Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
Why would the answer to where heaven is have to be in Genesis?
So at what literal place is God’s right hand?
The answer doesn’t have to be anywhere. If, however, one is a complete literalist, one can be found there.
Perhaps I’m jumping the gun here. There are very few real literalists. I should ask first if you consider yourself one and if so, what that means to you.
?
Do you even know what any of that is? What any of it means?
Duties of the Catholic:
The Duties/Obligations of Catholics as Listed in the Catechism
1. To attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation and rest from servile labor.
2. To receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation at least once a year, if aware of committing a mortal sin.
3. To receive Holy Communion at least once a year, between the first Sunday of Lent and Trinity Sunday.
4. To observe the fast days and abstinence days established by the Church.
5. To contribute to the material support of the Church
The Duties of Catholics added by the U.S. Bishops
6. Obeying the Marriage Laws of the Church
7. Join in the Missionary spirit of the Church
These are not onerous duties and they are for the benefit of the believer. As stated earlier, when one neglects prayer, Mass and the reading of Scripture it is easy to fall away.
Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.
Again, remain close to the Church so as to avoid being lukewarm or to lose faith altogether and fall into agnostisism or atheism.
Can. 210 All the Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their own condition.
Gee, strive to be perfect. Isn’t that what Jesus said. Did he also not want us to make disciples of all nations? Are we not a part of the building up of the church?
Can. 211 All the Christian faithful have the duty and right to work so that the divine message of salvation more and more reaches all people in every age and in every land.
Again, missionary activity, whether or not one travels or one never leaves their home city or country. Be a light unto the world so that they will give Glory to God.
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
“He who hears you, hears me, He who rejects you, rejects me, and who rejects me, rejects the One who sent me.”
“As my Father has sent me, so I send you.”
The Council of Jerusalem is a prime example of this duty of a Christian to accept the teachings of the Church.
When Peter and James and Paul and the other Apostles met to consider whether or not the Gentiles had to be circumcised before receiving the Good News, they had nothing by which to base their “sentence”.
There was no NT Scripture, the OT certainly was silent on the matter. Therefore, they had to decide, based on what they knew of Christ’s message, what conditions or “burdens” would be placed on Gentiles when they became believers.
Prior to that council, they were circumcising the men who converted. But, following it, after the declaration of Peter and the testimony of Paul and Barnabas, it was their judgement that the Gentiles would have to follow some of the dietary laws, but would not have to be circumcised.
This was a totally new doctrine. A letter was written to be circulated and read to the different communities and all were bound to accept it.
Paul had to rebuke Peter when he was not living up to the decision of the council. Why? Because it was a binding doctrine.
Can. 222 §1. The Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers.
Last time I read ACTS, it very clearly said that all the believers contributed to the church to help the poor. Paul makes mention of collecting monies or contributions to take to Jerusalem for the believers there.
Is it error to hold Christians to that standard?
§2. They are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor from their own resources.
“Whatever you did for the least of my brothers, you did for me.”
Can’t imagine the error one could see here.
Catholics are indeed a community of believers that is universal and we are conscious of our duty to help all who are in need, whether through our contributions to the church for missionary work or charitable work.
If protestants find this to be error or something to be disparaged, then go for it.
I am not ashamed, nor will I deny my complete submission and obedience to Jesus and to His Church.
Any more questions?
What Scripture led the Apostles to conclude that Gentiles would not have to be circumcised?
I don’t even understand your question. Are you asking if God has a literal right hand? And He is sitting on a literal throne? In a literal place named heaven? And Christ is literally seated next to God at His right hand? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. That’s why the Eucharist is such a ridiculous deception. Christ is seated now. Not up and down, in heaven, at Catholic Churches everywhere, every day, all day long, changing wafers and wine into Himself. But THAT you WILL take literally..Whatever is the opposite of the Bible is what your Church gloms onto and creates doctrine.
God the Father has a literal right hand.
Where is it? How big? And His thumb?
Is it omnipresent?
You should ask Mary. She is standing right next to Him, according to the RCC. Or is she NOT literally standing there, meaning she was NOT literally bodily assumed? Which parts of what the RCC teaches are literal and which are not? It’s very confusing.
The question is about completely literal interpretation. Literal as opposed to not literal, metaphor, simile, allegory, etc.
I doubt there are few if any that fit this description. That’s the question.
That’s what I’m asking you. Yes, no??
How about we postpone the whack a mole game a while longer here?
We’ve hardly established your degree of literalism yet. I believe that is the point under discussion.
Are now you claiming the ability to inerrantly determine what is legitimate history as well as what is legitimate Scripture?
My assertion is that "history" does not refute either the Deuterocanonicals or Exodus, but you are demanding that you get to choose when history trumps Scripture and when it does not. You need to pick a story and stick to it.
Again, is it completely literal interpretation of all Scripture for you or no? Is this your position?
That was a miscomprehension of my post, which was not about what Rome requires and does not require, not about souls not having a “right” to believe Rome has the same level of authority and believability as Scripture itself, although i obviously hold they are wrong in believing that.
As for the second issue, i cannot answer for all others, but i did not say or express that the contention was about RCs being Christians who love Christ imperfectly, in which i am sure i come short, but while ultimately it is about glorifying God by being saved and worshiping in Spirit and in Truth, yet my post was in response to a fellow Protestant, and whom i presume was responding to an RC about what is required of them, and thus i provided material from Rome.
As rather than re to an RC and sowing discord, what i did was report on discord that exists, without help from me, and offer this reasonable reply.
And rather than these contentions starting because some OP began a proactive attack on Rome, most of them are in response to RC promotions of herself, or because they cannot resist attacking Protestants, though sometimes it happens the other way around.
But in answer as to why evangelicals do contend against RCs, while evangelicals in general do not hold all RCs are lost, yet based upon doctrine and personal experience i think they overall see most as never having had a manifest day of salvation/regeneration, while they attack us as if we need salvation.
And thus the conflict, but if you fault us for contending for truth and the salvation of souls in this regard, then you must explain why your side does the same, especially when Rome now holds the baptized Prots are children of God with them. Though as in some other things, some RCs disagree.
I trust this addresses your objections.
THAT is the point of the discussion. What is to be taken LITERALLY, and what is NOT. When Paul was caught up to the third heaven, was that a LITERAL third heaven he was caught up to? In The Revelation did John LITERALLY SEE the things that Christ told him he was going to SEE? "Write the things which THOU HAST SEEN, and the THINGS WHICH ARE, and the THINGS WHICH SHALL BE HEREAFTER;" Rev. 1:19.
Jesus never made a "direct" quote of them, no. Nor did he ever refer to any of them as from God even IF he made allusion to them. No "thus sayeth the Lord". No "it is written". Hmmm...
The Septuagint is a Jewish Bible and they were in the Jewish canon. There were several different versions available for the various Jewish sects. The deuterocanonicals were not removed until the anti Christian Council of Jamnia which was convened in order to separate Judaism from Christianity.
The Jewish theologians NEVER accepted the Deuterocanonicals/Apocryphal books as in league with Divinely-inspired Scripture. I have given many links that prove this. I can't force you to read them, nor believe them, but you have not given comparable sources that prove what you assert. This "Council of Jamnia" that you term "anti-Christian" and which you claim was convened to separate Judaism from Christianity lacks historical references or any proof of what you claim. There are more than a few links that would help you to get an education about this council rather than being wholly dependent on what your leaders say. From the link http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-council-of-jamnia.htm we learn:
In 90 AD, the council of Jamnia was unimportant in determining the Jewish Canon.
It was not a major council like Nicea, but a small collection of rabbinic Jewish leaders.
They did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.
Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders misrepresent history when they make claims that the Canon of the Old Testament was not fixed until the council of Jamnia in 90 AD. They desperately don't want to be bound to following the Bible. Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders feel that re-writing history to suggest the canon of the Jews was not fixed until after the Jewish system was abolished in 70 AD, is as absurd as it is wishful thinking. Think about it, only after God destroys the Jewish religion, do the Jews get a fixed canon.
There was clearly a fixed canon long before Jesus was born and when Jesus was tempted by the Bible three times, he did not reply, "human, man-made church tradition says Satan" Rather all three times Jesus replied, "It is written", (Matthew 4:1-4) referring to the Old Testament canon. In other words, the Devil didn't ask, "Written in what?" for everyone, including even the Devil knew what books were included in the Old Testament.
Additional information from http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia says:
The Council of Jamnia or Council of Yavne is a hypothetical 1st century council at which it is postulated the canon of the Hebrew Bible was defined. Some time before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai relocated to the city of Yavne/Jamnia, where he received permission from the Romans to found a school of Halakha (Jewish law).[1] His school became a major source for the later Mishna, which records the Tannaim, and a wellspring of Rabbinic Judaism. In 1871 Heinrich Graetz, drawing on Mishnaic and Talmudic sources, concluded that there must have been a late 1st century Council of Jamnia which had decided the Jewish canon. This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century, but from the 1960s onwards it came increasingly into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of Graetz's sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions of the rabbis were about canonicity at all.
Heinrich Graetz introduced the notion in 1871; based on Mishnaic and Talmudic sources, he concluded that there must have been a Council of Jamnia which had decided the Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century. This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. However, from the 1960s onwards, based on the work of Jack P. Lewis, Sidney Z. Leiman, and others, this view came increasingly into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of the sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, asserting that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely.
Jacob Neusner published books in 1987 and 1988 that argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in second-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a notion of Torah was expanded to include the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim.[4]
Jack P. Lewis wrote in The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. III, pp. 634-7 (New York 1992):
The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. ... These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion.
You really need to do a better job if you want to do more than just make unqualified assertions. That kind of "scholarship" doesn't do so well here.
And yet that same search for the truth led me to the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. (From the Protestant side!)
If you ask that question seriously, then you are not a complete literalist.
And yes that is the point. You started on me with:
it seems the very Book you are studying is not one the Catholic Church takes literally. What good is Bible study if the Book you are studying is not considered the truth?
I.e., literal interpretation = truth.
I'm questioning what your commitment to literalism is that you consider = truth.
Completely? Or not? Is everything in Scripture to be interpreted completely literally or do you ask: "What is to be taken LITERALLY, and what is NOT?"
Before your first position is successfully argued, let's not go on to another.
Simple question: Is your position that only a completely literal reading of Scripture is true?
Any questions?
This is what happens when one rejects the authority and reliability of Scripture; science becomes the standard by which Scripture is measured as if science is truth.
Amazing isn’t it? And yet, only one of us can be right. Unless we are following the same gospel, the same Jesus, and have the same spirit. Maybe so. Maybe not. It’s the gospel of your salvation that saves. Nothing else. That’s the only thing that matters. For eternity. ;)
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.