Intended Catholic Dictatorship

Independent Individualist ^ | 8/27/10 | Reginald Firehammer

[kosta50]

The OT is full of prophets who felt abandoned by God and cried out in their anguish. That, however is perfectly acceptable to the Reformed, because they don't really care. It doesn't matter. All that matters is their anti Catholicism. But let Mother Teresa have those same doubts and feelings of abandonment, at about the same level, and they all pile on and comment on how pagan and unChristian and how unsaved she obviously is

Good point Mark. Certainly right on the money.

[kosta50]

A good summation. Have you ever been a courtroom attorney?

That's ontologically impossible in my case! :)

[boatbums]

I am going to have to side with BB on this one. However, some of the archaeological evidence may make us change some of our timelines and interpretations. In some cases findings that do not support the biblical versions remain unexplained and often uncorroborated by secondary evidence.
The bottom line is this, the Bible is a theological book, not a science or history book. Its purpose is to communicate the the Word of God, not to provide an actual historical record.

I appreciate that! Funny thing about the "sciences", they change quite frequently depending upon what they think certain evidence suggests or if new stuff pops up - which happens pretty often -, but since they weren't "there" much is conjecture. I wonder if anyone has told the museum in Israel that their treasures are fake???

And the last part about the Bible not being meant to be a book on science and history, I TOTALLY agree. What I have observed, though, is that whenever it does speak of things in those realms, it is correct - often describing events before they happened and before the "learned" even knew about the facts.

[kosta50]

King James Only Advocates Set to Burn Bibles October 31st

The never-ending wacko talent show of the separated 'brethren.'

[kosta50]

I am Roman Catholic and you are .... pick one. Lutheran, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, Non-Denominational, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon, ECLA, PCA, OPC, American Baptist, SSPX, Anglican, Church of Christ, Church of God, Assemblies of God, Four-Square, Pentecostal, American Catholic, Coptic, Nazarene, High Church, Low Church, Medium Church, Church of One, National Baptist, Mennonite, Church of the Brethren, Protestant, Evangelical, Reformed or not, Calvinist, Reformed Calvinist, Salvation Army, Amish .... probly there are some missing...

Isn't that what they mean by freedom of religion?

[Quix]

Great questions.

Of course they will likely

DENY

—that the Vatican offical paper has anything to do with the Vatican;

—that ‘Father’ Funes is any kind of Vatican official to the least degree;

—that ‘Father’ Funes has any awareness at all of the Vatican inner santum’s perspectives on the topic.

—that the Vatican is using the likes of Funes to incrementally advance the topic in the public square—particularly for the Vatican sheeple . . .

etc. etc.

[Quix]

And the last part about the Bible not being meant to be a book on science and history, I TOTALLY agree. What I have observed, though, is that whenever it does speak of things in those realms, it is correct - often describing events before they happened and before the “learned” even knew about the facts.

---

INDEED.

[kosta50]

The TRUTH is that prior to about the 15th century the ONLY written languages in Christendom that were developed enough for the Bible were Hebrew, Greek and Latin

Actually that's not true. Church Slavonic (which is an exact rendition of Greek specifically created for liturgical and theological use) and Syriac, were also widely used languages in Christendom.

ALL literate Christians could read Greek or Latin and usually both

Actually, the Church became separated along linguistic lines early on (5th century) and by the end of the first millennium the linguistic aparthied was complete. The Greeks refused to learn Latin and the Latin west was not very proficient in Greek. Even early Latin apologists such as St. Augustine knew Greek very marginally. Some of his key errors are base don his own faulty translations.

It was only with the appearance of the Renaissance that a desire for ancient Greek returns to the West where the language of science was strictly Latin.

It was Erasmus who, in the 15th century, translated the Bible from what he believed were reliable Greek copies of the Codex Alexandrinus, and called it Textus Receptus (received text), a translating which was later used as the basis for the "error-free" KJV.

Needless to say, not only was his Greek marginal, but the copies he used were terribly corrupt latter-day versions. He was forced to actually retro translate (!) from Latin into Greek (and thus create new text) because he was missing a portion of the New Testament, so he used the Latin Vulgate, which itself is not a very good translation of the Greek.

Even when Gutenberg first printed his Bible the cost was far greater than the average person could afford (of the Bibles printed by Gutenberg, only one is known to have been privately owned by an individual); however, as with ALL technology, the cost eventually came down

Absolutely, spot on! Besides, most of the population were farmers, and farmers did not send their children to schools to learn how to read and write, let alone learn a foreign (Latin) language. They needed all hands on the farm.

Now consider this, God KNEW that the Christian world would be almost totally illiterate for FIFTEEN CENTURIES after the Resurrection, why would He develop a means of Salvation that was conditioned on technology that wouldn't exist for FIFTEEN CENTURIES? It would be as if Christ had said, "There will be a new Covenant, but NONE of you will be part of it and neither will the next fifty generations."

Again, your points are spot on. I couldn't agree more.

[kosta50]

Why does it appear that protestant denominations are interchangeable? If the HS led you to one church, why would you change?

He changed his mind? :)

[kosta50]

Then explain to me why Catholics pray in church. Aren’t they disobeying Jesus as well then?

In short, they go to church to receive the sacraments. Early church services were 'closed' affairs, for Christians only, not open to public, so it wasn't as if they were praying in "public" or in open synagogues.

The 1,700 year-old Orthodox liturgy is divided in two parts: the liturgy of the Catechumens (those wishing and being taught to become Christians) and the Liturgy of the Faithful. After the initial psalms, hymns and petitions, the Catechumens are dismissed.

In the olden days the Cathecumens had to leave the church at this point. Today the Catechumens usually go to the winged sections of the church (churches are built in the form of a cross) or simply stay put, but they do not partake of the sacraments.

[MarkBsnr]

In the olden days the Cathecumens had to leave the church at this point. Today the Catechumens usually go to the winged sections of the church (churches are built in the form of a cross) or simply stay put, but they do not partake of the sacraments.

In the Latin church, they normally leave the building, unless the teaching center is connected to the church, then they go to that, but they definitely leave the church after dismissal.

[kosta50]

Do you always pray only in a dark corner??

I don't pray. I am agnostic, remember? God would know what I need and in the end it would be his will one way or another. I could give thanks, but that would be assuming I know more than my heart tells me.

All Eastern Orthodox Christians have prayer corners in a private section of their homes. This is where they do most of their prayers.

When I was a practicing Orthodox Christian, I also had a prayer corner like the one pictured above, more or less. The icons are still there. I may be agnostic but I don't hate the Church or God.

[MarkBsnr]

churches are built in the form of a cross

Not the post Vatican II prayer barns. The best of them are rectangular. The worst? We have some rather disturbing structures that purport to be Catholic churches...

[kosta50]

"...the constitutional right of every American to sit alone in the dark, in the nude, and cuss..."

Why am I not surprised that Jesus' words are mocked by the people who swear by his name?

[kosta50]

What say ye concerning Matthew 6:7 “And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words?

The Greek word is to stammer, babble repeatedly. There is a lot of that in all churches.

[Alex Murphy]

Me, quoting Pat Paulsen: "...the constitutional right of every American to sit alone in the dark, in the nude, and cuss..."

kosta50: Why am I not surprised that Jesus' words are mocked by the people who swear by his name?

Me: < suppressed giggling>

[kosta50]

Just for starters: Luke 1:1-5

Luke's Gospel is not signed. The Church believed it was Luke who wrote it, according to tradition. beside,s he names no witnesses.

Mark, which is also anonymous, is not naming witnesses; he is interpreting Isaiah's prophesy as applying to Jesus.

[kosta50]

ping

[kosta50]

Thanks for that informaiton, Mark. I didn;t know what the Latin Church did.

[MarkBsnr]

Luke's Gospel is not signed. The Church believed it was Luke who wrote it, according to tradition. beside,s he names no witnesses. Mark, which is also anonymous, is not naming witnesses; he is interpreting Isaiah's prophesy as applying to Jesus.

Agreed. How much of the NT was actually written by the individual whose name appears on the current Bible? Paul wrote as little as half of his purported letters; did Peter actually write either? Who wrote Matthew, Mark Luke and John? The only thing is that the Church has decreed that these are as they are presented.

I am prepared and have been prepared to accept them as is, according to the Church. I suppose that that differs me from the Protestant pantheon. So be it.