Posted on 10/04/2005 4:28:28 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
This isn't the first time I've been mistaken for a Christian.
BTW, punctuated equilibrium fits the observable data better than uniformitarianism...
I don't speak for either.
But there are very few in the Catholic Church who take every word in Scripture literally.
No, I'm talking about just you, you and your own seething hate.
That is no justification for not taking the Bible literally here.
It is simply two different disciples describing an ongoing event.
It went on for three hours and it is quiet probable that one when faced with death at Christ's side repented and was saved.
If you are going to say that Matthew, Mark and all the disciples where recording the same event at the same time and the fact that they where reported to say something different is definitely a contradiction and that they each recorded all that the thieves said, then what do you say when Luke and John did not record that they said anything at all?
There are things in the Bible that are not meant to be taken literally such as parables,figures of speech etc. and some that seem contradictory but if you study the context and prayerfully reference the whole Bible you will be able to tell what is to be taken literally and what is not.
No conflict here.
Mat 14:17 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes
Mat 14:20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.
Mar 6:38 He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes.
Mar 6:43 And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes.
Luk 9:13 But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy meat for all this people.
Luk 9:17 And they did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets.
Joh 6:9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
Joh 6:13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
I think you are confusing two different feedings.The one in Matthew 14: took place in the desert and involved 5000 people, five loaves and two fishes.
He then left crossed the Sea of Galilee and in Matthew 15: went up into a mountain and there He fed 4000 with twelve loaves and a few fishes recorded in Mat and Mark:
Mat 15:34 And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes.
Mat 15:37 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full.
Mar 8:5 And he asked them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven.
Mar 8:7 And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them
Mar 8:8 So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets.
Hope this helps. God Bless. MRN
May I suggest you consider trying out intellectual consistency? The Bible I referenced was the King James version. It is held to be inerrant by many. It is not because as translated, it contains errors. The people who hold it to be inerrant further hold the translations of every word to be divinely inspired. As such the word "Fowl" as translated is held to be inerrant and it is manifestly not.
The whole sinless-ever-viriginal-Mary Issue, for one, which is pointless to discuss as to do so merely attracts moonbats on both sides.
That, and there is a huge conservative upswell in the Anglican Communion --- coming from African and Asian Bishops and the conservative Episcopal churches that are leaving --- or have left --- ECUSA because of the sodomite Bishop issue (and really other, more egregious, heresies).
There are Orthodox Jews who are anti-Zionists because they believe it is Halakhically forbidden to have a Jewish State prior to Mashiach (and they reject J*sus as much as any Zionist Jews). However, rightwing Catholic anti-Zionists, from my experience, tend to defind "Zionism" as anything and everything they don't like: the United Nations is Zionist, President Bush is Zionist, the Bolsheviks are Zionist, Freemasonry is Zionist. Zionism is not merely a mistaken nationalism based on a rejection of the "true messiah" but an evil Satanic conspiracy. Even evolution and higher criticism is blamed by some rightwing Catholics on the Jews!
I hope you aren't one of the people who thinks an extermination of Israel by the Arabs will cleanse the US of those awful Catholic Mexicans?
I really have no idea what you are talking about. The only thing I want to exterminate is error, I want to convert Jews as well as Muslims. If I was a real anti-Semite I'd be quite content to see them remain in error.
People like Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran regard Catholicism as the religion of "western man," and non-western Catholics aren't regardes as actual co-religionists (much like Black and white Baptists seem to have no connection to each other). They spend all their time attacking Mexican co-religionists for "defiling" "aryan" America while supporting the Communist PLO because they think if the Arabs destroy the Jews the Mexicans will all vanish.
My honest opinion about chr*stianity is that it doesn't acknowledge the True Universal G-d but localizes him into a tribal deity (Irish, Mexican, Black, "redneck," etc.). This is why the Jews are resented. Because the True G-d has identified Himself for all time as the G-d of Israel the continued existence of Jews (and especially a restored Nation of Israel in the Holy Land) offends this radical localization and subjectivism.
I've got a couple of essays on this subject up at my web site.
Oh, now all of a sudden you're not anti-Biblical literalism but only anti-KJV literalism? I've never heard that one before!
The world couldn't have been created in six days because the KJV translates `of as "fowl!"
Your post is long, the day is short (it's fr*day, the short day), and on top of that I'm sick. It may be a while before I can get around to replying to all of this, but just send a bump to remind me, okay? I'll try to answer you.
But if you live in England, Scotland, or Wales, how easy is it to have any recourse against these bishops? Or, if you are a priest in the UK, these bishops are in your line of authority?
good points...
I sympathize with your being sick. I am suffering from a very bad case of vertigo right now, so I quite understand.
I will try to give you a bump some time over the weekend.
Meanwhile please take care and I do hope you get better soon.
The Jews didn't include Maccabees? Isn't that the book Hannukah is based on?
I did not know that.
"....Free us of those awful Catholic Mexicans..."
Oddly enough a huge percentage of those "awful Catholic Mexicans" become Evangelicals once they're here. There is an Evangelical Spanish Church on every corner in some areas of Houston. It's astonishing. They're especially attracted to Pentacostal type churches.
Speaking as a cradle Evangelical Episcopalian I hope you are correct about the Conservative and Orthodox Revival in the Anglican Communion. The so-called "Anglo-Catholics" (who have not been 'real' Episcopalians in some time) are drifting to Romanism (where they should have been for a long time). Others are forming new Anglican Denominations and still others are staying and trying to turn things around in the ECUSA. I'm keeping my options open.
I just recently moved to a small town and am checking out several conservative Evangelical Churches in my area.
I would really like to remain an "Anglican" but it's a very difficult thing to do.
Our church did it by the bishop kicking us and our priests out of our building.
christchurchmidland.org
I believe that is correct. Take my statements with a grain of salt because I am a 1st semester Bible student, but it is my understanding that, when Martin Luther argued against the legitimacy of the Apocrypha, it was based on the assertion that the originators of the text--the Jews--did not canonize the Apocryphal books (also called the Deuterocanonical books). That was his entire basis for arguing against them, and the argument led to his questioning of the existence of Purgatory, which the Catholic leaders of the time used to control people monetarily. If purgatory did not exist, then one could not purchase passage for one's deceased relatives into Heaven, so therefore the church no longer held the power of a monetary strongarm over the people. That was a huge part of the fight that resulted in the formation of the Protestant faith.
I guess I was wasting my time suggesting intellectual consistency to someone to whom the concept is manifestly unobtainable.
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.