Posted on 10/25/2009 9:52:48 AM PDT by narses
“Priestly office *may* have been the proximal object, but to make that the point of both the narrative and the Jude reference is Sharptonesque.”
Paying attention to facts is not anything the Rev Sharpton does. The text specifies what he was trying to do: not content with Levitical service, he wanted to be a priest like Aaron.
“For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion.”
They tried to justify themselves before God in their own way. They sought financial gain, and sought a role God had not given them. That sounds like a description of the Pope, not a defense of one!
Nope, that's the word I intended. Strictly speaking "solipsism" has a slightly different meaning, but in the past several years colloquial usage has given the term a further sense of "if I don't know something, no one else can know it either" when used descriptively.
You are telling a lawyer of 30 years of practice to look up what caveat means? LOL!
That do [sic] explain alot [sic]...
I don't...particularly when the alternative put forth so far is a preposterous notion that apostasy is some how dependent on geography!
Oh my heavens! What a byzantine and greco-centric concept!
That the Greek word is used should not be surprising since the New Testament and near all of the patristic theology was written in that language. I don’t understand your puzzlement.
[3] And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?
[28] And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind. [29] If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the LORD hath not sent me.
I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him *think*
Not puzzlement: mockery (though not at you). The other addressees have been putting forth the notion that some concepts, not words, cannot be understood apart from knowing the original language.
One specifically made the claim I would understand how apostasy is dependent on what bishop you answer to if only I understood a particular greek word.
I got it the first time.
The difference between our theories is mine does not ignore the parts that don’t support my thesis: yours does.
In other words, I can explain how the dispute you point to fits into the narrative.
You can not give an adequate explaination of how mine fits.
Really? You’ve shown me how Jude is about the Pope, because the sin of Korah was rebellion against Moses? And Korah expected to take over Moses’ role as prophet...how?
What did Korah want? To be a priest like Aaron’s sons.
Ultimately, their specific complaint - a desire to be priests - was also a complaint against Moses and God. “But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD.”
So Jude has these evil men following 3 sins: “For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion.”
They walked in the way of Cain, who was upset with God because his sacrifice didn’t please God - ie, they want to be accepted by God on their own terms. They abandoned themselves for the sake of gain - they forsook true prophecy to make money from false. And they “perished in Korah’s rebellion.” As far as Jude is concerned, they have already been judged by God for acting like Korah, who rebelled against God by trying to take an office he wasn’t given by God, and rejecting the revelation by God of the proper office.
Again, this describes the Pope better than it defends him.
Like Cain, the Pope and the church that follows him has rebelled against God’s plan of salvation. Rather than the one time sacrifice of Jesus Christ making us perfect forever (Heb 10), it requires multiple participations in the sacrifice of Jesus to cleanse from sin. Instead of “made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus”, it imposes a requirement for multiple good works, has no assurance of salvation, and creates a place unknown to the Apostles where Christians are punished after death until they become good enough - again, denying that Christ made us perfect forever!
It has created a system to draw in money, for a time selling forgiveness of sin for cash. It has tickled men’s ears with what they want to hear - that they are sick in their sins, but can participate in their own salvation and make themselves ready for grace.
And it has created a priesthood without revelation, offering sacrifices contrary to the one time sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Pope has claimed to be CINC of Bishops, and Vicar of Christ in the place of the Holy Spirit. Not content with rebelling against the offices God ordained in scripture via the Apostles, he has taken on the role of God himself. And his judgment by God is just as certain as Korah’s.
Thank you. This is very carefully formulated and I have no quarrel with this way of describing the liturgy.
But then you say
[the Catholic Church is] offering sacrifices contrary to the one time sacrifice of Jesus Christ
If the Catholic Chruch were offering such sacrifices, that would have been indeed preposterous. But does it? Your careful formulation of the nature of the Mass does not support the cheap and untrue propagandistic caricature of what the Mass is.
Like Bishop Sheen, and may others said, your fight is against the caricature of the Church, in which all Catholics would join you if it were grounded in fact.
As Catholics, we are in a religion that is grounded in historical facts. This makes us also grounded in things Orthodox and in things Greek. I agree that (1) the translation of St. Jerome is sufficient if received in the light of the Church, and that (2) most of the meaining of the Holy Writ is adequately explained in the vernacular teaching of the Church in any language. However, if you wish to contrast translations or argue which is better, or argue from scripture rather than from the Magisterial teaching, then you have to start with the beginning, which just happens to be in Greek.
You.
Peter did however settle the famous dispute in Jerusalem which saw turmoil in the Church until he stood and spoke giving the "doctrinal" understanding of gentiles, for which James gave "local" rules
Well, that's assuming that really happened. Besides, there was no doctrinal understanding of gentiles in what Jesus taught. We're told very clearly that it was an afterthought (Acts 13:46). That's about all the "doctrine" there was. Besides, the Church in Israel was dying...
What "extention" is that? I know of no "extention" for you to toss around like corner church theologian
I guess one has to be one to know one.
Postulating is not "teaching" but I wouldn't expect you to recognize the difference between rolling grain in ones hand, and "harvesting."
Mind over matter, pal, I don't mind and you don't matter to me. My pay is the same. But you are straying into ad hominem waters, pal. Being so angry isn't good for you.
So your argument is still from silence, and your definition of "heresy" is protestant except your totem is patristic instead of scriptural
Yes, silence because it did not exist. What are you going to say about that which doe snot exist? And heresy is by definition that which the Church does not teach.
Literally or allegorically?
Why not just do something reasonable like ask? On the other hand, maybe that's too much to ask...
Clearly, you and your faction expect deferrence, but have consistently avoided answering my questions in the context they were asked. I have to speculate SOME reason for such duplicitous conceit.
Oh, now we are going to play the 'victim' card. You never asked me if I was Greek or whether I studied Greek or not. You are just making excuses. Maybe you should stick with facts rather than conjecturing.
Bwahahaha!
So why do you write "greek" instead of "Greek?" You seem to know how to capitalize proper nouns, so it must be deliberate. Do you have any issues with Greeks? All Greeks? Or is it just silly adolescent rebelliousness?
You seem to miss the fact my opposition claimed the term known far and wide
It is, it's just not transliterated always the same way.
Nobody said anything about "directly." And anyone familiar with languages knows "this can't be translated" is the same as "you can't get there from here." i.e. nonsense.
And just how many languages do you know, and which ones, to speak with such authority?
After Acts 15, count how many times Peter's ministry is again emphasized. The count is ‘0’. Peter, being a minister to the circumcision (Galatians 2), fades in emphasis, while the emphasis on the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, expands.
That is because Israel was diminishing after their fall (Romans ch. 11), and the office of Paul was being magnified (same chapter). Peter, having a primary position with the Jews of Jerusalem, along with the other eleven “Apostles of the Lamb” (a reference to those who were called during our Lord's earthly ministry), would not be the one to expand the churches to the European sphere. That would be the work of Paul.
When Peter gets into a Gentile situation, he messes up, and has to be rebuked by the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Peter didn't settle anything in Jerusalem in Acts 15; he gave his testimony, which clearly stated that before the events of Acts 10, he was ignorant of the transitions taking place. This is not a negative statement, particularly, as Peter had been in obedience according to the revelation that he had from the Day of Pentecost, but he was without the advanced revelation being given by God to the Apostle Paul.
None of them knew that there would be a “Church Age,” much less one that would last for 2,000 years, and all of them were really expecting the return of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:19-21) in their life time as a consequence of Israel's repentance of the sin of having murdered their Messiah/King. Even Paul preached and was bound for “the hope of Israel,” not the Body of Christ, all the way to the end of the Acts history (Read Acts 28).
It was after the close of the Acts history, when the leaders representative of the dispersed Jews rejected Christ in finality, that it was clear to them that a definite change in order was taking (or had taken)place.
Ephesians ch. 3 — Now Paul is a prisoner for Gentiles, instead of being bound for the hope of Israel.
The mistake made is reading into the Acts history what we see today, and thinking it is the same thing. It is not.
That is so out of context. I gave you a historical fact and you reply with this nonsense?
Anything else is simply a variation on the reformation claim "anything not included in scripture is a contradiction of scripture."
Do you have a better argument?
I never heard of that colloquial meaning (must be [de]generational), and it's certainly not in the dictionaries. But I am not surprised, given the narcissistic nature of the spoiled brats, to come up with such a distortion—if I don't know it, then no one else can know it."
Maybe you can refresh my memory: Who said apostasy was dependent on geography? Either way, no matter how preposterous it may seem to you, you can't expect evidence from others if you have no evidence to offer yourself. Do I detect a tinge of generational "solipsim" or just plain narcissism, not to mention conjectured entitlement.
If Catholics or any other religion want to "caucus" why do that on FREE Republic? Why not do that on a forum that is dedicated to their belief system? It means that the forum that we love is allowed to be used to propagate a belief that we do not agree with without recourse, knowing that many people who are not of that religion will lurk and receive the indoctrination without the ability to counter it.
When there is a plethora of religious threads on FR that are closed to argument FR seems to become an agent of that religious sect.
I myself welcome anyone who has disagreement over my religious belief to have respectful descent. I should be able to support what I believe to others. If I cannot then I better go back and think about just what it is that I believe.
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.