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

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi

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


Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams


Thread 162
TNS Archives


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: christianlist; michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,661-1,6801,681-1,7001,701-1,720 ... 37,681-37,689 next last
To: JHavard
eating meat on Friday, which as most of your traditions, have no Biblical backing, still you refuse to do away with this useless law, for fear your empire might crumble.

Well. I would rather have fish than bull like this. Whoever said that meatless Fridays --which are restricted now to Lent and Advent--was ever anything except a matter of discipline?

1,681 posted on 10/21/2001 3:33:02 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1676 | View Replies]

To: Titanites
John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

Does this indicate we need anything beyond what is written?

Does this indicate we need only what is written?
------------------------------------------------------------

It indicates clearly we need only what is written. Additional information, which is anti-scriptural, certainly doesn't help. Does it?

It goes without saying, additional Scriptuarly correct information can be very helpful.
1,682 posted on 10/21/2001 3:35:12 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1637 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Well. I would rather have fish than bull like this. Whoever said that meatless Fridays --which are restricted now to Lent and Advent--was ever anything except a matter of discipline?

All the people under you including my wife who thought it was a matter of her salvation if she were to eat meat.

Let me guess, that was her interpretation of it, not the churches, like you have never encouraged your people to worship Mary, but most of them do, and you say, they must not have known the will of the church, or they would know better.

1,683 posted on 10/21/2001 3:42:54 PM PDT by JHavard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1681 | View Replies]

To: dignan3
The Latin Vulgate is the only authoritative translation for the whole Catholic Church. So, for me, what the NAB might say, insofar as it conflicts with the Vulgate, is irrelevant.

You agree (admit) the Latin Vulgate is a translation from the original Greek (NT). If the Vulgate translation were 100% correct it could only be as accurate as the original, never better.

In regards to Protestant translations, is it not conceivable that the Protestant biases of the translators might influence their translations?

The RSV ( with the Apocrypha) was developed in cooperation with, and is approved by, the RCC. The NAB is an Official, Approved, RC version. Is it not conceivable the Jerome version has RC biases?

(REGGIE) Once again, in my ignorance, I must look to Scripture. If you are more qualified than all modern authorities, so be it. Sadly, I don't give a damn what St. Jerome says...

Considering that the Latin Vulgate, translated from the Greek and Hebrew by Jerome, was THE translation of Scripture used by the Western Church for the better part of a millennium, I think that it is unwise for you to just dismiss outright Jerome's translation.

I don't pretend to be more qualified than all modern authorities, I am only standing on the shoulders of giants and because of that, I'll take Jerome over any modern translator every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

What a surprise! You are part of a very small group; even within the RCC. What a shock that you would prefer a version which has a few of the "magic" words so helpful to your case.

Have you ever questioned why your Church found it necessary to correct the myriad errors contained in the Vulgate?
1,684 posted on 10/21/2001 4:03:42 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1649 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
The "why" is that the competent authority chooses among conflicting opinions and makes a decision. Even granting your notion of a large Bar Joseph family, the New Testament certainly plays down their importance, and James is greatly overshadowed by Peter and Paul and others. Jerusalem, of course, ceases to be a viable center for an international church after 70 A.D.

Do you care to enlighten me on just how much "ink" was accorded to Mary in the NT? Would you use the same argument to stress her unimportance as compared to Peter and Paul?

You still haven't told me why the "Pope" didn't appoint James.
1,685 posted on 10/21/2001 4:10:47 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1640 | View Replies]

To: dignan3
The fact that kecharitomene is in the perfect tense, I think, is the rub. If you want to explore that aspect of the grammer with me, I would be more than happy to.

Ignore this post.

Don't forget to explain why it appears in the aorist two verses later.

1,686 posted on 10/21/2001 4:15:06 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1657 | View Replies]

To: JHavard
This "hot-off-the-press" hypothesis can't be substantiated because we don't have any of these supposed copies nor do we have any report of them.

That is untrue, there were I believe over 6000 manuscripts of the NT found, complete, partial, and fragments, and most of these were those copies that each Church has made when an epistle was finisned.

I don't think you are responding to me, but it patently false that the manuscript copies are "those copies that each church made when an epistle was finished". We have virtually no copies that can even be traced to a century after the autograph copy. At best we have (other than scraps) perhaps a tenth generation copy of the original (not that I am implying any error in transmision, just denying that we somehow have originals or first generation copies).

In fact, I believe that the closest things we have to an actual complete copy of the NT are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus(sp?) which date to the fourth century.

1,687 posted on 10/21/2001 4:15:48 PM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1678 | View Replies]

To: Titanites
Hmmm, maybe. I responded to Old Reggie's #1635, who took a passage from John and asked "Does this indicate we need anything beyond what is written?" In turn, I asked "Does this indicate we need only what is written?" And you responded "Yes, it is all we need to find salvation."

Of course, you forget asking for any reference to the sufficiency of Scripture in the Bible.

In all seriousness, have you ever read the Bible?
1,688 posted on 10/21/2001 4:17:30 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1652 | View Replies]

To: the808bass
Don't forget to explain why it appears in the aorist two verses later.

Now I'm just talking to myself. If it's in the aorist (which it is), then a proper translation of Luke 1:30 would be (BassNRV): "And the angel said to her, "Don't be afraid, Mary, for you found favor with God." And yet we almost always see it translated as "you have found favor with God" which implies a perfect which is not there.

1,689 posted on 10/21/2001 4:22:21 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1686 | View Replies]

To: JHavard
but your church is as tenacious as a pit bull, and even things like eating meat on Friday, which as most of your traditions, have no Biblical backing

Who ever claimed that not eating meat on Friday was some kind of doctrine? It was a charitable (& perhaps political) decision (I think during the 17th century) by the church to aid fishmongers who were starving because nobody was eating fish. It was intended as a sacrifice of the people called by the church. We continue it today as a guidline for sacrifice during the season of lent (along with other sacrifices) in rememberance of Christ's 40 days in the desert and in preparation for Good Friday-Easter.

Nobody ever claimed that Scripture requires us to not eat meat.

1,690 posted on 10/21/2001 4:28:11 PM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1676 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Sorry I missed your post before I responded Robby. I like your anser better - nice and succinct.
1,691 posted on 10/21/2001 4:30:35 PM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1681 | View Replies]

To: hopefulpilgrim
...and what was wrong with MY explanation??? : )

Hey I must have missed it. What was the post# where you explained it? And are you trained in Greek or just a regular guy (like me) counting on "experts" to show me the way of understanding of the original language?

1,692 posted on 10/21/2001 4:39:51 PM PDT by Iowegian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1680 | View Replies]

To: JHavard
All the people under you including my wife who thought it was a matter of her salvation if she were to eat meat.

I honestly mean no offense to your wife, but she could not have been very Catholic and believe she would go to hell for eating meat on Friday. It is obviously not her fault. it is the fault of the local priest and of the Church body as a whole to let her slip through the cracks (my mother is one such in some ways). All churches suffer from this of course. I've met lots of Baptists who (despite years of very simple teaching) still believe that good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell (works righteousness). Both sides suffer from this level of ignorance (did you know that until my mother met my wife she thought that Baptists were called that because they all got baptized every week? - It gets me rolling on the floor to this day.)

1,693 posted on 10/21/2001 4:40:15 PM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1683 | View Replies]

To: IMRight
Many Protestants seem to think that the Catholic position is that Mary had somehow "earned" Christ by being the best person (works righteousness), or that we believe that she could have gotten to Heaven on her own (again because she was such a "good" person. Neither of the above is true (quasi-Catholic voodoo types in Brazil notwithstanding).

It is difficult for Protestants to really know what the Catholic position on Mary really is.

A quote from Pelayo:

"I don't know why? It is an easy one. Mary was Immaculately Conceived for the sole purpose of being Christ's mother. Thus the cause of her sinlessness was Christ

What kind of quasi... would say this?
1,694 posted on 10/21/2001 4:41:35 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1664 | View Replies]

To: IMRight
We have virtually no copies that can even be traced to a century after the autograph copy. At best we have (other than scraps) perhaps a tenth generation copy of the original (not that I am implying any error in transmision, just denying that we somehow have originals or first generation copies).

I realize that you have no copies earlier then the 4th century now, I am referring to when the original translations were done that the canon was developed on. Neither do you have an earlier copy of the Septaugint, that is why you can not conclusivly prove that it had the Apocryphal in it, right?

1,695 posted on 10/21/2001 4:51:49 PM PDT by JHavard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1687 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
This is the second time one of the RC's has tried to say that she needed a Saviour because she sinned, just as we do, yet they also said she was sinless. Is this supposed to make sense? IMO they don't have a good explanation and they are grasping are desperately trying to come up with an explanation.
1,696 posted on 10/21/2001 4:55:01 PM PDT by Iowegian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1694 | View Replies]

To: IMRight
Nobody ever claimed that Scripture requires us to not eat meat.

I'm sure there are other x-catholics who had the same understanding my wife had, it was a sin, and had to be be confessed to the priest if they ate meat on any Friday.

1,697 posted on 10/21/2001 4:56:50 PM PDT by JHavard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1690 | View Replies]

To: IMRight
We have virtually no copies that can even be traced to a century after the autograph copy.

p66, p67, and p75 are all dated from the second and in the case of p75 the early third century. The fact that we only have fourth and fifth generation copies (as you posit and I think reasonable) would indicate to me that there were a whole host of copies available to the early church and that they were in circulation early on. If we have thousands of manuscripts (though many are fragmentary, there is no reason to think they were fragmentary in their original form) and all we have are fourth and fifth generation copies then the copies would have been plenteous indeed for the early church. Not a Bible in every pot, but a relatively large number of copies of early books.

If you believe that the copies were only being made from the time of our earliest known fragments, you would have to propose a reasonable hypothesis as to why they were begun at that point. Revelations' first several chapters seems to provide a great example of this "hot of the presses" theory. The letters are to the "messengers" of the seven churches who could have very well been people entrusted with communicating the epistles and writings of the early church from local body to local body.

1,698 posted on 10/21/2001 4:57:19 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1687 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
You still haven't told me why the "Pope" didn't appoint James.

The Vatican had Peter on probationary leave for denying Christ. :)

1,699 posted on 10/21/2001 5:01:02 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1685 | View Replies]

To: IMRight
Among those who initially failed to oppose this infanticide were several denominations that held strongly to a Sola-Scriptura viewpoint - yet they failed to see it.

I don't imagine there were many (if any) denominations who believe in the inspiration of Scripture who came out in favor of abortion. That is the curse of the Protestant church, a lack of belief in inspired Scripture, not a belief in Sola Scriptura.

1,700 posted on 10/21/2001 5:04:21 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1663 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,661-1,6801,681-1,7001,701-1,720 ... 37,681-37,689 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