And my cat WAS eaten by aliens!
I told you it was true; so what EVIDENCE do you have to say that poor Fluffy was NOT on the Martian Menu?
Posted on 07/26/2013 2:04:17 PM PDT by NYer
There seems to be a LOT of this going on in this thread.
You are correct: no EVIDENCE.
And my cat WAS eaten by aliens!
I told you it was true; so what EVIDENCE do you have to say that poor Fluffy was NOT on the Martian Menu?
No, I clearly said “you” twice.
It looks as if anti-Catholics struggle with basic reading comprehension as well as everything else.
No, it’s all from just one side.
That’s not what I said. Leave it to the anti-Catholic to lie.
“And my cat WAS eaten by aliens!”
Yeah. You stay with that line.
“I told you it was true; so what EVIDENCE do you have to say that poor Fluffy was NOT on the Martian Menu?”
Wow, you seem so desperate.
Talk about Bible lessons, this is a text which is subject to to two different interpretations, and as TMK is not infallibly defined by Rome (very few are) is one in which RCs may exercise their great liberty to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome.
The support for the position that Elijah did not actually go to Heaven is first that of 2 Chronicles 21:12-15 ("And there came a writing to him [Jehoram] from Elijah the prophet, saying,..), yet, while substantial, this only states Elijah was the source, and not that he sent it from some place on earth after he was taken to Heaven.
The approved notes in your official Bible states,
Elijah: this is the Chronicler’s only mention of this prophet of the Northern Kingdom. It is doubtful that Elijah was still living in the reign of Jehoram of Judah; in any case, the attribution of the letter to him has a folkloristic quality.
The approved notes in the Catholic Haydock commentary states,
Le Clerc would read Eliseus. Grotius supposes that all passed in a dream. Others think that Elias had written the letter before his removal from the conversation of men, some years before, foreseeing the impiety of Joram, and leaving the letter with Eliseus, to be delivered unto him. (Menochius) (Junius) --- But the most common opinion is, that the prophet wrote it in paradise, (Calmet) and sent it to the king by an angel, &c. (Seder. xvii.) (Bellarmine) (Tirinus) --http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id976.html-
Prot. Keil & Delitzsch opined in their Commentary,
" there is not a word in the Chronicles about any letter (ספרים, ספר, or אגרת, which would be the Hebrew for a letter); all that is said is that a writing (מכתב) from the prophet Elijah was brought to Joram, in which he was threatened with severe punishments on account of his apostasy. Now such a writing as this might very well have been written by Elijah before his ascension [see 2Chrn. 35:4, in which a writing is from deceased David] and handed to Elisha to be sent by him to king Joram at the proper time. Even Bertheau admits that, according to the chronological data of the Old Testament, Elijah might have been still living in the reign of Joram of Judah; and it is a priori probable that he both spoke of Joram's sin and threatened him with punishment. It is impossible to fix the year of Elijah's ascension. Neither the fact that it is mentioned after the death of Ahaziah of Israel, which he himself had personally foretold to that ungodly king, nor the circumstance that in the war which Jehoshaphat and Joram of Israel waged with the Moabites the prophet Elisha was consulted (1 Kings 3), warrants the conclusion that Elijah was taken from the earth in the interval between these two events. It is very obvious from 2Ki_3:11, that the two kings applied to Elisha simply because he was in the neighbourhood, and not because Elijah was no longer alive.)
The second verse which militates against Elijah being in glory is Jn. 3:13:
And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.
At face value this excludes anyone from being in Heaven as meaning God's abode, the place of His throne, (Mt. 5:34) and which i am inclined to concur with. Not that Elijah was still on earth, but Heaven is not used precisely of God's throne, but Scripture speaks of heavens, as in Ps. 8:1,3: "...who hast set thy glory above the heavens..;." Psa 68:33: "To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens;" Psa 103:19: " The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. 2Cor. 12:2: "such an one caught up to the third heaven."
It is thus possible that Elijah was taken up into Heaven, but not to God's abode, who is " dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. " (1 Timothy 6:16)
It is this Heaven that the Lord Jesus is referring to, and which He came down from, speaking of things above. And we also see that as "the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing," (Heb. 9:8) "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins," (Hebrews 10:4) thus OT saints such as the beggar of Lk 16:19ff were in paradise, Abraham's bosom, whom the crucified Christ first descended to and led captivity captive and then ascended to God. (Eph. 4:9) Thus, "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matthew 27:52-53) And after which Paradise is now the 3rd heaven.(2Cor. 12:2)
It is also uncharacteristic of Scripture to not tell us of the earthly end of its notable characters, while also telling us of notable aspects of them. And thus it would be unlikely that Elijah was still on earth after being taken up into heaven, but it is far more likely that he was taken up someplace outside of God's abode (regardless of the problem of assigning a space to an omnipresent Being), and perhaps then remained in Abraham's bosom until the Lord's postmortem descent.
As for believers postmortem place and experience now, i have dealt with that in many threads such as here . ,
Too much reading for now, but the answer to #1 is that nowhere in the Word does it say Matthew wrote a gospel. But why is attribution critical? Do you consider Trent's attribution of authors to be infallible?
As for # 2, nowhere in the Word does it say Matthew’s gospel is inspired, though 1Tim. 5:18 quotes Mt. 10:10, but then where does it say 2Pt. 3:16, which affirms Paul's writings as Scripture, is inspired of God?
Thus the question is how do we know a writing(s) is inspired of God? And for that matter, how do we know a man is a man of God? The answer is evident in Scripture itself, but your premise seems to be that an infallible magisterium is necessitated in both cases, dissent from which disallows spiritual authority. Is that correct?
Just to let you know, many old commentators did not consider Paradise to necessarily be Heaven (e.g. when Jesus promised St. Dismas he would be with Him in Paradise). They believed it to be the the Bosom of Abraham.
The end result is the same: Elijah was not in the abode of God and could not be until Jesus opened the gates with His death and resurrection.
Oh, and by the way,
“The approved notes in your official Bible states,”
I have no “official Catholic Bible” other than the Nova Vulgata. And the notes in the NAB/RE are not an official text in any sense. They are “approved”, but not official teachings of the Catholic Church.
You wrote:
“But why is attribution critical?”
You’ll have to wait and see - if I ever get an answer to my question from the person I questioned (which is extremely doubtful at this point).
“Do you consider Trent’s attribution of authors to be infallible?”
That is irrelevant to my question or to the answer.
“As for # 2, nowhere in the Word does it say Matthew’s gospel is inspired, though 1Tim. 5:18 quotes Mt. 10:10, but then where does it say 2Pt. 3:16, which affirms Paul’s writings as Scripture, is inspired of God?”
Your question is irrelevant to my question. It serves no purpose.
“Thus the question is how do we know a writing(s) is inspired of God? And for that matter, how do we know a man is a man of God? The answer is evident in Scripture itself, but your premise seems to be that an infallible magisterium is necessitated in both cases, dissent from which disallows spiritual authority. Is that correct?”
Your question is irrelevant to my question. Until my question is answered by the person who I asked it of I see no logical purpose to your question.
I concur on both counts.
Quite a guy.
The only thing I disagree with him on is the Crusades.
I love them. We need another one.
And it was your words that came from your mindset not mine.
It looks as if anti-Catholics struggle with basic reading comprehension as well as everything else.
Was it IS, is the ANTI-WORD catholic struggle with not understanding God's Word; therefore, not obedient TO IT. Go to God with your questions and tell Him you want proof that Matthew is God inspired.
Official Latin text at least, which is a result of Trent decreeing the Vulgate to be the trusted, authentic text of the Bible, but not a specific version, resulting in various attempts to create a standardized one, and the interesting story of the Sistine Vulgate .
Trent also stated, "Sacred Scripture, especially this well-known Old Vulgate edition, shall be published as correctly as possible." More: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470
And as regards official Bible, I was referring to this:
There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.” http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
And which 1991 version has apparently been succeeded by the 2011 New American Bible Revised Edition
And the notes in the NAB/RE are not an official text in any sense.
I understand that, while going beyond the the "approved" category (and then their is the "authentic") to official, all that the CCC officially states is not necessarily infallible. But the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, which type of sanction has a long history , is supposed to give assurance that it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals. “The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a negative approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. No implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by those who have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed in the work.” — http://old.usccb.org/catechism//update/spring98.shtml
And Canon law states that pastors of the Church have "the duty and the right to demand that where writings of the faithful touch upon matters of faith and morals, these be submitted to their judgement." (823; http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017 /_P2P.HTM)
Yet these are decreasingly seen today, with some RCAs no longer bothering to attempt to obtain the stamps for their works.
This is a tangent, but would you agree that the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat give assurance that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error?
The traditional Jewish understanding is that Elijah was indeed removed from the earth altogether without having to undergo death. Judaism is of course far more esoteric and far less dogmatic about the afterlife than chrstianity.
One thing for sure is that Elijah never died. He is the reason all human history is encompassed by the lives of seven men (Methuselah knew Adam, Seth knew Methuselah, Jacob knew Seth, Amram knew Jacob, 'Achiyyah HaShiloni knew Amram, Elijah knew 'Achiyyah, `od 'Eliyyahu chai [Elijah is still alive]).
Furthermore, there is some sort of connection between Elijah and Aaron's grandson Pinechas. As he had already been born when the priesthood was bestowed on Aaron and his sons, he was not originally a priest, but after the episode recorded in the beginning of Numbers 25 he was "grandfathered" in. Furthermore, he was given an "eternal priesthood" (kehunat `olam). One view is that he was actually given the gift of immortality and actually later became known as Elijah (who still has not died). Another opinion is that Elijah was a gilgul of Pinechas.
The tradition is less unified on Enoch, whom so many chrstians also believe was "translated." There is one view that he was, but another merely that he died very young (down to this day in Judaism, very holy individuals tend to live very long lives while mystics often die very young). Enoch died at age 365, while the Arizal and Rabbi 'Aryeh Kaplan both died at age 37.
There is no abomination that can’t get a “nihil obstat” and imprimatur. Believe me, I know.
You clearly are unable to answer the question I asked. Thanks for proving my point in any case.
you wrote:
“This is a tangent, but would you agree that the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat give assurance that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error?”
No. The Nihil Obstat, especially over the last 40 years, is assurance only in relation to the learning and good will of the one granting it. Hence, if I am not mistake, the Dutch Catechism had a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19671002&id=JTs0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=O-sFAAAAIBAJ&pg=558,72392
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.