Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rehnquist (Protestant) Funeral to Be in Catholic Church (location & size of Cathedral a factor)
Newsday, via drudge ^ | 09.06.05 | RICHARD N. OSTLING

Posted on 09/06/2005 3:15:11 PM PDT by Coleus

Edited on 09/06/2005 3:27:08 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last
To: Campion

Ok, Camp, I'll bite. But with a question:

Let's say I decide to follow a religion I'll call "A" for a moment, then follow also a religion/philosophy I'll call "B" for a moment. Which Am I following when A=Christianity and B=Satanism. Take your time.

Christian scripture states plainly that you can't serve two masters. If you're following Christianity and some other philosophy at the same time, you're attempting to do what scripture plainly says you cannot - and with the predicted consequences of preferring one master over the other. Thus, you serve Catholic philosophy or Christian tenets. In the other instance, one can follow Christianity or Lutheran philosophy. But to kid people that the two are one in the same is disengenouos. If you choose to be offended by a tenet of the religion you claim to represent, I'm neither surprised nor bothered.

As for my intent, I think it was plain in telling people that if they are truly bothered, don't attend. I think axiomatically that would include not "tuning in". It has worked with the MSM to a large extent - if you don't wish to support it - don't. How difficult is it.

Now, off with you. Go look for martyrdome someplace legitimate.


101 posted on 09/08/2005 2:52:04 AM PDT by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Protestants are notorious for abridging, editing and deleting Scripture many centuries after the Canon was closed, too.

I think you'd have to establish authority for a canon before one can be accused of abridging it. Given that Paul notes specifically that the Oracles of God (the OLD covenant scriptures) rested in the hands of the house of Israel, where do you suppose Catholics gained authority to meddle in a canon that not only doesn't apply to Christians; but, that the Israelites never gave authority to tamper with.

I've been down that road and have solicited citation from Jewish authority on it. The Deuterocanon was never canonized by the Jews. It isn't that it was and was later removed - according to them, it never became canon - ever. And it's something of an absurd joke that such could be considered seriously. The authority I approached was provided with the basis of Catholic claim - that being a matter of some supposed 1st century council at Javneh (Jamnia). I have the email traffic from the exchange. There was no council of Javneh and to the extent that there was a meeting of any kind there, it didn't bother itself with canon which was closed according to the Talmud before the 1st century.

So, I think it's more proper to say that Protestants and Christians have largely recognized the proper authority on OT canon rather than the non-authority of the Catholics who Usurped authority and then crafted a lie to present the appearance of authority granted where none existed. In other words, as I noted prior, Protestants cannot abridge something that arose from no proper authority to begin with. It's akin to you making up a rule that NBA players can only score left handed and then shouting to the world they've abridged the rules when right handed scoring is allowed to go on. The rules weren't abridged because you had no authority to make a rule to begin with and thus no actual "rule" ever existed.

To even begin to pretend that you have any authority, You need to establish two things which I know you cannot because I've been down this road with many from your camp now. You would need to prove:
A)There ever was a "Council" of Javneh(Jamnia) and that
i) said council addressed the matter of a deuterocanon.
ii) said council modified the canon of scripture at all
iii) to the extent that i and ii can be established, one would then need to prove that the deuterocanon was part of any matter of official pronouncement of canon.

B)The original makeup of the LXX and whether the LXX was ever, in fact, considered canon. This may seem odd; but, there are numerous differing versions of the LXX and none of them can be necessarily called an authentic unmodified original. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the LXX was canonized or that it even could meet requirements as OT canon. The Hebrews, in my experience and reading require a Hebrew text as a precursor to any serious consideration for a given book.

Finally, the Jewish scholars I've read and talked to via email have noted that the Canon for them was closed well prior to the first century AD. If they know that, how is it that a group claiming to be the "one true" church is largely ignorant of it? I think it's safe to say that claims require something more than opening one's mouth to say something. Without authority and without proof, one merely has hot air amounting to nothing.

102 posted on 09/08/2005 3:27:05 AM PDT by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
That is simply not true.

We take to heart the scripture passages that warn us not to add to or take away from the Holy Word.

I will not comment to you again, because I think you just want to argue.

103 posted on 09/08/2005 4:11:50 AM PDT by Guenevere (God bless our military!...and God bless the President of the United States!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Havoc

The Hebrew Canon which Protestants rely on was closed after the Palestinian - Greek Canon which the Catholic Church used for over 11 centuries before Luther started throwing things out. On what authority do you accept the Canon of the New Testament?


104 posted on 09/08/2005 7:47:45 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

Your knowledge of the history of Sacred Scripture and what it actually says are extremely deficient.


105 posted on 09/08/2005 7:48:59 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Coleus
"I predicted that Benedict would not accept McCarrick's resignation."

LOL!! You also predicted that Cardinal Ratzinger wouldn't be Pope. Maybe your clerical crystal ball needs dusting off, deacon. Or are you just testing the water again?

106 posted on 09/08/2005 8:11:36 AM PDT by Selous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Selous

Perhaps you ought to pray for both the Pope and Cardinal McCarrick.


107 posted on 09/08/2005 8:13:54 AM PDT by sinkspur (It is time for those of us who have much to share with those who have nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
The Hebrew Canon which Protestants rely on was closed after the Palestinian - Greek Canon which the Catholic Church used for over 11 centuries before Luther started throwing things out. On what authority do you accept the Canon of the New Testament?

Not so. Your statement is premised on the very matters I noted prior and is without any historical merit. The Hebrew canon used today by protestants and Christians is the same canon that was in use at the time of Christ. The Greek work to which you refer is a version of the LXX which Jewish authority denies was ever canon and which Catholicism cannot sustain as ever having had the mark of canonicity from the Jews. This is what I was referencing prior. But then if you checked history rather than Catholic talking points, you might know that.

108 posted on 09/08/2005 5:06:53 PM PDT by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Oh, and btw, I accept the authority of the NT based on it's consistency with Old testament scripture and Spiritual continuity among other things. The Apostles did a Good job in giving us something trustworthy to rely upon.

Now, I know where you're intending to go because I've been there many times. So, I'll head you off at the pass as I do with others. You now wish to say that Rome got the NT canon somewhat right, so their version of the OT canon must be right
reflexively. That is fallacy and aptly demonstratable as it calls their judegement into question.. judgement which can be shown to be anything but trustworthy. And I would offer Pseudo Ignatius and Psuedo Clement, among others, as example. Of the more than 15 volumes attributed to Ignatius and accepted at some time by Rome, at least half are known in modern times to be frauds. If Catholicism can't be trusted to get them right, how can they be trusted to get the other right? As with carbon dating, if you can't trust it when it's wrong on a known - how can you ever hope to trust it when it deals with anything else?

Pretty simple isn't it. The early church knew what canon was well before Rome stepped in to decide canon. If it weren't for that, I don't think Rome would have had the first clue what to involve.


109 posted on 09/08/2005 5:20:28 PM PDT by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
A correction of my earlier post:

The Hebrew/Palestinian Old Testament Canon was not established until 100 AD by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia.

The Hebrew canon used today by protestants and Christians is the same canon that was in use at the time of Christ.

That is factually incorrect. The Alexandrian/Greek Canon existed prior to the Hebrew/Palestinian Canon. The rabbis at Jamnia established the Hebrew Canon in response to the Christian Church. Choosing the Hebrew Canon means you align yourself with those Jews who rejected Christ. Another point of fact, there are ~300 quotations from the Old Testament found in the New Testament that come from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Canon.

The Greek work to which you refer is a version of the LXX which Jewish authority denies was ever canon and which Catholicism cannot sustain as ever having had the mark of canonicity from the Jews.

The discovery at Qumran of copies of some of the disputed books written in Hebrew renders their rejection moot on at least one of the four criteria utilized by the Council of Jamnia. See "New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture" by Thomas Nelson, 1975, pg. 22 for gurtheredification. The Jewish authorities that you are relying on as a crutch for your position, rejected Christ and persecuted Christians. It would behoove you to learn the real facts rather than simply regurgitating the baloney you've been fed.

110 posted on 09/10/2005 9:59:48 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
I accept the authority of the NT based on it's consistency with Old testament scripture and Spiritual continuity among other things.

The Catholic Church determined the 73 book canon of the New Testament and the Old Testament, that's also a fact. The canon was definitively closed by Pope St. Innocent I in 405 AD. Even Luther admitted that.

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists(sic) - that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." Commentary on St. John, ch. 16

111 posted on 09/10/2005 10:09:17 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Holy Hole in the Doughnut, Batman!!

What Novena can I pray for you guys?


112 posted on 09/10/2005 10:11:01 PM PDT by incredulous joe ("Our heats are restless until they rest in Thee O God" - St Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
The Hebrew/Palestinian Old Testament Canon was not established until 100 AD by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia.

Prove it. I know you can't, so that's why I say it. You are referencing the same council of Jamnia that I noted never happened. It isn't a question of another date or whatever, it didn't happen. There was a meeting around that time in Yevnah

"The Rabbis never included the Apocrypha in the canon. The canon was fixed two centuries before Yavneh. This is explicit in numerous places in the Talmud." - Rabbi Shlomo Yaffe, Chabad.org

When I studied on this some time ago, I was referred to the above by the Jewish Learning Institute. And I only went there after finding that the best studied experts on the matter had concluded quite independantly that no council took place at Jevnah in 100AD or anytime therabouts. There is also no mention in that time frame of any modification of the Canon whatsoever. There not only is no evidence supporting your claim, the evidence argues against even the plausibility of it. It didn't happen.

That is factually incorrect. The Alexandrian/Greek Canon existed prior to the Hebrew/Palestinian Canon.

You haven't established that there was an Alexandrian Greek "canon". There was the LXX back at that time; but, you can't produce a catalogue list of what the original content of the LXX was. And per the Jewish scholarship, the deuterocanon was never canonized by the Jews. Never - in any form. So if the LXX was ever canon, the form that would have taken would have excluded the deuterocanonicals. Plain and simple any way you cut it. You can try to argue on semantics games; but, you can't escape the facts.

113 posted on 09/11/2005 6:16:55 AM PDT by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
The Hebrew/Palestinian Old Testament Canon was not established until 100 AD by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia.

Prove it. I know you can't, so that's why I say it. You are referencing the same council of Jamnia that I noted never happened. It isn't a question of another date or whatever, it didn't happen. There was a meeting around that time in Yevnah

"The Rabbis never included the Apocrypha in the canon. The canon was fixed two centuries before Yavneh. This is explicit in numerous places in the Talmud." - Rabbi Shlomo Yaffe, Chabad.org

When I studied on this some time ago, I was referred to the above by the Jewish Learning Institute. And I only went there after finding that the best studied experts on the matter had concluded quite independantly that no council took place at Jevnah in 100AD or anytime therabouts. There is also no mention in that time frame of any modification of the Canon whatsoever. There not only is no evidence supporting your claim, the evidence argues against even the plausibility of it. It didn't happen.

That is factually incorrect. The Alexandrian/Greek Canon existed prior to the Hebrew/Palestinian Canon.

You haven't established that there was an Alexandrian Greek "canon". There was the LXX back at that time; but, you can't produce a catalogue list of what the original content of the LXX was. And per the Jewish scholarship, the deuterocanon was never canonized by the Jews. Never - in any form. So if the LXX was ever canon, the form that would have taken would have excluded the deuterocanonicals. Plain and simple any way you cut it. You can try to argue on semantics games; but, you can't escape the facts.

..Hebrew renders their rejection moot on at least one of the four criteria utilized by the Council of Jamnia.

Given that there was no council and they didn't do anything with the canon at yavneh, commenting on criteria used is rather absurd.

114 posted on 09/11/2005 6:20:17 AM PDT by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol
Rehnquist was a conservative judge , but not necessarily a conservative Lutheran. My understanding is that he opposed Roe primarily because he thought it bad law.
115 posted on 09/11/2005 6:24:10 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
The Catholic Church determined the 73 book canon of the New Testament and the Old Testament, that's also a fact.

The Catholic Church had no authority to do anything with the Old testament.. per Paul. According to the Jews, The Old testament canon was closed a century before Christ. Given that they are the proper authority on that matter and they did not canonize the apocryphals, you're left with no basis of authority with which to act in including them. In effect, the church exceeded it's statutory jurisdiction.

You can cite what you will on the subject; but, authority is everything in these matters. Without it, you're just whistling past the graveyard.

116 posted on 09/11/2005 6:24:47 AM PDT by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Havoc

Leaving open the question: why accept the Tanakh, since it, or at least those who clung to it, were anti-Christian? Council or not, Jamnia at least symbollically marks a break between Jews and Jews--between those who accepted Jesus and those who didn't. So far as I can tell, the Talmud seems to be the work of men who didn't believe --much--in Messiah. or at least were trying to distance themselves from Christianity as an ideology.


117 posted on 09/11/2005 6:33:31 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

You don't seem to get it. The Hebrew Canon was set one century before Christ. Whatever the Jews thought of Christ one way or the other 100 years after the canon was closed is irrelevant to the content of the canon. The work itself is not anti-Christian and is actually quite the opposite. Your premise seems to have evaporated.


118 posted on 09/11/2005 6:43:57 AM PDT by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Oh, one last point, Qumran is not a collection of canon. Nor is there any note to that extent anywhere in the collection. Saying that works existed at the time is the most you can do. It doesn't make them canon. Try again.


119 posted on 09/11/2005 6:48:38 AM PDT by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
My premise is that neither Christ nor the Apostles felt bound by that traditon. There are too much "noncanonical" stuff in the New Testament. Is it an accident that it was written in Greek>Have a good day.
120 posted on 09/11/2005 6:51:07 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson