Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 151
Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

Posted on 09/28/2001 1:15:53 PM PDT by malakhi

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.


"I have seen in the last week much ugly use of religion for chest thumping and blaming 'ragheads' and even blaming our decadence for the events of the last week. I would rather that we continue here, respectful of our unity in citizenship, in displaying how religion can be talked about without veering off into ugliness." (SoothingDave, 9/19/01)

Threads 1-50 Threads 51-100 Threads 101-150


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-189 next last
To: Conservative til I die, pegleg, RobbyS
I'm gonna take a few days off. I'm sorry for the tone and name calling. Please forgive me. I've sinned against you and the Lord. Not that its an excuse but I've had bad case of the flu the past couple days and really don't belong here.
101 posted on 09/29/2001 12:30:48 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
Holy crap, dude! Jesus spoke Aramaic! What the heck do you want from me, to telepathically summon Jesus to your house and make him recite "See Spot Run" in Aramaic?????

He may have spoken Aramaic. But we have a Greek text, not an aramaic text. The differentiation is in the Greek. Without an Aramaic text to compare to, there is no reason to believe that if it is a translation from Aramaic, the original Aramaic did not in some way convey the difference. You want to choose words and put them in the mouth of Jesus that fit your view of things. But, since we don't know he said it in Aramaic and don't have it written in aramaic it can hardly be stated as fact what he said in aramaic. For all we know, he was speaking in Greek. He was a Carpenter and Greek was a trade language. See the variables creeping in? I do. With or without Greek, the statement stands. I can pick a thought and express it in ten different ways in English. The same can be done in most languages. Is the quotation an exact quote? Or was it a paraphrase of the events? Hmmm? I'm sure we can offer a multitude of variables that can play with your blind ascertations. Provide the original Aramaic or be quiet, please. Noise is not scholarship.

102 posted on 09/29/2001 12:39:40 PM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Steven
I'm gonna take a few days off.

Rest up Steven, Havoc has things well under control for now, and I think from now on I'm simply going to Copy and Paste his post rather then do all the research myself.

Get better and we'll schedule you back in next week.

Can you come in and pick up your pay check, or should we send it to your house? LOL +<:-)

103 posted on 09/29/2001 12:40:25 PM PDT by JHavard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
No state of war existed Now you are talking nonsense. "state of war" is a modern term of art that does not apply to the relations between these principalities. The general situation was the clash of two cultures, a clash generated by the Turkish agression. The Turks were in the process of ethnic cleansing of the teritories recently won. So places like Cappadocia which had been Christian for centuries were very soon, not, because we have a whole people on the move, like the case of the German invasions of the West. The Byzanrine Empire, like all antique empires had, of course, no definite boundaries but depended on alliances and tributary arranngements as ell as it armie to maintain its rule. But you are going beyonf that to claim, of only by implication, that the aims of the Turks et al.were pacific. Hardly.
104 posted on 09/29/2001 12:46:02 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Steven
Put Jerome on and you go away. But I never claimed that he was whispering in my ear. I will refer you to the Jew Jerome Bible Commentary, however.
105 posted on 09/29/2001 12:50:18 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
Sounds to me like you know I'm right. It must be nice to be you. Sitting on your cloud, not having to actually interact with any of the groups you trash.

What, can't find that Aramaic text you so want to quote from? Where is it. Produce it that we may see the credibility of your argument. Knowing you are right would be predicated on an establishment of your argument in fact not fantasy. You haven't established anything save that Cephas (Kephas) is a Chaldaic/Aramaic word. The Russians, Turks, Americans, Greeks, Hindus, etc all have versions of that word too. Your problem is that the text doesn't invoke the word. It invokes two Greek words that have different meanings. The one Jesus prefers for building his Church upon is the one ascribed to himself, not to Peter. Oops. The Cephas issue comes in because in order to blur the fact of the preferance given to one Greek word over another one has to remove the difference in the two words. Words mean things. And they are chosen by a writer for a reason. Just because you need this verse to prop up a claim doesn't mean we'll by it when you try to reinvent the verse to make it say what you wish it said.

Now, if I have to chose between your version of the scripture and what the author gave us, I'll stick with the greek text we have. At least it was translated from something other than your imagination.

106 posted on 09/29/2001 12:52:18 PM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
If he is an ex-jebbies, he is probably a philosopher in disguise.

Oh, ok, the debunking continues. By all means if he left the church he can't know anything about which he speaks. All men's memories are wiped clean when they leave. They all just make stuff up for the shear heck of it. Every last one of them just fabricates a story out of thin air to do you damage just for fun. I'm sure that's it. I'm sure that spies who are turncoats and give information to enemy countries as an act of treason don't know anything about which they speak either? Or perhaps people knowing trade secrets when they share them with the competition don't know what they are talking about either? I know you have to poke fun to maintain the illusion that any ex-Catholic can't be telling anyone the truth - just wanted to illustrate it into the ground for those who might actually take your viewpoint seriously. Some already know how absurd it is.

107 posted on 09/29/2001 1:01:11 PM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Translation: I refuse to believe any evidence that challenges my prejuices.

Translation in actuality: Claim made and not proven does not equal fact. Prejudice doesn't enter into it in the slightest - save on your side of the argument where you think you can utter whatever you wish and until it is disproven it is gospel. That isn't the way it works.

108 posted on 09/29/2001 1:06:21 PM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
He may have spoken Aramaic. But we have a Greek text, not an aramaic text.

Which rather compliates the claims of those who resort to literal interpretation of the Text. That means we have no words that Jesus actually spoke?

109 posted on 09/29/2001 1:07:08 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
I excused myself from ongoing dialogue, thank you for noticing.

As I mention in my post, however, it is far more than "One man in Rome" who believes the truth of the True Faith.

110 posted on 09/29/2001 1:10:50 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Now you are talking nonsense. "state of war" is a modern term of art that does not apply to the relations between these principalities. The general situation was the clash of two cultures, a clash generated by the Turkish agression.

Call it what you will. The truth lies in the texts. Catholicism blamed the entire Turkish world for what a small group of terrorists did. A fatal miscalculation that some wish to be reapplied in todays circumstances.

The Turks were in the process of ethnic cleansing of the teritories recently won. So places like Cappadocia which had been Christian for centuries were very soon, not, because we have a whole people on the move, like the case of the German invasions of the West.

This is not supported by the evidence. When Jerusalem was retaken by your side, there was an ample population of Christians and Jews that were slaughtered, not by the Turks, but by the Crusaders. Same thing in Constantinople and elsewhere. What changed was the overall makeup of the cities. As Muslims moved in, they obviously became more concentrated in Muslim thinking than in Christian or Judaic thinking. And to say that Catholicism was championing the cause against ethnic cleansing begs reality. The inquisitions were in progress back home while the crusades were going on. Catholicism was flexing it's muscles and using forged laws in an effort to "Cleans" it's territories of anyone who was not Catholic. So the effort was internal and external - practicing the exact thing that you want us to believe they were fighting against.

The Byzanrine Empire, like all antique empires had, of course, no definite boundaries but depended on alliances and tributary arranngements as ell as it armie to maintain its rule. But you are going beyonf that to claim, of only by implication, that the aims of the Turks et al.were pacific. Hardly.

Salimen and the ruling sect as a whole were passive. They had no quarral at that point in time with anyone. They were shocked by the attack coming on them. They were not an aggressor against anyone at the time. The Seljuk were aggresively defending their caravans, again calling this from memory, and it turned into expansionism based in protectionism. Rather than pull their caravans which were making them Money, they attacked and attempted to conquer the people that were interfering with their income. Salimen was indeed passive - and it is ultimately why he lost his throne to his brother. He defended his kingdom until Richard tried to retake Jerusalem; then it all fell apart. Salimen could be reasoned with to an extent; but, the people were seeing his brother as the stronger by this time. The peasants, if you will, understood only that they were being attacked. The brother had them stirred up with nationalistic pride as it were. And they were all too happy to raise him to the throne and replace Salimen. Had The Catholic Empire concentrated strictly on the Seljuk and used better judgement, The Byzantine empire might have been defended, though agreements for trade would have to have been altered.

111 posted on 09/29/2001 1:34:09 PM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS, Conservative..
Which rather compliates the claims of those who resort to literal interpretation of the Text. That means we have no words that Jesus actually spoke?

No, it doesn't. I didn't say Jesus spoke Aramaic. I said he may have (a maybe). The original texts *may* have been written in aramaic - doesn't mean Jesus was speaking aramaic. As I pointed out before, Jesus was a Carpenter - skilled in a trade and Greek was a common trade language. It does not stretch the bounds of possibility to consider that he could speak Greek. But this is considered on the basis that he was a mere mortal. He was the son of God. I'm certain that had he decided to speak Erdu or Hindi, he could have. Oops, another issue that just completely blows your whole theory out of the water.

112 posted on 09/29/2001 1:42:59 PM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
"Tradition properly speaking refers not to custom but to underlying principles. The primacy of Peter doesn't mean that Peter was a "pope" like Innocent III but means that he was the person closest to Christ. Ironies abound in history. The Vatican was originally the place where Peter was crucified, and his martyrdom did more than any recognition by an emperor to authenticate his successors' in the scheme of things. The mantle of pontifex maximus, which at one time was held by Julius Caesar, came finally to rest on the shoulders of the successors to the fisherman. Paganism triumph, Harvoc would say. I say that the Good Lord has a sense of humor. Bottom rail on top.

If you are pulling my chain o.k. Otherwise what you are saying is nonsensical, untrue, and/or unproven.

113 posted on 09/29/2001 1:49:18 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
and/or unproven. You and Havoc keep using this term as though we were talking geometry or law. The preponderance of historical evidence supports the Roman claim, nothing supports yours. You keep saying: "It aint' necessarily so" and offer nothing positive to substantiate your claim.
114 posted on 09/29/2001 2:42:01 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
I'm certain that had he decided to speak Erdu or Hindi, he could have. Only if he were born in those countries, IMHO. Where in the Bible does it say that he spoke Greek? Oh. that's based on the archaelogical, EXTRA-biblical stuff, right?
115 posted on 09/29/2001 2:44:47 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
By all means if he left the church he can't know anything about which he speaks. If you were a Catholic, you would know that the Society of Jesus does not enjoy much support out of certain "liberal" circles. Some of us say that the Ignatian charisma has been pretty much spent and that the order should be dissolved. An ex-Jebbie has very little credibility.
116 posted on 09/29/2001 2:49:22 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Only if he were born in those countries, IMHO. Where in the Bible does it say that he spoke Greek? Oh. that's based on the archaelogical, EXTRA-biblical stuff, right?

Hey I dropped it as supposition - not proof. But if you want to split hairs on the supposition, Are you going to really argue that if God decided to speak in Arabic then turn to another and speak in Niponese that he couldn't? I wouldn't make that argument in a million years. I don't proffer it as proof though, merely as another option or viewpoint to show the absurdity of the claim. And, yes, it is absurd. That one can say we don't have Jesus' true words because they were translated to another language. By that measure, not a single soul in all of Catholicism for hundreds of years had the words of Jesus because they were spoken in Latin, not Jesus' native tongue - whatever it may have been.

And in absence of quotations from nonexistant texts, are we to now believe that you are mad because I hold you to what you guys have claimed to be the basis of your scholarship? Another claim that doesn't align with reality..

117 posted on 09/29/2001 2:56:12 PM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
"For some reason Protestants, and specifically fundamentalists like a Havoc, seem hellbent on reinventing the wheel. Rehashing things that were settled 1500, 1600, 1700, and even 1800 years ago, and were agreed upon until the Reformation. Things like the Papacy, Peter being known as Cephas, Peter in fact being referred to as the Rock on whom the Church was built, the legitimacy of certain books of the Bible, faith, works, and grace, Scripture and Tradition, the sacraments, etc etc." ============================================================

Agreed upon like this?:
Peter as the rock.
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...’You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15 - 19).

In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock.

Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4).

So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.

"Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession.

What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer

(John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327). ==========================================================

Or agreement on the Apocrypha like this?

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

============================================================ You speak drivel. Why don't you just accept that you know nothing and don't really care to. It might confuse you. Better to just go along with the "truth" as taught.

118 posted on 09/29/2001 2:59:02 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
This literal interpertaion stuff makes sense when the Muslims use it, because they believe that Arabic--the language of the Koran--is literally the language of revelation. That's why for many years they required believers to learn Arabic rather than translating the Koran into other languages.(It also gave the Arab elite an advantage over other Muslims, and I am told, it is great literature in its own right) But when we use the Bible we are several removes from the language that Jesus actually spoke, and those Catholics who read and wrote Latin --and there were hundreds of thousands of them--were no further removed than we English-speakers. When Luther wrote in Latin, his thoughts were immediately available to every educated man in Europe.
119 posted on 09/29/2001 3:06:45 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
You and Havoc keep using this term as though we were talking geometry or law. The preponderance of historical evidence supports the Roman claim, nothing supports yours. You keep saying: "It aint' necessarily so" and offer nothing positive to substantiate your claim.

It isn't geometry or law - true. How does that in any way minimize the importance of fact? History is more important than Math and at least as important as Law. Yet you wish to offer to the forum that History really shouldn't require such a High standard as law or math either one? "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." How can one, praytell, learn from history if history has lax standards and can barely be trusted to begin with? That history has not been learned from by some among the Catholic faith is evidenced in the post of the incident in south america I posted a while back - to wit Catholics bearing weapons running protestants out of a town in south america, jailing some and preparing to run out the rest that had not yet left. Hundreds of protestants fleeing for fear of their lives while Catholics pursue with weapons in hand. It is reflected too in the opinions so boldly expressed by countless Catholics on FR immediatly after the incidents of September 11. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. And the abundance of the heart made many say such things as 'we should finish what was started in the crusades and wipe all the muslims out', and 'the only bad thing about the crusades is they ultimately did not succede.' Religious persecution raises it's ugly head - why do you suppose that is? Could it be, perhaps, because the Catholic Church wishes to teach that what they did was alright - that they were the victim.. Doesn't line up with the facts. And one can hardly learn from half truths, deciet and handwringing.

120 posted on 09/29/2001 3:11:24 PM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-189 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson