Posted on 01/25/2009 2:49:18 PM PST by NYer
>> There is a reason that the term “sola scriptura” can not be found in the Bible. Lots of stuff cannot be found in the Bible. <<
True, but none of the other terms negate themselves by not being found in the bible. However...
>> Infant Baptism. I cannot find it. <<
What you need to find is any biblical assertion that infants are excluded from baptism. Entire households are baptized. Given extended families and servants and servants’ families, it’s virtually inconcevable that a household would include no children.
>> Trinity. I cannot find it. <<
Is Christ not God? Is the Father not God? Is the Holy Spirit not God? Is God not one?
See, all these terms are simply shorthand names for doctrines which are in the bible. “Sola scriptura” isn’t just a name; it’s the doctrine itself. Call it whatever you want, the doctrine is not in the bible.
Now, transubstantiation means that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. The bible says that it is. You and I could debate whether or not such passages are meant to be taken literally, but however we interpret the meaning of the bible, but you can’t say the bible doesn’t say that.
But nowhere does the bible even approach saying something like “sola scriptura.” It says all scripture is beneficial, but it does not say that only scripture is beneficial. Quite the opposite, it instructs us to keep every instruction we have receievdm whether weitten or spoken. It says to disregard the taditions of men, but it does not assert that all traditions are merely those of men, nor does it define “tradition” as meaning doctrines passed down verbally.
>> Clearly the letters to the seven Churches which are in Asia is currently beyond your willingness to consider....
My “reasoing” as you put it, is based on a lifetime of actually paying attention to what is being said in congregation by honest folk. I have no grievances with the Churches of Sardis, Smyrna, Laodicea, et al. I appreciate the metaphors and the messages. I doubt that you have yet seriously considered the whole of it all.
<<
What prepostrous arrogance! Why not just write, “since you disagree with me, clearly you are a drooling moron incapable of comprehension!” You don’t even bother to assert where anything I’ve written contradicts the passages addressed to those churches!
>> The term ‘Lord” is derived from the Greek koine` dialect .... Kyrios
Though supreme, It is not the same as the Greek term for God. That term is Theos <<
In the ancient Hebrew bible, “God” was represennted by “YHWH,” a purposely unpronounceable name. In its placem they would say, “Adonai,” a Hebrew term originally meaning “lord.” The respect for God was so great, however, that while the Jews were in diaspora they feared that by writing down such a name, they risked the chance that their writings could be destroyed and therefore, the name of God be dishonored.
THerefore, they decided that they should replace the name “YHWH” with “Adonai.” When the Hebrew bible was translated into Greek, in every instance, the word “Adonai” was translated as “Kyrios.” So, when Elizabeth said, “my Lord,” she was referring to God by the only way the name “YHWH” could be spoken. Contrarily, if she had meant “lord” in a non-divine sense, the awkward construction “mother of my lord” could have been avoided by using a term analogous to “my lord-mother.”
>> You’re arguing that because the state was doing the executing, the Church (Pontius Pilate-like) had clean hands? <<
I’m not sure I’d’ve taken Claud’s rhetorical tactic, since plainly the Church did hold that someone could be punished for making arguments contrary to church doctrine. But the point is that the Church did not deem science as being contrary to church doctrine, even in the hypthetical instance, as St. Bellarmine relates, wherein scientific discovery challenges the church’s understanding of revelation. And Claud also is correct in pointing out that most of what the average person “knows” about inquisitions is a combination of black propaganda, and grave confusion.
However, to relate the Church’s behavior to that of Pilate is completely upside-down: Pilate could find no guilt in Christ under Roman law, so he handed Christ over to a mob to be killed. The action of the Church was the exact opposite. By claiming ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the charge of heresy, the Church denied the State the authority to punish someone under that charge.
Kings claimed a right to govern based on their assertion that they governed justly. (Hence, the Declaration of Independence was actually an appeal that the colonies were not guilty of sedition, but were acting legally and justly by opposing the king.) When a person propagandized against the state, he usually did so by moral assertions (”The King is an unjust ruler because he claims the right to sleep with any newlywed bride, which is in fact the sins of adultery and rape!”). Thus, a king would charge political opponents with heresy, and torture and terrorize them.
By asserting itself as the arbiter of heresy, the Church was actually protecting political dissent. If the dissident was not, in fact, a heretic, the State could not punish the dissident for their speech; the State would have to rely on some capital crime, such as killing a minister of the law.
If the dissident was a heretic, normally a recanting of the heresy was sufficient. The *SPANISH* Inquisition was unique in that it was a state inquisition specifically authorized by Rome. The unique circumstance was that Spain had been an Islamic land for hundreds of years. Muslims who openly acknowledged Islam, and Jews who openly acknowledged Judaism were not under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, but the Inquisition feared that Muslims had faked Christianity to undermine its doctrines from within and foment revolution.
The tragedy of the Inquisition is that Spain had given the Church the authority to prosecute people for faking conversions to Christianity, but the Church lacked the civil power to prevent mobs from arracking those who remained Muslim or Jewish. So, Muslims and Jews were faced with a tragic choice of remaining openly Muslim and Jews, and therefore face mob violence, or claim to convert to Christianity, and be tried as a heretic for retaining their Muslim or Jewish faith.
(By the way, Luther preached that any Catholic prince was a servant of the anti-Christ, and therefore unfit to rule. Can you see where the interests of Church and State intersected there? Also, the Catholic Church had taught that risking one’s life to defend against the Muslim onslaught alleviated the temporal consequence of sin; Luther taught that there were no temporal consequences of sin, at a time when the Muslims were about to sweep across the Austerreich. Initially, he even wrote that he vastly preferrred Islamic rule to a Catholic king. (He later changed his mind) Can you see why his heresies were a matter of civil government?)
No I'm not. I'm completely open to a discussion of the morality of what ecclesiastical authorities did in particular cases: and they were recommending death sentences in any case, so clearly they were involved.
What I am arguing (and what I believe history shows) is that the Church did not set up the Inquisition as a court to exterminate heretics--which is what too many people think it was. It was set up to protect the rights of the accused under civil law.
I largely agree with what you said, dangus, only for clarity I’d amend your statement:
“By claiming ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the charge of heresy, the Church denied the State the authority to punish someone under that charge.”
to “the Church denied the state the authority to *declare someone guilty* of that charge.”
The problem here is that any open discussion of the Inquisition, like you said, is too muddled by black legends. It is well known, for example, that the courts of the Inquisition were seen as more lenient than the other courts of the time.
>> the Church denied the state the authority to *declare someone guilty* of that charge. <<
Yes.
With all of the concern by the Hebrews in Exodus concerning the mysterious name of their very own God (such that it is actually in the text,) it seems to me incongruous that the name should actually be shunned as it is by contemporary Jews.
Sort of a warning it seems from here.
Whatever, think as you will.
By the way, the matter of the Tetratgrammaton being unprouncable in the written is rather an inane notion. As I understand the ancient Hebrew written language was devoid of vowels, as it was also of a present tense. In the place of vowels, symbols have been inserted by Rabbis into the text for the purpose of easing the actual reading through the generations.
A practice continued by Christian translators living in cloisters through the millenniums. Thus we have such practices of the nomenclature YHWH being translated (originally by Germans who had no “Y” but instead a “J”) into the JeHoVaH that is somewhat common in English.
I cannot speak or read Hebrew, but I have read a bit about it.
What is really inconceivable to me is that an infant would be expected to "repent" (as commanded in Acts 2;38) for its sins.
You argument is absurd, and is not supported by the text.
I'll read more of your post shortly.
I do say it. In fact I say it without reservation and in complete defiance of your absurdly uninformed post.
The "Last Supper" was a Passover meal. The entire point of the matter was the congregation. The gathering of Saints in memory of Jesus was a commandment of the New Testament.
It is not about the bread.
It is about the gathering together!
Shall I explain also just what a "Saint" actually is, what it means?
Oh well, in for a penny in for a pound.
A "Saint" is a sanctified person.
I am not really good at this "Sunday School" stuff. I am way too impatient with folks who are willfully ignorant.
That is my real sin. I have no time for explaining to others which is so completely evident and simple, if one simply has an open mind.
>> What is really inconceivable to me is that an infant would be expected to “repent” (as commanded in Acts 2;38) for its sins. <<
Those who have committed sins of commission must repent of those sins; when speaking to adults (as the apostles were), all those who heard needed to repent of their sins. But then the very next verse promises that their children shall be saved.
All must be baptized to be saved; there is nothing in the bible which suggests that original sin does not afflict children. It is, however, reasonably to suppose that a child who is too young to sincerely repent is also too young to be truly culpable for a sin of commission. And since we do NOT know that the apostles were addressing any children when they commanded the converts to repent, it’d be a reasonable assertion to suggest that they could’ve been baptized without repentance.
I think the Catholic position is closer to that the parents will make sure that the children do repent of any wrong-doing as soon as they are able to. But if you reject the latter notion’s dependence on the notion of the efficiacy of imperfect contrition, than I’ll settle for the former notion.
>> You might as well be defending the proponents of the Watchtower tract Society who have insinuated the Tetragrammaton into their ridiculous version of the New Testament. <<
I’m saying that by calling Mary, “Mother of My Lord,” Elizabeth was referring to the divine nature, by using a term which had been used to refer to God. The Watchtower people insist that its incorrect to call God, “God,” or “Lord,” but only “Jehovah.” Since I’m obviously not doing that trying to lump me in with nuts based on sharing an opinion we don’t share is simply a spurious rhetorical trick.
When Elizabeth referred to Jesus as “my Lord” was she meaning “Mother of Christ” or merely “Mother of Christ’s human nature”? Given that the term “Lord” was used to enunciate God’s name, and since his human nature had not claimed any earthly thone, it’d be odd to insist it referred to his human nature. In fact, you’ll note that the apostles never called him, “Lord” when they were addressing him as a human.
>> I do say it. In fact I say it without reservation and in complete defiance of your absurdly uninformed post. <<
“This is my body.” “This is my blood.” “I am the bread of life... Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you shall have not life within you.”
As I said, you can debate the interpretation of these passages, whether they are meant literally or not.
>> It is about the gathering together! <<
“Unless you gather together, you shall not have life within you?” I don’t think so.
>> The “Last Supper” was a Passover meal. The entire point of the matter was the congregation. <<
Yes, and Christ himself was the victim. The victim was a sacrifice which was slaughtered and eaten.
>> Shall I explain also just what a “Saint” actually is, what it means? Oh well, in for a penny in for a pound. A “Saint” is a sanctified person. <<
Duh. Where did I ever say otherwise? The Catholic mass refers to the congregation as saints. The only reason we refer to specific individuals as “Saint” so-and-so is to affirm that we know that they have been sanctified. I may believe Pope Benedict is a holy man, but I do not know for a fact he is not a pedophile, hypocrite or fraud. For that reason, I do not refer to him as Pope Saint Benedict. But do I believe he is a saint? Probably yes.
It’s amazing the way certain groups (Mormons and some types of Baptists and Pentecostalists, in particular) presume Catholics are ignorant of the most basic Christian points.
But what, pray tell, does that have to do with anything we are discussing.
>> By the way, the matter of the Tetratgrammaton being unprouncable in the written is rather an inane notion. As I understand the ancient Hebrew written language was devoid of vowels, as it was also of a present tense. In the place of vowels, symbols have been inserted by Rabbis into the text for the purpose of easing the actual reading through the generations.
A practice continued by Christian translators living in cloisters through the millenniums. Thus we have such practices of the nomenclature YHWH being translated (originally by Germans who had no “Y” but instead a “J”) into the JeHoVaH that is somewhat common in English.
I cannot speak or read Hebrew, but I have read a bit about it. <<
You’ve read wrong information. Jahovah was interspersing the vowels of Adonai into the YHWH. You’re right about the part of Hebrew not writing vowels. But only certain vowels can fit between certain consonants. Because Y, H, and W are each semi-vowels, the range of vowels that they can take between them is severely limited. Ask any Jew about the pronunciation of “Yehovah,” and they will tell you how silly it is. There simply is no combination of vowels that can fit in between those letters.
You know that bit about the soft ‘H” and the hard ‘H” that qualifies it as a ‘semi-vowel’. Most folks miss that. You also did not jump on me over the “V” = “W” in German.
I disagree with you concerning the pronunciation of YHWH among Jews. Most Jews that I know have absolutely no clue to what I refer to when I mention such matters.
Fortunately I have known certain educated folks who somehow are/were enamored with me. I mostly listen, but out here on FR.com, I occasionally like to get my feet wet.
I enjoy the discourse and I appreciate the occasional opportunity to engage.
I am not so very bright, but I do appreciate learning from other FReepers. That is actually why I frequent this site so much.
When I have more time I'll be back at it with you.
>> I disagree with you concerning the pronunciation of YHWH among Jews. Most Jews that I know have absolutely no clue to what I refer to when I mention such matters. <<
They prolly don’t understand what you’re talking about because the notion of pronouncing the unpronounceable is such a strange notion. But I’m guessing you’re not talking about real (i.e., orthodox) Jews.
>> You also did not jump on me over the “V” = “W” in German. <<
I knew exactly what you meant, and I don’t try to “score points.”
>> I am not so very bright, but I do appreciate learning from other FReepers. That is actually why I frequent this site so much. <<
You don’t strike me as unintelligent at all. But just don’t dismiss Catholic viewpoints as “incredibly uninformed.” Agree with them or not, they’ve been mulled over by people far brighter than you or I for dozens of generations... including by people who’ve spent their every waking moment in prayer and scholarly contemplation.
No...they don't. Nor with a Golf ball and a ping-pong ball. The difference isn't a lot, but it is discernible.
Air resistance doesn’t count.
O.K...in the sense that there is more mass available to experience the force.
If the two objects are the equal size and shape but different weights, the heavier object will fall faster.
If there is something to act upon the shape, such as an atmosphere, yes. In a vacuum, no.
It does in the post I was responding to - which was referencing the effects of shapes.
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.