Frank and Ernest by Thaves for November 20, 2009

lol

John McCain doesn’t like nude teenagers.

if he’s a teenager i’m 105!

Stop eating the fruit off his tree. I don’t care what your wife said about it.

it’s not your lawn, it’s Gods….

Mow the grass only around Eve

@JAD, look closely. I did not claim that Jesus was born in December. I agree: a springtime birth fits what we know from Luke better.

(On the other hand, since Matthew has Jesus born in Joseph’s house [in Bethlehem], he could have been born any time of the year.)

I claimed that the Church picked this date, sometime before about the year 250, because of these texts. Back then, such interpretations (“proof texts”) were acceptable, including the re-interpretation as measuring light/hours of sunlight; nowadays they are not.

And the sixth month would, roughly, indicate that John was born about six months before Jesus, give or take some days or a few weeks–if Luke is accurate. It is interesting that two of the Gospels, Mark and John, were apparently not interested in the birth of Jesus; they only tell of Jesus’ adulthood.

But, then, the Church is willing to use round numbers, even when they are known to be in error, as when they celebrated the 2000th anniversary of the Birth of Christ in 2000, even though, according to Matthew, who has Jesus born before Herod’s death (which happened in 4 B.C.), that anniversary would have been before 1997.

But, JAD, when the individual makes a decision to accept Jesus as his Savior, that only sets up a personal relationship with Jesus. The Church is a community, and as a community it has rituals, reaching back to its founding. And one such ritual is the means for joining the new People of God, the Body of Christ, which is baptism.

Baptism is not a work: we do not make it effective; it is the grace given by God that makes it work. And we do it in accord with the command of Christ.

And the Church is not identical with the Catholic Church–even the Second Vatican Council said “this Church, constituted and organized as a society in this present, world, subsists in (“subsistit in”) the Catholic Church” (Lumen Gentium 8). The word “subsists” was chosen most deliberately, to indicate our belief that the Catholic Church is the most complete image of the Body of Christ, but that others are still members, albeit imperfectly.

As for individuals not reading the Bible, that was a common principle of some teachers, but never the ideal. Especially in prior centuries, with the example of many churches and individuals who (we felt) strayed into error, there was a caution in studying the Bible–but Catholic tradition properly includes reading, meditating on and studying the Bible.

As for the “official” interpretation of the Bible not agreeing with what’s there, I would be interested in any examples.

what are they doing on his lawn that is pissing him off….i would hand them a leaf or two…….

The RCC has had splits–but certainly not so many as other churches. There has been more than one pope at a time, but eventually the “true” pope became clear. Even the “Great Schism”, mostly driven by political concerns, was eventually resolved.

Another example: the only major American denomination with strength in both North and South not divided by the Abolition controversy before the Civil War was–the Catholics. That’s why we have “Southern Baptists”, among others.

Remember that the Church was not made for perfect people, but for sinners–and all its members on Earth are still sinners. And, yet, despite that, it still struggles against sin, it still persists. I did not, and do not, claim that the Catholic Church is perfect–only that we have the promise that the Holy Spirit will be with us to keep us from going too far astray.

And, regarding titles, I would prefer to use the title “Brother” for many reasons, not least Matthew 23:8, but that is another discussion.

In response to your question about perfection, if the Bible is enough by itself to lead us to truth (Sola Scriptura), then:

why do we have so many different denominations (well over 10,000), all pointing to the Scriptures, all with different interpretations of the truth?

what in the Bible itself affirms that the Bible is the true and only source of the truths of faith as the inspired Word of God, and what tells us what belongs to the Bible and what does not?

and, if it does affirm itself, why should we believe it? What validates its identity as the source of our belief?

This discussion is deep. May you all know peace find understanding. RCC-This is the same church that decided which scriptures we would read, the world was flat, the earth the center of the universe, approved of the “Inquisition”, killed the Knights Templar and now are saying that there may be more to the universe than we before admitted. A mess!!!! God bless you all and I pray that you have strength to find TRUTH.

i was going to point out to Joe Allen Doty that the Bible doesn’t even agree with what’s in the Bible (why else would there be differing versions) but bmonk did it much better. and where’s EMET when we need him? this little discussion would have been right up his alley!

Umm, John Pike, we only decided which Scriptures we would read–if your church wants different ones, you are free to chose them. And many churches did, especially in the Old Testament.

And, the Catholic Church was only promised infallibility in matters of faith and morals. Thus, if we did hold that “the world was flat, [and] the earth the center of the universe”, it was not infallible, any more than or change from the Biblical story of creation to one more compatible with modern cosmology and biology. We approved of the Inquisition originally as a check on local killing for matters of faith–to insist on some proof and evidence–and it does seem to have helped greatly in avoiding the “witch trials” so evident in much of England and Germany. We did not kill the Knights Templar–that was a political and economic decision by the King of France. No, we are not free from error and mistakes and having to use sinners in our community. But, then, who here on Earth is perfect?

Edit (three hours later): Most of the “mistakes” you cite were from the Middle Ages or early Modern times–and how many modern churches, nations, or other groups have made no mistakes in the past 800+ years?

Wait–how many other such groups have been around 800+ years to have their mistakes held against them?

We may learn slowly, but we do learn…

Who cares? It’s all fiction anyway.