Posted on 10/04/2005 4:28:28 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Which Targum do you consider the most legitimate?
If we just refer to it as "the good book", will you go away?
The UK Times is now an expert on Catholic Teaching?
Yeah, but it's the last 1/4 that makes the first 3/4 relevant. How is it you say in American, "it's a DOOZY!"
I would agree with you that some people pick and choose what they want to go along with. However, I do not think that is a reason for God's Word to be thought of as foolishness. I think it is the fault of frail fallen human beings who try to run like Jonah from what they have been called to do.
I also think you have to be very careful with determining exactly what it is the Bible says.
The Bible does not say women should not cut their hair. It says that it is shameful for a woman who has her hair shaved off. Paul was not talking about a long haired woman getting a few inches cut off. He was talking about women who like prostitutes of the time, had their heads shaved. This passage itself was not even concerning whether or not a woman should cut her hair. It is about why a woman should have her head covered.
I am one of those who covers her head, I have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that I would be remiss if I did not take the passage seriously. However, I do not jump on others who have not been convicted to do the same. When we as Christians stand before the Lord, each of us will be called into account for our own behavior based on what we know or should have known.
We are instructed to give to the poor. The call to give all you have to the poor was made to someone who specifically had a problem with wealth which was keeping him from following Jesus. Some of Jesus's followers were wealthy. Zaccheus even told Jesus that he gave half of all his goods to the poor and returned fourfold in any situation he took from someone unjustly. But we have no record that he was ever asked to give all he had to the poor. However, I believe that if you have been convicted by the Holy Spirit to give all you have, then you should surely do it.
The Word of God is there for all of us to see, learn, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, to understand. With the Lord's help, I try to do what I understand to do (and believe me that is a lot easier said than done), and I pray that the Lord increases both my desire to obey and my understanding.
I believe Genesis 1 is very clear in what it states. God created the heavens and the earth in six days. It is the very beginning of belief and faith in what God has to say about us and the way we respond to His creation. If the world can deny its truth, then they can just as easily deny any other part of the Bible.
It is Reformation hyperbole to say that Catholicism is not based on the Bible. I went to Catholic schools, too, and did a PhD at the Catholic University of America. Although my field was history (Medieval) I did a course on canon law. The Bible as the revealed word of God is the basis of everything. The difference is the tradition and scholarship which is awesome.
You hit the nail on the head in describing the challenge in reading or studying the Bible, give to the poor and then you describe the directions to Zaccheus. All I can say is now we look thru the glass darkly and only know in part.
Congratulations, you're in the 1%.
ping to myself
You seem most smug in your ability to drop names. Can't say I'm much impressed, as I own books too, or Bibles as you would call them. Peter likely was well versed in Jewish scripture, much of his time with Jesus was spent studying and discussing it, but less likely to have traveled with scrolls, which were not allowed to be taken out of the temple.
You have so confused yourself with thinking that biblios means Bible that you're off the deep end.
You remind me of this Baptist preacher that swore up and down that the King James was the only true version, as it is what Paul used. Its really hard to argue with such depths of self-delusion.
Your use of the phrase "Jewish Bible" pretty much caps it all. This fits in with other well known Bibles such as "The Fly fishing Bible" and "The CB Radio Bible". Or perhaps you meant to say the Christian Torah.
As many of the disciple's letters directly steer Jewish Christians to avoid the requirements of Jewish law for Gentiles, your concentration on the Old Testament is curious.
Do you follow the Old Testament then? Do you keep a kosher diet, as prescribed in Deuteronomy? Do you follow all of the old Jewish laws like just like Orthodox Jews, or are you happy with picking and choosing?
Spare me your Christian cleft notes, your Catholic bashing, and your presumptuous, holier than thou, diatribes, where you pretend that the Catholic church didn't exist until the Reformation gave heretics a name.
I agree. Catholics don't own the rights to inspiration by God. I always thought many protestant churches are devoted to the study of the Bible. What is the study of Bible history called? I have been trying to think of it for days. Not litergy...
The Bible has been open to so much interpretation. (I can hear my parochial teacher saying, OH!, what a blastphemus thing to say!) One example, the "meek" shall inherit the earth. "Meek" didn't mean the same then as it does now.
You can say it when you know Jesus Christ personally. You can say it when you except it by faith. You can believe it when you refuse to call God a liar. I believe every word literally as well, so there are at least two of us left who believe it.
That's rather interesting! How come Peter was the only "pope" allowed to marry? How come Paul was able to rebuke Peter who fell into false teaching? If Peter was the head honcho, then why did Paul write most of the N.T. letters? Peter was no pope, he was an equal among the other apostle's of Christ.
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.