Like I said you just have misconceptions about the church. The priests are not above the flock, they are servants of it. A priest has no power over you at all. They perform services for them on behalf of Christ and his church.
A priest is merely an ordained minister in the apostolic tradition.
Referring to a priest as Fr. does not change the fact that we all have one Heavenly Father. In the same way that your father is not your Heavenly Father, neither is a priest. Calling a preist Fr, does not change that, calling Abraham your father does not change that. There are ‘fathers’ all over the bible.[/quote]
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
What else could you possibly think about someone who gives three different accounts of the single biggest event of his life?
There are prophecies telling of Paul coming after Christ, just as they told of Mary, John the Baptist, the Apostles, and Judas Iscariot. They do not speak well of him.
So much so that they were afraid of him, and later sent him home to Tarsus because he was causing trouble for them.
And there are serious doubts as to Peter’s authorship of the epistles written in his name. There also seems to be a passage or two added to what was originally written.
I don’t understand why you would think that. I do agree that Paul says some things that are Christian, but he also says some things that are decidedly UN-Christian.
[quote]If you are a servant of Christ, and you believe the Bible to be the word of God, then the Pauline epistles are part of it. You have no authority to dismiss them. Picking and choosing what you want out of the bible, while dismissing other parts is a dangerous methodology. The bible is a complete work.
[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying, and I agree to an extent. We must understand, though, that Christ is the Light, and everything must be held up to the Light. Anything or anyone that disagrees with Him is wrong.
[quote][quote][quote]For the record, then if you take Jesus at his word in the Gospels, then why when he says " “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” do you not do that as well?
You cannot say one is merely a metaphor and the other literal.[/quote]
He later gave us His flesh and His blood in the form of Communion at the last supper. So, yes, I can say that His flesh and blood are symbolic.[/quote]
Well, his words were, “This is my Body”, “This is my blood.” This was not a symbolic act. There was no kinda sorta. God’s presence can take any form he chooses. There was no symbolism in the Last Supper.
[/quote]
So you think that the Apostles ate His actual flesh? And drank His actual blood? The bread and wine are symbolic of these things, are they not?
Too busy to dig back through that entire thread, Kai. Sorry. Not even to ‘prove’ to you that I’m not trying to avoid your questions. Your answer to everything is intellectual elitism.
You seem to think that in order to understand ‘properly’, you have to abandon all prior knowledge and have someone else teach you. Abandon all self-awareness, instinct, intuition, and reason. Give up all independent thought; always ask someone who is more experienced than you so they can give you the ‘right’ answer. Only after years of regimented education and years of practiced mental exercises can you understand what truth really is.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Baby Jesus, complete with pagan hand gesture and tridents coming out of his head.[/quote]
I am pretty sure that was meant to be a crown or halo of some sort. Artistic interpretations.
The art is meant to be a form of prayer and honor and adornment. You can say that the adornments on the Arc were similar to pagan symbols if you want to. Or you can say they are phallic symbols for all I know. These artistic representations are not claimed to be of any divine origin, only pretty things to adorn places of worship. They are meant to honor God, not be things of worship but tools for worship. God, historically, liked his houses of worship to be pretty. Look how detailed he was about the Tent of Meeting.
I would consider it more of an insult to make a place of worship a dump. [/quote]
Come on now, Pat. You can’t really tell me that you believe all of this artistic interpretation just happens to be a collection of pagan symbols, can you? Do you really believe in coincidence that strongly?
If so, that’s cool, but what about this one? This is the papal crest in the Vatican Museum. Why would they choose dragons to represent the pope?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Too busy to dig back through that entire thread, Kai. Sorry. Not even to ‘prove’ to you that I’m not trying to avoid your questions. Your answer to everything is intellectual elitism.
And I just simply disagree.[/quote]
That is NOT my answer to anything. You are, as usual, mistaking my demand for rigor as intellectual elitism. Do you think that I point out the holes in your knowledge to make you feel stupid, JP? If I was an intellectual elitist, I wouldn’t even be talking with you; I would dismiss you out of hand and go on to discuss these issues with those who have actually studied the biblical world. I continue to discuss these things with you because I am NOT an intellectual elitist.
Why do I continue to point out the gaps in your knowledge, JP? Because YOU are far too prideful. I know what its like to think like you; I was there before. I know exactly what its like to assume that every clever thought you have, every intuition, is God removing the curtain, letting you see more of the “truth.” I had my own prideful, self-sufficient phase, the same phase you are in right now- denying things the church has believed for 2000 years. And don’t use a bunch of pious language trying to deny it; the fact is that you have expressed MANY times your disdain for authority. You don’t like being told what to believe, and that, sir, is pride.
God brought me out of that phase by putting me through a very humbling experience. Afterwards, I knew that trusting my intuition was a dangerous move. Instead, I have set up checks and balances; I’ve adopted a method that enables me to test the legitimacy of my interpretations. I’m not an intellectual elitist; I’m a realist who can defend every single one of my interpretations because I’ve worked HARD through them, studying the ancient languages, studying the original context, studying literary theory, psychology, ancient and modern philosophy. You don’t get it - I tell you all this not to brag, but to point out to you that this level of work is what it takes to come to an understanding of Scripture that is faithful to the author’s intention, that is sensitive to the fact that these texts were not written for you and me. That is the greatest misunderstanding the Reformers inadvertently facilitated by their claims of sola scripture and Scripture’s perspicuity.
Again, if you understood literary theory, you would recognize that abandoning all prior knowledge is impossible. The point, however, is that those texts weren’t written for YOU, but rather for people who shared the same “prior knowledge,” the same conceptual framework, as the biblical author. YOU don’t have that framework to draw upon; you don’t live in a world governed by patronage; you don’t make every decision based on the concepts of honor and shame; you don’t HAVE to obey your parents’ will on threat of death; you don’t see REAL slaves everywhere you look. You don’t share their basic conceptual frameworks of the biblical authors, who wrote their texts to be understood by people in their own times. This isn’t an opinion, JP; this is a linguistic fact. As I’ve said before, if the text was written for you, it would be written in English.
Self-awareness? No. Instinct and intuition? Given that instinct and intuition are historically rooted and historically conditioned, meaning that they are relative to particular times and places and draw upon your basic conceptual frameworks, then yes, abandon them, at least until you have studied enough of the biblical milieu to recondition your “ears” to hear the texts as their original audiences were meant to hear them, to share the same conceptual framework as the biblical authors. And reason? Reason is systematic; your thought is consistently unsystematic, so you obviously abandoned reason a long time ago.
Here we go again with your pride. I didn’t say give up independent thought, but the interpretation of Scripture is, more than anything else, a HISTORICAL task, meaning that it requires historical training for you to be able to understand the text. If you know nothing about history, then all you will do (as you have done already!) is foolishly read your own cultural presuppositions back into the text. I wouldn’t ask a park ranger to design a rocket intended to get me to the moon because he most likely isn’t trained to do it. And I am not telling you that you have to “ask” someone else for the right answer; I am saying that you have consistently proven yourself unqualified to even get NEAR a right answer.
Don’t you understand how dangerous this is? You bad mouth the God of Israel; you bad mouth the apostle Paul. You make up an elaborate theory for why you can reject both of them, but you NEVER ask yourself about boundaries, i.e., how do I judge the validity of my interpretations? Education provides you with tools; you reject education in favor of your own unaided mind. That’s problematic, because these texts weren’t meant to be read by you!
Don’t you see that you are on dangerous ground? At the end of the day, I can stand before God knowing that I did EVERYTHING within my power to search for the truth. I was willing to accept things that were difficult to accept, including the fact that Yahweh ordered genocide, because intellectual honesty left me with no other recourse. So if I turn out to be wrong on many things, I can say that I honestly did my best to find the truth. YOU, on the other hand, reject even the possibility that God could do something you don’t like, and furthermore, you deny that people could know something that (gasp) you couldn’t find out with your own unaided intellect! You do all this a priori; if you’re wrong, when that judgment comes, what will YOU say to God?
What else could you possibly think about someone who gives three different accounts of the single biggest event of his life?
[/quote]
Are the accounts different? Yes. Does that mean PAUL actually told three different stories? Not necessarily. First of all, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Luke was either present or had a transcript of Paul’s statements on those different occasions. Secondly, ancient historians (like Luke) hated repetition, and would often change aspects of particular stories when recounting those stories more than once in a single work. It is therefore highly probable, given ancient literary conventions, that Luke composed these speeches (sticking to the spirit of Paul’s statements) with differing details INTENTIONALLY. He wasn’t dumb; Luke was the author of this text and certainly knew that the speeches contradicted one another, but in ancient Greco-Roman milieu, such variation was expected and desirable. That should, however, raise questions for you about John’s handling of Jesus’ words in his gospel, especially given the fact that (1) John was composing a historical work, (2) John didn’t have transcripts of Jesus’ speeches, especially his night-time convo with Nicodemus (John 3:16), and (3) “Jesus” in John’s gospel sounds an AWFUL LOT like John does in his epistles.
No, there aren’t. Again, I have demonstrated twice now that Habakkuk 2 is NOT a prophecy about Paul, and I was able to do so based on (1) the DETAILS (how you hate those) of the passage and (2) the generic characteristics of the passage. Again, based on the very nature of Hebrew parallelism, the quintessential Hebrew poetic device, the Hebrew word there cannot be the personal name Saul (Sha-al), but rather the underworld, Sheol. Sheol is conceptually parallel to mawet (“Death”); the two clauses are in parallel and make the same point. Based on the grammatical structure of Hebrew poetry (which the entire book of Habakkuk is), the word HAS to be Sheol, NOT Saul. And for the record, even if it could be Saul, you would have no way of proving that the Saul being referenced was the apostle Paul rather than KING SAUL of Israel, one of the greediest and most wicked of Israel’s kings.
You are an absolutely horrible reader. Seriously. You reject Paul without even knowing the chronology of his life!
Do you know how slowly news travelled in the ancient world? Do you know that before his conversion, Paul had been the church’s fiercest opponent? The disciples in Jerusalem initially rejected Paul because they did not believe that the church’s fiercest opponent had actually changed (Acts 9:26), but they had NOTHING to base that belief on; it was a mere protective measure. Once Barnabus introduced Paul to the apostles, however, and told them that Paul had “in Damascus spoken boldly in the name of Jesus” (Acts 9:27), they accepted him! Thus Acts 9:28 - “Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.” In other words, they were only afraid of him when all they had go on was his previous reputation! It’s not like they could phone Damascus and ask, “hey dudes, is this Paul guy a sincere believer or not?”
As far as sending him back to Tarsus, you COMPLETELY IGNORED CONTEXT AGAIN. The context explains why the apostles sent him there - “he (Saul) spoke and argued with the Hellenistic Jews, but they were attempting to kill him. When the believers learned of it (“IT” being the fact that the Hellenistic Jews were trying to kill Paul), they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus” (Acts 9:29-30). The apostles didn’t send Paul away because he was causing them trouble; they sent him away for his own protection! It’s right there in the text, dude! The disciples in Damascus did essentially the same thing with Paul when the Jews there were trying to kill him (Acts 9:22-25).
Whoa lookey there - TWO stories about Paul almost getting killed by the Jews for teaching about Jesus in the span of 10 verses. I wonder why Luke put those two stories together… oh wait, could it be because Luke is showing how miraculous Paul’s conversion was? It was genuine and so miraculous that the same Jews that had previously pushed Paul to destroy the church NOW SOUGHT TO KILL HIM.
How much selective, careless reading are you planning on doing?! Stop talking about things you don’t know anything about, JP, or at least READ the stories first.
Again, you don’t know what you are talking about. Those who “seriously doubt” Peter’s authorship of the epistles are SECULAR scholars who labor under a particular (and incorrect) reconstruction of how the early church developed and the New Testament texts were written. Their primary argument against Peter’s authorship of the epistles is that Peter, having been a fisherman, wouldn’t have known Greek. This assumption is based on another outdated assumption about how hellenized (i.e., how widespread Greek language and culture were) in Judea at the time of Jesus. Better scholarship has more recently demonstrated that Peter could have easily learned some Greek while serving as a fisherman and likely learned more as he went around preaching. Moreover, Dr. Karen Jobes demonstrated in an excellent study that the Greek of 1 Peter (she didn’t do the study on 2 Peter, as she was just writing a commentary on 1 Peter) reflects the linguistic capabilities of someone who knew Aramaic/Hebrew as their first language and learned Greek later on, which is perfectly consistent with what I’ve already said about Peter.
Don’t pretend to be familiar with scholarship you actually know nothing about. If you want to buy into the secular scholars’ outdated arguments about Peter’s authorship of the epistles, why don’t you buy into their claims about the rest of the New Testament, like their belief that the gospels were written at the end of the 1st century by people who neither knew the apostles nor were apostles themselves? Oh of course you won’t buy into that - that would destroy your entire theory about the gospels containing Jesus’ actual words! But you cannot cherry pick with scholarship; you cannot arbitrarily choose what you like of what they say and reject what you don’t. Again, that’s intellectually dishonest.
I understand what you’re saying, and I agree to an extent. We must understand, though, that Christ is the Light, and everything must be held up to the Light. Anything or anyone that disagrees with Him is wrong.
[/quote]
Again you dabble in things you don’t understand. Methodology, methodology, methodology… Here’s another one you haven’t even thought of - Jesus told his disciples to call no one on earth father OR “Teacher,” yet Jesus calls Nicodemus the teacher of Israel in John 3:10. On what grounds do you harmonize Jesus’ teachings with his actions but refuse to harmonize Paul’s actions and teachings with Jesus’? Again, based on your methodology, someone has to be lying. Either Matthew 23:10 is a lie and Jesus never forbade calling someone teacher or father, or John 3:10 is a lie and Jesus never called Nicodemus a teacher. If you cannot answer this, you show again that you really don’t have ANY solid basis for your arguments; you simply pick and choose what makes you feel good.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Too busy to dig back through that entire thread, Kai. Sorry. Not even to ‘prove’ to you that I’m not trying to avoid your questions. Your answer to everything is intellectual elitism.
And I just simply disagree.[/quote]
…I knew that trusting my intuition was a dangerous move…
…I tell you all this not to brag, but to point out to you that this level of work is what it takes to come to an understanding of Scripture that is faithful to the author’s intention…
…if you understood literary theory, you would recognize that abandoning all prior knowledge is impossible.
…yes, abandon them, at least until you have studied enough…
And reason? Reason is systematic; your thought is consistently unsystematic, so you obviously abandoned reason a long time ago.
…I didn’t say give up independent thought, but…
…I am saying that you have consistently proven yourself unqualified to even get NEAR a right answer…[/quote]
You don’t have to use so many words to agree with me. Stop using these cumbersome walls of text to camouflage your main point; anybody who doesn’t agree with you and, by extension the people who taught you everything you think, is an uneducated, low-brow imbecile who isn’t capable of understanding even a fraction of what your massive intellect learned in 1st semester theology courses.
[quote]Don’t you understand how dangerous this is? You bad mouth the God of Israel; you bad mouth the apostle Paul. You make up an elaborate theory for why you can reject both of them, but you NEVER ask yourself about boundaries, i.e., how do I judge the validity of my interpretations? Education provides you with tools; you reject education in favor of your own unaided mind. That’s problematic, because these texts weren’t meant to be read by you!
Don’t you see that you are on dangerous ground? At the end of the day, I can stand before God knowing that I did EVERYTHING within my power to search for the truth. I was willing to accept things that were difficult to accept, including the fact that Yahweh ordered genocide, because intellectual honesty left me with no other recourse. So if I turn out to be wrong on many things, I can say that I honestly did my best to find the truth. YOU, on the other hand, reject even the possibility that God could do something you don’t like, and furthermore, you deny that people could know something that (gasp) you couldn’t find out with your own unaided intellect! You do all this a priori; if you’re wrong, when that judgment comes, what will YOU say to God?[/quote]
I haven’t made anything up, and my mind is not unaided.
I got sidetracked and forgot to respond to this, Brother Chris. I apologize.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Calling the early American Catholics ‘oppressed’ is akin to claiming the KKK is ‘oppressed’. [/quote]
Except Klansman in America are permitted and are actually voted (well, only by the Democratic Party) into office, while the Colonies were still subject to the George the Tyrant, they were not permitted office. Unless of course you forget what the 1st Amendment actually says, which isn’t at all surprising.[/quote]
What I meant was the way people view the KKK now. After all of the evil they’ve committed, a klansman wouldn’t have the slightest chance at public office (if he publicly admitted that he was a klansman).
Obviously you lack the ability to distinguish Catholicism (what Jesus and the Church put forth for the faithful to hold and believe) and what individual Catholics believe, if Malleus Maleficarum is Catholicism, then so is Lutheranism and Calvinism and Ayranism. The Magisterium clearly – clearly – pointed out that believing there were real witches (magical powers, brooms, &c.) was in fact ignoring reality and holding such nonsense was a danger to one’s soul and preaching such falsehoods was in fact a danger to one’s soul. But, thanks again. [/quote]
The author of that book was awarded the summis desiderantes affectibus papal bull in 1484, giving him full papal approval and carrying all authority of the Catholic church.
In defense of individual Catholics (including clergy) of the time; most considered Kramer’s work to be evil and refused to play along, even under threat of excommunication. He then wrote the book and included the papal bull in the preface, sealing the deal and forcing everyone to submit under the threat of being branded a heretic.
So, yes, what individual Catholics believe is distinguishable from the things that the RCC puts forth for them to believe, but it seems that the people have a better grasp on faith than the church
Oh, I was not aware you were given authority to interpret Scripture. Where did you receive this authority?[/quote]
I know what you’re getting at, but I was referring to what the Founders wrote, not the argument about the authority of the RCC.
Several of them publicly expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the canonical Bible, and some even questioned Christ’s divinity, but they still used the Gospels as their main reference for defining goodness and morality.
Like I said you just have misconceptions about the church. The priests are not above the flock, they are servants of it. A priest has no power over you at all. They perform services for them on behalf of Christ and his church.
A priest is merely an ordained minister in the apostolic tradition.
Referring to a priest as Fr. does not change the fact that we all have one Heavenly Father. In the same way that your father is not your Heavenly Father, neither is a priest. Calling a preist Fr, does not change that, calling Abraham your father does not change that. There are ‘fathers’ all over the bible.[/quote]
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" Jesusâ?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleâ??s teacher and master (you have one teacher â?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
I would need some reference for this. I see not prophesy where Paul is inferenced and spoken ill of.
Again, I need a reference. It’s not secret that Peter and Paul had their conflicts, but it was Paul who was right in the spat. And no indication that their was conflict. Certainly they were afraid at first, who was initially persecuting Christians, but not after his apostleship.
I understand what you’re saying, and I agree to an extent. We must understand, though, that Christ is the Light, and everything must be held up to the Light. Anything or anyone that disagrees with Him is wrong.
[quote][quote][quote]For the record, then if you take Jesus at his word in the Gospels, then why when he says " “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” do you not do that as well?
You cannot say one is merely a metaphor and the other literal.[/quote]
He later gave us His flesh and His blood in the form of Communion at the last supper. So, yes, I can say that His flesh and blood are symbolic.[/quote]
Well, his words were, “This is my Body”, “This is my blood.” This was not a symbolic act. There was no kinda sorta. God’s presence can take any form he chooses. There was no symbolism in the Last Supper.
[/quote]
So you think that the Apostles ate His actual flesh? And drank His actual blood? The bread and wine are symbolic of these things, are they not?[/quote]
No, they are not. Nothing about the texts in the synoptic gospels indicates such a thing. God’s presence took many forms in scripture. Taking the form of food is nothing unusual really. After all he took the form of a pillar of smoke and fire in the Torah.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Baby Jesus, complete with pagan hand gesture and tridents coming out of his head.[/quote]
I am pretty sure that was meant to be a crown or halo of some sort. Artistic interpretations.
The art is meant to be a form of prayer and honor and adornment. You can say that the adornments on the Arc were similar to pagan symbols if you want to. Or you can say they are phallic symbols for all I know. These artistic representations are not claimed to be of any divine origin, only pretty things to adorn places of worship. They are meant to honor God, not be things of worship but tools for worship. God, historically, liked his houses of worship to be pretty. Look how detailed he was about the Tent of Meeting.
I would consider it more of an insult to make a place of worship a dump. [/quote]
Come on now, Pat. You can’t really tell me that you believe all of this artistic interpretation just happens to be a collection of pagan symbols, can you? Do you really believe in coincidence that strongly?
If so, that’s cool, but what about this one? This is the papal crest in the Vatican Museum. Why would they choose dragons to represent the pope?
[/quote]
It was not uncommon to take pagan symbolism and make it ‘Christian’ in the olden days. There was a method to the madness, to give pagan converts some degree of familiarization with Christiananity, and for them to understand that these things they understood as pagan are actually given by God. Further, there was the fact that artists borrow from which they are familiar, and that’s what they were familiar with. And again, it’s sematics as these are not objects of worship. It’s just art and symbolism. They don’t matter in the end.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" JesusÃ??Ã?¢?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ??Ã?¢??s teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã??Ã?¢?Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
What else could you possibly think about someone who gives three different accounts of the single biggest event of his life?
There are prophecies telling of Paul coming after Christ, just as they told of Mary, John the Baptist, the Apostles, and Judas Iscariot. They do not speak well of him.
[/quote]
I would need some reference for this. I see not prophesy where Paul is inferenced and spoken ill of.[/quote]
Check out Zechariah 11:15-17, after the reference to Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Christ. Habbakuk 2 also does a good job of describing Paul and the woes of his church.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" JesusÃ???Ã??Ã?¢?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
What else could you possibly think about someone who gives three different accounts of the single biggest event of his life?
There are prophecies telling of Paul coming after Christ, just as they told of Mary, John the Baptist, the Apostles, and Judas Iscariot. They do not speak well of him.
[/quote]
I would need some reference for this. I see not prophesy where Paul is inferenced and spoken ill of.[/quote]
Check out Zechariah 11:15-17, after the reference to Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Christ. Habbakuk 2 also does a good job of describing Paul and the woes of his church.[/quote]
Pat, THERE ARE NO PROPHECIES IN THE OT ABOUT PAUL. All JP does is find a passage that describes SOMEONE (and he never pays attention to the original historical referent of the prophecies he quotes) that sounds as bad as HE thinks Paul was. It’s a completely circular argument. It completely ignores the fact that, according to the book of Acts, Paul WAS used to “heal the maimed” (Zech. 11:16; see Acts 14:8-10). In other words, Paul doesn’t fit Zech. 11:15-17 at all. JP just has this irrational disdain for authority; that’s a big part of why he attacks Paul.
And as I pointed out in a previous post, Habakkuk 2 cannot be a reference to Paul! That’s the worst part - JP doesn’t even pay attention to the words of the text themselves. There is absolutely NO WAY that Sheol in Habakkuk 2:5 could actually be Saul’s name; it literally violates the cardinal rules of Hebrew poetry. It’s only in JP’s and his pseudo-scholar lawyer friend’s mind that this text is a reference to Paul. Worse, even if SHL could be a reference to Paul, that statement would only be mentioning him in passing; he is not the subject of the prophecy! The text is talking about a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSON THAN PAUL; taken in context (Hab. 2:4-5), this is literally what the text would say…
“Behold, the proud one’s soul is not right within him, but the righteous one will live by his faithfulness.
Indeed, wine betrays the proud man , so that he does not stay at home (i.e., he is restless)” - note the subject! It’s the proud man. HE (that is, the proud man) enlarges his appetite like Sheol/Saul
And like death is never satisfied."
This proud one IS NOT PAUL; he is a completely separate figure! And moreover, once again, THOUGH IT IS SYNTACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, BASED ON THE RULES OF HEBREW POETRY, FOR THE WORD TO BE SAUL RATHER THAN SHEOL, if it WAS SAUL, there is no guarantee that the Saul in view is Saul of Tarsus rather than KING SAUL OF ISRAEL. The original King Saul WAS noted for his greed; therefore, given King Saul’s fame, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY, if the text could even potentially be a reference to a human person named Saul rather than Sheol (which it absolutely CAN’T), that the Saul being referenced there would be King Saul, NOT Saul of Tarsus.
In other words, JP’s (and the pseudo-scholar lawyer’s whose website he stole this ridiculous interpretation of Habakkuk 2:5 from) interpretation doesn’t even make sense at the most basic level of grammar! At most, Habakkuk 2:5 would contain a brief mention of the apostle Paul in a potentially negative light IN PASSING; it would still NOT be a prophecy ABOUT the apostle Paul.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You don’t have to use so many words to agree with me. Stop using these cumbersome walls of text to camouflage your main point; anybody who doesn’t agree with you and, by extension the people who taught you everything you think, is an uneducated, low-brow imbecile who isn’t capable of understanding even a fraction of what your massive intellect learned in 1st semester theology courses.
[/quote]
You still don’t get it - you think I learned my interpretations in school. No, what i learned and developed in school (and what countless pastors AND laity before me have developed) are [/i] skills and tools, [/i] skills of reading texts ancient and modern, skills in the use of the various biblical languages, skills that made more faithful interpretation possible for me. I’ve used those skills I developed to come to the interpretations I hold on my own, though I rightly listen to those who have come before me. All skills that you don’t have. I’m not and have never been saying that the average Christian lacks the right to interpret Scripture; my argument has always been that if someone is going to make claims that call the entire history of Christian biblical interpretation a lie, that person (which in this case is you) better be able to provide excellent reasons for WHY we should do so. And if that person doesn’t even KNOW the biblical languages, but is working from a TRANSLATION, and consistently misinterprets that translation (something composed in his own language!), that person should seriously question whether or not the things they are “seeing” in the text are real, or if they are just wish fulfillment dreams.
The latter is the case with you - you’ve already decided you don’t like Yahweh or Paul, so you have formed a theory that helps you do away with having to listen to either of them. That’s cute, but your theory is too selective in what evidence it treats, FREQUENTLY misinterprets that evidence (again, your erroneous notion that Stephen said Moses was simply “put outside the door”), and most importantly, DOESN’T EVEN FIT THE EVIDENCE IT DOES TREAT. Again, you still haven’t answered how Jesus calling Nicodemus a teacher when he said to call NO ONE teacher is not a contradiction. Nor have you accounted for the seeming disharmony between Jesus’ exhortation to “turn the other cheek” and his celebration of meekness with his consistent use of threats of TEMPORAL and ETERNAL (not temporary, but everlasting) punishments. My interpretive method, one long used by pastors, scholars, and laity alike, CAN account for these seeming contradictions, with both Jesus’ teachings AND with Paul’s. Yet you ARBITRARILY refuse to give Paul the benefit of the doubt.
And I’m not trying to disguise anything. I am not calling you an imbecile who is incapable of understanding. If I thought that, why would i talk to you? I know you’d like to think that about me, as it would let you write off my points the way you’ve written off Paul’s, but I do not think you are an imbecile. My point is that you have the gall to think that you are seeing things that have escaped men of God who have studied the text for over 2000 years, and you are seeing them from a translation. You don’t even stop to think, “hey, maybe I should get some Greek under my belt so that I know why they use the word “grace” to translate xaris rather than favor;” you just keep on trucking with what you THINK the English words mean, and much of the time, you get that wrong.
I’m not dismissing your arguments a priori because I think you are an imbecile, JP; I’ve diligently scrutinized your interpretations, consistently found them lacking, THEN moved deeper to analyze your method (by which you get at your interpretations), and found that non-existent. In other words, I’ve shown you the same courtesy I would show to anyone else by actually engaging in thoughtful reflection on your arguments, AND THAT THOUGHTFUL REFLECTION HAS CONSISTENTLY LED ME TO DISMISS THEM BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON. It’s your interpretations, not your intellect, that I consider deficient.
[quote]
[quote]Don’t you understand how dangerous this is? You bad mouth the God of Israel; you bad mouth the apostle Paul. You make up an elaborate theory for why you can reject both of them, but you NEVER ask yourself about boundaries, i.e., how do I judge the validity of my interpretations? Education provides you with tools; you reject education in favor of your own unaided mind. That’s problematic, because these texts weren’t meant to be read by you!
Don’t you see that you are on dangerous ground? At the end of the day, I can stand before God knowing that I did EVERYTHING within my power to search for the truth. I was willing to accept things that were difficult to accept, including the fact that Yahweh ordered genocide, because intellectual honesty left me with no other recourse. So if I turn out to be wrong on many things, I can say that I honestly did my best to find the truth. YOU, on the other hand, reject even the possibility that God could do something you don’t like, and furthermore, you deny that people could know something that (gasp) you couldn’t find out with your own unaided intellect! You do all this a priori; if you’re wrong, when that judgment comes, what will YOU say to God?[/quote]
I haven’t made anything up, and my mind is not unaided.
What would I say? “I believed Your Son.”[/quote]
You’ve made a lot up - you have consistently misinterpreted and misread texts. You don’t need a degree to see how bad your readings are, JP; I know twelve year olds, including my brother-in-law, that can see how you mangle and misread the Scriptures. You’ve portrayed Paul as a bad guy by taking individual verses completely out of context. You’ve made A LOT up.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< You’ve portrayed Paul as a bad guy by taking individual verses completely out of context. You’ve made A LOT up. [/quote]I haven’t chimed in in this conversation in a long time. JP, ya know I got a soft spot for ya man. I do have to say though that I have found myself staring at the screen on occasion at your treatment of Paul. That brother has one of the most amazing testimonies of the faithfulness of God working through a man that will almost certainly exist until the end of the age. Seriously dude. There is nothing to be gained from this bizarre standpoint. You chide KK for elitism and then as he says proceed to propound a group of interpretations utterly unheard of int he whole of human history. You’re not a dummy and I can’t get it outta my head that you actually do wanna serve the Lord down in there, but I don’t get your mindset. I don’t think. You need to stop playing rogue and join the rest of us in the body of Christ, His church. You need to let some brethren love you.
There is absolutely NO WAY that Sheol in Habakkuk 2:5 could actually be Saul’s name; it literally violates the cardinal rules of Hebrew poetry.
IT IS SYNTACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, BASED ON THE RULES OF HEBREW POETRY, FOR THE WORD TO BE SAUL RATHER THAN SHEOL[/quote]
That little oddity was mentioned (on my part) as an interesting side-note, but here you are again harping and harping about one little detail. And you you blatantly contradict yourself in the process.
Regarding what you said about Zec 11, consult 1Cor 5:5 for how lovingly he treated those that went astray. And then you tell me where Christ condoned any such thing as described in 1Cor 5:5. Where did He say it was ok to throw those going astray to Satan?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" JesusÃ???Ã??Ã?¢?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too.
I would need some reference for this. I see not prophesy where Paul is inferenced and spoken ill of.[/quote]
Check out Zechariah 11:15-17, after the reference to Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Christ. Habbakuk 2 also does a good job of describing Paul and the woes of his church.[/quote]
I can say with 100% confidence, neither scripture your referenced has to do either with Judas or Paul.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" JesusÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
What else could you possibly think about someone who gives three different accounts of the single biggest event of his life?
There are prophecies telling of Paul coming after Christ, just as they told of Mary, John the Baptist, the Apostles, and Judas Iscariot. They do not speak well of him.
[/quote]
I would need some reference for this. I see not prophesy where Paul is inferenced and spoken ill of.[/quote]
Check out Zechariah 11:15-17, after the reference to Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Christ. Habbakuk 2 also does a good job of describing Paul and the woes of his church.[/quote]
Pat, THERE ARE NO PROPHECIES IN THE OT ABOUT PAUL. All JP does is find a passage that describes SOMEONE (and he never pays attention to the original historical referent of the prophecies he quotes) that sounds as bad as HE thinks Paul was. It’s a completely circular argument. It completely ignores the fact that, according to the book of Acts, Paul WAS used to “heal the maimed” (Zech. 11:16; see Acts 14:8-10). In other words, Paul doesn’t fit Zech. 11:15-17 at all. JP just has this irrational disdain for authority; that’s a big part of why he attacks Paul.
And as I pointed out in a previous post, Habakkuk 2 cannot be a reference to Paul! That’s the worst part - JP doesn’t even pay attention to the words of the text themselves. There is absolutely NO WAY that Sheol in Habakkuk 2:5 could actually be Saul’s name; it literally violates the cardinal rules of Hebrew poetry. It’s only in JP’s and his pseudo-scholar lawyer friend’s mind that this text is a reference to Paul. Worse, even if SHL could be a reference to Paul, that statement would only be mentioning him in passing; he is not the subject of the prophecy! The text is talking about a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSON THAN PAUL; taken in context (Hab. 2:4-5), this is literally what the text would say…
“Behold, the proud one’s soul is not right within him, but the righteous one will live by his faithfulness.
Indeed, wine betrays the proud man , so that he does not stay at home (i.e., he is restless)” - note the subject! It’s the proud man. HE (that is, the proud man) enlarges his appetite like Sheol/Saul
And like death is never satisfied."
This proud one IS NOT PAUL; he is a completely separate figure! And moreover, once again, THOUGH IT IS SYNTACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, BASED ON THE RULES OF HEBREW POETRY, FOR THE WORD TO BE SAUL RATHER THAN SHEOL, if it WAS SAUL, there is no guarantee that the Saul in view is Saul of Tarsus rather than KING SAUL OF ISRAEL. The original King Saul WAS noted for his greed; therefore, given King Saul’s fame, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY, if the text could even potentially be a reference to a human person named Saul rather than Sheol (which it absolutely CAN’T), that the Saul being referenced there would be King Saul, NOT Saul of Tarsus.
In other words, JP’s (and the pseudo-scholar lawyer’s whose website he stole this ridiculous interpretation of Habakkuk 2:5 from) interpretation doesn’t even make sense at the most basic level of grammar! At most, Habakkuk 2:5 would contain a brief mention of the apostle Paul in a potentially negative light IN PASSING; it would still NOT be a prophecy ABOUT the apostle Paul.
[/quote]
Well, I did not think so. I certainly never read anything where it appeared to me a prophesy about St. Paul, but not being a scholar like yourself, I was leaving room for the possibility I missed something.
You’ve made a lot up - you have consistently misinterpreted and misread texts. You don’t need a degree to see how bad your readings are, JP; I know twelve year olds, including my brother-in-law, that can see how you mangle and misread the Scriptures. You’ve portrayed Paul as a bad guy by taking individual verses completely out of context. You’ve made A LOT up. [/quote]
I have to agree with the King here. You seem to engage in the cardinal sin of reading scripture. Taking things out of context and applying meaning to them they would have never had in context, nor were ever intended to have. It’s a dangerous way to deal with scripture. It’s how cults get started. It’s how heretics spread their lies.
“Well it says it right here in the Bible!” is not enough. These are ancient texts and they have to be understood thusly to get the correct meanings out of them. Who, what, why, for what audience was it intended is very important. You cannot get the proper meanings without it. And I don’t claim any sort of perfection when it comes to this, but it’s something I keep in mind when reading a studying scripture.
Do your research when discussing with KingKai, he knows his stuff. I certainly don’t always agree with him, but I always have to research my counter points when we talk, because I have to give credence to his vast knowledge of the Bible.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" JesusÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too. [/quote]
I beg your pardon, but the Vatican itself would seem to disagree with you
[quote][quote]
What else could you possibly think about someone who gives three different accounts of the single biggest event of his life?
There are prophecies telling of Paul coming after Christ, just as they told of Mary, John the Baptist, the Apostles, and Judas Iscariot. They do not speak well of him.
[/quote]
I would need some reference for this. I see not prophesy where Paul is inferenced and spoken ill of.[/quote]
Check out Zechariah 11:15-17, after the reference to Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Christ. Habbakuk 2 also does a good job of describing Paul and the woes of his church.[/quote]
I can say with 100% confidence, neither scripture your referenced has to do either with Judas or Paul.[/quote]
Well, then, could you tell me who they are about?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, I’ll put the first question on the subject forward so it is clear: What do you mean that Christian scriptures are the “defining first standard?”[/quote]They are the earliest record and represent decades of divinely inspired theological and historical thought. They deliver a clearly distinguishable body of knowledge. They are not magic. Even total unbelievers with sufficient effort can and have told us what they say. Formally anyway. Many liberals will tell us why John 1:1 DOES in fact teach that Jesus is God. They just don’t believe that though. Point? They are essentially accessible enough to not require a special anointing to read and understand. To believe unto salvation is a whole different matter altogether.
[/quote]
