Posted on 07/27/2006 12:06:07 PM PDT by NYer
All Christians can agree on this, that the Bible is God’s authoritative and inspired word, and ought to govern the faith and life of the Christian community. What’s in accord with Scripture is good. What contradicts Scripture must be rejected.
Opposition in the Name of Fidelity Someone Has to Have the Last Word Speaking with the Authority of Christ
The Protestant reformers, inspired with zeal for God’s word, went one step further. Under the banner of “sola scriptura” they proclaimed the Bible as the only infallible authority for Christians. That meant that both Tradition and Church authority could be opposed in the name of fidelity to Scripture.
Funny thing, however: from the outset of the Reformation, the movement that agreed on the supreme authority of the Bible disagreed bitterly on what the Bible said. The Protestant church was divided from the beginning. Nearly 500 years later, we see thousands of competing churches claiming the same Bible and sola scriptura heritage.
That’s because the Bible is a collection of written documents. And one of the truths about all written documents, even if they happen to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, is that they can be interpreted differently by different people.
The founding fathers of America knew this. That’s why in addition to providing a Constitution for the United States, they set up a court system to serve as the ongoing, living authority to interpret and apply that written document. If the country was to maintain its unity, someone in every generation would have to be entrusted with the authority to determine what was in accord with the Constitution and what was not. In the USA, that’s the responsibility of the Supreme Court.
We can also see this operating in organized sports. Every sport has a rule book. But in baseball for example, bitter arguments arise as to whether a ball is fair or foul, and whether a runner is safe or out. Umpires therefore are an absolute necessity in every game, so that someone has the final say on how the rules are interpreted and applied.
The Lord Jesus Christ is certainly no less wise than the Founding Fathers of the US government and the commissioner of baseball. In establishing His Church, He did not Himself write anything, except in sand (Jn 8:8). Instead, He established the college of the Apostles, gathered around Peter, as a living teaching authority, entrusted with passing on and teaching all that they’d received from Jesus. They did this through oral instruction and eventually some writings. Through the laying on of hands, which we know as the sacrament of Holy Orders, the Apostles in turn entrusted their teaching authority to their successors, called bishops, and imparted to them the same charism of truth that they’d received from the Holy Spirit (CCC 861-862).
These successors discerned which of the many Christian books and letters bearing names of Apostles actually were authentic and deserved to be regarded as sacred Scripture. Thanks to them, the phoney gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene are not read every Sunday in our churches. They also passed on and interpreted apostolic traditions that were not written down in the New Testament books, like the practice of meeting for weekly worship on Sunday, the day of the Lord’s Resurrection, rather than Saturday, which was the Jewish Sabbath. Finally, they were the ones responsible to authoritatively interpret and apply the sacred Scriptures amidst dispute and controversy, such as the fourth-century controversy over the divinity of Christ.
This teaching role of the successors of the Apostles, gathered around the successor of Peter, is called the "Magisterium,” which simply comes from the Latin word for teaching office. The Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God coming to us through Scripture and Tradition. Instead, the Magisterium is clearly under its authority — it is the servant of the Word. Its role is to faithfully safeguard the truth about God and His plan for our lives which came to full expression in the teaching and saving work of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. It is not to add to God’s revelation or to subtract from it, only to faithfully interpret and apply it (CCC 85-86).
The Magisterium is supposed to function much like the Supreme Court at its best, or like a good umpire. But there are a few very big differences. Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the official baseball rulebook are documents inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Bible, on the other hand, is. Neither the Supreme Court nor the World Series’ umpires have received a promise of special divine assistance. But the successors of the Apostles have. Speaking to Apostles, Jesus said “he who hears you, hears Me” (Lk 10:16). The Magisterium speaks with the authority of Christ, guided and empowered by the Spirit of Truth.
So ultimately there is no opposition between the Bible and the Magisterium of the Church. In fact they are so interdependent that the New Testament itself calls the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (I Tm 3:15). Biblical authority and Church authority — you can’t have one without the other.
Absolutely incorrect! The church at Colossae consisted of newly converted, previously pagan, Greeks. They had no inkling of God's holy days, festivals and Sabbaths prior to their conversion. Paul is instructing them in the observance of the ordinances....."Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath Day."
Why in the world would Paul waste his time explaining something to these folks if he then wanted them to ignore it?
Explain Matthew 28:1 to me.
Now that's got to be the funniest thing I've seen on this forum in a very long time. Good for you, FJ290!
Sure, you can do that...But you can't stop there...You have to look in the context of those verses you state...
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
So the wafer and wine you eat/drink at your church gives life to the world??? Is that the salvation Jesus offered???
And compare
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Are you saying you no longer hunger or thirst??? That's the context...
Here's some more context...
Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Have you ever seen Jesus??? Do you see Jesus when your priest turns that little cookie into Jesus??? It says here all you have to do is look at Jesus and believe on him and you'll be raised up in the last day...You don't have to eat the cracker...What a contradiction is this???
But you take one or two verses, totally ignore the context and build a Religion and a Magisterium on it...
and then report back with what you believe you have read.
I know what I read...And I know what you didn't read...
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.
Interesting verse...But what Jesus DID NOT SAY is; This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as manna, but what He said was not as your fathers eat...>p>
Jesus is the spiritual manna...
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
If you wanna see more, let me know...
1) Obviously he was referring to Jewish customs. You think the Greeks knew nothing about the Jews? 2) At dawn on the day after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalem and the other Mary came near to contemplate the tomb. So?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
***Let's see if you can get "the plain language of" John 6:53-57 right...***
"I am the true vine"
Yep in plain language... Jesus is a plant.
John 6:53-57 How's that?
I don't really understand what your point here is....but, it is obvious the Passover symbolism is being changed from that of a slaughtered lamb, in the temple, on the 14th of Nisan to that of our Saviour being sacrificed for us in its stead. The bread and the wine, being symbolic, as his body and his blood.
The Apostle Paul clarifies it further in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 where he says Christ is our new Passover and let us continue to keep the feast....which he and the Apostles did. In fact they continued to keep the Passover until it was finally outlawed by the Roman Church/State in the fourth century.
Our Saviour was crucified at about 3:00 p.m. on the 14th of Nisan as the lambs were being slaughtered in the temple. It was the Day of preparation and this was the Sabbath I spoke of in an earlier post that is mentioned in Mark 16:1. Your Magesterium is confused about that because they think that the Sabbath is the weekly Sabbath and hence the incorrect story to all of you folks.
Here is some information on the early Fathers still celebrating Passover well into the second century. As you can see it is the Roman Church that has it all wrong. I'm sure they had a magesterium of sorts then also.
***Usually, bible christians consider the bible to be literal...***
Nah, we realize that the authors use figurative language at times. We accept a figure when it is intended and do not force when when not intended. Context helps determine intent.
We call it normal interpretation.
BTW, my tagline: "I left my heart in San Antonio" the word heart is intended figuratively, otherwise typing this would be difficult.
See how it works?
The point is ......they did not come at dawn. The came "Late on Sabbath" and found the tomb empty!.....on the Sabbath! While they were there (sunset Sabbath) the new day began and it was called the first day of the week. In that time zone, at that time of year it would have been about 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday.....our time.
Matthew 28:1 Verse 6 says "HE is risen"....past tense!
So, you see, the dawning of the first day of the week means the beginning of the first day of the week....not early morning sunrise. The Hebrews began their days at sunset. Epiphosko meant sundown in Luke and John even clarifies it further by saying it was dark.
Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of Greek, but I did decide to look up your citation to Luke 23:54, and found the reference to "drawing on" that you speak of. Strong's dictionary lists the word Epiphosko as such:
"A form of G2017; to begin to grow light: - begin to dawn, X draw on."
and for convenience, 2017 is:
"A form of G2014; to illuminate (figuratively): - give light."
This says to me that the word refers to the time as it is transitioning from dark to light, namely, what we consider to be dawn. This would be early in the morning on the first day of the week, as a plain reading of the text suggests.
It must certainly be from the plain reading and not solely from the Catholic Magisterium, because the last time I checked, the vast majority of Protestants worship on Sunday for the same reason that Catholics do. Why should I (or anyone else) agree with your novel rendering when neither the Strong's dictionary (well respected among Protestants) nor the vast majority of nearly 2000 years of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) agree with you?
You seem to want to have it both ways. You say that something is literal where the plain reading suits you, and you say that it is either figurative or means something that isn't plain where the plain reading doesn't suit you.
*** Well, I think I do...so when it fits the protestant perspective it's literal; but when it doesn't fit the protestant perspective one must finesse and massage what would normally be clear scriptural meaning?***
Well, I think I do...so when it fits the Catholic perspective it's literal; but when it doesn't fit the Catholic perspective one must finesse and massage what would normally be clear scriptural meaning?
volley.return.
***but let's get back to John 6:53-57...what about the words "flesh", "blood", "eat" and "drink"...***
Did Jesus walk out of the room with teeth marks on his body, hunks of flesh missing? Was his volume of blood less before and after the meal...
The meal that was a memorial of the Passover. The meal in which all the components were a symbolic picture of His person and works?
Yep context is important.
volley.return.
LOL! The CHURCH IS Christ physically manifested in the world today. You can't separate Christ from the Church, since the Church IS the Body of Christ! Thus, as you say, the rest of Scripture tell us that the Church ALSO is the pillar and ground of truth
How about: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" says Christ.
Regards
I at least try to use scripture to back up what I say...
You can't separate Christ from the Church, since the Church IS the Body of Christ!
I thought you said the little wafer and the cup of wine was the body of Christ...
Thus, as you say, the rest of Scripture tell us that the Church ALSO is the pillar and ground of truth
Surely you can back that up with Scripture...
How about: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" says Christ.
LOL...Apparently you are saying that since Jesus made the above statement, your chuch can make the same claim for itself...
Ha...So the Catholic church says, (Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him,) I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Now that's a hoot...
We all know you can snatch a few verses out of the bible and twist the context enough that you could convince some people that what you say is accurate...
LOL...You can prove anything with the bible...
Thank you. This has been along time coming.
I thought everyone was blessed with a magic sternum. :-)
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.