If child molesting priests aren’t defrocked but moved to another congregation, I wonder what it takes to get defrocked. Probably something really terrible like actually reading the Bible.
Hey Ji2m, you mean pointing out the inconsistencies between Catholic doctrine and what the Bible really says (which they tend to ignore), because there are no inconsistencies in the Bible itself.
Umm…these days, the fastest way for a Catholic cleric to get suspended, and then defrocked, is sexual abuse.
Dutchboy, what about the two stories of creation (with different order) in Genesis 1 and 2? Who killed Goliath, David (1 Sam 17) or Elhanan, son of Jair (2 Sam 21:19)? Did Jesus carry his own cross (John 19:17) or was Simon of Cyrene drafted (Luke 23:26)? There are many other inconsistencies of fact and detail as well.
Catholic Doctrine tries hard to be consistent with our understanding of the Bible. We’ve only been studying it for 2000 years now.
The only differences between Genesis chapter 1 and 2 is that chapter 1 contains more details.
Many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error.
Jesus started out carrying it but then Simon of Cyrene was drafted. Once again different writers saw fit to include or not include some details, or focusing on different points.
No inconsistencies in any of them, as you’ll find with any of the other ‘inconsistencies’ you are referring to.
And Catholic doctrine is far from what the Bible actually teaches: Jesus is NOT GOD but the SON of GOD (Matthew 16:16, John 20:17), we don’t have a soul that is immortal but ARE souls that do die (Genesis 2:7, Ezekiel 18:4, Ecclesiastes 9:5), the guy up front taking the lead in the congregation is NOT to be referred to as “father” (Matthew 23:6-12)… should I keep going?
Why do you suppose that the Catholic church tried for hundreds of years to suppress the Bible and anyone translating it into the common language? Because it seems like almost everything that the Bible says not to do the Catholic church does, and what it says to do they don’t do.
By the way bmonk, the Catholic church has NOT been around for 2000 years. It was founded by Roman emperor Constantine (a practicing pagan, which would explain all the non-biblical beliefs) in the 4th century C.E. Before that they were known simply as Christians, not Catholics. You might want to do some actual research on the Bible and Bible history. Start by reading your own Catholic encyclopedia, which will tell you most of which I’ve just told you.
Dutchboy, the Fathers of the Church writings show that Church doctrine is consistent before and after Constantine. Dan Brown is one of the most popular proponents of the alternative view. If you are using him as a source, you are in trouble.
Genesis 1 speaks of the animals being created first, and then humans. Genesis 2 has Adam being created, then the animals, and then Eve.
In John, Jesus may not use the word “God” (although Thomas does in Chapter 20), but he uses words that are the equivalent (“I am”), and does not rebuke others for speaking of him in that way. Luke is also particularly interesting in that regard: While Jesus gets away with that sort of language, Paul and Barnabas do all they can to “stop such foolishness” in Acts, while those who do not, such as Herod, come to a bad and immediate end.
We believe, based on the Apostolic succession, that we are the same community and Church founded by Jesus Christ. Before Constantine, there were several ways to refer to this community: Acts notes “The Way” as well as “Christian”. At the time of Constantine, “Catholic” and “Orthodox” were introduced to distinguish this church from the “Arians.” They had been used (as descriptors) before that date, and Christian continued to be used after.
As for being referred to as “Father”, I prefer “Brother” anyway.
bmonk, I’ve never heard of Dan Brown. As for my sources, your own Catholic Encyclopedia states about the Trinity: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. The New Encyclopædia Britannica, the Encyclopedia Americana, the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, and more say the same. And since “neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament”, (Encyclopædia Britannica) this means that neither Jesus nor his apostles taught it.
As for Genesis, you’re just nit-picking there. Do you think that the writer (Moses) would write something in chapter 1 and then immediately contradict himself in the very next chapter? Again, in chapter 1, he includes all the details of creation, while in chapter 2, he focuses on the creation of man, leaving out all the details from the previous “days” that he had already mentioned. (There are a lot of details in chapter 1, if I had written it and then were focusing on one aspect of creation, I wouldn’t want to write that all again either)
I get the feeling that you don’t want to find the truth of what the Bible really teaches. But at least you admit that the use of the title “father” is inappropriate for anyone but God himself. Maybe there is hope for you yet.
Perhaps the formulation of the “Trinity” was not fully established until about 400, but we already see, at the end of the Gospel according to Matthew, baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The church did learn, from the conflict with the Arians, that purely scriptural language was not sufficient; Homousios (of one being) and Trinity were two terms that had to be used to safeguard the faith.
Genesis certainly seems to include the work of more than one author, and if we can separate out three sources, it is more than possible that two could contradict each other. For another example that comes to mind, did Noah take one pair of each animal, or seven pairs of clean animals and one of unclean–and why? One source wants to include “extra” pairs of animals so that Noah can offer sacrifice when the ark comes to dry ground.
You would think that, if Jesus was part of a godhead, he would have made that very clear. The fact that he didn’t, and that the doctrine of the trinity took another 300+ years to be formulated fits a prophesy by the Apostle Paul (2 Thessalonians chapter 2) about an apostasy that was already taking place and that the only thing holding it in check was the Apostles still being around. Funny, isn’t it, that it wasn’t too long after to death of the last of the Apostles that the doctrines of the trinity, hellfire, the immortality of the soul, and so forth came into being, as the Catholic Encyclopedia admits.
It seems to me that, while you seem to be well versed in Catholic doctrine, the more you learn about it, the weaker your faith gets and the more you start grasping for what you perceive as inconsistencies in the Bible. The more I learn about the BIBLE, though (not about any orthodox dogma), the more it makes sense and the more my faith grows. If learning more about Catholic doctrine weakens your faith instead of strengthening it, this should tell you something about it.
Where did you learn that only the Bible is the source of truth about God?
What text of the Bible is inerrant, if you hold that? Is it the originally written text, the original Greek/Hebrew text we have now, a translation? (And which translation?)
How do you interpret the Bible?
How sure are you in your interpretation? Are you willing to bet, not only your life, but your salvation on it?
I believe that Jesus did make it clear, if not in words, then in actions that he was God. Further, the Father vindicated him by raising him from the dead. Then, by sending the Holy Spirit, it was again verified. I believe that the community of the Church was promised the Spirit as a guide, to remind us of what Jesus taught, and to keep us from going far astray in our efforts to follow Jesus. My faith is strong, including the recognition that I do not understand everything perfectly, but that God has given me a multitude of companions and witnesses along the way so that I may be guided in truth.
Is that sufficiently clear? The more I learn about my Catholic faith, the more I am confirmed in it.
As a Catholic, we have not only the Bible, but we also have a long tradition of interpreting and understanding and teaching our faith. One aspect of that is the “Patristric” works, writings of the first centuries that, among other things, give witness to the continuity of the faith and how early its teachings appear.
Some of those texts, the “Apostolic Fathers”, are very early, perhaps even contemporaneous with writings that were chosen as part of the Bible. These have less authority, but still are considered Catholic (or Christian). They were, in some cases, not included in the Bible only because they were not seen as written by the Apostles or from their direct authority.
Ignatius was an early bishop of Antioch, traditionally the third (after Simon Peter and Euodius), brought to Rome to be martyred about 108. We have a series of letters from him. In his Ephesians V.1-3, he speaks of Jesus Christ as being united with the Father, as the Church should be united with Jesus Christ, so that, we, being in union with the Bishop, and receiving the bread of God, may also be subject to God. Two chapters later, in VII.2, he goes further: “There is one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and yet not born, who is God in man, true life in death, both of Mary and of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.” Clearly, Ignatius believes Jesus is divine.
When did this belief develop? As strongly as it was held later, the most compelling interpretation is that the Apostles themselves held it. Even Thomas in John 20:28 said, “My Lord and my God.” to Jesus.
(Incidentally, that is one reason to believe that Constantine did not change Church belief or theology as much as often is claimed. In the time of his sons, battles were fought over whether Jesus is “homois”, “homousios” or “homoiousios” with the Father. If they invested that much energy fighting over one letter, what’s the chance that Constantine could force major changes on them?)
“By the way bmonk, the Catholic church has NOT been around for 2000 years. It was founded by Roman emperor Constantine (a practicing pagan, which would explain all the non-biblical beliefs) in the 4th century C.E. Before that they were known simply as Christians, not Catholics. You might want to do some actual research on the Bible and Bible history. Start by reading your own Catholic encyclopedia, which will tell you most of which I’ve just told you.”
In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, who died about A.D. 155, the author speaks of “The whole Catholic (or “Universal”) Church throughout the world” (ch. VIII), while in Chapter X, Polycarp says, “I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn the doctrine of Christianity, set a date….” Later, in Chapter XVI, Polycarp is called “an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” Already, by the middle of the second century, Catholic, Christian (and Orthodox as well) are synonymous.
I’m sorry, but I find it hard to believe that your faith is strong when you seem to go out of your way to discredit God’s word the Bible. And since it’s obvious that you’re not going to listen to anything I have to tell you, no matter how strong the evidence or its source, I’m going to take Jesus’ advice about pearls…(Matthew 7:6 in case you didn’t know)
No, I just believe, as the Catholic Church has come to believe, that the Bible is not inerrant in every way. Rather, it teaches what God wants taught, “teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum 11.)
“However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men [and women] in human fashion,” the interpreter must “carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.” (DV 12).
That means, as we believe, that the Word can contain errors of fact, as when Jesus (or the Gospel author) misidentifies the High Priest when David got the Bread of Presence to eat, and similarly may contain errors of science. But, when it comes to matters essential to the faith, it gets it right. (This is one reason that you objected that my examples were relatively nit-picking. I agree. But, they are there.)
By the way, you have not answered my questions about your faith in the Bible. Where does it come from? What is your evidence?
@Dutchboy1, I did get around to looking at 2 Thess. 2, and the apostasy seems to be described in the first two verses as: “We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him, not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a spirit, or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand.” That is, it is not the divinity of the Son, or the Trinity that St. Paul is worried about, but the teaching about the end of the world.
The Catholic church has introduced SO MANY false doctrines and has shed SO MUCH innocent blood (does the Spanish Inquisition and forcing people to convert at the point of a sword ring a bell?), I definitely wouldn’t want to be associated with it when God decides that it’s time to clean-up the world.
Where did you learn that only the Bible is the source of truth about God?
What text of the Bible is inerrant, if you hold that? Is it the originally written text, the original Greek/Hebrew text we have now, a translation? (And which translation?)
How do you interpret the Bible?
How sure are you in your interpretation? Are you willing to bet, not only your life, but your salvation on it?
And, regarding the Spanish Inquisition, that was a political aberration, which was a mistake. But not more than the Star Chamber in England (Anglican) or the Witch trials, primarily in England, Germany and America.
As for the earlier Inquisitions in South France and Italy, there is evidence of some excesses. However, they were largely successful in reducing the violence, considering that (1) all courts at that time accepted torture as a way of gathering evidence, (2) the secular authorities would have punished the “guilty” anyway; the inquisition was a way for the Church to demand sufficient evidence to justify the punishment.
And, as for most of the more extreme claims, such as 50 million killed, or even 10 million, those are simply ridiculous. Consider how much effect the Black Death had, causing, by some estimates, 75 to 100 million deaths across Europe. One half, or even one tenth that many deaths in a much smaller area? And by human agency? The outcry and the social repercussions would have been tremendous. Historically, there just is not the evidence.
As for forcing people to convert at the point of a sword, yes, it did happen. In the Reformation era, everyone was doing it. It is not only a Catholic problem.
“You have all established your beliefs and faith in your religion, but what I want to talk about is the corruption in churches. humans by their very nature are sinners. So what happens when someone we trusts to deliver us our daily bread suddenly becomes consumed by sinful desires, and spreads the corruption in church. I have seen news reports about Catholic Churches and their religious leaders that have succumbed to their sins, I have seen people who were outraged at this, lose their faith and walked away. To this I am reminded of what my father once told me, It is not the church or it’s religious speakers that we should put our faith in, It is God who we should have faith in. He is the Alpha and Omega. ( The beginning and end ) Our faith in him, especially in these hard times, is a test for our souls. If we choose to believe in God and accept him into our lives, and do his will Then his love will cleanse our souls of it’s sins and we will have everlasting life that he has promised. So If your church became corrupted, would you lose faith and be driven away?”
Yes. Even Catholics believe that we are not saved by the Church, or the Saints, or the doctrines. We are saved by God, through Jesus Christ. God does not make a blanked judgment according to our Church affiliation. Rather, the Church was instituted to give us companions for support and guidance along the way–the “Communion of Saints” from the Creed, as described in Paul’s letters and also in the Letter to the Hebrews, plus Sirach in the Old Testament.
It wouldn’t do any good to answer any more of his questions. I’ve already answered plenty of his questions, giving strong and clear proof from both the Bible and various well known encyclopedias (including his own Catholic encyclopedia), and it did no good; he still sticks to his false doctrines and sites the founders of those false doctrines as proof of their authenticity. By that criterion you could find proof of any doctrine, no matter how contradictory or goofy, that you want, so I’m taking the advice of Matthew 7:6 with him.
One thought for those actually willing to listen: Both world wars took place primarily in countries considered to be Christian. If the church leaders (Catholic leaders being the most prominent among them) had taught their followers what the Bible says about Christians being politically neutral (John 17:16, Matthew 26:52, John 6:15, 18:36), neither war would have taken place. Instead, they were in the front lines blessing the weapons and egging the soldiers on to kill their brothers on the other side (compare John 13:34, 35). How many lives, both military and civilian, were lost in those wars, and on whose hands is all that blood? The answer is those church leaders. So you have to ask yourselves: “do I want to be associated with those churches when God decides that it’s time to clean-up the world?”
But don’t give up hope, God does have a people that he will save (Acts 15:14, Isaiah 43:10), you just have to find them or let them find you.
By the way bmonk, the Catholic church has NOT been around for 2000 years. It was founded by Roman emperor Constantine (a practicing pagan, which would explain all the non-biblical beliefs) in the 4th century C.E. Before that they were known simply as Christians, not Catholics. You might want to do some actual research on the Bible and Bible history. Start by reading your own Catholic encyclopedia, which will tell you most of which I’ve just told you.
and
bmonk, I’ve never heard of Dan Brown. As for my sources, your own Catholic Encyclopedia states about the Trinity: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. The New Encyclopædia Britannica, the Encyclopedia Americana, the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, and more say the same. And since “neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament”, (Encyclopædia Britannica) this means that neither Jesus nor his apostles taught it.
I get the feeling that you don’t want to find the truth of what the Bible really teaches. But at least you admit that the use of the title “father” is inappropriate for anyone but God himself. Maybe there is hope for you yet.
And:
he still sticks to his false doctrines and sites [sic] the founders of those false doctrines as proof of their authenticity. By that criterion you could find proof of any doctrine, no matter how contradictory or goofy, that you want, so I’m taking the advice of Matthew 7:6 with him.
I’ve shown that Catholic, along with Christian, was in use from the middle of the second century. I have read the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it is good, but there are more detailed histories out there. The Church was not founded by Constantine, but by Jesus Christ in the community of the disciples and Apostles. Constantine simply made it legal to be a (public) member of the Church, and called the Bishops together to clarify the faith they already held. Hence the distinction: the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the fourth Century, but it was already believed in the first, albeit not with the same clarity of what it meant and all its consequences, nor with the same unity of words. It takes time to find the proper human words to express divine and spiritual realities. It’s one thing we need the Spirit’s help for.
As for limiting ourselves to the words of the Scriptures, we found with Arius that they were insufficient. We tried, but could not show how Arius misread the Scriptures without introducing new vocabulary: homoousios, “of one being”. And a few decades later, to deal with Nestorius and others of his time, we needed the doctrine of the Trinity. I would debate that there is no evidence of the Trinity in the Fathers of the Church. I will say that the evidence is not always as clear as we would like, because they were struggling with the proper language and with what these thing meant. But, again, we rely on the support and presence of the Holy Spirit as the guide that we remained in the truth.
But the third argument confuses me. Was the Church founded by Constantine (300s) or by the early Apostolic Fathers (about 100-150)? You cannot have it both ways. And, the problem with looking to the Apostolic Fathers as the founders of error is that there would have been enough faithful teachers and communities out there to object to such error. Why did it not happen?
Finally, apart from calling me a swine (Thank you, and may God bless you.):
Both world wars took place primarily in countries considered to be Christian. If the church leaders (Catholic leaders being the most prominent among them) had taught their followers what the Bible says about Christians being politically neutral (John 17:16, Matthew 26:52, John 6:15, 18:36), neither war would have taken place. Instead, they were in the front lines blessing the weapons and egging the soldiers on to kill their brothers on the other side (compare John 13:34, 35). How many lives, both military and civilian, were lost in those wars, and on whose hands is all that blood? The answer is those church leaders. So you have to ask yourselves: “do I want to be associated with those churches when God decides that it’s time to clean-up the world?”But don’t give up hope, God does have a people that he will save (Acts 15:14, Isaiah 43:10), you just have to find them or let them find you.
Not all the leaders were that noted as Christians. Stalin is one obvious case. And as for Catholics, yes, Hitler and Mussolini were Catholic, at least in origin. Hitler, however, had certainly abandoned the Catholic faith. We can hardly call Mussolini a good Catholic either. The French have often had anti-Catholic governments; I’m not really sure what the leaders in either war were. The British would not have been Catholic but Anglican, Otto von Bismarck was opposed to the Catholic faith, Hitler opposed all Christians who did not support his government.
And it takes more than simply teaching. Stalin famously asked, when the Pope opposed one of his actions, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” As Catholics, we have what is called free will: we are responsible for how we accept and live the teaching we receive.
Most chaplains are not there to “egg the soldiers on to kill their brothers”; they are there to minister to the soldiers and to lament the loss of life. Pope Pius XII has been accused for not getting involved in the war; the Jews complain if he had been more outspoken, perhaps the Holocaust would not have been so bad. (Would Hitler have listened, or would he just have included the Catholics? Not that that would have been all bad. But it would likely not have saved any Jews.) So, is the blood on the Church leaders, or on the persons (secular leaders) who actually began and prolonged the wars?
As another historical example: In the American Civil War, the only major denomination with large numbers both in North and South not divided by the war or by the abolition debate was the Catholic Church. We do believe in unity and “love one another” more than war.
A final argument: Besides the Spirit, there is the principle that “by your fruit you will know them.” One reason for limiting the number of recognized saints is to hold up examples of holy people worthy of being models for us, showing us how to live good lives in accord with God’s call. There are saints from every century and nearly every country. The Church is not all perfect, but we continue to have good, dedicated people among us.
Looks like bmonk is an adherent to the saying “If you can’t dazzle them with details, baffle them with baloney”. This is evident when he said “Matthew (27:45) mentions the darkness covering the Earth from noon to mid-afternoon, while John says nothing about it. When Judas is sent to betray him, “it is night” (13:30), but it is inconceivable that the crucifixion take place in the dark, because, “Whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God” (3:21), “I am the light of the world” (8:12), and especially “We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (9:4-5) Can the world’s light act in the dark? Not for John.”
It doesn’t take a college educated theologian to realize that the light mentioned here is the Light of the Truth, not physical light or darkness. Besides, if you read the whole account, the Bible clearly says that while Jesus’ arrest and trial (if you want to call it that) took place at night, it wasn’t until morning that he was hung up. So either bmonk isn’t too bright himself, or he is actually trying to cover up what the Bible really says with ‘baloney’. Since he doesn’t seem to be stupid, I’ve got to conclude that it is the latter.
His attitude is also evident in the fact that when I asked “Why do you suppose that the Catholic church tried for hundreds of years to suppress the Bible and anyone translating it into the common language?”, he replied with “We never objected to EXPERTS and SCHOLARS studying the Bible. Monks have an unbroken tradition of 14 or 15 centuries of just that. WE DID FEAR THAT POORLY EDUCATED PERSONS WOULD MISUNDERSTAND THE BIBLE, and so now require the translations and footnotes be approved.” GIVE ME A BREAK! What he really means is that he condones what the Catholic church at that time did; if they caught one of these ‘poorly educated persons’ with a Bible, or worse yet, caught someone trying to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, they KILLED THEM! And they weren’t very nice about it either. If you were someone of influence they might just cut your head off, but if you were one of these ‘poorly educated persons’, they made an example of you, doing things like publicly burning you at the stake or having you drawn and quartered. (more bloodguilt on their hands)
This is exactly the kind of attitude that Jesus had to put up with from the Pharisees! Notice that, while Jesus took his message NOT to the educated religious leaders but to the COMMON PEOPLE, the Pharisees (like bmonk and Catholic priests) looked down on these ‘poorly educated persons’ with the contemptuous attitude exemplified in the statement of the Pharisees at John 7:49: “This crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.” No wonder Jesus called them hypocrites and “offspring of vipers” and said to them at Matthew 15:3-9 ‘In reply he said to them: “Why is it YOU also overstep the commandment of God because of YOUR tradition? For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.’ But YOU say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have by which you might get benefit from me is a gift dedicated to God,” he must not honor his father at all.’ And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”’
By the way, I didn’t call him a swine when I sited Matthew 7:6, this was a term used by Jesus referring to people like the Pharisees (and bmonk) who refuse to listen to reason.
Since you clarified your reference, I withdraw my thanks for calling me a swine. And, yes, the Church did go too far in killing those who were studying the Bible. But many were killed on both sides, for studying the Bible, for offering and attending the Eucharist, for offering other sacraments and prayers. It was how the times were. Now we have a, I hope, more enlightened understanding.
And I have never said the Church was perfect. We struggle, and we try to get it right, but the only promise is that we will not, as a Church, go astray in the things that matter.
Nor have Catholic priests generally despised the common people. Many had little more education themselves. Rather, we try to teach them what we can. When they could not read the Bible stories, we had them painted on the Church walls and put into the windows. We preached about them, telling the people of the Body of Christ how he calls us to act.
As for light vs. darkness, it is very evident in the Gospel according to John, not only in the spiritual sense, but in a physical sense as well. In chapter 3, Nicodemus comes “at night”, lest he be seen talking to Jesus. In Chapter 13, as I said, when Judas goes out to betray, “It was night.” And then, the crucifixion happens in the day, because this is Jesus’ great redeeming act. There is no mention of the dark here.
I repeat, of your kindness, answer these questions:
1.Where did you learn that only the Bible is the source of truth about God?
What text of the Bible is inerrant, if you hold that? Is it the originally written text, the original Greek/Hebrew text we have now, a translation? (And which translation?)
How do you interpret the Bible? That is, what principles do you use, or what tradition? Who did you learn it from?
How sure are you in your interpretation? Are you willing to bet, not only your life, but your salvation on it?
I guess this discussion has come to end. I’m surprised it hasn’t been blocked to non-geniuses. Maybe they go my the last post date instead of the comic date. Guess I’ll check back in a couple a days and see.
Yes. [sigh] I was hopeful that Dutchboy might respond, but I guess not. And it seems, for someone who accuses me that: “he still sticks to his false doctrines and sites the founders of those false doctrines as proof of their authenticity. By that criterion you could find proof of any doctrine, no matter how contradictory or goofy, that you want, so I’m taking the advice of Matthew 7:6 with him.”
However, he has yet to show that these doctrines are false, or that I cite their founders. So he gives up, I guess. After leaving a few more accusations of killing.
About that: I have never said the Church did not kill–nor did I condone those killings, as I do not. Nowadays we don’t kill–we feel excommunication is sufficient. And, in the day these things happened, were there any governments that did not use torture and the death penalty? Seems to me that in 17th and 18th Century England, theft of a few shillings was enough to be liable to death.
We, I as well as the Church, have made mistakes, and even admitted it. We are all sinners, or we would not need grace. I guess that only Dutchboy is perfect, and only he knows perfectly what is true and what is not, and how the Bible should be interpreted. Even if he will not share the principles of this wisdom with us.
As a result, I shall try to struggle on as best I can, according to the principles I have found, up to now, to be most effective and true. And make no apology for not following Dutchboy’s lead.
@bmonk You may be pleasantly surprised that even the reformed seminaries such as mine teach what you have pointed out so well about the bible in inerrancy. (Pardon the spelling, I’m tired.)
Interesting I can get to the first page of this with no problems, but the second page is for geniuses only. I’m afraid if I complain to gocomics, they’ll take away the first page.
HUMPHRIES about 15 years ago
Not this time.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
If child molesting priests aren’t defrocked but moved to another congregation, I wonder what it takes to get defrocked. Probably something really terrible like actually reading the Bible.
lewisbower about 15 years ago
Listen here Pope, I can have 100 teamsters here in an hour jackhammering Vatican Square
Westendgirl about 15 years ago
All I can say is WHOA.
Lurah about 15 years ago
Reminds me of my fav movie line “a bleeep on a rock in a frock” :D
Digital Frog about 15 years ago
They must have made a cardinal error…
Allan CB Premium Member about 15 years ago
The Pope has hit the fan today … and the comments are terrible. although, truthful
David_J Premium Member about 15 years ago
Talk about finding yourself between a frock and a hard place.
Sorry.
ChazNCenTex about 15 years ago
Papal? Bull.
Bless me Father for I have grinned.
GROG Premium Member about 15 years ago
That HR manager’s been busy. But the defrocked are leading. Maybe some of them were defrocked shortly after being frocked.
treered about 15 years ago
Boycott Yale University Press! re: The Cartoons that Shook the World
lazygrazer about 15 years ago
Less Saint Peter and more salt peter for these bogus fathers.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
Hey Ji2m, you mean pointing out the inconsistencies between Catholic doctrine and what the Bible really says (which they tend to ignore), because there are no inconsistencies in the Bible itself.
bmonk about 15 years ago
Umm…these days, the fastest way for a Catholic cleric to get suspended, and then defrocked, is sexual abuse.
Dutchboy, what about the two stories of creation (with different order) in Genesis 1 and 2? Who killed Goliath, David (1 Sam 17) or Elhanan, son of Jair (2 Sam 21:19)? Did Jesus carry his own cross (John 19:17) or was Simon of Cyrene drafted (Luke 23:26)? There are many other inconsistencies of fact and detail as well.
Catholic Doctrine tries hard to be consistent with our understanding of the Bible. We’ve only been studying it for 2000 years now.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
No inconsistencies in any of them, as you’ll find with any of the other ‘inconsistencies’ you are referring to. And Catholic doctrine is far from what the Bible actually teaches: Jesus is NOT GOD but the SON of GOD (Matthew 16:16, John 20:17), we don’t have a soul that is immortal but ARE souls that do die (Genesis 2:7, Ezekiel 18:4, Ecclesiastes 9:5), the guy up front taking the lead in the congregation is NOT to be referred to as “father” (Matthew 23:6-12)… should I keep going? Why do you suppose that the Catholic church tried for hundreds of years to suppress the Bible and anyone translating it into the common language? Because it seems like almost everything that the Bible says not to do the Catholic church does, and what it says to do they don’t do.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
By the way bmonk, the Catholic church has NOT been around for 2000 years. It was founded by Roman emperor Constantine (a practicing pagan, which would explain all the non-biblical beliefs) in the 4th century C.E. Before that they were known simply as Christians, not Catholics. You might want to do some actual research on the Bible and Bible history. Start by reading your own Catholic encyclopedia, which will tell you most of which I’ve just told you.
bmonk about 15 years ago
Dutchboy, the Fathers of the Church writings show that Church doctrine is consistent before and after Constantine. Dan Brown is one of the most popular proponents of the alternative view. If you are using him as a source, you are in trouble.
Genesis 1 speaks of the animals being created first, and then humans. Genesis 2 has Adam being created, then the animals, and then Eve.
In John, Jesus may not use the word “God” (although Thomas does in Chapter 20), but he uses words that are the equivalent (“I am”), and does not rebuke others for speaking of him in that way. Luke is also particularly interesting in that regard: While Jesus gets away with that sort of language, Paul and Barnabas do all they can to “stop such foolishness” in Acts, while those who do not, such as Herod, come to a bad and immediate end.
We believe, based on the Apostolic succession, that we are the same community and Church founded by Jesus Christ. Before Constantine, there were several ways to refer to this community: Acts notes “The Way” as well as “Christian”. At the time of Constantine, “Catholic” and “Orthodox” were introduced to distinguish this church from the “Arians.” They had been used (as descriptors) before that date, and Christian continued to be used after.
As for being referred to as “Father”, I prefer “Brother” anyway.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
bmonk, I’ve never heard of Dan Brown. As for my sources, your own Catholic Encyclopedia states about the Trinity: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. The New Encyclopædia Britannica, the Encyclopedia Americana, the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, and more say the same. And since “neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament”, (Encyclopædia Britannica) this means that neither Jesus nor his apostles taught it.
As for Genesis, you’re just nit-picking there. Do you think that the writer (Moses) would write something in chapter 1 and then immediately contradict himself in the very next chapter? Again, in chapter 1, he includes all the details of creation, while in chapter 2, he focuses on the creation of man, leaving out all the details from the previous “days” that he had already mentioned. (There are a lot of details in chapter 1, if I had written it and then were focusing on one aspect of creation, I wouldn’t want to write that all again either)
I get the feeling that you don’t want to find the truth of what the Bible really teaches. But at least you admit that the use of the title “father” is inappropriate for anyone but God himself. Maybe there is hope for you yet.
bmonk about 15 years ago
Perhaps the formulation of the “Trinity” was not fully established until about 400, but we already see, at the end of the Gospel according to Matthew, baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The church did learn, from the conflict with the Arians, that purely scriptural language was not sufficient; Homousios (of one being) and Trinity were two terms that had to be used to safeguard the faith.
Genesis certainly seems to include the work of more than one author, and if we can separate out three sources, it is more than possible that two could contradict each other. For another example that comes to mind, did Noah take one pair of each animal, or seven pairs of clean animals and one of unclean–and why? One source wants to include “extra” pairs of animals so that Noah can offer sacrifice when the ark comes to dry ground.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
You would think that, if Jesus was part of a godhead, he would have made that very clear. The fact that he didn’t, and that the doctrine of the trinity took another 300+ years to be formulated fits a prophesy by the Apostle Paul (2 Thessalonians chapter 2) about an apostasy that was already taking place and that the only thing holding it in check was the Apostles still being around. Funny, isn’t it, that it wasn’t too long after to death of the last of the Apostles that the doctrines of the trinity, hellfire, the immortality of the soul, and so forth came into being, as the Catholic Encyclopedia admits. It seems to me that, while you seem to be well versed in Catholic doctrine, the more you learn about it, the weaker your faith gets and the more you start grasping for what you perceive as inconsistencies in the Bible. The more I learn about the BIBLE, though (not about any orthodox dogma), the more it makes sense and the more my faith grows. If learning more about Catholic doctrine weakens your faith instead of strengthening it, this should tell you something about it.
bmonk about 15 years ago
Actually, I have a couple of questions for you:
Where did you learn that only the Bible is the source of truth about God? What text of the Bible is inerrant, if you hold that? Is it the originally written text, the original Greek/Hebrew text we have now, a translation? (And which translation?) How do you interpret the Bible? How sure are you in your interpretation? Are you willing to bet, not only your life, but your salvation on it?I believe that Jesus did make it clear, if not in words, then in actions that he was God. Further, the Father vindicated him by raising him from the dead. Then, by sending the Holy Spirit, it was again verified. I believe that the community of the Church was promised the Spirit as a guide, to remind us of what Jesus taught, and to keep us from going far astray in our efforts to follow Jesus. My faith is strong, including the recognition that I do not understand everything perfectly, but that God has given me a multitude of companions and witnesses along the way so that I may be guided in truth.
Is that sufficiently clear? The more I learn about my Catholic faith, the more I am confirmed in it.
bmonk about 15 years ago
As a Catholic, we have not only the Bible, but we also have a long tradition of interpreting and understanding and teaching our faith. One aspect of that is the “Patristric” works, writings of the first centuries that, among other things, give witness to the continuity of the faith and how early its teachings appear.
Some of those texts, the “Apostolic Fathers”, are very early, perhaps even contemporaneous with writings that were chosen as part of the Bible. These have less authority, but still are considered Catholic (or Christian). They were, in some cases, not included in the Bible only because they were not seen as written by the Apostles or from their direct authority.
Ignatius was an early bishop of Antioch, traditionally the third (after Simon Peter and Euodius), brought to Rome to be martyred about 108. We have a series of letters from him. In his Ephesians V.1-3, he speaks of Jesus Christ as being united with the Father, as the Church should be united with Jesus Christ, so that, we, being in union with the Bishop, and receiving the bread of God, may also be subject to God. Two chapters later, in VII.2, he goes further: “There is one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and yet not born, who is God in man, true life in death, both of Mary and of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.” Clearly, Ignatius believes Jesus is divine.
When did this belief develop? As strongly as it was held later, the most compelling interpretation is that the Apostles themselves held it. Even Thomas in John 20:28 said, “My Lord and my God.” to Jesus.
(Incidentally, that is one reason to believe that Constantine did not change Church belief or theology as much as often is claimed. In the time of his sons, battles were fought over whether Jesus is “homois”, “homousios” or “homoiousios” with the Father. If they invested that much energy fighting over one letter, what’s the chance that Constantine could force major changes on them?)
bmonk about 15 years ago
Dutchboy1 said, 3 days ago
“By the way bmonk, the Catholic church has NOT been around for 2000 years. It was founded by Roman emperor Constantine (a practicing pagan, which would explain all the non-biblical beliefs) in the 4th century C.E. Before that they were known simply as Christians, not Catholics. You might want to do some actual research on the Bible and Bible history. Start by reading your own Catholic encyclopedia, which will tell you most of which I’ve just told you.”
In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, who died about A.D. 155, the author speaks of “The whole Catholic (or “Universal”) Church throughout the world” (ch. VIII), while in Chapter X, Polycarp says, “I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn the doctrine of Christianity, set a date….” Later, in Chapter XVI, Polycarp is called “an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” Already, by the middle of the second century, Catholic, Christian (and Orthodox as well) are synonymous.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
I’m sorry, but I find it hard to believe that your faith is strong when you seem to go out of your way to discredit God’s word the Bible. And since it’s obvious that you’re not going to listen to anything I have to tell you, no matter how strong the evidence or its source, I’m going to take Jesus’ advice about pearls…(Matthew 7:6 in case you didn’t know)
bmonk about 15 years ago
No, I just believe, as the Catholic Church has come to believe, that the Bible is not inerrant in every way. Rather, it teaches what God wants taught, “teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum 11.) “However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men [and women] in human fashion,” the interpreter must “carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.” (DV 12).
That means, as we believe, that the Word can contain errors of fact, as when Jesus (or the Gospel author) misidentifies the High Priest when David got the Bread of Presence to eat, and similarly may contain errors of science. But, when it comes to matters essential to the faith, it gets it right. (This is one reason that you objected that my examples were relatively nit-picking. I agree. But, they are there.)
By the way, you have not answered my questions about your faith in the Bible. Where does it come from? What is your evidence?
bmonk about 15 years ago
And, I do not try to discredit the Bible as God’s Word. Rather, I try to keep from making claims that the evidence cannot support.
bmonk about 15 years ago
@Dutchboy1, I did get around to looking at 2 Thess. 2, and the apostasy seems to be described in the first two verses as: “We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him, not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a spirit, or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand.” That is, it is not the divinity of the Son, or the Trinity that St. Paul is worried about, but the teaching about the end of the world.
wyrm282 about 15 years ago
Loooong theological discussion that somehow came about…
Personally, I’m Agnostic, so ima just stay out of it.
bmonk about 15 years ago
Looks like Dutchboy1 bailed too, just when it was getting interesting…
Akenta about 15 years ago
I’ve been enjoying this discussion and was wondering what would happen in a few days when us non-geniuses can’t see it anymore.
bmonk about 15 years ago
[sigh] And he didn’t even bother to answer any of my questions…
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
I DID answer plenty of his questions, he just didn’t like the answers. [sigh] A closed mind is a terrible thing.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
The Catholic church has introduced SO MANY false doctrines and has shed SO MUCH innocent blood (does the Spanish Inquisition and forcing people to convert at the point of a sword ring a bell?), I definitely wouldn’t want to be associated with it when God decides that it’s time to clean-up the world.
bmonk about 15 years ago
Actually, I meant these questions:
Where did you learn that only the Bible is the source of truth about God?
What text of the Bible is inerrant, if you hold that? Is it the originally written text, the original Greek/Hebrew text we have now, a translation? (And which translation?)
How do you interpret the Bible?
How sure are you in your interpretation? Are you willing to bet, not only your life, but your salvation on it?
And, regarding the Spanish Inquisition, that was a political aberration, which was a mistake. But not more than the Star Chamber in England (Anglican) or the Witch trials, primarily in England, Germany and America.
As for the earlier Inquisitions in South France and Italy, there is evidence of some excesses. However, they were largely successful in reducing the violence, considering that (1) all courts at that time accepted torture as a way of gathering evidence, (2) the secular authorities would have punished the “guilty” anyway; the inquisition was a way for the Church to demand sufficient evidence to justify the punishment.
And, as for most of the more extreme claims, such as 50 million killed, or even 10 million, those are simply ridiculous. Consider how much effect the Black Death had, causing, by some estimates, 75 to 100 million deaths across Europe. One half, or even one tenth that many deaths in a much smaller area? And by human agency? The outcry and the social repercussions would have been tremendous. Historically, there just is not the evidence.
As for forcing people to convert at the point of a sword, yes, it did happen. In the Reformation era, everyone was doing it. It is not only a Catholic problem.
bmonk about 15 years ago
A young lady said elsewhere,
“You have all established your beliefs and faith in your religion, but what I want to talk about is the corruption in churches. humans by their very nature are sinners. So what happens when someone we trusts to deliver us our daily bread suddenly becomes consumed by sinful desires, and spreads the corruption in church. I have seen news reports about Catholic Churches and their religious leaders that have succumbed to their sins, I have seen people who were outraged at this, lose their faith and walked away. To this I am reminded of what my father once told me, It is not the church or it’s religious speakers that we should put our faith in, It is God who we should have faith in. He is the Alpha and Omega. ( The beginning and end ) Our faith in him, especially in these hard times, is a test for our souls. If we choose to believe in God and accept him into our lives, and do his will Then his love will cleanse our souls of it’s sins and we will have everlasting life that he has promised. So If your church became corrupted, would you lose faith and be driven away?”
Yes. Even Catholics believe that we are not saved by the Church, or the Saints, or the doctrines. We are saved by God, through Jesus Christ. God does not make a blanked judgment according to our Church affiliation. Rather, the Church was instituted to give us companions for support and guidance along the way–the “Communion of Saints” from the Creed, as described in Paul’s letters and also in the Letter to the Hebrews, plus Sirach in the Old Testament.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
It wouldn’t do any good to answer any more of his questions. I’ve already answered plenty of his questions, giving strong and clear proof from both the Bible and various well known encyclopedias (including his own Catholic encyclopedia), and it did no good; he still sticks to his false doctrines and sites the founders of those false doctrines as proof of their authenticity. By that criterion you could find proof of any doctrine, no matter how contradictory or goofy, that you want, so I’m taking the advice of Matthew 7:6 with him.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
One thought for those actually willing to listen: Both world wars took place primarily in countries considered to be Christian. If the church leaders (Catholic leaders being the most prominent among them) had taught their followers what the Bible says about Christians being politically neutral (John 17:16, Matthew 26:52, John 6:15, 18:36), neither war would have taken place. Instead, they were in the front lines blessing the weapons and egging the soldiers on to kill their brothers on the other side (compare John 13:34, 35). How many lives, both military and civilian, were lost in those wars, and on whose hands is all that blood? The answer is those church leaders. So you have to ask yourselves: “do I want to be associated with those churches when God decides that it’s time to clean-up the world?” But don’t give up hope, God does have a people that he will save (Acts 15:14, Isaiah 43:10), you just have to find them or let them find you.
bmonk about 15 years ago
By the way bmonk, the Catholic church has NOT been around for 2000 years. It was founded by Roman emperor Constantine (a practicing pagan, which would explain all the non-biblical beliefs) in the 4th century C.E. Before that they were known simply as Christians, not Catholics. You might want to do some actual research on the Bible and Bible history. Start by reading your own Catholic encyclopedia, which will tell you most of which I’ve just told you.
and
bmonk, I’ve never heard of Dan Brown. As for my sources, your own Catholic Encyclopedia states about the Trinity: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. The New Encyclopædia Britannica, the Encyclopedia Americana, the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, and more say the same. And since “neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament”, (Encyclopædia Britannica) this means that neither Jesus nor his apostles taught it.
I get the feeling that you don’t want to find the truth of what the Bible really teaches. But at least you admit that the use of the title “father” is inappropriate for anyone but God himself. Maybe there is hope for you yet.
And:
he still sticks to his false doctrines and sites [sic] the founders of those false doctrines as proof of their authenticity. By that criterion you could find proof of any doctrine, no matter how contradictory or goofy, that you want, so I’m taking the advice of Matthew 7:6 with him.
I’ve shown that Catholic, along with Christian, was in use from the middle of the second century. I have read the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it is good, but there are more detailed histories out there. The Church was not founded by Constantine, but by Jesus Christ in the community of the disciples and Apostles. Constantine simply made it legal to be a (public) member of the Church, and called the Bishops together to clarify the faith they already held. Hence the distinction: the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the fourth Century, but it was already believed in the first, albeit not with the same clarity of what it meant and all its consequences, nor with the same unity of words. It takes time to find the proper human words to express divine and spiritual realities. It’s one thing we need the Spirit’s help for.
As for limiting ourselves to the words of the Scriptures, we found with Arius that they were insufficient. We tried, but could not show how Arius misread the Scriptures without introducing new vocabulary: homoousios, “of one being”. And a few decades later, to deal with Nestorius and others of his time, we needed the doctrine of the Trinity. I would debate that there is no evidence of the Trinity in the Fathers of the Church. I will say that the evidence is not always as clear as we would like, because they were struggling with the proper language and with what these thing meant. But, again, we rely on the support and presence of the Holy Spirit as the guide that we remained in the truth.
But the third argument confuses me. Was the Church founded by Constantine (300s) or by the early Apostolic Fathers (about 100-150)? You cannot have it both ways. And, the problem with looking to the Apostolic Fathers as the founders of error is that there would have been enough faithful teachers and communities out there to object to such error. Why did it not happen?
bmonk about 15 years ago
Finally, apart from calling me a swine (Thank you, and may God bless you.):
Both world wars took place primarily in countries considered to be Christian. If the church leaders (Catholic leaders being the most prominent among them) had taught their followers what the Bible says about Christians being politically neutral (John 17:16, Matthew 26:52, John 6:15, 18:36), neither war would have taken place. Instead, they were in the front lines blessing the weapons and egging the soldiers on to kill their brothers on the other side (compare John 13:34, 35). How many lives, both military and civilian, were lost in those wars, and on whose hands is all that blood? The answer is those church leaders. So you have to ask yourselves: “do I want to be associated with those churches when God decides that it’s time to clean-up the world?” But don’t give up hope, God does have a people that he will save (Acts 15:14, Isaiah 43:10), you just have to find them or let them find you.
Not all the leaders were that noted as Christians. Stalin is one obvious case. And as for Catholics, yes, Hitler and Mussolini were Catholic, at least in origin. Hitler, however, had certainly abandoned the Catholic faith. We can hardly call Mussolini a good Catholic either. The French have often had anti-Catholic governments; I’m not really sure what the leaders in either war were. The British would not have been Catholic but Anglican, Otto von Bismarck was opposed to the Catholic faith, Hitler opposed all Christians who did not support his government.
And it takes more than simply teaching. Stalin famously asked, when the Pope opposed one of his actions, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” As Catholics, we have what is called free will: we are responsible for how we accept and live the teaching we receive.
Most chaplains are not there to “egg the soldiers on to kill their brothers”; they are there to minister to the soldiers and to lament the loss of life. Pope Pius XII has been accused for not getting involved in the war; the Jews complain if he had been more outspoken, perhaps the Holocaust would not have been so bad. (Would Hitler have listened, or would he just have included the Catholics? Not that that would have been all bad. But it would likely not have saved any Jews.) So, is the blood on the Church leaders, or on the persons (secular leaders) who actually began and prolonged the wars?
As another historical example: In the American Civil War, the only major denomination with large numbers both in North and South not divided by the war or by the abolition debate was the Catholic Church. We do believe in unity and “love one another” more than war.
A final argument: Besides the Spirit, there is the principle that “by your fruit you will know them.” One reason for limiting the number of recognized saints is to hold up examples of holy people worthy of being models for us, showing us how to live good lives in accord with God’s call. There are saints from every century and nearly every country. The Church is not all perfect, but we continue to have good, dedicated people among us.
Dutchboy1 about 15 years ago
Looks like bmonk is an adherent to the saying “If you can’t dazzle them with details, baffle them with baloney”. This is evident when he said “Matthew (27:45) mentions the darkness covering the Earth from noon to mid-afternoon, while John says nothing about it. When Judas is sent to betray him, “it is night” (13:30), but it is inconceivable that the crucifixion take place in the dark, because, “Whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God” (3:21), “I am the light of the world” (8:12), and especially “We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (9:4-5) Can the world’s light act in the dark? Not for John.”
It doesn’t take a college educated theologian to realize that the light mentioned here is the Light of the Truth, not physical light or darkness. Besides, if you read the whole account, the Bible clearly says that while Jesus’ arrest and trial (if you want to call it that) took place at night, it wasn’t until morning that he was hung up. So either bmonk isn’t too bright himself, or he is actually trying to cover up what the Bible really says with ‘baloney’. Since he doesn’t seem to be stupid, I’ve got to conclude that it is the latter.
His attitude is also evident in the fact that when I asked “Why do you suppose that the Catholic church tried for hundreds of years to suppress the Bible and anyone translating it into the common language?”, he replied with “We never objected to EXPERTS and SCHOLARS studying the Bible. Monks have an unbroken tradition of 14 or 15 centuries of just that. WE DID FEAR THAT POORLY EDUCATED PERSONS WOULD MISUNDERSTAND THE BIBLE, and so now require the translations and footnotes be approved.” GIVE ME A BREAK! What he really means is that he condones what the Catholic church at that time did; if they caught one of these ‘poorly educated persons’ with a Bible, or worse yet, caught someone trying to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, they KILLED THEM! And they weren’t very nice about it either. If you were someone of influence they might just cut your head off, but if you were one of these ‘poorly educated persons’, they made an example of you, doing things like publicly burning you at the stake or having you drawn and quartered. (more bloodguilt on their hands)
This is exactly the kind of attitude that Jesus had to put up with from the Pharisees! Notice that, while Jesus took his message NOT to the educated religious leaders but to the COMMON PEOPLE, the Pharisees (like bmonk and Catholic priests) looked down on these ‘poorly educated persons’ with the contemptuous attitude exemplified in the statement of the Pharisees at John 7:49: “This crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.” No wonder Jesus called them hypocrites and “offspring of vipers” and said to them at Matthew 15:3-9 ‘In reply he said to them: “Why is it YOU also overstep the commandment of God because of YOUR tradition? For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.’ But YOU say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have by which you might get benefit from me is a gift dedicated to God,” he must not honor his father at all.’ And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”’
By the way, I didn’t call him a swine when I sited Matthew 7:6, this was a term used by Jesus referring to people like the Pharisees (and bmonk) who refuse to listen to reason.
bmonk about 15 years ago
Since you clarified your reference, I withdraw my thanks for calling me a swine. And, yes, the Church did go too far in killing those who were studying the Bible. But many were killed on both sides, for studying the Bible, for offering and attending the Eucharist, for offering other sacraments and prayers. It was how the times were. Now we have a, I hope, more enlightened understanding.
And I have never said the Church was perfect. We struggle, and we try to get it right, but the only promise is that we will not, as a Church, go astray in the things that matter.
Nor have Catholic priests generally despised the common people. Many had little more education themselves. Rather, we try to teach them what we can. When they could not read the Bible stories, we had them painted on the Church walls and put into the windows. We preached about them, telling the people of the Body of Christ how he calls us to act.
As for light vs. darkness, it is very evident in the Gospel according to John, not only in the spiritual sense, but in a physical sense as well. In chapter 3, Nicodemus comes “at night”, lest he be seen talking to Jesus. In Chapter 13, as I said, when Judas goes out to betray, “It was night.” And then, the crucifixion happens in the day, because this is Jesus’ great redeeming act. There is no mention of the dark here.
I repeat, of your kindness, answer these questions:
1.Where did you learn that only the Bible is the source of truth about God?
What text of the Bible is inerrant, if you hold that? Is it the originally written text, the original Greek/Hebrew text we have now, a translation? (And which translation?)
How do you interpret the Bible? That is, what principles do you use, or what tradition? Who did you learn it from?
How sure are you in your interpretation? Are you willing to bet, not only your life, but your salvation on it?
Akenta about 15 years ago
I guess this discussion has come to end. I’m surprised it hasn’t been blocked to non-geniuses. Maybe they go my the last post date instead of the comic date. Guess I’ll check back in a couple a days and see.
bmonk about 15 years ago
Yes. [sigh] I was hopeful that Dutchboy might respond, but I guess not. And it seems, for someone who accuses me that: “he still sticks to his false doctrines and sites the founders of those false doctrines as proof of their authenticity. By that criterion you could find proof of any doctrine, no matter how contradictory or goofy, that you want, so I’m taking the advice of Matthew 7:6 with him.” However, he has yet to show that these doctrines are false, or that I cite their founders. So he gives up, I guess. After leaving a few more accusations of killing.
About that: I have never said the Church did not kill–nor did I condone those killings, as I do not. Nowadays we don’t kill–we feel excommunication is sufficient. And, in the day these things happened, were there any governments that did not use torture and the death penalty? Seems to me that in 17th and 18th Century England, theft of a few shillings was enough to be liable to death.
We, I as well as the Church, have made mistakes, and even admitted it. We are all sinners, or we would not need grace. I guess that only Dutchboy is perfect, and only he knows perfectly what is true and what is not, and how the Bible should be interpreted. Even if he will not share the principles of this wisdom with us.
As a result, I shall try to struggle on as best I can, according to the principles I have found, up to now, to be most effective and true. And make no apology for not following Dutchboy’s lead.
Shikamoo Premium Member about 15 years ago
@bmonk You may be pleasantly surprised that even the reformed seminaries such as mine teach what you have pointed out so well about the bible in inerrancy. (Pardon the spelling, I’m tired.)
As you may know, we also say the same Creed.
Akenta about 15 years ago
Interesting I can get to the first page of this with no problems, but the second page is for geniuses only. I’m afraid if I complain to gocomics, they’ll take away the first page.
Archistoteles almost 3 years ago
I like the fact that Bmonk as well as dutchboy1 are treating the bible as a history book. That’s funny.