Posted on 05/24/2004 9:17:25 PM PDT by churchillbuff
For one who quotes the dictionary more than the word of God, one does keep mum when one's dictionary meanings are wrong or when ones "facts" are proven wrong.
Nope. I merely say don't speculate and attribute your speculations to God.
I think I've made myself clear any number of times on the matter of pursuits of knowledge. I just don't kid myself or anyone else that any such pursuit is going to be without it's crowd of dishonest detractors within. I think I've noted the reference in Egyptology to the curious happenstance of the tomb of a 22nd dynasty pharaoh being cut into and modified in order for the building of a tomb for a 21st dynasty pharaoh to be built right next to it.
The 22nd dynasty pharaoh died before the 21st dynasty pharaoh while the historians report it the other way around.
While investigating this curiosity, one archeologist from France refused to visit the site where the evidence is irrefuteable - and would only work from line drawings of the site in discussing the issue - the line drawings are useless for such a thing and that is the point of using them. Not all people are out for truth - some are actually out there to suppress the truth because it harms their particular agenda or worldview.
On the other hand, there are some who prefer history to teaching because they can excuse what they do in their own minds by pointing to history. Knowledge is a tool that can be shaped and used as a weapon. The modern American press is well aware of this and has done it's level best to do just that. So too have many others.. including some groups that have been around for an awful long time.
Yep, one would think you'd jump in evil glee that I would say that some protestants are wrong. But that caveat of saying they're just as wrong as you guys because of their starting point - philosophy - that kinda digs don't it. You try to let on like you know something, and you don't know that I chastise Catholics and Protestants alike. One would have to say you're either blind or a real Johnny come lately. Then again, you do show up dutifully to perform the same task on one thread after another in these discussions.. as evidenced in your proliferation of replies that say essentially nothing. I'm sorry you seem to be made to feel inadequate by one who dares to be confident in his knowledge of the scriptures and of truth. So, inadequate that you have to lash out to prove your manhood apparently.. there are pills for that.
Yeah, one does. It just doesn't happen to be me - thus your near pornagraphic lust for making general slurs with no foundation in fact. Projecting your own vacancies on others in attempt to make yourself feel better about your own inadequacies.. Again, sorry. Seek help. And thanks for bumping the thread again. Guess all your ankle biting at least gets the thread attention lol.
I'm not badgering chr*stians. I'm lamenting the fact that, like me almost twenty years ago, a fellow Biblical Fundamentalist is being sucked into the Roman Catholic Church by its history, antiquity, authenticity, etc., and will inevitably find himself all alone in a sea of evolutionists, higher critics, and inellectual snobs who look down on the Bible-believing chr*stians of the rural American heartland. And while my exchanges with Catholics on this thread were originally friendly, they began admitting their unabashed scorn for America's Biblical Fundamentalists and insisting on their perennial hypocrisy that only "this is my body, this is my blood" is to be interpreted literally and everything else (especially in the "old testament") must be open to a purely typological reading that sees the laws of nature as absolute.
If you have not been through what I have been through (and what Mr. Giles is about to go through) then kindly keep your childish comments to yourself.
If its the "Documentary Hypothesis" first espoused by Wellhausen that ZC is criticizing, then this has never been accepted by the Church as a valid hypothesis - even though many "biblical scholars" and theologians accept it as fact.
The late Fr. William J Most did some excellent work debunking this theory, and I believe Scott Hahn also teaches against it.
The Roman Theological Forum is dedicated to expunging the malicious effects of higher criticism from Catholic theology and their website is well worth a visit:
www.rtforum.org
First of all, my apologies for being AWOL the past couple days (I've been offline for the holiday).
I am quite familiar with Roman Theological Forum and Living Tradition. In fact, it's one of my favorite sites! (When are they going to update! They haven't updated in almost six months!)
The problem is that they are a tiny minority fighting a losing battle. And it is not just the "theologians" that promote the theory. The Church's bishops are almost 100% behind it (along with evolutionism, of course). The fact that they grant their stamps of approval to such bibles is scandalous. Let me ask you something: do you have any idea what it's like to come from a Fundamentalist background to the Catholic Church only to be hit on every side by theories that one has heretofore only heard from atheists???
The Catholic Church is in serious trouble. It is an ancient religion that teaches modernism, a sacramental religion that teaches naturalism, and (unlike Fundamentalist Protestants) it is in Catholicism that such notions as the "mythical" nature of angels has gained ground, in spite of the fact that there is a Catholic cult dedicated to them (Fundamentalists have retained their belief in the reality of angels without ever having prayed to them).
I appreciate your support on this issue, Tantumergo, but I hope you can understand that eventually this "well, that's what everyone's saying but that isn't the official teaching of the Church" wears a little thin.
If the Catholic Church is truly what it claims to be then it should act like it. Is that asking too much?
PS: As for Scott Hahn, I have corresponded with him and even spoken to him on the phone. While he originally retained his Biblical literalism (even believing in seven days and the facticity of the Book of Jonah) he has now gone over to the other side and attacks "literalism" (along with "Fundamentalist Zionism"). I am extremely disappointed in him for selling out. What will Mr. Giles do when he must make a decision?
I was Catholic for six years, and I studied assiduously to understand my new faith. Finally I realized that nothing I could do would cause it to make sense to me.
As for the Church being pro-Israel, tell that to Michael Sabbah, Hilarion Capucci, the American bishops, Robert Sungenis, Nicholas Gruner, Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, the SSPX, the Feeneyites, etc.
If you are Catholic, I wish there were more like you.
Technically, all non-Jews are Noachides or Benei Noach (children of Noah). I use the term to designate an observant Ben Noach. Basically, it means a non-Jew who ackowledges the Torah as G-d's ultimate revelation and who rejects all later "religions" (chr*stianity, islam, etc.). Noachides believe (and this is Orthodox Jewish teaching) that non-Jews are supposed to live by the Seven Universal Laws which G-d gave to Noah after the Flood and that this constitutes the one true religion for all non-Jews.
The Holy Torah is the pre-existent logos through which G-d created the world. It was written by G-d 974 generations before the Creation in letters of black fire upon a scroll of white fire and then, in the 26th generation, dictated to Moses letter for letter (dictation, by the way, is rejected by even the old pre-Vatican II Catholic Church). The Torah, whose most perfect form is the kosher Torah Scroll, represents the very mind of G-d and its every word, letter, and stroke (and even its every blank space) is replete with meaning that most chr*stians (and most certainly not liturgical chr*stians) could never begin to understand. There are even those who claim the names of every single human being who has ever lived or ever will live is incoded in the ancient text. Ask your bishops about this some time and see what they say.
As for the Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Hagiographa), they were canonized some three centuries before chr*stianity ever existed by the 'Anshei HaKeneset HaGedolah (Men of the Great Assembly) which was made up of Prophets such as Ezra, Daniel, Mordecai, etc. That's who canonized the Bible, and no Catholic Church or even chr*stianity was ever needed. Of course, people who cannot conceive of a Bible without a "new testament" in it seem to have difficulty understanding this.
If you ever read church documents, they are generously peppered with quotes from scripture. Mass includes whole passages and readings from both testaments as well as a psalm. There is always a gospel reading.
You know, I sometimes get tired of telling people that I know all this stuff already (having spent six years in the Catholic Church), but I realize that each time I'm responding to someone who doesn't know this. Any way, so what? So there are Bible readings at each mass. Does that change the fact that the clergy who read these passages don't believe them? Does reading a few verses at every mass and breviary make up for regarding them as mythology, or as mere parable whose described events never took place? I used to listen to priests at mass invoking the sacrifices of Abel and Milchizedeq, but that did not change the fact that the priests saying the words did not believe that Abel or Melchizedeq ever existed. So I don't see what you point is.
BTW, I later came to reject the "new testament" anyway, so I'm not interested in who "canonized" it, other than the fact that the Church that did so now promotes irreverence, doubt, and skepticism about every supernatural event in the Bible other than the one (transubstantiation) that gets Protestants' goats.
I'm already saved thanks... :)
And aren't the American bishops, according to Catholic doctrine, the successors of the apostles? Why would they indirectly produce such blasphemy? Hmm? I know; "individual bishops aren't infallible," etc. But when one converts from Fundamentalism to Catholicism it is quite a culture shock. The "heretics" one left all believed in the inerrancy of the Bible and the historicity of all its narrated episodes, yet the "infallible Church" is eaten alive with and open to every new, irreverent theory to come down the pike, and the Pope and bishops absolutely refuse to come down on them because to do so would be a mark of "sectarianism." Apparently only the "sects" take their religious beliefs seriously. This is a truth Mr. Giles will eventually learn the hard way, as I did.
The notes, in terms of authority, are about at the same level as most any Catholic book you'd pick up at a bookstore ... that is, it has the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, meaning that a bishop and his censor approved it, but it's hardly infallible teaching binding on the faithful, nor is it even at the level of something a Vatican congregation would promulgate.
Would you kindly explain to me why you dismiss the nihil obstat and imprimatur by the "successors of the apostles" so blithely? What is their authority for if they refuse to use it? Why is it that ever "illiterate" backwoods preacher knows the Bible is inerrant but the "successors of the apostles" are granting their approval to irreverent modern blasphemies while you act as if it were no big deal? If you had converted from Fundamentalism, I assure you, it would be a big deal, and it's too bad that Catholics can't even comprehend the culture shock that Fundamentalist converts have to deal with. But all the better; that'll prevent us from ever converting en masse.
Catholics are free to deny the documentary hypothesis. Here: watch me. I'm Catholic, and I think both the DH and the similar "Q" theory of the Gospels are historically bogus.
Why aren't the members of the "infallible one true church" required to reject and denounce these theories rather than merely be "free" to reject them? Oh, I know . . . that's "sectarian." A "sectarian" is apparently someone who defies G-d by refusing to be "open" to everything that comes down the pike.
Go ahead: write a letter to my bishop denouncing me as a heretic. ;-)
Since you were born Catholic you'll never bet told to leave as I was. With me, my adherence to my previous Biblical beliefs was interpreted as a stubborn rejection of Church authority and a dangerous loyalty to my former beliefs. You, on the other hand, were raised with Church authority and would never threaten it. If Rome ever declared the documentary hypothesis to be dogma you'd accept it just like that.
I disagree and feel that's a distortion of scripture. How do you figure that because He is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world that that means He is still being slain at the end of it? Just the opposite!
The crucifixion happened WITHIN our time. It is NOT a timeless act. Nothing in scripture indicates that it is. The only way that it could be occurring perpetually is if it happened in eternity, but it did not. The RESULT of Jesus' sacrifice is eternal, but the act itself is not occurring eternally. If it is, then it is NEVER FINISHED. And God says otherwise. Jesus SAT DOWN at the right hand of the Father. The High Priest finished His duties and sat down. And one day He'll stand up as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.
Your post #78.
Oh, you mean that "world Jewish Zionist international banker" sh-t so many Catholics are constantly screaming about? Why is that so much easier to believe in than that the world was created in six days?
We tend not to hang around after Mass because there is generally another Mass starting 20 minutes after the previous one ends. On Sundays, for example, there is a Mass at 6:00 a.m., 7:30 a.m., 9:00 a.m., 10:30 a.m. noon; and 5:00 p.m. And believe me, the chapel is generally full for every one. The parking lot only holds so many cars and if were to hang around and chat the people coming in would have no place to park. There are also plenty of social events to get to know your fellow parish members.
If Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross is NOT a timeless act, if only the 'RESULT of Jesus' sacrifice is eternal, but the act itself is not occurring eternally,' the why is there an Altar in Heaven?(See, Rev. 6:9; 8:3-5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; and 16:7. Bearing in mind an altar is only necessary for offering of sacrifice.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.