markomalley

As Another Spot noted, you can read the document here (hopefully this link works for you). It is written in a number of short chapters, each of which can be treated as a devotional-type reading. As I pointed out to t-bone, the document is challenging...not in a bad way, but challenges you to examine your own life against a no-compromise standard.

I had noticed Mark that many denominations are now offering Bible study groups of one form or another and I think that is absolutely wonderful! It gives people more choice. I don't think choice has much to do with it. In no case am I aware of a small group being considered as a replacement for the normal liturgy, rather it is considered a supplement to the regular service. I think that the body of Christ actually works better when every part of the body does what it is supposed to be doing. (I am being a bit sarcastic here but it is not aimed at anyone in particular). The body of Christ has many different parts for a reason. And you are echoing the thoughts of St. Paul, as written in 1 Cor 12. But many of those parts have been stiffled for so very long. Here, on the other hand, I think we diverge in our opinions considerably. 1 Cor 12:18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. You'll note that the above says that God has placed the members, not that the members figured out for themselves which body part they'd want to be. Much of the 'stifled' feeling that I've seen throughout my life is from people who want to struggle against God (albeit they likely don't recognize this) and where/what God wants from them in their lives. If a person wishes to walk in the footsteps of Christ, then should he do as Christ did? John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. How many times did Christ express those thoughts throughout the Gospels? How about St. Paul (e.g., Phil 1:21, For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain) If Jesus did not come down from heaven to do His own will, if Paul's very existence is Christ, then maybe I should consider living for Christ rather than for what I perceive to be my own satisfaction/ self-fulfillment. So perhaps these people who feel stifled should, rather than attempting to become a member that they, in fact, aren't called to be, should strive to be the best that they can be where God placed them? For so many year the major churches have monopolized not only religion but the basic thought processes and decision making processes of people. Consider this for a minute if you would, using the analogy of the Body. 1 Cor 12:20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. Not multiple bodies, just one. 1 Cor 12:24b-26 But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord (or schism) in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 1 Cor 3:4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal? It is a shame that the 'major churches' monopolize religion. Christ has ONE body and we are all members of that ONE body. Because there is the illusion put forth of having multiple bodies (churches), there is not the feeling of having ONE body. We are separated from each other and not in accord. Each man follows God, not according to the will of God, but according to the man's own vain imaginations. And that is little better than idolatry. monopolized ... the basic thought processes and decision making processes of people. A person's religion has a primary responsibility for helping the people form and develop their consciences so that doing the will of God rather than the will of man is the norm. It's how we avoid getting a "reprobate mind." (cf Rom 1:28). And when the conscience is formed, the thoughts and the decision making process will be impacted. If a person's religion doesn't do that, I would submit that the religion is not doing it's job. (Whether you agree with the content of the formation or not is a separate issue, I am merely talking about the importance of forming the conscience w/o regard for the content of that formation) For example a community could become conditioned to believe and think that only men were allowed to go to school past the age of 12. Women could only attend until they were 12 and then they were to go home and pursue more womanly endeavors. So if they saw or heard of somebody even thinking of doing it differently then they would think badly of that person. Not only that but they would not endeavor themselves to go beyond what they "knew" to be right. Obviously, I would think that the example is backwards and ignorant. However, I don't know that the principle, in of itself, is necessarily bad. If a community has inculcated modesty, would it be improper to apply societal pressures to maintain modesty? How about monogamy? How about respect of private property? So it was with Bible study for so long in the churches of our world. Look for example at Martin Luther (not King or Jr) In Rev Luther's time the Bible was not written in the language of the people. He helped bring about that change. Actually, Luther was not the first one to translate the scriptures into the vernacular. The first example that should be considered is the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (the vernacular for those people who read it). That happened several hundred years before Christ. St. Jerome translated the scriptures (both OT and NT) from the original languages into Latin in the 4th Century AD. Latin was the vernacular at that time in the Western Roman Empire. The scriptures were also translated into Coptic (the vernacular in NE Africa) around the second century. As to modern languages, many scriptural translations existed prior to Luther's version, originally printed in 1522. There are translations dating from the 13th and 14th century. In fact, the Douay-Rheims Bible, a Catholic translation, was completed in 1609...the Rheims NT was published in 1582! (The King James version was published in 1611). One thing to consider is that Gutenberg hadn't invented the movable-type printing press until 1450. So prior to that time, the Bible would not have been in the hands of the populace, anyway, as the cost of the book would have been out of reach of all but the most wealthy. Eventually the church that he had fought against saw the wisdom of this idea. This topic is way too deep for a derailment of this thread (I would be happy to discuss it, but it would take far too long here). I would refer you to Luther's 95 Theses, though, and ask you to show me which one of those theses discusses the wisdom of the people spending time studying the Word of God in their vernacular. (Hint: you won't find it) But it was the habit of thought pattern that kept so many wonderful men of God blind in this regard. It was not something that they did intentionally. I am certain that the original intent was not to keep the Bible or the understanding of the Bible out of the hands of the people. But that is ultimately what happened. Keep in mind that most people wouldn't have known to do with a Bible even if they had one. Most people were illiterate, and I do mean MOST. Luther didn't fix that. Nor did Calvin. Nor did Zwingli. They preached to people who responded to their preaching. This was not only the situation during the middle ages, it has been that way from the beginning and, even in Europe and the US, was that way up until the 20th Century. (Though the movement toward universal literacy started during the 19th Century and, in fact, continues to this day) That thought pattern was loosened with the different translations of the Bible but ultimately some still taught that the average layman was not capable of truly interpreting the meaning of the Bibles teachings. That thought, that habit of thinking silently infused itself into the fabric of the basic theologies of many denominations. The manifestation of that thought was the lack of Biblical study offered to any but the very young for indoctination purposes or the ministers or clergy class but seldom to the layperson in the middle. 2 Pe 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, It sounds to me that laymen interpreting the Bible for themselves is sort-of discouraged in Scripture, as well. Remember, above, where I discussed "one body"? All the schism that has happened in the past 500 years is as the result of 'one's own interpretation.' After all, why in the world are the "Free-Will Baptists" not in total fellowship with the "Southern Baptists" or the "General Baptists" or the "United Baptists" or the "Primitive Baptists" or the "Independent Baptists" or the "Missionary Baptists," etc., etc., etc.? And I could go with any number of denominational 'families' for that. As I said this is not a bash on anybody or any denomination at all it just seems like the logical procession of a prevailing thought pattern that I for one am glad to see is quietly dying. I also think that as ASpot has so eloquently pointed out that none of us probably set out to be in a cult. (See my tag line below) Most of us didn't wake up one morning and realized that we had become a part of the monster that we had set out to destroy. But the teaching had crept into the web of our brains and had fermented into a vile concoction that we must now sift through to find the remnants of our innocent selves. Wow I have gone on for quite some time and I apologize for such a long post. Mark I agree that TWI filled a need that was lacking perhaps because the Churches did not do their jobs either correctly or efficiently. I'm still thinking on the Ordination thing. I understand that this is not a bash on a particular denomination...and I also recognize that many of us are still trying to figure out where we're at in regards to the subject of religion/spirituality. I, hopefully, offer a slightly different perspective than some others.

Eyes, My apologies for the brevity of my response. I would like to say more but just don't have time this morning, as I am running late. I would submit, though, that you should consider that true freedom comes only when you abandon yourself to God. You can be enslaved by many things in this life, including your own will. I'll try to write more later, but felt that I should respond to your fine post, at least briefly, in a timely fashion.

Kempis is tough. Kempis was counterculture 700 years ago. He is more counterculture now. The mindset is utterly different than our post-modern, post-Christian culture. The mindset is also utterly different than the mindset taught by Word-Faith groups such as TWI.

And then you could take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia's case that the Gospel was originally written in Aramaic: II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. What connection is there between this Hebrew Gospel and this Greek Gospel, both of which tradition ascribes to St. Matthew? Such is the problem that presents itself for solution. Let us first examine the facts. A. TESTIMONY OF TRADITION According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 111, xxxix, 16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could. Three questions arise in regard to this testimony of Papias on Matthew: (1) What does the word logia signify? Does it mean only detached sentences or sentences incorporated in a narrative, that is to say, a Gospel such as that of St. Matthew? Among classical writers, logion, the diminutive of logos, signifies the "answer of oracles", a "prophecy"; in the Septuagint and in Philo, "oracles of God" (ta deka logia, the Ten Commandments). It sometimes has a broader meaning and seems to include both facts and sayings. In the New Testament the signification of the word logion is doubtful, and if, strictly speaking, it may be claimed to indicate teachings and narratives, the meaning "oracles" is the more natural. However, writers contemporary with Papias--e.g. St. Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., liii), St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., I, viii, 2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, cccxcii), and Origen (De Princip., IV, xi)--have used it to designate facts and savings. The work of Papias was entitled "Exposition of the Oracles" [logion] of the Lord", and it also contained narratives (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxxix, 9). On the other hand, speaking of the Gospel of Mark, Papias says that this Evangelist wrote all that Christ had said and done, but adds that he established no connection between the Lord's sayings (suntaxin ton kuriakon logion). We may believe that here logion comprises all that Christ said and did. Nevertheless, it would seem that, if the two passages on Mark and Matthew followed each other in Papias as in Eusebius, the author intended to emphasize a difference between them, by implying that Mark recorded the Lord's words and deeds and Matthew chronicled His discourses. The question is still unsolved; it is, however, possible that, in Papias, the term logia means deeds and teachings. (2) Second, does Papias refer to oral or written translations of Matthew, when he says that each one translated the sayings "as best he could"? As there is nowhere any allusion to numerous Greek translations of the Logia of Matthew, it is probable that Papias speaks here of the oral translations made at Christian meetings, similar to the extemporaneous translations of the Old Testament made in the synagogues. This would explain why Papias mentions that each one (each reader) translated "as best he could". (3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew. Besides, as they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching. To be understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated thence into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his "Hist. eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel. B. EXAMINATION OF THE GREEK GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW Our chief object is to ascertain whether the characteristics of the Greek Gospel indicate that it is a translation from the Aramaic, or that it is an original document; but, that we may not have to revert to the peculiarities of the Gospel of Matthew, we shall here treat them in full. (1) The Language of the Gospel St. Matthew used about 1475 words, 137 of which are apax legomena (words used by him alone of all the New Testament writers). Of these latter 76 are classical; 21 are found in the Septuagint; 15 (battologein biastes, eunouchizein etc.) were introduced for the first time by Matthew, or at least he was the first writer in whom they were discovered; 8 words (aphedon, gamizein, etc.) were employed for the first time by Matthew and Mark, and 15 others (ekchunesthai, epiousios, etc.) by Matthew and another New Testament writer. It is probable that, at the time of the Evangelist, all these words were in current use. Matthew's Gospel contains many peculiar expressions which help to give decided colour to his style. Thus, he employs thirty-four times the expression basileia ton ouranon; this is never found in Mark and Luke, who, in parallel passages, replace it by basileia tou theou, which also occurs four times in Matthew. We must likewise note the expressions: ho pater ho epouranions, ho en tois ouranois, sunteleia tou alonos, sunairein logon, eipein ti kata tinos, mechri tes semeron, poiesai os, osper, en ekeino to kairo, egeiresthai apo, etc. The same terms often recur: tote (90 times), apo tote, kai idou etc. He adopts the Greek form Ierisiluma for Jerusalem, and not Ierousaleu, which he uses but once. He has a predilection for the preposition apo, using it even when Mark and Luke use ek, and for the expression uios David. Moreover, Matthew is fond of repeating a phrase or a special construction several times within quite a short interval (cf. ii, 1, 13, and 19; iv, 12, 18, and v, 2; viii, 2-3 and 28; ix, 26 and 31; xiii, 44, 4.5, and 47, etc.). Quotations from the Old Testament are variously introduced, as: outos, kathos gegraptai, ina, or opos, plerothe to rethen uto Kuriou dia tou prophetou, etc. These peculiarities of language, especially the repetition of the same words and expressions, would indicate that the Greek Gospel was an original rather than a translation, and this is confirmed by the paronomasiæ (battologein, polulogia; kophontai kai ophontai, etc.), which ought not to have been found in the Aramaic, by the employment of the genitive absolute, and, above all, by the linking of clauses through the use of men . . . oe, a construction that is peculiarly Greek. However, let us observe that these various characteristics prove merely that the writer was thoroughly conversant with his language, and that he translated his text rather freely. Besides, these same characteristics are noticeable in Christ's sayings, as well as in the narratives, and, as these utterances were made in Aramaic, they were consequently translated; thus, the construction men . . . de (except in one instance) and all the examples of paronomasia occur in discourses of Christ. The fact that the genitive absolute is used mainly in the narrative portions, only denotes that the latter were more freely translated; besides, Hebrew possesses an analogous grammatical construction. On the other hand, a fair number of Hebraisms are noticed in Matthew's Gospel (ouk eginosken auten, omologesei en emoi, el exestin, ti emin kai soi, etc.), which favour the belief that the original was Aramaic. Still, it remains to be proved that these Hebraisms are not colloquial Greek expressions. Source: Catholic Encyclopedia (Gospel of St Matthew) (There is a lot more to the article, just wanted to paste in the applicable portions of it)

Eyes, I agree with you that more Bible/ religion studies should have been made available to those who were interested. In my church, there is an extensive religious education program that runs till around age 14, then that's about it. Yes, there are adult Bible studies in many places. Yes, the information is out there for those who want to study. But, IMO, it should be made more widely available to those who are interested in going deeper. The situation has improved in recent years; it still has a long way to go. Something that I thought from the moment that I was exposed to TWI (and still think to this day) is that if the mainline churches did their jobs better, there would have never been a need out there to be filled by a cult group like TWI. And that's a shame. As to women ordinands, I can understand why women are not ordained in the Orthodox churches and the Catholic churches. This is a matter of their sacramental theology (the ordained minister of the sacrament acts in persona Christi capitis), but I don't understand why church groups who reject that sacramental theology would still not allow women ordinands (in a church without a sacramental theology, an ordained minister is nothing more than a preacher). But, to each their own.

See this Washington Post article. Some highlights: Scientists reported yesterday that they have uncovered a biological switch by which stress can promote obesity, a discovery that could help explain the world's growing weight problem and lead to new ways to melt flab and manipulate fat for cosmetic purposes. ... The international team also showed that blocking those signals can prevent fat accumulation and shrink fat deposits and that stimulating the pathway can strategically create new deposits -- possibly offering new ways to remove fat as well as to mold youthful faces, firmer buttocks and bigger breasts. ... The researchers also demonstrated that injecting a substance that blocks NPY prevented mice from accumulating fat -- even if they were stressed and ate a high-fat diet -- and could shrink fat deposits by 40 percent to 50 percent within two weeks. "It just melts the fat. It's incredible," said Zukowska, noting that the technique could offer an alternative or supplement to liposuction. The entire article is too long to post (plus I'd get a mod p.o.'d at me), but definitely worth looking into.

I was taught that only the man at the pulpit was allowed to learn the bible...women werent allowed to stand at the pulpit... I know that it was a serious lure for me. Not that I really wanted to be a leader (that was a plus for me) but I really wanted to know the bible! I really wanted to know God and the Church that I had grown up in told me that I didnt need to bring my bible to church. I was told that some men that were smarter than me had already determined what was important out of the bible and provided the information in a denominational booklet. Which was really "short" on actual bible. It kind of made me wonder if the men at the pulpit actually read the bible or if they just read from the booklet. The church that I am a member of is a church where only men may be ordained. In addition, the readings (one from the OT, a psalm, a NT epistle, and a reading from the gospel) are done on a three-year cycle (two year cycle for daily worship). And thus they are able to print out the seasonal booklets (they generally print them four times a year). And, although my church is not the only one where things are done that way, it is undoubtedly the best known for that. I would submit that you are right, in part. Although by doing things that way, the congregants will be exposed to a good portion of the Bible, the worship service done in that type of format, in of itself, is not a truly effective way for studying the Bible. On the other hand, I truly don't believe that anybody would say it is designed to be a Bible study class, either. It's designed to be a worship service.

I understand. My wife and I have always enjoyed life in the Med. We also thought about the Aegean coast of Turkey, which we both enjoyed as well. Maramaris or Bodrum, in particular. But with the politics there (unlikely to change), I think it would be out of the question.

Don't feel bad. I'm looking at Malta in about 10 years. Why? Nothing political...just that there's really no place in the states where both my wife and I would like to go. However, we both agree on the Med. (Oh, and one other thing: one of the two official languages in Malta is English)

Can you explain that a little bit more? I don't understand what females not being allowed behind the pulpit would have to do with learning about God. Can you expand on this a bit?

First, This thread is not about homosexuality or homophobia This thread is not about whether or not you like the Catholic Church This thread IS about the quandry of freedom of speech versus political correctness From the Brussels Journal: Belgian homosexual activists have brought charges against Mgr André-Mutien Léonard, the Roman-Catholic bishop of Namur, for homophobia, a criminal offence in Belgium according to the country’s 2003 Anti-Discrimination Act. In an interview last April in the Walloon weekly Télé Moustique, the bishop is said to have described homosexuals as “abnormal” people. First, I realize that Belgium is not part of the US and the US Constitution does not apply there in any way, shape, or form. Having said that, The question for you is: When does the desire for diversity supersede the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion? (Although I realize that AT LEAST one of you would like to see this bishop hung merely for the crime of being a Catholic bishop), Would you like to see this kind of thing (i.e., charging a religious leader with a crime for expressing his religious views) happen in this country?

I don't see anything particularly harmful in regards to the effects of being stoned. My concerns are not about being stoned, but are more administrative if it were legalized: 1. If I'm not mistaken (and I'm SURE somebody will correct me), cannabis is fat soluble versus water soluble. That means it will stay in your system longer than some other chemicals (like alcohol). Now whether it stays ACTIVELY in your system longer or not is another issue completely. I can have a few beers in the evening and be completely normal the next morning. I can do that night after night with the same reaction. If I were to smoke a joint night after night, would my abilities the next days be back at 100%? 2. Driving. To my knowledge, there is no field sobriety test for marijuana. Also, what's the maximum legal limit of THC that a person can have in their bloodstream and be considered sober. With alcohol, the limit pretty much everyplace is .08%. That can be measured by a breathalyzer carried by a cop in his car. The way to test people for marijuana is through urinalysis. Is the cop going to carry a porta-a-potty and tell a suspect to take a leak to determine if they're too stoned to drive? If they could figure out administrative issues like the above out, I really wouldn't have a problem if it were legalized one way or the other. Not my cup of tea, but I can't see why it's a problem otherwise.

You can look at the book (along with a number of other classics) at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library: http://www.ccel.org (a non-Catholic source, too, btw, if that matters) I would also suggest, along those lines, The Way of Perfection, by Teresa of Avila (also available there) Catholics not being Christians, hmmmm.... I think a lot of people (both inside and out of the Church) have identified the term "Christian" with "Protestant/ Evangelical/ Charismatic/ Restorationist" types. The terms are sometimes used as mutually exclusive. I would submit that the Catholics (both Latin Rite -- what a lot of folk call 'RCs' -- and Eastern Rite, such as Chaldean, Maronite, Byzantine, Coptic, Melkite, Syro-Malabar {from India}, etc) and Orthodox (Greek, Russian, Coptic, Antiochian, etc.) are Christians and follow the faith passed down from Christ and the Apostles. Not to say that others aren't...but the liturgies and many/ most of the practices can be traced back to apostolic times.

Spot, If men used as much care in uprooting vices and implanting virtues as they do in discussing problems, there would not be so much evil and scandal in the world, or such laxity in religious organizations. On the day of judgment, surely, we shall not be asked what we have read but what we have done; not how well we have spoken but how well we have lived. Tell me, where now are all the masters and teachers whom you knew so well in life and who were famous for 7their learning? Others have already taken their places and I know not whether they ever think of their predecessors. During life they seemed to be something; now they are seldom remembered. How quickly the glory of the world passes away! If only their lives had kept pace with their learning, then their study and reading would have been worth while. How many there are who perish because of vain worldly knowledge and too little care for serving God. They became vain in their own conceits because they chose to be great rather than humble. He is truly great who has great charity. He is truly great who is little in his own eyes and makes nothing of the highest honor. He is truly wise who looks upon all earthly things as folly that he may gain Christ. He who does God’s will and renounces his own is truly very learned. From Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, Part 1, Chapter 3. TRUTH, not eloquence, is to be sought in reading the Holy Scriptures; and every part must be read in the spirit in which it was written. For in the Scriptures we ought to seek profit rather than polished diction. Likewise we ought to read simple and devout books as willingly as learned and profound ones. We ought not to be swayed by the authority of the writer, whether he be a great literary light or an insignificant person, but by the love of simple truth. We ought not to ask who is speaking, but mark what is said. Men pass away, but the truth of the Lord remains forever. God speaks to us in many ways without regard for persons. Our curiosity often impedes our reading of the Scriptures, when we wish to understand and mull over what we ought simply to read and pass by. If you would profit from it, therefore, read with humility, simplicity, and faith, and never seek a reputation for being learned. Seek willingly and listen attentively to the words of the saints; do not be displeased with the sayings of the ancients, for they were not made without purpose. Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, Part 1, Chapter 8. Just a couple of thoughts on the subject that I thought pertinent. And, by the way, the thing in the Prayer Room forum was an e-mail that I received. I've been retired from the service for several years now. I also have not ever gotten any updates on it.

Keep in mind, though, that the word σπουδάζω (spoudazo), rendered "study" in the KJV (and ONLY in the KJV), doesn't mean 'study' at all. It means 'try hard/ work hard/ be diligent.' Likewise, the word ὀρθοτομέω (orthotomeo), rendered "rightly dividing" in the KJV, means to "cut straight." Interestingly, although not used elsewhere in the NT, this same word is used in the Septuagint in Proverbs 3:6 (In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.) and Proverbs 11:5 (The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness.) The point I'm getting at is that if you look at the context and you look at an accurate translation of the words, I really don't think to sit down and crack the books is at all part of the meaning of this verse. Rather, I think it is more an exhortation to be diligent to LIVE the word and not pervert it in your words or life.

If you take a look at the history of the NT, common sense would preclude Aramaic as being the language of the vast majority of the writings that comprise the NT. Mark was supposed to have accompanied Peter to Rome (he is said to have gone to Africa after this). Why would that Gospel or the Epistles of Peter be written in Hebrew or Aramaic from that point? Luke was a Greek. You can see that from the Acts. Again, what purpose would Luke have in writing his account of the gospel or the Acts in Aramaic? Would Luke have even known Aramaic? Luke's function was to serve as Paul's scribe. It is likely that most of the Pauline epistles were actually penned by Luke (on Paul's dictation). They, obviously, were penned by somebody other than Paul (remember how Paul announced in one that he wrote a greeting in his own hand). The same argument against Aramaic in regards to the Gospel According to Luke and the Acts apply to those epistles. John left Palestine and went to Ephesus (and was later exiled to Patmos). Again, why would his account of the gospel, his letters, or the Apocolypse be written in Aramaic? Makes no sense. James' letter was written to Hebrew Christians in the diaspora. Many of them no longer spoke Hebrew or Aramaic (as a witness to this, consider why the OT was translated into Greek in Alexandria -- the Septuagint) That leaves Matthew, Jude, and the epistle to the Hebrews. According to Tradition, Matthew penned his account of the Gospel for the Hebrews in Palestine. For that reason, it his highly likely that his Gospel account would be written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Jude, according to tradition, lived in Palestine and, in all likelihood, wrote his epistle to Christians living in Palestine. Again, it's likely that his letter was originally penned in Aramaic. Finally, Hebrews. Common sense, on the surface, states that this would be written in Hebrew or Aramaic. However, textual critics who are far smarter than I am point out a lot of "Greek-isms" in the text that might lead one to think otherwise.

Actually, the process was quite a bit more gradual that that. :) You might wish to take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament. Also the one on the Canon of the Old Testament. Of course, it IS the Catholic Encyclopedia, so it will be written from the Catholic POV. Its strength is that it contains a lot of information that can be independently verified if you doubt the validity of the document. For example, it says about the development of the four gospels: Irenæus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the Old Testament. From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century. You can go to any number of sites that have written the works of Irenaeus and look it up for yourself... If you'd like another POV on that, you can look at Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Vol II. It is definitely written from a Protestant POV. The key that both sources have, though, is that the Canon wasn't just figured out in a single meeting and everything else was immediately burned. It developed over time.

I'm not t-bone (but I played him once in a movie ;) ) But if you'd be interested in e-books, a good site is the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (run by Calvin College). They have a HUGE compilation of books you can read online or download. Various formats: html, text, Microsoft Reader, Palm e-book, and so on (I have an Ipaq and use the Microsoft Reader option a lot when I'm waiting in a Dr's office, on a train, plane, etc.) I can recommend the site in an ecumenical fashion, as well. It's Calvinist (i.e., Presbyterian), but it has a whole lot of texts from multiple confessions, including Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. They have a good G.K. Chesterton collection (if you've never read Chesterton, you should...he's a good read). FWIW (BTW, I saw your post on the other thread and will keep you in prayer)

Use the 'embed' HTML tag. Instructions are at this URL: http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/embeddedobjects/_EMBED.html Actually, you should bookmark the site: http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com -- it has simple how-to's for all basic HTML tags. The first time you try the tag, though, experiment with it in the testing 1-2-3 section. Don't forget to select HTML ON option in "Post Options" (near the "add reply" button)

Todd, That's my point. We can all learn.

Or, perhaps, we could simply accept that GSC is not a cult and that people are entitled to a diversity of beliefs...

Sudo: I hope that gives some comfort to your soul. I can assure you 100% that it gives no comfort to my soul that children are being abused by any trusted person, be that trusted person a relative, a minister, or a teacher. You ask good questions about religious leaders: Is it something about being a religious leader that makes them perverts? Or are perverts attracted to religious work? Another possibility is that the number of perverts in religious work is really about the same as the general population but that its the religious perverts who get all the press. Frankly, it's not just religious leaders. It also includes teachers. It also includes relatives. There has been a lot of press about religious leaders, I think, because it is shocking. But there has also been a lot of that going on nowadays with teachers, too. Not just male teachers with cute young teenage girls, either: This one, in Texas, was recently caught because her teenaged student lover had seminude pics of her on his cell phone. This young lady was busted for having a relationship with a female student (and Sunday school student, btw) This lass, from your home state, was also busted for having a relationship with a young girl. Oh, by the way, all of those stories wre from the past month. (Trust me, there are plenty more where those three came from) So, while it is undoubtedly a problem with religious leaders, the scope of it goes far beyond just religious leaders. The scope goes as far as to people in trust positions, whatever that position is. Personally, Sudo, I think that it is a reflection on our society as a whole.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The three companies that insure the majority of Protestant churches in America say they typically receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by clergy, church staff, volunteers or congregation members. The figures released to The Associated Press offer a glimpse into what has long been an extremely difficult phenomenon to pin down — the frequency of sex abuse in Protestant congregations. Religious groups and victims' supporters have been keenly interested in the figure ever since the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis hit five years ago. The church has revealed that there have been 13,000 credible accusations against Catholic clerics since 1950. Protestant numbers have been harder to come by and are sketchier because the denominations are less centralized than the Catholic church; indeed, many congregations are independent, which makes reporting even more difficult. *snip* Joe Trull, editor of Christian Ethics Today and retired ethics professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, helped the Texas convention create its registry and says there are now about 11 cases involving clergy abuse with minors. But he believes these are just the "tip of the iceberg" because churches don't have to report abuse cases to the registry and aren't likely to. "The problem we're having is that churches just weren't sending the names," Trull said. "In the normal scenario, they just try to keep it secret. We're going to have to be more proactive and let them know if they don't come forward, they're helping to perpetuate this problem." Source: Houston Chronicle Reference the last part of the quoted article. I hope the Proddies figure it out quicker and better than the Catholics did...look what keeping things wrapped up in an effort to avoid scandal did for them!

Put some appropriate hyperlinks in...(or inappropriate ones)...and see if the ads change.