re: Much Needed Clarity Regarding the Pope and the Recent Document Regarding Blessings

quote:

---

You are a troll.

---

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

Squirrel is doing nothing but trying to muck up the thread and cast aspersions on Jesus and the Bible using tired, worn out and VERY debunked theories and "explanations" for the Bible.

quote:

---

Historically accurate” on the other hand means that it actually really happened in the manner described. Historically accurate is what I’m concerned with.

---

Under your definition of historical if Stephe Ambrose misquotes the number of people killed at Pearl Harbor he is a liar and the battle never happened.
You are a fool in more ways than one.

Their problem is there isn’t any capacity for rational logical thought in their brains.

They can read:
-David was a young boy and killed Goliath.
-David was an old man too old to fight, and El Hanan killed Goliath.
-David killed Goliath, and El Hanan killed Goliath’s brother Lami.

They aren’t simply different perspectives of the same story, but conflicting stories. They hypnotize themselves to convince themselves it’s all true and historical.

David kill Goliath
Elhanan killed Lahmi

quote:

---

Unless David and Elhanan are two names for the same guy (unlikely) or there are two giants named Goliath (also unlikely), how do we reconcile these passages?

Whenever we find two passages at odds, we should look for a third. It’s best to interpret Scripture with Scripture. We don’t always have that, but this time, we do. Many of the stories of Samuel-Kings are also found in the pages of Chronicles. In general, Samuel-Kings are one account of David, Chronicles another.

Why did God give us two records of David’s kingship? As Deuteronomy 17:6 states, an Old Testament fact was confirmed: “on the basis of two or three witnesses.” The story of a lion-killing shepherd-boy from a Podunk town called Bethlehem who became king of Israel sounds like a legend. But we have two Old Testament books to confirm it. The two accounts, while not identical, do corroborate one another. (While I’m on the topic, what does this say about Jesus? Instead of two accounts or three, we have four gospels! Jesus’s life and miracles are quadruply confirmed through Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Praise God!)

When we look at Chronicles, then, we find the answer to this small Goliath mystery. I Chronicles 20:5 states, “Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” To his credit, Elhanan did kill a giant – just a less famous one.

Most likely, when II Samuel 21 was copied, a scribe left off the phrase, “Lahmi the brother of.” The correct reading has been preserved for us in I Chronicles.

---

quote:

---

David kill Goliath Elhanan killed Lahmi

---

quote:

---

Most likely, when II Samuel 21 was copied, a scribe left off the phrase, “Lahmi the brother of.” The correct reading has been preserved for us in I Chronicles.

---

That’s a lot of apologizing.

But one story has David killing Goliath as a young boy using a sling shot.

In the second story, King David (not the boy David) is at the battle and his servants say to him “You shall no longer go out with us to battle, lest you quench the lamp of Israel.” Then El Hanan killed Goliath.

So was David a young skinny boy weakling who couldn’t even hold nor afford a sword and armor, or was he a heavily armed old King who his servants didn’t trust in battle anymore when Goliath was killed?

Maybe there were two Achilles, oops I mean Goliath, one when David was a young boy and one when he was old and decrepit. Both Goliaths were from Gath and both were 6ft (or 9ft) tall and both had a spear like a weaver’s rod.

Achilles in Homer’s epic had a special throwing spear that had rope wrapped around it in such a way that when thrown and released, it would fly in a tight spiral like a football. When the Jews plagiarized Homer by creating Goliath out of Achilles, they used Achilles armor and throwing spear in their story, but since the Jews didn’t have a weapon like that, they describes it as being like a weavers rod (which had strands of string wrapped around it while in operation while weaving fabric).

quote:

---

Maybe there were two Achilles, oops I mean Goliath, one when David was a young boy and one when he was old and decrepit. Both Goliaths were from Gath and both were 6ft (or 9ft) tall and both had a spear like a weaver’s rod

---

Or just maybe there were two battles, one Goliath and one brother of Goliath, Lahmi. Goliath killed by David and Lahmi killed by Elhanan. Simple as that.

quote:

---

Goliath was killed.

---

Goliath or Lahmi?

David, with God's help, killed Goliath when he was a young boy.

Years later, when he was king, in another battle, Elhanan killed Lahmi, Goliath's brother.

It's really quite simple and easy to understand, unless you are looking for a reason to not understand it.

quote:

---

Each person will be judged as an individual and not a collective. No one will be judged by whether he or she was part of any particular church. The Bible says we receive the Holy Spirit when we become believers and he will guide us into all truth. It also says we are to test every spirit to see if it’s from God or not.
So ultimately, it’s up to the believer to decipher what is truth and what is error and to act accordingly.

---

Do you not see the problem here? There are literally millions of people in the world who hold your view and interpret the Bible differently from each other. They all think they Holy Spirit is revealing the truth, yet they all think something different. It's glaringly obvious that the Holy Spirit is not operating in the way you claim, or else there would not be so much disunity among Sola Scriptura Christians. And what do you think about people who simply don't have the mental capacity to decipher the Bible? How in the world are they supposed to do this?

The truth is Protestants can't believe in the Bible without believing in some particular extra-Biblical interpretation of it. It requires framing/context and connecting the dots outside of the words on the page to be workable. The correct framing/context is what Christ's Church provides. Without it, Protestants all depending on "no one but themselves" (so they think) to know the Holy Spirit has, at long last, revealed the truth about scripture to THEM all think different things. It's plain as day once you take your Protestant glasses off.

Just as a simple example, take something Catholics and Protestants argue about. Let's say the real presence. We cite things like "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink" from scripture (just as an example - not trying to actually discuss this right now). Then a Protestant comes along and looks at the scripture we are citing and proceeds to provide a lengthy explanation about why Christ's words don't mean what they appear to mean to Catholics. They can't do that without stepping outside of the words and appealing to a particular extra-Biblical line-of-thinking. Same can be said about anything you try to cite to support Sola Scriptura itself. You can't do it without removing yourselves from the words of the page and appealing to a particular extra-Biblical interpretation among many. And all of them were thought up by men who did not have Christ's teaching authority. It's not the Holy Spirit providing all the different Protestant denominations' interpretations.

quote:

---

Then there's the Jewish historian, Josephus, who mentions that James is the Lord's brother, too.

---

It’s funny how Origen quotes from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews and also writes how pissed he is that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus Christ and doesn’t even even mention Jesus Christ.

Then about 30-50 years after Origen is dead, this guy named Eusebius comes along and quotes the Antiquities of the Jews which now have in them references to the Christian Jesus Christ including the Testimonium Flavianum.

Do you really believe a Jew, most likely a Pharisee, who didn’t believe in Jesus Christ, would have wrote the following, especially what I’ve bolded?

quote:

---

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

---

Do you believe that a Pharisaic Jew, who didn’t believe in Jesus Christ according to Origen, would have written that Jesus was the Messiah (Christos) and that he performed miracles, wasn’t really a man, and was resurrected on the third day and appeared to many?

I think I know what your answer would be.

quote:

---

Just as a simple example, take something Catholics and Protestants argue about. Let's say the real presence. We cite things like "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink" from scripture (just as an example - not trying to actually discuss this right now). Then a Protestant comes along and looks at the scripture we are citing and proceeds to provide a lengthy explanation about why Christ's words don't mean what they appear to mean to Catholics. They can't do that without stepping outside of the words and appealing to a particular extra-Biblical line-of-thinking.

---

This is simply false


Hebrews 7:22-27
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 ¶ And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 ¶ For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself


Jesus offered up himself once. During the Mass and transubstantiation, the priest is required to offer up Jesus in physical form. If the very real presence of Jesus was in the Eucharist, this would require Jesus to die over and over again.