Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/25/2007 4:41:05 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

Read the Bible! Subscribe to Salvation’s Daily Mass Readings list.


2 posted on 04/25/2007 4:44:03 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible

Amen to that. Reading the Bible did wonders for Martin Luther!

4 posted on 04/25/2007 5:29:19 PM PDT by newgeezer (fundamentalist, regarding the Holy Bible AND the Constitution. Words mean things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

Ping to check out the thread later


12 posted on 04/25/2007 9:22:52 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
The article quotes Benedict as having said "the central nucleus of Origen's immense literary works consists in his 'three-pronged reading' of the Bible." He further states that "the second prong was reading Scripture along with its most famous commentaries". Let's think about this for a second. Let's even lay aside the obvious question, "How does Benedict know how Origen went about his studies?"

Origen lived from about 155 A.D. to about 254 A.D. How many commentaries could possibly have existed? Certainly there were a few who put to paper their ideas (Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Clement, etc.), but were these really commentaries? Commentaries of what? Scripture?

According to the article, Benedict "explained Origen's methodology in studying sacred Scripture". The RCC claims that the New Testament was not cannonized until its council of Trent in 1545 A.D. Prior to that, we are to believe that all of Christendom was in a daze of confusion as to which writings were authentic and authoritative. If this is the case, what Scripture could Origen possibly have had around 200 A.D.? At best he'd have had a collection of letters and writings from a variety of sources, but without the guidance of the RCC, how would he have known which were inspired and which were fraud?

It seems that Benedict's own words drive nails in the coffin of oft debunked RCC positions. For starters, the RCC did not exist at the time of Origen. Yes, there was a church at Rome, but it had not yet morphed into what would become the RCC. Christians, at the time of Origen, were under persecution. Constantine hadn't yet "embraced" Christianity, and the church at Rome had not yet become vogue with the Roman elite. Hence it had not yet gained political influence, and its paganization had not yet begun.

Next, the full set of letters that would become the New Testament were in circulation among and between the many congregations of Believers. The vast majority of such letters were generally accepted as inspired, authoritative, and known to be authentic. Early church "theologians", such as Origen, quoted liberally from the letters that would be included in the New Testament. In fact, the entirety of the New Testament could be assembled from the writings of these early authors. So the reality is that the books and epistles that would eventually be canonized as New Testament Scripture were understood to be such from the very earliest time. No "council" 14 centuries after the fact was necessary.

The idea that there could be many and various possible meanings and translations (see the "first prong") is ridiculous. While translations do vary, the differences are in nuance and word selection. Seldom is there a wide difference in meaning. Could it be that Benny wants to sow suspicion in the minds of his flock? Is his intent in sowing this suspicion to provide a "justified" escape from the many conflicts and contradictions between RCC doctrine and actual Scripture?

Why would Benedict want to promote the idea of reading Scripture alongside the "most famous commentaries" (second prong)? Should we substitute the word "catholic" for "famous"? Could it be that ol' Benedict wants to be sure that if his "faithful" actually do start reading the Bible, they have a catholic guidebook next to them to "clarify" the discrepancies?

What about the "third prong" that Benedict assigns to Origen? Frankly I found the statements made to be mostly gibberish. However, the key statement is, There is the 'literal' sense, but this hides depths that are not apparent upon a first reading. Allow me to translate this into plain English: "Listen to the RCC, and don't believe your lyin' eyes!" Basically, Benedict doesn't want his flock to take the Bible at its Word. The "deeper" meanings (read, contradictory) require more "insight" (read, purposeful misrepresentation).

I am very encouraged by this message from Benedict. It means that more and more catholics are reading the Bible. Let's pray that the Truth will set more and more free!

13 posted on 04/25/2007 10:02:32 PM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

Wow! Bump to the top of the page. I love this!


16 posted on 04/25/2007 10:54:29 PM PDT by Salvation (" With God all things are possible. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
Origen takes every opportunity to mention the various senses of sacred Scripture that help or express a way of growth in faith; There is the 'literal' sense, but this hides depths that are not apparent upon a first reading; the second dimension is the 'moral' sense: what we must do as we live the Word; and in the end we have the 'spiritual' sense, the unity of Scripture in its diversity."

Food for thought for "the Bible sez....." crowd.

22 posted on 04/26/2007 6:24:04 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
in the first column, he would put the Hebrew original. And in five parallel columns, Origen would do a transliteration and four different translations into Greek.

Wow! Had heard this before, but it is interesting to see it on FR.

39 posted on 04/26/2007 7:55:05 AM PDT by RightWhale (3 May '07 3:14 PM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

Wow. New Pope acting like a wannabee protestant. :-)


40 posted on 04/26/2007 8:56:39 AM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

“Don’t read the bible, son, we’ve got our own faith tradition.” (Just a line I heard once.)


71 posted on 04/26/2007 1:48:37 PM PDT by ichabod1 ("Liberals read Karl Marx. Conservatives UNDERSTAND Karl Marx." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
Bible


"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther



Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

110 posted on 02/23/2011 8:14:55 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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