Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
That is an interesting question. I am not sure if the infallibly pronounced doctrine of the Immaculate Conception covers the speculation that she COULD have sinned. I do know that she was born without concupiscence, thus, she was not subject to the temptations of the intellect or the will. She could have been tempted from without (as Christ was by Satan and the Pharisees), but not from a wounded intellect or will.
Whether she could have succumbed to an external temptation - such as a temptation to doubt God's plan while watching her Son hang from the Cross - I am not sure how or if the Church has defined it. Without concupiscence, which was bound within her, as opposed to removed (as in Christ's case), I would find it hard to believe that she COULD have sinned. I personally would say "no".
Mary's fiat is important, but I am not sure that this applies to remaining sinless, but rather, her "yes" in the face of not knowing God's plan and trusting in Him anyway (as opposed to Zechariah).
Let me know if you find out for sure.
Brother in Christ
When you can provide me with an appropriate answer to many of the other passages such as Prov 20:24 or a coherent discussion on election and predestination perhaps I'll be incline to agree. Why, heck, I'll settle for an explanation of why God chose Israel among all the nations (as if this wasn't a choice).
I think Calvin's makes a reasonable attempt (so does John Gill) in harmonizing this passage with others. It is consistent with the outward calling and the inward calling theology. (e.g. Noah preaching for 125 years all the while building a ark that could hold only seven people.) You just don't agree with the outward/inward calling even though you can't give an explanation of what man "cooperation" is apart from God.
If God wanted, (REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY) wanted all men saved, He would do it. To deny this fact is to deny God's sovereignty-something I would be VERY hesitant to do. It is ludicious to think that God want all men in heaven but 1) He will not step in to make sure man can go to heaven for fear of violating man's free will (Like watch a small child jump off a cliff and not doing anything to stop them.), or 2) man is so intelligent that they are capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to go to hell. (This is a big DUH!!!)
I'll stick with Calvin's explanation.
When did I say anything about man doing something worthy ALONE? We keep going back to this - which is something neither of us has ever said. Men are exalted for responding to God's graces - throughout the entire Bible. Does this bother you? God seems to revel in it! Yet, you desire Him not to share of Himself, so that He "gets all the glory"? Brother, love means we share of ourselves. If God is love, God exalts other people. But no one who is exalted is proud! It is the HUMBLE who are exalted, not the proud! Thus, your worries are misplaced.
Oh, come on! Are you really one of those who says there are "thousands" of different Protestant denominations?
Even if I agree with that, how does that disprove my point - "I had thought that common sense - having {dozens} of different denominations that all equally claim to be led by the Spirit - would be enough for you to determine that the Spirit does not lead on the dogmatic front to individuals."? The question to you remains the same. How does the Spirit lead Christians in diametrically opposed directions on key elements of the faith? The ONLY response is that the Spirit is NOT leading people in this manner. It is literally impossible, without the Spirit overwhelming our human nature, for men to figure out alone and indepedently of each other a common set of beliefs. Protestantism fails here. The individual was never meant to be the determiner of God's Revelation. God's Revelation is given to men, not figured out independently at everyone's whim.
Tradition trumps scripture! You cannot take scripture on its face. You must filter it through the Church's lens to arrive at an interpretation that matches tradition. It is the scriptural meaning that changes, not the tradition. That is the only way HOW to read scripture.
We ALL read the Scriptures through "lenses", including you. You have your Protestant goggles on when you read Romans 3 - claiming that ALL are wicked. EVERYONE has a paradigm that they read ANY book through. A book is not alive. The people who read it are. With the Bible, God gives meaning to it as we read it - sometimes, being different then for someone who read it 500 years ago. This is called the living Tradition of the Church - how we read Scriptures TODAY. Tradition is HOW we read Scripture. In some cases, this Tradition extends back to the Apostles.
No, I remember that, I just don't trust people playing the telephone game with doctrine that is not in the Bible.
I told you already that oral traditions from the Apostles (such as infant baptism) ARE written down! What telephone game? We aren't relying on someone passing down a teaching by word of mouth! However, I understand that you have been taught that everything must be in the Scriptures explicitly to be believed. What I am curious about is "where is that rule located at within the Scriptures?" Where is the "Table of Contents" in the Scriptures? Where does it say that men are saved by faith alone? Should we go on? There seems to be a double standard here. Anything that Protestants believe but is not in Scriptures are OK. But if the Church believes in something for 2000 years and not denied by written Scripture, then it is not believable? Let's be consistent. Get rid of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.
But you evaded my question. Is the Koran or the LDS bible "like" the Holy Bible? We both know that billions have been fooled with false teaching. God told us it would be so. Honestly now, how many DEVOUT Muslims and Mormons do you expect to see in Heaven? Scripture tells you the answer plainly. My answer would be "extremely few".
YOU are missing the point! A person born in Saudi Arabia, born and raised a Muslim, will consider the Koran God's Word directly given to the prophet. It is not a matter of following false teachings...They point to the Bible's perceived inconsistencies and consider it NOT the Word of God. The Bible disagrees with some of the teachings of the Koran. Why should a Muslim take the Bible as superior to the Koran, when they have been raised with it and indoctrinated to follow it?
MY POINT is that ONLY an OUTSIDE witness can testify to the truth of the Bible over the Koran or the Book of Mormons. You need outside evidence to show that the Koran is wrong, that the book of Mormons is wrong. When you have two books side by side, an are perfectly unbiased, tell me, how are you going to tell which is correct? Unless you are aware of its history and the witness of the Church, I don't see how you would be able to determine that the Gospel of Thomas is not Scripture but the Letter of Philemon is Scripture. You seem to evade that over and over again...
I laugh when you repeat that you "could write a letter...". From my understanding, that is exactly what L. Ron Hubbard did! And today millions are fooled, and sadly, they are also lost.
That's the point! This is ALL based on FAITH! We have faith WE are right, they have faith that they are right! The point is that someone can write a "letter" and call it from God and convince other people that it is. Thus, we need an outside witness to tell us - Hubbard, you are crazy... We base our entire religion on faith! Faith that the Apostles REALLY DID see a man risen from the dead. Faith that a man REALLY DID claim to be God and cure other people. Faith that the Apostles performed miracles. Faith that God has spoken and acted in the history of men...The Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God - FAITH. That the Jews crossed the Red Sea - FAITH. It is ALL FAITH. And that is the way God wants it. He wants us to come to Him, even when it doesn't appear that He is there (such as Job!)
Again, by your arguments, the Bible wasn't written for us at all.
It was written for the community, the Church. Was the Scripture EVER given to individuals in the Bible? Did God hand out scrolls to everyone? No, God gave His Word to particular men and women, who shared it with the community at large. This was written down and shared with the future communities. The Bible is NOT EVER shown as something given to each individual of the community. If you want to follow how the early Church did things, then you ARE to comply with the leaders of the community. I am sure you have read the Acts of the Apostles?
The Bible does have plenty of outside verification to authenticate it, but none of it is needed.
Utterly ridiculous. By reading the bible without any verification, you might as well be in the same category as the Muslims and Mormons, who "get a feeling in their bosom" to "know" they are reading the Word of God. They don't think they need outside verification, either. However, those of us who demand it CAN SAY that the Koran and the Book of Mormon is NOT the Word of God. God gave us intellect to use it. We are to test all things. We are to also test to ensure that we DO have the Word of God. We are told not to believe everything we hear. We are to test their word. What is wrong with that?
I don't agree that people need to determine the truth of the Bible. Truth is truth.
Based on what evidence do you know that the Bible is truth? If I write something and say it is the truth, what makes me wrong? Just because something says it is the word of God doesn't make it so... How can you prove it is without this outside verification?
People need to discover the truth that is already there.
Your whole argument is based on a circular argument... "The bible is the Word of God" Why? "Because the Word of God is found within the Bible"... Until you move outside of that circle, you aren't going to prove anything. I would be interested to know how you would prove that the Bible is God's Word with a Muslim or a non-Christian, using no outside evidence.
That can't be right, because I still believe the Bible is self-authenticating
Sorry, brother, but your constant assertions without ONE bit of evidence doesn't make it so. Until you can prove to me WHY Philemon belongs in the Scriptures, is considered God's Word, based on its OWN merit, you might have something. We have gone over this over and over. How do you know Paul even wrote it??? If you were to go into a court room today to prove that the Bible is the Word of God based on YOUR evidence, you'd be laughed out of court. You have a seemingly random collection of books from unknown authors written 2000 years ago - and we don't possess ONE SINGLE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH! All we have are copies! Self-authenticating? Please. Don't you think you are being a bit stubborn here? You base your beliefs on a book that you can't even prove is God's Word, as opposed to the Gnostics version, or Marcion's version, or the Koran, or...and so on.
I was taught that the Bible was God's inerrant word, and I had read enough chapters, and seen the wisdom and internal consistency, and so I believed. We believe the Bible authenticates itself apart from the RCC, so there is no irony.
You have contradicted yourself. YOU WERE TAUGHT! Thus, you didn't come to that conclusion yourself. The teachings of the Catholic Church came to you through Protestants and you discovered that the Bible IS REALLY the Word of God. You didn't come to that conclusion yourself, thus, the Bible is not self-authenticating. You accepted the witness of those who told you, heard their preaching, saw their witness and life style, and accepted what they claimed. That is HOW we know the Bible is the Word of God, not by opening it off the library shelf and reading it!
Regards
This is a false analogy. Hell is a place without God. If men want to be without God, that is where He sends them. We are not talking about a small child killing themselves in this life. We are talking about God coming into union with a particular person, or not.
One of my favorite Psalms, 81, shows what God does with us:
I heard a language I did not understand. "I removed his shoulder from the burden; His hands were freed from the baskets. You called in trouble, and I delivered you; I answered you in the secret place of thunder; I tested you at the waters of Meribah. "Hear, O My people, and I will admonish you! O Israel, if you will listen to Me! There shall be no foreign god among you; Nor shall you worship any foreign god. I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt; Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it. "But My people would not heed My voice, And Israel would have none of Me. So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart, To walk in their own counsels. "Oh, that My people would listen to Me, That Israel would walk in My ways! I would soon subdue their enemies, And turn My hand against their adversaries. The haters of the Lord would pretend submission to Him, But their fate would endure forever. Ps 81:5-15
Sounds like this one from Christ. Can't you hear God's PINING for us?!: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; Matthew 23:37-38
Or from Paul: For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting. Romans 1:20-28
In each of these examples, we see how God greatly desires that ALL men be saved, BUT men turn away from God - out of love, He allows them to continue to perdition. A life without God is what they want, then that is what they get. Thus, your analogy falls short, because we are not talking about eternal non-existence (as a child's death in the material world), but spiritual "death", an eternal life without Love.
God desires all men to be saved, but some do NOT WANT to be saved. "Saved", to us, means being healed from our slavery to sin. But some people, after receiving this knowledge, STILL desire to follow their own ways. God greatly desires we willingly come to Him (see above). But He doesn't force us - He gives us what we want - a life of slavery to sin.
Regards
No. All men are depraved. We don't want anything to do with God. So we all would be perfectly content sitting in hell shaking our fists at God. God in His love and grace had mercy on some of us for unknown reasons and changed our hearts. We no longer want to go to hell but our desire is to go to heaven. The choice isn't ours.
It is not just the tense that is wrong. King James translates "charis" most everywhere as "grace". But this verse, for no reason that I can understand, the "charis" in "kecharitomene" becomes "favor". The difference is, of course, that grace is not just favor but unmerited favor. ...
Jerome's Latin translation, "gratia plena" -- "full of grace" has all the elements of "kecharotomene": reference to divine grace and completeness. ... The original in Ephesians 1 is different, as is, of course, the meaning. The word there is simply "echaritosen", "graced" or "gave grace".
Thanks for the info. I don't have the background to make an argument on this, so I tried to find someone who apparently does. Here is "an argument" that seemed to be up your alley. The speaker is using something called an ALT Bible (?) See what you think:
[FK: Please note that my original reference to Eph. 1:6 is completely independent of this argument, so I'm not the only one. :)]
[On "full of grace"] "Greek word is a perfect, passive participle. The passive indicates the action is done to the subject. And when the active party is not specified, as here, it generally is a "divine passive" meaning God is the active Subject."
"So the verse is saying Mary was bestowed or received grace from God. The point is, she is the recipient; she does not have grace to give to others as Catholicism would have it. The Greek word can also mean "favor" or "kindness," so any of these translations would be appropriate."
"The cross reference in my version is because Eph 1:6 is the only other place this verb occurs in the NT. The verse reads:"
1:6 to [the] praise of the glory [or, splendor] of His grace [or, of His glorious grace], by which He bestowed grace upon [or, showed kindness to] us in the Beloved,
"Note, that the same grace that was given to Mary is given to all believers. So there is nothing "special" about Mary's grace. ..."
"1. If they [Catholics] want to use "full of grace" it still should be rendered as "having been filled with grace" (again a perfect, passive, participle)."
"2. They would then have to render Eph 1:6 as:"
"to [the] praise of the glory of His grace, by which He filled us with grace in the Beloved,"
"The point is, no matter what the translation, whatever is said of Mary MUST be true of all other believers as well. So translate as they will they can't evade the fact that nothing is said of Mary that is not also said of all other believers."
"So if Luke 1:28 somehow "proves" Mary is sinless and immaculately conceived, then so are all believers. The first IS true; we are sinless as a result of being forgiven in Christ, but we weren't born that way, and neither was Mary."
41. Outstanding among the saints is Mary, Mother of the Lord and mirror of all holiness. In the Gospel of Luke we find her engaged in a service of charity to her cousin Elizabeth, with whom she remained for “about three months” (1:56) so as to assist her in the final phase of her pregnancy. “Magnificat anima mea Dominum”, she says on the occasion of that visit, “My soul magnifies the Lord” (Lk 1:46). In these words she expresses her whole programme of life: not setting herself at the centre, but leaving space for God, who is encountered both in prayer and in service of neighbour—only then does goodness enter the world. Mary's greatness consists in the fact that she wants to magnify God, not herself. She is lowly: her only desire is to be the handmaid of the Lord (cf. Lk 1:38, 48). She knows that she will only contribute to the salvation of the world if, rather than carrying out her own projects, she places herself completely at the disposal of God's initiatives. Mary is a woman of hope: only because she believes in God's promises and awaits the salvation of Israel, can the angel visit her and call her to the decisive service of these promises. Mary is a woman of faith: “Blessed are you who believed”, Elizabeth says to her (cf. Lk 1:45). The Magnificat—a portrait, so to speak, of her soul—is entirely woven from threads of Holy Scripture, threads drawn from the Word of God. Here we see how completely at home Mary is with the Word of God, with ease she moves in and out of it. She speaks and thinks with the Word of God; the Word of God becomes her word, and her word issues from the Word of God. Here we see how her thoughts are attuned to the thoughts of God, how her will is one with the will of God. Since Mary is completely imbued with the Word of God, she is able to become the Mother of the Word Incarnate. Finally, Mary is a woman who loves. How could it be otherwise? As a believer who in faith thinks with God's thoughts and wills with God's will, she cannot fail to be a woman who loves. We sense this in her quiet gestures, as recounted by the infancy narratives in the Gospel. We see it in the delicacy with which she recognizes the need of the spouses at Cana and makes it known to Jesus. We see it in the humility with which she recedes into the background during Jesus' public life, knowing that the Son must establish a new family and that the Mother's hour will come only with the Cross, which will be Jesus' true hour (cf. Jn 2:4; 13:1). When the disciples flee, Mary will remain beneath the Cross (cf. Jn 19:25-27); later, at the hour of Pentecost, it will be they who gather around her as they wait for the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:14).
What you are saying is that until someone converts you to the apostolic faith you'll stick with a transparent exegetical fraud of Calvin. As God wills.
Need answers, go to Church.
There is one misunderstanding in this that might be genuine. Mary is not a source of grace according to the Catholic teaching; Christ is.
The rest is empty wordplay. Ephesians 1:6 states what we know from many passages, that we receive divine grace. It is indeed the same grace given us as is given Mary. Words however means things; the use of a different word to describe the bestowement of grace in Mary is significant, and should not be surprising given that her feat is different from any other feat that you or I might be graced to accomplish. The grace was given Mary by a different method, at a different time of her life, for a different purpose. The text reflects that. Your source, whoever he is, spins away from the text.
Regardless of how it sounded, I wasn't trying to say His natures were in conflict. Alright, let's try it this way: How is it that Adam sinned and Jesus didn't? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
OK, sans prooftexting then and in my own words:
We pray because God wants us to. It's also very good for us. It is how we communicate with God, which He says He wants. God does not change His mind, but we do not know how He has already made up His mind, so for us who are subject to time, it is worthwhile. We experience "answer" to prayer because we are subject to time. This is one way God has chosen to interact with us, given our limitations. While I do pray for what I "want", I also try to include a prayer for God's will, because I know that is what is ultimately going to happen. It's good for me because it reminds me of how great God is.
Explain why we need to be redeemed if God makes us sin.
You continue to be the only one on this thread to assert this. Harley never has. I never have. Show us the posts. God does not cause sin, God allows sin to happen (doesn't prevent it) for His own purposes. We need to be redeemed because we are born dead in the sin nature and are unfit for heaven. Only Christ can make us fit.
Explain why Christ came to redeem us when we did nothing of our own to warrant condemnation.
Adam doomed the entire race from the beginning. That's the bad news. The good news is that Christ loved, and came to save some from that fate. I cannot speak for God as to why He set it up that way.
Explain why we need to do anything if God has already pre-choreographed everything for us, and nothing is our own doing, our own will, our own guilt, our own decision. If we are, as Harley D says, exactly the way we are because God made us exactly this way, then what is our role as intelligent beings. Why even be conscious?
We need to "DO" things because God told us to. God wants us to experience our lives on earth to the fullest. Our lives are automatically better when we obey Him. That is a practical reason to follow His teachings. Although nothing GOOD is of our own doing, we certainly don't experience it that way. We feel good when we "make a decision" to do good. It is to our benefit as well. Our role as intelligent beings is to be God's children and follow Christ. Again, I can't explain why God set up the earth to function like this, you'd have to take that up with Management. :)
You forget. I fell for that synergistic belief for over 30+ years. I was a Calvinist convert the last several years by the grace of God.
That is my point, sort of: that your present beliefs are not based on any rational reading of the scripture. If they were, your would not be ingesting Calvin's transparent falsehoods where the scripture is spun to fit the dogma. Calvinism is a crude belief system that is easy to explain in 30 seconds or less, and it attracts people. But it is brazenly unscriptural.
FK, I don't know who your expert on Greek is, but he's just plain wrong about the appropriateness of translating "kecharitomene" as favored or kindness. That is not at all how the Greek Father's used or understood the word in this context and it was their language.
As for the rest of the comments, I'm rather impressed, at least to a point. Indeed Panagia, so far as Orthodoxy is concerned, was conceived with the exact same nature as all the rest of us and thus we reject the usual explanation of the Latin Church dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Every one of us has the same potential to have been "kecharitomene" as Panagia but no one save her, or so the Fathers teach, ever achieved that. It is for that reason that we can say that Christ was truly born of a human women, not some demi-goddess (which taken to its conclusion could create Christological problems) and that she is also the quintessential example for all humanity in her sinlessness, which she chose in distinction with our similar ability to choose holiness but instead we choose ourselves and our own pleasures and thus "miss the mark". She didn't, ever.
Oral teaching is infallible? I must have misunderstood. So, oral teaching that is handed down from generation to generation over thousands of years never changes? Every retelling is always exactly as the first?
Are you saying the teachings of the Apostles were not inspired by God?
I wouldn't imagine so, but I don't know what the extra-Biblical teachings of the Apostles really were. All I have is the say so of interested, extra-Biblical, fallible men. I don't see how oral tradition could be passed down flawlessly over this many years. The only evidence we have that it is all God-inspired is the word of the men who depend on that being true, along with a Bible passage or two massaged to fall in line with this view.
I don't understand how you can toss out their teachings based on whether THEIR hand actually wrote something or not. Did Moses write about HIS own death? But you still see Deuteronomy as inspired by God?
I never necessarily toss out anything, I just test it against the Bible as the Spirit leads me to interpret it. If a required interpretation strains logic and reason beyond all bounds, then I can't accept it. I don't believe God wrote the Bible for the purpose of hiding it from us. As for Moses, doesn't it seem reasonable that Joshua appended the obit?
So I couldn't write an Esther, a Philemon? I don't think it would be too difficult to write something that agreed with what was written before, ...
I don't think you could under the conditions of the original "authors". You have the unfair advantage of having studied the complete Bible as much as you have. None of them had that. You could parrot what the Bible already teaches, but they didn't have anything close to your knowledge. You would have been a "super priest" to them. :)
What is to prevent someone from claiming to write something ELSE that is "Scripture" and claim it is from God? The Scripture says nowhere that the canon is closed! That is Apostolic Tradition!
Well, considering how many extra books have been added to the Bible over the last 1600+ years, I don't see this as a huge problem. I'm sure that if someone did claim to find an unknown work it would be put through every test imaginable and there would be a big fight about it regardless.
I have never argued that external evidence is useless. It is especially useful to disprove something. I was only saying that while there is plenty of external evidence also in support of the Bible's authenticity, I do not need the RCC to bless it for me to know that it is God's word. The Bible speaks for itself.
The Bible is a compilation of letters. Some of them, at first glance, don't appear to belong or are not exactly what you would call "edifying" writings.
Well, that's why we take second, third, and tenth glances. It all still fits. I'm not sure if you are arguing that some evil, ingenious team of miscreants could manufacture an equal to the Bible as a whole. I don't think they could, because I know God would not be behind it.
It is writings such as that [Ps. 58] which led MANY people to believe that there were two separate Gods, the Demuirge of the Old Testament and the God of Love of the New Testament. Can you honestly tell me that Psalms 58 and the Gospel of Luke is written by the same God - WITHOUT EXTERNAL WITNESS??? ... It is ONLY the witness of the Church that tells us that BOTH are from the SAME GOD.
I don't think it is fair to compare one passage from the OT to one from the NT and then say they are incompatible without the guidance of the Church. In many senses, the OT and NT covered very different material. Any comparison has to be against the work as a whole. To understanding, the Spirit will lead us as He will, and on His timetable.
Yesterday or the day before, I explained that Catholics don't follow "oral tradition" passed down for thousands of years! "Oral" Apostolic tradition, as I have explained it, is just a teaching that didn't get placed into 1 Corinthians. This doesn't mean that it wasn't written in the Didache, which was written only a few years later. The point is the source of these teachings are both Apostolic - whether Scripture or Apostolic Tradition.
You have yet to point out to me where the SCRIPTURES say we are to drop all oral traditions taught by Apostles. Why are you following an extra-Biblical - NO - ANTI-BIBLICAL teaching? And you give Catholics a hard time because "Mary is sinless" is not written in your concordances?
I don't know what the extra-Biblical teachings of the Apostles really were. All I have is the say so of interested, extra-Biblical, fallible men.
Yes, the same ones who saw Jesus risen from the dead, who wrote the Scriptures, and who taught the next generation of Christians. It appears that the second generation of Christians completely flubbed the teachings of the Bible - since we know that the Apostles consulted the Bible first when they taught. Sorry for the sarcasm, but we just seem to be going round and round with the same lines. You refuse to see that the same Christians who lovingly protected the Scriptures and vouched for their authorship are the same ones who vouched for and wrote down the Apostles "other" teachings such as infant baptism. I find this lack of logic frustrating, I suppose. It appears that you believe that they are ONLY trustworthy when when protecting the written teachings - as if the other teachings were not worthy to be continued.
I don't see how oral tradition could be passed down flawlessly over this many years.
See above. They were WRITTEN, just not in the letters of the Apostles...
I don't think you could under the conditions of the original "authors"
Meaning what? Let's just switch gears. Tell me how you know that Esther is part of the Word of God. And don't tell me because it is bound with the rest of the books in the Bible! If you found the Esther scroll, aware of its existence along with many other writings, how would you decide that it belonged?
My point is that INTERNAL EVIDENCE is insufficient to determine the canon of Scripture. Thus, the Bible is NOT self-attesting.
You could parrot what the Bible already teaches
Anyone could, and do it in 50 AD. Many DID do it.
I have never argued that external evidence is useless
No, you said it wasn't needed. I say this is ridiculous, it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to determine that THIS is what God is - not a duality, a ying and yang, not a non-personal God like Allah, not many gods, not "no" god, not the Gnostic vision of levels of dieties, not a Jesus with one nature, divine, in a "man" suit. You are totally lost as to WHAT is truth by relying only on the hundreds and hundreds of writings available that discuss the attributes of God. The Bible is one book among many, actually, 73 books among many. Without the reference of the Apostlolic Church, you wouldn't know if the Nicean Creed was orthodox, or heterodox - while the Gnostics were REALLY correct and Jesus was married and had a kid...You would have no clue whatsoever without outside witness and evidence that the Bible is THE teachings from God - the others are imitations.
The Bible speaks for itself.
So what does it say about Esther belonging within its bindings?
Well, that's why we take second, third, and tenth glances. It all still fits
That's special pleading. How are you going to convince a non-Christian that Psalm 58 is in synch with the rest of the concept of a loving God? And can't a Mormon say the very same thing? "It all still fits"? Or the Muslims? "No, you have to read it in Arabic". "No, the original Arabic". Come on.
"...because I know God would not be behind it.(a fake Scripture)
In all seriousness, I ask you "how?" And don't bother with the "Spirit will tell me". The Mormons say that EXACT same thing... And those naive people are wrong.
I don't think it is fair to compare one passage from the OT to one from the NT and then say they are incompatible without the guidance of the Church
Now we are getting somewhere! Not only "I don't think it is fair", but "I don't think it is POSSIBLE"!
Regards
On the contray, I think this is totally rational. It explains why God clearly and repeatedly choses people and nations over others in the scripture. There is no mention anywhere in scripture of man having a "free will". There is every mention of God chosing and electing us. Yet you accept the non-existent "free will" and reject the frequently mentioned "predestination". And I'm the one being irrational?
Pro 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.
FK, try a read of this:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-67.htm
Its called the Protoevangelium of James. Its from the 1st century and was most likely written by +James, the first bishop of Jerusalem. This is an example of the sort of Apostolic Tradition about which Jo has been talking. Much of the belief of The Church regarding Panagia, +Joseph, etc. comes from this. It is not part of the canon of Scripture, but it is part of the Apostolic or Holy Tradition and has been for near 2100 years. Sola Scritura leaves a lot out, FK.
I misquoted? Well, if the only evidence you will accept is a direct quote from Jesus "I am God", then you're right Kosta, Jesus never claims to be God. This is the reasoning that makes me a protester. :) If it's right there in front of you, it is rejected, and if it is no where to be found, it is invented and inserted into scriptural interpretation. When Jesus says He is the Alpha and the Omega, of course that cannot be what He really means. He really means that He is the Beta and the Delta, or something.
FK: "Because everyone knew, INCLUDING Jesus, that He was claiming to be God."
A Son of God. [Mat 4:3,4:6, 8:29, 14:33, 16:16, etc.]
The priest tells Him in Mat 26:63 "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God."
Are you saying that the title "Son of God" and "God" are incompatible? I would have bet good money that you all believed in the trinity, so this makes no sense to me. Do you believe that the terms "Son of Man", "Son of God", and "Son of David" are incompatible?
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.