hahaha. Do you see the irony here?

Fallible man.

Gotta love it.    

Exactly.

Lula, you stake the entire praying to the dead thing on this one little verse?

Come on.  Why is it when it comes to everything else God hates, we are given multiple verses?

The church is not infallible because it is made up of fallible men.

Ask the children who were molested and raped by priests and then the infallible church covered it up.

KFC has totally kicked your butt in this argument.  A wise woman would see it, acknowledge it.  I believe you are smarter than you portray yourself here.

 

Yes Lula..it's like this. I spent yesterday very carefully expositing that section in scripture very carefully bit by bit, precept upon precept and what do you return with? Your response #222 which has nothing to do with the subject matter. Instead you chose to answer AD's very well researched answer as well with a long diatribe of CC dogma.

AD brought up a good point. When you try to build a point against us you go to the extremes like Jewish mysticism believers or Protestant wackos and compare them to the CC. You know quite well you have your own wackos in your own denomination.

And I have yet to get you to acknowledge anywhere in the OT where we see it's ok to pray to the dead. We see lots of burying and they went to be with the fathers talk....but that was the end of it for them. Even David when his infant son died. He knew then.....that was it. His son went to the other side of eternity and he would later go to him.



I agree with Tova here. I believe you to be MUCH smarter than you're choosing at this moment to be. I know how much you do your own research and how much pride you take in this....but the problem here Lula and I know this with absoulute assurity that we have tread upon major CC doctrine and you CANNOT go against it without seriously having to question the CC's teaching. This is where the rubber meets the road....where the truth meets tradition. Which way are you going to turn?

So when it comes to the scriptures you have to say it takes second seat to the teachings of the CC. Like I said yesterday it was the nuts and bolts of this whole discussion.

I am 'trying' to find a Book of Machabees where I can also look at the Hebrew. I would really like to see what this verse says in the Hebrew (not Latin or any other). I have different idea of what this verse is talking about but rather than spouting off my opinion I will continue to see if I can find what I'm looking for. Something tells me that this verse is slightly mistranslated or the expression of words present a different perspective. Who knows, I could be wrong?

If someone can help me with the above that would be greatly appreciated.





KFC, I think that we ALL are guilty of this one not just Lula.

The CC tradition is very steep. It's unlike most religions...in that once a traditon is formalized it can NEVER be rescinded and has always to be obeyed or believed.

I have spent most of my adult life making sure my traditions are in line with scripture. If they are not out they go. Many don't know the diff between the two.

I'm sure you're familar with the Bareans. I would consider myself in line with their way of thinking. I question why we do what we do all the time. If it doesn't contradict scripture than I'm ok with it. But there are times when a choice has to be made.

I'm not sure that Maccabees was written in Hebrew AD. Was it? Could it have been written in Greek? If so, you'd have to go there.

My guess is to go back to Jerome who translated the whole bible into Latin including the Apocrytha. He also did not like these extra books saying they read differently and didn't belong with the others. But he did translate them originally.

Well, according to Wikipedia and NewAdvent.org (Catholic Encyclopedia) they suggest that these books were originally written in Hebrew. I would look to the Greek but from my research it seems that even in the Greek texts, there are conflicting translations from text to text(not so reassuring).

hmmmmmm I'll see what I can find out here. I may have something since I've got tons of religious reference history books and such that may give me some direction. I'll get back.

Lula may need a few days to come down from the rapture of the Pope's visit.  

ummmmm T.......?

they don't believe in the Rapture!   

Let me ask you a simple question. At a meal, when do you pray?

honestly? Usually before but not always. Sometimes I find myself chowing down and thanking God as I'm doing so....why?

Do you understand why there is conflicting scriptures in the Bible about when?

Deut 8:10 and John 6:23

Next question: To you when does the day start?

there's no confliction of scripture at all.

Are you trying to say that God command us to pray before we eat in the OT and then he commands us to pray before we eat in the NT? That's not at all what's happening here. These are not commands.

Go over and read Deut 6:11-12.

We are to have thankful hearts no matter what. The NT says to pray consistently without ceasing with hearts of thanksgiving always.....whether we eat, drink, sleep we should do all for the glory of God. Always remember God....whether we do so before we eat or after we eat.

The day starts at diff times for diff people. For me the day starts at 7 am. Legally I guess we could say the day starts at midnight. For some the day starts at 6 am. For the Orthodox Jews the day starts at sunset.

Why? What is this 21 questions?   

Hey....I thought you were going to exposit that scripture in Matthew for me? What's up with that?

kfc posts:


ad posts:

As to conflicting translations...

The Septuagint means 70 becasue it was translated into Greek by 70 Jerusalem Jews. The work of translating the Hebrew into Greek began about 250BC and was completed about 100BC. This translation was made for the Jews of Egypt so that they could read the Sacred Books in Greek the only language that most of them knew at the time. The 70 translators worked independently of each other. Their work was so identical that Rabbi Abraham Meyer Heller said, although the work was done by the 70 without consulting the other,they were all found to be exactly alike."

As I've already said, the Greek translation was made during the era when Judaism was the authoritative religion of Almighty God. Its integrity was not ever questioned by the Jews during those days, in fact, according to the Jewish Ency. it was greeted "with enthusiam everywhere".

The 70 translaters were selected by High Priest Eleasar, who was, as were all High PRiests, "The supreme ecclesiastical authority and chief representative of the people before God" as Vallentine's Jewish Encyclopedia says on pg. 284. On the other hand, the Rabbi's of our day accept the canon which was "definitively fixed" by Rabbi Akiba who, like the Rabbi's of our day, had "no sacred power" whatsoever. Rabbi Akiba, who refused to accept Christ as the predicted Messias, born of a Virgin as Isias said He would be born, rallied to the banner of a fake Messias, Simeon, whom he crowned Bar Cochba, "Son of the Star" predicted in Numbers 24:17 to come out of Jacob. Akiba took part in the 3 year battle of Bar Cochba to establish a Messianic Kingdom in Palestine, that cost the lives of 580,000 Jews.

Converts from the Synagogue to the Church line up scripturally with High Priest Elezar instead of Akiba. The misconceptions of the Rabbis cause converts from Judaism to cry out with their Messianic Lord, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

From the earliest times, the Church used the 46 OLd Testament books of the Septuagint as the true Bible. Those 7 books accepted by the Greek or Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible but which the Jews rejected after Christ in 90AD, are called "Duetero-Canonical" books. They together with parts of Esther and Daniel are not accepted as part of the Bible by Jews or Protestants.

Not until the Protestant Reformation when Luther rejected 7 of these books. At one time he also rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse from the New Testament, but later Protestants re-inserted them. Today, the Catholic and Protestant New Testament have the same 27 Books.

From what I know, 2 Machabees was written in Greek.

In your research AD, it might be helpful to know that the 2 books of Machabees while they deal substantially with the same theme, 2 Machabees is not a sequel to 1 Machabees although it covers partially the same history 176-160 BC. The author of 2Machabees is Jason a Jew from Cyrene in North Africa. He supposedly used documents from the chronicles of the Seleucid Kings. These would be the letters 9:18-20; 11:15-17; 11:27-29 and 11:34-36.

The religious value of 2Machabees is that he frequently uses the name of GOd and visualizes God always to be close at hand, anxious to answer prayers of His chosen ones. Throughout the book the activity and intervention of God in the affiars of His people are constantly highlighted. He stresses the doctrines of the resurrection of the dead, 7:9-11; 14:46; the intercession of saints, 15:11-16, and the ability of the living to assist the departed souls by their prayers and sacrifices 12:39-46. Faith, hope and sincere love of God prevade the whole book.

St.Paul strenghens and develops this in his writings in the New Testament of which I have described at length.

Beyond Scripture, these practices are found in the accounts of North African martyrs Perpetua and Felicity in 203 AD and Tertuillan advises in 211 Christians to for their beloved dead on the anniversaies of their passing from this world. I can provide quotes from writings of St.Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Abercius in 190AD, Paul and Thecla 160AD.

Thanks TOVA7 for being so intuitive about my thoughts and feelings of the Holy Father's visit.    While he's here, I certainly plan to take in all that I can!   



Phew.....thanks KFC for clearing that up!   

Just wanted to say a few things to both of you KFC and Lula.

When you guys debate, you guys debate. You honestly put to shame a lot of others here, I mean seriously some of the posts.

TOVA7 posts:

God alone is essentially infallible, for as the Absolute Truth, He cannot deceive or be deceived. God can make the Pope infallible as His representative on earth, in order to safeguard His divine Revelation.. That He has done so is proved by the Scriptures and by the history of the Catholic Church.

Infallibility has no reference to personal errors or sins of individual popes and bishops. Infallibility doesn't mean the Pope or the bishops can do no wrong. When the Pope, the bishops and priests sin, they are bound like any other Catholic to us the same Divine means of pardon, the Sacrament of Penance.

Infallibility is not personal, but a divine prerogative given by Christ to St.Peter and his successors to keep them from error in defining faith and morals.

As far as the clerical sex abuse problem, Pope Benedict has condemned these sinful actions many times over. Personally, it sickened me and thankfully, now, the Church is going through purification.

Are you aware that sex abuse spans the spectrum of Protestant churches? For a glimpse into the problem there, you might want to read this report from the Christian Science Monitor.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01-ussc.htm

Also, I understand you have some school age children...well, the rate of sexual abuse of public school students is supposedly 100 times more than was the clerical abuse..so that might be an area worthy of investigation.

Thanks AD for noticing! KFC, need I start reminding you every time you recite something you've gotten from Protestant oral tradition? Believe me, you'll be surprised!   

KFC POSTS:


Yes, it's true the CC is very steep in her Tradition and in her traditions...and you are also correct that many don't know the difference between the two.

Tradition with a capital "T" is Sacred Tradition. God gave us both written and oral Revelation. We call written Revelation, Sacred Scripture and oral Revelation is what Catholics call Sacred Tradition....or just Tradition with a capital "T".

Scripture itself says explicitly that it is not a complete account of all the teachings of Christ and so there must be another source of faith, namely Tradition.

The Catholic Chruch gives us through Scripture and Tradition the whole of God's teaching, its meaning and a guarantee of its authenticity.

The Bible nowhere says or even implies that it is the only source of faith. St. Paul expressly teaches that Christians must believe not only what he wrote, but what he PREACHED. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle."

"Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast HEARD of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost. "The things which thou hast HEARD of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also." (Those apostles' successors).




Yes this is true...and that's because much of Christian doctrine is contained not in Scripture but in Tradition and a clear understanding of Christian doctrine requires in many cases the precise definitions of the Catholic Chruch under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The first Council of Jerusalem and the council that defined the Blessed Trinity are examples.

Sacred Tradition is not human opinion, but the teaching of an infallible authority established and authorized by Christ Himself. It's the living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church which will continue until the end of the world.

Catholics also have traditions which do change...they are distinguished from the Apostolic Tradition in that they are the liturgical or disciplinary traditions of the local Churches like the color vestments the priest wears during Mass.

That is quite the whopper and I'm still looking at it some more. I am all over the place with that one Psalms, Isaiah, Malachi, etc.

I haven't let this issue rest.



Yes I know they are not commands just wanted your input.




I ask this one because this one references more of what I was referring to earlier. Biblically our day begins at sundown but our society (which I would equate to 'tradition') says it begins at midnight. I am sure we could discuss more aspects of each our lives and find the same thing that you are accusing Lula of. I know that there are things that I am guilty of. I hope you understand I'm not trying to attack you only bring to attention that we are all guilty of this.

Oh yes Lula, I understand it is. But I don't put my preachers up on pedestals of holiness. I don't think they are a mediator between me and God and they have no special rights over me or mine. And I certainly don't leave my boys alone with any man who isn't blood family, and even then its a very rare thing.



AHHHHH. See, I learned something. I didn't know this.



But no rapture? Ah, that's no fun.  

ok, just thought maybe you forgot.



ok, but I didn't really give you much really.



Now see I don't see any commands where God tells us we are to start our day at night. I mean I understand how it started with creation and all and that's what the Jews started off with but if you notice the gospels and the timing of the crucifixion especially, but not limited to you'd see some discrepancies over the timing. Some think it's contradictions when what we see are accounts based on Roman time and accounts based on Jewish time. Mark's account, for instance, gives Roman timing.

So as far as traditins go, yes we all have traditions. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with traditions as long as they don't violate scripture.



now I find this interesting. Remember when I mentioned something about how I find it interesting what things you grab onto and other things you ignore?

Well according to scripture it's very plain we are NOT to call any man father.....I'm not talking natural fathers I'm talking here you're calling a religious leader..."Holy Father."

The reason I find this interesting is that you see Paul praying to and about a dead person when it's not clear at all that he is, and makes no sense logically that he is....but yet you insist on it.....but then when Jesus said "call no many father" you do so without batting an eyelash. I noticed you captitalize it as well. I'm not so sure God would take kindly to that kind of adoration.

Peculiar.

I meant to add to this.

To say because I look at our time diff than the earliest Jewish timing or how God started it at Creation and telling people it's ok to pray to the dead, and to pray to Mary are not at all equal.

In fact, it's very very clear in scripture via commands, we are to stay away from all thoughts of reaching those who have gone onto eternity. I don't see any commands at all about what time we start our day especially since we are not under the law anymore.

So according to you my calling Pope Benedict the "Holy Father" is adoration?

Your private interpretation of St. Matt. 23:9 is not only literally rigid, it's erroneous.

Don't Protestants call George Washington the Father of our country?

Neither am I or the Catholic Church violating Scripture by the practice of calling priests "Father". Let's prove it by starting with a biblical truth on which we can agree: that "God is not a God of confusion...". This means that it's contrary to God's nature to contradict Himself. And so, if Christ had intended His meaning in St. Matt. 23:9 about calling no man on earth father to be understood as literally rigid as you make it out to be, then we would expect to see that the meaning followed all other incidents where this issue comes up in Scripture. The problem with your objection to the practice of calling Catholic priests 'Father' and the Pope the "Holy Father" is that the biblical evidence shows conclusively that Jesus could not have meant literally that we shouldn't refer to humans with that term of respect.

Here's the passage just before Christ excoriates the corrupt and hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees...Christ says, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and aobserve whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.. They do all their deeds to be seen by men....they love the place of honor at feasts...and being called rabbi by men. 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. Niether be called masters, for you have one Master, the Christ...."

What does Christ mean by this? We can rule out the idea that He meant literally not to call human beings father becasue we have so many examples of the Apostles doing exactly that.

Acts 7:2 we see the young deacon, Stephen, filled with the Holy Ghost, addressing the very same men as "brethren and fathers". Read his soliloquy to the Sanhedrin...he refers to various men as "father". Not only was the Holy Spirit inspiring Stephen to utter these words, but the Holy Spirit later inspired St.Luke to record them in the book of Acts.

If Christ intended us to understand His words to mean literally, call no man father, then how do you explain the fact that the Holy Spirit in Acts 7 violates what Christ said not to do? Since God is not the Author of confusion the only solution is to recognize that Jesus did not mean what you think He meant.

What does St.Paul say in Acts 22:1 when he addresses the Jewish leaders..."Brethren and fathers, hear the defense which I now make before you." Would St.Paul do such a thing if Christ had literally forbidden that?

And then what about Christ Himself doing exactly that? St.Luke 16:24 Christ refers to "Father Abraham" in His teaching about Lazurus and the rich man. St. Paul refers to Abraham as the "father of many nations". In Thessalonians he compared his ministry to the Thess. Christians to a "father with his children". St.John uses the same term in 2:13-14.

St.Paul's explanation of his own priestly ministry is more biblical evidence that the religious title 'father' is not contrary to Christ's meaning.

"For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, them be imitators of me." 1Cor. 4:16. Here, St.Paul not only calls himself "father" in a religious sense, he urges us to imitate him.

Here's another point to ponder...

God in the Fourth Commandment terms one of our parents "father" and tells us to honor him as such. The passage in St.Matt 23:9 means that Christ was employing a strong way of saying that no earthly father may come before God, as if you had no other father with rights over you. We must realize that all paternity is of God, and that we owe our being, and all that we have including our earthly father to HIm. Nor can any claims of an earthly father avail against our duties to God, our Heavenly Father.

I can assure you that Catholics do not call a priest "Father" or the Pope the "HoLy Father" in the same sense as that in which we call God the One Supreme Father. A priest is by God's providence and by the authority of Christ a father in the spiritual sense just as a natural parent is a father in an earthly sense.

Catholic priests administer the Sacraments, teach, help, correct, lead, guide...they do all in the spiritual life that an earthly father does in the temperal life.

Christ decided that priests were necessary giving them authority in His Church to administer the 7 Sacraments including the one of Holy Orders.

The Protestant Reformers rejected Christ's establishment of a special ministerial priesthood with exclusive authority with a commission to continue the Lord's ministry on earth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This passage was chosen by them for its usefullness for rejecting the Catholic priesthood and has been handed down to you by Protestant oral tradition.

ok...let's look at the verse.

"Men, brethren and fathers, hear you my defence which I make now to you."

This is not even close to calling a Pope "Holy Father" Paul is addressing a group of men and notice he doesn't capitalize "fathers." Nope not seeing it here Lula. You're again, just taking a verse to justify a CC teaching that is erroneous.



It is? Why? Because it differs from the CC's teaching? Now go back and read that verse again and include v6-12 in context. What is He really saying about not calling NO MAN father?

The whole context of these six verses which v9 is in the middle is that we are NOT to seek prominence of position or titles. We are to be humble servants. These men walking around seeking such titles and accolades are NOT what Christ had in mind for leaders. Remember Christ picked the lowly and what we might see as disqualified to be the leaders after Him. He didn't pick the Pharisees who were the religious leaders of His day walking around in their long black robes.



back to Acts? Ok here's the verse

"And he said, Men, brethren and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Charran."

both instances that you mentioned in Acts you DID NOT put in the whole verse. Neither time did you include "men" chosing only the other two descriptive words to describe these men. Why is that?

Again, Stephen is addressing a bunch of men. He's not calling them sisters and mothers because that's not whom he was addressing. Also to call Abraham, their father (small F) is like calling our early fathers father. Abraham was the physical father to all the Jews. They all started with Abraham.



Again, it wasn't Christ calling Abraham father, it was the rich man who went to hell. He cried out in agony:

"Father Abraham have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame"

Abraham, again, was called the father of the nations because he was the father to the Jews. Besides, even here, we're talking about a non-believer who went to hell so not sure this would be a good verse for you to use. There's nothing in John 2:13-14?????

So to call the Pope "Holy Father" is not like anything we see here in scripture. Christ even said..."call no man Father." God is our source of spiritual life, not man.

Like I said, you dismiss this verse which is plain and straight yet choose to find a dead man in an obscure verse in Paul's letter to young Timothy. Doesn't make any sense Lula.