Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 1066.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Who do you see as errant in theology, doctrine and witness?  Do you
> usually identify the errant as an organization, a loose collectivity,
> or simply individuals?
  
        First of all, myself.

        (But I do tend to "project" a lot. :-)

        Bob

Note 1066.0

>Who do you see as errant in theology, doctrine and witness?  Do you
>usually identify the errant as an organization,

    (Such as Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons)

>a loose collectivity,

    (Such as New Agers, liberals, fundamentalists, this notesfile)

>or simply individuals?

    (Such as Bob Fleischer, Jack Martin, Patricia Flanagan)

Shalom,
Richard

    I see my fellow noters Bob Fleischer and Patricia Flanagan as errant
    most of the time.

    JUST KIDDING!!! :-)  I am curious as to your immediate response when
    you read .3!!!
    
    -Jack
    
    
    

    As far as who are the errant...I believe everybody is at one time or
    another.  This is one of the reasons we have the local church and the
    scriptures.  As it was said to the writer of Timothy..
    
    "All scripture is inspired and is profitable for REPROOF, INSTRUCTION,
    CORRECTION, and TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS."  Even Peter and Paul had a
    tiff over dooctrine...Peter was wrong of course.
    
    -Jack  

    Timothy and Titus are errant!

re Note 1066.4 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     JUST KIDDING!!! :-)  I am curious as to your immediate response when
>     you read .3!!!
  
        Since I had stated the same about myself in .1, my only
        surprise was that you agreed with me.  :-}

        Bob

	Ya have to admit Jack, Bob zinged ya pretty good. :-)

    Yyyyouch!!!  Well, I figured with no smiley face people would give a
    second look.
    
    So...Patricia....Timothy and Titus are forgeries eh?  Let me guess:
    
    1. The letters weren't written by Paul.
    2. The letters promote a church hierarchy which is insensitive and
       meanspirited.
    3. The letters are exclusionary to women.
    
    Do I pretty much have it right?  If that be the case, then the jury is
    out on 1.  Number 2 is correct but the feeling of a heirarchy are
    subjective, and 3 is exclusionary and we've battered the gender roles
    issue enough.  
    
    -Jack

    Actually all the books of the bible are errant
    All humans are errant
    All things human are errant
    All scripture is human and errant
    all churches are human and errant
    Fundementalist Christians are errant
    Liberal christians are errant
    Pagans are errant
    Unitarian Universalists are Errant
    Quakers are errant.
    
    The books of the bible are forgeries only when someone claims that they
    are written by God.
    
    It is part of the human condition

Note 1066.0

>Are you identified by others as errant in theology, doctrine or witness?

Yes, sometimes.

>If yes, how do you deal with that perception?

It depends on how highly I value the perceptions of the identifier.

Less than positive perceptions have at times actually reinforced for me that
I must be on the right track.

Generally though, I take it to heart and I don't deal very well with it at
all.  I don't take any pleasure or comfort in it.

Shalom,
Richard

    Wow!!!
    
    Someone forgot to mention the Catholic Church is errant in theology.
    
    
    1. Has the authority to modify and change Divine Laws.
    2. Claims that Pope is Christ in the flesh.
    3. Priests have power to forgive sins.
    
    Here we go again!!!!
    
    Bruce

	Patricia, very good analogy. Thanks for posting it.


Glen

Note 1066.12

>    2. Claims that Pope is Christ in the flesh.
    
Bruce,

	I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I don't think this is an accurate
statement, m' friend.

Shalom,
Richard

    Ditto.  The pope is a direct legacy to Peter, the supposed first Pope.
    
    -Jack

I see most all of you as errant :^)

Steve

                  <<< Note 1066.12 by DNEAST::MALCOLM_BRUC >>>
                         -< You forgot to mention.... >-

>    1. Has the authority to modify and change Divine Laws.
    
    	I'm not sure what "has the authority to modify" means.
    
    	Do you know of an instance where the Catholic Church ever
    	changed Divine Law?
    
>    2. Claims that Pope is Christ in the flesh.
    
    	This is an errant statement.
    
>    3. Priests have power to forgive sins.
    
	I'm not sure you understand what you are saying here.

.12

Bruce,

	The particulars in .12 may not be accurate, but you're right that
criticisms against the Roman Catholic Church are not uncommon.  I've seen
plenty of anti-Catholic literature.

	I've also seen "educational" films denouncing Jehovah's Witnesses
and Mormons.  One was broadcast locally on channel 21 (a FOX affiliate).

	I once attended by invitation a "non-denominational" neighborhood
Bible study.  The "teacher" used the first hour to denounce every church
I'd ever even heard of.  I never returned.  I'm not impressed by those who
elevate themselves through putting everyone else down.

Shalom,
Richard

    
    My goal in .12 was not to set myself above anyone or thing, but to
    reveal what I have learned/studied as a Christian. I believe in the
    Bible, as God's Word and any other addition that is not in harmoney
    with scripture is errant.
    
    In the past 15 yrs. that I have been a Christian I have studied the
    Reformation. Books on Martin Luther, John Wycliffe and I could not
    believe the things they were saying about the CC. I began to
    investigate to make sure these so called reformers were speaking the
    truth. Here are some of the things I have read and am continuing to
    read.
    
    Source: Lucius Ferraris, "Papa," art.2, in his Prompta Bibliotheca
    ("Handy Library"), vol. 6 (Venetiis [Venice]: Gaspar Storti, 1772),
    p.29. Latin.
    
    "The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify,
    explain, or interpret even Divine laws... Petrus de Ancharano [d. 1416]
    very clearly asserts this in consil. 373, no.3 verso: "The Pope can
    modify Divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he
    acts in the place of God upon this earth, with the fullest power of
    binding and loosing his sheep.""
    
    Source Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letters "The Reunion of Christendom,"
    June 20, 1894, Trans, in The Great Encyclical Letters of the Pope Leo
    XIII (New York: Benziger, 1903), p. 304.
    
    "We [the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."
    
    
    Source Catholic National, July of 1895: 
    
    "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is 
    Jesus Christ, Himself, hidden under the veil of the flesh."
    
    "Rebutting a belief widely shared by Protestants and growing number of
    Roman Catholics, Pope John Paul II on Tuesday Dismissed the 'Widespread
    idea that one can obtain forgiveness directly from God' and exhorted
    Catholics to confess more often to their priests." Los Angeles Times
    December 12, 1984.
    
    Source Joseph Devarbe's Catechism says, on page 279: "The priest does
    really and truly forgives sins in virtue of the power given to him by
    Christ."
    
    
    The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, page 49-51, We find that
    God's law has been changed. Exodus 20 contains God's Law. However the
    Convert's Catechism law has ommitted the Second commandment and split
    the tenth into two. Also claims to have Divine authority to change
    The Sabbath to Sunday as the Lord's day. No other power on earth has
    done this.
      
    I agree that the Catholic Church is the oldest, but does that make it
    God's True Church?? Not from what I've studied.
    
    Bruce
    
    
      

>    The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, page 49-51, We find that
>    God's law has been changed. Exodus 20 contains God's Law. However the
>    Convert's Catechism law has ommitted the Second commandment and split
>    the tenth into two.

This is absolute baloney.  The Roman Catholic Church has not omitted any
of the commandments; they just number them differently.  The commandment
you call the second is included in the first.  Jews include part of what
Christians call the first in the second.  See the following:

Chart of the numbering of the Ten Commandments, listing the verses of Exodus 20
involved:

         Jewish		     Roman Catholic	     Anglican and Protestant

I	 2    IAM	    2-6	  IAM,only,idols	2-3  IAM,only
II	3-6   only,idols     7	  name			4-6  idols
III	 7    name          8-11  sabbath		 7   name
IV	8-11  sabbath	     12	  parents		8-11 sabbath
V	 12   parents	     13	  murder		 12  parents
VI	 13   murder	     14	  adultery		 13  murder
VII	 14   adultery	     15	  theft			 14  adultery
VIII	 15   theft	     16	  false witness		 15  theft
IX	 16   false witness  17   covet wife		 16  false witness
X	 17   covet	     17   covet property	 17  covet

	John, was there a reason why they had to change the order? I mean, why
not keep it the way it was? It would seem, anyway, that humanism is somehow
involved.


Glen

What do you mean "changed the order", Glen?

/john

.19

Jeez, Bruce.  I somehow hoped for better from you.

Disappointedly,
Richard

    .21
    
    Glen,
    
    What does it matter how the so-called 10 commandments are numbered?
    
    Which is which number is not included in the text and is of no
    spiritual significance, as far as I can see.
    
    Richard
    

    My feelings...on the surface and in the long run, it probably doesn't
    matter.  I do believe the Ten Commandments were put in a specific order
    for a reason...that being the first commandments deal with our
    relationship to God and the remainder deal with our fellow man.  I
    would object, for example, to the 7th commandment being moved up to the
    second.  
    
    -Jack

	I guess what I wonder is if they are in the same order the Bible has
them, (which they believe is the inerrant Word of God) or if they changed the
order themselves, which to me would seem it was a humanistic thing to do. I
mean, why be different than the Bible? (if that is the case of course)


Glen

    > why be different than the Bible? 
    
    	Reread reply .20.  None differ from the Bible.  All the words
    	are there.  Nothing is missing.  Nothing is added.
    
    	The Bible doesn't say "Commendment #1, Commandment #2, ...
    	Commendment #10" before any of the commandments.

| <<< Note 1066.27 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| > why be different than the Bible?

| Reread reply .20. None differ from the Bible. All the words are there. Nothing
| is missing. Nothing is added.

	Again Joe, you leave out the key word, "order". This other stuff you
brought up had nothing to do with what was being talked about. It makes a great
rathole, but that's about it.

| The Bible doesn't say "Commendment #1, Commandment #2, ...Commendment #10" 
| before any of the commandments.

	Yes, you are correct. But the question remains. Why change the order
from a book that they believe is the inerrant Word of God? Isn't that a
humanistic thing to do??? Yes or no?


Glen

    .28
    
    Glen,
    
    	Read it again.  The order is not changed.  The text is identical.
    The Hebrew Bible does not assign numbers to any of the commandments.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    Let me add a little more light, NO pun intended.
    
    Source The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957 ed.) PP 37,38
    
    The Ten Commandments are:
    (1.)  I am the Lord thy God; Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
    (2.)  Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
    (3.)  Remember thou keep Holy the Sabbath day.
    (4.)  Honor thy father and thy mother.
    (5.)  Thou shalt not kill.
    (6.)  Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    (7.)  Thou shalt not steal.
    (8.)  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
    (9.)  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
    (10.) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.
    
    I have two other Catechisms and nothing is mentioned about vs.4-6
     "bowing down to graven or anything...."
    
    Ex. 20:4-6 Speak about bowing down to graven images or any likeness of
    anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
    or that is in the water unger the earth.
    
    I do see a parallel with these verses missing. In the Bathcyilica (sp)
    of St. Peter there is a statue of Peter, the big toe in this statue is
    missing, why is it missing you may ask, could it be all the millions
    of people kissing his foot? Also I see people bow down and kiss the
    Popes' ring. God says "Do not bow down to anything...!"
    
    I'm sure this has been talked about in here before but I see alot of
    Protestant leaders close their Bible and shake hands with the Catholic
    Church. I write these words to make people aware of the inconsistancies
    the CC has with the Word of God.  
    
    John, sorry to disappoint you but my wife's family are all ex-Catholics
    and they were never aware of what God's Word said, and the
    inconsistancies between the CC and the Bible.
    
    Bruce

              <<< Note 1066.28 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>| Reread reply .20. None differ from the Bible. All the words are there. Nothing
>| is missing. Nothing is added.
>
>	Again Joe, you leave out the key word, "order". 
    
    	"Order" is included in "None differ from the Bible."
    
>	Yes, you are correct. But the question remains. Why change the order
>from a book that they believe is the inerrant Word of God? Isn't that a
>humanistic thing to do??? Yes or no?
    
    	It would be a good question *if* the order were changed.
    
    	And I'm not sure you know what humanistic means.

    	re .30
    
    	Bruce --
    
    	You should get a book or a tape by Scott Hahn.

    all churches are fallible, both Catholic and Protestant.
    
    Tradition and the apostolic succession are the highest interpretors of
     authority in the Catholic church.
    
      The Bible in the protestant churches.
    
    Those insisting on the inerrancing of the Bible risk idolizing the
    Bible and not being able to correct where the Bible is in error.
    
    Those insisting on the inerrancy of a person risk idolizing that person
    and not being able to easily correct mistakes by that person.
    
    In both cases God's Revelation is mediated through humans.
    
    There are advantages and disadvantages of both.  As a protestant I was
    taught that the protestant reformation was a result of corruptions of
    the Catholic Church.  As a protestant I was taught nothing of the
    Catholic Reformation which I assume corrected some of those same
    issues.
    
    

    .33
    
    I agree.  Bibliolatry (Scriptural chauvinism) is as fraught with
    potential errancy as any other approach.

    Shalom,
    Richard
    

The words are not missing from the official texts of the Catholic Church,
such as:

1. The Bible (Exodus 20:4-5)
2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Libraria Editrice Vaticana),
   which you can purchase in any bookstore.  See paragraphs 2129-2132.

The Roman Catholic Church has always forbidden the making of any graven
image, or the bowing down to it, or the serving of it.

A statue of St. Peter is not a graven image, for it is not worshipped.
(Graven image is a technical term for an object of worship.)

Even if Roman Catholics have honored the memory of this great biblical
saint by kissing the feet of the statue, that is not bowing down to the
image of St. Peter, nor is it worshipping it or serving it.

/john

Further:

The prohibition on graven images is a continuation of the commandment
to have no other gods but God.

As you can see, both Jews and Roman Catholics see the direct connection
between the two.

I don't know the history of the change in the numbering which separates
"graven images" from "having no other gods but God".

Yet they are the same thing, for they both prohibit worship of anything
other than God himself.

/john

From "Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue, The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984"
Chapter on Worship and Tradition

 `In times past, God, without body and form, could in no way be represented.
 But now since God has appeared in flesh and lived among men, I can depict
 that which is visible of God.  I do not venerate matter, but I venerate
 the creator of matter, who became matter for me, who condescended to live
 in matter, and who through matter accomplished my salvation; and I do not
 cease to respect the matter through which my salvation is accomplished.'
 --St. John of Damascus

 By the incarnation of the Word who is the image of the Father (2 Cor. 4:4;
 Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3) the image of God in every man is restored and the
 material world itself sanctified and again made capable of mediating the
 divine beauty.  Icons are used as a means of expressing, as far as it
 can be expressed, the glory of God seen in the face of Jesus Christ (2
 Cor. 4:6), and in the faces of his friends.  Icons are words in painting,
 referring to the history of salvation and its manifestation in specific
 persons.  Icons have always been understood as a visible gospel, as a
 testimony to the great things given to us by God the Word incarnate.  In
 the Council of 860 it was stated that `all that is uttered in words written
 in syllables is also proclaimed in the language of colours'.  From this
 perspective icons and Scripture are linked through an inner relationship;
 both coexist in the Church and proclaim the same truths. `Just as in the
 Bible we listen to the word of Christ and are sanctified...in the same way
 through the painted icons we behold the representation of his human form
 ... and are likewise sanctified.' --St. John of Damascus

 An icon is a means of entering into contact with the person or event it
 represents.  It is not an end in itself.  In the words of St. Basil: `The
 honour shown to the icon passes to the prototype'.  It guides us to a
 vision of the divine Kingdom where past, present, and future are one.  It
 makes vivid our faith in the communion of the saints.  In the definition
 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council we read: `The more frequently [icons]
 are seen, the more those who behold them are aroused to remember and desire
 the prototypes and to give them greeting and the veneration and honour; not
 indeed true worship which, according to our faith, is due to God alone.'

 Just as Scripture is understood within the community of faith, so too the
 icon is understood within the same community of faith and worship.  It is
 an essentially liturgical form or art.  In response to the faith and
 prayer of the believers, God, through the icon, bestows his sanctifying
 and healing grace.  Thus the icon serves to promote the communication of
 the gospel and hence its making and use must always be controlled by
 theological criteria.  It is not a random decoration, but an integral
 part of the Church's life and worship.  In this respect its place in the
 Church's worship can be compared with the place of music and chant and
 with the faithful preaching of the word of God.

 In our time, when visual imagery plays a more and more important part in
 people's lives, the tradition of icons has acquired a startling relevance.
 It presents the Church with a new possibility of proclaiming the gospel
 in a society in which language is often devalued.

JOHN OF DAMASCUS (4 DEC 750?) by Stephen T Benner

John is generally accounted "the last of the Fathers". He was the
son of a Christian official at the court of the moslem khalif Abdul
Malek, and succeeded to his father's office.

    In his time there was a dispute among Christians between the
Iconoclasts (image-breakers) and the Iconodules (image-venerators or
image-respectors). The Emperor, Leo III, was a vigorous upholder of
the Iconoclast position. John wrote in favor of the Iconodules with
great effectiveness. Ironically, he was able to do this chiefly
because he had the protection of the moslem khalif (ironic because
the moslems have a strong prohibition against the religious use of
pictures or images).

    John is also known as a hymn-writer. Two of his hymns are sung
in English at Easter ("Come ye faithful, raise the strain" and "The
Day of Resurrection! Earth, tell it out abroad!"). Many more are
sung in the Eastern Church.

    His major writing is THE FOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE, of which the third
part, THE ORTHODOX FAITH, is a summary of Christian doctrine as
expounded by the Greek Fathers.

The dispute about icons was not a dispute between East and West as
such. Both the Greek and the Latin churches accepted the final
decision.

    The Iconoclasts maintained that the use of religious images was
a violation of the Second Commandment ("Thou shalt not make a graven
image... thou shalt not bow down to them").

    The Iconodules replied that the coming of Christ had radically
changed the situation, and that the commandment must now be
understood in a new way, just as the commandment to "Remember the
Sabbath Day" must be understood in a new way since the Resurrection
of Jesus on the first day of the week.

    Before the Incarnation, it had indeed been improper to portray
the invisible God in visible form; but God, by taking fleshly form
in the person of Jesus Christ, had blessed the whole realm of matter
and made it a fit instrument for manifesting the Divine Splendor. He
had reclaimed everything in heaven and earth for His service, and
had made water and oil, bread and wine, means of conveying His grace
to men. He had made painting and sculpture and music and the spoken
word, and indeed all our daily tasks and pleasures, the common round
of everyday life, a means whereby man might glorify God and be made
aware of Him.

Obviously, the use of images and pictures in a religious context is
open to abuse, and in the sixteenth century abuses had become so
prevalent that some (not all) of the early Protestants reacted by
denouncing the use of images altogether. Many years ago, I heard a
sermon in my home parish (All Saints' Church, East Lansing,
Michigan) on the Commandment, "Thou shalt not make a graven image,
nor the likeness of anything in the heavens above, nor in the earth
beneath, nor in the waters under the earth -- thou shalt not bow
down to them, nor worship them." (Exodus 20:4-5 and Deuteronomy
5:8-9) The preacher (Gordon Jones) pointed out that, even if we
refrain completely from the use of statues and paintings in
representing God, we will certainly use mental or verbal images,
will think of God in terms of concepts that the human mind can
grasp, since the alternative is not to think of Him at all. (Here I
digress to note that, if we reject the images offered in Holy
Scripture of God as Father, Shepherd, King, Judge, on the grounds
that they are not literally accurate, we will end up substituting
other images -- an endless, silent sea, a dome of white radiance, an
infinitely attenuated ether permeating all space, an electromagnetic
force field, or whatever, which is no more literally true than the
image it replaces, and which leaves out the truths that the
Scriptural images convey. (One of the best books I know on this
subject is Edwyn Bevan's SYMBOLISM AND BELIEF, Beacon Press,
originally a Gifford Lectures series.)

C S Lewis repeats what a woman of his acquaintance told him: that
as a child she was taught to think of God as an infinite "perfect
substance," with the result that for years she envisioned Him as a
kind of enormous tapioca pudding. To make matters worse, she disliked
tapioca. Back to the sermon.

The sin of idolatry consists of giving to the image the devotion that
properly belongs to God. No educated man today is in danger of confusing
God with a painting or statue, but we may give to a particular concept
of God the unconditional allegiance that properly belongs to God Himself.
This does not, of course, mean that one concept of God is as good as
another, or that it may not be our duty to reject something said about
God as simply false. Images, concepts, of God matter, because it matters
how we think about God.  The danger is one of intellectual pride, of
forgetting that the Good News is, not that we know God, but that He
knows us (1 Corinthians 8:3), not that we love Him, but that He loves
us (1 John 4:10).

    (Incidentally, it was customary in my parish in those days for
the preacher to preach a short "Children's Sermon," after which the
children were dismissed for Sunday School, and the regular sermon
and the rest of the service followed. What I have described above
was the Children's Sermon. I remained for the regular sermon, but
found it a bit over my head -- a salutary correction to my
intellectual snobbery.)

In the East Orthodox tradition, three-dimensional representations
are seldom used. The standard icon is a painting, highly stylized,
and thought of as a window through which the worshipper is looking
into Heaven. (Hence, the background of the picture is almost always
gold leaf.) In an Eastern church, an iconostasis (icon screen)
flanks the altar on each side, with images of angels and saints
(including Old Testament persons) as a sign that the whole church in
Heaven and earth is one body in Christ, and unites in one voice of
praise and thanksgiving in the Holy Liturgy. At one point in the
service, the minister takes a censer and goes to each icon in turn,
bows and swings the censer at the icon. He then does the same thing
to the congregation -- ideally, if time permits, to each worshipper
separately, as a sign that every Christian is an icon, made in the
image and likeness of God, an organ in the body of Christ, a window
through whom the splendor of Heaven shines forth.

PRAYER

   Confirm our minds, O Lord, in the mysteries of the true faith,
   set forth with power by thy servant John of Damscus; that we,
   with him, confessing Jesus to be true God and true Man, and
   singing the praises of the risen Lord, may, by the power of the
   resurrection, attain to eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our
   Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit,
   one God, for evermore.  Amen.

    John,
    
    I have participated in a ceremony in which a statue of the Goddess is
    passed around the circle and each of us hug the statue representing a
    hug from the mother.
    
    I do not believe the statue is the Divine but a statue of the Divine.
    
    Assuming that the other participants also believe the statue to be a
    statue, is the statue a graven image?
    
                               Patricia

    John,
    
    Thanks for inputing .37 & .38.   The were very informative.
    
    I agree that something was lost in protestanism when the iconoclast
    destroyed the icons.
    
    Reading the material was the first time I consciously thought of how
    well icons honor the body, the physical world, the whole of creation.
       
                                       Patricia

  Hi,

    Just a couple of Catholic thoughts...

    I find it hard to understand how one might defend the Catholic
    Church's ordering of the 10 commandments.

    Lets look at Exodus 20:17 marking the order of what not to covet.

    "You shall not covet...

    1) your neighbor's house
    2) you shall not covet your neighbor's wife
    3) nor his manservant,
    4) nor his maidservant,
    5) nor his ox,
    6) nor his donkey,
    7) nor anything that is your neighbor's."

    Now, if I was to be honest with the word, if I were to divide this into
    two commandments, I would divide this single scripture into two command-
    ments in such a way that the inspired sequence was retained.

    But, thats not what happened.  The second thing was removed and placed
    as a single commandment.

    The first and third (and on) were placed as a single commandment.  Now,
    how did that happen?  Why wasn't the sequence retained?

    Furthermore, the Baltimore Catechism Guide explicitly states that the
    Catholic Church did indeed change the day of worship from Saturday to
    Sunday.  Thats pretty heavy to do (in my book).  They say they changed 
    it!  One of the 10 commandments!!

    By the way, I have listened to some of Scott Hahn's tapes.  My personal
    thoughts on his tapes are that both Protestantism and Catholicism are
    incorrect on certain FUNDAMENTAL areas of the doctrine of justification
    by faith.

    Protestantism believed we are justified by faith and faith alone and
    they leave works out of it.  

    The Catholics charge that God cannot lie and so if he declares righteous,
    they must be righteous.  Scott Hahn, being formerly a Protestant, could
    not reconcile the Protestant's weakness.  

    To Protestants, our justification is purely some legal thing going on
    up in heaven.  And the Catholic theologians have always balked at this
    (and rightly so).

    To Catholics, we need to also add works to justification and protestants
    balked at this (and rightly so).  

    And this centuries old argument never got reconciled.

    The following, I believe is the reconciliation...

    We are justified by faith and faith alone and the BASIS for this is that
    faith is the channel through which the justifying word of God is appro-
    priated.  AND THE SAME WORD THAT JUSTIFIES IS THE SAME WORD THAT MAKES
    RIGHTEOUS.

    When God said, "Let there be light", there was NO LIGHT before He said it.
    The word itself is the power.  The word itself produced the light.

I'll continue...

Continuing on...

    This is what Scott Hahn fails to understand.  He sees God as declaring
    righteous because the person has some righteousness.  He doesn't see God
    declaring righteous because that same word makes righteous - just as at
    creation.

    Meanwhile, the protestants also fail to see the power of the word.  Of
    course, each group, denies that the word of God really can make righteous.
    Perfection of character is impossible they say (generally).

    Admittedly, when it comes to beings with freedom of choice, there is a
    greater obstacle than with creation.  But, God has said that He will get
    a last day group to see Him so clearly, that that revelation of love will
    make them PUTTY in His hands.  At that time, they will allow God's word 
    to perform its justifying work perfectly.

    As an aside, we are delivered from sin and sin alone.  The basis of anyone's
    justification is that they have begun to allow God to begin performing His
    justifying (= make righteous) work.  He honors their first steps.  See the
    life of Abraham and Romans ch. 4 especially paying close attention to WHY
    Abraham was accounted righteous, i.e. because he came to be fully convinced
    that what God spoke, He could perform.

    Check out Isaiah 5 and think of it from the standpoint of God needing to
    produce that last generation that validates the truth of justification by
    faith, i.e. He can take a group to the last steps - character perfection.

    In Isaiah 5, it clearly says that God did all that he could with His
    vineyard - and yet wild grapes were produced.  CLEARLY, man can resist 
    His work.  This implies that if God needs a willing generation (in contrast
    to Israel ("but you were not willing"), then the time of the 2nd coming 
    is dependent on our willingness (at least to some extent).

    The last days will champion the truth of God's 7th day Sabbath which is
    given as a sign of creation AND sanctification.  It is a sign that God can
    get a people to perfectly rest in Him.  Look at the similarities...

    1) To make righteous is God's work.

    2) It is performed by His word

    3) When the work is finished, it will be very good (or perfect).

    4) Just as creation took 6 days, by foreknowledge, God knew that the work
       of cleansing a last day group would take 6 thousand years.  "A day is
       like a thousand years unto the Lord."

    5) A 7th time period is tacked on after the 6 time periods and is
       a Sabbath.  Sabbath day in creation and Sabbath millenium at the
       end.

    In the endtimes, it will be seen that the 7th day Sabbath is the last day
    sign (symbol) of justification by faith.  It could not be taken away.

    Sunday will be heralded by those who insist that God's word lacks the
    power.  The inference is that we are made righteous by nature (for we need
    a prefallen nature in order for it to be possible they say) and not by
    faith.

							Tony

    AT the very least the 10 commandments need to be looked at as culturl
    
    In the time of moses idols were thought to have power in and of
    themselves.  That commandment meant something a lot different at the
    time of moses than today.
    
    Churches routinely now also change the thou shall not covet thy
    neighbors wife also.  I have seen thou shall not covet thy neighbors
    spouse.  Is that ungodly.
    
    Most Christian Churches have changed the sabbath from Saturday to
    Sunday.  If the Baltimore Catecism was a little more straightforward in
    doing that, that certainly is better than changing the sabbath and
    saying the sabbath was not changed.
    
                                    Patricia
    
    Let's end the Catholic Bashing!  

    Patricia:
    
    How is questioning ones intent Catholic bashing??
    
 ZZ   In the time of moses idols were thought to have power in and of
 ZZ   themselves.  That commandment meant something a lot different at
 ZZ   the time of moses than today.
    
    Crystals of New Agers
    Rubbing Budda's Stomach
    Rosary Beads
    Wicca
    Statues of Saints
    
    These all carry significance in forms of worship today...just as the
    golden calf signified a form of worship in the days of Moses.
    
    -Jack

    
    -.43
    
    Patricia,
    
          There was no intent of bashing any Church, everyone needs to 
    investigate for themselves. I have read in here and other notes that
    the Roman Catholic Church cannot err, as I read the Bible I have to
    disagree. When I read about the thought that the Pope takes the place
    of God here on this earth I want to SHOUT and say something! But to
    do it for no reason, that I would not do. 
    
          I believe it's going to come down, in the last days of this earths 
    history to hold fast to the Word of God or man. If I'm going to put my
    faith in something it will not be man but the Word of God!!!
    
    Bruce 
    
         

    .44 & .46
    
    In the name of God, how is Scriptural chauvinism any better?
    
    Richard
    

    Could you define Scriptural chauvinism for me again please?  
    
    Thanks,
    
    -Jack

>    I find it hard to understand how one might defend the Catholic
>    Church's ordering of the 10 commandments.
>
>    Lets look at Exodus 20:17 marking the order of what not to covet.

OK, lets.

>    "You shall not covet...
>    1) your neighbor's house

This is the "introduction" to the next two commandments.  Everything
which follows is covered by this introduction.  Thus considering it
one commandment is legitimate, but I will show how considering it two
is also legitimate.

First, let me justify calling the previous sentence the introduction.
This is easily done by noting that the next sentence begins again with
"you shall not".  In this case, the word "house" may actually refer to
"household" -- the house and everything within it, since it is in a
separate complete sentence.

>    2) you shall not covet your neighbor's wife

Here we have the neighbor's wife.  The neighbor's wife is in a clearly
different category than all the others.  The marriage relationship is
defined as a special relationship.  Although feminists would like to
claim that women were just property, it is undeniable that the relationship
between husband and wife is quite different than the relationship between
owner and property -- the Genesis commandment to marry and the commandment
in the Decalogue to not commit adultery and the comparison of the relationship
between Israel and God to the relationship between bride and bridegroom make
it clear that a wife is different.

>    3) nor his manservant,
>    4) nor his maidservant,
>    5) nor his ox,
>    6) nor his donkey,
>    7) nor anything that is your neighbor's."

The remaining items are clearly employees and property -- things which can
be freely contracted for or bought and sold.

FURTHERMORE, the Decalogue appears in two places.

In Deuteronomy 5:21, the text is:

	Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife;

Note that this is a complete sentence followed by a coordinating conjunction:

	AND you shall not desire your neighbor's hous, his field, or his
	manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything
	that is your neighbor's.

You said:

>    But, thats not what happened.  The second thing was removed and placed
>    as a single commandment.

Now you appear rather foolish, for the Bible itself has the second thing
in Exodus moved and placed at the beginning in Deuteronomy.  And since you
would agree with the Roman Catholic Church that the Bible is the infallible
and inspired teaching of God, you cannot impeach the Roman Catholic Church
because of a difference in ORDER in the way they choose to teach the ten
commandments to their faithful.

I have finally found the history of the differing divisions used by various
Christians.  Paragraph 2066 of the Catechism explains that the numbering used
by Roman Catholics _and_ Lutherans was developed by St. Augustine.  The Greek
Fathers developed a different scheme, used by Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and
Protestant communities.

Note that the Roman Catholic Catechism does not try to argue that there is
anything WRONG with choosing a different numbering.  The numbers are really
not significant; the contents, however, are.


/john

Now, let's look at the Sunday business.

For Christians the ceremonial observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day
replaces the sabbath of the Old Testament.  In Christ's passover from
death into life, and in his resurrection on the first day of the week,
Sunday fulfills the SPIRITUAL TRUTH of the Jewish sabbath.  Our Lord's
resurrection announces mans eternal rest (sabbath) in God.

	Those lived according to the old order of things have
	come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but
	the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and
	by his death.
			--St. Ignatius of Antioch

St. Ignatius of Antioch died in 110 A.D.  He personally knew the Apostle
John.  He and others attest that the Christian Church had moved their
ceremonial observance of one day out of seven to Sunday IN THE TIME OF
THE APOSTLES.

/john

.48

>    Could you define Scriptural chauvinism for me again please?  

Your dictionary definition should be adequate.

Shalom,
Richard

    -.50
    
    Sorry John,
    
          The Bible says that God Sanctified the Seventh day Sabbath and
    set it appart for Holy use.
    
          No man or church can remove the Sanctity of what God has put
    upon that day. 
    
          No where in the scriptures does it change the Sanctity of the 
    Sabbath.
    
          No where in the Bible does Jesus say to keep another day for
    the Sabbath.
    
          The book of Romans 6:4-6 mentions that we are to testify of
    Jesus' death, burial, and resserection by being baptised.
    
    Bruce 

>No where in the Bible does Jesus say to keep another day for
>the Sabbath.

In the Bible it says that Jesus said many things that were not
written down.  In the Bible it says that Christians are to hold
fast to all the traditions that the Apostles taught by word or
by letter (2 Th 2:15).

Since the Apostles and Evangelists who recorded God's teaching in
the Bible are the ones who realized that the importance of Our Lord's
resurrection was sufficient to justify the new Christian weekly
observance of The Lord's Day, and since they taught this as Christian
tradition, I will hold fast to it.

You cannot use the Sunday observance of virtually all of Christianity
from the time of the Apostles up to the present time to impeach the
Roman Catholic Church, unless you also wish to impeach the validity
of important phrases in the Bible such as 2 Th 2:15 and others.

/john

| <<< Note 1066.53 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| In the Bible it says that Jesus said many things that were not written down.  
| In the Bible it says that Christians are to hold fast to all the traditions 
| that the Apostles taught by word or by letter (2 Th 2:15).

	You can hold to them John, as that is what the Bible is telling you.
But you can not ever say that the traditions, or anything else that Jesus COULD 
have said, but somehow it didn't get written down were actually approved by 
Jesus UNLESS He said it specifically, am I correct?



Glen

But I can say that the Sunday tradition was approved by the apostles,
because that _is_ written down, and I can say that Jesus gave authority
to his apostles to bind and loose, because that is written down, and that's
good enough for the Church and good enough for me, and I dare say, good
enough for God.

/john

  Hi John,

    My intent was NOT to impeach the Roman Catholic Church.  My intent
    was only to uphold what I believe is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    I think there is good precedent for such an intent.  Paul did the
    same with the Galatians in his letter to them.

    As far as the numbering of the commandments is concerned, I personally
    'don't buy' it, but I don't see it as a big deal given that the
    Catholic Church includes the second with the 1st.  I really did believe
    that the graven images one was missing and stand corrected by you.
    I am sorry for my mistake and I thank you for correcting me.

    Sabbath and Sunday are only signs/symbols.  And while saying this, I
    do not want to give the false impression that I take lightly my own
    personal conviction to 'Sabbathkeep.'

    I volunteered a fair amount of scriptural support for the significance
    of the seventh day Sabbath as it serves to say some very fundamental
    things about the gospel.  That is the focus of my efforts; the preaching
    of the gospel.

    You mentioned Augustine in a recent reply.  He was a man with serious
    problems resisting some sexual temptations.  He had a pagan father
    and a Christian mother.  I do not know whether or not he was a Christian;
    I choose not to stand in judgment for any man (only God knows).

    But, Augustinian doctrine was a part of the great falling away and not
    of the restoration of the church.  Augustinianism is something to let
    go of.  Augustine said that it is impossible to perfectly serve God;
    we must sin.  This is in stark contrast to John or Paul or any of the
    Bible writers.  IT WILL BE a part of the abomination of desolation that
    stands in the holy place for it perpetuates the holy experience and denies
    the possibility of the most holy.

    I could go into a history 'journey' with you regarding seventh day keeping.
    There have been Sabbathkeepers throughout history, although admittedly, 
    1st day keeping made quick inroads in the most pagan of locales; Alexandria
    and Rome.

    My concern is over what the gospel is.  My last reply to you was tailored
    to emphasize that.  The rest is much less important to me.

    But, just as with creation, so with redemption.  The message of the cross
    is the power of God.  And the word itself has enough power to perfectly
    deliver from sin THIS SIDE OF THE SECOND COMING.

    Any gospel that says otherwise is a gospel that will be denounced by the
    remnant that sees the 2nd coming of the Lord.

							Tony

    .52
    
    Did God make humankind for Shabbat or Shabbat for the good of humankind?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    The letter [of the Law] killeth, but the spirit [of the Law] giveth
    life.
    
    Guess who said this?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

      Its been to my benefit that God gave me the Sabbath.  As 
      with His other laws, He calls me to follow, the benefit 
      is in obedience and not in transgression.
    
      Did you think the benefit was in transgression?

    Richard:
    
    It's not in my dictionary...not even in my slang dictionary.  Do you
    refer to the role of men vs. women in the local church?  I know what
    spiritual is and I know what chauvinism is.  Is there a hidden meaning
    here?
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1066.55 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| But I can say that the Sunday tradition was approved by the apostles,
| because that _is_ written down, and I can say that Jesus gave authority
| to his apostles to bind and loose, because that is written down, and that's
| good enough for the Church and good enough for me, and I dare say, good
| enough for God.

	John, it still ends up being going by what humans said. 

        re: Note 1066.44 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN 

    > How is questioning ones intent Catholic bashing??

    Questioning someone's intent -- especially after that intent has been
    clarified -- is the very essence of bashing.

    	Eric

    re Note 1066.46 by DNEAST::MALCOLM_BRUC 

    > I have read in here and other notes that the Roman Catholic Church
    > cannot err, as I read the Bible I have to disagree. When I read about
    > the thought that the Pope takes the place of God here on this earth I
    > want to SHOUT and say something!

    You should read more about what the Roman Catholic church says about
    what the Roman Catholic church believes rather than what those ignorant
    of the Roman Catholic church say about what the Roman Catholic church
    believes. This may curb your desire to SHOUT.

    > I believe it's going to come down, in the last days of this earths
    > history to hold fast to the Word of God or man. If I'm going to put my
    > faith in something it will not be man but the Word of God!!!

    With all your human ability, I'm sure. :^)

             Eric

    re Note 1066.60 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN 

    > It's not in my dictionary...not even in my slang dictionary.

    From my Digital issue American Heritage Dictionary

         chauvinism: Prejudice belief in the superiority of one's own
                     group.


    Scriptural is an adjective referring to the something of the
    scriptures. For example, the beliefs you hold regarding the
    scriptures are scriptural beliefs. Therefore scriptural chauvinism
    refers to the prejudice belief in the superiority of one group's
    understanding of the scriptures.

    I hope this helps.

    	Eric       

    Ohhhh....so just because one uses scripture to support a claim or a
    point of view, this makes one a scriptural chauvenist???
    
    -Jack

    No,  When one idolizes the scriptures and uses them as if they were a
    God, that is Chauvenism.

    re:  Note 1066.65 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN

    > Ohhhh....so just because one uses scripture to support a claim or a
    > point of view, this makes one a scriptural chauvenist???

    No, of course not. Scriptural chauvinism would be if I said  I possess
    the only right answers regarding scriptural matters.
    
    	Eric
    

    -.66
    
    It appears that there are two classes of people. Those that use the
    scripture as their defense, and those who use the church as theres'.
    
    I believe EVERYONE has the right to use what ever they want to use
    to find there God.
    
    I was unaware that there were Christians using something else but
    God's Word as there standard of living. I cannot judge them but to
    only dissagree.
    
    Revelation 22:18-19 speaks about not adding or taking away from the 
    prophecy. For John believed that, what was written was sufficcent for
    all of man's Redemption. 
    
    
    -.68
    
    I would rather be a Scriptural chauvinist (I don't have all the answers
    but I believe the Bible does.) than a church chauvinist.
    
    Bruce
    

Note 1066.69

>    Revelation 22:18-19 speaks about not adding or taking away from the 
>    prophecy. For John believed that, what was written was sufficcent for
>    all of man's Redemption. 

The verses, of course, speak about the text called the Revelation alone
and not the whole of the canon.

Shalom,
Richard

    -.70
    
    That is right Richard!!
    Rev. 14:12 says: " Here are the patience of the saints: here are they
    that keep the Commandments of God, and the Faith of Jesus.
    
    Not man's Commandments but Gods.
    
    Also Richard please read Deut.4:2 and Deut. 12:32 These verses speak
    also about not adding to the commandments of God in the Canon.
    
    Praise His Name
    
    Bruce
    

re Note 1066.69 by DNEAST::MALCOLM_BRUC:

>     It appears that there are two classes of people. Those that use the
>     scripture as their defense, and those who use the church as theres'.
  
        There is certainly at least a third class of people: the
        "through the glass darkly" party, those who believe, with the
        Apostle Paul, that all prophecy and knowledge of God is quite
        imperfect in this age, that perfect knowledge must wait until
        the next age.

        These people put their trust in God for their defense.

        Bob

    -last
    
    Coundn't agree with you anymore Bob! That is so True!! I can't wait 'till 
    that day comes and Jesus appears, what a Glorious day that will be!!
    All the questions, problems, aches, and pains will be gone!! All the
    X-Catholics and all the X-Protestants etc. will all sit down and listen
    to Jesus talk and guess who will be right?????????
    
    
    
    
    
    Jesus!!!!
    Prasie His Name!!
    
    
    Bruce
    

ZZ    No, of course not. Scriptural chauvinism would be if I said  I
ZZ    possess the only right answers regarding scriptural matters.
    
    I'm unaware of anybody here doing this.  
    
    But I do believe the scripture is God breathed.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1066.74 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| But I do believe the scripture is God breathed.

	Jack, you say the above, but also admit that we as humans may not know
all that there is to the Bible, and things we could at one time think as being
right, may later be proven wrong. So why couldn't what people have been saying
be true? SOME people have taken the Bible and put it right up there with God?
How many people do you know who go right there for an answer to something and
THEN pray that God will show it to them? I know of many who have done this. It
makes much more sense to pray that He leads you to the answer, and let Him
choose the method, isn't it?

    Bottom line Glen, is that the core of any of your beliefs surrounding
    Jesus came from the Bible....because the Bible is our source of
    knowledge and I believe truth.  The Bible can be a misused tool, such
    as it was by Satan in trying to tempt Jesus.  The Bible must be studied
    in a whole lifetime because it can take this long to glean truth as it
    is.
    
    John the apostle stated that the Word Was God. And that the word became
    flesh and dwelt among us.  I believe the Bible is as powerful as God
    speaking directly to us.  When Timothy stated all scripture to be
    inspired, he was referring to the source of the word, and the original
    greek defines inspired as God breathed.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1066.76 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Bottom line Glen, is that the core of any of your beliefs surrounding Jesus 
| came from the Bible....

	And have been proven by Him, and by many different means. Many things
are in the Bible. But it does not make it true. 

| John the apostle stated that the Word Was God. 

	That's right. The human did state that. 

| I believe the Bible is as powerful as God speaking directly to us.  

	I agree, if He leads us to it for a reason. Not if we just jump there
ourselves. Let Him lead us to the answer, let Him use the tool of His desire. I
often wonder if it takes so long for us to get an answer because we limit the
tools He can use?


Glen

	Those who practice Scriptural chauvinism seldom acknowledge the
bias in themselves.

Shalom,
Richard

    I would be glad to acknowledge the same if I am ever accused of
    it...which to my knowledge nobody in this file has pointed it out to
    me.  Therefore, I must assume I am not a scriptural chauvenist.
    
    -Jack

    .79
    
    I guess you must not be, Jack.
    
    ;-}
    
    Richard
    

    Right!!!  The Bible has revealed this to me!!! :-)
    
    -Jack

<---- <grin>

    .79
    
    Jack,
    
    if you have ever used your interpretation of scripture to criticize
    something such as homosexual behavoir, you have practiced scriptural
    chauvanism.
    
                                 Patricia

    Since I have been told that my beliefs were demonic at least three
    times by three different individuals during my noting, I would affirm
    that scriptural chauvanism is alive and well.
    
    It takes the form of, "since I have the truth, your beliefs are evil!."
    
    
    It is a dispicable practice.
    
                                           patricia

        RE 1066.83

    > if you have ever used your interpretation of scripture to criticize
    > something such as homosexual behavoir, you have practiced scriptural
    > chauvanism.

    I don't consider this scriptural chauvinism, per se. At least no more
    than using scripture to criticize capital punishment is scriptural
    chauvinism. 

    Scriptural chauvinism is when the a group claims to have a definitive,
    superior grasp of the scriptures than another group. An example might
    be when a fundamentalist group claims the theology of the Roman
    Catholic church is un-biblical and evil, thus claiming for itself a
    superior ability to understand and teach the scripture. Of course, the
    axe swings both ways.

    Eric

    
    RE: 1066.84

    I would agree that what you cite in this note is scriptural chauvinism.
    
    	Eric

   ZZ     Since I have been told that my beliefs were demonic at least three
   ZZ     times by three different individuals during my noting, I would
   ZZ     affirm that scriptural chauvanism is alive and well.
    
    I'm going to address this issue because Patricia, has mentioned this
    before.  Patricia, I read your entries in Yukon and although most of it
    was interesting informative, there were times when you blatantly took
    scripture out of context to support a feminist viewpoint of the New
    Testament.  You were challenged on this a few times and simply didn't
    budge....or you didn't justify it.
    
    Satan used scripture out of context when Jesus was being tempted in the
    desert.  Everybody is guilty of doing this at one time or
    another...including myself.  I believe using scripture out of context
    is not of God.
    
    Like I said, I've done it in the past myself...both intentionally and
    unintentionally.  That's why you were challenged this way.
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Whose using scripture out of context is all a matter of opinion now
    isn't it. 
    
    Now when someone quotes James saying the "Feminisn that I am involved
    in is demonic and of the Devil, that's using scripure out of contexts. 
    James never heard of feminism.
    
    Giving my reasoning for stating Romans 5 18-21 supports Universal
    Salvation is giving my interpretation of Romans 5.  There was little
    argument there regarding Romans.  THere was an attack on my principles.
    
    
    My arguing scripture was  based on a
    method of studying scripture that I am learning at Andover Newton. 
    I entered information from an exegisis I did and got an A- on showing
    that Romans five supports Universal Salvation which I believe it clearly
    does.  It's a piece of scripture some would prefer to ignore.
    
    THat is exactly what Scriptural Chauvanism is about.  Name calling and 
    creating hierarchies of the saved based on one's own self understanding
    of scripture.  If my understand is different than their's my
    understanding must be from the Devil.
    
    
                                    Patricia

    Which is probably why you don't seem to like the writers of the
    epistles too much.  By your definition, they were all scriptural
    chauvenists.
    
    -Jack

>    Which is probably why you don't seem to like the writers of the
>    epistles too much.  By your definition, they were all scriptural
>    chauvenists.
    
The epistle writers were not saddled with their own epistles as part
of the canon.

Shalom,
Richard

    Jack,
    
    Your note really unsuccessfully attempts to trivalize what I admire or
    don't admire in scripture.
    
    In fully learning to accept and love myself in my imperfect humanity I
    am also learning to fully love you and others in their imperfect
    humanity.
    
    I am learning to love scripture in its imperfect humanity.
    
    My learning to admire the theology and writing of Paul for instance,
    even as I fully acknoweldge him as by gender and culture a chauvanist
    has taught me a lot.  Appreciating scripture requires separating out
    that which is trivial in scripture from that which is an illuminating
    revelation of God.
    
    When Paul tells the women of Corinth to shut up in church he is being
    trivial and chauvanistic.  When he tells each of us that we are new
    creation in Christ in whom their is no male of female, rich or poor,
    jew or gentile, slave or free he is being a brilliant prophet and
    theologian.  
    
    While acknowledging what is errant in Paul, I will also honor him for
    that which is brilliant. 
    
     That is also a dicotomy that Paul fully acknowledges about himself.
    
    I could say the same things for the other Epistle writers.  I can find
    brilliance in all the Epistles including Timothy and Titus.  I do truly
    believe however to say that all that is contained in the Epistles or in
    any other piece of scripture is the "Word of God" is heresy, false,
    oppressive, and therefore evil.
    
      The God I worship, never told women to Shut up in Church. 
    
     THe God I worship, feels every bit of the suffering that humans feel and does not
    actively subject women and men to weeping and gnashing of teeth.
    
    The God I worship, does not subject some of humanity to bliss and
    others to hell and eternal torture.
    
    THe God I worship did not send his son to be a human sacrifice but sent
    his son to reveal how humanity in God lives and loves.  The Cross of
    Jesus reveals that God suffers with us in our worst pain.
    
    I love the Bible.  I detest how certain twisted theories of the
    authority of the Bible has been used and continues to be used to
    oppress women, people of color, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, jews,
    pagans, other cultures, witches, Unitarians and anyone else oppressed
    by theories of Biblical Authority.

re .91

>    When Paul tells the women of Corinth to shut up in church he is being
>    trivial and chauvanistic.  When he tells each of us that we are new
>    creation in Christ in whom their is no male of female, rich or poor,
>    jew or gentile, slave or free he is being a brilliant prophet and
>    theologian.  

this atheist is once again reminded patricia, that he really must get around
to reading paul. all what you have written on the man so far really makes my
mouth water. one thing's for sure, you're a great salesman! er, woman that is! 



have a nice weekend!

andreas.

    thanks Andreas,
    
    Have a good weekend yourself.
    
                                   Patricia

      re: .91
    
      It is hypothetically possible that in the Corinthian church,
      a few women might have been blabbermouths!!
    
      (Not to say that men are not or that all women are.)
    
      Patricia, how do you know for certain that there wasn't a problem
      (in the Corinthian Church) with some women being too vocal???
    
      Were you there?
    
      The above is just one example of a possible reality that would 
      validate what Paul said as being sound advice and not as being
      uninspired or chaevenistic.
    
      If men were too vocal, I would expect him to say the same thing.
    
    						Tony

    There was a general problem throughout the Corinthian Church...one
    being that sin was condoned and applauded by the Church as illustrated
    in chapter 5.  The second being that the gift of tongues was greatly
    misused and that the church services were in utter chaos.  The women
    most likely participated in this as well.
    
    -Jack

      Thanks for the input Jack.  You seem to be supporting my main
      point.  Which is that there are often potential HARMONIOUS
      interpretations of scripture that are valid.  And many are ones
      that we may be blind to.
    
      Given the above, it is highly audacious to look at certain texts
      and label them uninspired.  I can see someone saying they think
      the texts _probably_ are uninspired, but to say they must be is 
      foolish.  There is so much we don't know and so we presume too
      much to claim we know enough.
    
      When I say I can see someone saying they think some texts are 
      probably uninspired, I don't mean to suggest that I don't believe
      that the entire Bible is inspired throughout.  I do believe it is
      inspired throughout even though I freely admit I can't explain the
      harmony of all things.
    
      I'm a spiritual infant.  Why should I be able to?
    
    						Tony   

    A problem arises when one attempts to take a portion of Paul's letter
    addressing a specific and local concern and applying it broadly today.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    That can be a problem.  However the issue of women leading in Church
    was an issue with Paul throughout his letters...Corinthians, Ephesians,
    Colossians, Timothy and Titus.
    
    -Jack

      Amen Richard!  It suggests that the word may be inspired and
      yet may (at times) have addressed cultural norms that may not
      be relevent today.
    
      Such as women being advised to wear hats back then.
    
      BTW, there is a wonderful spiritual application.  The bride (the
      church) must wear a covering.  The groom (Christ) does not.
    
      Although, in the last days, I see that covering coming off!!
    
    							Tony

    Paul only infrequently transcended the bondage of his own culture and
    time.
    
    Timothy and Titus are not always attributed to the actual hand of Paul.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Ephesians and Coloseans are also attibuted to Paul.
    
    most scholars do not believe Timothy and Titus are written by Paul.
    
    Opinions are more mixed when it comes to Ephesians and Coleseans.
    
    My take is that as the Christian Church became institutionalized, well
    after the time of Paul, it became more restrictive of women.
    
    Paul in his authentic letters, and in Acts, women are identified as
    apostles.  i.e. Priccilla

    ZZ    most scholars do not believe Timothy and Titus are written by Paul.
      
    I'd like to check on that.  I wasn't aware that most scholars felt this
    way.
         
   ZZ  My take is that as the Christian Church became institutionalized,
   ZZ  well after the time of Paul, it became more restrictive of women.
      
    Under Romanism, this is correct because Romanism was based on the
    papacy which was supposedly started by Peter.  My take on this is that 
    the started of papacy was under Constantine some 400 years AD.  
      
    ZZ    Paul in his authentic letters, and in Acts, women are identified as
    ZZ    apostles.  i.e. Priccilla
    
    In the letters, Aquilla and Priscilla are referred to as co-laborers in
    Christ.  I don't recall them being referred to as Apostles.  She was
    most definitely a disciple of Christ and quite an important one in the
    life of Paul.  Both she and her husband were exiled from Rome when the
    Caeser of her time (I believe it was Tiberius) had a disdain for the
    Jewish people.  He wanted them all out of the region.  However, I don't
    believe she was referred to as an apostle.  She could easily have
    been...I just don't believe she was referred to as such.  
    
    -Jack

It is not true that most scholars do not believe that Paul wrote Timothy
and Titus.  Just most scholars that Patricia listens to.

	"While some scholars doubt their authenticity; many others
	 meet the objections they raise."

	     --"The Navarre Bible", Faculty of Theology; University of Navarre

/john

First and Second Timothy and Titus, which are very similar in style and
content, are called the Pastorals because they contain instructions for
pastors of congregations.  They claim to be letters from Paul to two of his
colleagues, Timothy and Titus; however, they are neither true letters nor
from Paul.  They appear instead to be handbooks for church administration
written in the early second century, decades after Paul's death, by an
unknown author.  .................. 

The evidence that Paul did not write the Pastorals is overwhelming.  There
are no references to the "letters" in any other documents until the late
second century, considerably later than references to the other Pauline
writings.  The writing style is not typical of Paul but rather of a more
general Hellenistic literary Greek.  The theological concerns and vocabulary
differ substantially from Paul's and are similar to vocabulary found in such
other early-second-century Christian writings as 1 Clement and the letters of
Ignatius.  ....................  The Pastorals are concerned with church
offices that had not developed in Paul's time.

	Joanna Dewey
	Associate Professor of New Testament Studies
	Episcopal Divinity School
	Cambridge, Massachusetts

	(extracted from her introduction to First and Second Timothy and
	 Titus in _The Women's Bible Commentary_)

    
    The Timothy and Titus letters address issues of the early church
    postdating the time of Paul.
    
    The so-called pastoral letters emphasize doctrine over faith to a
    degree untypical of Paul.
    
    It was common in those days to write under the guise of someone revered
    and admired.  It was not considered forgery, as it would be today.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    It would be forgery in this case since the writer alluded to Timothys
    mother as beloved...indicating the writer was very close to Timothys
    mother and grandmother to boot.  This would be a false premise since
    Eunice et al were deceased years earlier.
    
    -Jack

    Remove your 1995 North American filters, Jack.
    
    Richard
    

Also see topic 877, "Timothy and Titus"

Shalom,
Richard

    What would Paul's affinity for Lois and Eunice have to do with 1995
    filters?
    
    -Jack

    A response to 1066.109 is located at 877.131.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard