Home > Archive > Cobol > February 2008 > What Jews believe (was: Some More Background on St. Paul
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
What Jews believe (was: Some More Background on St. Paul
|
|
| William M. Klein 2008-02-12, 6:55 pm |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:lJ5sj.30927$1f.21545@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
<snip>
> It is more than abundantly clear that the Jews understood that there is a
> plurality in God's person. They would have had to be stupid not to see
> the large number of times God is referred to in the plural. :-)
>
Judson,
I think you appropriately represent what you believe (or understand). I think
that it is unusual for you to claim to know what those from a different
tradition understand. In this case, I believe that you are not just in error,
but bordering on offensive.
P.S. Coming from Jewish background and being one who either Hitler or Isreal in
the 1950's would have declared as being Jewish, I believe that I can speak to
this. However, as one who is NOT a "practicing Jew", I would certainly defer to
someone who is. I do not, however, think that an "Evangelical Christian's" view
of what current (or even 33 C.E) Jews undstand, is a reliable source for this
information.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-13, 6:55 pm |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> Judson,
> I think you appropriately represent what you believe (or understand). I think that it is unusual for you to claim to know what
> those from a different tradition understand. In this case, I believe that you are not just in error, but bordering on offensive.
>
> P.S. Coming from Jewish background and being one who either Hitler or Isreal in the 1950's would have declared as being Jewish, I
> believe that I can speak to this. However, as one who is NOT a "practicing Jew", I would certainly defer to someone who is. I do
> not, however, think that an "Evangelical Christian's" view of what current (or even 33 C.E) Jews undstand, is a reliable source
> for this information.
Bill, I said the Jews would have had to be stupid not to see that the language
of the Bible clearly and often uses plural forms for God. Do you think they
could have *not* seen that and also *not* be "stupid?" I did not say they
did, or should, have interpreted it as I or other Christians do. I simply said
they should have been aware of that plurality in God's person. How could
the Jews go to such extreme lengths to preserve the accuracy of the
Scripture, and then be completely unaware of the content? Duh! :-)
My only other statement about Jewish belief was written in the form "I
suspect." This is hardly a declaration that I know with certainty precisely
how they thought! :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-13, 6:55 pm |
| Judson,
Please see the other post (not from me) about how the use of the plural in
Hebrew (of the Old Testament) does NOT always imply "multiples".
Jews were NOT stupid when they "ignored" a grammatical usage. I do not think
you can find serious support from within the Jewish tradition that
A) places any importance on the grammatical number of nouns referring to God
B) that recognizes a "plurality in God's person"
***
The point of the Queen of England using "We" was that grammar does NOT always
reflect understanding of "number".
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:SAEsj.98956$L%6.33037@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Bill, I said the Jews would have had to be stupid not to see that the language
> of the Bible clearly and often uses plural forms for God. Do you think they
> could have *not* seen that and also *not* be "stupid?" I did not say they
> did, or should, have interpreted it as I or other Christians do. I simply said
> they should have been aware of that plurality in God's person. How could
> the Jews go to such extreme lengths to preserve the accuracy of the
> Scripture, and then be completely unaware of the content? Duh! :-)
>
> My only other statement about Jewish belief was written in the form "I
> suspect." This is hardly a declaration that I know with certainty precisely
> how they thought! :-)
> --
> Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-13, 6:55 pm |
|
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:_0Gsj.243145$X56.6040@fe06.news.easynews.com...
> Judson,
> Please see the other post (not from me) about how the use of the plural
> in Hebrew (of the Old Testament) does NOT always imply "multiples".
>
> Jews were NOT stupid when they "ignored" a grammatical usage. I do not
> think you can find serious support from within the Jewish tradition that
> A) places any importance on the grammatical number of nouns referring to
> God
> B) that recognizes a "plurality in God's person"
>
> ***
>
> The point of the Queen of England using "We" was that grammar does NOT
> always reflect understanding of "number".
>
Exactly.
It didn't seem unreasonable to me that if God is the "King of Heaven" He
might refer to Himself in the plural (or someone translating into English,
where that form is used for royalty may have translated it in the plural),
just as royalty does (not just the British) and has throughout history. The
real point was that grammar does not always reflect understanding of number,
and in the passages quoted, at least, it did not imply plurality to me, as
an independent observer with no axe to grind.
I'm pleased to see you got what I was saying, Bill :-), so it wasn't as
abstruse as I thought, after reading Judson's response.
Judson didn't get it. All he could see was the fact that I had introduced
the British monarchy into a discussion about the Bible, and I didn't respond
because it simply wasn't worth the effort...
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
|
| On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:45:31 +0000, William M. Klein wrote:
> Judson,
> Please see the other post (not from me) about how the use of the plural in
> Hebrew (of the Old Testament) does NOT always imply "multiples".
>
> Jews were NOT stupid when they "ignored" a grammatical usage. I do not think
> you can find serious support from within the Jewish tradition that
> A) places any importance on the grammatical number of nouns referring to God
> B) that recognizes a "plurality in God's person"
>
> ***
>
> The point of the Queen of England using "We" was that grammar does NOT always
> reflect understanding of "number".
>
Calling Jews stupid is a losing game. 44% of Nobel prizes in physics to
Jews did not happen due to stupidity.
Tim
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-13, 6:55 pm |
| "tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
> William M. Klein wrote:
>
>
> Calling Jews stupid is a losing game. 44% of Nobel prizes in physics to
> Jews did not happen due to stupidity.
I did not say Jews were stupid, nor do I think that. I said they would have
had to be stupid to not know that the Scripture uses many plural forms for
the names of God. My point was that they *were* aware of the plurality,
and the implication was because they are not stupid. Please don't twist the
clear meaning of my words; that is dishonest.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:56:05 -0600, Judson McClendon wrote:
> I did not say Jews were stupid, nor do I think that. I said they would have
> had to be stupid to not know that the Scripture uses many plural forms for
> the names of God. My point was that they *were* aware of the plurality,
> and the implication was because they are not stupid. Please don't twist the
> clear meaning of my words; that is dishonest.
Here is what you wrote:
"It is more than abundantly clear that the Jews understood that there is a
plurality in God's person. They would have had to be stupid not to see the
large number of times God is referred to in the plural. :-)"
If you combine that with the fact that Jews we know disagree with your
interpretation, the logical conclusion is that you are saying some Jews
are stupid.
Tim
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-14, 7:55 am |
| "tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Here is what you wrote:
>
> "It is more than abundantly clear that the Jews understood that there is a
> plurality in God's person. They would have had to be stupid not to see the
> large number of times God is referred to in the plural. :-)"
>
> If you combine that with the fact that Jews we know disagree with your
> interpretation, the logical conclusion is that you are saying some Jews
> are stupid.
Tim, you are obviously searching for something to be contentious about. I
pointedly *did not* say that Jews agreed with my interpretation.
Are you actually saying you believe there are Jews who study the Scriptures
but *do not* "see the large number of times God is referred to in the plural?"
Please, ask at least one of them to post here!
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-14, 7:55 am |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Tim, you are obviously searching for something to be contentious
> about. I pointedly *did not* say that Jews agreed with my
> interpretation.
> Are you actually saying you believe there are Jews who study the
> Scriptures but *do not* "see the large number of times God is
> referred to in the plural?" Please, ask at least one of them to post
> here!
(Raises hand)
I can state unequivocally that no Jew with even rudimentary religious
training (say, up to bar mitzvah) ever sees God referred as plural. The
words may be plural, but the meaning is not.
First, the Hebrew word for God (YHWH) is singular.
Second, whether the words throughtout the Scripture referring to God are
singular, plural, or painted yellow is irrelevant to the Jew. These words do
not now nor ever implied a multiplicity in the godhead, nor has any
traditional Jew every concieved of that possibility.
I go back to the dogma: "It does not matter what the Bible says, what is
important is what the Bible MEANS." To the Jew, Scripture does not mean God
is more than one in any respect.
There are several words in scripture that refer to God, the most prevalent
are "Adonai" and "Elohim." These are, um, "ordinary" words used to refer to
God while avoiding God's real name, but they do not necessarily imply God
and only God.
For example, "adonai" ("lord") is also used to refer to Moses, Solomon,
David, Saul, and other kings and leaders.
"Elohim" is, indeed, a plural word, usually used to refer to polytheistic
gods known to the Israelites. When used to refer to the God of Israel, the
word is ALWAYS accompanied by a singular verb or adjective.
And Jews don't study the scriptures per se. They study the commentaries
(which include scripture).
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-14, 6:55 pm |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:kBWsj.73381$Mu4.42109@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Tim, you are obviously searching for something to be contentious about. I
> pointedly *did not* say that Jews agreed with my interpretation.
>
> Are you actually saying you believe there are Jews who study the Scriptures
> but *do not* "see the large number of times God is referred to in the plural?"
> Please, ask at least one of them to post here!
Simle answer,
I have seen ZERO evidecne that any Jewish source relates "use of grammatical
plural" with "plurality in God's person".
Can you point to ANY Jewish (not Christian) source that makes this connection?
If there are (and were) NONE, then given your explicit choice:
***
Please clarify, you state that Jews would be "stupid" if they did not see the
grammatical use of GRAMATICAL plural in referring to God, but you make no
claims about what infererences they make from this grammatical usage
OR
you do think that some inferennce should be made from what inferences Jews make
from this grammatical usage.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-14, 6:55 pm |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Simle answer,
> I have seen ZERO evidecne that any Jewish source relates "use of grammatical plural" with "plurality in God's person".
>
> Can you point to ANY Jewish (not Christian) source that makes this connection?
>
> If there are (and were) NONE, then given your explicit choice:
>
> ***
>
> Please clarify, you state that Jews would be "stupid" if they did not see the grammatical use of GRAMATICAL plural in referring
> to God, but you make no claims about what infererences they make from this grammatical usage
The above. Except that I did state to a degree how I thought Old
Testament Jews interpreted the plural forms ("plurality in God's
person"). However, though I have done some reading on Jewish
beliefs, and discussed our beliefs with Jewish friends, I am not an
expert on the subject, and concede that my statements to that
effect could be wrong. (I only say "could have been" because I'm
still not an expert.) Sorry! Fair enough? :-)
Let me say further (since some have taken issue with what I believe
to be a serious twisting of the meaning of my words) that I have
*never* thought Jews were stupid. The Jewish people have always
been intelligent, creative and industrious, and the world has greatly
benefited from their contributions. Beyond that, the Jewish people
penned and preserved the Bible, and Jesus was born a Jew. The
Jews are God's Chosen People, and for all of the above reasons, I
love and respect the Jewish people. Anyone who knows me well
would tell you this is how I feel, including my Jewish friends.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| William M. Klein 2008-02-14, 6:55 pm |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:r31tj.73597$Mu4.59631@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>[color=darkred]
> Let me say further (since some have taken issue with what I believe
> to be a serious twisting of the meaning of my words) that I have
> *never* thought Jews were stupid. The Jewish people have always
> been intelligent, creative and industrious, and the world has greatly
> benefited from their contributions. Beyond that, the Jewish people
> penned and preserved the Bible, and Jesus was born a Jew. The
> Jews are God's Chosen People, and for all of the above reasons, I
> love and respect the Jewish people. Anyone who knows me well
> would tell you this is how I feel, including my Jewish friends.
Judson,
I don't know about anyone else, but I did not read your note as saying that
Jews were stupid. I did (apprently erroneously) read your note as saying that
*IF* Jews didn't move from seeing the use of a plural gramatical number to
meaning that there was a "plurality in God's person", THEN they would be stupid.
That (to me) is a "stupid" leap" - well, at least unjustified.
I am not (and never have been) a scholar of the history of Jewish thought.
However, being raised in a (reform) Jewish environment, I can safely say that
the current (reform in the US) understanding of Judiasm is that there is not now
NOR HAS THERE EVER BEEN any concept of the "plurality of God's person" within
Jewish tradition or understanding of the Bible (i.e. "Old Testament")
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-14, 6:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:r31tj.73597$Mu4.59631@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> The above. Except that I did state to a degree how I thought Old
> Testament Jews interpreted the plural forms ("plurality in God's
> person"). However, though I have done some reading on Jewish
> beliefs, and discussed our beliefs with Jewish friends, I am not an
> expert on the subject, and concede that my statements to that
> effect could be wrong. (I only say "could have been" because I'm
> still not an expert.) Sorry! Fair enough? :-)
>
> Let me say further (since some have taken issue with what I believe
> to be a serious twisting of the meaning of my words) that I have
> *never* thought Jews were stupid.
If you don't want your words to be "twisted" (and I have seen no evidence of
that here), then choose them more carefully.
> The Jewish people have always
> been intelligent, creative and industrious, and the world has greatly
> benefited from their contributions. Beyond that, the Jewish people
> penned and preserved the Bible, and Jesus was born a Jew. The
> Jews are God's Chosen People, and for all of the above reasons, I
> love and respect the Jewish people. Anyone who knows me well
> would tell you this is how I feel, including my Jewish friends.
Even the stupid ones... :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-14, 6:55 pm |
| On 14 Feb, 19:58, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> Let me say further (since some have taken issue with what I believe
> to be a serious twisting of the meaning of my words) that I have
> *never* thought Jews were stupid. The Jewish people have always
> been intelligent, creative and industrious, and the world has greatly
> benefited from their contributions.
True.
> Beyond that, the Jewish people
> penned and preserved the Bible,
No, just the OT. Anybody advocating adherence to the words of JC must
be classed as christians.
> and Jesus was born a Jew.
Born, raised, died as a Jew and crucified by Jews. Died naked too. So
why do christian icons show him with a loin cloth on the cross?
Is that to hide his obvious Jewish origins (I refer to his
circumcision).
> The
> Jews are God's Chosen People, and for all of the above reasons, I
> love and respect the Jewish people.
The Jews were god's chosen people but since christ came to earth to
save mankind, surely the christians are now god's chosen people?
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-14, 9:55 pm |
| On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:27:47 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>It didn't seem unreasonable to me that if God is the "King of Heaven" He
>might refer to Himself in the plural (or someone translating into English,
>where that form is used for royalty may have translated it in the plural),
>just as royalty does (not just the British) and has throughout history. The
>real point was that grammar does not always reflect understanding of number,
>and in the passages quoted, at least, it did not imply plurality to me, as
>an independent observer with no axe to grind.
>
>I'm pleased to see you got what I was saying, Bill :-), so it wasn't as
>abstruse as I thought, after reading Judson's response.
>
>Judson didn't get it. All he could see was the fact that I had introduced
>the British monarchy into a discussion about the Bible, and I didn't respond
>because it simply wasn't worth the effort...
There are a lot of very bright people who have disagreed about what is
the "correct" interpretations of scripture. I suppose someone could
come up with a graph to compare each interpretation with IQ of the
Believer. But all that would do is convince other True Believers
that IQ is a bogus measurement.
It doesn't matter how smart they are - if they believe differently
from me they must either be Stupid or Satan warped their minds.
| |
| Clark F Morris 2008-02-14, 9:55 pm |
| On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:31:12 -0800 (PST), Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14 Feb, 19:58, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>True.
>
>
>No, just the OT. Anybody advocating adherence to the words of JC must
>be classed as christians.
>
>
>Born, raised, died as a Jew and crucified by Jews. Died naked too. So
>why do christian icons show him with a loin cloth on the cross?
>Is that to hide his obvious Jewish origins (I refer to his
>circumcision).
Crucified by the Romans at the urging of the Jewish religious
establishment.
>
>
>The Jews were god's chosen people but since christ came to earth to
>save mankind, surely the christians are now god's chosen people?
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-15, 7:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:heq9r3l5sdmqp6f9o3ak79a9c19jhterq0@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:27:47 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> There are a lot of very bright people who have disagreed about what is
> the "correct" interpretations of scripture. I suppose someone could
> come up with a graph to compare each interpretation with IQ of the
> Believer. But all that would do is convince other True Believers
> that IQ is a bogus measurement.
>
> It doesn't matter how smart they are - if they believe differently
> from me they must either be Stupid or Satan warped their minds.
>
And, of course, we don't need to quibble about translations because we know
the translation we have decided on is inerrant...:-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-15, 7:55 am |
| Alistair wrote:
>
> Born, raised, died as a Jew and crucified by Jews. Died naked too. So
> why do christian icons show him with a loin cloth on the cross?
> Is that to hide his obvious Jewish origins (I refer to his
> circumcision).
Not exactly. Jews never cruicified anybody. Strangled? Sure. Stoned? Of
course. Never cruicified (or hanged) anyone.
Loin cloth? Modesty seems to me to be more reasonable. Somebody tallied up
several hundred of the classic "Madonna with Child" type paintings and none
of them show a circumcised baby Jesus. Evidently they all portrayed Jesus
before the eighth day...
>
>
> The Jews were god's chosen people but since christ came to earth to
> save mankind, surely the christians are now god's chosen people?
Nope. When referencing the Jews, "chosen" means "chosen to follow the
Commandments." The requirement of adherence to the Mosaic Law is not binding
on Christians or anyone else, only the Jew.
God likes Christians just as much as He likes Jews; Christians just have a
different name; instead of "chosen" they are called (I assume) "saved." The
Christians are not the "chosen" people and the Jews are not the "saved"
people.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-15, 6:56 pm |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> True.
>
>
> No, just the OT. Anybody advocating adherence to the words of JC must
> be classed as christians.
>
>
> Born, raised, died as a Jew and crucified by Jews. Died naked too. So
> why do christian icons show him with a loin cloth on the cross?
> Is that to hide his obvious Jewish origins (I refer to his
> circumcision).
>
>
> The Jews were god's chosen people but since christ came to earth to
> save mankind, surely the christians are now god's chosen people?
No, the Christians did not supplant the Jews. Racial Jews who are also
Christians often call themselves "Completed Jews." Gentile Christians
have been "grafted in" (Romans 11, Matthew 22:1-14). The Jews (at
least some high percentage of them) will accept Jesus as their true
Messiah during the Tribulation Period, especially when they see Christ's
bodily return to Earth at the battle of Armageddon (Zechariah 12, Isaiah
53, Revelation 1:7, etc.).
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-15, 6:56 pm |
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> And, of course, we don't need to quibble about translations because we
> know the translation we have decided on is inerrant...:-)
It's the original manuscripts, not the translations, that are considered
inerrant. Those who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures believe that
what got written down was exactly what God wanted written down, and that God
is able to lead any believer to the truth, as the Holy Spirit guides the
believer using whatever translation or verbal account the believer has access
to. The believer is not entirely dependent on the precise translation, because
of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-17,26). Not that Scriptures
aren't important, but that God can accomplish His purposes using anything He
wants, or that the believer has available.
When I first became a Christian, I was attending a very liberal church. For
the first several months, I sat in the services, but what I heard was all (as
I later learned) in accordance with the Bible. Only after I had gained a tiny
bit of maturity and knowledge of the Bible did I began to hear what the
man was really saying, and I was aghast that he didn't accept the Bible at
all. The Holy Spirit had "filtered" what the minister had been saying, until
I knew enough to know what was good and what was bad. I am astonished by that
to this day. I once saw with my own eyes God "heal" a smoking, stinking of
burned electrical insulation, burned out Soroc IQ 120 terminal so I could use
it to work, when I had no other tool, and no money to repair or replace it.
It was still working perfectly when I sold it two years later. I long ago
ceased to put limits on what I believe God can and will do. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-16, 6:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> It's the original manuscripts, not the translations, that are
> considered inerrant. Those who believe in the inerrancy of the
> Scriptures believe that what got written down was exactly what God
> wanted written down, and that God is able to lead any believer to the
> truth, as the Holy Spirit guides the believer using whatever
> translation or verbal account the believer has access to. The
> believer is not entirely dependent on the precise translation,
> because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-17,26). Not
> that Scriptures aren't important, but that God can accomplish His
> purposes using anything He wants, or that the believer has available.
Not exactly. Your methodology works only for the non-Catholic tradition. In
the Catholic world, the authority for interpretation rests with the Church
as an institution. In the Jewish world, the authority and methodology for
interpretation are to be found in the text itself. Even then, when the
matter is too difficult, the "sages of the generation" are consulted.
This can lead to differing decisions: North African Jewry permits polygamy,
European Jewry does not. North African Jewry says rice is kosher for
Passover, European Jewry says the reverse.
Jewish interpretataion is not a monolithic as Catholocism but not as varied
as Protestants.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-17, 7:55 am |
| "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Not exactly. Your methodology works only for the non-Catholic tradition. In the Catholic world, the authority for interpretation
> rests with the Church as an institution. ...
Yes, I understand that. Even so, as a Protestent, there are aspects of
the Roman Catholic system that are very confusing to me. Perhaps someone
here can explain it to me.
One thing I find confusing that a monolithic institution like the
Roman Catholic church applies different rules in different localities.
For example, priests in the U.S. are forbidden to marry, yet in Africa
most priests are married. If sin is defined by one's geography, what
about a married African priest who moves to the U.S., or an American
priest who moves to Africa? Can the married African priest remain a
priest here? Can the American priest marry there and remain a priest?
On the other hand, if sin is defined by one's ethnicity, what about a
married African Catholic who just moved to the U.S. and wants to become
a priest here? A similar thing appears to apply for different times.
Weren't Roman Catholics forbidden to read the Bible years ago, and Mass
was always conducted in Latin so they wouldn't even hear the Bible in a
language they could understand, nut now they can read the Bible and
hear Mass in their native language? Did the definition of sin change
with time? Did God at one time not want Christians to read or even hear
His word in their own language (which would be very strange in light of
Romans 10:17 and 1 Corinthians 14:6-11), but now God has decided He does
want them to do so? I can see no such variations between Christians in
Scripture. Quite the opposite, in fact (e.g. Romans 10:12, James 1:17).
Where do such variations come from and what is their basis?
Another thing that confuses me is that, while I can understand why the
Roman Catholic church might want to clarify or interpret Scripture, what
about invalidating or overruling Scripture? For example, now that they
are permitted to do so, when Roman Catholics read the Bible and it
clearly says one thing, and the Roman Catholic church doctrines clearly
contradict it, or even say the exact opposite (e.g. Matthew 23:8, words
of Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 Timothy 4:1-3), how do they view this? Does
the Roman Catholic church not believe the Bible is God's Word, or that
the Bible does not accurately record the words of Jesus, or does the
Roman Catholic church claim authority to invalidate or overrule the
Bible, even the words of Jesus? If the Bible is not God's Word, where
does their authority come from? If the Bible is God's Word, how can
they overrule it? I.e. - how does a representative of Jesus contradict
or overrule Jesus? A U.S. ambas or who contradicted U.S. official
policy would soon be unemployed.
Can you see why I'm  ? :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-17, 6:57 pm |
| On 15 Feb, 22:04, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> It's the original manuscripts, not the translations, that are considered
> inerrant. Those who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures believe that
> what got written down was exactly what God wanted written down, and that God
> is able to lead any believer to the truth, as the Holy Spirit guides the
> believer using whatever translation or verbal account the believer has access
> to. The believer is not entirely dependent on the precise translation, because
> of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-17,26). Not that Scriptures
> aren't important, but that God can accomplish His purposes using anything He
> wants, or that the believer has available.
So all of the sociopaths in jail who say that god told them to do it
were telling the truth.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-17, 6:57 pm |
| On 17 Feb, 13:40, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I understand that. Even so, as a Protestent, there are aspects of
> the Roman Catholic system that are very confusing to me. Perhaps someone
> here can explain it to me.
>
> One thing I find confusing that a monolithic institution like the
> Roman Catholic church applies different rules in different localities.
> For example, priests in the U.S. are forbidden to marry, yet in Africa
> most priests are married.
The history and approach to celibacy amongst the priesthood is covered
in the book 'Vicars of Christ' by Peter de Rosa that I mentioned
before. When celibacy (not sleeping with ones' wife) was introduced,
priests used to be married and lived with their wives fulfilling their
matrimonial duties as in a normal marriage. Priests had to undertake
to divorce or throw out their wives or at least not to sleep with
them. Priests would often take on young female housekeepers who
fulfilled the matrimonial duties rrequired of a good wife. But then
the strict demand of not sleeping with ones' wife was fulfilled.
This seems to be much the same kind of problem that some churches are
facing when they require their gay priests to declare themselves
sexually abstinant. Unenforcable.
> If sin is defined by one's geography, what
> about a married African priest who moves to the U.S., or an American
> priest who moves to Africa? Can the married African priest remain a
> priest here? Can the American priest marry there and remain a priest?
When in Rome do as the Romans do.
> On the other hand, if sin is defined by one's ethnicity, what about a
> married African Catholic who just moved to the U.S. and wants to become
> a priest here?
The church is quite happy to allow future priests to divorce or
abandon wives and children.
> A similar thing appears to apply for different times.
> Weren't Roman Catholics forbidden to read the Bible years ago, and Mass
> was always conducted in Latin so they wouldn't even hear the Bible in a
> language they could understand, nut now they can read the Bible and
> hear Mass in their native language? Did the definition of sin change
> with time?
The definition of sin depends upon who is standing in the pulpit and
what there hidden agenda is. Priests can lie and commit sins just as
easily as the next man.
> Did God at one time not want Christians to read or even hear
> His word in their own language (which would be very strange in light of
> Romans 10:17 and 1 Corinthians 14:6-11), but now God has decided He does
> want them to do so?
No, just the authorities grinding the plebs underfoot and making sure
that they don't get their hands on the ammunition from the bible which
would have resulted in revolutions against the powers as were.
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-17, 6:57 pm |
| On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:40:42 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, I understand that. Even so, as a Protestent, there are aspects of
>the Roman Catholic system that are very confusing to me. Perhaps someone
>here can explain it to me.
>
>One thing I find confusing that a monolithic institution like the
>Roman Catholic church applies different rules in different localities.
>For example, priests in the U.S. are forbidden to marry, yet in Africa
>most priests are married.
Priests of the Roman Catholic church are not permitted to marry no
matter where they live. An African Archbishop, Archbishop Emmanuel
Milingo, ordained four married men as priests. He was excommunicated
by the Roman See for doing this. He continues to appeal to the
Vatican to change its stance, but he remains excommunicated.
>If sin is defined by one's geography, what
>about a married African priest who moves to the U.S., or an American
>priest who moves to Africa? Can the married African priest remain a
>priest here? Can the American priest marry there and remain a priest?
>On the other hand, if sin is defined by one's ethnicity, what about a
>married African Catholic who just moved to the U.S. and wants to become
>a priest here? A similar thing appears to apply for different times.
>Weren't Roman Catholics forbidden to read the Bible years ago, and Mass
>was always conducted in Latin so they wouldn't even hear the Bible in a
>language they could understand, nut now they can read the Bible and
>hear Mass in their native language?
Where do you hear these myths? Roman Catholics were NEVER forbidden
to read the Bible. Bible reading and study are constantly promoted by
the Church. As for the change in language from Latin to a native
language, it was done to attract more people into becoming Roman
Catholics. Many non Catholics who attented Mass, maybe for a wedding
or a funeral or with a Catholic spouse, had complained about not
understanding the Mass because of the Latin. Personally I find that a
sign of laziness. I owned a Daily Missal that had the Latin on one
side and the English on another. I could easily follow along. In
addition, the Gospel and Epistles were never recited in Latin, at
least in the USA. They were always recited in English.
The Second Vatican Council changed the rules for the way the Mass was
said. Prior to it, all masses everywhere where said in Latin. There
were other changes in the Mass as well that were dictated by Vatican
II. Many tradionlists within the Roman Catholic community, myself
included, disliked these changes to this very day. Pope John Paul II,
in his letter Ecclesia Dei, encouraged the frequent celebration of the
traditional Latin liturgy for those Catholics who desire it. In
addition, Pope Benedict XVI has also relaxed the rules and has allowed
more instances of churches to say the old Tridentine Mass.
More on this can be read at:
http://www.catholic.org/internation...id=24636&page=2
>Did the definition of sin change
>with time? Did God at one time not want Christians to read or even hear
>His word in their own language (which would be very strange in light of
>Romans 10:17 and 1 Corinthians 14:6-11), but now God has decided He does
>want them to do so? I can see no such variations between Christians in
>Scripture. Quite the opposite, in fact (e.g. Romans 10:12, James 1:17).
>Where do such variations come from and what is their basis?
>
>Another thing that confuses me is that, while I can understand why the
>Roman Catholic church might want to clarify or interpret Scripture, what
>about invalidating or overruling Scripture? For example, now that they
>are permitted to do so, when Roman Catholics read the Bible and it
>clearly says one thing, and the Roman Catholic church doctrines clearly
>contradict it, or even say the exact opposite (e.g. Matthew 23:8, words
>of Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 Timothy 4:1-3), how do they view this? Does
>the Roman Catholic church not believe the Bible is God's Word, or that
>the Bible does not accurately record the words of Jesus, or does the
>Roman Catholic church claim authority to invalidate or overrule the
>Bible, even the words of Jesus? If the Bible is not God's Word, where
>does their authority come from? If the Bible is God's Word, how can
>they overrule it? I.e. - how does a representative of Jesus contradict
>or overrule Jesus? A U.S. ambasor who contradicted U.S. official
>policy would soon be unemployed.
>
>Can you see why I'm ? :-)
What is wrong with Matthew 23:8? Where does Roman Catholic Church
doctrine contradict it? In the New American Standard Bible it simply
says, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you
are all brothers." The King James version relates it as, "But be not
ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are
brethren."
You need to give me specific examples of where Roman Catholic Church
doctrine is contrary to the teachings in the Bible. As for the
authority, the Pope is the final authority and I've already posted
extensively about Papal Infallacy, where it is derived from and how it
is exercised.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
SAM: "What's shaking Norm?"
NORM: "All four ch s and a couple of chins."
--From U.S. TV Show, "Cheers"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-18, 6:55 pm |
| "SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Where do you hear these myths? Roman Catholics were NEVER forbidden
> to read the Bible. Bible reading and study are constantly promoted by
> the Church. As for the change in language from Latin to a native
> language, it was done to attract more people into becoming Roman
> Catholics. Many non Catholics who attented Mass, maybe for a wedding
> or a funeral or with a Catholic spouse, had complained about not
> understanding the Mass because of the Latin. Personally I find that a
> sign of laziness. I owned a Daily Missal that had the Latin on one
> side and the English on another. I could easily follow along. In
> addition, the Gospel and Epistles were never recited in Latin, at
> least in the USA. They were always recited in English.
Okay.
>
> What is wrong with Matthew 23:8? Where does Roman Catholic Church
> doctrine contradict it? In the New American Standard Bible it simply
> says, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you
> are all brothers." The King James version relates it as, "But be not
> ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are
> brethren."
>
> You need to give me specific examples of where Roman Catholic Church
> doctrine is contrary to the teachings in the Bible. As for the
> authority, the Pope is the final authority and I've already posted
> extensively about Papal Infallacy, where it is derived from and how it
> is exercised.
Sorry, that was a mistype, it should have been Matthew 23:9:
(Matthew 23:9 NASB)
And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
Father, He who is in heaven.
(Matthew 23:9 NKJV)
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
Father, He who is in heaven.
(Matthew 23:9 KJV)
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
Father, He who is in heaven.
(Matthew 23:9 RSV)
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one
Father, who is in heaven.
Unless one distorts the clear context, that is an explicit injunction
in the words of Christ against calling anyone on earth "father," in
a decidedly spiritual and/or authoritative context. One might
reasonably interpret it not to mean biological fathers, because
that relationship is true for them in both the biological and
authoritative sense, as instituted by God Himself. The Bible even
calls biological fathers by that name (e.g. John 2, where both God
and humans are called "father"). But if it means anything at all, it
would have to at least mean "father" as used in a spiritual and/or
authoritative sense. Since Roman Catholic priests are specifically
called "father" in a spiritual and authoritative sense (as celibates
they can't be anyone's father in any other sense), I can't see how
this is not a direct contradiction of the words of Christ, hence my
question.
There are many other issues that appear clear cut to me, but this one
is so direct, simple and unambiguous that I thought it would be a
good example.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-18, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:35:50 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>(Matthew 23:9 NASB)
> And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
>(Matthew 23:9 NKJV)
> Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
>(Matthew 23:9 KJV)
> Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
>(Matthew 23:9 RSV)
> And call no man your father on earth, for you have one
> Father, who is in heaven.
That is a commandment that doesn't get obeyed by many.
Of course, any use of the word "Father", that excludes the common
meaning of the word is subject to interpretation.
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-18, 6:56 pm |
| SkippyPB wrote:
>
> Priests of the Roman Catholic church are not permitted to marry no
> matter where they live. An African Archbishop, Archbishop Emmanuel
> Milingo, ordained four married men as priests. He was excommunicated
> by the Roman See for doing this. He continues to appeal to the
> Vatican to change its stance, but he remains excommunicated.
Catholic priests may not marry, but they can BE married. If a married
Anglican priest (or any adherent to the Apostolic Succession) makes a
lateral transfer to the Catholic fold, he is not required to dispose of his
wife. This is roughly similar to someone immigrating from a country
permitting plural marriages to one where bigamy is outlawed; he is not
required to divorce his wives. (NOTE: Bigamy is participating in the ACT of
a marriage service, not being married per se.)
>
> The Second Vatican Council changed the rules for the way the Mass was
> said. Prior to it, all masses everywhere where said in Latin. There
> were other changes in the Mass as well that were dictated by Vatican
> II. Many tradionlists within the Roman Catholic community, myself
> included, disliked these changes to this very day. Pope John Paul II,
> in his letter Ecclesia Dei, encouraged the frequent celebration of the
> traditional Latin liturgy for those Catholics who desire it. In
> addition, Pope Benedict XVI has also relaxed the rules and has allowed
> more instances of churches to say the old Tridentine Mass.
Right. Latin is the only language that CANNOT be used for the Mass.
Oh well. The Catholics use Hebrew in Israel, so things come full circle...
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-18, 6:56 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Sorry, that was a mistype, it should have been Matthew 23:9:
>
> (Matthew 23:9 NASB)
> And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
> (Matthew 23:9 NKJV)
> Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
> (Matthew 23:9 KJV)
> Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
> (Matthew 23:9 RSV)
> And call no man your father on earth, for you have one
> Father, who is in heaven.
>
> Unless one distorts the clear context, that is an explicit injunction
> in the words of Christ against calling anyone on earth "father," in
> a decidedly spiritual and/or authoritative context. One might
> reasonably interpret it not to mean biological fathers, because
> that relationship is true for them in both the biological and
> authoritative sense, as instituted by God Himself. The Bible even
> calls biological fathers by that name (e.g. John 2, where both God
> and humans are called "father"). But if it means anything at all, it
> would have to at least mean "father" as used in a spiritual and/or
> authoritative sense. Since Roman Catholic priests are specifically
> called "father" in a spiritual and authoritative sense (as celibates
> they can't be anyone's father in any other sense), I can't see how
> this is not a direct contradiction of the words of Christ, hence my
> question.
>
> There are many other issues that appear clear cut to me, but this one
> is so direct, simple and unambiguous that I thought it would be a
> good example.
Well, Christ didn't say that inasmuch as He didn't speak English. He
probably said "Abba." Now do you know any Catholics that say "Abba?"
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-18, 6:56 pm |
| "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Well, Christ didn't say that inasmuch as He didn't speak English. He probably said "Abba." Now do you know any Catholics that say
> "Abba?"
If one is to interpret that Scripture similarly to the way all other such
Scriptures are interpreted, it would be the meaning of the word that
was important, not the particular way it is expressed in a given
language.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-18, 6:56 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> If one is to interpret that Scripture similarly to the way all other
> such Scriptures are interpreted, it would be the meaning of the word
> that was important, not the particular way it is expressed in a given
> language.
Right. It doesn't matter what scripture says; what's important is what
scripture means.
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-21, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:17:58 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>SkippyPB wrote:
>
>Catholic priests may not marry, but they can BE married. If a married
>Anglican priest (or any adherent to the Apostolic Succession) makes a
>lateral transfer to the Catholic fold, he is not required to dispose of his
>wife. This is roughly similar to someone immigrating from a country
>permitting plural marriages to one where bigamy is outlawed; he is not
>required to divorce his wives. (NOTE: Bigamy is participating in the ACT of
>a marriage service, not being married per se.)
>
That is not so. A priest cannot be married under any circumstance. An
Anglican cannot laterally transfer (there is no such thing) to
Catholicism. He would have to convert to Catholicism. In the course
of that he would no longer be an Anglican priest and, if he was
married, he could not become a Catholic priest. He could, however,
become a Deacon.
I'm not sure about the polygamy thing. I'll have to research that
one. We just had an African priest visiting our parish some months
ago and I believe he mentioned something about this, but I don't
recall exactly what he said.
[color=darkred]
>
>Right. Latin is the only language that CANNOT be used for the Mass.
>
Used to be that way, but since they now allow Tridentine Masses, those
are said in Latin.
>Oh well. The Catholics use Hebrew in Israel, so things come full circle...
>
>
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Have I learned from my mistakes? Yes, I believe
I could repeat them all exactly the same."
-- Kurt Vonnegut
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-21, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:35:50 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Okay.
>
>
>Sorry, that was a mistype, it should have been Matthew 23:9:
>
>(Matthew 23:9 NASB)
> And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
>(Matthew 23:9 NKJV)
> Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
>(Matthew 23:9 KJV)
> Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
>(Matthew 23:9 RSV)
> And call no man your father on earth, for you have one
> Father, who is in heaven.
>
>Unless one distorts the clear context, that is an explicit injunction
>in the words of Christ against calling anyone on earth "father," in
>a decidedly spiritual and/or authoritative context. One might
>reasonably interpret it not to mean biological fathers, because
>that relationship is true for them in both the biological and
>authoritative sense, as instituted by God Himself. The Bible even
>calls biological fathers by that name (e.g. John 2, where both God
>and humans are called "father"). But if it means anything at all, it
>would have to at least mean "father" as used in a spiritual and/or
>authoritative sense. Since Roman Catholic priests are specifically
>called "father" in a spiritual and authoritative sense (as celibates
>they can't be anyone's father in any other sense), I can't see how
>this is not a direct contradiction of the words of Christ, hence my
>question.
>
You're really stretching things in order to find where Catholicism
directly contradicts the Bible. It may behove you to read the entire
context you took that passage from. Jesus was speaking to His
disciples and He was denouncing the scribes and Pharisees. Chapter 23
verses 5-8 says, "All their works are perfomred to be seen. They
widen their phylactieries and lengthen their tassels. They love
places of honor at banquest, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings
in marketplaces, and the salutation Rabbi. As for you, do not be
called Rabbi. You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers."
Those verses warn against the use of various titles and were addressed
to the disciples alone. While only the title Rabbi has been said to
be used in addressing the scribes and Pahrisees, the implication is
that Father and Master (see verse 10) also were. The prohibition of
these titles to the disciples suggests that their use was present in
Matthew's church. The Matthean Jesus forbids not only the titles but
the spirit of superiority and pride that is shown by their acceptance.
Jesus use of "father" in those verses does not mean you cannot call
your bilogical or eathly father "father". He was speaking of using
the term "father" to denote superiority which the Phairsees did.
In fact, to forbid a child from calling their earthly father that term
would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for
there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of
divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be
meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.
But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just
our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than
biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those
with whom we have a special relationship.
For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly
relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not
you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh,
and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen.
45:8).
Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I
was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I
did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give
a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In
that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and
I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and
will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to
the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is.
22:20–21).
This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise
counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like
Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual
relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my
father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a
whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by
the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).
Now you might argue, as a lot of fundalmentalists do, that this usage
changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible
to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of
Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several
reasons.
First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not
apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling
one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen
refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks
of "our father Isaac."
Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term
"father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men
who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact,
so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist
interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling
priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.
Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that
Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The
whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you
have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your
father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be
called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt.
23:8–10).
The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of
the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed
certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I
have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For
this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the
Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was
appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also
reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has
appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third
teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be
apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers"
(Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s
teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."
Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts
of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as
professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates).
What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word
for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the
word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23
were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as
guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as
Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a
misunderstanding of Christ’s words.
Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed
to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection
for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the
apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as
"my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1;
Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).
>There are many other issues that appear clear cut to me, but this one
>is so direct, simple and unambiguous that I thought it would be a
>good example.
Apparently not.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Have I learned from my mistakes? Yes, I believe
I could repeat them all exactly the same."
-- Kurt Vonnegut
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-21, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:58:54 -0500, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Apparently not.
But it is a nice example to be aware of when someone points out that
despite what we see, Genesis I must be taken literally. If that
person is willing to call his mail parent "Father", then we see that
the Truth isn't automatically the literal interpretation. When the
world conflicts with a literal interpretation, searching for a deeper
truth can be warranted.
| |
| Charles Hottel 2008-02-21, 9:55 pm |
|
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uogrr3hm5a9mo14prag8h936ibbpbbcodb@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:17:58 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> That is not so. A priest cannot be married under any circumstance. An
> Anglican cannot laterally transfer (there is no such thing) to
> Catholicism. He would have to convert to Catholicism. In the course
> of that he would no longer be an Anglican priest and, if he was
> married, he could not become a Catholic priest. He could, however,
> become a Deacon.
>
<snip>
I am no expert as I am not Catholic, but my wife is, and the church we
attend has a married priest. I think he was Episcopalian and was already
married when he converted to the Catholic church.
See: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MARPRIE.htm
| |
| James J. Gavan 2008-02-22, 7:55 am |
| Charles Hottel wrote:
> "SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
Steve :
>
Charles :
>
> I am no expert as I am not Catholic, but my wife is, and the church we
> attend has a married priest. I think he was Episcopalian and was already
> married when he converted to the Catholic church.
>
> See: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MARPRIE.htm
>
>
Well blow me down with a feather. Be nice if catholic sites were updated
wouldn't it. The New Advent on-line encyclopedia goes on and on about
celibacy/married priests, pages and pages of it, but never gets around
to saying a simple "Yes" or "No". Fortunately they pointed to the 20
most popular catholic sites where I found the following :-
The Catholic Register: Married Catholic priest ordained for remote, ...
2/22/2007 - YELLOWKNIFE, Canada (The Catholic Register) – Hundreds of
parishioners packed St. Patrick’s Church in Yellowknife, Northwest
Territories, on Feb. 18 to see Don Flumerfelt ordained as ...
www.catholic.org/international/inte...ry.php?id=23138
And that Yellowknife archdiocese takes in the very northern part of
Alberta !
So YES Judson, there ARE exceptions even in the Western rite church !
(BTW when they are boozing in the pubs up there in the winter, they
leave their car engines running ALL the time ! Even St. Christopher
couldn't help to get a cold car started).
Jimmy, Calgary, Alberta
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-22, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:09:49 -0500, "Charles Hottel"
<chottel@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:uogrr3hm5a9mo14prag8h936ibbpbbcodb@
4ax.com...
><snip>
>
>I am no expert as I am not Catholic, but my wife is, and the church we
>attend has a married priest. I think he was Episcopalian and was already
>married when he converted to the Catholic church.
>
>See: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MARPRIE.htm
>
Thanks for that link. I trust EWTN in matters of the Roman Catholic
church. I was unaware that such dispensation could be and had been
granted. It is not a widely known fact and probably one the Vatican
would not want to have to do very often.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Have I learned from my mistakes? Yes, I believe
I could repeat them all exactly the same."
-- Kurt Vonnegut
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-22, 6:55 pm |
| "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Charles Hottel wrote:
>
> Well blow me down with a feather. Be nice if catholic sites were updated wouldn't it. The New Advent on-line encyclopedia goes on
> and on about celibacy/married priests, pages and pages of it, but never gets around to saying a simple "Yes" or "No". Fortunately
> they pointed to the 20 most popular catholic sites where I found the following :-
>
> The Catholic Register: Married Catholic priest ordained for remote, ...
> 2/22/2007 - YELLOWKNIFE, Canada (The Catholic Register) – Hundreds of parishioners packed St. Patrick’s Church in Yellowknife,
> Northwest Territories, on Feb. 18 to see Don Flumerfelt ordained as ...
>
> www.catholic.org/international/inte...ry.php?id=23138
>
> And that Yellowknife archdiocese takes in the very northern part of Alberta !
>
> So YES Judson, there ARE exceptions even in the Western rite church !
What I had heard through the years was that there were many married
priests in Africa, which some here denied. I didn't debate it, because
I have no first hand knowledge. But if that is happening here in North
America, there may be truth in the reports of married African priests
as well.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-22, 6:55 pm |
| "SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
> "Charles Hottel" <chottel@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that link. I trust EWTN in matters of the Roman Catholic
> church. I was unaware that such dispensation could be and had been
> granted. It is not a widely known fact and probably one the Vatican
> would not want to have to do very often.
Isn't EWTN broadcast from here in Irondale, Alabama? Irondale is only
about 15 miles from where I live. Irondale is also the home of the real
restaurant from which the "Whistle Stop" cafe was taken in the movie
"Fried Green Tomatoes." You can still buy fried green tomatoes there.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-22, 6:55 pm |
| SkippyPB wrote:
>
> That is not so. A priest cannot be married under any circumstance. An
> Anglican cannot laterally transfer (there is no such thing) to
> Catholicism. He would have to convert to Catholicism. In the course
> of that he would no longer be an Anglican priest and, if he was
> married, he could not become a Catholic priest. He could, however,
> become a Deacon.
>
>
'Tis too! Pope John Paul II, through the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, issued a clear although brief statement in June 1980.
"Here is a good example of the Pastoral Provision in action: Recently, St.
Mary the Virgin Episcopal Church in Arlington, Texas, under the pastorship
of Father Allan Hawkins became St. Mary the Virgin Catholic Church, with the
entire congregation, and Father Hawkins himself, becoming full members of
the Catholic Church.
"After much agonizing, the entire parish voted to petition Catholic Bishop
Joseph P. Delaney about such a possibility in June 1991. The congregation
and Father Hawkins were received; now after three years, Father Hawkins has
been ordained as a Catholic priest and serves his parish as he did for 14
years as an Episcopalian minister."
Maybe it's just because we do things differently in Texas...
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:35:25 -0500, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:17:58 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>That is not so. A priest cannot be married under any circumstance. An
>Anglican cannot laterally transfer (there is no such thing) to
>Catholicism. He would have to convert to Catholicism. In the course
>of that he would no longer be an Anglican priest and, if he was
>married, he could not become a Catholic priest. He could, however,
>become a Deacon.
>
>
I have henceforth been corrected on this issue of a priest being able
to marry. The facts basically are that the Pope (and only the Pope)
can make an exception as has been done sparingly in the past. When
talking about a person who is a priest in another church (Anglican,
Eastern Rite etc.), that person can become a priest in the Roman
Catholic church and remain married. He may not be the head or lead
priest in a parish. The rule regarding this is a married man can be
ordained (a priest) but an ordained man cannot marry.
>I'm not sure about the polygamy thing. I'll have to research that
>one. We just had an African priest visiting our parish some months
>ago and I believe he mentioned something about this, but I don't
>recall exactly what he said.
>
>
On the issue of polygamy, it is handled on a case by case basis
because, where it is legal, it is such and economic as well as
cultural custom and in many cases it would not be feasible to break up
the entire "family". What generally happens to polygamists who
convert to Roman Catholicism is the husband and his true number 1 wife
are allowed to be blessed by the church and be converted and partake
of all of the sacrements. However, he must give up his other wives
and they may, at their own discretion, covert as well but will be
single. In the cases of where this would cause extreme hardship, the
whole family is taken into the church but only the man and the #1 wife
are "blessed" by the church. It's a real stickey-wicket as they say.
>
>Used to be that way, but since they now allow Tridentine Masses, those
>are said in Latin.
>
>
>Regards,
>Remove nospam to email me.
>
>Steve
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Have I learned from my mistakes? Yes, I believe
I could repeat them all exactly the same."
-- Kurt Vonnegut
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-25, 6:55 pm |
| "SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> On the issue of polygamy, it is handled on a case by case basis
> because, where it is legal, it is such and economic as well as
> cultural custom and in many cases it would not be feasible to break up
> the entire "family". What generally happens to polygamists who
> convert to Roman Catholicism is the husband and his true number 1 wife
> are allowed to be blessed by the church and be converted and partake
> of all of the sacrements. However, he must give up his other wives
> and they may, at their own discretion, covert as well but will be
> single. In the cases of where this would cause extreme hardship, the
> whole family is taken into the church but only the man and the #1 wife
> are "blessed" by the church. It's a real stickey-wicket as they say.
Wow! The one case where Roman Catholicism permits divorce is to
support accepting a polygamist priest and let him stay married to one
of the wives, something they otherwise forbid?
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-25, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:03:48 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>Wow! The one case where Roman Catholicism permits divorce is to
>support accepting a polygamist priest and let him stay married to one
>of the wives, something they otherwise forbid?
They permit annulments for various reasons - I suspect this is treated
as an annulment.
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-25, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:03:48 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Wow! The one case where Roman Catholicism permits divorce is to
>support accepting a polygamist priest and let him stay married to one
>of the wives, something they otherwise forbid?
Divorce is not allowed if you were married in the Catholic Church.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Marry me and I'll never look at another horse!."
-- Groucho Marx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|