 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Garrett
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 07:04 pm |
|
BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: Danokan wrote: Next phase BigE 
The 66 books that the protestants have in their Bible:
Are any of them written as intentionally ficitional works?
Did you miss this BigE?^^^
Oops....yes I did.
Do you mean "fictional" in the sense that they are not "historical" events?
If your answer yes, then my answer is yes.
Intentionally fictional.
For example:
Don't know if you are aware of this, but there are many fictional "Christian" books out there.. novels, suspense, etc. They are INTENTIONALLY fictional. Are not meant to be historical, literal, etc.
Are any of the 66 books of the Bible agreed upon (non-apocryphal) written as INTENTIONALLY FICTIONAL?
I do mean the entire book.. not just parts that may be seen as allegorical, parabolic, etc.
Gotcha.....my answer is still yes.
For example, I believe the Book the Job to be "intentionally fictional". Great piece of literature, great theological theme, but a fictional historic event.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
That does present several problems in which you need to explain BigE.
Such as?
Biblical evidence to be a parable?
![[usa]](/forums/themes/default/usa.gif)
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 07:43 pm |
|
Garrett wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: Danokan wrote: Next phase BigE
The 66 books that the protestants have in their Bible:
Are any of them written as intentionally ficitional works?
Did you miss this BigE?^^^
Oops....yes I did.
Do you mean "fictional" in the sense that they are not "historical" events?
If your answer yes, then my answer is yes.
Intentionally fictional.
For example:
Don't know if you are aware of this, but there are many fictional "Christian" books out there.. novels, suspense, etc. They are INTENTIONALLY fictional. Are not meant to be historical, literal, etc.
Are any of the 66 books of the Bible agreed upon (non-apocryphal) written as INTENTIONALLY FICTIONAL?
I do mean the entire book.. not just parts that may be seen as allegorical, parabolic, etc.
Gotcha.....my answer is still yes.
For example, I believe the Book the Job to be "intentionally fictional". Great piece of literature, great theological theme, but a fictional historic event.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
That does present several problems in which you need to explain BigE.
Such as?
Biblical evidence to be a parable?
As to why I believe it's fiction, I'll go with C.S. Lewis quote:
"The Book of Job appears to me unhistorical because it begins about a man quite unconnected with all history or even legend, with no genealogy, living in a country of which the Bible elsewhere has hardly anything to say; because, in fact, the author quite obviously writes as a storyteller not as a chronicler."
http://lingamish.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/the-book-of-job-fact-or-fiction/
|
Garrett
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 07:50 pm |
|
Would that information be relevant to the message?
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 07:59 pm |
|
Garrett wrote: Would that information be relevant to the message?
Nope. That's why I don't have a problem with it being a fictional account.
But it is relevant to Dano's question.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 08:10 pm |
|
BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: Danokan wrote: Next phase BigE
The 66 books that the protestants have in their Bible:
Are any of them written as intentionally ficitional works?
Did you miss this BigE?^^^
Oops....yes I did.
Do you mean "fictional" in the sense that they are not "historical" events?
If your answer yes, then my answer is yes.
Intentionally fictional.
For example:
Don't know if you are aware of this, but there are many fictional "Christian" books out there.. novels, suspense, etc. They are INTENTIONALLY fictional. Are not meant to be historical, literal, etc.
Are any of the 66 books of the Bible agreed upon (non-apocryphal) written as INTENTIONALLY FICTIONAL?
I do mean the entire book.. not just parts that may be seen as allegorical, parabolic, etc.
Gotcha.....my answer is still yes.
For example, I believe the Book the Job to be "intentionally fictional". Great piece of literature, great theological theme, but a fictional historic event.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
That does present several problems in which you need to explain BigE.
Such as?
#1. The Bible treats Job as a legitimately real person:
Ezekiel 14:14, 20; James 5:11
#2. Early church fathers treated Job as a legitimately real person. I know of no early church father that stated he was a fable or its equivalent.
#3. Some of the people mentioned in the book of Job are mentioned elsewhere such as Eliphaz.
#4. The book of Job gives specific locations
#5. Catholicism approaches the book of Job as real and literal
#6. Amazingly, the book of Tobit in the Apocrypha alludes to Job as a real person
As to the argument of CS Lewis: I love CS Lewis and his writings.. however, the mere case that a geneaology isn't listed for Job is a rather weak argument in this case.. since MOST of the people in the Bible don't have one.
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 08:49 pm by Danokan
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 09:02 pm |
|
Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: Danokan wrote: Next phase BigE
The 66 books that the protestants have in their Bible:
Are any of them written as intentionally ficitional works?
Did you miss this BigE?^^^
Oops....yes I did.
Do you mean "fictional" in the sense that they are not "historical" events?
If your answer yes, then my answer is yes.
Intentionally fictional.
For example:
Don't know if you are aware of this, but there are many fictional "Christian" books out there.. novels, suspense, etc. They are INTENTIONALLY fictional. Are not meant to be historical, literal, etc.
Are any of the 66 books of the Bible agreed upon (non-apocryphal) written as INTENTIONALLY FICTIONAL?
I do mean the entire book.. not just parts that may be seen as allegorical, parabolic, etc.
Gotcha.....my answer is still yes.
For example, I believe the Book the Job to be "intentionally fictional". Great piece of literature, great theological theme, but a fictional historic event.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
That does present several problems in which you need to explain BigE.
Such as?
#1. The Bible treats Job as a legitimately real person:
Ezekiel 14:14, 20; James 5:11
#2. Early church fathers treated Job as a legitimately real person. I know of no early church father that stated he was a fable or its equivalent.
#3. Some of the people mentioned in the book of Job are mentioned elsewhere such as Eliphaz.
#4. The book of Job gives specific locations
#5. Catholicism approaches the book of Job as real and literal
#6. Amazingly, the book of Tobit in the Apocrypha alludes to Job as a real person
As to the argument of CS Lewis: I love CS Lewis and his writings.. however, the mere case that a geneaology isn't listed for Job is a rather weak argument in this case.. since MOST of the people in the Bible we don't have one.
1,3,4,6) A real person or places can exist in a fictional account. It is done all the time by authors: ie George Washington cutting down the Cherry Tree and not being able to tell a lie etc
2) The same early Church Fathers who got the Canon of Bible wrong by using the Apocropha?
5) From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Many look upon the entire contents of the book as a freely invented parable which is neither historical nor intended to be considered historical; no such man as Job ever lived. Catholic commentators, however, almost without exception, hold Job to have actually existed and his personality to have been preserved by popular tradition. Nothing in the text makes it necessary to doubt his historical existence. The Scriptures seem repeatedly to take this for granted (cf. Ezekiel 14:14; James 5:11; Tobit 2:12-15, according to the Vulgate — in the Greek text of Tobias there is no mention of Job). All the Fathers considered Job an historical person; some of their testimonies may be found in Knabenbauer, "Zu Job" (Paris, 1886), 12-13. The Martyrology of the Latin Church mentions Job on 10 May, that of the Greek Church on 6 May (cf. Acta SS.' II, May, 494). The Book of Job, therefore, has a kernel of fact, with which have been united many imaginative additions that are not strictly historical. What is related by the poet in the prose prologue and epilogue is in the main historical: the persons of the hero and his friends; the region where be lived; his good fortune and virtues; the great misfortune that overwhelmed him and the patience with which lie bore it; the restoration of his Prosperity. It is also to be accepted that Job and his friends discussed the origin of his sufferings, and that in so doing views were expressed similar to those the poet puts into the mouths of his characters. The details of the execution, the poetic form, and the art shown in the arrangement of the arguments in the dispute are, however, the free creation of the author. The figures expressive of the wealth of Job both before and after his trial are imaginatively rounded. Also in the narrative of the misfortunes it is impossible not to recognize a poetic conception which need not be considered as strictly historical. The scene in heaven (i, 6; ii, 1) is plainly an allegory which shows that the Providence of God guides the destiny of man (cf. St. Thomas, "In Job"). The manifestation of God (xxxviii, 1) generally receives a literal interpretation from commentators. St. Thomas, however, remarks that it may also be taken metaphorically as an inner revelation accorded to Job.
Divine authority of the book
The Church teaches that the book was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus all that its author gives as historical fact or otherwise guarantees possesses unfailing Divine truth. The question, however, arises, what does the book guarantee? (a) Everything in prologue or epilogue that is the comment of the author is Divine truth; nevertheless, what is perhaps poetic ornament must not be confounded with historical verity or objective dogmatic precepts
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 09:08 pm |
|
BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: Danokan wrote: Next phase BigE
The 66 books that the protestants have in their Bible:
Are any of them written as intentionally ficitional works?
Did you miss this BigE?^^^
Oops....yes I did.
Do you mean "fictional" in the sense that they are not "historical" events?
If your answer yes, then my answer is yes.
Intentionally fictional.
For example:
Don't know if you are aware of this, but there are many fictional "Christian" books out there.. novels, suspense, etc. They are INTENTIONALLY fictional. Are not meant to be historical, literal, etc.
Are any of the 66 books of the Bible agreed upon (non-apocryphal) written as INTENTIONALLY FICTIONAL?
I do mean the entire book.. not just parts that may be seen as allegorical, parabolic, etc.
Gotcha.....my answer is still yes.
For example, I believe the Book the Job to be "intentionally fictional". Great piece of literature, great theological theme, but a fictional historic event.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
That does present several problems in which you need to explain BigE.
Such as?
#1. The Bible treats Job as a legitimately real person:
Ezekiel 14:14, 20; James 5:11
#2. Early church fathers treated Job as a legitimately real person. I know of no early church father that stated he was a fable or its equivalent.
#3. Some of the people mentioned in the book of Job are mentioned elsewhere such as Eliphaz.
#4. The book of Job gives specific locations
#5. Catholicism approaches the book of Job as real and literal
#6. Amazingly, the book of Tobit in the Apocrypha alludes to Job as a real person
As to the argument of CS Lewis: I love CS Lewis and his writings.. however, the mere case that a geneaology isn't listed for Job is a rather weak argument in this case.. since MOST of the people in the Bible we don't have one.
1,3,4,6) A real person or places can exist in a fictional account. It is done all the time by authors: ie George Washington cutting down the Cherry Tree and not being able to tell a lie etc
2) The same early Church Fathers who got the Canon of Bible wrong by using the Apocropha?
5) From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Many look upon the entire contents of the book as a freely invented parable which is neither historical nor intended to be considered historical; no such man as Job ever lived. Catholic commentators, however, almost without exception, hold Job to have actually existed and his personality to have been preserved by popular tradition. Nothing in the text makes it necessary to doubt his historical existence. The Scriptures seem repeatedly to take this for granted (cf. Ezekiel 14:14; James 5:11; Tobit 2:12-15, according to the Vulgate — in the Greek text of Tobias there is no mention of Job). All the Fathers considered Job an historical person; some of their testimonies may be found in Knabenbauer, "Zu Job" (Paris, 1886), 12-13. The Martyrology of the Latin Church mentions Job on 10 May, that of the Greek Church on 6 May (cf. Acta SS.' II, May, 494). The Book of Job, therefore, has a kernel of fact, with which have been united many imaginative additions that are not strictly historical. What is related by the poet in the prose prologue and epilogue is in the main historical: the persons of the hero and his friends; the region where be lived; his good fortune and virtues; the great misfortune that overwhelmed him and the patience with which lie bore it; the restoration of his Prosperity. It is also to be accepted that Job and his friends discussed the origin of his sufferings, and that in so doing views were expressed similar to those the poet puts into the mouths of his characters. The details of the execution, the poetic form, and the art shown in the arrangement of the arguments in the dispute are, however, the free creation of the author. The figures expressive of the wealth of Job both before and after his trial are imaginatively rounded. Also in the narrative of the misfortunes it is impossible not to recognize a poetic conception which need not be considered as strictly historical. The scene in heaven (i, 6; ii, 1) is plainly an allegory which shows that the Providence of God guides the destiny of man (cf. St. Thomas, "In Job"). The manifestation of God (xxxviii, 1) generally receives a literal interpretation from commentators. St. Thomas, however, remarks that it may also be taken metaphorically as an inner revelation accorded to Job.
Divine authority of the book
The Church teaches that the book was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus all that its author gives as historical fact or otherwise guarantees possesses unfailing Divine truth. The question, however, arises, what does the book guarantee? (a) Everything in prologue or epilogue that is the comment of the author is Divine truth; nevertheless, what is perhaps poetic ornament must not be confounded with historical verity or objective dogmatic precepts
Legend is much different than FICTION BigE, i.e., George Washington, etc.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Many look upon the entire contents of the book as a freely invented paranble which is neither historical nor intended to be considered historical; no such man as Job ever lived. Catholic commentators, however, almost without exception, hold Job to have actually existed and his personality to have been preserved by popular tradition. Nothing in the text makes it necessary to doubt his historical existence. The Scriptures seem repeatedly to take this for granted (cf. Ezekiel 14:14; James 5:11; Tobit 2:12-15, according to the Vulgate — in the Greek text of Tobias there is no mention of Job). All the Fathers considered Job an historical person; some of their testimonies may be found in Knabenbauer, "Zu Job" (Paris, 1886), 12-13. The Martyrology of the Latin Church mentions Job on 10 May, that of the Greek Church on 6 May
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 09:13 pm |
|
BigE
Eze 14:2 ¶ The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,
13 Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:
14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
If we dismiss Job.. we have to dismiss Noah and Daniel.. and then Ezekiel for mentioning those three together as real characters..
then we have to dismiss James:
Jas 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
This is indeed a slippery slope IMO.
The book of Job may be a parable, may be fictional, may even be legend... however, it is obvious that the Bible treats it as a real historical person and real historical events.
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 09:40 pm |
|
Danokan wrote: BigE
Eze 14:2 ¶ The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,
13 Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:
14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
If we dismiss Job.. we have to dismiss Noah and Daniel.. and then Ezekiel for mentioning those three together as real characters..
then we have to dismiss James:
Jas 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
This is indeed a slippery slope IMO.
The book of Job may be a parable, may be fictional, may even be legend... however, it is obvious that the Bible treats it as a real historical person and real historical events.
Dano,
I don't think I disagreed that Job was a historical person.
I stated: "A real person or places can exist in a fictional account."
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 10:47 pm |
|
BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE
Eze 14:2 ¶ The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,
13 Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:
14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
If we dismiss Job.. we have to dismiss Noah and Daniel.. and then Ezekiel for mentioning those three together as real characters..
then we have to dismiss James:
Jas 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
This is indeed a slippery slope IMO.
The book of Job may be a parable, may be fictional, may even be legend... however, it is obvious that the Bible treats it as a real historical person and real historical events.
Dano,
I don't think I disagreed that Job was a historical person.
I stated: "A real person or places can exist in a fictional account."
Hmmm..
Then where are the other Bible writers gettng their Job references from?
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 11:48 pm |
|
Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE
Eze 14:2 ¶ The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,
13 Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:
14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
If we dismiss Job.. we have to dismiss Noah and Daniel.. and then Ezekiel for mentioning those three together as real characters..
then we have to dismiss James:
Jas 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
This is indeed a slippery slope IMO.
The book of Job may be a parable, may be fictional, may even be legend... however, it is obvious that the Bible treats it as a real historical person and real historical events.
Dano,
I don't think I disagreed that Job was a historical person.
I stated: "A real person or places can exist in a fictional account."
Hmmm..
Then where are the other Bible writers gettng their Job references from?
The Book of Job?
|
Emaus_40
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 02:49 am |
|
cloudman wrote: It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
Heretical teaching is bolded.
And yet Paul prayed for the dead. Go figure.
|
cloudman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 6th, 2004 |
| Location: | Lone Star State |
| Posts: | 14830 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 04:50 am |
|
BigE wrote: cloudman wrote: BigE wrote: cloudman wrote: BigE wrote: cloudman wrote: BigE wrote: cloudman wrote: BigE wrote: cloudman wrote:
My prayers will not get her sins forgiven while she's living and certainly not after she's dead. Neither will yours or anybody elses.
No wonder you are so confusing.....I ask a yes or no question and you don't answer with a yes or no....you could at least preface your comments with a clear response.
It's not really confusing unless one believes they can get the sins of a dead person forgiven by praying for them.
"And just as it is appointed for people to die once—and after this, judgment "
Hebrews 9:27
Once a person dies , their chance for redemption is gone. It's a real good idea to take care of those things while one is alive. One cannot be saved , forgiven, or baptized after they die.
Maccabees teaches otherwise and it is clearly a heretical teaching.
2) Secondly, your also mixing up your Catholic theogy. Catholics in no way believe that the sins of a dead person can be forgiven by praying for them. Catholics DO ask those in heaven to join us in prayer to God (the communion of saints), but that has nothing to do with forgiving sins. Catholics also may pray that someone's stay in purgatory may be shortened. But EVERYONE in purgatory has already been judged (and they are all assured of going to heaven), so forgiveness of sins is not an issue here either. So I have no idea where you came up with this theology....unless your thinking of the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead......
Evidently Catholics believe the teachings of Maccabees is heretical as well.
It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:46)
Why, then, would they want such teachings included in their Bible?
Again, you don't understand Catholic theology....
Catholics believe in two types of sins, mortal sin which is bad stuff that sends you to hell (murder, rape etc) and venial sins (minor stuff like white lies, losing your patience etc) which are problematic but don't keep you from heaven, even if you may have to travel through purgortary first on your way there.
So God only makes one judgement on our eternal state. We either go straight to heaven, to purgatory first before going on to heaven, or straight to hell. No one in heaven or purgatory goes to hell, or vise versa. One eternal judgement.
But Catholics can, in essence, pray that God forgives "quicker" the minor sins keeping one in purgatory. The person in purgatory is assured of heaven, that judgement has been made. It then becomes how long it takes to work off these minor things that dirty their souls (this is referred to as "temporal" punishment, versus the "eternal" punishmnet of going to hell).
Analogy would the little boy who steals $5 from his neighbor, buys candy, and eats it. After feeling guilty about what he has done, the little boy apologizes to his Dad and asks forgiveness. Dad forgives him because he loves him (will not send him to hell, eternal punishment) but Dad demands that he make things right with the neighbor (penance). Since the little boy has already eaten the candy, the Dad says he'll have to go rake the neighbors yard for the next two weeks (purgatory, temporal punishment). The little boys Catholic friend........asks the Dad if he can help by raking the yard one of those weeks so that his friend only has one week of punishment (praying for the dead).
Thus the "loosing of sins".....shortening "temporal" punishment, but not changing the "eternal" judgement.
There ya go....Catholic Theology 101......
Thanks.
That's enlightening, but I'm more interested why the Catholic Church would canonize scripture that is as heretical as the example given, especially when, according to you they don't believe in it and don't practice it.
One question, though, where is "purgatory", or tweenerville if you will, referenced in scripture.
1) The example given isn't heretical from the Catholic Perspective - that was the purpose of my anology. The "sins" forgiven are not the mortal sins that determine our eternal fate (as you stated, once a person dies their chance for redemption is gone). The "sins" that are forgiven, are the minor sins that places the person in purgatory for a time before goinf to heaven.
2) "Tweenerville" in the Scripture:
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/life_in_christ/where_purgatory_bible/
The scripture doesn't say "minor" sins will be forgiven. Reading that entire chapter of maccabees, I can't find anywhere it differentiates between "minor" and " major" sins.
It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:46)
Scripture is meant to be read as a whole, so I would not expect the entire theology of purgatory to surface just from Maccabees, or even worse, by focusing just on one verse as you are doing.
No kidding. That's why I read the whole chapter.
Your response means 2 things:
1. You are totally disregarding what 2Maccabees 12:46 says in favor of other alledged scripture.
2. There has to be scripture somewhere that I'm not aware of that breaks down sin into "major" and "minor" categories that also indicates a person can be forgiven of minor sins , but not major ones...or vice-versa.
I'd like to see those scriptures.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 06:25 am |
|
BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE
Eze 14:2 ¶ The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,
13 Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:
14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
If we dismiss Job.. we have to dismiss Noah and Daniel.. and then Ezekiel for mentioning those three together as real characters..
then we have to dismiss James:
Jas 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
This is indeed a slippery slope IMO.
The book of Job may be a parable, may be fictional, may even be legend... however, it is obvious that the Bible treats it as a real historical person and real historical events.
Dano,
I don't think I disagreed that Job was a historical person.
I stated: "A real person or places can exist in a fictional account."
Hmmm..
Then where are the other Bible writers gettng their Job references from?
The Book of Job?
The other Bible writers aren't referring to the book of Job as if it were fictional though BigE.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 06:25 am |
|
Emaus_40 wrote: cloudman wrote: It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
Heretical teaching is bolded.
And yet Paul prayed for the dead. Go figure.
Where?
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 10:29 am |
|
Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE
Eze 14:2 ¶ The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,
13 Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:
14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
If we dismiss Job.. we have to dismiss Noah and Daniel.. and then Ezekiel for mentioning those three together as real characters..
then we have to dismiss James:
Jas 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
This is indeed a slippery slope IMO.
The book of Job may be a parable, may be fictional, may even be legend... however, it is obvious that the Bible treats it as a real historical person and real historical events.
Dano,
I don't think I disagreed that Job was a historical person.
I stated: "A real person or places can exist in a fictional account."
Hmmm..
Then where are the other Bible writers gettng their Job references from?
The Book of Job?
The other Bible writers aren't referring to the book of Job as if it were fictional though BigE.
That's because the Bible was considered a 100%, all in, no exceptions, exact in its detail, historical document in those days. However, modern Biblical Scholarship, historical analysis, and archeology have brought a much different perspective today (for many, if not most, but certainly not all).
I respect your position on this Dano, but I think you asked my opinion. It is what it is. And certainly many Scholars agree me (that Job is historical, the story itself is fictional). In fact, I'm willing to bet more agree with me than you, but that is neither here nor there as I don't think either of us would be able to establish any clear scholarly consensus on the issue.
We could probably have the same argument about the Book of Joshua.
I hope this doesn't kill our discussion as I am still curious as to where your heading with this vs the apocrypha.
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 11:08 am |
|
cloudman wrote: BigE wrote: cloudman wrote: BigE wrote: cloudman wrote: BigE wrote: cloudman wrote: BigE wrote: cloudman wrote: BigE wrote: cloudman wrote:
My prayers will not get her sins forgiven while she's living and certainly not after she's dead. Neither will yours or anybody elses.
No wonder you are so confusing.....I ask a yes or no question and you don't answer with a yes or no....you could at least preface your comments with a clear response.
It's not really confusing unless one believes they can get the sins of a dead person forgiven by praying for them.
"And just as it is appointed for people to die once—and after this, judgment "
Hebrews 9:27
Once a person dies , their chance for redemption is gone. It's a real good idea to take care of those things while one is alive. One cannot be saved , forgiven, or baptized after they die.
Maccabees teaches otherwise and it is clearly a heretical teaching.
2) Secondly, your also mixing up your Catholic theogy. Catholics in no way believe that the sins of a dead person can be forgiven by praying for them. Catholics DO ask those in heaven to join us in prayer to God (the communion of saints), but that has nothing to do with forgiving sins. Catholics also may pray that someone's stay in purgatory may be shortened. But EVERYONE in purgatory has already been judged (and they are all assured of going to heaven), so forgiveness of sins is not an issue here either. So I have no idea where you came up with this theology....unless your thinking of the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead......
Evidently Catholics believe the teachings of Maccabees is heretical as well.
It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:46)
Why, then, would they want such teachings included in their Bible?
Again, you don't understand Catholic theology....
Catholics believe in two types of sins, mortal sin which is bad stuff that sends you to hell (murder, rape etc) and venial sins (minor stuff like white lies, losing your patience etc) which are problematic but don't keep you from heaven, even if you may have to travel through purgortary first on your way there.
So God only makes one judgement on our eternal state. We either go straight to heaven, to purgatory first before going on to heaven, or straight to hell. No one in heaven or purgatory goes to hell, or vise versa. One eternal judgement.
But Catholics can, in essence, pray that God forgives "quicker" the minor sins keeping one in purgatory. The person in purgatory is assured of heaven, that judgement has been made. It then becomes how long it takes to work off these minor things that dirty their souls (this is referred to as "temporal" punishment, versus the "eternal" punishmnet of going to hell).
Analogy would the little boy who steals $5 from his neighbor, buys candy, and eats it. After feeling guilty about what he has done, the little boy apologizes to his Dad and asks forgiveness. Dad forgives him because he loves him (will not send him to hell, eternal punishment) but Dad demands that he make things right with the neighbor (penance). Since the little boy has already eaten the candy, the Dad says he'll have to go rake the neighbors yard for the next two weeks (purgatory, temporal punishment). The little boys Catholic friend........asks the Dad if he can help by raking the yard one of those weeks so that his friend only has one week of punishment (praying for the dead).
Thus the "loosing of sins".....shortening "temporal" punishment, but not changing the "eternal" judgement.
There ya go....Catholic Theology 101......
Thanks.
That's enlightening, but I'm more interested why the Catholic Church would canonize scripture that is as heretical as the example given, especially when, according to you they don't believe in it and don't practice it.
One question, though, where is "purgatory", or tweenerville if you will, referenced in scripture.
1) The example given isn't heretical from the Catholic Perspective - that was the purpose of my anology. The "sins" forgiven are not the mortal sins that determine our eternal fate (as you stated, once a person dies their chance for redemption is gone). The "sins" that are forgiven, are the minor sins that places the person in purgatory for a time before going to heaven.
2) "Tweenerville" in the Scripture:
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/life_in_christ/where_purgatory_bible/
The scripture doesn't say "minor" sins will be forgiven. Reading that entire chapter of maccabees, I can't find anywhere it differentiates between "minor" and " major" sins.
It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:46)
Scripture is meant to be read as a whole, so I would not expect the entire theology of purgatory to surface just from Maccabees, or even worse, by focusing just on one verse as you are doing.
No kidding. That's why I read the whole chapter.
Your response means 2 things:
1. You are totally disregarding what 2Maccabees 12:46 says in favor of other alledged scripture.
2. There has to be scripture somewhere that I'm not aware of that breaks down sin into "major" and "minor" categories that also indicates a person can be forgiven of minor sins , but not major ones...or vice-versa.
I'd like to see those scriptures.
1) Reading an entire chapter IS NOT reading the Scripture as a whole. I know you know better than that Cloudman.
2) I'm am not disregarding anything in Maccabees. I am disregarding your assertion that the verse quoted is not specific enough for you which is actually kind of funny in a way, since when we argued in another thread on contradictions in the Bible, you often brought in extraneous explanations to explain verses which I thought were not specific enough.
3) As for Biblical breakdowns in sin, here are a few examples:
1 John 5:16-17 (RSV): "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin which is not mortal."
John 19:11: "'. . . he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.'"
See also: 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 1:8; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12:16; Rev. 22:15.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 12:44 pm |
|
BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: BigE
Eze 14:2 ¶ The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,
13 Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:
14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
If we dismiss Job.. we have to dismiss Noah and Daniel.. and then Ezekiel for mentioning those three together as real characters..
then we have to dismiss James:
Jas 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
This is indeed a slippery slope IMO.
The book of Job may be a parable, may be fictional, may even be legend... however, it is obvious that the Bible treats it as a real historical person and real historical events.
Dano,
I don't think I disagreed that Job was a historical person.
I stated: "A real person or places can exist in a fictional account."
Hmmm..
Then where are the other Bible writers gettng their Job references from?
The Book of Job?
The other Bible writers aren't referring to the book of Job as if it were fictional though BigE.
That's because the Bible was considered a 100%, all in, no exceptions, exact in its detail, historical document in those days. However, modern Biblical Scholarship, historical analysis, and archeology have brought a much different perspective today (for many, if not most, but certainly not all).
I respect your position on this Dano, but I think you asked my opinion. It is what it is. And certainly many Scholars agree me (that Job is historical, the story itself is fictional). In fact, I'm willing to bet more agree with me than you, but that is neither here nor there as I don't think either of us would be able to establish any clear scholarly consensus on the issue.
We could probably have the same argument about the Book of Joshua.
I hope this doesn't kill our discussion as I am still curious as to where your heading with this vs the apocrypha.
I would disagree with your assessment i.e. more for than against, but for sake of continuing, let's do this.
Let me re-phrase the question:
Are there any books of the 66 books of the Bible agreed upon by protestants that there is unanimous agreement that it was written as an INTENTIONAL fictional book?
Last edited on Wed Nov 4th, 2009 12:44 pm by Danokan
|
BigE
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 01:43 pm |
|
Danokan wrote: I would disagree with your assessment i.e. more for than against, but for sake of continuing, let's do this.
Let me re-phrase the question:
Are there any books of the 66 books of the Bible agreed upon by protestants that there is unanimous agreement that it was written as an INTENTIONAL fictional book?
Protestants?
Wow....that cuts a pretty broad swath....don't you agree? From ultra conserative to ultra liberal (that screwy Jesus Seminar comes to my mind...).
I think we would still have the same issue....but.....
Can we pretend to agree in order to push the conversation along?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 02:02 pm |
|
BigE wrote: Danokan wrote: I would disagree with your assessment i.e. more for than against, but for sake of continuing, let's do this.
Let me re-phrase the question:
Are there any books of the 66 books of the Bible agreed upon by protestants that there is unanimous agreement that it was written as an INTENTIONAL fictional book?
Protestants?
Wow....that cuts a pretty broad swath....don't you agree? From ultra conserative to ultra liberal (that screwy Jesus Seminar comes to my mind...).
I think we would still have the same issue....but.....
Can we pretend to agree in order to push the conversation along?
Hmmmm... poorly phrased question because I thought you understood the already established foundation.
I was talking about the PROTESTANT Bible and its agreed upon 66 books, i.e., having the Apocrypha excluded.
|
Current time is 08:15 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
|
|
|
