Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Thank you for reminding me why it's a waste of time to treat some people like civilized grownups -- and for providing more data for my project.
I'd say, "You just go right ahead, dear." But I'd have to add that you are way too late since you all have been abusing the Church like that for decades if not centuries.
When you could tear ourself away from not knowing what it is you mock, that is. I have said more than once but this is the last time "Sado-Evangelism" is not limited to Protestants. It's not a religious category. People who engage their brains before putting others down generally remember that evangelism is an activity, not a denomination.
You all just keep providing the material, I'll try to keep track.
The evidence is all around. It's probably by Faith Alone that your eyes open to see how clear the evidence is.
The lives of the disciples testify to it.
The hundreds of witnesses.
The fulfillment of OT prophecy.
The idea that there is no objective proof because Jesus did not go back to the Temple and confront the hierarchy of the Jews is denying all the other evidence. Why would he go back to them. Jesus did not come to correct the deformed hierarchy of the day. He came to save those the Father had given him.
The word of God and the power of God have certainly withstood greater assaults than the ridicule the RCC tries to foist upon them.
***And this proves what?
That Jesus spoke Hebrew amongst the Jews —***
This does not constitute anything like proof. It is circumstantial evidence only.
***Aramaic was not generally spoken by Jesus amongst the Jews around Jerusalem who were very protective of their nationalism and religious heritage which was recorded in Hebrew. If Aramaic was spoken by Jesus amongst the Jews, then it should have been on the cross instead of the Hebrew. ***
It might be said, but it provides circumstantial evidence only. Kosta has provided direct evidence from the folks who kept a pretty detailed history of the area. I’d be inclined to believe them.
I trust literate people who pride themselves in history and literacy amongst at least the priestly class in creating and maintaining reasonably accurate historical knowledge.
Probably because God does not want you to understand.
***Sounds like an observational/interpretational issue, to me.***
I don’t believe that we have the issues. We have the words of the Church Fathers all the way back to the Apostles in order to put things into perspective, and get their interpretations.
Opportunistic hucksters imaginitively creating new twists on new theologies and hanging out their shingles do.
If someone doesn't understand that God's word is true and Christ has risen, then that's just how it goes.
"Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred. How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing reprove? Do ye imagine to reprove words, and the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as wind?" -- Job 6:24-26
"Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." -- Isaiah 8:18-20"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
***Y’all really have developed that to an art form.
Quite masterfully.***
Thank you for the compliment. I am an engineer, not an artist. What art have I mastered?
Yes, God is very gracious to me. More than I deserve.
Yep. Very peculiar.
***She appeared to have teeth while she dated him, but who owned them before her is anyone’s guess.***
I have no knowledge, nor an inclination to gain that knowledge, of Margot Kidder’s personal life. But Trudeau was a jetsetter and a rich playboy, marrying Margaret Sinclair who was 30 years his junior.
Overall, his stewardship of Canada was a failure, in my judgement. The patriation of the Constitution was one of the most evil things ever done to the people of Canada.
But, like many rich kids, he liked his women and his parties. But at least he kept himself in good physical shape and never developed the Hoover of a nose that, for example, Bill Clinton has.
***The idea that there is no objective proof because Jesus did not go back to the Temple and confront the hierarchy of the Jews is denying all the other evidence. Why would he go back to them. Jesus did not come to correct the deformed hierarchy of the day. He came to save those the Father had given him.***
May I step in here, kosta?
I think that kosta is trying to say that while there is evidence, there is not the overwhelming proof that would stop a mule in his traces and immediately start walking on the Way. We BELIEVE.
We have a lot of evidence for that belief, but there is not the overwhelming proof. That is what makes the heresy of Gnosticism so appealing. It provides one with a false sense of proof. We attempted to eradicate it beginning in the first century, but it keep coming back because it appeals to so many. We cannot give in to it because it is wrong and because it was declared heresy by the Church.
“If Jesus was such a “dangerous” element in Israel as the Bible portrays him, don’t you think the Sanhendrin would not have freaked out if they found us He is back!? I think so. Yet no one seems to have been perturbed for the entire 40 days that He was appearing before people to write about it!”
Jesus answered that before he died.
Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. and he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.
Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
This is the effect of the empty tomb on those that witnessed it and yet didn’t believe.
Matt. 28:11-15 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
In addition some now say:
Jesus was in a swoon and recovered and rolled the door stone away while the soldiers slept.
His disciples were “victims of hysterical delusions”.
Even the disciples were skeptical of the resurrection and it did not occur to them Jesus would be raised from the dead until after their understanding was opened by the Holy spirit.
John 20:24-29, But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
“Are you talking about the so-called Passion-Naratives? I don’t buy into their date. The next closest source would be the (in)famous “Q”, and that one is missing as well”
No, not the Passion Narrative, but what critical historians like Pannenberg called an ancient early church “creed” formulated just after the resurrection and recited during the liturgy in the early church. It is thought that Paul learned it on his first trip to the Jerusalem Church.
The “Q” document has never been found nor has there any proof of it in any church early church documents. It arose in the 19th century out of the critical school to make sense of the similarities in the Gospels. It was an invention of skeptical scholars.
“You are writing about it as if it were a news account.”
How are the accounts any different than what you read in the newspapers or news magazines today? They are either eyewitness accounts, like Matthew, John and perhaps Mark since there is some speculation that he was the boy who ran away without his clothes in the garden, or from unnamed sources who corroborate the eye witnesses accounts as reported by Luke and Paul.
Indulgences to get out of purgatory was, in fact, declared. The fact that the Church rescinded the policy 100+ years later stands as a testimony to that fact. I suppose by then they probably had enough to pay for the huge debt the construction of the Vatican placed them in.
This is another case where the appearance of seeking to misunderstand raises its head, even if it turns out to be faulty. Purgatory is MAJORLY different from Hell.
Nope. Don't obfuscate the fact. My argument isn't about the theological differences of hell and purgatory. My argument is that the Pope did, in fact, make a pronouncement from the Chair of Peter in the matter of paying for indulgences. 100+ years later another Pope rescinded that doctrine from the Chair. You can't be infallible if your going to make mistakes.
I don't think it's as cynical, or as rational, as opportunism and hucksterism, though there are plenty of opportunistic hucksters to exploit what we're seeing here.
I think it's fear of freedom and of uncertainty. Things need to be black and white. "The Scriptures are inspired and they're all we need and if you don't agree it's because God has forsaken you. Sorry about that."
It's very like Islam in the specific sense of the renunciation of reason and the fatalism -- and the inability to argue as adults argue, with the assumption of a shared desire for truth. For them speech is to create an emotional reaction which, they hope, will control one's thoughts,. This is what they say, in any event, and what they do. The reduplicative excerpts from Scripture are not to make a point but to give some kind of good feeling to their comrades and to glorify God.
And what better way to glorify God than to exhibit despite for His enemies, whom, of course, they would just fall down and love if only we'd drink their Koolaid.
Conversation requires a common ground. But common ground with us is a threat to them, something to be avoided. So no real conversation can happen, only harangues and abuse, which, of course, they deny, since they really cannot see, I guess, a difference between a question and an insult. When you question them they react angrily, and when they insult us, they protest that they are only questioning. And thus they protect themselves from having to think something they've never thought before.
Yes, I would agree. Trust me kosta, while I may disagree with the theological views of the Orthodox, I do think they tend to be consistent in the way they have viewed things. Catholics have far greater theological problems simply because they tinker too much with their doctrine.
***Yes, I would agree. Trust me kosta, while I may disagree with the theological views of the Orthodox, I do think they tend to be consistent in the way they have viewed things. Catholics have far greater theological problems simply because they tinker too much with their doctrine.***
We have given in to the temptation of the Protestantization of the Church and require the Orthodox to provide assistance. I will trust that the bishops of the Church, put into the position of spiritual authority or rather, stewardship, by and for Jesus Christ, will handle what needs to be handled.
I do not believe that kosta and I differ in any significant fashion in our faith, other than some of the furniture and the colour of the drapes. The Roman Catholic Church is not better than or worse than any other branch of Catholicism.
We are Catholics in fact. And it merely remains for our spiritual leaders to handle the affairs to formalize that.
Aren't Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul literate enough for you or is it just something that they said????
You haven't yet stated something clearly enough or accurately enough for me to obfuscate it.
YOU may not understand the difference between buying salvation from hell and buying a shorter stint in Purgatory, but there's a HUGE difference. You cannot (truthfully) say on the basis of Tetzel that we offered salvation for sale. Indulgences do not have and never did have anything to do with Hell and therefore anything to do with salvation from Hell.
Consequently your initial charge was WRONG! And just because you were in error about a critical part of the doctrine does not mean I was obfuscating.
If the difference between being assured of going to heaven but not just yet, and going to hell for ever is trivial to you, well okay, then it's understandable, though still wrong, to say I'm obfuscating.
And what exactly do you mean by saying that the policy was rescinded 100 years later. I'm going to be going for a plenary indulgence this week. That's an indulgence to get out of Purgatory altogether (assuming I get run over by a truck right after I get the indulgence and before I get on the Religion Forum and therefore sin again.)
What may have been rescinded was the money part. Now if you're going to tell me that a Pope reared back and said, "I declare and define that indulgences can be purchased for cash or credit," I'm not going to believe you without evidence. I want to see the text of the declaration and definition,and the text of the later Popes declaration that he declared and defined as follows: "Oops!"
This would be different from to Pope saying, say, in a letter, "Yo! Tetzel, why don't you try SELLING the indulgences? Mortgage payment is coming due again and the price of hummingbird tongues is going up." That, or something like it, may have come from the Pope but that is not the kind of thing that infallibility is about. That's not an obfuscation, that's the way it is.
But indulgences, including plenary indulgences, still exist and have not been rescinded. So you've got to come up with a "Declare and define" about MONEY and indulgences for your argument to have anything to do with what we mean by infallibility, I think.
And I don't obfuscate, not intentionally and not knowingly. AND, further, I'm not going to be on the religion forum for a while. So I guess we're done on this one.
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.