Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
It's still a jolt for some people to realize this, but the Bible did not fall down out of the sky, leather-bound and gold-monogrammed with the words of Christ in red, in 95 AD. Rather the canon of Christian Scripture slowly developed over a period of about 1500 years. That does not mean, of course, that Scripture was being written for 1500 years after the life of Christ. Rather, it means that it took the Church some fifteen centuries to formally and definitively state which books out of the great mass of early Christian and pseudo-Christian books constituted the Bible.
The process of defining the canon of Scripture is an example of what the Church calls "development of doctrine". This is a different thing than "innovation of doctrine". Doctrine develops as a baby develops into a man, not as a baby grows extra noses, eyes, and hands. An innovation of doctrine would be if the Church declared something flatly contrary to all previous teaching ("Pope John Paul Ringo I Declares the Doctrine of the Trinity to No Longer Be the Teaching of the Church: Bishop Celebrate by Playing Tiddly Winks with So-Called 'Blessed Sacrament'"). It is against such flat reversals of Christian teaching that the promise of the Spirit to guard the apostolic Tradition stands. And, in fact, there has never ever been a time when the Church has reversed its dogmatic teaching. (Prudential and disciplinary changes are another matter. The Church is not eternally wedded to, for instance, unmarried priests, as the wife of St. Peter can tell you.)
But though innovations in doctrine are not possible, developments of doctrine occur all the time and these tend to apply old teaching to new situations or to more completely articulate ancient teaching that has not been fully fleshed out. So, for example, in our own day the Church teaches against the evils of embryonic stem cell research even though the New Testament has nothing to say on the matter. Yet nobody in his five wits claims that the present Church "invented" opposition to embryonic stem cell research from thin air. We all understand that the Church, by the very nature of its Tradition, has said "You shall not kill" for 2,000 years. It merely took the folly of modern embryonic stem cell research to cause the Church to apply its Tradition to this concrete situation and declare what it has always believed.
Very well then, as with attacks on sacred human life in the 21st century, so with attacks on Sacred Tradition in the previous twenty. Jesus establishes the Tradition that he has not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them (Mt 5:17). But when Tradition bumps into the theories of early Jewish Christians that all Gentiles must be circumcised in order to become Christians, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is still necessary to authoritatively flesh that Tradition out. Moreover, the Council settles the question by calling the Bible, not to the judge's bench, but to the witness stand. Scripture bears witness to the call of the Gentiles, but the final judgment depends on the authority of Christ speaking through his apostles and elders whose inspired declaration is not "The Bible says..." but "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28).
In all this, the Church, as ever, inseparably unites Scripture as the light and Sacred Tradition as the lens through which it is focused. In this way the mustard seed of the Kingdom continues to grow in that light, getting more mustardy, not less.
How then did Tradition develop with respect to the canon of Scripture?
In some cases, the Church in both east and west has a clear memory of just who wrote a given book and could remind the faithful of this. So, for instance, when a second century heretic named Marcion proposed to delete the Old Testament as the product of an evil god and canonize the letters of Paul (but with all those nasty Old Testament quotes snipped out), and a similarly edited gospel of Luke (sanitized of contact with Judaism for your protection), the Church responded with local bishops (in areas affected by Marcion's heresy) proposing the first canons of Scripture.
Note that the Church seldom defines its teaching (and is in fact disinclined to define it) till some challenge to the Faith (in this case, Marcion) forces it to do so. When Marcion tries to take away from the Tradition of Scripture by deleting Matthew, Mark and John and other undesirable books, the Church applies the basic measuring rod of Tradition and says, "This does not agree with the Tradition that was handed down to us, which remembers that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and John wrote John.
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at his bosom also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 3, 1, 1)
In other words, there is, we might say, a Standard of Roots (based on Sacred Tradition) by which the Church weighs her canon. So when various other heretics, instead of trying to subtract from the generally received collection of holy books, instead try to add the Gospel of Thomas or any one of a zillion other ersatz works to the Church's written Tradition, the Church can point to the fact that, whatever the name on the label says, the contents do not square with the Tradition of the Church, so it must be a fake. In other words, there is also a Standard of Fruits. It is this dual standard of Roots and Fruits by which the Church discerns the canon -- a dual standard which is wholly based on Sacred Tradition. The Church said, in essence, "Does the book have a widespread and ancient tradition concerning its apostolic origin and/or approval? Check. Does the book square with the Tradition we all learned from the apostles and the bishops they gave us? Check. Then it is to be used in public worship and is to be regarded as the word of God."
It was on this basis the early Church also vetoed some books and accepted others -- including the still-contested-by-some-Protestants deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach and Baruch as well as some pieces of Daniel and Esther. For the churches founded by the apostles could trace the use of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in public worship (a Greek translation of the Old Testament which includes all these books) back to the apostles. In fact, many of the citations of Old Testament Scripture by the New Testament writers are, in fact, citations of the Septuagint (see, for example, Mark 7:6-7, Hebrews 10:5-7). Therefore, the Body of Christ living after the apostles simply retained the apostles' practice of using the Septuagint on the thoroughly traditional grounds, "If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us." In contrast, the churches had no apostolic tradition handed down concerning the use of, say, the works of the Cretan poet Epimenides (whom Paul quotes in Acts 17), therefore they did not regard his works as Scripture, even though Paul quotes him. It was by their roots and fruits that the Church's books were judged, and it was by the standard of Sacred Tradition that these roots and fruits were known.
These Root and Fruit standards are even more clearly at work in the canonization of the New Testament, especially in the case of Hebrews. There was, in fact, a certain amount of controversy in the early Church over the canonicity of this book (as well as of books like 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation). Some Fathers, especially in the west, rejected Hebrews (in no small part because of its lack of a signature). Yet the Church eventually accepted it. How? It was judged apostolic because, in the end, the Church discerned that it met the Roots and Fruits measure when stacked up against Sacred Tradition.
The Body of Christ had long believed that Hebrews said the same thing as the Church's Sacred Tradition handed down by the bishops. Thus, even Fathers (like Irenaeus) who rejected it from their canon of inspired Scripture still regarded it as a good book. That is, it had always met the Fruits standard. How then did it meet the Roots standard? In a nutshell, despite the lack of attestation in the text of Hebrews itself, there was an ancient tradition in the Church (beginning in the East, where the book was apparently first sent) that the book originated from the pen of St. Paul. That tradition, which was at first better attested in the east than in the west (instantaneous mass communication being still some years in the future) accounts for the slowness of western Fathers (such as Irenaeus) to accept the book. But the deep-rootedness of the tradition of Pauline authorship in the East eventually persuaded the whole Church. In short, as with the question of circumcision in the book of Acts, the status of Hebrews was not immediately clear even to the honest and faithful (such as Irenaeus). However, the Church in council, trusting in the guidance of Holy Spirit, eventually came to consensus and canonized the book on exactly the same basis that the Council of Jerusalem promulgated its authoritative decree: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."
Conversely, those books which the Church did not canonize as part of the New Testament were rejected because, in the end, they did not meet both the Root and Fruit standards of the Church's Sacred Tradition. Books like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas, while meeting the Fruit standard, were not judged to meet the Root standard since their authors were not held to be close enough to the apostolic circle -- a circle which was, in the end, drawn very narrowly by the Spirit-led Church and which therefore excluded even Clement since he, being "in the third place from the Apostles" was not as close to the apostles as Mark and Luke (who were regarded as recording the gospels of Peter and Paul, respectively). The Church, arch-conservative as ever, relied on Sacred Tradition, not to keep adding to the New Testament revelation but to keep it as lean and close to the apostles as possible. This, of course, is why books which met neither the Root nor Fruit standards of Sacred Tradition, such as the Gospel of Thomas, were rejected by the Church without hesitation as completely spurious.
Not that this took place overnight. The canon of Scripture did not assume its present shape till the end of the fourth century. It was defined at the regional Councils of Carthage and Hippo and also by Pope Damasus and included the deuterocanonical books. It is worth noting, however, that, because these decisions were regional, none of them were dogmatically binding on the whole Church, though they clearly reflected the Sacred Tradition of the Church (which is why the Vulgate or Latin Bible--which was The Bible for the Catholic Church in the West for the next 1200 years looks the same as the Catholic Bible today). Once again, we are looking at Sacred Tradition which is not fully developed until a) the Reformation tries to subtract deuterocanonical books from Scripture and b) the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s finally makes that Tradition fixed and binding. This is the origin of the myth that the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonical books to Scripture at Trent. It is as historically accurate as the claim that the Catholic Church "added" opposition to embryonic stem cell research to its tradition during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.
In summary then, the early Church canonized books because they were attested by apostolic tradition. The books we have in our Bibles (and the ones we don't) were accepted or rejected according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards which were based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ.
#1 Jesus's "brothers" were likely cousins as there was no other word in Hebrew nor Aramaic to distinguish the two.
#2 Jesus isn't denying His earthly family, only making a point regarding the universal nature of the family of God.
Why is Mary used in intercession?
Jesus is the King of the whole world in the line of King David. As a Davidic King, He has a Davidic court. When Solomon succeeded David, he instituted his mother as the queen mother to hear supplications. He also instituted his ministers, especially his Prime Minister. If you can find the verses (I apologize but I don't remember them right now) you will find that the institution of the Prime Minister bears striking (and not accidental) resemblance to Jesus's words to Peter as the Rock of the Church. The symbol of the Prime Minister's office? The keys to the kingdom. His authority? Binding and loosing.
Isaiah 51:10 "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. "
Luke 1:46 "And Mary said 'My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour',"
Mary speaks of God her Savior in the present tense, not the past. Mary was redeemed prior to the crucifixion, which redeemed all of mankind. No one ever said that Mary didn't need to be saved, but she was saved at her conception, not at the crucifixion
In Luke 1:28 The Greek use the word "Kecharitomene" to signify the "grace" with which Mary was filled:
"kai eiselqwn proV authn eipen caire kecaritwmenh o kurioV meta sou "
"Kecharitomene" is broken down, thus:
Ke = grace already existing
Charis = grace
Mene = Mary, the recipient of the grace
So "kecharitomene" is not just a general reference by the angel to grace (which would just be "charis"). It is a very specific identification that Mary is already possessing grace in entirety ("full of grace").
The word "charis", throughout the Bible, is translated as "grace", except by those who wish to deny honor to Mary, and so conveniently substitute the alternative use, "favor". Nowhere else is "charis" translated as "favor", and never prior to later translations which arbitrarily defeated the obvious pattern of meaning throughout Scripture.
Luke 1:48-49 "...for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed (everyone except Protestants, I assume). Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me (like preserving her from Original Sin?) ; and holy is his name.
Can you guess who wrote this?
"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin."
Yup.
Martin Luther: Sermon, 1527
Nor is He a rock ala "the stubbling stone".
Also, I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks Jesus "venerated" His mother in any regard. She is human as we all are. However, she was accorded a singular grace not given to others and hailed by an angel with an appelation not applied to anyone before or since. She has a special place among us as the first to follow Christ.
However, she was accorded a singular grace not given to others and hailed by an angel with an appelation not applied to anyone before or since. She has a special place among us as the first to follow Christ.
Singular grace given by whom? Certainly not the scriptures. Which angel, when and where is it written? If "tradition" gave us the Bible, then you would think the council of men in the church would have put something in about that so it would have credibility.
Really! What Bible are you reading, exactly?
Acts 20:28
(this would be Paul speaking): "ACTS 20:28 “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed YOU BISHOPS,TO RULE THE CHURCH OF GOD, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
Sounds like he was in charge of something, since he was the Bishop of Rome...
Jesus to Peter: "Feed my sheep."
If putting Peter in charge of the flock is not being "in charge of much", then you are spitting in the face of Jesus, who was also "just" a self-described shepherd.
See post #382. Rutles4Ever did a terrific job and there's no reason to redo it. You are very ignorant of Scripture to assert that Mary was not "full of Grace" as hailed by the Angel Gabriel.
If "tradition" gave us the Bible, then you would think the council of men in the church would have put something in about that so it would have credibility.
Why are you on this thread? It's clear that you are unable to comprehend the written language. NOWHERE in this article nor in a post thereafter has anyone asserted that the Scriptures are anything but God's own words inspired through men. Tradition (through the inspiration of the same Spirit of God Who wrote the Scriptures) identified the books, codified the canon and has preserved it to this day.
Are you calling Jesus a liar? Hmmmm.... Why didn't he address Mary Magdalene, who was also at the cross? What an insult!
I mean, after all, she did the will of God, too, so she was Jesus' "mother", too. Why should Mary the Mother of Jesus be honored by Christ at the cross and not Mary Magdalene?
I mean, come on -- not even a "behold, your brother?"
Hmmmmmm
I dealt with that extensively on another thread.
If you actually did some research instead of swallowing tradition that makes little or no sense.
Was there punctuation in the cursives or uncils? Nope.
You are violating a significant rule in Biblican interpretation: if one verse contradicts several clear verses on the same subject then there must be an error in tranlsation and/or understanding.
When you tell me that God is a triune entity, I will tell you that the Bible clearly states that God is one, never, ever does it say God is three. Go from there.
Seriously, anything can become an idol if we let it become more important than our Lord or if we start performing acts of worship to it. I know many unbalanced marriages in which one spouse worships the other. I know people who worship their careers, or their cars, or their favorite sports team or entertainer.
Even the artwork that God Himself commands to be made can become an idol. God commanded Moses to make the brazen serpent, but when it became an object of worship, Hezekiah had to destroy it. God commanded the Ark be made as His meeting place with Israel, but when the people started trusting the Ark for success in battle instead of worshipping and obeying the God of the Ark, He saw to it that they suffered defeat.
Solomon allowed his wives to put up idols in the Temple courtyard; symbollically, that put the idol gods in submission to YHVH, like courtiers in the courtyard of a king. We see much the same symbolism when the Philistines put the Ark beneath the idol of Dagon to symbolize Dagon's supremacy over YHVH (which lasted right up until they found Dagon's head at the "feet" of the Ark in the morning). But despite the fact that God was still being worshipped as the supreme God of Israel, with the gods of the Gentiles in submission, was God pleased? No, He took away 5/6ths of the kingdom from Solomon's heirs as a result.
Look at the parallels: The RCC and EOC claim that their saints are in submission to God. They fill churches and cathedrals supposedly dedicated to God with the images of these saints. With full support of their elders, members of both bow down to these statues, say ritualistic prayers to them, have festivals in their honor, etc. Why then are you surprised that God split the Church just as He did Israel?
You claim that you're not really bowing down to the statue, but simply respecting the person the statue represents, and them as a servant of God. So too might the Hindu point out that their idols merely represent their gods, and the gods are merely eminations of the Brahman. There's no practical difference.
You try to separate the outward acts from your inward heart, but again, the Bible makes no distinction: It presumes that the outward act is a reflection of the heart, except in the case of the hypocrite (whose other outward acts betray his heart in any case). It forbids so much as doing the outward acts.
Whenever someone points out to you a conflict between your practice and the Scripture, you claim that the RCC and/or EOC have the right to change the Scriptures. Wrong. Yeshua's primary debate was with those who changed or perverted the Scriptures for the sake of their traditions, and He never corrected them from competing Scriptures or the antiquity of various views, but from the Word of God. If you are truly Christians, being conformed into the image of the Lord, then you should follow His example.
Yet, while following the example of the Pharisees in burying the true Word of God beneath your traditions, you want to post article after article attacking those who in principle, if admittedly not always in practice, seek to follow the Scriptures as the Lord did?
Further, I see a lot of you trying to pile on here, but all of your arguments were refuted far earlier in the thread. You obviously haven't read my posts, or you wouldn't simply be repeating the same things over and over again.
Seeing as there's a derth of original responses on this thread (with a couple of exceptions that I'll respond to in a moment) or of arguments that even deal with the issues that I've raised (saying "Nuh-uh!" over and over again does not a worthy argument make), I'm closing out my end of the debate.
Thank you for the conversation, have a pleasant day, and God bless.
First of all, then why have you not done the same?
Secondly, He submitted to their authority only so far as it did not overstep or annul the Scripture, specifically the Torah. When they tried to condemn His disciples for eating a snack along the road on the Sabbath, did He submit to their judgment, or point out why they were wrong? Ditto when they condemned Him for healing on the Sabbath or His disciples for not ritually washing their hands before a meal?
You're trying to have it both ways here: You would (I presume) agree with the Church's decision to separate from the synagogues when the persecution of believers in the Messiah became too great, but you condemn those who left the RCC when the persecution of Biblical Christians became too great.
Remember, Luther didn't leave the RCC on his own accord. He was kicked out for attempting to reform it over the issue of selling indulgences.
There is one God and one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus.
Anyone who is willing to put someone else (mary) in an intercessor role is equally capable of creating idolotry and other Biblical disobedience.
Not only do you do that, you spread it, too.
If you cannot see that there is One God and that God is one, then I believe that there is little else you can truly understand.
Tradition (through the inspiration of the same Spirit of God Who wrote the Scriptures) identified the books, codified the canon and has preserved it to this day.
The Catholic church tried to excommunicate any who claimed the Magna Carta. The church has always been on the side of princes. This makes any interpretation or additional extrapolation of the original scriptures suspect. A Group of men, invested in the wealth and power of the Catholic church, do not the Spirit of God make. The original scriptures were written by those who were with Jesus, heard His words, saw His deeds.
I am on this thread because I find ludicrous the notion that the Catholic church, or any other church, has the arrogance to claim their doctrine is the sole path to salvation, without which a soul is condemned to Hell.
I will challenge that malarkey at any time I so choose on any thread I so choose.
"You obviously haven't read my posts, or you wouldn't simply be repeating the same things over and over again."
You believe many things that are not true. Very many.
Any effort to set you straight necessarily involves repetition. And failure.
Perhaps God will open your eyes. Certainly, it's beyond my powers.
Did you read #379? This isn't about Mary, this is about a triune God.
PM>Is Jesus made of wood?
p>No.
PM>Does Jesus have leaves?
p>No.
Nor is He a rock ala "the stubbling stone".
383 posted on 02/08/2006 8:52:13 AM MST by pgyanke
Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18 The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God! Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour. Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah. 1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD; 2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the 2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? 2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Saviour! 2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour! Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.' Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy Y'shua is the ROCK. He says so clearly in the Holy Word of G-d.
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Y'shua spoke these words.
This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "rock"
e.g.
b'shem Y'shua
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.
Read the passages I posted again. How do you think by His words He "disowned" his mother. He simply didn't afford he any more veneration that any other. These are His words.
What does "Behold, your son." mean, to you? Perhaps, He said that because she was his mother, whereas Mary Magdaline wasn't. How this either here or there, or prove anything? People who are invested in a belief will find only that belief in any words.
That was a little out of context... but thank you anyway. I was referring to a physical mineralized stone in response to a question of whether Jesus was made of wood or had leaves.
Sorry you went to all the trouble.
Do you plan to answer my question?
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.