I have found this idea throughout this thread from your side. Just a very quick scan of this 50-post string turns up this from Alex in post 5171:
"After all, theology is secondary to liturgy; it is through liturgical union with Christ that we know the Word, Who is Christ Himself. An attempt to discover Christ through scripture alone is about as fruitful as trying to impregnate one's wife through e-mail."
This, presumably, was met with agreement by Kosta in 5185. The message is that Christ is unknowable through the scripture alone, and that only through men can anyone know Christ. Men are thus above the scripture and only these elite men decide what the scripture means for the rest of mankind. This idea is rampant on this thread and the superiority of men over scripture is clear in that men decide what the Bible means, the Bible does not.
The Bible says NOWHERE that it is ALL of the Word of God, nor does it say to ignore any Word of God outside of itself. Making such a claim refutes Sola Scriptura!
That Tradition is now part of the word of God also seems to be a new claim. What word of God is outside of the Bible? What do you think Sola Scriptura means?
It's one thing to make false accusations, but beware - from where we are standing, Protestants fare much worse in "bending" the Word of God found in Scriptures.
LOL! I think I'll take my chances on this one. :)
YOU look at justification through the lense of Luther who said that man is totally corrupt - an innovation of the 1500's.
I suppose you can assign me a pope if you want to, but I don't claim Luther or anyone else as a pope figure. Before I knew any of Luther's or Calvin's beliefs, I was already more than 80% in agreement. This doesn't surprise me in that the scripture is the base. Neither they nor I ever felt a need to re-write the scripture to satisfy another group of men's opinions.
Who exactly is changing the Bible's meaning to fit their own opinions?
Well, that would be Catholics, as the Bible's meaning MUST be changed in order to match Tradition.
If you want to know what the Bible REALLY means, find out what the first Christians thought it meant.
When I want to know what the Bible really means I try to find out what God thought it meant.
Exactly when did God vouch for the truth of every written word to be taken literally as historical or scientific truth?
Not every written word is literal, but when they are not, it is pretty clear. If I can figure out the vast majority of them, anyone can. I did not realize you were on the train of denying the historical truth of the Bible. So let me ask you what I have asked Kosta, how do you know which stories are true and which are false? Does the science of 2006 tell you, or, do you even care at all which are true?
God speaks through parables, but in the OT, He isn't allowed to?
When God spoke in parables in the NT, it was fairly obvious. It's not so easy in the OT. There could very well be examples, I'm just not aware of them.
YOU with all of our scientific knowledge at hand can't admit what is as plain as the fact that the earth is round?
The earth is round? Oh yes, that is from scripture. Thanks for reminding me. :)
Is. 40:22 : He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
And who do you ask? Yourself?
This, presumably, was met with agreement by Kosta in 5185
Kosta's approval was in reference to annalex's "An attempt to discover Christ through scripture alone is about as fruitful as trying to impregnate one's wife through e-mail."
The Divine Liturgy is the life of the Church. We can trace it back to St. James. I think I can safely agree with annalex that it predates our theology and the New Testament. It has nothing to do with men. Everything in the Church can be traced to the word of God and corroborated in the Bible. Again, the Church did not compile the New Testament so that the Reformed may discover the "true" church 15,000 years later, but because of some 200 false Gnostic "gospels" launched by Satan and his demons. The Church did not need the New Testament to exist.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thes 2:15)
Your examples do not say anything about the Church being above the Word of God. Annalex and Kosta have correctly said that we BETTER understand the Scriptures, or more precisely, the Holy Traditions of the Apostles (which are only PARTLY the Sacred Scriptures) through the Liturgy, the acts of the Church. The Divine Liturgy is Tradition in action, it is God's heaven meeting God's earth in time. But I don't see the concept of the Church being superior to the Sacred Scripture in those posts. Perhaps you are confusing the Protestant "Word of God" to equal Scripture ALONE. Clearly, the Word of God is NOT Scripture alone. The Scripture is only part of the Word given to man. The Bible ITSELF says this in John's Gospel, for heaven's sake! The WORD of God is a person!!!
Christ is not "unknoweable" through Scripture alone. However, our experience in Christ depends on the Church's interpretation to put it into proper perspective and to bear fruit. Christ's Paschal Mystery really happened. They are objective truths. Thus, they are not subject to opinions as if EACH opinion was as good as any other. You are pushing forward the idea of Relativism, that every religion, every concept of God, is as good as another. The Scripture, in Acts, tells of the Egyptian eunich who asked a disciple of the Lord to explain the Scriptures. We use this as a guide to tell us where we are to find objective truth. It is through the community of faith where we come to qualify our experiences of Christ.
What do you think Sola Scriptura means?
That everything that Christians are to believe is found in the Bible alone. Where does the Bible give us this rule?
I wrote :It's one thing to make false accusations, but beware - from where we are standing, Protestants fare much worse in "bending" the Word of God found in Scriptures.
You said : LOL! I think I'll take my chances on this one. :)
Fine, but stop the accusations, then. Your accusations that Catholics twist Scripture is tiring, from where we stand, since we see you do it all the time. For example, Sola Scriptura - which is nowhere in the Bible. This makes it a self-refuting rule.
Before I knew any of Luther's or Calvin's beliefs, I was already more than 80% in agreement
You came to these conclusions yourself by reading the Bible without ANYONE telling you about Altar Call or Sinner's Prayer? Come on! I am willing to bet that you were open to someone's theology, which you accepted gullibly without hardly cracking the Bible open. They pointed you to a few memorized verses taken out of context, and the rest is history. You accepted someone's truth claims on what the Word of God was saying - thus, you follow traditions.
When I want to know what the Bible really means I try to find out what God thought it meant.
By consulting Luther and Calvin or other Protestants on this thread?
Well, that would be Catholics, as the Bible's meaning MUST be changed in order to match Tradition.
The Tradition came before the Bible, friend. This is common knowledge except to some Protestants.
I did not realize you were on the train of denying the historical truth of the Bible
There you go again, putting words into my posts...I said that I am FREE TO BELIEVE EITHER/OR! I never said that I am absolutely convinced that "X" didn't happen. If science leads me to think that the world was created billions of years ago, I am free to believe it without denying the inerrancy of Scriptures. You, on the other hand, MUST believe everything literally in such situations, since you consider the Bible as an idol to be worshipped and that God wouldn't inspire the Bible in an allegorical sense unless He sent a memo to you.
Does the science of 2006 tell you, or, do you even care at all which are true?
I do not discount science or historical research. But I am aware of its limitations. The Bible is the Word of God, but when science proves without doubt that the world is round, then WE must re-adjust our view of Scriptures. Scriptures do not lie, but sometimes, we misinterpret them. Clearly, when the Psalms talks about the world resting on pillars, we discount that as the knowledge of man and not the inerrant word of God's view of scientific reality.
When God spoke in parables in the NT, it was fairly obvious. It's not so easy in the OT. There could very well be examples, I'm just not aware of them.
How do you know Jesus didn't have an actual person in mind? And regarding the OT, perhaps Jonah is a parable, while Esther certainly could be a historical novel, for example. The point is that God's message is given to man, no matter the historical reality of whether Esther actually became the Queen and quashed the anti-Jewish movement in the diaspora. None of this takes away from the reality of the Christ narratives - which the Church declares as historical truths.
The earth is round? Oh yes, that is from scripture. Thanks for reminding me. :)
Wrong. The Scriptures point to the earth as resting on pillars. Is. 40 says nothing about the earth being round on a three dimensional plane, but a circle on a two-dimensional plane - the sky being a canopy in three dimensions... Are you saying that God's Word to us is that the earth is like a pancake? And Catholics have no freedom to interpret the Scriptures? LOL!!!
Regards