logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline jpelham  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:25:40 PM(UTC)
jpelham
Joined: 5/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: Virginia

Swalchy wrote:
For jpelham's outlet to the members of YN.

Continue your "defence" of Roman Catholicism here, jpelham.

This will be my one and only post in this thread.

YN members - it's your turn now :)


Please accept my apology if I offended you.
I will refer to the pertinent posts in the previous thread when I return.
Offline Bridget  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:40:52 PM(UTC)
Bridget
Joined: 12/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 165
Woman
Location: USA

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I just want to be pertinent. Such a great word. :)

Quote:
You read rather hastily Swalchy. My post was not concerned with Strong's concordance or lexicon. That you do not rely on such ostensible 'reference' works was not hidden. It was concerned with the art of translation. The quotation applies to all reference texts used for translation, and I believe I mentioned that this was the point.


"Regarding translation, what hold's for the ambitious user of Strong's concordance [I harbored no illusion that you are among them] holds for every student of an ancient language"
-----Jpelham (((ambitious user???...really?)))

I don't get this. The art of translation. Sure, there's an 'art' to it, but it's human language. Words have meanings. Words have context. Students of ancient languages?

I'm confused. I'm not a student of ancient languages. I've been fascinated with some languages, but...the point is that in those languages, words have meanings.

What is it here that is 'mistranslated' to you? What is it here that you have an issue with? If, in study, you find that things differ from the latin or whatever..the church, why do you continue to try and reconcile with that difference by way of using your mastery of the English language?
If you see that Yahweh wants you to know his name, how can you come to a place that is accepting of the rules of your church? They not only don't use His proper name. They forbid the use of it.
That is one, tiny, small example that has been asked here more than once now, I believe. But, I'm trying to keep things simple. (I'm simple, see. :)

What's your point in judging translations without studying them and knowing the words. You obviously know the English language well, so you read. Why would you want to read something that blurs the lines and leaves you out of what the flip is being said??

I don't understand. And as I've said before, I'm not the brightest bulb here so forgive me for not understanding your exceptional comments made of perfect English.
Offline bitnet  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:41:13 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

I have been reading the posts by jpelham and held back but I think it is time for a little input from me, one who considers himself a former Catholic.

A serious study of Catholicism from the annals of the Catholic Encyclopedia itself would raise serious doubt and validity of the approach of the church of Rome towards Yahweh, our Creator. We do not approach Him on our terms, but according to His Word. Period. Anything else is sheer folly, and the history of the Catholic church has revealed itself to be just that and that in itself disqualifies the Catholic church from being a just reflection of our heavenly Father, who is not that guy sitting in the Vatican!

Having studied Scripture for several years, there is no way that the Catholic church -- and her daughter churches -- have even remotely addressed The Plan that has been outlined in The Word. And it does not take much linguistic verbosity to explain nor understand The Plan, only an attitude of a child who is willing to learn and be corrected.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline bigritchie  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:06:51 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Here is the deal.

Neither the Messiah nor any of his Apostles, Disciples, or any of his followers for a entire century ever participated in some religion called "Christianity".

They were Torah Observant Hebrews who rejected man mad religion that added and subtracted from the Torah.

Therefor the entire debate regarding "Christianity" is a false debate.

I always stick 2 thumbs up in the air and smile real big at christians and say "If Torah observant Judaism is good enough for 'Jesuuuuuus" its good enough for me"

I tell the King James only nuts the same thing "If the Greek and Hebrew was good enough for the King James translators it is good enough for me"!

Offline Matthew  
#5 Posted : Thursday, June 24, 2010 1:14:46 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
So hopefully jpelham can deal with the following points from the Crash Course... thread:

jpelham, or any Catholic in defense of Catholicism, needs to justify and explain why the follow things are in accordance with Scripture (according to Catholic beliefs), one would also need to explain away why these things are not linked to pagans and Babylon (the religions of the Gentiles that Yahweh despised, i.e. Deuteronomy 18:9 “Indeed, when you come into (bow’ – enter, are led into, return to, or are included in) the land associated with (‘ahser) Yahuweh your God, given (natan – bestowed and entrusted) to you, you shall not accept, teach, or imitate (lamad – be trained in, instruct, become accustomed to, or disciple others in), or perform (‘asah – fashion, effect, attend to, commit to, observe, celebrate, profit from, bring about, ordain or institute) any of the disgusting religious ways (tow’ebah – abhorrent rites, detestable idolatrous things, repulsive and loathsome rituals, abominable festivals) of the Gentile nations (gowym).”):

The papacy, hierarchal church order and clergy, popes, cardinals, fathers, priests, monks, nuns, a paid clerical staff and human authority. Clerical robes, crowns, and seats of honor. Easter, Lent, the Nativity of St. John, the Feast of the Assumption, All Saints Day, Christmas, Sunday Worship, mass, churches, crosses, religious candles, halos, the golden sunburst icons, holy water, child statues, Madonna and Child, saints, the sacred heart, reverence for relics, canonizing saints and prayers to and for the dead, petitions to Mary and saints, the adoration of Mary, infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, Eucharist, confessions, the Rosary, indulgences, purgatory, the crusades, inquisitions, and the use of torture. And In His Name's reference to the pope's fish hat!

Would need to also justify why it's OK (according to Catholicism) to refuse use of God's Name of Yahweh, to teach that Peter was a pope, that popes are Christ’s representatives, and that popes are holy and infallible. Also, explain why the Catholic Church edited Yahweh’s name out of His Scripture and changed Yahshua’s name and title, and why they kept Yahuweh’s Word from the people for one thousand years.

And a question from Noach needs answering too: Jpelham, why does the Vatican have a pagan obelisk sitting at its front door?

Me wrote:
point 841 in the Catechism regarding Muslims says: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."


jpelham wrote:
Catholicism is distinct from Islam by virtue of its belief in the categorical validity of reason. Islam allows their god to contradict himself, and be praised nonetheless, a dogmatism it shares identically with Protestant Christendom, though not the dogma. When reason finds itself at odds with doctrine, reason is sacrificed. This observation is not new, and was articulated in a speech delivered at the University of Regensburg in 2006, and promulgated worldwide. Islam responded typically, and Protestant Christendom has yet to offer a noteworthy response.


The Catechism says the Muslims god (Allah) and the God of Abraham (Yahweh) are one and the same, yet jpelham's response is implying that they're different. jpelham's beliefs aren't aligning with the Catechism in this one instance, and that's a good thing ;)

Here's a link to page 3 of the Crash Course... thread, where some other members, like shalom82, have some great posts that are hopefully answered to as well.
Offline jpelham  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:11:38 PM(UTC)
jpelham
Joined: 5/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: Virginia

Bridget wrote:
I just want to be pertinent. Such a great word. :)

-----Jpelham (((ambitious user???...really?)))

I don't get this. The art of translation. Sure, there's an 'art' to it, but it's human language. Words have meanings. Words have context. Students of ancient languages?

I'm confused. I'm not a student of ancient languages. I've been fascinated with some languages, but...the point is that in those languages, words have meanings.

What is it here that is 'mistranslated' to you? What is it here that you have an issue with? If, in study, you find that things differ from the latin or whatever..the church, why do you continue to try and reconcile with that difference by way of using your mastery of the English language?
If you see that Yahweh wants you to know his name, how can you come to a place that is accepting of the rules of your church? They not only don't use His proper name. They forbid the use of it.
That is one, tiny, small example that has been asked here more than once now, I believe. But, I'm trying to keep things simple. (I'm simple, see. :)

What's your point in judging translations without studying them and knowing the words. You obviously know the English language well, so you read. Why would you want to read something that blurs the lines and leaves you out of what the flip is being said??

I don't understand. And as I've said before, I'm not the brightest bulb here so forgive me for not understanding your exceptional comments made of perfect English.


Thank you for your thoughtful reply Bridget, and please forgive my slow response. I've been away for several days and will leave again soon. When things settle down I'll give more time to this discussion. Perhaps the challenge of keeping up will be clearer if I tell you a little more about myself. I have 7 children, between the ages of 1 and 17. I barely keep up with family and work, but I will return as time allows.

You are too generous. I read and so can you. You are bright enough. And I will certainly write something awkward or foolish or both, and surely have already.

My point about translation is that conceptual structures must be accurately translated from one culture into another; a specific body of information must be 'reborn in the flesh' of another culture while preserving its unique identity, which is, strictly speaking, impossible, except in the case of quantitative, scientific concepts. So we do the best we can, but doing the best we can requires a profound knowledge of the cultures one wants to bridge, the kind of knowledge normally afforded by a PhD from a good university. Without this, or its equivalent, and the dispassionate integrity of the honest scholar, translation generally falls under the sway of idiosyncrasies and subjective biases.

But what we call Pentacost, when the Holy Spirit endowed the Apostles with the ability to communicate the message of the Incarnation into many languages, demonstrates at least that everything of importance can be translated.

On my next trip I will be taking the YY translation of John 20:23 with me to have at least one classicist check it (an expert in Greek & Latin languages and cultures), and I will try to include one from Harvard without a religious bias, which shouldn't be hard.

In parting I mention just that if the Catholic Church forbids the use of the word Yahuweh, then the formal statement of Catholic belief, the Catechism, violates this rule egregiously, because it uses this name repeatedly and reverently, though it omits the vowels as the Hebrew original does.

Also, the name "Jesus" appears in Latin manuscripts of no later than the 4th century: "Iesu." "Christ" is only the Greek for Messiyah, the "Annointed One."

I look forward to continuing this next week.
Offline jpelham  
#7 Posted : Thursday, July 1, 2010 5:42:35 AM(UTC)
jpelham
Joined: 5/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: Virginia

Matthew wrote:
.Me wrote:
point 841 in the Catechism regarding Muslims says: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."


The authors of the Catechism do not choose words carelessly. The plan of salvation does not exclude the Muslims, which does not mean they will attain it in large numbers. Insofar as they hold the faith they profess to hold, the faith of Abraham, the Father of Faith, they worship the One, merciful God. It is also evident that few in fact hold the faith of Abraham.

Much to do before leaving, so please excuse me.

And I will tell you whom I consult about the translation, if I can find anyone. I hope to visit a former professor (a sinologist) and will try to visit the Classics dept. while there.
Offline jpelham  
#8 Posted : Thursday, July 1, 2010 11:01:39 AM(UTC)
jpelham
Joined: 5/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: Virginia

Swalchy wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinology

So basically, someone who doesn't actually translate, nor is specifically trained to translate ancient languages, but is far more concerned with its "philosophical" outlook, but with a ginormous emphasis on China.

China isn't Greece, just in case you didn't know, so whatever he says will have absolutely no baring on this discussion. Oh dear.


It may be that you are as harried as I am. I did not say I would ask a sinologist about Greek. I will look for help in the Classics dept. while I am there to visit someone in another department.

Swalchy wrote:
And I am going to presume that you know diddily squat about Islam, because if you knew just a tiny bit about Islam and the Qur'an, you wouldn't say that the Muslims share the same trust as that of Abraham.

They are the antithesis of each other, so they seriously can't be the same at all.


Your presumption is correct. I know little about Islam, just enough to not doubt that the Quran was inspired by satan himself. But if one is to hold out hope of communicating with Muslims who grew up knowing only what they have been told by their Imams, but who sincerely seek the Truth, then one must begin with what they think is common ground, and what would in fact be common ground if it were followed honestly and consistently. One does not initiate dialogue with denunciations.



Offline Matthew  
#9 Posted : Thursday, July 1, 2010 11:26:06 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
jpelham wrote:
I do not doubt that the Quran was inspired by satan himself. But if one is to hold out hope of communicating with Muslims who grew up knowing only what they have been told by their Imams, but who sincerely seek the Truth, then one must begin with what they think is common ground, and what would in fact be common ground if it were followed honestly and consistently.


Here's common ground for you: Catholics printed Bibles in Malaysia with God's Name substituted for Allah, the god of Islam. So if you say Satan (Allah as he is called by Muslims) inspired the Quran, what gives Catholics the right to insert Satan's name into Scripture where God's Name is supposed to be?

Also, if a Muslim were to read #841 they would most likely come to the conclusion that their god (Allah) is the same God of Abraham (Yahweh), hence they'll see no reason to accept Yahshua as the Messiah but will continue to follow the paedophile prophet Muhammad, which will lead them straight to the grave. And you're right, the Catholics really chose their words "wisely" since they knew Muslims would be fond of the words "merciful God," but in doing this the Catholics are associating Yahweh with Allah again. Also, a non-Muslim will most likely come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church are basically saying it's fine to be Muslim and to follow Muhammad but as along as they hold to the faith of Abraham they'll be saved, which again is unbiblical (as in not from Yahweh). Yes, there will be some Muslims who come to know and love Yahweh and His Son, but then they'll no longer be Muslims but instead be called ex-Muslims, so again the wording of the Catechism in point 841 is misleading.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#10 Posted : Thursday, July 1, 2010 11:47:34 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Can I answer this? Because ignorant people think that "Allah" means "God" in Arabic.
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline jpelham  
#11 Posted : Thursday, July 1, 2010 12:13:30 PM(UTC)
jpelham
Joined: 5/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: Virginia

Matthew wrote:
Here's common ground for you: Catholics printed Bibles in Malaysia with God's Name substituted for Allah, the god of Islam. So if you say Satan (Allah as he is called by Muslims) inspired the Quran, what gives Catholics the right to insert Satan's name into Scripture where God's Name is supposed to be?


Matthew, I think you mean 'Allah substituted for God's Name.' I share your skepticism, and at the moment can only offer a possible analogy with temples built for the gods of Greece and Rome, which were converted into places of worship for followers of Jesus. And if he was able to drive demons from the bodies of demoniacs, and leave them filled with the Holy Spirit, then the same can be accomplished with a building and its inhabitants or a word. This could succeed with the name Allah, in the case of Mulsims, insofar as they sincerely seek to know and worship the Logos, in belief that 'Allah' refers to this perfectly good, true, and beautiful One. These would clearly not be close and scrupulous readers of the Quran. There is a noble, though grossly misled character at the end of C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. He apparently represents a Muslim suffering exactly this plight, and in the end he is included among the blessed. Even so, I tend to doubt that the use of Allah is advisable, though I don't know enough about this to pass judgment.

Matthew wrote:
Also, if a Muslim were to read #841 they would most likely come to the conclusion that their god (Allah) is the same God of Abraham (Yahweh), hence they'll see no reason to accept Yahshua as the Messiah but will continue to follow the paedophile prophet Muhammad, which will lead them straight to the grave. And you're right, the Catholics really chose their words "wisely" since they knew Muslims would be fond of the words "merciful God," but in doing this the Catholics are associating Yahweh with Allah again. Also, a non-Muslim will most likely come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church are basically saying it's fine to be Muslim and to follow Muhammad but as along as they hold to the faith of Abraham they'll be saved, which again is unbiblical (as in not from Yahweh). Yes, there will be some Muslims who come to know and love Yahweh and His Son, but then they'll no longer be Muslims but instead be called ex-Muslims, so again the wording of the Catechism in point 841 is misleading.


I would only offer that great care, specifically charity, must be applied when addressing potential converts from Islam, or from any system of belief, unless they are already disaffected. It is also true that the Catechism suffered the excesses of Vatican II. The doctrinal stand is correctly represented, but sometimes obscured by excessively conciliatory wording. The rest I will try to answer when I return.

Edited by user Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:52:02 PM(UTC)  | Reason: clarify

Offline Bridget  
#12 Posted : Friday, July 2, 2010 1:44:40 PM(UTC)
Bridget
Joined: 12/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 165
Woman
Location: USA

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Quote:
I do not doubt that the Quran was inspired by satan himself. But if one is to hold out hope of communicating with Muslims who grew up knowing only what they have been told by their Imams, but who sincerely seek the Truth, then one must begin with what they think is common ground, and what would in fact be common ground if it were followed honestly and consistently.



Read your own words, and then...do, please, come to know that Words Have Meanings and the meanings...the Meanings Matter. In other words, I know a girl who grew up catholic, grounded in it, and followed it honestly and consistently...it's the 'honesty' part that got me in the end....it was the thinking me that got me...free....Free... When I stopped listening to the Imams (Priests, Reverends, etc..Popes)...


Common ground doesn't make a damn when it comes to building bridges
. Hey...that was pretty damn well said if I do say so myself. lol I just may quote myself...gonna 'bold' it for sure..

peace,
~bridge
:D
Offline Bridget  
#13 Posted : Friday, July 2, 2010 2:02:52 PM(UTC)
Bridget
Joined: 12/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 165
Woman
Location: USA

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Quote:
I would only offer that great care, specifically charity, must be applied when addressing potential converts from Islam, or from any system of belief, unless they are already disaffected.

It is also true that the Catechism suffered the excesses of Vatican II. The doctrinal stand is correctly represented, but sometimes obscured by excessively conciliatory wording. The rest I will try to answer when I return.,



Here's a translation for the rest of us:

I think we should be careful dealing w/ religious people.

The Catechism suffered by being within it's own..owning itself..what? I am at a loss for translation... The doctrine makes a lot of sense, but it's hidden from rational people via it's wording.........."...........I'll be back when I wake up?"....



Okay, yes, the ending of my 'translation' was mean spirited, I admit. I apologize......but......I am just trying to figure out wtf I'm reading here.

Please pardon the fact that I'm not 'ladylike'...

:D

Edited by moderator Saturday, July 3, 2010 1:44:39 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Just decreasing font size :) - Swalchy

Offline Bridget  
#14 Posted : Friday, July 2, 2010 2:05:12 PM(UTC)
Bridget
Joined: 12/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 165
Woman
Location: USA

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I So did not mean for that text to be THAT Large in the last post....so very sorry..
Offline bitnet  
#15 Posted : Friday, July 2, 2010 6:45:31 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shabbat Shalom,

Again, instead of deliberating on the merits of Catholic Catechism, or for that matter Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Islam or such other religion, let's cut to the chase: do they lead people to Yahweh in the way that He has revealed Himself to us? All the posts that jpelham right up to the pope can make here shall only be an apologetic for their current beliefs, almost all of which contradicts Scripture. Tradition has a place, only if it truly leads to Yahweh. Claims that Allah, or Purusha/Brahman, or any other name can be used to identify the One Creator is definitely unacceptable and is easily proven false through Scripture. You either believe Scripture or not. So like Swalchy says, give it up cos this isn't going anywhere.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline jpelham  
#16 Posted : Sunday, July 18, 2010 7:02:15 PM(UTC)
jpelham
Joined: 5/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: Virginia

Matthew wrote:
So hopefully jpelham can deal with the following points from the Crash Course... thread:

jpelham, or any Catholic in defense of Catholicism, needs to justify and explain why the follow things are in accordance with Scripture (according to Catholic beliefs), ..:

The papacy, hierarchal church order and clergy, popes, cardinals, fathers, priests, monks, nuns, a paid clerical staff and human authority. Clerical robes, crowns, and seats of honor. Easter, Lent, the Nativity of St. John, the Feast of the Assumption, All Saints Day, Christmas, Sunday Worship, mass, churches, crosses, religious candles, halos, the golden sunburst icons, holy water, child statues, Madonna and Child, saints, the sacred heart, reverence for relics, canonizing saints and prayers to and for the dead, petitions to Mary and saints, the adoration of Mary, infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, Eucharist, confessions, the Rosary, indulgences, purgatory, the crusades, inquisitions, and the use of torture. And In His Name's reference to the pope's fish hat!

...


I apologize for the late reply. I inquired into the YY translation of John 20:21-23. If Mr. Winn's translation is correct, then the truth of Yahushua will be as radically new and distinct as is the translation; if it is mistaken, then all that is translated from Greek manuscripts must be doubted. I consulted someone trained in classical Greek, and who now spends most of his time on Koine. The name will not matter; you can corroborate this yourself - I note that he has no sympathy for the Catholic view. There are two possible reasons for the YY translation, either innocent errors of one still learning Greek, or deliberate distortion of the text for the sake of dogma - what is called eisegesis.

The decisive verse, Jn. 20:23, is properly and simply translated thus:
"If some you forgive the sins, they are forgiven them. If some you hold they are held."

Beyond this I will only urge you to consider that although you speak of "knowledge" rather than "faith," you have built your edifice on faith in Mr. Winn, who I suspect grew up studying Hebrew as a matter of tradition. But he did not learn Greek well enough to translate it. The exacting qualifications for accurate translation I have already mentioned.

To address a couple of your questions - where does papal authority come from? Matthew 16:18. As Jesus would have said it (speaking to Peter): "You are Kephas, and upon this Kephas I will build My church,... and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,.."

Confession? From John 20:23 above. And it is marvelously effective, in fact miraculously effective. Perhaps you know the observation of famous Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. His regular patients included a grossly disproportionate number of Protestants. He noted the obvious explanation, that Catholics have a marked advantage: confession.

I have grown fond of some of you, but my duty as husband and father requires that my time and effort be focused on the Truth. You as members are each the truth in your own singular way, but YY does not teach the Truth that leads to the joy and hope that I have already found. Goodbye. And in parting I urge you to start with a reliable translation of Scripture, the facts of history (take special notice of the Gnostics), and your faculty of reason. Scripture speaks clearly of the "Church" - Ekklesia, if you wish, and you can compare this with the existing communities you find, claiming to be the Body of Yahushua. This is the only intellectually honest way. And with sincere effort and prayer you will find the Truth. I will pray for you.

May the peace of Christ be with you all,
Joseph



Offline jpelham  
#17 Posted : Sunday, July 18, 2010 7:13:03 PM(UTC)
jpelham
Joined: 5/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: Virginia

bitnet wrote:
Shabbat Shalom,

... Claims ...easily proven false through Scripture. You either believe Scripture or not...


Then only one question remains: who provides your authoritative translation of Scripture?
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#18 Posted : Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:27:22 PM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Interestingly I took it to a classic Greek scholar who has no sympathy to Buddhism and he said it says "If some you eat chicken, they get free coke. If some you hold the coke there is no chicken."


EDIT: My point being that although I believe you have been to see someone, without giving us their name the point is moot because we can't check it out, and we can not ask them ourselves. I think the people who do know Ancient Greek would like the ability to be able to either find out more about the person you spoke to - or even email them directly. Basically you are asking us to have faith in you, and we don't have faith in any man - especially Yada lol Also - what manuscript were they taking that rendering from?

Edited by user Sunday, July 18, 2010 11:01:14 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Richard  
#19 Posted : Monday, July 19, 2010 2:21:14 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
And all God's children give a big sigh of relief.
Offline In His Name  
#20 Posted : Monday, July 19, 2010 4:21:14 AM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Aahhh...

He didn't explain the pointy hats. ;)
“Because he clings to Me, is joined to Me, loves and delights in Me, desires Me, therefore I will deliver him, carry him safely away, cause him to escape from harm making him inaccessible and strong, and delivering him safely to heaven, because he has known, observed, cared for, recognized, instructed and advised others to use, designated, acknowledged, discerned, answered in, My name, authority, character, report, mark, and nature." Psalm 91:14
Offline jpelham  
#21 Posted : Monday, July 19, 2010 1:21:17 PM(UTC)
jpelham
Joined: 5/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 157
Location: Virginia

Swalchy wrote:
Actually he says "You are Petros, and upon this sturdy rock [referring to Simon Peter's proclamation that Yahushua is the Messiah] I shall build my Ekklesia." ...


I gently remind you that Jesus did not speak English. It was almost certainly Aramaic, in which language the word for "Peter" and "rock" would have been identical. The Catholic view follows.

If you study the first few centures of the Church, and the heresies with which it had to contend, you will find the antecedents I once asked about. You are quintessentially Protestant, though departing more radically from the Body of Christ than most sects, with no less audacity than Michael Servetus, and possibly comparable passion, but not comparable knowledge or genius.

I gave in to the temptation to respond. But I know you will not weep to know that from now on I will not, and instead will pray for you. And if you think I am misguided, please pray for me.
Offline Matthew  
#22 Posted : Monday, July 19, 2010 4:13:55 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
jpelham wrote:
To address a couple of your questions - where does papal authority come from? Matthew 16:18. As Jesus would have said it (speaking to Peter): "You are Kephas, and upon this Kephas I will build My church,... and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,.."


KP shared an interesting passage with me recently in one of his works, it comes from Exodus 33:12-22. God's goodness and glory can only be perceived from the rock, the rock we are told in Scripture is Yahweh our Redeemer, our salvation (yahushua), i.e. Psalm 62:1-1. Not only do we have to stand on it but we must also find shelter within it.

Matthew 7:24-27 confirms that Yahshua is the rock, that we must build our foundation on the words He says. 1 Peter 2:4-8 confirms that Yahshua is the rock, the Living Stone, the cornerstone of our belief <--- and these are the words of Peter himself. 1 Corinthians 10:4 even says the rock is Yahshua the Messiah, the same spiritual rock the ancient Israelites ate and drank from. Exodus 17:1-7 confirms also that Yahshua is the Rock from which the living waters of salvation flow.

Psalm 62:1-2 "My soul finds rest in God alone; my salvation [the word yahushua in Hebrew] comes from him. He alone is my rock and my salvation (yahushua); he is my fortress, I will never be shaken."

From my understanding I see Catholics quoting Matthew 16:18 out of context. I see Yahshua referring to the declaration Peter had made, that Yahshua is the Messiah, the Son of God, as Swalchy mentioned in his post. I don't see verse 19 as a special command just to Peter alone in regards to having the keys of heaven, because I also see the same words used by Yahshua again in Matthew 18. In my understanding Matthew 18 is telling us that it's up to us forgive our brother who sins against us. An example of such a sin can be my brother falsely accusing me of something. If I choose to not forgive my brother then Yahweh won't forgive me, causing the gates of Hades to prevail. He forgave me and He wants me to display the same attitude towards my brothers, that of love. It's our choice, we can choose to love God or not, in return God will honour our choice!

Whereas the Catholic Church seem to think that priests (who are referred to as fathers, which I believe is the sin of self-aggrandising i.e. Matthew 23:8-13) have the power to forgive the general sins of a person, those sins not done personally against the particular priest. jpelham, what's the job of a priest in the Catholic confession, does only he have the power to forgive the general sins of a person, or is he there just to be a helping hand? Can a person not rather stay at home and pray, never going to confession, are their prayers for forgiveness for their sins against God not heard by God?

jpelham, if you think I'm wrong here please tell me, especially since this is a core issue.

In His Name wrote:
Aahhh...

He didn't explain the pointy hats. ;)


yeah, I would like to see an explanation of that, plus the list of pagan things I got from Yada's book.

Here it is again:

The papacy, hierarchal church order and clergy, popes, cardinals, fathers, priests, monks, nuns, a paid clerical staff and human authority. Clerical robes, crowns, and seats of honor. Easter, Lent, the Nativity of St. John, the Feast of the Assumption, All Saints Day, Christmas, Sunday Worship, mass, churches, crosses, religious candles, halos, the golden sunburst icons, holy water, child statues, Madonna and Child, saints, the sacred heart, reverence for relics, canonizing saints and prayers to and for the dead, petitions to Mary and saints, the adoration of Mary, infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, Eucharist, confessions [and penance], the Rosary, indulgences, purgatory, the crusades, inquisitions, and the use of torture.

Hopefully jpelham would justify these ^ using Scripture to back them up, and would personally like to see him dissociate their clear link to ancient pagan traditions which Yahweh clearly stated we had to stay away from.
Offline bitnet  
#23 Posted : Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:59:59 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

jpelham wrote:
Then only one question remains: who provides your authoritative translation of Scripture?


Surprise! jpelham stayed to read our comments and could not resist a last grasp at avoiding the real matters at hand. Instead, he asks impertinent questions such as this. Obviously, I am not referring to an imprimatured version of Scripture that has been crafted to support the position of the Catholic church. Even those editions cannot support the blatant contradictions between its' words and the traditions of the Catholic church. You don't have to be a genius to read "Keep the Sabbath" and ask about it before realising that the appointed day was changed by man, not the Maker.

If we had to rely on the Vatican to provide the authoritative translation of Scripture, then most Christians were doomed until Vatican II when it was finally allowed to be translated into the vernacular instead of remaining in archaic Latin. Over the past centuries before the last, believers were persecuted for having copies of translations, as they clearly revealed the contradicting edicts coming out from Rome which had no basis in Scripture. I don't want to have to go into the history of the Catholic church: you can easily read that for yourself in the Catholic Encyclopedia, a "self-confession" that clearly shows how far off the track purported leaders of the laity have consumed the lives of the innocents for their self-aggrandizement and wealth in the name of Catholicism.

Not only is the the question about the pointy hats not answered, there are no answers for many of the questions that were posed by Matthew. There are none that are consistent with Scripture. The only consistent "answers" I had obtained from the Catholic priests regarding the Catholic traditions were that "the traditions help explain Scripture better"! How can that be when so much was in direct violation of The Word!?

The real answer is that "The pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops and priests know best and we should listen to them for our own good." Herein lies the rub: "believe man or suffer the consequences of man, for God's Word does not count (for you) as we are the ones who decide what it means." Even in this age where Truth can be easily found despite the noise around us, man chooses not to listen to The Word because it is too hard to give up the ways of the world. We would rather submit to our lusts and then look to the clergy for salve when it hurts. We'd pay them to bribe God to let us off the hook with a few Our Fathers and Hail Mary's. In essence, we do it to ourselves.

For this we have been paying the price and will continue to do so until Messiyah Yahushua returns. Many Christians dread the Day of Return and associate it with Armageddon -- whatever it means to them -- whereas those of us who read and understand The Word knows that He comes not to judge us into eternal hell but to save us from wiping ourselves off the face of the planet and to pull us out of the hell that we are creating ourselves.

jpelham and others like him will need to pay closer heed to The Word and look for answers in the right places and listen to the voice of the Ruach Qodesh if he wants guidance. They can pray all they want for us and we would appreciate the gesture but ultimately it is only that -- a gesture, and Abba Yahweh is not likely to listen to those who continue to spurn His Word, His Sacrifice, and His Plan in favour of religious dogma.

Don't get me wrong: we are far from being saints and still sin. We fail because the flesh is weak but we continue to struggle to keep in step with His Word and want to, hoping for change within us as we continue this path. We are aware that with His Set-apart Spirit and our desire to listen to Him and walk in His Way, we shall be where He wants us to be. We do not need to observe useless rituals or pay for forgiveness as per the Catholic dogma to be right with Yahweh. We can even use His Name in our prayers and songs, without worrying about what the pope says. We observe the Miqra/Feasts that He gave us because they have a stolid meaning and lead us to Him. We are proud to be associated to Yahweh through these Appointed Days and The Law and accept being called Yahudym because that is the ultimate bottom line -- to be related to Him.

Ever wondered why "many are called but few are chosen"? Is the Christian church many or few? Go figure. But here's a take on this: His invitations have gone out to many, and a great number have assembled. Then He asks us to step up to the line if we really want to follow Him, but few do and most shy away like the rich young man. We do not believe Him when He says, "My burden is light and my yoke is not heavy." Instead we rely on ourselves and try to pull our own crucifixes during Good Friday and thereafter. Those who step forward are really saying, "Yes, Father, lift this burden off us and bring us into your care. We believe You and trust You and know that You will bring us to Your side one way or another and with Your help we are prepared to face the world in Your Name."

Remember, we all drink at the well of His Mercy and it would simply be good manners to know the name of the Owner of the well. The Catholic church, in its wisdom, has forgotten it and banned it. Guess where this rudeness will lead to?
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Bridget  
#24 Posted : Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:14:57 PM(UTC)
Bridget
Joined: 12/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 165
Woman
Location: USA

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
It is amazing how Truth can be so skewed and so veiled to confuse even the most intelligent of beings. Amazing and sad. Very sad...and maddening, really.

On a lighter note...I learn something new EVERY single time I come here. Today, I learned the word 'vituperation'.
...and I'm happy about that..even though it's small and totally insignificant to this discussion.

That's what I'm here for...to take things 'down a notch'....lol

:)

...vituperation....what a word.
Offline Richard  
#25 Posted : Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:19:45 PM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
The RCC departs from and reviles the Scriptures so many times, in so many ways, that it surpasses my meager abilities to comprehend how any thinking person could be taken in by their doctrines.

As for the fish-head hats worn by the pope, cardinals, and bishops, archaeology has shown that they are exact replicas of those worn by the ancient priests of Dagon, the fish-god of the Babylonians and Philistines. For a more thorough treatment of this subject, please see page 215 of The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop.

You know, I have a time or two been overrated. I have also been underrated. Now I learn that many times in my life I have even been vituperated!

:D
Offline Richard  
#26 Posted : Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:51:13 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Here is yet another twist in the ongoing saga of Roman Catholic priests who sexually molest boys: this perverted priest tried to hire a hit man to murder his victim! Read the story here.

How can anyone believe anything those people preach?! Give me a major break!
Offline Daniel  
#27 Posted : Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:20:06 AM(UTC)
Daniel
Joined: 10/24/2010(UTC)
Posts: 694
Location: Florida

From the "you couldn't even make this up" desk: Pope's comments on condoms.
Nehemiah wrote:
"We carried our weapons with us at all times, even when we went for water" Nehemiah 4:23b

We would do well to follow Nehemiah's example! http://OurSafeHome.net
Offline RidesWithYah  
#28 Posted : Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:56:17 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Rome is Babylon, simple as that.
(And the workings of her accomplice may surprise some - read THIS.)
Offline Richard  
#29 Posted : Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:28:58 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Daniel wrote:
From the "you couldn't even make this up" desk: Pope's comments on condoms.



Brilliant thinking there in the Vatican. In effect, they're saying, "It is better to be rejected by Yahuwah for simple fornication than it is to be rejected by Him for spreading HIV."
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.