Posted on 01/27/2004 3:18:34 PM PST by LS
I recently watched "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," starring Milla Jovovich. Not being a Catholic, I had some questions:
1) At the end, the notes said Joan was "canonized" 500 years later(approx. 1930s, I guess). Does canonization automatically mean one is "sainted?" Or are they different? If so, what is the difference?
2) What are the prerequisites to be either "canonized" or "sainted," if they are different?
3) Specifically to the movie---if anyone saw it---was the Dustin Hoffman character supposed to be Lucifer, the accuser?
4) I'm weak historically on this: was the film accurate about Joan often doing things on her own ("if you love me, fight for me") as opposed to leading the armies "in the name of God?" I suppose it depends on what you think of Joan, but among believers, is the consensus that she indeed received instructions from God, or that she was a fruitloop?
You'll never get him to tell you is my guess. He once said J Swaggart's theology was dead on. And intimated that his father was a preacher man of some sort.
v.
You may wish to argue the Church was built on Peter while other Christians will argue the Church was built on Jesus. Take your pick.
I am not qualified to argue Koine Greek and Aramaic. Are you? Your case would be much simpler if you could only come up with an original Aramaic version written prior to or at the same time as the Koine Greek version. As it is, the only Aramaic version is a translation.
If it be argued that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic in the conversation with Peter, and that Aramaic makes no such distinction between the terms, it can be stated that the writer of the New Testament account understood a distinction and expressed it by the two different words.
There are several strong arguments which show that Peter (petros) and the rock (petra) upon which the church is built are not identical. All the pronouns in Matthew 16:18 are emphatic, contrasting the person of Peter with the mighty rock which is the foundation of the church. The different genders (petros, masculine; and petra, feminine) emphasize a distinction in the references. Since petra is used metaphorically several times to indicate Christ (Rom. 9: 33; I Cor. 10: 4; I Pet. 2: 8), it is in harmony with the Scriptures to take it thus in Matthew 16:18. In this light Jesus means that he is the foundation of the church. He speaks of himself as the builder, and uses the expression "my church." So the New Testament ekklesia is built upon Christ's deity and Saviorhood, upon the efficacy of his blood, and upon the immutability and objectivity of truth. It is obvious that no human being could be the support of such a structure. Paul speaks of Jesus Christ as the foundation (1 Cor. 3: 11). The church is the creative work of God.
Actually Peter's confession was impossible apart from the divine revelation upon which his proclamation was based. Jesus makes this point clear in Matthew 16:17. This revelation was not disclosed to Peter only. It was also the experience of the other disciples, and it is the impetus which makes possible the confession of any and all believers now as then. The church is based upon the truth which Peter confessed, that is, upon the reality that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. In verse 18 our Lord is also in effect saying to Simon, "The power of the gospel which has transformed you into a man of dependable character [implied in petros] will likewise change other persons, and as a result of this redemption the church is built." Thus we see that the church never produces salvation; salvation produces the church. There is a sense in which the inspired writings and work of all the apostles and prophets have their place in the divine plan of the church of which Jesus Christ is the cornerstone (Eph. 2: 20). In fact, all believers are living stones (lithoi) in God's temple (I Pet. 2: 5). But Peter has no special position or prerogative above the other apostles. Nowhere in the New Testament is any supremacy assigned to him."
Peter=Rock?
Maybe the entire Peter-Rock argument is moot. The last time we see Jesus talking to Peter He called him Simon. Do you wonder why? John 21:
[15] When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
[16] A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
[17] He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
I just stopped over here to see what Dave's "ignorant" rant was all about. As usual I find it was simply a contrived way to start a silly argument.
Come on, man, this is like Apologetics 101 stuff, and you're still playing the Petros-petra game? Amateur hour.
Too bad the New Testament was written in Greek isn't it? Who do you suppose caused those Scriptures to be recorded in Greek rather than Aramaic?
I have been away for a couple of days because I am very busy both with work and with crises in the families of two very dear friends, but I do want to step in and address this post.
God is never changing, neither is the Word of GOd,
yet the Roman Catholic Church and their clergy(note not their congregation) is ever changing. When will they make up their minds as to what they think is interpretation, and finally make a dogma that is absolute.
Much RC dogma is absolute and has not changed since several hundred years after the founding of the church. Further, Roman Catholics and Protestants agree on many, many things (including most of the "main things" of Christianity) and I consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have more problems with many "Protestant" denominations or movements -- like the "name it and claim it" notion -- than I do with RC doctrines. I grew up in the Baptist tradition and have a few problems with that, such as the forbidding of drinking. I'll never understand why some people have the mistaken belief that Jesus turned the water into grape juice.
I consider these discussions inter-family squabbles and think that they're healthy in the sense that these threads encourage both RCs and Protestants to study the basis of our doctrines. It's iron sharpening iron and we need to know how to give answers to questions like these when non-Christians ask them. We are soldiers from the same army practicing sparring with one another so that we know how to fight when we meet the real enemy. I do not consider the RC church an enemy and, indeed, admire them for much that they've done. They were staunchly pro-life before most Protestants even considered that abortion might be a problem.
All I was doing was pointing out that today's understanding of Purgatory is different in some respects from the medieval understanding of Purgatory. The medieval concept definitely including time as we know it and a punishment for sins that had not been paid for. My main problem is not with the issue of time but rather with the issue that we may have to pay for certain sins after we die. The modern RC concept or purgatory, IMHO, is a move in the right direction and shies away from both the idea of a "real-time" purgatory and a punishment.
I stress that the Holy KJV has gone for hundreds of years, unchanged by any one man, nor does any other decree follow along side, as does the Council of Trent for Romam Catholicism.
Actually, the King James Version has changed many times over the years. The one that is in print now dates from around 1850. Not many modern people would be able to easily read the 1611 edition. And it hasn't just been the spelling of words that has been changed either -- there were translation corrections made down through the years, too. Plus, the original King James Version included the apocryphal books!
Please don't fall into the KJV-only trap. It's anti-intellectual and is based on a crop of lies.
Oh, the (Catholic) New American Bible translation is very good, too. You may have noticed that all of the scriptural links I give are to it rather than to another version.
Well, if we were to go through the messages delivered from the Council of Trent on what's right and wrong,(which I admit to never reading) wouldn't we become a little confused.
First of all, you should read Trent. In fact, you should research and read about all of the major councils before posting opinions on them. Note also that Protestants accept the first 4 councils.
Second, you're right in that Trent, more than any other council, painted the RC church into a corner. A lot of the purpose of Vatican II was to find ways out of that corner. Vatican II was in many respects, I believe, a step in the right direction. Some of the problems that the RC leadership faces now is the "Mary as co-Redemtrix" movement and the odd, IMHO, tendency to embrace Muslims.
From what I've heard, ( again, I am admitting hearsay),
The Doctrines, Creeds, and laws of Roman Catholicism have changed almost as often as Our Countries Amendments.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that but, yes, the RC doctrines have changed considerably over the years. But we should be thankful that Protestants have changed throughout the years, too. People like Calvin persecuted RCs just as RCs had persecuted those who disagreed with Rome. In fact, I would argue that Calvin was a very wicked man. Neither the RC nor the Protestants exactly have a proud history.
Jesus had a conversation with Pilate. What language do you suppose this conversation was in?
John 19:
20: Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.
Note: The Hebrew John speaks of was most likely the Aramaic version.
It's interesting isn't it that an ex-Priest is an "assclown" and an ex-Protestant Minister is a genius.
The only thing we have to work with is the Greek. Live with it.
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.