Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Stemming from this comment
>>I think the RCC doctrines are a product of the enemy<<
Please tell us where we stand here. Examples welcome, but I'm not sure that actual names can be used when quoting another FReeper, so date and thread title may be better.
Bow-chicka-bow-bow, know what I'm sayin'?
Lord, I apologize for that, and please be with the starving pygmies down there in New Guinea.
They're all reading a different comic book tract to gear up for the next round.
Are you allowed to use an “h,” a “k,” two “c’s” and an “i” in the same post?
Let’s think of a title for the next thread......:D
They don't believe in Halloween either, can we say "Jack-o-lantern"?
Nope. It’s in the catechism.
>>Let’s think of a title for the next thread......:D<<
I’m going for “Do Roman Catholics consider Protestants to be Christians”
It will be up in a minute....
I can only hope it will be as successful as this one!
Bravissima!
Thank you! Gotta give trisham credit too!
And the Catholic thread is up!
Aaack. Invalid question.
"Does the Pope/Magisterium consider Protestants to be Christians?"
It doesn't matter what individual Roman Catholics think on the matter, does it?
Hmmm...and here I thought Paul, Peter, John and several others Jews (with the exception of the Gentile Luke) wrote the New Testament. Foolish me.
Yep. Same guys.
Are you saying they did not become Christians?
Ridiculous. And FYI I am using the Hebrew scriptures, in Hebrew.
St. John didn’t use Hebrew, he used koine, and in his rendering of Jesus’ quote of Psalm 82 he rendered elohim as theoi, not kritoi.
Furthermore, John 10, in which the quote appears, is entirely concerned with Jesus’ divinity, and Jesus’ quote is directly in rebuking the Pharisees for their incredulity that God could be man.
One begins your line of argument by implying that the beloved apostle misunderstood Jesus, but, in fact, concludes by averring that Jesus misunderstood or mendaciously misinterpreted the Psalms to score a cheap rhetorical point on the Pharisees.
This also opens up discussion of the antiquarian weakness of the Protestant preference for the Masoretic text, which the Qumran texts have shown were “touched up” to blunt the more clearly Christocentric original text more faithfully translated into Greek in the Septuagint.
One can consult Talmud to see that the Pharisees didn’t much like the “theoi” translation of Psalm 82, but it would be passing strange even for a Protestant, to prefer their gloss to St. John’s.
In John 10, Jesus is speaking of Himself. In Psalm 82 God is speaking of appointed Hebrew judges, big differences.
Then why the plural, if the quote of Psalm 82 in John 10 refers only to Him?
And why would any Pharisee have found that argument persuasive?
Why did St. John use “theoi,” then? Is it possible that your own personal interpretation might be less well linked to the original source and texts than his?
To quote the great Flannery O’Connor:
“If it’s just a metaphor, I say to Hell with it.”
It’s not a metaphor, it’s an artifact of translation caused by Protestant attempts to shoehorn all the meanings of King David’s “elohim,” St. John’s “theoi” and St. Thomas Aquinas’ “deos. into “God.”
The Divine Essence encompasses three Persons, One of Whom promised to share what the Father gave Him with us.
What do we, in principle, think of fathers who distinguish between their begotten sons and their adopted sons?
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.