Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

5 Myths about 7 Books (the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament)
Catholic Educators ^ | Mark Shea

Posted on 11/13/2005 12:46:30 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 next last
To: PetroniusMaximus
Petrosius: Was the early Church also able to recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit in certain Church teachings and practices?

PetroniusMaximus: That's a much more nebulous concept than answering whether the Gospel of Thomas is inspired or not.

The nature of the Eucharist, the hierarchical structure of the Church, infant Baptism, the need for Confession, etc. These are quite concrete questions and no less important than the content of the canon. If the Church can be relied upon for one why not the others?

Once the Canon was established the need for the gift was no more.

And when did this take place? I hold out for the beginning of the 5th century.

101 posted on 11/14/2005 6:01:19 PM PST by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

It is not a major point for me whether the Jews of the Hellenistic period prayed for the dead or not. This being said, the Maccabees plainly suggests that they did. If the rabbies now have a different interpretation, what of it? So do the Protestants.


102 posted on 11/14/2005 6:05:22 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: annalex; PetroniusMaximus
The controversy between the Pharisees and the Sadducee's recorded in the New Testament, as well as the dispute presented to Jesus about when a man could divorce his wife, should remind us that at the time of our Lord there was not only one Jewish opinion regarding matters of faith. The unity of Jewish Orthodoxy is a post-exile phenomenon.
103 posted on 11/14/2005 6:11:44 PM PST by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: annalex

"It is not a major point for me whether the Jews of the Hellenistic period prayed for the dead or not."

Yes, but if you have evidence I would really like to see it.


"If the rabbies now have a different interpretation, what of it?"

Actually I would be much more interested in evidence from the 1st century. Contemporary Judaism is of zero value in this question except in their ability to show historical precident.


104 posted on 11/14/2005 6:12:34 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
It was a gift needed to recognize the Canon. Once the Canon was established the need for the gift was no more

Source?

105 posted on 11/14/2005 6:12:38 PM PST by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; annalex
Actually, you hit on a point that I thought about making, but didn't initially because it was beside the point of the thread. But as long as you're mentioning it, it's kinda funny, but the Jewish prayer for the dead, which the Maccabees would have said, has nothing to do with Purgatory or any other Catholic practice:

MOURNER'S KADDISH
An English Translation


Glorified and sanctified be God's great name throughout the world which He has created according to His will. May He establish His kingdom in your lifetime and during your days, and within the life of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon; and say, Amen.

May His great name be blessed forever and to all eternity.

Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted, extolled and honored, adored and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, beyond all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations that are ever spoken in the world; and say, Amen.

May there be abundant peace from heaven, and life, for us
and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

He who creates peace in His celestial heights, may He create peace for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

From here.

The more one understands about the culture that Yeshua (Jesus) lived in, and the more one understands the Jewishness of all the Apostles, the less tenable the Catholic claim that they are upholding the traditions of the Apostles becomes.
106 posted on 11/14/2005 6:17:38 PM PST by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I see a stark contrast between being sold to slavery with the whole family and being made repay a debt, after which there is freedom.

The man owed ten thousand talents. Each talent was worth about 6,000 denarii, or 6,000 average days' wages. Grand total: 60,000,000 days' wages. If we figure an 8 hour day at $10/hr, that's the equivalent of 4.8 BILLION dollars.

How exactly was he going to ever pay that amount off? Especially while being tortured in prison?

That's the soteriological lesson: We owe a debt that we can never pay, before or after the King calls it due. Therefore, He in His grace ate the cost, and freed us of our debt--but He expects those of us who owe Him so much to be equally generous to those who owe us so little. "Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us."

Ergo, it is not my exegesis--based on the words of the text and their cultural, textual, and theological context--that is flawed, but your eisegesis--based on an unBiblical Roman Catholic tradition--that is.

107 posted on 11/14/2005 6:29:47 PM PST by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; annalex

"... should remind us that at the time of our Lord there was not only one Jewish opinion regarding matters of faith."

Yes, but shouldn't there be evidence of a 1st cent. Jewish practice of praying for the dead?


108 posted on 11/14/2005 6:47:04 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

You still did not explain why the slavery is replaced by repayment, however enormous, but finite. You have your explanations, based on the need to deny Catholicism, and I have mine, based one what is written in the Gospel and nothing else.

Beside, your original question was, is there support for the Purgatory outside of the book of Macabees. I answered that, -- now to convert you to Catholicism is the task I leave to the Holy Ghost.


109 posted on 11/14/2005 8:04:50 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; Buggman; Petrosius
The Second Book of Maccabees clearly explains that these were prayers for the remission of sins of the dead:
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought [God], that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.
44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

2nd Mac 12

This was scripture for all Christians for 15 centuries, and remains so for the Orthodox and the Catholic. What the rabbis say, or what the cadish says, or even what the 1st century Jews actually did (recall, with Petrosius in 103 that the 1c Jews did not have much accord on anything) is interesting but not relevant to the formation of Christian theology in the Early Church.
110 posted on 11/14/2005 8:18:12 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Because being thrown into prison to be tortured is worse than debt-slavery. The king actually upped the man's punishment because of the hardness of his heart.

Now you answer me: How was the man going to earn $4.8 billion while in prison being tortured?

111 posted on 11/14/2005 8:21:03 PM PST by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: annalex; PetroniusMaximus; Petrosius
You realize that that's an exceedingly poor translation, I trust.

From the RSV:

41: So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42: and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43: He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44: For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
From EarlyJewishWritings.com:
[41] All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid, [42] Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain. [43] And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: [44] For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. [45] And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Three points should be noted here:

First, the text doesn't say a darn thing about Purgatory, which was not a Jewish belief.

Second, he didn't merely pray for the dead, but made a sacrifice for them.

Third, the text lauds Judas' action because it demonstrated that he was mindful of the Resurrection of the dead, but it does not say one way or the other whether the Lord accepted those sacrifices, simply that they were made.

Even ignoring all of the above, can you show that prayer and sacrifice for the dead is taught throughout Scripture, or is this the only passage you can demonstrate it from? If the latter, then 2 Maccabees disqualifies itself from the canon by virtue of not being in agreement with the rest of the Scriptures.

112 posted on 11/14/2005 9:27:46 PM PST by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt.

(Matthew 18:34)

This is the text. Until he paid. Finite punishment. Deal with it, -- I just read, and explain, what is written, and don't speculate about what is not written. Note that the following verse, "So also shall my heavenly Father do to you" directly relates the king to God, so if you have a problem with the God of the Gospel, go find another.
113 posted on 11/14/2005 9:32:25 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Buggman; Petrosius

If you don't mind me asking, what is the first clear and specifically Christian reference you feel that you have for praying for the dead (excluding Paul's reference to the baptism for the dead, and the Onesiphorus reference both of which are subject to debate)?


114 posted on 11/14/2005 10:07:06 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; annalex; Petrosius
" Third, the text lauds Judas' action because it demonstrated that he was mindful of the Resurrection of the dead,..."

Additionally, the dead men were guilty of idolatry - a mortal sin in Catholic reckoning - and, according to Catholic theology, were therefore not in purgatory but in hell. And even to Catholics, hell is inescapable.
115 posted on 11/14/2005 10:10:49 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; Buggman
I would firstly warn against this strange principle, put forth by Buggman, that a teaching must be contained in many places in the scriptures. We have many essential teachings and narratives that are presented only once. The nativity story is in Luke only. The Wedding at Cana is in John only. The promise of church unified is in John only. The Creation, the Fall, the promise of victory over Satan is in Genesis only.

You now ask me in the same vein to find a reference that is specifically Christian except the two you feel like arguing about. This is a strange way to frame a debate.

I was not even thinking of those two anyway. I was thinking of raising of the dead. I now went over the stories of Jairus's daughter, Lazarus and Tabitha and saw that a clear petition for the dead is made by Jairus:

Lord, my daughter is even now dead; but come, lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

(matt 9:18)

This is a petition to Christ on behalf of the dead person.
116 posted on 11/15/2005 7:21:48 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Again, look at the amount. It's clear that the debt will never be paid, and that is in fact the point of the whole parable. The only reason you're persisting in ignoring that fact is to uphold an unBiblical theological tradition of men.

Moving on.

117 posted on 11/15/2005 8:41:51 AM PST by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: annalex; PetroniusMaximus
We have many essential teachings and narratives that are presented only once.

There are events and specific discourses that are presented only once--but not whole teachings. To wit:

The whole nativity is presented only once, but the fact that Yeshua was born of a virgin is given in two Gospels, and attested to by two prophetic passages and a hint in another couple of passages.

The first miracle at Cana, even if disregarded for some reason, is not the sole support for any valid theological position that I'm aware of.

The creation is given in full only in Genesis, but the fact that God created the world is attested to throughout the Scriptures. The Fall is likewise attested to throughout the Scriptures--it is, in fact, the centerpiece of the Gospel. If I didn't have Genesis for some reason, I could reconstruct both from numerous other Scriptures.

The promise of victory over Satan is likewise spread throughout the Scriptures, if one knows where to look.

Salvation is by God's grace received in faith? Throughout the Scriptures.

The atoning work of the Cross? All over Scripture.

The Second Coming? Probably the most prevailant teaching of Scripture.

A minor teaching might perhaps be found in only one place, though I've not found one yet that could not be found in at least two. But every single major theme of Scripture is taught consistantly through the whole Bible.

You cannot find Purgatory in the Torah. Nor can you find it in the Prophets, or the Writings, save in one disputed book that doesn't actually attest to the existence of Purgatory, but only states as a matter of fact that Judas Maccabeus offered sacrifices for the dead who had fallen.

Nor can you find Purgatory in the Gospel accounts, your attempt at eisegesis notwithstanding. Nor can you find it in the Epistles, or in the Revelation.

God is not obtuse in His teachings; on the contrary, He is very plain. If there were a Purgatory, He would have said so with the same certainty that He has told us that there is a Heaven and a Hell. The fact that you are reduced to claiming that a person in prison could somehow pay off a 5 billion dollar debt and that this somehow proves Purgatory is proof that you have no Scripture that plainly teaches this anti-Gospel Roman doctrine.

118 posted on 11/15/2005 9:23:35 AM PST by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
the amount

In the same chapter, Christ uses the number 490 to mean a very big number. You just cannot do arithmetic with the Gospel numbers, they are all allegorical. But I have no dispute that the debt is very large, only that it is finite, while the original punishment was infinite. Likewise, the Purgatory doctrine is silent on the length or severity of purgation.

unBiblical theological tradition of men

I explained the gospel to you. I used nothing but the words of Christ in the parable. You raised questions and lead you back to the Gospel, like a little child. Now you want to stomp your feet about "traditions of men". Grow up.

119 posted on 11/15/2005 9:27:12 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: annalex
You just cannot do arithmetic with the Gospel numbers, they are all allegorical.

In this case, I agree. Since 10,000 was a round number which was used by both Greeks and Hebrews to mean "virtually infinite," you're in even deeper trouble than you'd like to think. I just put a dollar amount on it to equate what that unit of money meant to their minds to yours.

But I have no dispute that the debt is very large, only that it is finite, while the original punishment was infinite.

Actually, no. A person in slavery in the Hebrew culture was released on the sabbath year. If we assume that Yeshua was using the Greek culture's form of slavery instead, then the man could still conceivably work himself and his family out of slavery, as was known to happen.

But a person thrown in debtor's prison had no hope, no chance to gain income to pay towards the debt--he would be dependant not on either a set, finite sentence or an ability to earn his way out of prison, but on someone, somewhere deciding to pay the debt for him. But he had already squandered the grace of the one person who could possibly have the resources to do so--the King--so now he has no hope of ever getting out.

As I said, the King upped the punishment for the man's lack of grace, and for the purposes of the parable, the man was condemned to eternal torment.

Likewise, the Purgatory doctrine is silent on the length or severity of purgation.

The only reason you try to insert Purgatory in there is because you are steeped in Roman Catholic dogma.

I used nothing but the words of Christ in the parable.

Christ didn't say Purgatory. He didn't even hint at it. You did. That's why I say that you are engaged in eisegesis, not exegesis--you are reading the concept of Purgatory, which you most certainly did not get from the Bible, into a parable where it doesn't exist.

Since you can't find it in the Bible, where did you get this concept of Purgatory from then? From a tradition of men that says that the Cross was not sufficient to pay the full penalty for all your sins.

120 posted on 11/15/2005 9:42:15 AM PST by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson