Posted on 09/29/2001 7:49:58 PM PDT by malakhi
| Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 151
How so? As I said previously, there is a spectrum of belief among Jews as to how much of the Hebrew scriptures are historical. What I presented was an extreme view. My purpose was to show that even this extreme view (which accepts only the facts of the People, the Law, and the People's understanding of God's will) is sufficient for Judaism to exist. Most Jews of course do NOT accept this extreme view. Many Jews completely accept the historicity of the Hebrew scriptures. Fundamentalist Jews believe that the Torah was dictated word for word by God to Moses.
I'd be interested in knowing how much you think really is factual and why.
I would divide it up into three separate sections.
1. Genesis prior to Abraham. I believe that these stories are not literal. I think they point to the reality that God created the universe. But I think they make use of figurative language because there is no way literally to describe God's act of creation. I think there is also a core of truth to the story of Noah (evidence points to widespread flooding approximately 10,000 B.C.E., as a result of the end of the most recent Ice Age). I suspect that the Tower of Babel story also has an historic core. The same is possible with some of the other stories as well.
2. Abraham to the Babylonian Captivity. With Abraham, I believe we have moved from prehistory into history. This is somewhat qualified, however, because of the difficulty of corroborating many of the stories with archaeological evidence. Some things are easier to prove than others. The existence of a Jewish kingdom in Israel is well-documented. Specific people and events are not. So for this period, a certain measure of faith is necessary to accept that the accounts are accurate.
Miracle stories are always going to be questioned more than non-miraculous events. I believe that miracles can and do happen. That being said, I don't think that Judaism requires that every miracle story be true in order for Judaism to be true.
3. The Babylonian Captivity forward. From this point, we are well into historical times, and the written record becomes much more important in documenting events. We can be quite certain that what is reported during this period is historical.
Same here. I find its best when a stalemate is reached to agree to disagree and be done with it as I have attempted to do with Havoc. All of us here are passionate about our beliefs so emotions can get the better of us. If I have offended anybody I apologize.
Dave, Buffalo sure made your Steelers look good yesterday!
I assumed that is what you meant. ;o)
OK, I know what you mean when you say that all Christians are united to the Church by their baptisms. But how can the Catholic Church be larger than the Body of Christ? Or by "the Catholic Church" do you mean regular Catholics PLUS all baptized Christians? And the Body of Christ is a subset of this? I'm confused.
If there is consolation in being merely "mediocre" as opposed to being "pathetic" this is a biggie. To beat the teams you should beat, even on the road, is the mark of a playoff team. Do we dare dream of a 9-7 wildcard team? 10-6?
(Did I mention Steeler fans tend to be manic-depressive?)
Of course, the defense provided the points when they were really needed and gave the offense the time to sputter away and eventually provide some scoring. An interception return to seal the game ended at the 16. Had we scored another TD I would have won the pool again ($500). But alas and alack, the Steelers have too much class to overtly try to score when the game is already a fait accompli.
Not like former coach "Handshake" Sam Wyche of the Cincy Bungles, who once kicked a field goal in the closing seconds of a victory over the Steelers just to rub it in. The Bungles come to town this week for the opening of Heinz Field. Rumors of their prowess are perhaps overstated.
SD
All who are attached to the Church (all Baptized) are, in this instance considered members. Or at least the "invincably ignorant" ones (their name is legion). So we start with the Church composed of basically all Christians. Since we know that not all who claim to be Christians are actually to be saved, we see the actual members of the Body of Christ to be lower than those who profess to be.
In mathematical terms: Baptized Catholics+Baptized others-lost souls=Body of Christ
Baptized Catholics + Baptized others = Church (home to saints and sinners)
SD
I agree that Cincinnati may be a fluke. But San Diego looks to have a good team. Considering what is happening this year in both San Diego and in Washington, I think Norv Turner is looking like a heckuva coach.
Ahhhhhh... Now I understand. Thanks for the clarification!
And your midrash theory isn't?
Your theory rests on the supposition that either the writers of these documents were unaware of the way in which they were (erroneously) being received, or that they were aware and did nothing to counter the misinterpretation. It also implies that other leaders of churches (not just the individual authors of the works in question), who had been personally taught by these authors, either didn't know the religion that they were teaching, or knew and allowed the misunderstanding to grow and become universal.
I think allend's dichotomy is true. The midrash theory, as you've presented it, does not seem credible.
I'm afraid you're findings are in error. In addition to the scriptural fact that Peter was not given any special preference by the other apostles; Peter was, and other apostles were married.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 Corinthians 9:
1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?
2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 This is my defense to those who would examine me.
4 Do we not have the right to our food and drink?
5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? ==========================================================
Peter (Cephas) was married.
MAY YOU HAVE/EXPERIENCE RICHEST of communications and intimacy between you, The Lord and those you Love,
Well, we can look at other Jewish writers from that time, and see how they wrote. I prefer understanding the writings in their cultural context to assuming that the gospel writers were the first century equivalent of Washington Times reporters.
Your theory rests on the supposition that either the writers of these documents were unaware of the way in which they were (erroneously) being received, or that they were aware and did nothing to counter the misinterpretation.
I tend to favor the first supposition.
It also implies that other leaders of churches (not just the individual authors of the works in question), who had been personally taught by these authors, either didn't know the religion that they were teaching, or knew and allowed the misunderstanding to grow and become universal.
As I have stated previously, the first few centuries were awash with different gospels and different teachings about Jesus. Once John's gospel was written and circulated, he would have no control over the interpretation of its content. What would a gnostic have made of it? Or a Marcionite? What later was established as "orthodox" Christianity was at the time simply one of many competing "Christianities".
I think allend's dichotomy is true. The midrash theory, as you've presented it, does not seem credible.
I offered it as an alternative interpretation, one which takes the cultural and literary influences of first century Judaism into account. You are of course free to reject it.
I think you are taking Paul out of context. Paul was speaking for himself, not the Lord. He does this often and, usually makes a distinction when he is speaking for himself and when he is speaking for the Lord.
A few examples:
1Tim.2
[1]First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,
[2] for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.
[3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
[4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
[5] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
[6] who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.
[7] For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
[8]I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;
[9] also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire
[10] but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion.
[11] Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
[12] I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
[13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
[14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
[15] Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note that Paul begins this letter with "...I urge...
Do you suppose Paul means "men" exclusively in Paragraphs 1-6?
Paragraph 12. Paul is speaking for himself only. He is not speaking for the Lord.
-----------------------------------------------------------
As to your selection lets see how this letter begins.
1 Corinthians 14:
1 Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.
2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
3 On the other hand, he who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.
4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified. -----------------------------------------------------------
Note Paul is clear about what he wants. Do you suppose we are commanded to "speak in tongues and/or to prosephy"?
----------------------------------------------------------
One more:
If you wish to take 1 Cor. 14:34-35 literally, what do you think of this?
1 Tim.3
[1] The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
[2] Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
[3] no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.
[4] He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way;
[5] for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?
So there are some things written that are "optional"? That are Paul's personal opinion, but don't apply to us?
Paul was an apostle and had the authority to direct the goings on of the churches he (and others) had established. The mere fact that his letters were even written and saved as some type of "instruction" for the churches shows the authority heeded.
[8]I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;
[12] I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do you suppose Paul means "men" exclusively in Paragraphs 1-6?
Of course not. Do you fashion us to be some type of pinheaded feminist deconstructionists?
Paragraph 12. Paul is speaking for himself only. He is not speaking for the Lord.
And in verse 8, the same? The Lord does not wish that in every place men shoudl pray, only Paul does? This is silly.
We understand the message of the books to be inspired, taken along with the circumstances of the intended audience. We recognize the Holy Spirit inspiring the author to write only truth. We don't get to personally decide, based on the placement of the first person pronoun and wishful thinking, which statements to take as "God" and which as merely "Paul."
-----------------------------------------------------------
5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Note Paul is clear about what he wants. Do you suppose we are commanded to "speak in tongues and/or to prosephy"?
You fall into a "literalness" trap here. Paul expresses a desire that we were all gifted with the ability to speak in tongues or prophesy. He is not commanding us to do so, or pretend to do so.
If you wish to take 1 Cor. 14:34-35 literally, what do you think of this?
[2] Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
Congratulations! You're the one thousandth person to bring up this passage. That you can't see the difference between the qualifications of a bishop and the absolute prohibition on women speaking at the service is beyond me. The qualifications can be altered here and there, tightened actually. But there is no wiggle room for women. No means no.
SD
Nah, I just latched onto the fact that you really have no proof of your claims and drove the point home. What's made of it beyond that can be argued by others.
sara, thanks for the insight to your reasoning and your faith which I think is great, and that you have a neat little picture of how it fits into your life.
If God wills,.... pray that you can always be content with your present knowledge, and that you never have to question it.
Your statement that I italicized seems to me to be the major factor in why you are at your present belief, "you were brought up in it."
My wife was a Catholic since birth and her childhood was spent in Catholic schools and Churches, and they were totally supported by her Catholic parents. Her childhood dreams were that of becoming a Nun, and dedicating her life to the Church.
As it turned out these dreams never came to fruition, but she remained a loyal Catholic, and never missed Mass, or weekly services although she had never had a personal relationship with Christ, but more of one with Mary and the Church as a family.
Had it not been through a miracle, and her and I meeting this would have been the way she spent her whole life, as many of her friends from childhood have done since.
They cling to the fact they are Catholic, and feel spiritually safe, but know nothing about Christ the Savior, and can not discuss religion or their belief, because they have never sat down and asked themselves, what does the Bible really say.
For many years it was hidden from them by being taught in Latin, but then when that was stopped, they were left with an old English writing that unless you had read it since childhood, you couldn't understand what it said, and when they bought a NAB or a Living Bible, even though it was put out with the Catholic Churches blessing, they were still told it was a Protestant influenced translation, that couldn't be trusted.
Most Catholics have been taught from the Church that when someone tells them that the Bible states thus and such, to simply say, if it's not the Catholic Bible, you haven’t got the complete Bible, therefore your Scripture means nothing to me.
They have been duped into thinking that there are books missing from the New Testament that have a direct bearing on what Christ said, and just as many Catholic posters do now, but they never tell anyone that the disagreements that have come up over the canon of the Bible deal with books that were in the Old Testament, which have nothing to do with doctrine or the salvation teachings of the New Testament Church.
They seem to elude that it was NT books that were disregarded, which as you know, the Catholic Church itself rejected.
Back to my wife, when we first met, I had bought her a Catholic approved living Bible for Christmas, and it wasn’t until a couple of years ago that she started reading it after a challenge from a friend to prove that works could bring salvation.
Then one night we were listening to Charles Stanley out of Atlanta Georgia, and she was moved to bring the real Christ into her life, and from that moment on she began a personal relationship with Him, and she has grown in leaps and bounds since.
My point is this, had she never been led away from the Catholic Church, and to a personal one with Christ, she would have continued on as have her friends and sisters to where they are really nice people, but none of them know Christ or what he taught, and although the book is still out on whether simply being a good person is enough to be given eternal life, I feel it is too important to leave to chance.
I realize that the Catholics we meet on the threads here seem to be knowledgeable of Christ and the Bible, but I think you represent a very, very small portion of the everyday Catholics we see out there in the world today, and especially the older ones, who were discouraged from reading the Bible.
I think it remains a fact that what we call, "the true Body of Christ", that group of people in the world who know Christ's voice, and are called of him, are not a part of any brand named Church other then when it is used in identifying the name of the building they choose to meet in.
This goes for Protestants, or any others that are out there, and you may even be able to quote people who have had to come to the Catholic Church to find their calling, but that does not change the fact that you certainly do not have a monopoly on bringing people to Christ any more than do Baptist or Methodist or even *grin, grin* AOG's, but Christ searches through all of them to find those who will hear him and become a part of his family.
The difference I think is that these men were without question lead of God. Those who teach things other than what was originally taught cannot assume to have said of them the same thing. What looks like a limb or floating branch can as easily be a deadly viper. God never promised to keep anyone from teaching error or from being taught error. If he had, why was it necessary for the Apostles to constantly warn men to avoid those teachings? Hmmm. If God protects why would the admonition exist. Why would 'heretics' exist? No such protection has existed. And it doesn't exist today. Christians were taught very early by the apostles to check every word against God's lest they be lead astray. If God protected the teachings, this command is in error!
I don't have time to fully address this right at the moment; but, this is a good general start.
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.