The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 151

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[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

[BaBaStooey]

The article which started all of this was published on March 24. Imagine, I could think of better ways to spend my time. Clearly, those who hold true to their beliefs, no matter if they are actually correct or incorrect, are not going to be swayed in any direction. Clearly, there is more than one Christian church in existence, because somewhere along the line someone fundamentally disagreed with someone else about something or other. What makes any of you think that you're going to agree now after all that. I mean, you can hope someone will see your point, but is that worth threads and threads of discussion and all this energy? Clearly our focus is on the events of the day at this time. This is just one more thing to distract ourselves.

And if nobody agrees with me on this.....well, oh, nevermind.

[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. ===========================================================

That is just the point. This isn't a court of law. You don't prove anything by a preponderance of evidence, an imaginative defense, the use of logic or reason. You can win a case in a court of law and, I am sure you'll agree, the truth may never have been learned. I never stated Peter wasn't in Rome and, to my knowledge, neither did Havoc. He did state, and I did state that you haven't come close to proving Peter was in Rome.

In my opinion Jesus never established the Papacy in the first place. I don't care whether he was ever in Rome or not.

It is critical to the RCC that Peter was the Pope and in Rome. Therefore, it is incumbent on the RCC to prove it.

I acknowledge there is evidence Peter was in Rome and that some of it is credible. There also is credible evidence that he was never in Rome. You choose to accept the one while ignoring the other. I choose to be skeptical of both sets of "credible" evidence.

In the absence of proof you have nothing.

[Havoc]

Ok, where to go with this - so many avenues so little time. Ok, to heck with it, lets just storm right to the heart of what you just said as compared to what you said previously.

First you state that we don't really have the words of Jesus because they are translated into Greek. I then retort that if that is true, then Catholics have been absent the words of Jesus for hundreds of years because of the translation into Latin. Then you return with nonsense about the Latin being ok because when It was translated the whole world had the translators thoughts. No. The translator worked from Greek. If the Greek is not the words of Jesus, then the Latin translated from the Greek is hardly the words of Jesus either. You can't have it both ways. And who cares what the Arabs think - really. One could say the same thing about the Russians or any other group on earth who has pride in their language.

And when we discuss the verse in question, we are going back to the Greek directly - not to latin or English; but, the raw original. The Latin text had no Aramaic to draw from either - as such, there is no authority that it draws from higher than the Greek we have today. The argument is bereft of a valid point. And the fact remains that a deliniation or difference was drawn in the text between two different Greek words - they are not the same word. And We know from other scripture that Christ is the Cheif cornerstone. We also know from the point made in the verse that Peter's confession of Jesus being the Son of God is the true foundation of our belief. Peter is just a tool in the spreading of Christianity - as are we all.

[RobbyS]

There also is credible evidence that he was never in Rome. What evidence?

[the808bass]

That is, of course, until Martin Luther declared himself infallible, tried to remove about half the books from the BIble (luckily he did not completely succeed), and today we have Christian Scientists refusing medical treatment, Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions because Michael the ARchangel (aka Jesus) wouldn't like it, Seventh Day ADventists telling me I have to be a vegetarian and worship on Saturday, snake handlers, Oneness people rehashing 3rd Century heresy, Armstrogites (until recently) celebrating the Jewish holidays

Of course, before Martin Luther, the RCC had no problem with heresies. What a ridiculous statement. There always has been and always will be theological error, some of it damnable error. To imply that theological error somehow came into fashion with Luther's theses is just silly.

[RobbyS]

What are you talking about. I basically said that the Vulgate is as reliable a translation as the King James Bible, perhaps better. If one is literate in Latin--as all scholars in Europe were until the 19th Century, then he has the same access to the New Testament as any reader of the King James Bible. Now Luther and other Reformers believed that the Greek translation of Erasmas gave the THE KEY to unlocking the mystery of true Christianity, but instead of sharing this secret with ordinary Christians, they translated the Greek into the national vernacular. So now the ordinary Christian could read the New Testament in his own language rather than Latin. But he was not reading the Greek original but only the words that Luther and scholars provided for him to read.

[the808bass]

As for Mt. 16:18, Jesus promised that he would build his church on the rock (Peter) and the gates of hell would not prevail (to have power over, overpower, prevail against ). From this the Catholics assert that Jesus promised perfect doctrine to his church. I do not see that promise, especially in this verse. I see the promise that God's people will not be overtaken by the gates of hell. I'm not sure how that translates into perfect doctrine or still more, how it only applies to the RCC.

This was the primary point of my post (and I apparently mucked it up by introducing a side issue (important, but only tangentially related). Could someone point out the error of my thinking in regards to the Matthew 16:18 passage?

[JHavard]

But he was not reading the Greek original but only the words that Luther and scholars provided for him to read.

RobbyS, I had asked you over a month ago to tell me what Bible you use for your personal study, and when you work these threads, but after 5 request, you refused to answer me.

Have things changed enough that you car reveal this secret, or are you still waiting for Vatican approval? (:-)

[Conservative til I die]

Why would Jesus speak the commercial trade language with his Jewish disciples alone?

[the808bass]

but all believers in the Kingdom of God belonged to the Church

Of course, you will respond that Mt. 16:18 does refer to the RCC because that's the church Christ founded. The following is from the book God's Peoples: A Social History of Christians by Paul R. Spickard & Kevin M. Cragg.

Christians in the Non-Christian World to 1500

Western Christians are accustomed to thinking of Christianity as a European religion. But in its first few centuries it thrived mainly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia. Around A.D. 500 one-half of the world's 40 million Christians lived in South Asia, from India to Persia. By contrast, only one-third lived in Europe. One of the neglected truths of history is that where the church first flowered, it later almost ceased to exist. The early churches of Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East can be described under three categories:

1. long-term minorities (for example, the Copts in Egypt)
2. isolated majorities (the Ethiopian church); and
3. extinct churches (the Nestorians in Central Asia),

Chapters 1-3 told the story of the rise of Christianity to dominance in the Roman world. While Christianity was becoming identified with Rome, several of the Eastern and North African churches split away from the Roman Church and from each other, ostensibly over matters of doctrine. While no one can deny the sincerity of these theological quarrels, the disputes often masked underlying ethnic divisions and nationalist aspirations. Two major factos account for the decline (in some cases, the demise) of these churches. One factor was that the center of gravity in Christendom shifted to the north and west, beginning with the Roman acceptance of Christianity in the fourth century. The other was the rise of Islam three centuries later.

You can say that these groups were heretical and thus not real Christians. However, then you run into the same problem you accuse the Proddies of when they claim to have the truth. How could half of all "Christianity" be wrong? Did the heretics outnumber the true believers? Did God allow that part of His church to drift into error and thus not protect His church from the gates of hell? Just some random thoughts which aren't well formulated. Have at them.

[Conservative til I die]

WTF is this drivel you just posted? Are you on drugs or something right now?

[the808bass]

So now the ordinary Christian could read the New Testament in his own language rather than Latin. But he was not reading the Greek original but only the words that Luther and scholars provided for him to read.

As opposed to the words that the Catholic scholars provided for them which they couldn't read and then were told what they meant. Sounds like we're just trading scholars (except the one group of scholars provided language that was more accessible). Are you implying that Luther's intent was malevolent? That he mistranslated the Greek to further his theological bent? I would be interested in any instances you might provide for such a theory.

[JHavard]

How is it I come up with these diffucult questions all the time?

tap, tap, tap,

tap, tap, tap,

TAP, TAP, TAP,

TAP, TAP, TAP,

[Conservative til I die]

You miss the point (shocking!) again. Of course there was heresy. But as a direct result of Luther and his Reformation, things have gotten progressively more anarchic and in my opinion, worse in Protestantism. Its like a genetic mutation that overtime, spreads and mutates into new forms. So whereas we had Luther throwing books out of the Bible, today we have people like the Moonies and the Christian Scientists. Protestants are also rehashing old heresies that were settled over a millennium ago.

The Catholic Church though, is flourishing, and is mostly united. Protestantism is fracturing on a exponential level.

BTW, nice way to change the focus, instead of actually defending the Reformation.

[the808bass]

WTF? WTF?

World Trade Federation?
Waiting to Flatulate?
Winning Through Freedom?

What is WTF? Just curious...

[Conservative til I die]

The Nestorians were heretics, which even a fundie would agree with. A substantial amount of Copts and other Christians in the areas you mentioned were/are Monophysites, another heresy.

No, the CHurch has not had 100% unity. No one's saying that. But its been united as a whole. By your definiton, the existence of fringe schismatic Catholic groups proves there is no unity. Yes, they exist, but they are like 0.005% of the Catholic world and are mostly easliy dismissed.

[Conservative til I die]

Martin Luther sure was malevolent. The man ripped books out of the Holy Scriptures because they didn't agree with his agenda. That's pretty damn blasphemous to me. And I've read he would have taken out more than he did, including the "Catholic Epistles" and Revelations.

[the808bass]

BTW, nice way to change the focus, instead of actually defending the Reformation.

Uh...you changed the focus. I was talking about Matt. 16:18 and God protecting His church and you jumped to the old line about so much fracturing, so many denominations without dealing with the point I made in the slightest. I don't know why I was supposed to defend the Reformation when I simply pointed out a problem with Catholic doctrine in regards to Mt. 16:18. But it beats thinking.

[JHavard]

. The man ripped books out of the Holy Scriptures because they didn't agree with his agenda.

Ctid, just what books are you talking about?

Please list.

[the808bass]

But its been united as a whole.

I think the point of the bit I posted from the book was that the majority was not RCC as you would wish it to be. You want Mt. 16 to apply monolithically to the RCC but the fact is that the RCC is and has always been a subset of the church that Christ formed and not the be all, end all.