…Evangelicalism did not start until the 15th century.
[/quote]
Evangelicalism started in the 1st century. Read the Book of Acts.
No pontifs, cardinals, liturgies (save communion), christenings, infant baptism, catechisms, shrines, novenas, litanies, incense, holy water, oils, bells, perfection of Mary, vestments, apparitions, penance, beads, kisses of hands and rings and icons, votive offerings, chants, papal blessings, etc. and etc. [/quote]
You are right, Cardinals started a 1000 years ago. It’s the clergy of Rome (well used to be, now they are all over the world since the advent of airplanes), just like Financial Administrators and Church Managers didn’t show up until sometime in the last century.
The rest of this is edging on the machine gun fallacy. And, yes Evangelism is still alive in the Catholic Church. I’m a full time Evangelist. Just had three meetings today to give a group of men the kerygma.
[quote]pat wrote:
Mary was already the Mother of God.[/quote]
First let me say I do not hate Catholics. What Catholics I do dislike are the ones that never show up to mass, nor practice their faith, and then claim they are Catholic.
We are not disputing that Mary was the Mother of God. What we do dispute is that Mary is an eternal virgin as described in the current Catechism put out by Pope John Paul II. Prior to this current one that was not in there.[/quote]
When was the New Testament Canonized? Who Canonized it?[/quote]
I do not deny that the Catholic Church cannonized the Bible. What I do question is when the Roman Catholic Church started using the Latin translation it took the word out of the hands of the common man, and it was distorted to concentrate the power in the Roman Catholic Church. Many nasty things have been done in the name of God by the Catholic Church. All of this happened during the time the people had no access to the Bible in their native language. Only the Priests could read and interpret the Bible.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
In Jewish custom to be married you have to have had sex.[/quote]
Except when the girl was a consecrated virgin and she was too old (she bled) to stay in the temple.
How do you know?
Where did the 120 brethren of Jesus in the upper room come from? Other women.
Not really.
What? The Bible is part of Tradition…so it is equal, it is not separate. Good try.
I don’t think there have ever been endulgences.
[quote]Another Tradition that was added by a Pope. This is what we are disputing.
If Peter was the first Pope why wont Catholics consider a Jew for the next Pontiff?
[/quote]
I’d welcome a Jewish man, he’d first have to repent, and believe in the Gospel, be baptized, confirmed, and take first communion. Then be ordained and consecrated as Bishop. Obviously this could all happen in a really long afternoon, but I don’t think it would be good for leading over 1 Billion people to Salvation.
[quote]pat wrote:
Mary was already the Mother of God.[/quote]
First let me say I do not hate Catholics. What Catholics I do dislike are the ones that never show up to mass, nor practice their faith, and then claim they are Catholic.
We are not disputing that Mary was the Mother of God. What we do dispute is that Mary is an eternal virgin as described in the current Catechism put out by Pope John Paul II. Prior to this current one that was not in there.[/quote]
Eternal Virgin? Where is that in the Catechism?
[/quote]
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
It is the glossing over of the Roman Catholic Church’s sins throughout history that people are starting to question that and the authority of the church not just the Catholic Church. The Pope’s have always tried to cover up their sins, and that of the church.[/quote]
You cover up your own sins. So do I. That has nothing to do with the Pope being given authority by Jesus.
Yes, if by that you mean they lack development of Christian Doctrine. Their sacraments are of course valid, as well (because of Apostolic Succession). But, they lack the unifying agent, the man who occupies the Office of St. Peter. [/quote]
The Patriarch in Constantinople.[/quote]
No. Not all orthodox are underneath the Patriarch in Constantinople.
Nuns come from the tradition of consecrated virgins…kind of hard to get married when you can’t consummate the marriage.
[quote]The Eastern Orthodox church allows their Priests to marry.
[/quote]
No, they don’t. They allowed married men to become Priests…just like the Catholic Church. All my priests have wives (except one, he’s a monk).
When was the New Testament Canonized? Who Canonized it?[/quote]
I do not deny that the Catholic Church cannonized the Bible. What I do question is when the Roman Catholic Church started using the Latin translation it took the word out of the hands of the common man, and it was distorted to concentrate the power in the Roman Catholic Church. Many nasty things have been done in the name of God by the Catholic Church. All of this happened during the time the people had no access to the Bible in their native language. Only the Priests could read and interpret the Bible.[/quote]
By putting it in Latin it made it easier for priests to spread the Gospel. The language of the Roman Empire was Latin. Instead of teaching Greek then preaching the Gospel, they translated the Greek into Latin and just read it in the language everyone understands.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
In Jewish custom to be married you have to have had sex.[/quote]
Except when the girl was a consecrated virgin and she was too old (she bled) to stay in the temple.
How do you know?
Where did the 120 brethren of Jesus in the upper room come from? Other women.
Not really.
What? The Bible is part of Tradition…so it is equal, it is not separate. Good try.
I don’t think there have ever been endulgences.
[quote]Another Tradition that was added by a Pope. This is what we are disputing.
If Peter was the first Pope why wont Catholics consider a Jew for the next Pontiff?
[/quote]
I’d welcome a Jewish man, he’d first have to repent, and believe in the Gospel, be baptized, confirmed, and take first communion. Then be ordained and consecrated as Bishop. Obviously this could all happen in a really long afternoon, but I don’t think it would be good for leading over 1 Billion people to Salvation.[/quote]
Are you just playing stupid or are you that gullible.
We all know Endulgences happened. That is what Martin Luther went after and the Pope was after to build St. Peter’s Basilica.
Then out of all the apostles James is the only one that was ever refered in the Bible as the brother of Jesus, so claiming that all Christians are brothers and sisters of Jesus is not what it was saying.
We all know Jews are not welcome in the Catholic Church. Benedict was trying to right the wrong of previous Popes hatred of the Jews for Killing Jesus, but you can keep getting those fuzzy feelings that the RCC is open to Jews.
On your answer to the Bible and Traditions, you did not answer it. Try again.
When was the New Testament Canonized? Who Canonized it?[/quote]
I do not deny that the Catholic Church cannonized the Bible. What I do question is when the Roman Catholic Church started using the Latin translation it took the word out of the hands of the common man, and it was distorted to concentrate the power in the Roman Catholic Church. Many nasty things have been done in the name of God by the Catholic Church. All of this happened during the time the people had no access to the Bible in their native language. Only the Priests could read and interpret the Bible.[/quote]
I have heard this sort of attack on Catholicism from Protestants dozens of times, but it really doesn’t hold water. The vast majority of “common men,” within and outside the church, were illiterate. We’re talking 85-90% illiteracy. And generally, the Christians who COULD read ended up in positions of authority. Moreover, the church had enough doctrinal problems and controversies started by individuals who COULD read; how would MORE people schooled in Greco-Roman philosophies (the people who tended to be literate) have solved the issues? The Latin translation did NOT take the “bible” out of hands of the common man; the “bible” was never IN the hands of the common man. Note the opening of the book of Revelation - “Blessed is the one who reads and the ones who hear the words of this prophecy” (Rev. 1:3). This reflects the common practice - one person would read the text aloud for the community. And the translation into Latin facilitated that for those who spoke Latin.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
In Jewish custom to be married you have to have had sex.[/quote]
Except when the girl was a consecrated virgin and she was too old (she bled) to stay in the temple.
How do you know?
Where did the 120 brethren of Jesus in the upper room come from? Other women.
Not really.
What? The Bible is part of Tradition…so it is equal, it is not separate. Good try.
I don’t think there have ever been endulgences.
[quote]Another Tradition that was added by a Pope. This is what we are disputing.
If Peter was the first Pope why wont Catholics consider a Jew for the next Pontiff?
[/quote]
I’d welcome a Jewish man, he’d first have to repent, and believe in the Gospel, be baptized, confirmed, and take first communion. Then be ordained and consecrated as Bishop. Obviously this could all happen in a really long afternoon, but I don’t think it would be good for leading over 1 Billion people to Salvation.[/quote]
Are you just playing stupid or are you that gullible.
We all know Endulgences happened. That is what Martin Luther went after and the Pope was after to build St. Peter’s Basilica.
Then out of all the apostles James is the only one that was ever refered in the Bible as the brother of Jesus, so claiming that all Christians are brothers and sisters of Jesus is not what it was saying.
We all know Jews are not welcome in the Catholic Church. Benedict was trying to right the wrong of previous Popes hatred of the Jews for Killing Jesus, but you can keep getting those fuzzy feelings that the RCC is open to Jews.
On your answer to the Bible and Traditions, you did not answer it. Try again. [/quote]
I think he was teasing you for writing, “endulgences” rather than “indulgences”
Yes, if by that you mean they lack development of Christian Doctrine. Their sacraments are of course valid, as well (because of Apostolic Succession). But, they lack the unifying agent, the man who occupies the Office of St. Peter. [/quote]
The Patriarch in Constantinople.[/quote]
No. Not all orthodox are underneath the Patriarch in Constantinople.[/quote]
So you are contradicting your original post that the Orthodox Church lacks the unifying agent?
[quote]pat wrote:
Mary was already the Mother of God.[/quote]
First let me say I do not hate Catholics. What Catholics I do dislike are the ones that never show up to mass, nor practice their faith, and then claim they are Catholic.
We are not disputing that Mary was the Mother of God. What we do dispute is that Mary is an eternal virgin as described in the current Catechism put out by Pope John Paul II. Prior to this current one that was not in there.[/quote]
Eternal Virgin? Where is that in the Catechism?
[/quote]
Perpetual Viginity of Mary. Is that better?[/quote]
I’m going to go with Origen:
“But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is called, or â??The Book [Protoevangelium] of James,â?? that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that her body, which was appointed to minister to the Word, which said, â??The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow youâ?? [Lk 1:35], might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it reasonable that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity that consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it is not pious to ascribe to any other than her the first fruit of virginity” [Commentary on Matthew 10:17 (c. A.D. 249)].
That last sentence is important, he’s basically saying that you blaspheme God if you say the Holy Ghost’s spouse and God’s mother has relations with another man besides her spouse the Holy Ghost. I tend to agree.
Or the Protoevangelium of James (4, 8-9, 15) - about 150 A.D. I also commend the Protestant Reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli) for honoring the perpetual virginity of Mary and in seeing it compatible with Scripture (Luke 1:34, a statement that would be rather difficult to explain if she was planning on ordinary conjugal union).
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
You’re a fine writer, Pat. I think my struggle comes largely from the fact that you and I had a similar conversation previously, and you were making some of the same points in the context of a discussion of Matthew 25:31-47. Consequently, I have a certain view of where you want to go with this hermeneutical argument, and that view is coloring my statements. I’ll try to clarify things a bit more.
[/quote]
Sure I do think that the idea that helping poor, sick and incarcerated only if they are Christians has any value to the exclusion of others because they are not Christian or part of the ‘family’ or ‘God’s people’ is absurd. It’s seems a stretch to make such a thing exclusionary when the Christian message is to be anything but. So sure I will always disagree with that point.
Ok, here’s where you are misunderstanding me. Let me clarify my points from before. The question of how texts written 2000 years ago can function as Scripture for Christians today is a huge theological problem. That’s the question you are bringing up in the quote portion above.
[/quote]
That’s not really what I am bringing up. I am not questioning the how something written 2000 years ago can be relevant today. All I am saying is that authors intent/ audience interpretation and understanding is not all we have or should go on.
What I am not saying is that the author’s intent/ audience interpretation and understanding, shouldn’t be used, studied or considered. Nor am I saying it’s unimportant or irrelevant, but quite the opposite. That’s the part that’s frustrating me. I am not oppossing this point of view, more simply saying there is more to consider than only what they thought.
Which is why I feel I am not being clear somehow because that’s not my meaning or intent at all. Conversely I reject that notion completely. It seems, in trying to clarify my statements, I am somehow making the misunderstanding worse.
I am not implying zombie authorship. That’s not what I was saying. I was just saying that being inspired writings, there are potentially things in there that the writer not fully understand or mean in totality, but as God being in control there are things He wanted to convey whether the writer knew it or not. This does not posit that the writers were dictating scripture in a trance, but that God used them to convey things they themselves may not have fully understood.
Ugh. Certainly, epistle authorship is easier to determine than gospel authorship. I didn’t say all the authors are unknown. But simply that all the author’s are not known. And certainly the projected audience was known, but that doesn’t mean that others, such as ourselves are not part of the audience as well. Certainly, they didn’t know all who would read their texts. They could not have known that we, some 2000 years later would still be reading them.
This, apparently, is not going well.
I didn’t make the claim that the texts weren’t intended for specific audiences. The writers had an audience in mind when they wrote. I think that’s quite clear from the texts themselves. I am saying that while they intended for a specific audience, God obviously had a larger audience in mind. If He did not, then the texts indeed have no relevance to anyone else.
Well at least we are on the same page here.
Did I not make that understanding clear? But it did make it more accessible in that they were translated in to a common language and one was no longer burdened with trying to determine which texts were legitimate scripture and which were not. That in itself makes the word of God more accessible. That wasn’t to mean the common peasant could walk into a 5th century book store with a couple of cows and walk out with a bible. It means that a common authoritative scripture was then available and slowly circulated to the churches and schools in as much as they could be copied at the time. And it was that process that enabled the broader availability later. It wasn’t easy to your hands on a bible in the 5th century, but it was easier once coalesced, to access authoritative scripture then it was with a bunch of loose scriptures, whose validity as scripture may have been questionable.
Do you believe I really meant that? Seriously? I am finding this very frustrating. I get the feeling you think I am really, really stupid. And I may be, but I am aware of the printing press and the fact that it was not available in 397 AD. Either you think I am dumb or you are trying to make me look dumb. I any event you are succeeding in the latter.
I never uttered that phrase “a complete work of God”. I would not utter such a thing because the work of God is not complete and it certainly could not be all contained in a book.
By that rational, then what all the people of God would think is equally relevant.
They had no idea how broad the readership would become, but it misses the point. If a particular text was written by a writer and for a specific audience and that was solely the case then even if we found the words meaningful, they would have no relevance outside the intended audience. That is unless God, the inspirer had more in mind than the writer did.
Again, I did not portend, envision or postulate some kind of zombie dictation. I am simply claiming that while the writers had specific things in mind, that God had more in mind and used them in their writings for more than what they, man intended.
It’s not a ‘model’ and it assumes nothing. I didn’t put forth any kind of model or try to rewrite anything in anyway. I was trying to make a very simple point, which I am afraid is now completely lost.
You have veered off massively on this divine inspiration tangent and I really don’t understand what I said that could have possibly led you in this direction. I don’t need a lesson in what divine inspiration supposed to mean.
I put forth simply, using Revelation as an example, that the writer may not have known entirely the meaning of what he was writings.
While John had his visions and wrote down what he could, do you suppose he knew what it all meant in it’s entirety?
[quote]
Your assumption here is proven false by Colossians 4:16, “after this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.” Despite the clear particularity of his letters, Paul recognized that his letters had relevance beyond the communities he tailored them for. It is not that Paul wrote Colossians with the Laodiceans in mind, but he recognized that he said things in the letter to one group that had significance for the other group as well. [/quote]
All that tells me is that the intended audience is both the Colossians and the Laodiceans were both intended audiences in that case…Never the less the point has long since been lost. So I am not sure continuing has any point. You talk… A LOT, but my point has long been lost in the mire. My only point was that 1st century interpretations are not the only interpretations of scripture that are correct, matter or valid.
Since that point has long been lost, I don’t see the point in continuing only to get bombarded with a page of text that misses (in some cases wildly) what I said or meant.
When was the New Testament Canonized? Who Canonized it?[/quote]
I do not deny that the Catholic Church cannonized the Bible. What I do question is when the Roman Catholic Church started using the Latin translation it took the word out of the hands of the common man, and it was distorted to concentrate the power in the Roman Catholic Church. Many nasty things have been done in the name of God by the Catholic Church. All of this happened during the time the people had no access to the Bible in their native language. Only the Priests could read and interpret the Bible.[/quote]
I have heard this sort of attack on Catholicism from Protestants dozens of times, but it really doesn’t hold water. The vast majority of “common men,” within and outside the church, were illiterate. We’re talking 85-90% illiteracy. And generally, the Christians who COULD read ended up in positions of authority. Moreover, the church had enough doctrinal problems and controversies started by individuals who COULD read; how would MORE people schooled in Greco-Roman philosophies (the people who tended to be literate) have solved the issues? The Latin translation did NOT take the “bible” out of hands of the common man; the “bible” was never IN the hands of the common man. Note the opening of the book of Revelation - “Blessed is the one who reads and the ones who hear the words of this prophecy” (Rev. 1:3). This reflects the common practice - one person would read the text aloud for the community. And the translation into Latin facilitated that for those who spoke Latin.[/quote]
So why did it take almost 1500 years for the RCC to get away from the Latin? Latin stopped being spoke with the Fall of the Roman Empire. Also Latin was only spoken by Roman Citizens and their slaves, but not all slaves. The people groups outside the Roman Empire did not speak Latin. They spoke a primitive English, German, French, and other primitive languages not spoken today. You have to have an intermediary to translate the Latin into the common tongue. In comes the Pope or local Priest to tell you what the Bible says. This is where Traditions are twisted and distorted from what the Bible says.
I guess my biggest problem with the RCC is the claim that the Church chooses who goes to heaven and who doesn’t. If you go through the sacraments you are now Catholic and go to heaven (unless you commit suicide), but if you try to bring forth the sins of the church you are excommunicated and you go to Hell. If you do what the Bible tells you to do to be saved that is not good enough for the RCC. I guess I am tired of asking Catholics if they are Christian, and them telling me no I am not, but I am Catholic. These are the people that do not go to mass or have any idea what the Bible says. I do love talking to Catholics that have actually read the entire Bible. Their eyes are open, and they understand where I am coming from. It is like when Martin Luther read Romans and then he finally understood Grace. I will say I dislike Protestants that do the same thing that Catholics do. Don’t go to church and have no clue what is in the Bible and then claim they are going to heaven because their family goes to church.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Are you just playing stupid or are you that gullible.[/quote]
Must be I’m stupid.
Just googled it. Not coming up.
Do you mean Indulgences? What about them?
Then why was Mary given to John to care for and not Jesus’ younger brother James?
Yes, I’ll have to let my grandmother know she is not welcome in the Catholic Church. Oh, yes and my ex-girlfriend’s entire family.
Any proof of this?
The Church itself does not hate Jews. Individual prejudices should not be confused with the thoughts of the Church. The Rabbi of Rome became Catholic after WWII and took the name for Confirmation of the Pope who hid Jews on Papal Estates during WWII. The Church calls the baptized spiritual Semites.
When was the New Testament Canonized? Who Canonized it?[/quote]
I do not deny that the Catholic Church cannonized the Bible. What I do question is when the Roman Catholic Church started using the Latin translation it took the word out of the hands of the common man, and it was distorted to concentrate the power in the Roman Catholic Church. Many nasty things have been done in the name of God by the Catholic Church. All of this happened during the time the people had no access to the Bible in their native language. Only the Priests could read and interpret the Bible.[/quote]
I have heard this sort of attack on Catholicism from Protestants dozens of times, but it really doesn’t hold water. The vast majority of “common men,” within and outside the church, were illiterate. We’re talking 85-90% illiteracy. And generally, the Christians who COULD read ended up in positions of authority. Moreover, the church had enough doctrinal problems and controversies started by individuals who COULD read; how would MORE people schooled in Greco-Roman philosophies (the people who tended to be literate) have solved the issues? The Latin translation did NOT take the “bible” out of hands of the common man; the “bible” was never IN the hands of the common man. Note the opening of the book of Revelation - “Blessed is the one who reads and the ones who hear the words of this prophecy” (Rev. 1:3). This reflects the common practice - one person would read the text aloud for the community. And the translation into Latin facilitated that for those who spoke Latin.[/quote]