Posted on 05/04/2007 8:40:45 AM PDT by NYer
White must not have seen this.
-A8
Yes; my memory was faulty. My apologies to everyone involved.
See post #36.
Unfair comparison that only makes our Church look spineless. If our bishops took the trouble to throw out all the heretics in Catholic universities who still call themselves Catholic theologians, the Protestants would have plenty of folks to point to.
Well, since ya pinged me over..
Theres' ........... ONE.
In all seriousness.. he has a right to choose to stay or go wherever he wants. The statement that "Catholics who join the Evangelical Church eventually return to their roots" is FALSE.
SOME do .. not all. And I know MANY personally.
Thanks for the ping .. I think.
I went and read Schoeman’s story and all I can say is WOW!
Amazing, isn't it! He has appeared twice as a guest on The Journey Home.
I am not a great reader but I could not put down his book, Salvation is from the Jews. Highly recommend it.
Do you have a Biblical cite for that statement?
Thanks for putting up the link - that’s a tremendous story!
Mr. Schoeman is of course speaking from a rabbinical perspective, not a sola scriptura one.
Torah requires two or three witnesses to condemn someone a capital offense (Dt 17:6), and there's no indication that the testimony of the offender (obtained under compulsion) "counts" as one of the two or three.
I'm sure White has nothing good to say about Dr. Hahn, but I think it's really hard to argue that Scripture is the "last place" Hahn wants Catholics to go, based on his website. And the same is true of Mr. Grodi.
I don't think the full version is available online.
Then NYer Is wrong. The quote I was referencing from NYer was as follows:
Mosaic law forbids compelling a witness to testify against himself.
The fact is that MOSAIC LAW does not forbid any such thing! In fact MOSAIC LAW specifically states that anyone who refuses to testify after being placed under oath is deemed guilty of the crime (Leviticus 5:1).
Jesus did, in fact, answer the High Priest. He answered "Thou hast said", and in fact, by that statement he used the High Priest to act as a false witness against him!
So this whole nonsense that "Mosaic law forbids compelling a witness to testify against himself. It was because Jesus did not want to put the High Priest in the position of sinning against that law that He refused to answer the High Priest's questions even though beaten for it. " is just that, nonsense.
Jesus did not keep his silence. When called under oath (Matthew 26:63), he did not keep silent, but instead He named the high priest as a witness.
Additionally this nonsense about "Mosaic Law forbidding compelling a witness to testify against himself" is also nonsense. There may be some "tradition" that nobody seems to have ever heard of, but "Mosaic Law" is entirely found within the first five books of the Bible and this "Law" does not appear to be found within those books. When you reference "Mosaic Law" you are relying upon "sola scriptura". When you reference tradition, it is not Mosaic Law.
This is why SOLA SCRIPTURA is so important. If I am wrong, prove it by scripture.
You seem upset. I always say, “When the colored text comes out, it’s time for a Guinness.”
Well, at least I’ve said it now ... and as I’m out of Guinness, I’ll have a nap, instead.
The colored text was the quote from Nyer.
There is no colored text in NYer’s post that I can see. But I haven’t been myself since I got my bifocals.
As far as I can tell, NYer was paraphrasing an discussion in a book, in which the book’s author mentioned an interpretation attributed to someone else. (Some “Lemann Brothers,” whoever they are.) Since none of us has the exact words of the interpretation from its source, it seems a bit dubious to argue over it.
Always glad for a reasoned response.
I think I’ll have a nap, too. :-)
I was then told by Campion that the reference really wasn't "Mosaic Law" but may have been some Rabbincal tradition or some such nonsense.
The Mosaic Law is scripture not tradition. If you want to rely on tradition, don't call it Mosaic Law, call it oral tradition or speculation.
What NYer is doing on this thread is spreading RUMOR and pretending it is fact. I've noticed he's used this same quote on other threads. Well if the prohibition against self incrimination is in the Mosaic Law, then prove it. It shouldn't be hard. If it is Mosaic Law, it is in the scriptures. If it isn't in the scriptures, then it isn't Mosaic Law.
I thought you were taking a nap? Did you find some Guinness in the back of the fridge?
None here claims to be an expert on Judaism, and NYer cited one earstwhile Jew agreeing with another that the prohibition in question is Mosaic Law. Now, Mosaic Law to a Jew is what the body of rabbinical thought teaches, and not what is directly in the Bible. This has always been my understanding. Do you claim a better understanding of Judaism than Shoeman, or do you wish to argue with what Judaism teaches about the Law? In either case your question would be better addressed to a Jew on a thread dedicated to Judaism. For this thread the question is marginal.
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.