accepted Christ NEVER called themselves Catholic in the past nor in the present. They called themselves MESSIANIC JEWS.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 27, 2003.


Quote from a MESSIANIC JEW.

WHAT IS MESSIANIC JUDAISM?

Messianic Judaism is a biblically based movement of Jewish people who have come to believe in Yeshua as the promised Jewish Messiah of Israel. Yeshua is the Hebrew name for Jesus (which means "Salvation").

Today, there are tens of thousands of Messianic Jews in the United States alone. Some have estimated the number to be as high as 100,000. Messianic synagogues are springing up in almost every major city across the country.

Other nations such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, England, France, Holland, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, and South Africa are experiencing a growing movement of Messianic Jews as well.

Is it Jewish to Believe in Jesus?

To some, the concept of a Jew believing in Yeshua seems to be a contradiction. The reason is, many people have a dichotomy set up in their minds. On the one hand, you have Jews and Judaism and on the other hand, Christians and Christianity. You are either one or the other...so the thinking goes.

But this simple dichotomy is in reality not so simple. If we go back 2000 years we find that Yeshua was a Jew living in a Jewish land among Jewish people. All the apostles were Jewish as well as the writers of the New Covenant and for many years this faith in Yeshua was strictly a Jewish one.

From the Book of Acts and other historical evidence, many believe that in the first century there were literally hundreds of thousands of Messianic Jews (Acts 2:41, 2:47, 4:4, 6:7, 9:31, 21:20). In addition, there were Messianic Synagogues scattered throughout the Roman Empire and beyond (James 1:1, 2:2).

These first century Messianic Jews remained highly loyal to their people.

There they stated that there were FIRST CENTURY MESSIANIC JEWS, they did not call themselves Catholics. Why do you?

http://www.beitechad.org/beliefs/beliefs.html

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 27, 2003.


Ric,

Could you show me the term "Messianic Jew" in any part of the Bible? Any translation would do.

Thanks,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 27, 2003.


Mateo,

I did a search in the following versions.

New International Version New American Standard Bible The Message Amplified Bible New Living Translation King James Version English Standard Version Contemporary English Version New King James Version 21st Century King James Version American Standard Version Worldwide English (New Testament) Young's Literal Translation Darby Translation Wycliffe New Testament New International Version - UK

The term Catholic did not appear once. What does that prove?

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 27, 2003.


New International Version

New American Standard Bible The Message

Amplified Bible

New Living Translation

King James Version

English Standard Version

Contemporary English Version

New King James Version

21st Century King James Version

American Standard Version

Worldwide English (New Testament)

Young's Literal Translation

Darby Translation

Wycliffe New Testament

New International Version - UK

Easier to read....

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 27, 2003.


Another Messianic Jew quote.

MESSIANIC JUDAISM is the belief that Yeshua is the redeemer spoken of in the Tenach [O.T.]. That He is the Messiah for whom our Jewish people all over the world, and throughout history have been waiting for. There is much "alien" culture that surrounds Gentile Christianity, which makes it unpalatable to most Jewish people. Jews will nearly always reject the Gentile Jesus as being the Messiah, but will much more readily accept the Jewish Yeshua as being their Messiah.

Most Messianic Jews are much more "zealous for the Law (Torah)" than their Gentile Christian counterparts. In this, they are following the example of the first century Messianic Jews, who were also "zealous for Torah" (Acts 15:19-21; 21:17-27).

Most Messianic Jews refrain from calling themselves "Christians", which is Greek terminology. They prefer more Hebraic terms, such as "Messianic Jews". The first use of the term Christian was in Antioch, among the Gentile believers (Acts 11:26). Rav Shaul (Paul), as a Jew, simply preferred to say, "I am a Jew." The sect of Jewish believers in Yeshua was also called "the Way," not to be confused with the modern cult of the same name (Acts 24:14;22). The Jewish believers were also called Nazarenes, not to be confused with the modern Christian denomination of the same name.

CLEARLY they called themselves MESSIANIC Jews, not Catholics and al also refrained from using the Greek/Gentile term Christians.

http://www.umjc.org/aboutmj/whatismj.htm

There is a link to read more about it.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 27, 2003.


Ric,

You're avoiding your error by changing the subject. Could you please admit you have made an unsubstantiated claim and admit that the claim is false?

Please...

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 27, 2003.


Mateo,

I did not make an unsubstantiated claim. I backed my claim. Actually its NOT my claim that 1st century Jews that believed in the Messiah were not called Catholics, that is what THEY claim, not me. Read the links. That is not an article I made up. The Catholics on this board tried to call Jews in the era 0-1000AD Catholics, THEY WERE NOT. Listen to what the JEWS have called themselves. The point you tried to make was that the term "Messianic Jew" is not in the Bible, I countered with the fact that the term "Catholic" is not in any of the version I listed. Reread those links, they are BY JEWS. Jews NEVER called themselves Catholic. They always considered thems Jews, ones that accepted Christ...Messianic Jews.

So please Mateo, don't called Jews of any time period Catholic.

Please...

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 27, 2003.


Ric writes:

"Actually its NOT my claim that 1st century Jews that believed in the Messiah were not called Catholics, that is what THEY claim, not me."

Which 1st century Jew claims this? Hmmm????? The "Jews for Jesus" are not the spokespeople for 1st century Jews. Believing that there has been an isolated community of "Jews for Jesus" is nonsense. One might as well claim that the Baptists decended from those baptized at the river Jordan by John the Baptist (he's the first "Baptist").

Pure nonsense.

The New Testament may speak of differences between Jewish and Gentile believers, but they were all Christians, and (like it or not) Catholics.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 27, 2003.


Messianic Jews response to a Jew that accepts Christ and why they DO NOT go to Gentile Churches.

It is wrong and unscriptural to force Gentile church culture upon the Jewish people as a requirement for believing in their own Messiah. While it is right and proper for other cultures to be allowed to practice their culture after coming to faith in Yeshua, much of Jewish culture comes directly from the Scriptures, and has a firm Biblical foundation lacking in other cultures. The situation was very different in the first century. Then the question was, "How can a Gentile believe in the Jewish Messiah? Shouldn't he convert to Judaism first?" Some Messianic Jews were saying to the Gentiles, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Others said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses" (Acts 15: 1,5). The Council at Jerusalem decided that the Gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism to believe in the Jewish Messiah (Acts 15:19-21; 28:19).

Properly observed, Messianic Judaism has no "middle wall of partition" (Eph.2:14) separating Jewish believers from Gentile believers. Most Messianic assemblies have a large percentage of Gentiles. These Gentiles love Israel and the Jewish people, and have adopted a Jewish expression of their faith in Messiah Yeshua.

It is in Messianic Judaism that we find a most wonderful fulfillment of Scripture -- in that all, Jew and Gentile, male and female, bond and free -- are seen worshiping the Holy One of Israel in Spirit and in Truth.

Jews were around BEFORE the Catholic church. There were Jews that accepted Christ BEFORE the Catholic church was founded. THEY WERE MESSIANIC JEWS. They were NOT Catholic. They practiced Jewish TRADITION. Read the links I supplied. This is all from a Jew. Catholics want to believe that they were the 1st to believe in Christ. This however is a fallacy. What's nonsense is that you don't realize that Jews that believed in Christ continued to be Jews they did not join the Catholic church and practice Catholisism they continued on with their Jewish tradition. The links I listed clearly state this. Catholics are the only people that have a problem with this. I can post 100s of Messianic websites they will all trace their roots to the time of Christ not one of them will claim to EVER be Catholic.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 27, 2003.


Ric,

Christ established one Church. He didn't establish a Jewish church and a gentile church. In fact, those whom He used to found the Church (St. Peter, St. Paul, et. al.) were...you guessed it...all Jews! Amazing! The Catholic Church is the modern day institution established by a bunch of ancient "Jews for Jesus!"

Oh, boy...too much for one night. Protestants always have to find some topic to disagree with Catholics. If they didn't, they wouldn't be living up to their title's meaning: "those who protest." :-)

Good night, my friend,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 27, 2003.


Mateo hits a home run again . . .!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 28, 2003.


Hey Jake thankyou upthread for your reply.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 01, 2003.

Oh one other thing here is a great link to add to your favourites if you ever want to search for statistical information on virtually any religion in the world. If Mateo can turn this into a link it would be even better... :-)

http://www.adherents.com/index.html

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 01, 2003.


Kiwi's religious statistics link

:-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 01, 2003.


The only answer I have is If we believe in christ as the risen Saviour what difference does it make what denomanation we are?

-- Rev.ChristineGould (christinegouldmin@cfaith.com), May 06, 2003.

Dear "Rev" Christine Gould

indeed, why does anything matter? women priests -- let's make it up as we go along. ho hum.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 06, 2003.


Dear rev -

It doesn't matter. Unless truth matters. Then it matters a great deal, because Jesus said the truth would set us free, and it is immediately apparent that a system of hundreds of conflicting denominations cannot possibly represent truth. That's why the Church founded by Jesus Christ for all men does not and cannot have any conflicting beliefs, and therefore cannot have any denominations.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 06, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ