Replies

This thread is still going?!

There is actually one more thing I wanted to address, regarding a certain disposition: namely, with regards to how one approaches Scripture. There's a particular attitude I've noticed that seems to treat the Bible as its own completed product, handed down directly from on high

If your argument is that the magisterial stewards of Scripture are the sure and supreme authority on what it consists of and means then you have just nuked the NT church.

So, I am told that the Bible in and of itself is trustworthy, as though there is no thought spent into how it arrived in its current state, and why certain texts were believed to be inspired over others. Part of the weight of the Bible's authenticity is the historical weight behind those who promulgated it.

Therefore since those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

Then they should not have followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

If anything, all you have done so far is provide an argument against the Catholic church.

Can we say that the Holy Ghost inspires all of these different translations? If not, then which translation can claim to be inspired, or the one that is most truly reflective of the original meaning? A question without a direct answer, but what is implied is that the judgment of the Catholic church is to be trusted. The very church which has produced the New American Bible as its official Bible for America (in its various editions) with required notes, which is criticized even by Catholics for its erroneous translations (for one, the NABRE, will not use render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as simply rendering the words for fornication/fornicator as "immorality" or "immoral persons" among the many occurrences of the words for sexual immorality. (Matthew 5:32 Matthew 15:19 Matthew 19:9 Mark 7:21 John 8:41 Acts 15:20 Acts 15:29 Acts 21:25 Romans 1:29 1 Corinthians 5:1 1 Corinthians 5:9 1 Corinthians 5:10 1 Corinthians 5:11 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Corinthians 6:13 1 Corinthians 6:18 1 Corinthians 5:9 ,10,11; 7:2; 6:9; 1 Corinthians 10:8 2 Corinthians 12:21 Galatians 5:19 Ephesians 5:3 Colossians 3:5 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Hebrews 12:16 Jude 7 Revelation 2:14,20,21; 9:21; 14:8;17:2,4; 18:3,9; 19:2) even though in most cases it is in a sexual context, and many liberal note, and its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory.

Thus what you have done is provide an argument against the Catholic church.

Do they have the authority to make that claim or judgment about the current translations?

Meaning we should trust your bishop's for approved translations , which are among the most poor, like the Good News Translation and the Contemporary English Version.

Thus what you have done is provide an argument against the Catholic church.

And note that the body of wholly inspired writings that had been established by the time of Christ, and thus so often appealed to, "(such as "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27) were not established due to any infallible conciliar decree, and their establishment was essentially die to the unique heavenly qualities and attestation, while likely have somewhat different versions.

Thus what you have done is provide an argument against the Catholic church.

Of course, notwithstanding the numerous items of disagreement amongst the Protestant denominations on matters of faith and morals, let's take a direct example from the Ten Commandments: thou shalt not kill. First of all, depending on your translation, you'll either get 'kill' or 'murder', and in modern English, these have very different connotations (of course, the context involves bloodguilt and unlawful killing, but you might not know that at first glance.)

And which party has produced the most accessible dictionaries and classic extensive commentaries which explains such things?

Granted, this then brings to mind a question as to why Scriptural commentaries (of which there are many) are even necessary at all, if one's own wisdom suffices to comprehend the Scriptures.

If so, then why has evangelical faith has produced the most accessible dictionaries and classic extensive commentaries, which overall are in agreement on the main issues at the least?

Thus what you have done is provide an argument against the Catholic church. .

However, given that there is not one singular Protestant denomination, but many...

And in Catholicism there is even more varied beliefs than among "Bible Christians," who are the group most unified is core beliefs, much more than Catholics. Whom Rome manifestly counts as members in life and in death, from proabortion, prohomosexuality public figures to cultic TradCaths.

And you would have us leave our conservative evangelical fellowships and become brethen with them in your unholy amalgam? And note no one here by Catholics are arguing for their church being the one true one.

Thus what you have done is provide an argument against the Catholic church.

But if you think I'm going to favor my interpretation over that of the Apostles and their successors, you're out of your mind.

Rather, if you think the so-called successors to the apostles have the veracity of the apostles then that is absurd. For in reality, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

Thus what you have done is provide arguments against being a Catholic.

Substitute "Vatican II sect" for "Catholic Church", and your points would have more merit (as the NAB was promulgated in 1970). For is it any surprise that a religion which proclaims non-Catholic sects can be used as means of salvation would advocate for translations of Holy Writ that are tainted by liberal and Modernist thought?

If your argument is that the magisterial stewards of Scripture are the sure and supreme authority on what it consists of and means then you have just nuked the NT church.

How so?

As the stewards and authorities of the Old Testament, they more than anyone else had no excuse for not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. Yet Christ did not come to abolish, but to fulfill, did He not? To whom much is given, much is expected; if those who merely heard the Scriptures were able to recognize Christ as the Messiah - through not only His knowledge and teaching, but also His many miracles and His claims of divinity (implicit or otherwise) - then those who actually could read the Scriptures should have known better. Yet they did not (or were purposefully blind, or purposefully let their conceits rule the day instead of devotion to God), and thus were condemned quite venomously by our Lord.

And note that the body of wholly inspired writings that had been established by the time of Christ, and thus so often appealed to, "(such as "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27) were not established due to any infallible conciliar decree, and their establishment was essentially die to the unique heavenly qualities and attestation, while likely have somewhat different versions.

And yet, historically speaking, questions about the canonicity of certain texts appeared to have been the focus of much debate, even centuries after the last of the OT Prophets passed away:

If you're going by the record of the Talmud, then according to this article, "much of the Tanakh was compiled by the men of the Great Assembly (Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah), a task completed in 450 BCE, and it has remained unchanged ever since." That sounds a lot like some kind of council to me. Of course, there are scholars who disagree with this, it would seem.

Strictly speaking of the Old Testament portions of Scripture, to assert that the Jewish canon was set by the time of Christ is at least a matter of debate, as per the first link: "There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE),[5] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.[6]"

And which party has produced the most accessible dictionaries and classic extensive commentaries which explains such things?...If so, then why has evangelical faith has produced the most accessible dictionaries and classic extensive commentaries, which overall are in agreement on the main issues at the least?

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not disparaging or discouraging the use of commentaries, concordances, or other such study tools. In fact, I believe that they can be highly efficacious to one's understanding of Scripture (for there are many who have a deeper knowledge of the Bible than you or I).

I was simply pointing out what seemed to be a contradictory message: throughout this thread, my notion of saying that there is a higher authority regarding the interpretation of Scriptures than myself was lambasted, and that my comprehension must be lacking to say such a thing. If that mentality is true - that one's own knowledge is sufficient to rightly interpret the Scriptures, so long as you profess to be guided by the Holy Spirit - then the very existence of Scriptural commentaries is superfluous and an exercise in vanity.

After all, if your interpretation and analysis of Scripture warrants being its own separate commentary, then it is implicitly arguing for its own superiority over those interpretations that aren't in a commentary.

Of the modern Vatican II sect, this is true, which is part of the thrust of sedevacantism:

The current counterfeit religion masquerading as Catholicism lacks substantial unity, on this you and I can agree.