The Roots of Catholicism

You see? You used "Rome" to identify the church - and you also used the historic phrase "the church at Rome".

I find it hard (apparently as hard as you find it) to separate the qualifier from that particular flavor of the Catholic church.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Interestingly, those same Jewish Christians seemingly spoke Greek, as I understand that the Septuagint was their favorite Old Testament text! And of course, that text contained the (gasp!) deuterocanonicals!

http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

I am not saying that the Hebrew text was not also used, but it seems that the Septuagint was the "Jewish" Christian sourse from the git go.

OK...

Not the Septuagint text, Ray?

BINGO! (Famous Catholic word!)

"Myths," as in story telling to make a moral/theological point or "myths" that are simple fables?

And your point is...........

Bill Putnam is saying, it seems to me that Philo did a pretty good job of finding the truth in scriputral interpretation, not knowing if he erred or not, but the method seems valid.

Remember, however, that we apparently do not know if he "influenced" the need for a literal interpretation of scriptures where it is called for, per my original quote from verses 53 to 56 of John Chapter 6. YOu seem to imply that Philo "influenced" the Church into an erronious direction, which makes me wonder where was Christ's promise that "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Philo is not the Church, Ray, benovolently or malvolently influencial as he may be.

To discern the truth in scripture, my friend, takes an authority, a magisterium of an infallible Church, with the Sacred Traditions of the Church from infancy still intact, even though it is made up of fallible men! And if that is not the holy Spirit in action, I don't know what is!

And that, my friend, is the Catholic Church.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

You see? You used "Rome" to identify the church - and you also used the historic phrase "the church at Rome".</font>[/QUOTE]The reason is simple, Ray, the authoritave center of the Western Rite of the church, which is the Latin or "Roman" Rite, is in Rome!

What I am objecting to and correcting you on is the general use of the term "Roman Catholic" to describe all Catholics. My Eastern Rite Catholic brethren would get upset with you if you called them that!

That is probably due to the fact that the Latin/Roman Rite is the most prevalent in the Western world, and I really cannot blame you for using the term.

Catholics use it themselves!

I'm just being a little sticky wicky about it, that all!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman and also not an empire.

Ray
The notion that certain or even most parts of the Bible contain multiple layers of meaning isn't heretical in itself. And the notion that everybody interested in allegorical exegesis doesn't have any interest in the historical/literal meaning also doesn't hold water.
Origen for example claimed that all Bible texts had 3 meanings. A historical meaning (A layer of meaning considered unimportant by Philo but certainly not by Origen), an ethical meaning (Origen never shows much interest in this layer) and an allegorical meaning (and here the old eunuch usually turns fruity).

 

Ray
"I agree with what you said,"
No you don't, not in the slightest.

"but Catholics and even some Protestants cannot interpret Scripture allegorically and with a literal interpretation at the same time. "
But ofcourse they can. The notion of multiple layers of meaning that are all significant, isn't that farfetched. Books containing multiple layers of meaning are written all the time.

"The school at Alexandria allegorized everything they found in the Bible, and therefore, lost the genuine meaning of the various texts."
Depending on your point of view they either added new meanings to the text, or discovered hidden layers of meaning, but that doesn't by definition mean you lose the literal meaning of the text. It can happen, but it isn't certain. It certainly wasn't Origen's aim, allthough a case can be made it was Philo's aim.

"I have read many of their interpretations and unfortunately, they were watered down and extorted the true meaning of what Almighty God was saying through his penmen."
And naturally God lectures you personally on the true meaning of the Bible, like you are some kind of don Camillo. Yes I have read Origenes, Philo and Clemens and yes I disagree with them a lot, just like you do.

"Catholics would do well to read some of the sad interpretations; in this way they would find their quasi-spiritual roots way back in the late 100's."
Origenes is once again much more the father of Eastern-Orthodox theology than he is the father of Western-Christian theology.
Your disdain for the Alexandrian school is strengthened by your reading of the Bible like it is the manual of some sort of household appliance called Salvation.

 

Is this the Dr. Grady who is KJVO? If so, he is hardly a trustworthy source. More of a conspiracy theorist, if you will.

In Christ,
Neal

 

I just did a Google search and yep, it is the King James Only Dr. Grady. Please, find someone a little more trustworthy to use to support your position. I wonder where all his degrees are from, especially his two doctorates????

In Christ,
Neal

 

Ray
You seem to be mostly concerned about misinterpreting the book of Revelations.
That is not a clear&simple text, the urge to allegorize is strong with that one.
Allthough chapter 20 seems to be reasonably straightforward, compared to some other bits.

 

Excellent point Ray.

God is "really God" in the book of revelation.

The saints are "really the saints" in the book of revelation.

The "earth" is figurative in parts of Rev 13 and literal in other parts - but literal in almost all other places - which means that washing out that reference as "symbolic in every case" is simply hollow theology.

Our RC bretheren "had hoped" to cast the entire book as "up for grabs - subject to whatever Pope you choose to interpret it for you". But in fact - Exegesis is AGAIN the secret to getting sound docrtine from the book. (That most feared principle to our RC bretheren).

I ask them again - wouldn't you rather step out of the dark ages and "into the light"? Who knows - maybe adopting sound exegeticall practices would actually benefit your case. Try it! At least "attempt" it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Rev 19-20 ---

The Earth is really the earth.

God is really God.

The saints are really the saints.

The resurrection is really the resurrection.

The 1000 years are really 1000 years.

The 2nd death is really the 2nd death.

The lake of fire and brimstone is really the lake of fire and brimstone.

The throne of God is really the throne of God.

The birds are really the Birds.

The armies of mankind are really the armies of mankind.

Why would our RC bretheren want to insist that none of it is actually true - and that you can simply spin it to mean whatever your favorite papal source tells you to say? Like is like you are adrift without an anchor of objective exegetical Bible study methods.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am sorry, Ray, but I would not trust anything by Dr. Grady nor would I ever use him to support my position. He does not merely "prefer" the KJV. It is folks like him that make me just shake my head in disbelief that people actually believe the stuff he peddles.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Time to ask a stupid question.
Isn't Calvary Bible Institute a roman catholic institution?
Never heard of the place before, but where I come from only RC's use Calvary, everybody else says Golgotha.
On the other hand where I come from only RC's use the term missionary (missionaris). My side uses the word zendeling to cover the same concept. On the other hand American baptists happily call their zendelingen missionaries, so the last time some of my fellow baptists got murdered by some Islamic fundies, my mom thought they had murdered nuns.

 

Calvary is used commonly here in the south by Baptists. In fact, we have a number of hymns about Calvary!

MANY Baptist Churches are named Calvary Baptist!
Diane

 

Mioque,

Oddly enough, it seems to be the reverse in my neck of the woods. Around here, I usually hear "Golgotha" from Catholics and "Calvary" from Protestants.

I wonder why that's so?

Mark