The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

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

[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

[dadwags]

#7414
Steven, I understand that you disagree with the positions I take,
but,
Do you HAVE to ridicule my lack of html skill ? :(

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

When you read ALL of Pauls writings together you find that his opinions never contradict what God would say, so Pauls opinions written down in the bible are inspired.

In the verses we were discussing from Tim. about women preachers, no where does Paul say he his voicing his opinion rather then the Lords. So whenyou read Cor. and use those verses where Paul says "I say, not the Lord" to justify saying the things we don't like somewhere else must just be his opinion we are treading dangerous ground. We have to believe that is what God wanted to say even when Paul says he is saying it, or it throws into question the whole bible.

Becky

[RobbyS]

A bit late on this:

Angelo's point is that certain key verses appear to have bad translations into Greek and these bad ideas have permeated Christianity, making us see things in the OT that he claims are not there.

I know what his point is and I reject it for the following reason: the Hebrew Scriptures are NOT, as the Koran is supposed to be by Muslims" the literal Word of God, but a compilation and restatement of earlier writing that no longer exist (the suppose "J" and "E' versions of parts of it, for instance). Furthermore, I ask: in what written form were the Ten Commandments inscribed on the Tablets of the Law? The Hebrew alphabet was probably not even invented in the 13th Century B.C. The Jews, IMHO, treat the Scriptures as do the Fundamentalist Protestants: a canon that was "sealed: and which is itself and only itself the whole of divine revelation. I don't agree, and say, what are THEY to tell me that Luke, or even the translators of the Hebrew Scriptures, were not speaking the word of God? Why should I accept their authority any more than I accept the authority of Luther, or Ray Brown, for that matter?

[RobbyS]

Fitting that the first reading on November 11, Veterans Day, is from 2Macabrres, recounting the story of the martyrdom of the Seven brothers. It is from this period in Jewish history that we have the first martyrs for faith--any faith, for who ever died for Baal or Zeus? "At the point of death [one of the brothers] said: [to the Syrian king]

"You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the worldwill; raise us up to live again, forever. It is for his laws that we are dying." From the earliest days, Christians esteemed their own martyrs and felt an unbreakable bond with them. We likewise, especially in these days, feel a attachment with those who have given their lives for their country.

[the808bass]

the suppose "J" and "E' versions of parts of it, for instance

You do know that this theory believes that the "J" version used Yhwh for God and "E" versions used "Elohim?" What a silly theory. I'll let the rest of your points speak for themselves.

[RobbyS]

What a silly theory. I'll let the rest of your points speak for themselves. "Silly." means, I take it, anything you reject. "Silly" to me means is the notion that Moses HAD to write the Five Books or they are not authoritative.

[OLD REGGIE]

From Webster's collegiate Dictionary, 1959:

1) Of priests; relating to the priestly office or function, 2) Characterized by a belief in a divinely authorized priesthood.

I imagine this definition would have to be qualified as follows:

And approved by RobbyS. The Episcopal Church and the Lutheran Church are not approved as authentic churches by RobbyS; therefore they don't really have the priesthood.

[OLD REGGIE]

1 Timothy 2:

[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.
This is why Paul thinks women are 2nd class. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

I imagine you are lucky, you have borne children. It appears Paul doesn't leave any out for childless women.

[RobbyS]

I think the ordinary Anglican in the 19th Century rejected the notion that the Church had priests. They threw a fit when some High Churchmen insisted on wearing surplices and other such "Romish" garments. This was especially true if he was an evangelical. I don't think that Lutherans believe their clergy are priests.

[OLD REGGIE]

Fitting that 2 Maccabees is the only "scripture" which appears to condone suicide.

2 Maccabees, chapter 14:

41: When the troops were about to capture the tower and were forcing the door of the courtyard, they ordered that fire be brought and the doors burned. Being surrounded, Razis fell upon his own sword,
42: preferring to die nobly rather than to fall into the hands of sinners and suffer outrages unworthy of his noble birth.
43: But in the heat of the struggle he did not hit exactly, and the crowd was now rushing in through the doors. He bravely ran up on the wall, and manfully threw himself down into the crowd.
44: But as they quickly drew back, a space opened and he fell in the middle of the empty space.
45: Still alive and aflame with anger, he rose, and though his blood gushed forth and his wounds were severe he ran through the crowd; and standing upon a steep rock,
46: with his blood now completely drained from him, he tore out his entrails, took them with both hands and hurled them at the crowd, calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to give them back to him again. This was the manner of his death.

Only one of the reasons the Apocrypha were not canonized by the Hebrews, and not even by the RCC for 1,500 years.

[RobbyS]

Well, Joshua seems to condone genocide! No, the reason why Maccabees didn't make the Jewish canon was that it supported the Hasmonean regime, which was anathema to the Pharisees. Josephus shared the same prejudice.

[the808bass]

"Silly" to me means is the notion that Moses HAD to write the Five Books or they are not authoritative.

Sounds silly to me. Of course, you might have to start questioning the New Testament as the Synoptics were "obviously" composed from Q and the Corinthians are not really just 2 letters and they might be to multiple churches. 1, 2, and 3 John were not composed by John but by some Johannine suburb which existed in Eastern Patmos. Hebrews was written by a woman. Have I covered all of em yet or should I keep em coming?

Yours is an especially radical brand of study of Scripture that would equal the radicalism of say vmatt's Christology. If only what you define as the "literal" word of God (that which has no alternate theories of composition) is theopneustos, then we've got nothing. We've built all doctrine on some shifting sand, including Catholic doctrine. You can say the Church authority remains, but without any Scriptural background (where you view swiftly leads) it crumbles soon enough into the rubble of historical-critical scholarship.

[RobbyS]

Not much of "history" can stand the acid of the historical-critical method any better than the Bible can. For instance. how could they prove that Plato actually wrote his dialogues?(By Plato, I means, of course, Aristocles, the supposed student of the supposedly historical Socrates.) You are reacting to the raw skepticism that fuels the Jesus Seminar types, or the naturalism that fuels much of it. To hell with them. The first bunch believes in nothing; the second, that everything has a natural cause. But I know enough of history to know than Ranke's notion of scientific history was doomed because the raw material is not there. The past does not exist, or exists only in fragments. All arguments about it are bound to end in debate. Hack, I couldn't prove where I was on May 15. 1965. I don't even remember myself!

[malakhi]

You have a beautiful family, angelo. Shabbat shalom!

Thank you, eastsider!

[malakhi]

Maybe you could ask this as a general question? I would love to see how it is interpreted by our brethren.

HEY EVERYONE, I was talking about Paul with OLD REGGIE on Friday, and we were discussing the meaning of the following passage from Romans 7:

[14] We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
[15] I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
[16] Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
[17] So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
[18] For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
[19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
[20] Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
[21] So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
[22] For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
[23] but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
[24] Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
[25] Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

I cited this passage to counter notion that Paul was asexual. I think this suggests that Paul was in fact subject to intense temptation. To me, it seems unlikely that he would write so powerfully and in an almost anguished fashion were his temptation to, say, gluttony instead of sexual sin.

How do y'all interpret this passage?

[malakhi]

It looks like we all are going to be spending our first Christmas together (you can come too angelo:) and I have been thinking, when all you guys go out to buy me a gift, don't spend over $500.00 or so. I ride a Ultra Glide Classic Harley and need some more chrome, just to give you all some ideas. Thanks in advance!

I can't believe that no one replied to you on this, BigMack! Umm, I'll have to think of a way to explain to my wife that we will be spending the holidays in Oklahoma... ;o)

[malakhi]

I know what his point is and I reject it for the following reason: the Hebrew Scriptures are NOT, as the Koran is supposed to be by Muslims" the literal Word of God, but a compilation and restatement of earlier writing that no longer exist (the suppose "J" and "E' versions of parts of it, for instance).

allend, dignan3, would you care to share your opinion of modern critical theory with RobbyS?

[malakhi]

Furthermore, I ask: in what written form were the Ten Commandments inscribed on the Tablets of the Law? The Hebrew alphabet was probably not even invented in the 13th Century B.C.

If you have any evidence which suggests that the tablets of the 10 Commandments were written in any language other than Hebrew, please present it. Otherwise, it is just idle and meaningless speculation.

what are THEY to tell me that Luke, or even the translators of the Hebrew Scriptures, were not speaking the word of God?

What is the Catholic Church to tell the Mormons that Joseph Smith was not speaking the word of God?

[malakhi]

No, the reason why Maccabees didn't make the Jewish canon was that it supported the Hasmonean regime, which was anathema to the Pharisees. Josephus shared the same prejudice.

First, looking at how the Hasmoneans ended up, it is no wonder that the Pharisees in the first century C.E. did not wish to be seen as supporting them. Second, there were other reasons the Maccabees were not canonized, which you seem completely to overlook.

[malakhi]

Yours is an especially radical brand of study of Scripture that would equal the radicalism of say vmatt's Christology. If only what you define as the "literal" word of God (that which has no alternate theories of composition) is theopneustos, then we've got nothing. We've built all doctrine on some shifting sand, including Catholic doctrine. You can say the Church authority remains, but without any Scriptural background (where you view swiftly leads) it crumbles soon enough into the rubble of historical-critical scholarship.

Thank you, bass. This is exactly what I was wishing to express.