Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| 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 |
Whereever and whenever the scriptures are allowed free access the people become a literate people. The Dark ages were a result of keeping the Bible out of the hands of the average person and in the hands of the scholars.
The point I want to make is that the image of the individual at home, with his family, reading the Bible and discussing it and explaining it, is a recent historical creation. It is not Scriptural.
It is not scriptural? Then how come the Jew was commanded to put scriptures all over their homes (Deut.6:9)
We are of course to discuss the Scripture, to meditate on it, to reflect on it, to communicate its messages to others. But the idea of doing this primarily through print is a fairly recent innovation.
Lets deal with the period that the Roman church had control of nations and the nations she dominates today. Is it only concidence that no Catholic dominated nation today has a strong middle class?
Its a good innovation, and of course we should all be grateful to those who pushed for it. Its been adopted by Christians of all kinds, including Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Likewise, Christian Internet forums are good. But its silly to look for them in the Scriptures either.
The question was asked about reading. America had one of the highest literacy rates in history (over 90% in the 19th century) because they were a Bible reading people.
There are other ways of spreading and learning the faith besides reading Scripture. And some of these ways are more "Scriptural" in that they were the more common practice at the time that the Scripture was compiled. The illiterate Orthodox believer, and probably the Catholic as well, has always heard Scripture read to him. If one attends the regular cycle of services, over the course of a year one would hear read almost the entire NT, most of the OT, and countless passages over and over - so many times that it would be hard to keep from memorizing them.
Oh, I have heard that before also. How many people are really listening. Most importanly, the people are suppose to check their leaders with the scriptures.(1Jn.4:1) You state they have heard the OT and NT over and over again, well, I doubt most of them could find a passage or even cite one.
The fact is controling the Bible is a way for the Clergy to control the people.
A Bible reading people are a freedom loving people.
What I'm trying to do, probably poorly, is help you see that the RC and Orthodox believers of the past - and of today in places where reading is not widespread - were not denied access to the teachings of Scripture. If anything, the opposite is true. They were literally steeped in it. It formed the foundation of their cultures, and typically served as the raw material for their creative arts.
It formed the foundation of a culture dominated by the elites, both clerical, artistic, and govermental. If Rome and the Orthodox wanted a literate people they would give them Bibles and teach them to read from them.
They are too smart for that, because a Bible is very dangerous, it gets people to question and before you know it you have Hus's, Luther's, Tyndales, Whitefield, Wesley's running all over the place 'turning the world upside down' and the Roman and Orthodox churches love order and tradition above freedom and truth
This is why the accusation that the RC's, and the Orthodox, are somehow denied access to Scripture sounds to our ears so elitist. It sounds like those who make that kind of accusation are saying that there is only one good and proper way to receive God's Word - direct reading of Holy Scripture.
That is the best way. The Roman/Orthodox church should not control God's words. That is Elitist.
This despite the fact that so many of the people whose stories are told in Scripture received God's Word in no such way. I'm not saying that its a wrong way, although IMO it does have its weaknesses that need to be balanced with other methods of receiving God's Word (for example, through song and art.) But it should not be the only way.
When you have the printed page you should be reading. You think with words and it is reading that gives one a vocabulary with which to think with.
Since the question was over literacy, the issue of receiving God's words are side issues. If you want a literate people give them a Bible to read, and the Bible in English is the King James.
Well, isn't that something! So Tyndale was murdered for bringing in bad bibles! And that bad Bible was the foundation of another bad Bible the King James.
Tyndale was executed because it was illegal to print bible without permission of the Church, permission which he asked for and was denied.
Tyndale was probaly the single greatest translater in history.
Yea, he had a 'bad' Bible alright, bad for Rome!
There was a Catholic Bible in English before the KJV was written.
No kidding! It was the Douey Rheims and was made by Rome to compete against the Geneva Bible which was the dominate bible of its day and was fiercly anti-Roman.
So much for a "conspiracy" to keep it out of peoples' hands. If you guys put even a tenth as much efort into spreading the truth as you did into spreading your lies, you would have conquered the world long ago.
You old liar! How quickly you would like to forget 'Bloody' Mary when Rome had control of England again and burned at the stake those who even had a Bible. Two parents were burned at the stake for just teaching their children the Lords prayer in English! It is all there in Fox's book of martyr's.
Only by the grace of God did the Spanish Armada with its Inquistion tools on board sink before Rome could once again end English freedom.
You have the nerve to talk about history as if you know any!
We are not concerned about 'conquering the world' that is a Roman Catholic goal.
I'll pray for you that this is true and remains so, and that the demons don't lead you along a deceptive path. God be with you.
Can you elaborate on this? I am really curious about the above statement. I've never heard anyone say anything like it. Thanks!
I came to religion with practically no belief at all on any kind of doctrine, so I approach almost everything from this viewpoint.
When we read that Mary and Joseph were married and that Jesus had brothers and sisters, then the natural conclusion that anyone would make is that of course after the birth of Jesus they carried on as any married couple would.
To believe anything else requires believing things that are not apparent in scripture:
1. That Mary was always a virgin. Not to be indelicate, but the birth of Jesus would have shattered the physical sign of any virginity. I too have only a rudimentary grasp of Jewish society, but as I understand physical signs of viriginity in all cultures has always been the acid test of whether someone was virginal or not. Her physical purity would be the only outward sign to others that she actually had conceived and bore as a virgin. Once that was gone, through childbirth, then there would be no physical evidence that she was and thus no reason why they wouldn't have sex.
2. That Joseph was married before and had kids from a previous marriage. Again, in order to support the idea of perpetual virginity, an entire family history of Joseph that exists nowhere but in a belief has to be read into scripture.
3. That greek lacks a way to express "half-brother" or "cousin" and that the original writers of scripture were not expressing themselves exactly as they wanted.
These are the biggies. The only thing that gives me any pause is that Jesus turned over care to John instead of his brother. I don't doubt that this was rare in Jewish society, but I doubt that it was unheard of. From scripture, it's obvious that John and Jesus had a very close relationship, John refers to himself as "the disciple that Jesus loved" in John 21:7. Jesus also chose John to reveal the vision of end time prophecies to. The very act of turning over the care of Mary to him speaks volumes of their closeness.
You see fit to criticize the RCC for what you believe is wrong. You also have criticized on previous threads, the Bibles used by folks.
I'm not going to stop asking Havoc. What Bible do you use? What church do you attend? You need to stop being a sniper.
graciously given. :-)
First remember you asked for this, so don't slit my throat, then say thank you:), also remember when I made the first statement I said clearly I was not trying to offend anyone.
My family does not reject me. We do not speak of God at their request. What would satisfy my requirement is that I am always hoping that I will be able to reconcile what the catholics beleive about salvation with the bible, I am sorry but that hasn't happened yet.
Becky
Your posts have lots of anger in them. One need only look at some of the other threads and this thread to see that.
People are not intimidated by you, Havoc.
My reading of the bible tells me there is ONE way to reach heaven. I was hoping to find that what I was taught the catholice believe about reaching heaven would be wrong, which some of it I beleive was, but not enough that I can believe my family will go to heaven.
I always thought my position was pretty plain to all of you. Would you sit back and watch a family member (or anyone for that matter) follow a map that was going to lead them into quick sand, and not try to convince them, or find a way to convince them they were going in the wrong direction. That is why I keep on.
Becky
Can you elaborate on this? I am really curious about the above statement. I've never heard anyone say anything like it. Thanks!
Sorry, I meant my question to go to Havoc - that's what I get (and you put up with) with a 2nd shifter who gets up every day with less than 5 hours of sleep... ZZZZzzzzz...
Do you know what a decretal is? What decretal are you talking about? The Decretal of Siricius? Decretal of Gratian? Decretal of Gregory IX?
You mentioned previously that one needs to study their subject and do it well. I suggest to you that same sagely advice which you imparted to others.
One cannot even begin to answer the other claims you make without the above information. But if one wants to try and discern what you meant, the generally accepted oldest decretal is the Decretal of Siricius 384-398. But the term pope was used before that both in the East and Western Church, to denote priests and bishops, respectively.
Well, guess again. My Priest knows the Scripture very well, can find and recite passages and believes in them. He must be a rougue Priest, eh?
The PVM thread that was locked has much information on this, as well as many resources on the Internet. You can read both sides of this and make an informed decision, which you want to do. I believe the belief in Mary as Ever-Virgin, is based in Scripture, with valuable information gleaned from Mosaic law at the time.
Yo Fury. Could I ask you to cite a couple of these examples?
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.