"Feed my sheep" (Jn.21:15-17)
When I read this, the thought occurred to me: what would be the consequences of a literal interpretation of this passage? Would we have the Gospel according to PETA? (Sorry for the bad pun). [/silliness]
Um, angelo? Vmatt has a direct line to both gods. Don't forget.
LOL! I did forget. Thanks for the clarification. ;o)
Will you affirm for me that Latin was not a dead language, was in fact the common language of literacy, when the Bible was translated into it?
Yes I will. Not only that, but it was of course not necessary to translate the Bible into Greek. There was already the Septuagint, and the Christian scriptures were written in Greek. So between the Greek and the Latin versions, any literate person in and near the Roman Empire would be able to read the scriptures in their common tongue.
Augustine ("De unitate ecclesiae", [on the Unity of the Church 3):
"Let us not hear, this I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case."
He goes on: "Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God."
I don't know. You tell me.
I think you and several others here are operting on the mistaken notion that there are things that Catholics believe that are contradictory to Scripture. That the magisterium has the power to negate parts of the Bible.
This is not so.
So Augustine is correct in saying that if Catholic bishops were contradicting the Scripture we should obey the Scripture.
The problem is that nobody has shown that the Catholic Church is contrary to Scripture. Isolated, jerked out of context and just plain dubious interpretations of Scripture appear to indict the Church. But properly understood Scripture harmonizes with the Church.
So, I ask for the third time, what settles an argument between two men on the meaning of a Scripture passage?
SD
Having missed my point, you turned right around and made it for me again. We can find contextual issues to check scripture against scripture by looking to other scripture. Ya'll just look for any old thing that looks close
Having missed my point, you launch into the same old tirade about second century "wannabes" sowing the devil's seeds into the pure and fully developed (yet consisting of only a foundation, how odd) Church.
Your point is that there is mention of a goddess called "the Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah. And that Catholics are so enthralled by the devil that we don't even recognize or care that we worship this same goddess today, pretending that she is Mary, the Mother of the fleshy container which held the spirit of God.
That seems to be your point. When you hear a name you look in your concordance and look it up. "Hey, lookee here Cletus, "Queen of Heaven." Seems to be some type of pagan goddess. Those stupid Catholics."
That is, you take a name from usage today and look it up in the Bible and assume that the name refers to the same thing as it used to. This is as asinine as looking at my name "David" and assuming I am the Old Testament King.
Mary is the Queen of Heaven because she is the mother of the King. Period. That the name happens to match one used ofor a pagan goddess of old is immaterial.
SD
Havoc, I've had about enough of your disrespect and downright ignorance. I realize you won't affirm that the Church translated Scripture into Latin so people who were literate could read it, because that would violate you policy of never giving the Catholics any credit.
But can you step back for a minute and at least pretend that I am a fellow Christian and that when I read the Bible I read different things into the words than you do? I think that you recognize when, for instance, Calvinists and Arminians aruge free will, that both sides honestly are trying to use Scripture to bolster their points. They're not being devious, it's just that certain truths occur to certain people as more important than others.
Can you step back? Can you see that arguments over what the Bible means are not arguments "attacking" God and the Bible? Can you?
SD
Just thought I’d like to point out that there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura in practice. Though many neo-Christians believe that they adhere to the doctrine of “Bible Alone “ in their life with or search for Christ, the fact is that the vast majority of neo-Christians employ much tradition based practices in their particular denominations form of worship and ritual. Evidence? Sure, how about the concept of the Trinity? Not in the Bible. The use of a ring as a symbol of marriage? Not in the Bible. Church on Sunday? Not in the bible. Reliance on Scripture alone? Not in the Bible. Woman priests? Not in the Bible. I could go on, but you get the point.
The point of debate should not be whether Scripture is the sole rule of faith but what reasons, if any, compels one to reject centuries of Holy Tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit in favor of the anti Biblical, not extra Biblical, notion of Scripture alone.
I've done a little homework on the area. I was inviting y'all to do the same. (And in the STL area we have about 68 separate "denominations" listed in the yellow pages. I didn't count Buddhism or Latter Day Saints but I did count all the variations of Lutherans and Baptists and Church of God)
Can you not see how 68, or 20, or even 2 Christian "denominations" are a cause of scandal to the Body of Christ?
I know that Christians of the non-Catholic/Orthodox (a schism which is a scandal as well) variety have split with each other over petty things. But some, if not all, of the issues that allend brought up in Thread 154:99 which you guys disagree on are, IMHO are not of the petty kind but rather are the kind that can have eternal consequences.
Pray for John Paul II