Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[kosta50]

The EO take a little bit different approach allowing their clergy to marry if they are going to stay at the parish level

Not for the monastics. Different rites among clergy fall under different discipline. Celibate parish priesthood was something favored in the west almost from the start. The East allows its future deacons and priests to marry (before receiving the Holy Orders).

If a priest is widowed, he is not allowed to remarriy. Bishops cannot be married. Most of them come form the ranks of the monastics, and a few are wodowed.

The Latin practice is a disciple to which the priests voluntarily agree. Those who cannot control their hormones can always seek ordination in the Eastern-Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

When you book an airline ticket and don't show up for the flight, you lose. You knew the risk and you took it. Every seminarian knows the rules and every seminary gives candidiates plenty of time to get out of the kitchen and seek an alternative.

[Uncle Chip]

Are you going to base your entire argument on your translation of the Bible, and I do focus on the word TRANSLATION?

Okay -- I'll read it to you out of my Catholic Bible:

"And Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross, and there was written "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". Many of the Jews therefore read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin." [The Holy Bible, The Catholic Press, Chicago, Illinous, with the approbation of His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Stritch, 1950]

Is that translation clearer for you???? Are you going to disagree with His Eminence as well as your own Catholic Bible????

[MarkBsnr]

***Well, go ahead and spout your stuff. The Holy Spirit within doesn’t want me arguing such nonsense with you.***

Are you trying to prove my point for me?

[MarkBsnr]

***Geez, these holy people are inspiring! Guess that’s why we have Padre Pio’s and St. Theresas, and all the consecrated men and women. I have “miles to go before I sleep.”

Cheers and have a blessed Lent!***

I have further to go than most, I’m sure.

And to you and yours, sir.

[MarkBsnr]

***As a I understand it there has been a real effort to try and weed out the problem at the seminary level, but that will probably take a generation.***

At least.

It is a cross that our children and ourselves should not have had to bear.

[MarkBsnr]

***I pray that is true. However, somewhere along the way all kinds of rituals, self proclaimed authority and exclusivity have become the foundation of the RCC.***

We have no authority except that which comes from Jesus. We have no authority over, for instance, the Jews or the Muhammedans. The rituals come from Scripture and from the earliest Church. We do not practice or preach exclusivity except to acknowledge the role of the Church.

We do not believe in either moral equivalency or church equivalency. If you do not believe that the church that you attend is the closest to the One True God, then why go?

If you do not believe that any doctrines or beliefs that you follow are the most optimal Way to salvation, then why believe?

[Uncle Chip]

Are just trying to be intentionally obtuse? Do you call the language of the Americans American? (you probably do, it wouldn't surprise me).

We speak English, not the English that was spoken a 200 or 400 years ago but we still call it English. Did Shakespeare write in English??? Do we write or speak in that kind of English today??? But it is still called English today -- right????

They didn't speak Hebrew in the 1st century. The name "Hebrew" referred to Biblical Hebrew (to differentiate it from Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew). In the Greek New Testament it is Hebraisti which was the koine Greek word for Chaldee (Aramaic).

Baloney -- Hebraisti means Hebrew not Aramaic or Chaldean. What part of that don't you understand?

The New testament Greek (look up any source) says Habrais means: Hebrew, the Hebrew language, not that however in which the OT was written but the Chaldee, which at the time of Jesus and the apostles had long superseded it in Palestine

LOLOL -- they may not have spoken in Mosaic Hebrew, or even Isaiah's Hebrew, or even Ezra's Hebrew in the first century Judea, but it was still Hebrew -- 1st century AD Jewish Hebrew -- but Hebrew nonetheless. Just like we may not speak or write Shakespeare's English, or 17th century English, or even early American English, but what we speak and write today is still called English. So go stick your obtuse comment up your deliberation --

[the_conscience]

***Christians were largely recruited from the lower class Jewish and Gentile populations who were illiterate. Having written Scripture was fine for the temples and for the priestly class, but over 95% of the population was illiterate. Icons were developed in the first century in order to remind the people of the faith, prayers, etc.***

I don’t suppose the children of Isreal were any more literate yet Moses was able to teach through the oral tradition. Why is it that God is so set against graven images?

[MarkBsnr]

God is a jealous God. He wants us to concentrate on Him, not on man made replacements.

Icons are not replacements; they are the theological equivalent of a string tied on your finger to remind you of something.

[ScubieNuc]

Then I suggest you post your thread about your self-titled term, S-E ("sado-evangelism") in Chat, because it certainly doesn't belong on the Religion Forum.

That's a good suggestion. Regardless of where he decides to post his idea though, I think it will be understood in the same manner as the term 'homophobic' is understood.

The pro-homosexual people take refuge in their made up term, because they think that their new term convicts those that disagree with them of some kind of disorder or crime. For me, when someone brings up the term 'homophobic' it provides an opportunity to discuss what homosexuality really is, it's dangers, and what God thinks of it.

I believe that same will be true with MD's made up term. It will provide more opportunities to discuss what the Bible really says. I'm reminded of what Joseph told his brothers...

Gen 50:19,20 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for [am] I in the place of God? But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive.

All things for the glory of God and the proclamation of His Word.

[Quix]

Good points, imho.

Thx.

[Mad Dawg]

I agree about the term homophobic.

Those who are able to read and occasionally take that skill out for a trot will see that "sado-evangelism" is not about disagreement but about the manner of disagreement. Those who decide to figure out what it is they are mocking before they begin the mocking will have seen that it is possible to be Catholic or Orthodox and suffer from Sado-evangelism and it is possible to be Calvinist or a Sola Scriptura person and to be the target of an S-E sufferer. It's a syndrome not a theology.

But it's so much harder to make fun of the concept if one takes the trouble to find out what is meant by it.

And yes, I do think the routine and almost ceaseless derision and disparagement of Catholic thought, often unhindered by any sign of understanding it, will be turned by God's grace into good, God willing, even for those who took the lead and were most persistent in the taunting and guffaws and hogwashes and so forth.

[MarkBsnr]

As I posted to kosta, the problem with Gnostic belief in the indwelling Spirit is that since the Holy Spirit directs one, one cannot do wrong. And if one does come into conflict with another, then they, by circular logic, do not have the indwelling Spirit.

So, the iconoclast certainly worships his/her own image in the mirror since everything else falls short or is an icon or graven image.

The problem that we frequently run into is that the folks we are debating are firmly convinced that 33 AD Jewish folks were completely literate in English and had the KJV tucked into their pockets. It was only the Catholic Church that put the kibosh on the free distribution of the KJV in the first century. We are bad.

[MarkBsnr]

***Why don’t they see that when they mock those who believe that Paul’s writings are true, they are also mocking Paul, as well as God? Oh well. I guess for some, parts of God’s truth are truthier than others. :)***

All of God’s truth is true. Misinterpreting Paul does not lead one towards God’s truth. It leads one towards the Gnostics, as evidenced by several folks on boards here. The great deceiver nets a great number of souls by deceit and by causing misunderstanding.

He is harvesting a great bounty.

[MarkBsnr]

***Trudeau was a Jesuit educated French Canadian

Who dated Margot Kidder...before she dove into the bushes toothless!

What kind of a way is that to run a government?!***

It depends on whether she was toothless before or after the date.

[Pyro7480]

It’s still a translation. What does the Greek say (not like it’s already been said already on this thread)?

[the_conscience]

Projection.

[Quix]

RC straw dogs are no more attractive than Protty straw dogs.

[MarkBsnr]

We have the faith and do not need to resort to dogs.

What language do you believe that Jesus spoke?

What was the literacy rate?

Who painted the first century icons in the catacombs?

When did Peter get his authority as Pope?

When did the Church get its authority as the teaching institution of Jesus Christ?

Answer these correctly, and you too have the ability to join the true faith and the Church of Jesus Christ.

[kosta50]

From New Testament Greek

Home > Lexicons > Greek > Hebraisti

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

 Strong's Number:   1447

 Browse Lexicon 

Original Word	Word Origin
ÔEbrai>stiv	from (1446)
Transliterated Word	TDNT Entry
Hebraisti	3:356,372
Phonetic Spelling	Parts of Speech
heb-rah-is-tee'	Adverb

 Definition

1. in Hebrew, i.e. in Chaldee

 King James Word Usage - Total: 6

in the Hebrew tongue 3, in the Hebrew 2, in Hebrew 1

KJV Verse Count
John	4
Revelation	2
Total	6

You have not provided a single educated, academic, learned, intellectual or credible piece of evidence that the use of Hebraïsti in the NT is anything but Aramaic (Chaldee), not Hebrew.

Of course, you will notice that the KJV translates it incorrectly (imagine that!), and how one lie (oh the devil is so happy with KJV!) becomes the "truth."

You are more "Hebrew" in your zeal than the Jews, whose sources are actually rather objective. Your claims run contrary even to the Jewish Encyclopedia!

If you want to be the 'king" in your bubble world and pontificate what is true, that's your prerogative, but I am not interested in your foolishness.

You have serious issues. I am sorry for you.

You can find someone else to convince that the Greeks don't know their own language, or that  faulty, damned and corrupt English bible versions are the "word of God." You can go on living in your own little fantasy world (but I suggest you get some help