Posted on 11/19/2004 8:21:22 AM PST by Stubborn
I'm sorry, but they just didn't. We can't argue if we don't agree on the historical facts. The Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Some Jews used a Greek version of the Septuagint, others used a Septuagint written in the vernacular Aramaic. I just took a western religions class at my secular, 45 % Jewish University. Are my text book, professor and class (filled to the brim with orthodox Jews) all wrong?
Ro 10:12. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
And how does it change in any way what I said? Please speak to the point I made, did or did not Paul say that despite the differences between the converted Jews and Gentiles, “unto all that call upon him.” there is no difference?
They were all part of the body of Christ, and if Jews and Gentiles call upon him, there is no difference, even though they chose to worship him in different ways.
Please show me where the twelve apostles changed their customs when they became Christians. Acts 10, Ten years after Christ resurrection and the twelve had been running things, Peter still ate kosher, and refused the Lords command to eat of the unclean animals.
Peter told Cornelius it was unlawful for him to be with there in his home, and later Peter separated himself from eating with the Gentiles. Why were the twelve so willing to turn the teaching of the Gentiles over to Paul?
They were all Christians, and there was no difference between them spiritually as far as their salvation was concerned, but they still followed Christ differently, depending on their background.
Your thinking that to please Christ you must consider yourself superior and separate from anyone who isn’t Catholic, is delusional, and the same hypocrisy the Pharisees were guilty of.
JH :)
Where on earth did you come up with the idea that this tree was the Catholic Church?
Paul is talking about Israel, being the branches, and the Gentiles were grafted in. The tree or the roots are Abraham, the father of Israel, that we are now receiving our nourishment from.
I can’t believe this was ever taught in the Catholic Church, would you care to show me where you found this?
Non-Catholics are not members of the Body of Christ and they are not united with Catholics.
I just wanted to make sure all the lurkers read this again, so they will know which Church preaches Gods love, Jn 3:15-16 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
JH :)
Am I the only one who finds it highly ironic that you would pluck a verse written by Peter, out of context, and then provide 2 paragraphs from your church authority to explain it? Why can't we just leave it in context where Peter is quite capable of communicating his meaning; especially when this is the same Peter from whom you supposedly draw your "authority" to begin with.
2 Peter 1:15-2:3
15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
(there is your true authority established)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
Verse 20 taken by itself is obviously a warning against individual private interpretation of scripture. In context, it is a warning against false teachers who would "privily (NT:3919, pareisagoo: to introduce or bring in secretly or craftily) bring in (into what? the church/body of believers!) damnable heresies." These false teachers would use their "private interpretation" of scripture to try to mislead the body of believers.
This verse **in context** is actually making a point that is exactly the opposite of the one that you and the vatican authority try to twist it to- that being, that there would be false teachers in the religious establishment who would misinterpret scripture! It's not an issue of the individual vs. the church authority regarding interpretation of scripture, but divine, heavenly authority vs. worldly authority!.
The whole of Peter's letter makes this point. Go back and read the beginning of the letter to get to the heart of it- it's about the knowledge of God and Jesus and from where that comes:
2 Peter 1:1-9
1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But ***he that lacketh these things is blind***, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
It's the spiritual/heavenly vs. the worldly, and nowhere does Peter make the point that one needs a organization of men to interpret scripture for individuals.
see #125, meant to ping you also
Which would imply that Christ's sacrifice was not enough. I'm sure that would be news to Christ. He was pretty clear that his sacrifice was sufficient. So was Paul. Perhaps they just weren't familiar with Catholic doctrine.
Actually, the answer does not agree with Biblical fact.
I could post the proper interpretation, but it would be better for you to get your own Haydock Bible so you won't mis-interpret scripture.
Ping to #129
I wish you HAD simply said your definition is the same as the Vaticans. At least that would have implied you honestly believed it. You actually said nothing like that. What you provided was a two paragraph obfuscation of what is apparently Catholic doctrine. Amazingly, by your interpretation of Catholic doctrine, only Catholic denominations are actually "Churches" ("perfectly so" in your words), while most protestant denominations don't measure up to Vatican standards and qualify only as "ecclesiastical communities". Beyond blind devotion to Catholic doctrine, I wonder if you could possibly support that mindset with words and teachings from the foremost experts on the topic. Specifically, Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul.
For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter, not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Well, It shames me greatly to say that I'm among the gulity. But, On New Year's day, I am going to begin to read it from Cover to Cover. Pray for me that I'll be successful in that endeavor.
Although I'm not Catholic, I understood your point completely.
Thank You.
You have set up two strawmen here that are equally invalid. First, the requirements for interpreting God's Word are personal study, prayer and faith. You must have an honest relationship with God, and a true desire to know His will. If you do not have a relationship with God, or only rely on what "The Church" tells you to believe concerning God's Word, you will probably never understand the significance of verses like John 6:53. Without a personal relationship with God, it is impossible to know whether the doctrine of Catholic, Mormon, Jewish or Branch Dividian origin is "correct". And by merely assuming that one of those bodies is correct, you set yourself up for never finding the truth.
And it is completely false to say the Catholic Church's interpretations are always wrong. I would argue that they are mostly correct.
Translation. - Rather then interperate, I have chosen to stonewall by pointing you to Catholic commentary.
Why do you post a site when your not willing to contribute to it?
Kaydock Bible
This version was reproduced from the 1859 edition. Fr. Haydock’s explanation and commentary make up about a third of every page. A thoroughly handsome gift book necessary for homes, schools, and libraries.
JH :)
"Some may tell us that many of our divines interpret the Scriptures. They may do so but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church and not otherwise."
What I disagree with is the whole premise leading into the paragraph you have provided. Furthermore, I completely disagree that the Catholic Church is the sole authority for protecting the message of the Gospel. Not only is the Catholic Church incapable of guarding the message of the Scripture, but its primary effort in this regard seems to be to discourage its own members from personally studying the Gospel.
...unless you'd like to claim that the Catholic Church places a higher priority on personal Bible study than on adherence to and study of its own doctrine.
Call it commentary if you wish, but if you had it and used it, you would not mis-interpret Scripture as you do.
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.