Posted on 05/14/2014 10:02:57 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The original writings from the Apostles themselves (the autographs) no longer exist.
This is due partly to the perishable material (papyrus) used by the writers, and partly the fact that the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians (Edict of Diocletian, A.D. 303).
Before translating the Bible into Latin, St. Jerome already translated into more common languages enough books to fill a library. (Saint Jerome, Maisie Ward, Sheed & Ward; A Companion to Scripture Studies, Steinmuller.)
In the year 383, he revised the Latin New Testament text in accordance with some Greek manuscripts. Between the years 390 and 406 he translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew, and this completed work is known today as the "Old Latin Vulgate". The work had been requested by Pope Damasus, and Copies of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate appeared uncorrupted as late as the 11th century, with some revisions by St. Peter Damian and Lanfranc. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Place of the Bible in the Church", C.U.A.)
Pope Benedict XV wrote about St. Jerome's translation in his 1920 encyclical, Spiritus Paraclitus, "Nor was Jerome content merely to gather up this or that teacher's words; he gathered from all quarters whatever might prove of use to him in this task. From the outset he had accumulated the best possible copies of the Bible and the best commentators on it," . . . "he corrected the Latin version of the Old Testament by the Greek; he translated afresh nearly all the books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin; . . . he discussed Biblical questions with the brethren who came to him, and answered letters on Biblical questions which poured in upon him from all sides; besides all this, he was constantly refuting men who assailed Catholic doctrine and unity."
(Excerpt) Read more at cathtruth.com ...
NKP_Vet
Very interesting things you have to say about the Bible. Most of them very logical and obvious, yet, still there are many churches that do just what you say they shouldn’t, most of them say they use not only the Cannon or Bible they have for authority but also teach as “guided by the Holy Spirit”.
I couldn’t agree with you more that they have little to no foundation on which to stand.
The Savior Himself set Peter up as the earthly head of the church. For an outsider to say he knows better than a descendant of holder of Peters office seems implausible. Not that I don’t understand the desire. At the time of Luther there were many abhorrent practices in the church. I think in Christianity we are generally taught to hate the sin and love the sinner. For sure some early and even later Catholic leaders were not thinking clearly or not being led by the Holy Ghost, the question is then did The (Roman) Catholic Church lose it’s place of authority? There were other churches that sprang from the same well as the Roman Church. Did the Eastern Church keep it’s authority? The Roman Church excommunicated the Eastern Church and Visa Versa. Are one of the Coptic churches the only ones still having authority from Peter? Where today are the keys given to Peter to bind on earth and in Heaven? Certainly none of the Protestant churches claim them. Who then on earth has the keys to settle doctrinal disputes, certainly one of authority descended from the seat of Peter should, but certainly none of the Protestant churches can, they all claim the Same Holy Ghost but still come to differing opinions on The Gospel. Who can decide if abortion is right or wrong? Who can decide if Gay Marriage is wrong. Who can decide if fighting for your country in a war is right or wrong? How can a dedicated Christian know his sins are forgiven? I think there needs to be some kind of Priesthood authority of the type given to Peter by The Savior Jesus Christ on the earth to be able to call it Christ’s Church.
What sets the various “Catholic” churches apart from all protestant churches is that they have (certainly at least claim) a priesthood that they themselves did not give unto themselves. The priesthood that The Lord had was given to Peter, and given to all the Apostles and through them to many servants in The Church.
Today when a person feels he is called to preach in the Protestant world he goes to a school where he learns much and gets a parchment instead of laying on of hands, however some seminaries have a “laying on of hands” ceremony where someone who felt called of God ordains someone else. That is not the priesthood Christ had IMHO.
When my father passed away some decades ago our minister asked his adult children and his widow if we had any particular scriptures we would like him to preach from, I had 10. They all spoke about the reality of a literal Resurrection. The minister said he could not use any of them because they were confusing, that they might lead some people to conclude that there was a literal Resurrection instead of a spiritual Resurrection. Having never gone to seminary but having read the Bible many times I was done. I left the Methodist Church over this nonsense. The wisdom of man can be a wonderful thing but many plain truths of the Holy Bible have been abandoned in favor of the wisdom of man.
Today I don’t have so many answers as questions. This much I do know, Christ taught that He was The Son of God; that earthling humans are sons of God; that Christ will inherit all that His Father has; that followers of Christ will be joint heirs with Him and also inherit all that Christ and His Father have. That Christ was dead but is now alive. That after the Resurrection Christ had a body of flesh and was not a spirit and to confirm that ate and drank and had His associates touch him and handle Him. The two angels who stood next to The Risen Lord told the crowd assembled as He ascended to Heaven that He would come back in the same way He left. We will be “like Him”. The saints that died in Christ on the first Easter morning were seen walking the streets of Jerusalem not as ghosts but persons of flesh and bone.
I do know Christ lives.
Church and truth is not always what we want it to be. It is what it is. Accept or reject it, don’t make something that fits your needs.
Thanks for your input.
A good reference is below.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth
“Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)
The Magisterium (CCC 85–87, 888–892)
Together the pope and the bishops form the teaching authority of the Church, which is called the magisterium (from the Latin for “teacher”). The magisterium, guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, gives us certainty in matters of doctrine. The Church is the custodian of the Bible and faithfully and accurately proclaims its message, a task which God has empowered it to do.
Keep in mind that the Church came before the New Testament, not the New Testament before the Church. Divinely-inspired members of the Church wrote the books of the New Testament, just as divinely-inspired writers had written the Old Testament, and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to guard and interpret the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Such an official interpreter is absolutely necessary if we are to understand the Bible properly. (We all know what the Constitution says, but we still need a Supreme Court to interpret what it means.)
The magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially because Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and their successors “into all truth” (John 16:12–13).
Sources?
Documentation?
Chrysostom, Polycarp and Justin Martyr (very early Church fathers) writings specifically refer to early Christian practices during the first three centuries time period of Christianity. These Christian practices in the first three centuries were distinctly Catholic, including the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity, veneration of Mary, priests (presbyters - properly translated as priests, not “elders”), etc.
It is easy for anyone to find sources for the Fathers anywhere and to read all of their references to Catholic practices and doctrines.
“Chrysostom, Polycarp and Justin Martyr (very early Church fathers) writings specifically refer to early Christian practices during the first three centuries time period of Christianity. These Christian practices in the first three centuries were distinctly Catholic, including the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity, veneration of Mary, priests (presbyters - properly translated as priests, not “elders”), etc.”
There is nothing written before 100AD.
No Scripture, no historical account, no Christian writings, no sacred or secular artworks that demonstrate what you claim.
It all came later. No real presence teaching, no veneration of Mary, no perpetual virginity or assumption, no priests.
To add, not correctly translated as “priests”. I read and write NT Greek. It is correctly translated “elders.”
“there is nothing written before 100 AD”
No historical account - wrong - Reseach online about the Didache - it is a pre 100 AD Christian instruction account that refers to the distinctly Catholic practices that were continuous right from the very beginning of Christianity when the apostles first gathered after Christ’s resurrection.
Presbyter proves the point. Presbyter does mean elder in Greek. The earliest Christians used the Greek word for elder when referring to their own priests in order that they would not be confused with the pagan and Jewish priests.
The meaning of the word actually changed and the name stuck and the “b” (try to pronounce Presbyter without the “b” sound) sound dropped out. The definition for the very word changed over the centuries because of its “new” meaning.
This type of word change is very common in etymology. I.E., kleenex has become synonomous with tissue because it is a tissue.
The word for Presbyter became the word for priest (Proester) over the ages since the first Christians used it because the Presbyter WAS the priest.
Early Christians had a new priesthood so needed a separate word to describe their priest, and so they used the Greek word for elder as their best choice.
Do you read and write NT Greek as well, that you can instruct us as to where AMPU is wrong?
“Reseach online about the Didache - it is a pre 100 AD Christian instruction account”
No. It began life as a Jewish document, was changed by early Christians and then continually changed for centuries. It is a piece of driftwood with barnacles attached from multiple eras. No one knows what was original or who changed it from a Jewish document.
“The earliest Christians used the Greek word for elder when referring to their own priests in order that they would not be confused with the pagan and Jewish priests.”
Hooey. You are merely spouting the roman position that evolved centuries later... and doing it well.
“
Early Christians had a new priesthood so needed a separate word to describe their priest, and so they used the Greek word for elder as their best choice.”
Christians ARE a priesthood. There are no sacrifices today requiring a priest. That ended at the cross. Sin offerings as blood sacrifices were ended at the cross. Christ entered into the Holy of Holies ONCE FOR ALL. Thanks be to God!
Not hooey
Look up the etymology and history for the word priest on wikipedia, which is an unbiased site as far as religion. The way I explained it is correct, that is why it makes sense.
The Didache is a trustworthy source docuemnt. Since it was rediscovered in 1873 (although referred to by Christian theologians all along, so it was not a forged “replica”), four other copies with the same translation in different languages have been found that back up the authenticity of the original document. The same barnacles would NOT have somehow attached themselves simultaneously to all of these different translations, which were proved authentic.
I am not merely spouting - this is factual research.
The didache clearly refers to Catholic teaching and was written before 100 A. D. Also the letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians written in the first century clearly refers to Catholic doctrine and practices by the early Christians.
A further read by Rod Bennet that is backed up by sources is:
“Four Wintesses The Early Church in Her Own Words”
The absolute earliest Christian writings clearly demonstate that the earliest Christians were Catholic in doctrine and practice.
Historical documents prove it, and it is fact, however much someone may not like it.
If they got it wrong (Catholics), they got it wrong from the get go.
We have free will of course, so if someone wants to believe that the real presence is erroneous, fine, however the early Christains believed in the real presence.
sorry - source document
I have thoroughly researched your altered document. It was not in it’s present form before 100 ad. If you can prove it was, post it.
I studied NT Greek in seminary, including translating. I’ve been down that road for 30 years. No reputable historical source translates the Greek words as you claim. There is no evidence before 100 ad of any priest office in the church. If you have contemporaneous evidence post it.
Good thing it doesn't make any difference to Almighty God what you choose to call me! I'll stand proudly beside anyone, as a brother or sister in Christ, who believes in the divinely-revealed truths of faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone - no matter what label they go by. Those who care more about their "church" than they do these salvific truths will also be accountable to God for they will have no excuse.
I hope I haven't waited too long to respond.
I read the documents you linked to, at least a good portion of them but I disagree with some of the most basic statements. First the Eastern and Roman Church had a disagreement and split. They both are from the same place, they both have what they claim are a basis for their own legitimacy and I think I am unable to say which has the better argument. Since they have been for so long trying to see a way back to being one I suspect they are having the same difficulty as me.
Since the Coptic churches were really what they were from before 325 I am inclined that they have very much a good argument of being from the beginning of Christendom. The Apostle Mark started them during his lifetime. As it turns out Bishops from the Coptic Church authored most of what we now have as the Nicene Creed. So if anything they predate the “Roman” Catholic Church.
I have never claimed that Protestants have any claim to legitimacy as the original church or any authority to baptize or any other ordinance that Christ says we must have to enter Heaven.
As far as the Church remaining until The Savior returns, I think there are arguments that a reasonable person could infer that that argument is invalid, not that it is, just it could be reasonably argued. The Apostle Paul actually argues that there must be a “falling away first” before the Lord returns. I don't know when the falling away is to have happened or when it is to happen but anyone who proffers that the Church will stand in perfection till He returns does not have the best of sure footing.
“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”.
Peter went to Rome. Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church. All Christians faiths are off-shoots of the Catholic Church.
Another falsehood you have probably been told. It was not so. Read http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/:
“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.”
“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” (Paedagogus 1:6)
“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (ibid)
“’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid)
“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (ibid)
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.” (Paedagogus 2:2)
Tertullian of Carthage
Tertullian wrote a work called “The Resurrection of the Dead” in which he expounded on the unique relationship of the soul and the flesh. Tertullian taught that the two were separate entities that worked together to serve God. Tertullian strives to produce several examples of the conjoined soul-flesh relationship which sometimes reveals his philosophical tendencies rather than solid biblical teaching. And it is one of these examples that Catholic apologist target for “real presence” support.
Exactly what Tertullian believed regarding the flesh and soul of Christians would no doubt make for interesting discussion. But the thing Catholic apologists really want to present here is the fact that Tertullian refers to the eucharist elements as the “body and blood” of Christ. But this is completely inadequate for their purpose. One would be hard pressed to find Christians who didn’t refer to the elements as the body and blood of Christ; even in the same way Tertullian did in his treaties on prayer where he said, “Will not your Station [day of fasting] be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved?”
I think many Catholics are under the impression that only they refer to the Eucharist in this way. The Lord instituted the memorial by saying, “This is My body” and “This is the cup of the new testament that is in My blood; do this in remembrance of Me.” It is profoundly Christian to refer to the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ because the eucharist is the celebration of the passion of our Lord. But that does not mean that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist celebration are the literal body and blood of Christ.
Later, in chapter 13, Tertullian gives us a glimpse into his interpretation of the bread of life discourse (the biblical bases for the real presence doctrine) while expounding on the topic of flesh and soul.
Notice the use of the past tense in the sentence “and that flesh which was the “bread given for the life of the world.” If Tertullian believed in a doctrine like the real presence, he would not have used the past tense. Rather Tertullian would have used the present tense, or perfect see which would have been translated “is the bread…” since the act of eating it is ongoing. Also, the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world is not the glorified body of Christ as the real presence doctrine asserts, but the flesh of Christ was that sin offering for the life of the world before He was received into glory.
The biblical support for the real presence doctrine relies on the interpretation that Jesus was referring to eating His physical flesh when He said, “and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” Since Tertullian referenced the event as having occurred in the past, he could not have believed that Jesus was saying He would give his flesh to be literally eaten, but rather that He gave His flesh sacrificially at the cross for the life of the world.
Nothing in Tertullian’s works, however, is more clearly opposed to the Catholic understanding than what he specifically stated about the discourse on the bread of life.
This site goes on to give the writings of others such as Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch on this subject. I believe you are incorrect to say all Christians believed in the literal and "real" presence of Jesus in the bread and wine of the Eucharist observance. It wasn't until the eleventh century that the term "transubstantiation" was used to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours. It was at the Fourth Council of the Lateran, which convened beginning November 11, 1215 the bread and wine was said to be "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood". What you call believed by all Christians cannot be proved by the writings we have of the earliest church fathers and, if they wrote what they did when they did, the beliefs of the rest of Christendom could not be said to be settled on the subject.
” I’ll stand proudly beside anyone, as a brother or sister in Christ, who believes in the divinely-revealed truths of faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone - no matter what label they go by.”
Except “faith alone” was never a “divinely-revealed” truth.
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
If you want to compare the Bible to the U. S. Constitution, HAS having a Supreme Court enabled this country to avoid misinterpretations of it? I'm sure the writers of the Constitution thought they were saying things that were pretty perspicuous for their times and I don't think it was out of character for them to intend that what this founding document said was what would continue to guide this country. It has been the amendments, for good or bad, that have changed the meaning over time and the make-up of the court politically has empowered the judges to "legislate from the bench" - essentially giving them authority OVER the Constitution to decide what it means today rather than what the founders intended - and we Conservatives have tended to not like that at all.
The Bible, on the other hand, was not written by a group of men who together thought up what it should say for the betterment of the Christian community. It was the Divinely-inspired words of God that "holy men of God spoke (wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Spirit", as such, we CAN know that what it says is absolute truth - truth that does not change according to society's "progression". What God ensured was written down for the edification of His people actually was perspicuous - plain to the understanding especially because of clarity and precision of presentation - and He provided the indwelling Holy Spirit to each believer so that we could have the ability TO understand what He told us. So, unlike the U. S. Constitution, the Bible has NOT changed over time, there ARE no amendments and, even though society has progressed downward away from the moral center, the Bible remains the same and STILL works for all those who follow its guidelines.
We need a Supreme Court to judge the laws Congress passes to ensure they follow the Constitution. Do we need a magesterium to do the same thing for the Bible? Granted, we have people to whom God gives gifts by which the body of Christ is edified:
The truths of God need to be continually taught, but those truths have not changed for two-thousand years. A true church will be one that teaches what has been believed always, everywhere and by all. Nothing new needs to be interpreted. God isn't enacting new truths. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.