Can’t quit now
What do you think of Liberation Theology? And the Church’s actions towards that movement?
[quote]Severiano wrote:
What do you think of Liberation Theology? And the Church’s actions towards that movement?[/quote]
Liberation Theology is a vague term.
If by LT, you take it in the sense of Marxism is the same thing as the Gospel. No, Marxism is heresy. I have no problem with what the Church did to condemn parts of Liberation Theology and to censor/suspend/stop dissident priests from using the Church’s organization and grounds to teach Marxism as Liberation Theology.
It’s clear that what Jesus on the poor teaches that we’ll be judged when we die with particular attention to how we treated the poor personally. Liberation theology is not marxism. The sermon of the mount has nothing to do with the current social situation. Further, in the marxist Liberation Theology, the people of God is turned into a made up marxist concept that is not present in the Gospel. In marxist LT, the people are opposed to hierarchy, institutes…which are supposed to be oppressive things in MLT, and they become an opposition to the hierarchical Church.
I take Liberation Theology to be a response to Theology that allowed these people to be colonized in both the narrow and broad sense.
You are getting familiar with me, of course I’m going to ask you to put yourself in the shoes of someone else. How bad would things have to get for you to consider Marxism? Let me guess, you can’t even imagine a situation where you would consider it.
But what if it were moreso a situation where you were on the other side of capitalism? Imagine working the land you were indigenous to for some corporation in a far off land? Imagine your options for employment were limited to working a copper mine, or farming for some wealthy corp that didn’t even pay you cash, but in Chits that you could use to purchase things from their supply store. Imagine looking around and finding your net worth to be $25, no access to clean water, limited food.
Imagine how you would react, the proud man that you are (I’m proud myself, so I imagine you are like me) you work your ass off and don’t have a damned thing to show for it, you worry your kids will get dysentery from dirty water as an immediate danger, and in the back of your mind you realize they will live your life when they get older unless you do something. You look to the Church, but the Church wont lift a finger to do a thing to help you have a political voice. The Priests take notice of this very thing, and they begin to stand up since nobody else will. The response is one to colonization, capitalism and it is out of desperation.
The capitalism I’m talking about is the unabashed sort. That allows for dangerous child labor to take place, similar but worse to that which would have taken place in the U.S. during the industrial revolution. We responded to the problems of the industrial revolution by regulating capitalism. Doing things like establishing anti-trust laws, establishing fair wages, child labor laws (a department of labor). The Church as an organization never stepped in and tried to help the people, so the way the people responded was taking whatever side would fight their oppressors, in the form of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That so many Priests took the side of the people should say something about the legitimacy of their peril. The Church was too wrapped up in it’s own politics to do the right thing, they even sat bye and supported governments that were responsible for killing Priests and civilians that spoke out against their puppet governments.
That is the deal with S. America in general these days. The citizens have been on the other end of our capitalism and experienced no social mobility for nearly a century. Are we supposed to be surprised at their response? I look at it and do my best to put myself in their shoes, I can definitely understand their perspective.
The bible teaches no particular form of secular social economics or polity in general to be practiced by a government. Not directly. Other secondary principles must be brought to bear on the questions of government for those who would seek to please God with theirs. There are of course anti biblical forms of government of which Marxism is one. Liberation theology is Marxism. It is an anti Christian Marxist socio political system with mutilated biblical terminology. In short.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The bible teaches no particular form of secular social economics or polity in general to be practiced by a government. Not directly. Other secondary principles must be brought to bear on the questions of government for those who would seek to please God with theirs. There are of course anti biblical forms of government of which Marxism is one. Liberation theology is Marxism. It is an anti Christian Marxist socio political system with mutilated biblical terminology. In short.[/quote]
Interesting explanation, can you back it up with scripture? The bible teaches no particular form of secular social economics, your words. You just explained the problem with the loophole, you can have a government that exploits it’s citizens, no problem. Just don’t go fighting for citizen rights in the name of the Church.
Is that what you are saying? Or am I twisting it too much? I’m joking. You gave me a description of what the Church does, I gave you the scenario that happened.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The bible teaches no particular form of secular social economics or polity in general to be practiced by a government. Not directly. Other secondary principles must be brought to bear on the questions of government for those who would seek to please God with theirs. There are of course anti biblical forms of government of which Marxism is one. Liberation theology is Marxism. It is an anti Christian Marxist socio political system with mutilated biblical terminology. In short.[/quote]
Interesting explanation, can you back it up with scripture? The bible teaches no particular form of secular social economics, your words. You just explained the problem with the loophole, you can have a government that exploits it’s citizens, no problem. Just don’t go fighting for citizen rights in the name of the Church.
Is that what you are saying? Or am I twisting it too much? I’m joking. You gave me a description of what the Church does, I gave you the scenario that happened. [/quote]The absence of an explicitly declared system of government in the new testament IS the statement of scripture on the matter of there being one. That means for a society that cares what God thinks, like ours once did, the system of government they put in place must be deduced from other principles that ARE declared. The idolatrous worship of “the poor” as an end in themselves as erroneously, though somewhat inadvertently practiced by the Catholics is overtly unbiblical. (Here comes dearest Christopher)
There are numerous admonishments given in scripture to care for the poor. Here is where politicians mangle the Word of God for their own selfish ends. Nowhere, not one place, as in does not exist, does anybody, including Jesus Himself expect anyone except believers should do this. Nowhere, not one place, as in does not exist, does anybody, including Jesus Himself, say to send money to Rome, the government of that day, to care for the poor. THE CHURCH, that is, BELIEVERS, are the target audience of the scriptures. BELIEVERS ARE commanded to care, especially for other believers in need, but also for the unsaved poor AS A WITNESS of the love of God to them in the hopes of saving their souls. NOT primarily to meet their temporal needs.
Nothing will build resentment among sinners quicker that to have a bunch of self righteous holier than thou religionists steal THEIR money so that they can give it to someone else. The only command given to the unbelievers in the world in scripture is to repent and believe. It makes no difference what form of government sinful autonomous man puts in motion. It will fail every time. Ours was the only government that even attempted to honor the true and living God and we soared for a time while that was true and are dying now that it’s not. I’ve said a thousand times. Enacting “Christian” laws in an attempt to force a pagan society, which ours now is, to act like a Christian one is both unbiblical and doomed to failure.
However. WITHIN THE CHURCH. Plain communism is taught for those with a redeemed godly Character. The book of the acts of the apostles makes that plain. That has nothing to do with the unsaved world. Communism works fine where everybody Loves Jesus. It is a recipe for disaster where they don’t. Bottom line? As with everything else. Christ is all in all. Where He is honored, a strong society is the result in more or less proportion to the degree that He is. Where He isn’t? It doesn’t make any real difference what kind of government we try. In fact tyrannical despotic dictatorships may actually produce more glory for God in a persecuted and hence much purer church. Which is always the primary object of everything true Christians think, say and do. Simply putting food in someone’s mouth or producing a stable society if not for the glory of the Lord is idolatry. Everything is for Him.
Wow! we filled out another one? Sadly to much of the last one was filled with tripe. Hopefully we can avoid it this time… Oh, who am I kidding?
Okay from the last thread that KingKai filled out:
I think what we have is a misunderstanding of what indulgences really are. It’s simply the notion that any punishment for sins can in turned be merited instead by prayer. All 2 Macc does is state that prayer for the dead has value for the souls of the dead. If The soul is in limbo, heaven or hell, no prayer can help and is there for not necessary. 1 Cor 3:11-15 is further evidence of post-mortem testing of one’s works. The idea is to fortify the works with prayer.
I personally don’t put much stock in them for it’s your relationship with the Lord that really counts. If you don’t have a good relationship with the Lord no amount of indulgences will save you.
[quote]pat wrote:
Okay from the last thread that KingKai filled out:
I think what we have is a misunderstanding of what indulgences really are. It’s simply the notion that any punishment for sins can in turned be merited instead by prayer. All 2 Macc does is state that prayer for the dead has value for the souls of the dead. If The soul is in limbo, heaven or hell, no prayer can help and is there for not necessary. 1 Cor 3:11-15 is further evidence of post-mortem testing of one’s works. The idea is to fortify the works with prayer.
I personally don’t put much stock in them for it’s your relationship with the Lord that really counts. If you don’t have a good relationship with the Lord no amount of indulgences will save you.[/quote]
Yeah I know - hopefully this thread won’t have as many lulls or nonsensical interruptions from pseudo-intellectuals like headhunter.
I understand what you are saying, but the particular thing I asked was for you to demonstrate the line of reasoning from 2 Maccabees (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is scripture) that would establish the legitimacy of indulgences.
Chris can correct me if I am wrong, but everything I have read on the subject of indulgences indicate that indulgences are a means of mitigating the temporal purificatory punishments of purgatory, NOT post-mortem punishments in general. Thus, the practice of indulgences presupposes an entire eschatological framework . The practice presupposes that, after death, individuals spend a period of time in an intermediate, purificatory state, after which they are admitted to heaven. Because of the stored merits of the saints, the living are able (through prayer and other righteous activities) to have those merits applied to the dead in purgatory. Through the application of such merits, the amount of time the dead have to spend in purgatory is shortened.
THAT is the practice of indulgences (unless of course I have fundamentally understood everything I have read on the subject). I think your attempt to reduce them to the lowest common denominator (i.e., prayer for the dead) actually does an injustice to the practice and is a little misleading.
And no, 2 Maccabees does MORE than simply say that “prayer for the dead has value for the souls of the dead.” 2 Maccabees was a Jewish document - the Jewish framework it presupposes it evident in the text itself - and it presupposes an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT eschatology. In 2 Maccabees, the efficacy of the prayers on behalf of the dead IS PREDICATED ON the necessity of sacrifice (2 Macc. 12:43). This was common practice among Jews of the first century - the possibility of forgiveness of sins through prayer is predicated on the efficacy of a blood sacrifice, not “stored merit.” Moreover, the goal of the sacrifice in 2 Macc is to guarantee the resurrection of fallen Jews to eternal life on the last day , NOT to expedite their escape from purgatory.
It’s a COMPLETELY different eschatological framework! In other words, 2 Maccabees presupposes a significantly different view of what happens after death than the practice of indulgences.
Consequently, if the framework is different, then there is NO basis for using that passage in support of the practice of indulgences. Saying, “2 Maccabees indicates that prayer may do… something… for people after they die” is insufficient.
Don’t you see? If 2 Maccabees is Scripture, then you cannot say, “its wrong about all its specifics, but right in its most basic idea.” That’s like saying, “Genesis 1-2 is incorrect in its description of how God created the world, but correct in its view that God DID create the world.” Or worse, “Paul and the other apostles are wrong about HOW Jesus’ death brings about salvation, but they are correct in their basic assumption that Jesus dying was a good thing.”
And 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 has absolutely nothing to do with indulgences OR even the efficacy of post-mortem prayer. Once again, IN CONTEXT, Paul is talking about the ministries (“work”) of apostles and other ministers (Apollos, Cephas), NOT about “the sum total of people’s good deeds.” Paul’s focus is on the effectiveness of his ministry, NOT on his personal salvation or even his post-mortem purification (which is what occurs in purgatory!).
We need to be more careful readers. Just because 2 Maccabees and 1 Corinthians 3 don’t actually provide evidence for the earliest church’s practice of indulgences, THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT INDULGENCES ARE ILLEGITIMATE OR THAT THE ESCHATOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK THEY ESPOUSE IS INCORRECT. I add that caveat now. It is theoretically possible that God gave Catholic church leaders revelation concerning the concepts of purgatory and indulgences. But let’s not pretend that this idea either derives from Scripture or is reflected in what the Scriptures tell us about the church’s practices in the 1st century A.D. Just because 2 Maccabees mentions “prayers for the dead,” that doesn’t mean it means the same thing by prayers of the dead that Catholics mean. Just because Paul mentions “fire” and “testing” in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, that doesn’t mean that he is talking about purgatory.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The bible teaches no particular form of secular social economics or polity in general to be practiced by a government. Not directly. Other secondary principles must be brought to bear on the questions of government for those who would seek to please God with theirs. There are of course anti biblical forms of government of which Marxism is one. Liberation theology is Marxism. It is an anti Christian Marxist socio political system with mutilated biblical terminology. In short.[/quote]
Interesting explanation, can you back it up with scripture? The bible teaches no particular form of secular social economics, your words. You just explained the problem with the loophole, you can have a government that exploits it’s citizens, no problem. Just don’t go fighting for citizen rights in the name of the Church.
Is that what you are saying? Or am I twisting it too much? I’m joking. You gave me a description of what the Church does, I gave you the scenario that happened. [/quote]The absence of an explicitly declared system of government in the new testament IS the statement of scripture on the matter of there being one. That means for a society that cares what God thinks, like ours once did, the system of government they put in place must be deduced from other principles that ARE declared. The idolatrous worship of “the poor” as an end in themselves as erroneously, though somewhat inadvertently practiced by the Catholics is overtly unbiblical. (Here comes dearest Christopher)
There are numerous admonishments given in scripture to care for the poor. Here is where politicians mangle the Word of God for their own selfish ends. Nowhere, not one place, as in does not exist, does anybody, including Jesus Himself expect anyone except believers should do this. Nowhere, not one place, as in does not exist, does anybody, including Jesus Himself, say to send money to Rome, the government of that day, to care for the poor. THE CHURCH, that is, BELIEVERS, are the target audience of the scriptures. BELIEVERS ARE commanded to care, especially for other believers in need, but also for the unsaved poor AS A WITNESS of the love of God to them in the hopes of saving their souls. NOT primarily to meet their temporal needs.
Nothing will build resentment among sinners quicker that to have a bunch of self righteous holier than thou religionists steal THEIR money so that they can give it to someone else. The only command given to the unbelievers in the world in scripture is to repent and believe. It makes no difference what form of government sinful autonomous man puts in motion. It will fail every time. Ours was the only government that even attempted to honor the true and living God and we soared for a time while that was true and are dying now that it’s not. I’ve said a thousand times. Enacting “Christian” laws in an attempt to force a pagan society, which ours now is, to act like a Christian one is both unbiblical and doomed to failure.
However. WITHIN THE CHURCH. Plain communism is taught for those with a redeemed godly Character. The book of the acts of the apostles makes that plain. That has nothing to do with the unsaved world. Communism works fine where everybody Loves Jesus. It is a recipe for disaster where they don’t. Bottom line? As with everything else. Christ is all in all. Where He is honored, a strong society is the result in more or less proportion to the degree that He is. Where He isn’t? It doesn’t make any real difference what kind of government we try. In fact tyrannical despotic dictatorships may actually produce more glory for God in a persecuted and hence much purer church. Which is always the primary object of everything true Christians think, say and do. Simply putting food in someone’s mouth or producing a stable society if not for the glory of the Lord is idolatry. Everything is for Him.
[/quote]
So from what I gather you are strongly for the separation of church and state. So, when it comes to the state imposing laws that are against your beliefs, you cannot complain? What about State sponsored gay marriage? If you have a problem with using the word marriage, then why have marriage as a term in government at all? I’m saying if you are going to stick to your guns, Marriages should not be contracts and should be limited to sacraments given by the church, otherwise you cannot be against gay marriage and for the separation of church and state without being, well a total hypocrite (not saying you are, just saying you can’t have it both ways).
Also, who do you believe was the greatest revolutionary of all times? I’ll guess you believe it was Christ, because either Christ was a revolutionary, or he was a guy who rolled over. I’ll just assume you believe Christ was defiant towards Tiberius and Pilate out of unwavering and uncompromising love for man.
I know you keep telling me I know nothing about Catholicism or the Bible, but I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic Schools, including High School for roughly a quarter of my education (I used to get my mouth washed out with soap in kindergarten for speaking plainly, and made to stare at a wall for making kids eat sand, one time paint). Anyhow, I was taught that it is a sin to covet the sort of power Christ or God have, that is one issue, but it is absolutely noble to have the endeavor to live a Christ like life.
So what did Christ do? What would Christ have done in the various situations in S. America? Would Christ have wanted his priests to roll over to the government, or be defiant as Christ was in his life? Those priests put their lives on the line for the people when it came to standing up against oppressive governments. Where am I wrong drawing the parallel?
If you read INTO things too much, you miss the big picture.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< All 2 Macc does is state that prayer for the dead has value for the souls of the dead. >>>[/quote]I’m gonna get you somewhat off the hook Pat because that’s just the kinda guy I am =] This is from newadvent’s page on purgatory. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory [quote]<<< The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in 2 Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel,
making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)
At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection. >>>[/quote] Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. The page on indulgences doesn’t mention Maccabees at all under it’s heading on the basis for the doctrine. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Indulgences Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. At least on these approbated and hence authoritative pages, your church doesn’t try to use 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 as a direct proof for indulgences as you say and recognizes the meaning of the passage pretty much as KK has put forth. She does use that passage to support purgatory. As you know I view both to be terrible perversions of scriptural truth, but it looks like your church supports what you are saying on this narrow aspect of the debate. [quote]pat wrote:<<< If you don’t have a good relationship with the Lord no amount of indulgences will save you.[/quote] That sounds mighty protestant of you there Pat.
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So from what I gather you are strongly for the separation of church and state. So, when it comes to the state imposing laws that are against your beliefs, you cannot complain? What about State sponsored gay marriage? >>>[/quote]The best I can do for now is to ask you to read my post @ 07-04-2012, 12:24 PM about 1/2 way down this https://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/racist_bullshit?pageNo=7 The one with my long quote in it. In short. I DO NOT believe in the perverted and revisionist version of “separation of church and state” as propounded by God hating America hating unbelievers today. Teh state should nver be the church nor vice versa, but in a God honoring society the church should and did inform the state.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< Also, who do you believe was the greatest revolutionary of all times? I’ll guess you believe it was Christ, because either Christ was a revolutionary, or he was a guy who rolled over. >>>[/quote] Christ was not a revolutionary. He was and is the fulfillment of even then ancient promise and prophecy. He only appeared theologically revolutionary to the religionists of His day because they had a superficial and temporal view of their own scriptures. He used them against them all the time. He told piltae under interrogation that His kingdom was not of this world. Regardless of the exegetical direction you take with the preposition and adjective in this verse Jesus was still not a revolutionary in the normally understood sense.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I’ll just assume you believe Christ was defiant towards Tiberius and Pilate out of unwavering and uncompromising love for man. >>>[/quote]Christ did everything He did and said in unwavering and uncompromising love for and obedience to His Father. Including His unwavering and uncompromising love for man.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I know you keep telling me I know nothing about Catholicism or the Bible, but I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic Schools, including High School for roughly a quarter of my education >>>[/quote]I have never said you know nothing about Catholicism. Being educated and influenced in Catholicism is by definition to know nothing about the bible.(yes that’s hyperbole,) but the point stands. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So what did Christ do? >>>[/quote]In short once again.? He was and is the fulfillment of the entirety of the purpose of almighty God for all of creation. Primarily but not exclusively seen in His blood sacrifice for human sin and His resurrection in defeating the death that it deserves. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< What would Christ have done in the various situations in S. America? Would Christ have wanted his priests to roll over to the government, or be defiant as Christ was in his life? Those priests put their lives on the line for the people when it came to standing up against oppressive governments. Where am I wrong drawing the parallel? >>>[/quote]In VERY short this time. Christ would have followed the command to fully submit to all human authority except when to do so would constitute disobedience to the known will of God by either omission or commission.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So from what I gather you are strongly for the separation of church and state. So, when it comes to the state imposing laws that are against your beliefs, you cannot complain? What about State sponsored gay marriage? >>>[/quote]The best I can do for now is to ask you to read my post @ 07-04-2012, 12:24 PM about 1/2 way down this https://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/racist_bullshit?pageNo=7 The one with my long quote in it. In short. I DO NOT believe in the perverted and revisionist version of “separation of church and state” as propounded by God hating America hating unbelievers today. Teh state should nver be the church nor vice versa, but in a God honoring society the church should and did inform the state.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< Also, who do you believe was the greatest revolutionary of all times? I’ll guess you believe it was Christ, because either Christ was a revolutionary, or he was a guy who rolled over. >>>[/quote] Christ was not a revolutionary. He was and is the fulfillment of even then ancient promise and prophecy. He only appeared theologically revolutionary to the religionists of His day because they had a superficial and temporal view of their own scriptures. He used them against them all the time. He told piltae under interrogation that His kingdom was not of this world. Regardless of the exegetical direction you take with the preposition and adjective in this verse Jesus was still not a revolutionary in the normally understood sense.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I’ll just assume you believe Christ was defiant towards Tiberius and Pilate out of unwavering and uncompromising love for man. >>>[/quote]Christ did everything He did and said in unwavering and uncompromising love for and obedience to His Father. Including His unwavering and uncompromising love for man.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I know you keep telling me I know nothing about Catholicism or the Bible, but I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic Schools, including High School for roughly a quarter of my education >>>[/quote]I have never said you know nothing about Catholicism. Being educated and influenced in Catholicism is by definition to know nothing about the bible.(yes that’s hyperbole,) but the point stands. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So what did Christ do? >>>[/quote]In short once again.? He was and is the fulfillment of the entirety of the purpose of almighty God for all of creation. Primarily but not exclusively seen in His blood sacrifice for human sin and His resurrection in defeating the death that it deserves. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< What would Christ have done in the various situations in S. America? Would Christ have wanted his priests to roll over to the government, or be defiant as Christ was in his life? Those priests put their lives on the line for the people when it came to standing up against oppressive governments. Where am I wrong drawing the parallel? >>>[/quote]In VERY short this time. Christ would have followed the command to fully submit to all human authority except when to do so would constitute disobedience to the known will of God by either omission or commission.
[/quote]
Beautifully stated. This “Jesus was a revolutionary” schtick needs to go; its been overplayed for far too long.
Does that whole nullifying marriages thing still happen?
CS
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< All 2 Macc does is state that prayer for the dead has value for the souls of the dead. >>>[/quote]I’m gonna get you somewhat off the hook Pat because that’s just the kinda guy I am =] This is from newadvent’s page on purgatory. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory [quote]<<< The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in 2 Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel,
making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)
At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection. >>>[/quote]
[/quote]
Wow! I am literally stunned by that blatant misinterpretation of the text. I mean… wow…
I have the Greek right in front of me. The text does not say, “and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, they they may be loosed from sins.” That is a completely misleading translation.
-
The subject of the singular participles and singular finite verbs in this passage is Judas (see 42b); there is NO subject change.
-
Verses 44 (which the translation above RIGHTLY takes as parenthetical) functions WITH VERSE 45; BOTH are parenthetical remarks setting up a contrast (thus the use at the beginning of 44 and 45 of variations of the word ei (if). Thus it should (literally) read, "For if (ei) he (JUDAS) was not expecting the dead to rise, superfluous and silly it would have been to pray for the dead. But if (eite) he was considering the splendid reward (NOT “GRACE”) stored up for the ones who have fallen asleep in godliness, his intent (what the passage above interprets as “thought”) was holy and pious." The phrase the translation above renders “it is therefore a holy and wholesome thought” does not begin the next clause; it COMPLETES the prior cause. Moreover, the text includes the article - he epinoia - which means that the rendering “it is therefore A holy and wholesome thought” is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE. The article makes definite and, in a context where the subject is known (Judas), functions possessively - “HIS intent.”
-
This is the most blatant error - the text does NOT end, “it is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sin.” Rather, it says (literally), “therefore, for the dead he made atonement (or propitiation - exhilasmos) so that they might be released from sin.” Why is this distinction significant? Because the word exilasmos and its root hilasmos both refer to SACRIFICE. While prayer would ACCOMPANY the sacrifice, exhilasmos does NOT refer to prayer. THis use of hilasmos is evident earlier in 2 Macc. 3:32-33, where the high priest’s offering of a sacrifice and making of a hilasmos for Heliodorus are treated synonymously - "So the high priest… offered sacrifice for the man’s recovery. And while the high priest was making the atonement (hilasmos)…" Hilasmos is fundamentally connected to sacrifice; prayer is a secondary aspect. Note also that it is “he” (Judas) who made atonement for the dead; this is NOT a general statement amount prayers for the dead or even sacrifices for the dead, but a statement about what a particular individual did for the dead.
I am honestly stunned by how incorrect the translation is in the Catholic translation above.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So from what I gather you are strongly for the separation of church and state. So, when it comes to the state imposing laws that are against your beliefs, you cannot complain? What about State sponsored gay marriage? >>>[/quote]The best I can do for now is to ask you to read my post @ 07-04-2012, 12:24 PM about 1/2 way down this https://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/racist_bullshit?pageNo=7 The one with my long quote in it. In short. I DO NOT believe in the perverted and revisionist version of “separation of church and state” as propounded by God hating America hating unbelievers today. Teh state should nver be the church nor vice versa, but in a God honoring society the church should and did inform the state.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< Also, who do you believe was the greatest revolutionary of all times? I’ll guess you believe it was Christ, because either Christ was a revolutionary, or he was a guy who rolled over. >>>[/quote] Christ was not a revolutionary. He was and is the fulfillment of even then ancient promise and prophecy. He only appeared theologically revolutionary to the religionists of His day because they had a superficial and temporal view of their own scriptures. He used them against them all the time. He told piltae under interrogation that His kingdom was not of this world. Regardless of the exegetical direction you take with the preposition and adjective in this verse Jesus was still not a revolutionary in the normally understood sense.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I’ll just assume you believe Christ was defiant towards Tiberius and Pilate out of unwavering and uncompromising love for man. >>>[/quote]Christ did everything He did and said in unwavering and uncompromising love for and obedience to His Father. Including His unwavering and uncompromising love for man.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< I know you keep telling me I know nothing about Catholicism or the Bible, but I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic Schools, including High School for roughly a quarter of my education >>>[/quote]I have never said you know nothing about Catholicism. Being educated and influenced in Catholicism is by definition to know nothing about the bible.(yes that’s hyperbole,) but the point stands. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< So what did Christ do? >>>[/quote]In short once again.? He was and is the fulfillment of the entirety of the purpose of almighty God for all of creation. Primarily but not exclusively seen in His blood sacrifice for human sin and His resurrection in defeating the death that it deserves. [quote]Severiano wrote:<<< What would Christ have done in the various situations in S. America? Would Christ have wanted his priests to roll over to the government, or be defiant as Christ was in his life? Those priests put their lives on the line for the people when it came to standing up against oppressive governments. Where am I wrong drawing the parallel? >>>[/quote]In VERY short this time. Christ would have followed the command to fully submit to all human authority except when to do so would constitute disobedience to the known will of God by either omission or commission.
[/quote]
I have a very different understanding of God.
The way I get around the problem of evil and the existence of a potentially all good God is to say that God cannot to logically impossible things, like make square circles, or make a rock so heavy he could not pick it up. This allows for God to remain omnipotent, and some wiggle room for free will.
If Jesus fulfilled everything that God wanted him to do, and knew he would do beforehand, then we don’t have free will, because God already knows what will be done. I already tried to explain this to you before when I pointed out that you may believe in determinism, and not free will. If God controls every sub-atomic particle, then necessarily you don’t have free will, neither did Christ. It would have been a big long facade from a vain god, rather than a loving one who granted us free will.
So when you say Jesus fulfilled scripture, you are wrong as well (imo). I explained this before also, being that Jewish people and their messianic expectation was based on their expectation of a David like person to return. Clearly, many Jews then and today do not believe Jesus was the messiah or anything close to what David was.
I’ll repeat it. Christ was a rebel, revolutionary who stood up to authority when it was unjust. He conquered death and tyranny with love. If you don’t get this message from the bible, you didn’t read the same book.
When priests put their lives on the line (there were many priests who were murdered in S. America for supporting liberation theology who were great men) they were living life like Christ would have wanted them to, willingly putting their lives on the line for Christs flock.
I think this is why so many Christian conservatives seem to only love themselves and perhaps some of their peers.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
pat wrote:
Okay from the last thread that KingKai filled out:
KingKai said:
I understand what you are saying, Pat. You could say that, VERY broadly speaking, they are analogous - both discuss forgiveness of sins as it relates to one’s end time position.
However, you need more than a broadly analogous situation to demonstrate that the Scriptures actually provide evidence for a church practice. On all the particulars, they are different - 2 Maccabees presupposes an entirely different understanding of judgment, post-mortem existence, and the afterlife than Catholics hold.
If you will, would you explain to me the line of argumentation that would lead one to derive the notion of indulgences from 2 Maccabees?
I think what we have is a misunderstanding of what indulgences really are. It’s simply the notion that any punishment for sins can in turned be merited instead by prayer. All 2 Macc does is state that prayer for the dead has value for the souls of the dead. If The soul is in limbo, heaven or hell, no prayer can help and is there for not necessary. 1 Cor 3:11-15 is further evidence of post-mortem testing of one’s works. The idea is to fortify the works with prayer.
I personally don’t put much stock in them for it’s your relationship with the Lord that really counts. If you don’t have a good relationship with the Lord no amount of indulgences will save you.
Yeah I know - hopefully this thread won’t have as many lulls or nonsensical interruptions from pseudo-intellectuals like headhunter.
I understand what you are saying, but the particular thing I asked was for you to demonstrate the line of reasoning from 2 Maccabees (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is scripture) that would establish the legitimacy of indulgences.
[/quote]
No, 2 Macc alone cannot be sufficient for the establishment of indulgences. Only makes a plausible concept out of them, but they are one of many at this point.
Sort of, but there actual framework and worth is far more narrow. Assuming there is reconciliation and penitent heart and still additional ‘purification’ is needed, then an indulgence is helpful in reparations. However, assuming your doing all of the above anyway, purgatory isn’t for you. That’s why I don’t put much stock in them. If your heart is right, you won’t need them anyway. You really can obtain them unless your heart is right. It’s kind of like the Marijuana Stamp act. You can get it, but if you get it you don’t need it or it isn’t helpful, or not that helpful… It’s one of those ‘just in case’ measures. Where it can be helpful is if the living obtain them for the dead who are in need of additional ‘help’.
This type of reasoning can be used in any interpretation of scripture. It’s like the whole ‘Faith alone’ thing by protestants. That’s loose interpretation of scripture and clearly scripture doesn’t say that.
It was more established on the the aforementioned apostolic authority, based on scripture and the ability to loose and bind things in heaven and on earth. Based on scripture and apostolic authority. 2 Macc isn’t the only scripture it’s based off of, like I said it part of a greater weave of scriptures.
Further, like I said it’s a small doctrine that was over played for selfish gain in the middle ages.
Ahh, see Gen we don’t take Gen 1-2 as a literal account. It’s the point not the historical content that counts for us. It’s true whether or not it’s a factual account. Basides just based on a logical basis, it makes no sense as a literal account. As how can you have a ‘day’ when there is nothing to base a ‘day’ on…
That being said, Jewbacca presented a very, very interesting well researched book by a Jewish Physicist who in working with Genesis and the Talmud, he was able to reconcile the stories of Genesis with the creation stories and the physics of the big bang. I will ask him about it again, it’s on my ‘to read’ list. I think it may be my next book actually. Seriously, the excerpt he presented was mind blowing and that doesn’t happen to often with me…
“each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
(1 Corinthians 3:13 ESV)”
He’s talking about the basis for each one’s work and whether it will stand the test, on “The Day”. Whether you think he’s talking about ministry or what not is debatable, but the test’s he talking about are clearly post-mortem. Unless you happen to be around on Judgement day.
Well having not died, I, nor anybody knows what really lies beyond. The doctrine of Purgatory is based on the ability to be freed from sin, post-mortem. How that actually occurs I don’t really know. There is post scriptural recognition in the Church and there is also the apostolic based church authority which can make these determinations. While there is a scriptural connection to them, it’s not based solely there. And that’s where Catholics and Protestants will part ways. We do recognize things beyond scripture. We have visionaries and such that have provided insight into such matters, post-cannon. We don’t believe that God stopped revealing himself to folks when the cannon closed. And those folks are also important to our history and if significant enough, can affect doctrine.
[quote]Severiano wrote: A long post about which there is so much wrong I scarcely know where to start. [/quote]Was Jesus God and did God create the world? Do you believe the bible is the Word of God and as such free from error on all things that it intends to convey? Long answers will tell me quite honestly that it would be futile for me to continue.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< All 2 Macc does is state that prayer for the dead has value for the souls of the dead. >>>[/quote]I’m gonna get you somewhat off the hook Pat because that’s just the kinda guy I am =] This is from newadvent’s page on purgatory. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory [quote]<<< The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in 2 Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel,
making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)
At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection. >>>[/quote]
[/quote]
Wow! I am literally stunned by that blatant misinterpretation of the text. I mean… wow…
I have the Greek right in front of me. The text does not say, “and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, they they may be loosed from sins.” That is a completely misleading translation.
-
The subject of the singular participles and singular finite verbs in this passage is Judas (see 42b); there is NO subject change.
-
Verses 44 (which the translation above RIGHTLY takes as parenthetical) functions WITH VERSE 45; BOTH are parenthetical remarks setting up a contrast (thus the use at the beginning of 44 and 45 of variations of the word ei (if). Thus it should (literally) read, "For if (ei) he (JUDAS) was not expecting the dead to rise, superfluous and silly it would have been to pray for the dead. But if (eite) he was considering the splendid reward (NOT “GRACE”) stored up for the ones who have fallen asleep in godliness, his intent (what the passage above interprets as “thought”) was holy and pious." The phrase the translation above renders “it is therefore a holy and wholesome thought” does not begin the next clause; it COMPLETES the prior cause. Moreover, the text includes the article - he epinoia - which means that the rendering “it is therefore A holy and wholesome thought” is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE. The article makes definite and, in a context where the subject is known (Judas), functions possessively - “HIS intent.”
-
This is the most blatant error - the text does NOT end, “it is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sin.” Rather, it says (literally), “therefore, for the dead he made atonement (or propitiation - exhilasmos) so that they might be released from sin.” Why is this distinction significant? Because the word exilasmos and its root hilasmos both refer to SACRIFICE. While prayer would ACCOMPANY the sacrifice, exhilasmos does NOT refer to prayer. THis use of hilasmos is evident earlier in 2 Macc. 3:32-33, where the high priest’s offering of a sacrifice and making of a hilasmos for Heliodorus are treated synonymously - "So the high priest… offered sacrifice for the man’s recovery. And while the high priest was making the atonement (hilasmos)…" Hilasmos is fundamentally connected to sacrifice; prayer is a secondary aspect. Note also that it is “he” (Judas) who made atonement for the dead; this is NOT a general statement amount prayers for the dead or even sacrifices for the dead, but a statement about what a particular individual did for the dead.
I am honestly stunned by how incorrect the translation is in the Catholic translation above. [/quote]
Well the text itself is a translation of a translation, right off the bat. It was originally in Latin and I actually do not know what translation, if any other than the Latin Vulgate was used as reference points in scripture. Also, this occurred in 1917 with little refreshing. So while the translation of the translation or scriptural points may be bad, it’s because of what it is. So while the encyclopedia may be informative, it is not authoritative. If you are looking for authoritative information, you need to refer to the Catechism, which has the translation of 2 Macc like you displayed.
http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art12.shtml