Interestingly, I imagine Matthew would find nothing contradictory about this letter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Maria
" Dear Friend, The Bible is the inspired word of God. And most especially the words of Jesus must be taken as they are written. At the same time, you must know the context in which they were spoken, the historical setting, etc. In this passage, Jesus is explaining that He is God and He has been sent to save the world. He is not cutting out the Jews and others. He is speaking to the Jews in this context. He is the promised Messiah and He is telling them in Him they will be saved. All people may be saved, even those who do not know Jesus' name, even those who do not believe in God. Let us leave salvation in the hands of the Savior. Father Tim Farrell  "

---

I don't know Karen, you could take Father Farrell's comments quite similarly to Matty's.  I inserted some emphasis above to illustrate.  He clearly says that Jesus is God and his words are to be taken as written.  Further, it is in Jesus that they will be saved.  He then leaves some ambiguity that allows us to rest easier - all people may (not will or definite or any definitive statement) be saved, but since that is a tough question let's leave that to God.  So we are left with this - through Jesus you will be saved, otherwise you might be, but Father Farrell really doesn't know.  Of course, if Matty-boy had said just that we would not have had all the uproar I suppose, and what fun is that right? (I am kidding)

correct me if I am wrong, but i don't believe the bible was orginally written in english. Pretty sure the old testament  started out in aramaic, the new testament in Greek, my point is that there are many translations and interpretations.  So when you think you are reading the words of Jesus ,they just might be a fourteenth century monks version of what he should of said.

 

why then are there so many versions, with such different interpretations?

fairly uneducated ,I like that. Here are some fairly uneducated facts,

The liberal view relies on the documentary hypothesis, which speculates that the Pentateuch utilized the following sources:

1.  Yahwist - Presumably written during David's reign, it refers to God as Yahweh.
2.  Elohist - Presumably written in the northern part of the divided kingdom, around the 9th century BC, it refers to God as Elohim.
3.  Deuteronomic -  Presumably, the Deuteronomic code was written during the reign of Hezekiah. Scholars accepting this hypothesis believe this code is "the book of the law" rediscovered during Josiah's reign. Deuteronomic historians are also credited with writing Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. 
4.  Priestly - Finally, it is presumed that during the Exile, the priests collected the previous three sources and edited the Pentateuch into its final form, no doubt adding new material of their own in the process.  The Pentateuch was then known as the "Torah" or law. 

These sources do not actually physically exist today.  Their prior existence is merely a hypothesis based on some scholars' interpretations of the textual evidence. 

 

My research into this a few weeks ago revealed that the scripture that Matthew was referring to was in something called "John."  I discovered that "John" was written a few hundred years after the death of Jesus.  I do not think it unreasonable that somethings may have been modified in peoples collective memory over that period of time before this document was codified (by Konstantin around 325 CE).

However, the most important thing is that the Roman Catholic Church specifically disavows what had been referred to as "Replacement Supercessionist Philosophy."  That concept held that once Christianity was established, Judaism and its spiritual beliefs were thereafter null and void.  It meant that the only way to engage in a relationship with G-d was via a belief in Jesus as the Son of G-d.  This change in philosophy was accomplished via a papal encyclical in the early 1960's.  Most mainstream Christian groups followed suit and addressed this subject appropriately. 

The above is a very important diffentiator between mainstream Christianity and Fundamentalism.  Maria, I believe that the priest that you chatted with may need to do a little more research about the Catholic Churches position on this issue.  It really is very clear.

Craig

 

fairly uneducated ?  Did you ever play telephone in grammer school? Sure you did. And you think after two thousand years of man, Jesus's words are as he said them?

1382 AD - Wycliffe
The first complete English translation of the Bible was made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his followers. All of Wycliffe's works were condemned at the Council of Florence in 1415.

1408 Council of Oxford
This council forbade translations of the Bible into the vernacular unless approved by Church authority.  

1454-1456 - Guttenburg
Access to the Bible was dramatically increased by Guttenburg's invention of the printing press.

1525 - Tyndale's Bible
Tyndale's English translation of the New Testament was made from Erasmus's Greek text and compared to the Vulgate.  In 1536, Tyndale was put to death.

1534 - Luther's Bible

By this time, Luther had translated the entire Bible into German (he finsihed the New Testament first).  A version was published in 1541 in Wittenberg.  In translating the Old Testament, Luther excluded the Apocrypha from the canon.  He also assigned a greater value to some New Testament books than to others, considering James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation to be inferior.   

1535 Miles Coverdale
Coverdale, the first Protestant Bishop of Exeter, published his English Bible translation, which was translated from Latin and German.  

1539  The Great Bible
Also known as Cromwell's Bible, it was the first English Bible to be authorized for public use in churches.  It was revised in 1561 and was then known as the Bishop's Bible.

My point Mr. Jarret is that I am just backing up my fairly uneducated view.

Am I the only one on this board who has a problem with "Replacement Supercessionist Philosophy"?   This concept is really just fine by everyone here?  I sincerely doubt it.  As I have stated before, I find it very antisemetic for very obvious reasons.  Clearly, the rational Christian mainstream religions also found it to be that way also and disavow that concept today.

Whoops, Bystander, I know you're a little sensitive from going the rounds with Craig--I didn't mean you.

Remember, I'm the one who said I recall you being level-headed and diplomatic.

I was referring to Matthew/Thinker and any other screen names he may or may not be using on this and any other boards he may or may not be posting on.

Hi,

(( ... a little sensitive from going the rounds with ... didn't mean you ... ))

Nah, nothing sensitive at all ... just wasn't sure if there was some way you could match up (bunch of) screen names to an original owner. (eg. ISP)

(( ... Matthew/Thinker and any other screen names he may or may not be using on this and any other boards he may or may not be posting on. ))

Yeah ... it's always hard to know who's who and who's posting under different screen names at any given time on an anonymous message board ... goodness knows I myself have been tempted to do that at one time or another.

Personally, I've a hunch that "Matthew" isn't the only one who does that here and elsewhere online ... but that's that's all it is ... a hunch.


Thanks,


-B.

"...All people may be saved, even those who do not know Jesus' name, even those who do not believe in God. Let us leave salvation in the hands of the Savior."

Here's the part that works for me.

For me, it means, do what you believe is right. The Saviour (whomever that is) will figure it all out in the end.

BELIEVE, not KNOW.

No one knows, not even Father Tim. He BELIEVES.

Stop arguing over BELIEFS, it's ridiculous.

You can't say someone's BELIEFS are wrong.

They don't BELIEVE you.

This is addressed to the room at large.  I will not direct any answers to anyone calling themselves Matthew (a Fundie.)

I can not speak for Jay, but it should be abundantly clear that I do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Will you permit me to hold this position or is it unacceptable?  But that is not the issue.  The issue is this:

What do you Fundies think happens to Jewish Souls after our death?

That is the real rub here.  Fundies think we go to hell; mainstream Christianity do not take that hard line position.  Mainstream Christiandom are willing to allow that it is up to G-d to decide what happens to all souls at the end of our lives depending on how we may have lived that life.  As for the Fundies, it is cut and dry.  No matter what you do in life, if you have received JC, you are saved.  the soul of an ax murder is worth a lot more than a Jewish soul, if that sould has found JC.   If you are a Jew, you go to Hell, even if you lived the life of a saint.

Moving on - - - does anyone really and honestly still wonder why I dislike Fundies?  I think that they are a bunch of bigoted pinheads in order to justify the teaching of such vitreol.  And the so called NT scripture be hanged.  You can not rely on a document that was not codified until 325 CE.  BTW - did you know that there were originally about 75 Gospels?  Just a bit of trivia for you.  Konstantin had them whittled down to 4.  The others are now known as the Gnostic Gospels.  Often, they are at odds with the four that you Christians are familiar with.  That is why they were chucked.  They did not seem useful at that point in history in order to shore up the political power of Konstantin who had just converted to Christianity.

Craig

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Craig Maier
" Mainstream Christiandom are willing to allow that it is up to G-d to decide what happens to all souls at the end of our lives depending on how we may have lived that life.  "

 

It is unclear what you define as "mainstream Christiandom" when 46% of Americans call themselves "born-again Christians."  So, the "Fundies" seem to be the overwhelming majority of Christians, yet are somehow not "mainstream"?