Posted on 11/29/2012 2:55:12 PM PST by DaveMSmith
Everything in the Old Testament history leads up to the crossing of the Jordan, and yet the way the story is told in Joshua 3 and 4 has major inconsistencies and problems. Is there another way to read it?
Can the Bible be taken literally?
Low to mid 70s here the last several days. I’m lovin it! Supposed to be a little cooler tomorrow with rain but we’ll see. Not bad all in all. I’m trying really hard not to gloat! :-)
Yep, it was during Eisenhower that the vaccine came out. Problem was that I got polio in 1950 and Eisenhower didn’t become President until 1953. Not to give him credit but to show the time line. The polio vaccine was actually first tested in 1952 and really introduced in 1955. The problem for those of us who had it is that now many of us have what’s become known as post polio syndrome which is a further weakening of the muscles that had been affected.
Hey, I figured I would follow in the footsteps of our friend daniel1212’s usual large data posts, and since I am busy with work it’s the easy thing to do :)
Perhaps daniel1212 and show me how to use the variety of colors and large fonts so that I can amuse myself? ;-)
Let me simplify this for you,dear friend
What you don’t seem to realize is that when the deutercanonical books were mentioned in Church councils and read in liturgy for 1500 years prior to Trent they automatically are considered INSPIRED Scripture by the Church before the Council of Trent, so don’t bother to post me your next analysis.
I wish you a Blessed Evening
Please kindly point our the limitations in the following:
"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." - Matthew 18:18
Peace be with you
Send some of it our way if you could....
The RCC misusing Scripture to justify itself is not uncommon.
Too bad most of the popes didn’t have the character or integrity that the first disciples did.
The Vatican Hall of Shame
http://thesmartset.com/article/article05111001.aspx
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
Oh, silly me. That’s right. Nobody is perfect. We all have skeletons in our closets.
Jesus gave that kind of unlimited power to easily corruptible man? I don’t think so. That verse is being misinterpreted and abused for the power grab of the Catholic hierarchy.
My dearest metmom. I trust you remember that I did spend a little over a year in your part of the country and was wise enough to pack up and head out. LOL There is 2 ½ acres for sale right next to our property if you truly want warmer winters and would love to have someone like you guys next door. Other than that, I will simply say that I have little control over the weather but will at times quietly gloat when I’m out in shirtsleeves this time of year and give thanks to God that I am no longer suffering the stiff joints from the cold. Just throw another log on the fire and make some hot cocoa and think of me basking in warm sunshine. :-) Love you too!!
As for reading anything in...what projection? just because it wasn't said word-for-word it in that one statement to which I was commenting?
I was speaking towards the greater positional postulations. In the context of the wider conversation on merely this thread alone, you have referred to infallible authority in regards to canon. That is opposed to the allegation that "Protestants" claim the RCC has "no" authority.
Protestants generally do not dispute all which the RCC proclaims to be indisputable truth, nor can preach & teach those truths. That is the middle ground.
Hence using "no" in the context you did, linking it to "legitimate" [authority, which is otherwise implied to not only exist, but to be infallible] leaves one seeing "infallible authority" as is otherwise claimed far and wide to be the RCC's sole due.
The opposed postulates are self-contained, when taken in overall context of other statements of your own. Notice also I also passed judgement on those Protestants whom would say "no", for that word "no" is an absolute. Just to be fair...for no one Protestant, or even a small crowd, speak for all. Authoritatively.
Hence the postulates of the opening sentence of #418 were flawed...leading to that which was based upon that premise to be unworthy, according to your own rules as previously claimed applied to others.
syl·lo·gism /ˈsiləˌjizəm/
Noun
It was there along along, dearie. In the concepts, and thus the associated implied meanings. You continued with;
Which is an inherently false statement (for not all Protestant theology is opposed to RCC theology, far from it!) leaving the directly above quote, fitting once again to as I previously said, serving chiefly the interests of polemicists. 2 for 2 is affirmation.
More review shows that over half of Sippo’s 120,000+ tome is an attempt to prove that “infallible” is used too strictly by far weightier RC authorities then he, so as to render the canon fixed by Hippo and Carthage, and he invokes the Catholic Encyclopedia (with its stamps) in so doing, but faced with its interpretation of when the canon was finalized (as it states, “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent”) he responds,
“The New Catholic Encyclopedia is a wonderful compendium, but it has its limitations and it certainly is not a magisterial document. I am under no obligation to agree with its conclusions.”
Of course he also disagrees with others including less an authority than Catholic Church historian and Trent expert Hubert Jedin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Jedin) who stated, “it [Trent’s decree] also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon.” However, Sippo quotes him as an authority elsewhere.
And then he adds “I apologize to Mr. Webster for the confusion caused by the poor use of terminology by Catholic authors,” as he insists that Art Sippo has the the correct interpretation.
In his zeal to see the canon fixed, he even relegates men like Jerome, Italian theologian and cardinal Girolamo Seripando, Cardinal Cajetan (of whom the CE says, “Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly”), as “defectors from Catholic Tradition [who] were simply out of touch with Magisterial teaching?
Well then here is RC apologetics, it exalts its magisterium as providing sure guidance, yet RCs do not even know how many infallible decrees there are, and while they criticize evangelicals for judging truth according to warrant, yet RCs must rely on fallible human reasoning to judge what is magisterial teaching and in interpreting it, and according to relative peons like Sippo, in so doing they can contradict church approved material (which they insist we rely on) and end up disagreeing with each other. (Indeed, some RCAs point to Florence as the first infallible decree, if not Trent).
Regardless, all of Sippo’s prolixity here and what follows (and he does not settle the Esdras debate, though that is not critical here), it provides no real support for the essential RC argument in this debate (and instead affirms the other side), which was that Luther is to be characterized as a villain for relegating books as doubtful (after the ancient manner which Sippo affirms took place) which Trent affirmed as the issue was settled early on, yet regardless of how “fixed” Sippo wants to make that canon, it definitely was not indisputable, and far greater authorities than Sippo excluded books, without official censure (as does Rome from the Orthodox canon, even though that is not entirely fixed). And it remains that the Prot canon has ancient support.
Either admit that or cease trying to obscure this fact.
Considering that despite its volume Sippo still cannot actually deny these things, despite exalting his own ‘ judgment in attempting to do so, i can understand why Webster need not reply.
However, he has others waiting:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=598
Related: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2710
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2751
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=557
Etc.
Can’t say as I blame you. So as it can work out, I want out as well.
NY is a beautiful state with phenomenal agriculture, but between the winters and the government, it’s just not worth staying any more if there’s no reason to.
And right now, mr. mm’s job qualifies.
And which agreement was once of the core teachings that set the evangelical movement apart from liberals, and which is what i defend.
However, papal infallibility and jurisdiction is indeed a primary issue, if not salvific (except for some RCs in debates with us).
There is that darned precept I referenced raising its ugly head again. EVERY anti-Catholic argument and apologetic has that is its foundational statement. Since I recognize it as false I have no need to read beyond it.
Peace be with you
I did not say that Protestantism disputes all Catholic doctrine, I said what I said; "the foundational precept of Protestantism is that the Church has no legitimate authority."
I stand behind it and the content of the posts in response prove it to be a truth.
Peace be with you.
What you don’t seem to want to realize is that "the proximate and ultimate criterion is the infallible decision of the Church in listing its sacred and canonical books....The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic encyclopedia - Volume 3 - Page 26) Catholic University of America - 2003
Either you dam all those who Rome did not condemn for different views, even within Trent (which apparently included an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it) or you accept that the canon issue had not been truly settled, and Luther was not a maverick in his relegating books as doubtful, after a traditional manner.
You are giving away your age, but were you on FR then?:) Seriously, you must be like those in Judges 8:4, “faint, yet pursuing.” and may the LOrd, whose power is manifest in our weakness as we rely on Him, manifest Himself thru you.
No it is not, but the easiest thing to do is to post the link, and my posting of material from my own site was only after repeatedly providing links and having RCs say they would not go to them!
And it was about 80% less words, and actually established proof for the actual argument, rather than trying to magnify how accepted the canon was and relying on Sippo's judgment as to what was infallible, thus rendering those (whom Rome had not reproved) for dissent as being rebels, as his "out of touch" excuse is not tenable.
Yes, God does get angry. Think of it this way:
And we should be clear, those of us who understand the love of the Father and our own sinfulness only understand it because the Father opened our eyes and ears to this truth. We are like Peter who when Christ called wanted to be left to our own sinfulness. Yet God has a purpose for us. This is the grace of God.
Opinion.
I’m not impressed with your post,it’s just more half truths and spin to me.
Again, Catholicism teaches Christ speaks through Ecumenical Councils or the ordinary teaching “always given in every place”. Thus, the Spirit of God can be found in the “sense of the faithful” that identifies God’s Word when taught. Thus, when the Catholic Church reads deutercanical books throughout history in Liturgy and mentions them in Ecumenical Councils they are believed to be Inspired Scripture.
There was so much error during the period of Trent because of protestant heresies that the Church needed to make concrete statements on what was always believed in order to protect the flock. This has happens in this fashion all throughout History.
So, the argument you’re trying to make is no different than those who try to deny the Divinity of Christ by saying it took until the Council of Nicea in 325 to declare the Divinity of Christ
Of course this is not true because we know by the writings of the Church Fathers,Liturgy,etc.that the catholic Church always believed in the Divinity of Christ and the Church needed to protect the flock from the growing Arian heresy in the same fashion that the Church used the Council of Trent against protestant heresies.
“”And it remains that the Prot canon has ancient support.””
No it does not. Good luck proving that with the scraps and pieces of what we think might be something original.
Time to move on to something else
I wish you blessings in your search for truth!
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.