It wasn't real??? That is very interesting... So God allows us to participate in His work, but not really? Do you realize what you are saying? That God's love is phony. Sure, the daughter wasn't needed. But you miss the point. When we are allowed to participate, it IS real. What exactly is the problem with God being magnanimous, allowing us to REALLY do things?
God's love is not phony. :) God's real love for us lets us experience participation, so for us, it seems real. In terms of credit, though, it isn't real, all credit goes to God. The problem with God allowing us to REALLY do things on our own is that it would lead to our doom. God loves us too much, for REAL, to allow that to happen. This is like the mother not allowing the daughter to take the hot cookie sheet out of the oven.
The Church doesn't say we can't read Scriptures. But to get the meaning that God intended, we are to follow her [Church's] lead and the lead of those who have gone before us.
Oh, I know you have said that you are encouraged to read scripture within the lens of the Church. I was talking about seekers. A seeker wouldn't have a chance of correct interpretation within that lens if he doesn't know it. Therefore, I was suggesting that your approach to seekers would have to be to teach the Church's teachings first, and the Bible would have to wait until later.
Otherwise, brother, you are relying totally on your own personal knowledge and abilities to determine God's Will and Word - and you have already agreed that man is quite incapable of doing that alone, since we are depraved (according to you).
I suppose we will always disagree on whether the Spirit living within me will ever condescend to give me the time of day. :) I believe in original sin, so I believe we are born depraved.
Apostolic Tradition + Scripture = Revelation from God. They cannot disagree, if you believe God is Truth. I still don't understand what contradictions (180 degrees different?) you see within Apostolic Tradition to keep bringing this up.
I think I was talking about what are apparent contradictions by any plain reading of the text of scripture, such as a sinless Mary ("all" doesn't mean "all"), Mary as a perpetual virgin thus Jesus had no siblings, and priests forgiving sin. I know we have already discussed all of these. Here you say that tradition must agree with scripture, therefore they are equal in authority. (Maybe I did not earlier put together that the legs of the stool were of equal strength. :)
So, if they must agree then the interpretation of the Bible must be made to agree with the writings of the Fathers. This eliminates any sense of the Bible being a readable book outside of the contortions necessary to match the Fathers.
First of all, the Scriptures were not written as one book, but as individual letters. Secondly, ANYONE can write a book and put within it "Thus says God". Does that prove it is really the Word of God? I am sorry, but the Bible is not self-authenticating.
Well, on a previous post I gave a list of reasons we can know the Bible is authentic without the say so of the Fathers. We're just going to have to disagree. If you believe that "anyone" could come up with a book like the Bible, then I don't know what to say. I don't believe anyone could.
FK: "I do not give credit to the Church for the Bible, I give all credit to God."
And if you were raised in Iran, you'd say the same thing about the Koran. So how does an unbiased person know who is correct?
The unbiased person looks at the claims of each book and who wrote it. The tomb of the author of the Koran is full of mouldering bones. The tomb of the author of the Bible is empty. The books are completely different in claim and scope. God brought me to the Bible, not the Koran. Besides, I obviously did come to the conclusion that the Bible is real without any help or knowledge of the Fathers or any Catholic tradition. Was I just lucky? :)
"The Church doesn't say we can't read Scriptures. But to get the meaning that God intended, we are to follow her [Church's] lead and the lead of those who have gone before us."
FK:
"Oh, I know you have said that you are encouraged to read scripture within the lens of the Church. I was talking about seekers. A seeker wouldn't have a chance of correct interpretation within that lens if he doesn't know it. Therefore, I was suggesting that your approach to seekers would have to be to teach the Church's teachings first, and the Bible would have to wait until later."
Funny thing about that, at least with Orthodoxy. We seldom see completely "unchurched" people showing up at our parish. Like I have said before, the majority are what we call fundamentalist or evangelical Christians who have "read themselves into Orthodoxy". These are people who are very well versed in scripture, but who went beyond sola scriptura into a reading of the Fathers and the early ecclesiastical histories of The Church. As I understand it, in mission territories, the people are evangelized with the Bible and the interpretation given to the various passages come from the Fathers, or as we might also say, Holy Tradition.
You make God out to be a meglomaniac who can't stand it if someone is exalted (doesn't Scriptures say that the lowly will be exalted?). Really, who takes away from the Creator by complementing the creation? When I build a chair, and someone says, "that's a nice chair", do I get upset, demanding that I get all of the credit, or is it understood that I am being praised THROUGH the chair? It is the same thing with humans. God is praised and glorified through others who trust in Him, despite the lacking of evidence, such as Job. God is praised by the lowly person who perseveres, trusting in God. Really, you have a misplaced idea of God's sovereignty. You seem to believe that because we PARTICIPATE, that means that God does 98% and we do 2% on our own! Hardly! I and God do "x" together. There is no division of tasks. I do nothing good alone. Thus, it is my work - and God is the driving force behind it. With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.
Therefore, I was suggesting that your approach to seekers would have to be to teach the Church's teachings first, and the Bible would have to wait until later.
I teach "seekers" using the Scripture to show that the Church's teachings are there. Coupled with the Apostolic Tradition, a seeker is given a window into what the early Christians believed on something. We are part of the Body, not only in space, but in time. There is no reason to "wait until later" for the Bible! When I give a class, that is the first thing we do (after an opening prayer and review of last week's topic). We read several passages that pertain to the subject at hand, preferably something from both Testaments. We discuss it. Then, I show them what the Church teaches on these and parallel passages and develop the Church's dogmatic teaching. It is not necessary to dispense with the Bible to teach the Church's dogma! It's all there.
I suppose we will always disagree on whether the Spirit living within me will ever condescend to give me the time of day. :)
I had thought that common sense - having thousands 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.
I think I was talking about what are apparent contradictions by any plain reading of the text of scripture, such as a sinless Mary ("all" doesn't mean "all"), Mary as a perpetual virgin thus Jesus had no siblings, and priests forgiving sin. I know we have already discussed all of these. Here you say that tradition must agree with scripture, therefore they are equal in authority. (Maybe I did not earlier put together that the legs of the stool were of equal strength. :)
EVERYONE reads a book through a particular lense, and that includes the Bible. You must be aware by now that the Christians did not first have Scriptures and THEN determine what the Traditions they had learned meant to them. It was the other way around! The oral teachings and practice of the communities determined HOW to read Scritpure when Scripture was not so clear - or even when it seemed so to many people. For example...Eucharist - Real Presence. Seems pretty clear what is said. Seems pretty clear what the early Church thought - for 1500 years. Seems pretty clear that a book must be properly read to understand the author's intent. I find it difficult to ignore the unanimous teachings of 2000 years of Christians who preceded me.
So, if they must agree then the interpretation of the Bible must be made to agree with the writings of the Fathers. This eliminates any sense of the Bible being a readable book outside of the contortions necessary to match the Fathers.
WHO wrote the Scriptures? You seem to have a problem remembering that the Apostles wrote it AFTER they had been teaching people for YEARS! Of course the Bible is to be read through these conditions.
If you believe that "anyone" could come up with a book like the Bible, then I don't know what to say. I don't believe anyone could.
Really? A lot of people are absolutely convinced that the Koran is the Word of God. A lot of people believe that the Book of Mormons is from God. I could write a letter, sprinkle some "thus says the Lord" with some general prophesies (some of which are bound to come true), and I'd have a so-called inspired book from God! However, WE know that couldn't be the case BECAUSE a writing cannot PROVE ITSELF. Just because a writing says "The history of Alexander the Great" doesn't mean it is. And just because a book says "The Bible" on the front cover doesn't mean the entire book is from God. Only external proofs - which you mention, for example, when you talk about the bones of Mohemmed, can PROVE decisively one way or the other!!! You are using external proves to disregard other books as NOT being from God, but you don't seem to realize it!
The tomb of the author of the Bible is empty.
Jesus didn't write the Bible! See what I mean? You are drilled so heavily on this stuff that you can't identify for yourself that the Bible takes outside verification to prove its claim! Anyone can write a book with "thus says the Lord". Only people on the ground can determine the truth of it or not.
Besides, I obviously did come to the conclusion that the Bible is real without any help or knowledge of the Fathers or any Catholic tradition. Was I just lucky? :)
No, you fail to realize that you DID come to that conclusion BASED on the CATHOLIC TRADITION. You think the Protestants figured out for themselves that the Scriptures were from God? The NT was identified as Scriptures one thousand years before Luther came on the scene. The reason why you know the Bible is from God is because the Catholic Church says it is and the Protestants unwittingly follow in step to that claim, not realizing the irony that they rely on the Church's determination of authority, while casting aside its authority to teach that very same book! Go figure.
Regards