No need for crucifix's

[Pwrlftr]

Dance around lexicography all you like…

I haven’t dance at all unless you consider it dancing to use the tools that are available for us to use and then state as non-ambiguously as possible the problems with the earlier scriptures cited in support of the use of icons.

His intention was to ridicule the use by Catholics of the Crucifix, nothing more, nothing less.

I’m not the other poster and he/she has nothing to do with me.

These threads are replete with these kinds of attacks by “Bible Christians”, who attempt to score a few cheap points and then move on. I refuse to bandy words with a poster who comes here merely to do a little sniping and then scurry back into hiding.

I am currently tied for third on the most posts on this thread so I haven’t scurried into hiding.

Also, I don’t think any reasonable person would consider it a “cheap point” to demonstrate when scripture is mis-used.

I will gladly explain Catholic doctrine or practice with any honest seeker, but with these theological cowards I hold no brief.

Okay……I am a “theological coward” for stating what I believe.

I guess your post really means that you have nothing to contribute other than a rant. Well…that’s certainly beneficial for everyone involved isn’t it?

 

[Pwrlftr]

I am currently tied for third on the most posts on this thread so I haven’t scurried into hiding.

I am now in second place

 

[Pwrlftr]

Dance around lexicography all you like…

BTW, what’s wrong with using a lexicon? You seem to be rather negative on this concept.

 

[cascherman]

Sure, you can see me vividly describe the crucifixion. Based on the lexical entries there is no reason to believe that Paul used “imagery”.

por·tray /pɔrˈtreɪ, poʊr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pawr-trey, pohr-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)

1. to make a likeness of by drawing, painting, carving, or the like.
2. to depict in words; describe graphically.
3. to represent dramatically, as on the stage: He portrayed Napoleon in the play.

So, apparently portraying something can be visual, oral, or acted out.

What lexicons are you using and why are you granting them end-all-be-all authority?

“before whose eyes Jesus was publicly portrayed as crucified…”

It seems much more reasonable to assume this is a visual portrayal, otherwise why the use of the term “before whose eyes”?

 

[hosemonkey]

I haven’t dance at all unless you consider it dancing to use the tools that are available for us to use and then state as non-ambiguously as possible the problems with the earlier scriptures cited in support of the use of icons.

I’m not the other poster and he/she has nothing to do with me.

I am currently tied for third on the most posts on this thread so I haven’t scurried into hiding.

Also, I don’t think any reasonable person would consider it a “cheap point” to demonstrate when scripture is mis-used.

Okay……I am a “theological coward” for stating what I believe.

I guess your post really means that you have nothing to contribute other than a rant. Well…that’s certainly beneficial for everyone involved isn’t it?

If you return to the original post, you will see that the OP simply intended to take a shot and then watch the fun. Wether another poster “abused Scripture” or not was not my point, had nothing to do with you at all. I am stating that I have seen these kinds of posts on here for years and I recognize them for what they are. If you regard yourself as one of these theological cowards, then so be it. Not a rant, merely an observation that we have covered this ground with “Bible Christians” ad nauseum and that you really have nothing new to offer. No protestant has ever offered anything that would make any reasonably-catechised Catholic change his religion.

 

[hosemonkey]

BTW, what’s wrong with using a lexicon? You seem to be rather negative on this concept.

Frequently discussions on these threads degenerate into *PILPUL
*Pilpul (Hebrew: פילפול, loosely meaning “sharp analysis”) refers to a method of studying the Talmud through intense textual analysis in attempts to either explain conceptual differences between various halakhic rulings or to reconcile any apparent contradictions presented from various readings of different texts. This method, based on Avot (6:6), the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 31a), Rashi (commentary on Tractate Kiddushin of the Babylonian Talmud, 30a, s.v. “Talmud”) and Maimonides (Yad HaChazakah, Sefer Madda, Laws of Torah Study, 1:11), requires derivation of the conceptual structures underlying various Jewish laws. Before World War II, variations of this method were popular among Lithuanian and Polish Jews. Since then, pilpul has become prominent in most Ashkenazi and many Chassidic yeshivas.
Beginning around the seventeenth century, the colloquial usage of pilpul came to refer to a popularized method of conceptual extrapolation from texts in efforts to reconcile various texts or to explain fundamental differences of approach between various earlier authorities. Many leading rabbinic authorities harshly criticized this method as being unreliable and a waste of time. In fact, some students of the Talmud around this time began employing this pseudo-pilpul, apparently often motivated by the prospect of impressing others with the sophistication of their analysis. These students typically did not apply appropriate standards of proof in obtaining their conclusions (if any), and frequently presupposed conclusions that necessitated unlikely readings of “proof-texts”. As such, pilpul has sometimes been derogatorily called bilbul, Hebrew for “confusion”. Many authorities spoke out in support of similar methods of actual pilpul as being reliable and even central to Talmud study whenever traditional standards of proof were applied rigorously.
Pilpul has escaped into English as a colloquialism used by some to indicate extreme disputation or casuistic hairsplitting. This usage has especially fallen into use among critics of Haredi Jews, impugning their Talmud study as non-productive.
When refering to Christians, particularly “Bible Christians”,
**It implies a certain Phariseeism, a concern for the “letter of the law”, rather than the spirit. That is my problem with lexicography, every protestant his own Pope.
**

 

[Pwrlftr]

So, apparently portraying something can be visual, oral, or acted out.

The issue with posting the definition of portray out of an English dictionary is that Paul didn’t have much of a grasp of English and chose to write in Greek.

What lexicons are you using and why are you granting them end-all-be-all authority?
Before we continue, I would like to ask a question or two.

I believe the other poster has mis-used the verse in question, several other posters disagree.

Do you have any commentary from the fathers, an early church council, an encyclical, the catechism, or any other reasonably authorative document that claims Paul used or was refering to anything similar to a crucifix in Galatians 3:1? I am asking because I am curious to know if the more common Catholic understanding fo this verse is that it is referring to the use of some type of icon. I posted a quote from Haydock and he didn’t address the issue by claiming the use of a crucifix or anything similar to a crucifix.

So, am I weighing in on a verse that the church has traditionally interpreted differently than I am?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Frequently discussions on these threads degenerate into *PILPUL
*Pilpul (Hebrew: פילפול, loosely meaning “sharp analysis”) refers to a method of studying the Talmud through intense textual analysis in attempts to either explain conceptual differences between various halakhic rulings or to reconcile any apparent contradictions presented from various readings of different texts. This method, based on Avot (6:6), the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 31a), Rashi (commentary on Tractate Kiddushin of the Babylonian Talmud, 30a, s.v. “Talmud”) and Maimonides (Yad HaChazakah, Sefer Madda, Laws of Torah Study, 1:11), requires derivation of the conceptual structures underlying various Jewish laws. Before World War II, variations of this method were popular among Lithuanian and Polish Jews. Since then, pilpul has become prominent in most Ashkenazi and many Chassidic yeshivas.
Beginning around the seventeenth century, the colloquial usage of pilpul came to refer to a popularized method of conceptual extrapolation from texts in efforts to reconcile various texts or to explain fundamental differences of approach between various earlier authorities. Many leading rabbinic authorities harshly criticized this method as being unreliable and a waste of time. In fact, some students of the Talmud around this time began employing this pseudo-pilpul, apparently often motivated by the prospect of impressing others with the sophistication of their analysis. These students typically did not apply appropriate standards of proof in obtaining their conclusions (if any), and frequently presupposed conclusions that necessitated unlikely readings of “proof-texts”. As such, pilpul has sometimes been derogatorily called bilbul, Hebrew for “confusion”. Many authorities spoke out in support of similar methods of actual pilpul as being reliable and even central to Talmud study whenever traditional standards of proof were applied rigorously.
Pilpul has escaped into English as a colloquialism used by some to indicate extreme disputation or casuistic hairsplitting. This usage has especially fallen into use among critics of Haredi Jews, impugning their Talmud study as non-productive.
When refering to Christians, particularly “Bible Christians”,
It implies a certain Phariseeism, a concern for the “letter of the law”, rather than the spirit. That is my problem with lexicography, every protestant his own Pope.

I appreciate the “every protestant his own Pope” comment, I really do. I mean it’s not like I don’t read this type of comment over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…you get the idea. It’s like some of you are one trick ponies.

Anyway, it’s not hair splitting to dispute the evidence offered in an argument.

 

[Pwrlftr]

If you return to the original post, you will see that the OP simply intended to take a shot and then watch the fun. Wether another poster “abused Scripture” or not was not my point, had nothing to do with you at all.

I didn’t realize that the other poster used the lexicon at all so I logically assumed you were addressing me.

 

[hosemonkey]

I appreciate the “every protestant his own Pope” comment, I really do. I mean it’s not like I don’t read this type of comment over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…you get the idea. It’s like some of you are one trick ponies.

Anyway, it’s not hair splitting to dispute the evidence offered in an argument.

Just as we tire of the same ol’ same ol’, Catholics are not saved, Catholics keep Christ on the cross, Catholics worship the Pope, Catholics aren’t saved, Catholics worship Mary…do I need to go on? Don’t like it? Then stop it.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Just as we tire of the same ol’ same ol’, Catholics are not saved, Catholics keep Christ on the cross, Catholics worship the Pope, Catholics aren’t saved, Catholics worship Mary…do I need to go on? Don’t like it? Then stop it.

Have you ever read any of my posts where I said any of the above things? Your only answer can be a resounding NO.

 

[Church_Militant]

I kinda said as much. I don’t really have a problem with it but to be honest, I haven’t studied this issue enough to defend it either.

I understand that and appreciate it.

To be fair, you earlier posted scripture and not evidence from the catacombs and it’s your use of the scripture that I object to.

My point is that if we are to portray Christ crucified before the world as the New Testament says then how can a crucifix be wrong?

The other argument is that various forms of a crucifix have been found in the catacombs that date well back to the early church so there is a long history of this portrayal that predates the reformation by quite a bit.
Does that help any?

 

[Church_Militant]

Have you ever read any of my posts where I said any of the above things? Your only answer can be a resounding NO.

He’s right HoseMonkey. This fellow is a lot better than the kind of folks we all too often meet here.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I understand that and appreciate it.
My point is that if we are to portray Christ crucified before the world as the New Testament says then how can a crucifix be wrong?

The other argument is that various forms of a crucifix have been found in the catacombs that date well back to the early church so there is a long history of this portrayal that predates the reformation by quite a bit.
Does that help any?

Well, I dont’ necessarily think it is wrong. Or maybe a better way of putting it is that I don’t think it is wrong to use a crucifix.

I have no idea when the use of a crucifix became accepted so I have no basis to disagree with you on the history portion of your post.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, I dont’ necessarily think it is wrong. Or maybe a better way of putting it is that I don’t think it is wrong to use a crucifix.

I have no idea when the use of a crucifix became accepted so I have no basis to disagree with you on the history portion of your post.

Wow! Maybe we actually understand each other huh?

Blessed Christmas!

 

[Pwrlftr]

He’s right HoseMonkey. This fellow is a lot better than the kind of folks we all too often meet here.

Thanks Church Militant.

We disagree on some pretty important issues, however I hope I never mis-represent what you believe and have that hope for a lot of different reasons.

I have taken the time to read your CCC (which was no easy task by the way) and have taken the time to try to understand what it is your church teaches. I have listened to the debates your leading apologists have had, Sungenis, Michuta, Pacwa, Matatics (yes I know he is a sede-vaca…I can’t spell it), Staples, etc.

I am not going to claim that I am an expert in Catholic theology but I betcha I understand what your church teaches as well as 90% of the Catholic posters here.

Anyway, I am not goint to tell you that you aren’t saved or that you worship Mary or pray to statues but I won’t shy away from telling you where I think you are wrong either.

It’s been fun but it’s 1:00 am where I am and I am heading to bed.

 

[maurin]

Whats all that got to do with Bible based evidence for making man made images of the Lord Jesus on the cross.

Thats the worse interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures ever! Shame on you!

no sweetie pie, the worst interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures ever found is outside the Catholic Church.

We preach Christ Crucified. --St. Paul of Tarsus.

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks Church Militant.

You’re very welcome!

We disagree on some pretty important issues, however I hope I never mis-represent what you believe and have that hope for a lot of different reasons.

I have noticed this about you and look forward to further discussions as time goes on.

I have taken the time to read your CCC (which was no easy task by the way) and have taken the time to try to understand what it is your church teaches.

Would to God all n-Cs would be as diligent as you have been!

I know what you mean about the Catechism being formidable, but what can one expect for a topic like the Christian faith?

I have listened to the debates your leading apologists have had, Sungenis, Michuta, Pacwa, Matatics (yes I know he is a sede-vaca…I can’t spell it), Staples, etc.

John Martignoni? If not let me encourage you to add him to your list. Well worth it!

I am not going to claim that I am an expert in Catholic theology but I betcha I understand what your church teaches as well as 90% of the Catholic posters here.

On this I can probably agree with you which should make our discussions all the better.

Anyway, I am not going to tell you that you aren’t saved or that you worship Mary or pray to statues but I won’t shy away from telling you where I think you are wrong either.

I would expect no less from any honest person.
May the Holy Spirit guide all our discussions and interactions.

It’s been fun but it’s 1:00 am where I am and I am heading to bed.

Rest well and kindly remember me in your prayers in your services tomorrow and I will do the same for you at Mass.

The peace of the Lord be always with you.

 

[Pwrlftr]

John Martignoni? If not let me encourage you to add him to your list. Well worth it!

I stayed up just because I saw you were posting something.

I have heard of John. I am from Birmingham and that is where he lives or at least use to live. I’ll pay more attention to him because of your recomendation.

 

[hosemonkey]

Have you ever read any of my posts where I said any of the above things? Your only answer can be a resounding NO.

Never accused you of any of those things, I said that we get the same old, tired posts from many "Bible Christians and I have learned to recognise them immediately. The OP’s first post was one of those in character. The original topic then drifted off into the real meaning of St. Paul’s dissertation in Galatians. I addressed that in the context of the original poster’s thinly veiled attack on Catholic’s use of the crucifix. If you are an honest inquirer, then welcome.