Posted on 04/10/2014 8:26:11 PM PDT by NYer
Friend, I don’t mean to start a Catholic versus Protestants battle here. And I hardly know what Vatican policy has been since I was born.
But I did attend 8 years of Catholic school, and bring home catechisms to study over those formative years. And I am quite certain that the priests and nuns told us that it was their job to interpret Scripture, not ours. That’s why there was a catechism.
I also remember, as a lad, being surprised when I entered the home of a friend’s family who was Protestant. They usually had the family bible front and center in the living room. I asked my parents once, why didn’t we have a family bible, and their answer was from the priests in our parish — you don’t need one.
My father, now in his 80s, taught me the same as well — That the Bible is too complicated to understand and it is the job of priests to do that for us. I usually hear that from him now when I talk about my Bible study groups.
That doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church’s position hasn’t shifted over time. It also doesn’t mean that the priests in our parish weren’t taking some liberties with Catholic policy. I don’t know and it really doesn’t matter to me.
It is curious, however, that the Vatican was furious that the Bible was being translated into other languages during the Middle Ages. I think Catholic history also includes periods where Popes were opposed to citizens reading the Bible directly. Pope Innocent III was on record saying that the Bible can only be understood by those who are qualified to understand them.
re: “Iirc, the parchment in question was dated to the 9th or 10th Century AD.
So all it really proves is that someone from that time period was considering that Jesus may have been married. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Exactly. Agree with you completely.
But it also amplifies my initial point that there was a time when Bible reading was discouraged, and possibly prohibited, by the Catholic Church.
And I will say that even in my evangelical church there is no Bible study done from the pulpit. The mere recitation of mostly familiar verses is hardly "bible study." To me, it's the verse-by-verse study of an entire book. And it's within these studies that the richness of our faith truly comes alive. As I said earlier, I'm studying the Gospel of John now with about 15 other Christians and I get goosebumps each Sunday.
Well said. I put forth a different argument in post 80. Would I be right to guess that your are a priest?
Lots of mush-headedness in this threat, but that always happens on a post about Christianity.
Somebody finds some 1500-year-old scrap papyrus that looks like it has “Jesus” and “my wife” in the same sentence, and they go “Aha! Jesus had a wife. Where is your god now, Xians?”
Somebody brings up a copy of the Bible, with four accounts of Jesus’ life, all traced back to the first century or very shortly thereafter, and 23 letters and books from the same timeframe, none of which mentions a wife, and they start sounding like Jeff Bridges as Jeff Lebowski: “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
No ... but I excel at quoting theologians ; - ) (ref posted in the comment)
The first vernacular German bible was printed in 1462. Two 1466 versions are still preserved today at Leipzig, Germany (with all the books intact, of course, since it was before Luther threw them out). There were early vernacular Spanish and Italian bibles as well, at least 30 of which appeared before the protestant bible. The Douay Rheims New Testament in English was translated 30 years before the KJV.
It is a myth that the church did not allow vernacular bibles. The lack of bibles was more about the illiteracy rate of the era (most couldn’t read and write) than about any deliberate “evil” papist suppression.
As far as no family bible - that is unfortunate because our Catholic family has had a bible for at least 3 generations that includes registries for births, deaths, etc. It is definitely a Catholic bible, including the proper canon.
No bible study done from the pulpit - the Catholic mass scripture readings are part of the liturgy of the word which was developed by the first Christians as a parallel of the Jewish readings at their service because that is what they had always done as Jews - the rite of the mass as far as the scripture readings can be directly traced to these Jewish roots. The scriptures speak for themselves (although the homily can and does contain explanations, etc.)
In Sum: So the whole subject is far more complex than simply: the Catholics tried to suppress the vernacular bible.
Thank you.
The more I think about it, the analogy that I come up with is what would someone 1000 years from now think if they just happened to find a fragment of this thread that was somehow propagated into whatever deep electronic archival system they might be using then?
I’d guess the rational and logical ones would start asking questions about context, authoritativeness, presence of other contemporary and prior corroborating material and deviation from that material.
The ones with political axes to grind or an agemda to advance would spin it to whatever advantage they thought it could provide.
God says two specific times the Torah to reproduce. You really think he as a card-carry Jew would flagrantly dismiss it as something not important and subsequently not follow it?
Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
In his letter to the Corinthians Paul said clearly that he was not married. How many times does God say not to lie? You think Paul would just lie to make a point?
Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
Who wrote it? Paul or God?
Where in the Torah does God require observant men to marry?
Two times God says to go forth and multiply.
Genesis 1:28 and 9:7 (have children)
God officiated Adam and Eve’s marriage. Genesis 2:24
Then take a look at Deuteronomy, chapter 24:1-5.
Marry childless brother’s widow (even if you are already married. This is known as ‘yibum.’). Deuteronomy 25:5
If a man (or woman) refuses to marry his brother’s widow then he must perform the commandment called ‘chalitzah’ in order to free her from the required marriage and allow her to marry someone else. Deuteronomy 25:7-10
The rapist must marry the maiden (if she chooses to do so). Deuteronomy 22:29
The slanderer must remain married to the wife he slandered and not allowed to divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:19
Not to marry a woman and her daughter, or her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter. Leviticus 18:17
Not to marry non-Jews. Deuteronomy 7:3
Not to let Moabite and Ammonite males marry into the Jewish people. Deuteronomy 23:4 (Doesn’t really apply any more since Moabites and Ammonites don’t exist now.)
Don’t keep a third generation Egyptian convert from marrying into the Jewish people. Deuteronomy 23:8-9
Not to refrain from marrying a third generation Edomite convert. Deuteronomy 23:8-9 (Doesn’t really apply since there are no more third generation Edomites around.)
Not to let a bastard marry into the Jewish people. Deuteronomy 23:3
Not to let a eunuch marry into the Jewish people. Deuteronomy 23:2
The high priest (cohen) must not marry a widow. Leviticus 21:14
The high priest (cohen) must marry a virgin maiden. Leviticus 21:13
A high priest (cohen) must not marry a divorcee. Leviticus 21:7
A cohen must not marry a zonah (a woman who had forbidden relations) or a chalalah Leviticus 21:7
So either Paul/Saul was either a card-carrying Jew who followed Torah or what is written in the Christian’s New Testament is a lie. It is possible he might have at some point divorced. He was a Pharisee which is a rabbi by today’s parlance. In order to be a rabbi of a congregation you have be married. It’s possible that his wife might not have liked the path he was walking and wanted a divorce and he gave it to her.
Take a look at this article and see what you think.
Was the Apostle Paul Married?
http://www.dennyburk.com/was-the-apostle-paul-married/
You make two errors in logic here:
1) You take two very specific commandments - to Adam and to Noah - and make it a general commandment. By that logic all the faithful should be building arks, filling them with animals and waiting for the flood.
2) You use evidence of God’s approval of marriage as proof of a commandment to marry - approval does not mean requires. Obviously God’s approval of David was not a commandment to commit adultery and murder.
A Pharisee was a sect, not an office - not at all like a rabbi today. There is no evidence that Saul led a synagog, and to assume he did is a gross error.
Paul said he desired that all would REMAIN as he was - single. Paul also said that he was a most devoted follower of the law. I believe Paul himself was a much greater authority on his life than either your or anybody’s speculation.
Your link was more speculation based on very thin gruel.
this man’s claims and conclusions rely on some pretty meager lines of logic - reaches, and over-reaches in reality.
It is of no doctrinal significance to me if he was married or not. However, all we read from Paul is that he was clearly single - I believe him. Was he previously married? Paul is ENTIRELY silent on this. To assume that he was seems to me to be stretching to support a personal agenda. Paul was most assuredly not malleable for personal agendas.
This is exactly why Jesus instructs us to not do what the world does. Because if you do, then you will be deceived into believing that the people who go to these carnal institutions, are SMARTER than the average bear.
The philosophies of these institutions are designed only to condition you to serve the Beast.
The week before Easter. Sheesh, I’m slipping.
The Church is Jesus' bride. The idea of God as the bridegroom of Israel goes back to the Old Testament.
Providentially, Catholic Answers broadcast a program called "Jesus the Bridegroom" in early April.
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.