Posted on 09/27/2001 6:13:58 PM PDT by malakhi
You still seem to think that the Church was in control of the Inquisitions. It was not. This makes the question mostly moot. But let's pretend.
If I, 21st Century Dave, were transported back in time to Spain, would I support a Church which did these things. No, I don't think so. Torturing people to make them convert is not my idea of a good thing.
But there were very few people with 21st century ideas in their heads at that time. This is the point you all seem to miss. Were your Churches in existence in barbaric times, they would surely act the part. It is convenient to look back with modern eyes and tsk tsk things.
Yes, the Crusades were absolutely wrong. Christ tells us not to resort to violence. We are to turn the other cheek. We are not to kill those who do not convert. That is NOT Christ's testimony.
Are you a pacifist? Do you think Jesus was? The Crusades were not to "kill those who do not convert" but to eliminate the threat creeping Islam presented to Europe. By active self-defense, much like America vows to do today. The wars in the Balkans are partly fed from this same tension between civilization and Islam. Defending civilization from Islam is not a crime. I will disagree with you here 100 per cent.
SD
Your use of terms threw me off, I guess. When you said that those who reject Christ are guilty, I thought you were trying to wash your hands of the whole affair. While you may be free from "guilt" you are in no way "not responsible."
SD
Back at ya. Remember Matthew 1;25?
It is settled, Rome has spoken. Here’s the official pronouncement The ordination of women will only happen in Protestant Churches. How they can defend that from the bible is beyond me.
How bout this. What are your thoughts on the Crusades and the Inquisition? Was the Church right or wrong?
These questions concern behavior and not doctrine however, you asked so here are my thoughts. The Crusades were a reaction to centuries of assaults on Christendom by Arab and other Islamic forces. It’s a shame they weren’t more successful. Was the Church right in defending Christendom, absolutely. Granted there were good men, some not so good , and probably many who were neither that participated in them. It used to be a noble thing to fight and die for Christendom. Nowadays its only OK to do that in the name of freedom. What has changed?
The Inquisition happened at a time when the repression of heresy and infidelity was generally accepted as a political necessity both in Protestant and Catholic Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. So I would say it is hard for us in today’s world to understand why they did it and easy for us to criticize it. But let there be no mistake about it, Catholics and Protestants have some ugly scars from this.
I'll take what God says over Jerome anyday. For Matthew 1;25 to mean what it says is a huge threat to your (and Jerome's, and the catholic church's) Maryology. The guilt lies with the catholic church for twisting this scripture to shreds. Thank God almighty I'm free at last.
Animal sacrifice was never the only way to atone for sin. In the Torah, God commanded Israel only to offer sacrifices in the places He designated. This was a restriction on previous practice. The last place God designated for sacrifice was the Temple in Jerusalem. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., there was no place authorized by God for the Jews to offer animal sacrifice. Keep in mind that this was not the first time such an interruption of sacrifice occurred. The same thing happened in the time between the First and Second Temples.
Now, there are many varieties of Qorbanat (sacrifices or offerings). And there are other means of obtaining forgiveness of sin besides animal sacrifice. Some involved the sacrifice of things other than animals (food and drink offerings, for example). And there are other means of obtaining forgiveness that do not require sacrifices at all.
In specific answer to your question, forgiveness for Jews today is obtained through repentance and prayer.
Sorry, allend, but you are wrong on this. The earliest preserved texts of Mark do not contain 16:9-20.
As I said to saradippity, you are free of course to hold continue to hold your opinion on Matthean priority. This is not something that will ever be proven definitively. But the vast majority of scholars, Catholic and Protestant, liberal and conservative, disagree with you.
Do you think Jerome was the only person to teach the perpetual Virginity of Mary? He just happened to document his defense of this teaching and it has survived all these years. The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been held by the Catholic/Orthodox churches and even the early reformers. Do you think because some Protestant in the 17th century said this is what this verse means that 1700 years of Christian teaching is null and void? Do you think Christ would allow error to be taught to Christians for this long? Do you think the promise of Christ to protect his Church is worthless? You have to have a serious case of tunnel vision to believe this.
Nonsense. Its derivation is from a word meaning "interpretation" or "exegesis", but that is not how it is used in practice. This is what Burton Visotzky of the Jewish Theological Seminary has to say about midrash:
Midrash is a "homiletical exegesis of Scripture--the 'reading out' of moral lessons of the age from the Bible...This type of reading has many names. The [Christian] Church Fathers called it homily, or allegory, or commentary. The key term here is "moral lessons." This provides the focus for midrashic commentary.
Midrash applies the closed canon of scripture to present life. In the case of midrashic writing in the gospels, it represents stories of the Hebrew scriptures in order to show the significance of Jesus. For example, in the Torah, Moses returns from the encounter with God on Sinai with a glowing face, and had to veil himself in order to avoid frightening the Israelites (Exodus 34:29-35). The midrashic parallel in the gospels is the Transfiguration. The purpose is to show Jesus as the new Moses.
You choose to call midrash a lie. You are applying your own personal standards to an ancient form of literature from a culture different from our own. Might as well condemn Shakespeare's plays as lies. In doing so, you completely miss the point.
What all this amounts to is an accusation that Judaism is a made-up religion. You see, if anyone wants to believe junk like this, then I can deconstruct your religion just as effectively as you can deconstruct mine.
See my posts #16, 19 and 79 on this thread. I've already addressed this point.
Well, obviously the Law itself is real. It came from somewhere. How exactly the Israelites came to have the Law is debatable. This can range from a fundamentalist reading that the events at Sinai are literally true as reported in the Torah, to an belief that the Law was written by man but inspired by God. At minimum, you can say that the Law reveals the Israelites' understanding of God and of what He expected of them.
So says your Christian writer. Can you provide me with ANY corroboration for this event, from a contemporary secular source? I'll make it even easier for you. Find me proof from a contemporary secular source that it was in fact the custom to release a prisoner every year on Passover.
All who reject Christ are guilty of His blood.
You have your own theology wrong. According to Christian teaching, all who sin (and that means everyone) are guilty of the death of Jesus.
How do you interpret this verse? Zechariah 12:10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn."
This is not a messianic passage. What you have here is a mistranslation of the Hebrew text. I have commented on this a number of times in the history of these threads. Rather than reconstruct my argument, I'll see if I can locate a previous posting.
JohnnyM, I answered YOU on this exact question back on Thread 97. Here's the link so that you can reread my remarks.
I believe the process was started before the completion of the last of the canonical texts. Is this so hard to believe? Consider that there WAS no established canon at the time. All kinds of gospels and writings were circulating throughout the Christian communities of the Roman Empire. All kinds of ideas that were later condemned as heretical were also circulating. It took hundreds of years to hash out what was to become orthodox doctrine.
The advanced search function for Google is pretty cool isn't it?
Don't know what protestant you talkin' bout. Matthew must have been a protestant. He said it. But I doubt he was around in the 17th century.Do you think Christ would allow error to be taught to Christians for this long?
Yes. Because He obviously has. Duh.
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.