Posted on 01/24/2007 8:41:04 AM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
"Baloney", eh?
"Dishonest?"
Neither.
Why don't we let you go ahead and demonstrate the truth of what I said. Please answer these questions (none of them are rude, insulting or hostile), and you will prove that I was perfectly accurate and perfectly true.
Question 1: Is the text of the Bible (we'll pass on arguing over WHICH text for the moment), the "Inspired Word of God"? Yes or No?
Question 2: Is ALL of Divine Inspiration in the Bible, such that EVERYTHING that God has revealed that man needs to know for his spiritual needs is in the text? Yes or no?
Question 3: Can a man, alone, read and understand the text of the Bible, and thereby fully understand what God demands of him, or does he need deeply learned scholars and experts of theology to interpret it correctly for him?
Question 4: Where the text of the Bible conflicts with itself, or directly contradicts itself, what is the proper interpretation and who says?
Question 5: Example for Question 4 - Matthew 16:18-19 says:
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Based on that text, did Peter himself have the power to use the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to forgive men their sins, and by so doing, oblige God to forgive those sins? Yes or no? Does "Whatsoever" include the power, for Peter, to wipe away sins and eliminate them?
I say he did.
Cleary and unambiguously.
The text cannot be read any other way.
Questions 6,7 and 8:
Do you say otherwise?
How can you read that text to say otherwise?
How do we decide who is right?
Question 9: Does it matter in the slightest, from the perspective of going to Heaven when we die, whether one gets the right answer or not to Questions 6,7 and 8?
I can pre-answer the questions for you, but rather than being accused of being "dishonest" and "letting my imagination run wild" again, I'll just save the answers I know you will give in a side file, and post them once you have given them.
There's nothing remotely dishonest about what I wrote. The reason there are 6000 different Protestant churches and one Catholic Church is PRECISELY because of the central issue of authority.
You can rest assured I didn't make that statement based on the historical behavior of your church. But thanx for the reminder about how a good Jew should act. I'll consult with you next time instead of others at my shul. :-)
You confusion would be justified.
Did I say I was confused?
"This belief may help to explain my attitude toward any group of men who have the nerve to claim they are the 'one, true, Church established by Jesus'."
Ok, very well.
Does this mean that if we are to discuss the actual content of revelation, what God wants from us, we can rely on the text of the Bible alone to contain everything we need to have that discussion?
If you are at all interested in why I believe that Christianity is in fact true, start here:
http://www.shroudstory.com/
This is horrendously depressing.
I just wrote a long, careful, point-by-point response to what you wrote, and sent it.
And it does not appear. I think it was lost.
Grrrrrrr.
I cannot reproduce all of that.
I'll just try shorthand.
I posted "like Jesus did" to make the point that God Incarnate didn't think writing things down was as important for establishing authority as you do.
It is true that I have not offered much scripture in what I have said thus far here.
If Scripture is the only authority that you will accept, then we can have that discussion, and you will discover at the end of it that Scripture supports what I believe as a Catholic. You might even modify some of your beliefs.
I am perfectly willing to enter into a discussion that rules all traditions or other sources other than the Scripture itself, as you and I read it directly, off limits.
Anytime you would like to begin I am ready.
This position explains why so many RCCers see no problem with conflicts between the Bible and their oral traditions. They hold an authority above both: The Church.
The problem I see with this idea is that "The Church" is not defined. What is it? What are its core, foundational beliefs? It seems awfully convenient to appeal to have this once-removed, faceless, nonentity whose positions can morph into whatever it pleases and retain higher authority than written (and now we learn, oral) "authorities" even if they run contrary to them.
You wrote:
"[1] This position explains why so many RCCers see no problem with conflicts between the Bible and their oral traditions. They hold an authority above both: The Church.
[2] The problem I see with this idea is that "The Church" is not defined. What is it? What are its core, foundational beliefs? It seems awfully convenient to appeal to have this once-removed, faceless, nonentity whose positions can morph into whatever it pleases and retain higher authority than written (and now we learn, oral) "authorities" even if they run contrary to them."
And I shall respond, in detail, and politely.
Your first point ([1], above) assumes something. It assumes that Catholics actually see conflicts between the Bible and the other traditions of the Church, and then choose to not see these conflicts as a problem, because they hold "The Church" above both.
But in truth most Catholics do not think there is ANY conflict whatever between ANYTHING in the Bible and the other traditions of the Church. I myself have read the Bible quite a bit, and I have specifically looked at those things which Catholic opponents claim is a conflict. In every single case, I myself, on reading the text AS IT IS, I have never found any of these alleged conflicts to really exist.
What I honestly see is something very different. I see Protestant interpretive traditions, in the various Protestant sects, which find a conflict because they misread the text of the Bible to say what it does not say.
These traditions become entrenched - indeed, the reason why there are so many Protestant churches and not just one Catholic Church and one Protestant church is BECAUSE the Bible is a long written text which can have many different interpretations. Protestants cannot agree with each other, either, and have split from each other over disagreements.
One of the reasons I always invite Protestants to join me in a Bible Alone study is precisely because I know what is actually in that text, and when the text is read all by itself, unaided by traditions such as the conclusory fulminations of John Knox posted up this thread somewhere, every single instance in which Catholicism is accused of doing something unbiblical, the Catholic tradition is in fact very Biblical, with its foundations right there in the text.
This does not mean that every single Catholic tradition is spelled out in the Bible, but then, neither is Sola Scriptura or anything like it spelled out in the Bible, nor, even is the concept or canon of the Bible spoken of in the Bible.
So, I do not think it is right when you say "so many RCCers see no problem with conflicts between the Bible and their oral traditions". In fact, most Catholics see absolutely not conflicts whatsoever, even in the slightest degree, between Catholic traditions either oral or written.
I myself don't.
Not one.
I am always willing to go through the text, to demonstrate this, but I have never found anybody willing to go through the very wearying exercise that this requires. I remain willing, should anyone care to.
The Catholic belief is that THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS between the Bible and any other Catholic traditions. They all complement each other and reveal the fullness of God's message to the world. So yes, the Church is "above" bible and other tradition, but only in the sense that it is the AUTHOR of both, and of course the house is not divided itself, so the Church reflects its traditions, and the traditions reflect the Church, in a sort of ecclesiastical trinity, if you will. That is what Catholics actually think and believe. I do. And quite honestly I don't even have the slightest sense of irony about that. I believe that if we go patiently through the Bible, not hunting and pecking our way but methodically and carefully reading the text, assigning the proper weight to the words and sources, we discover that the Catholic Church follows the Bible PERFECTLY.
Now, I WILL say that there really IS a key difference between the way Catholic theologians use the Bible and the way Protestants do. The Protestant view gives equal weight to every word in the Bible. Jews never did that (and remember, Catholicism originated in Judaism, not modern rabbinnical Judaism but the Judaism of the Temple, which ended in the First Century), and Catholics don't either. Catholics don't read the book itself as holy. It's the revelation in the book that is holy. What is Holy is that it came from God. Jesus was God Incarnate. And THEREFORE, Catholics believe that what JESUS specifically said and did is authoritative. EVERYTHING ELSE in the Bible - all the letters of Paul, Peter, John, all of the Old Testament - has to be interpreted through the words of Jesus. Thus, for example, the old "grace versus works" problem that has caused such debate on the Protestant side has never caused debate on the Catholic side going all the way back as far as the eye can see. Why? Well, what did JESUS do? He was God, after all? What did HE say? He walked around doing good works and charitable deeds, and he said to do so. That settles it. That is what we have to do. There is no debating grace versus works, Paul versus James. Paul and James were men addressing specific audiences with specific concerns and issues. But Jesus was God. What God actually DID when He walked the Earth is the template and the rule. Everything else is obiter dictum. Jesus spent his whole ministry doing good works. We have to do the same. It is REQUIRED, by the Bible. No Catholic could possibly see it any other way, because no Catholic could presume to take a letter by some bishop, Paul, and interpret it in a way that had equal authority with the acts and deeds of Jesus. It is mystifying to Catholics why anybody would even possibly think to do so.
And yet I myself have read strange and crabbed arguments that attempt to place the epistles of Paul on the same level of authority as the words and deeds of God Incarnate in the Gospels! This is UTTERLY MIND-BOGGLING to a Catholic. Why would anyone presume to do that? Why would anyone even THINK that was a rational argument?
It's a mystery.
I know millions do, though, so I suppose I should state the facts as they are.
Jews do not give equal weight to every word in the TaNaKh (the Jewish Bible). The Torah - the first five books, of Moses - is The Law. THAT is the highest written authority in all of Judaism. No Jew would ever presume to read something in Chronicles and use it to equivocate on something in The Torah. All 613 Commandments are in The Torah. There are no Commandments anywhere else in the Jewish Bible, because nothing but The Torah is The Law.
Catholics are the same way. The Gospels are the words and deeds of God Incarnate. God thought it was important enough to make sure that they were recorded in four forms, three of them parallel, and one containing the work of the closest apostle to Jesus of all. THAT is where the highest authority in the Bible is: in the Gospels. The REST of the Bible, and the rest of all tradition, must be interpreted in terms of THAT: what God actually DID and SAID when He came to earth.
The authority of the Gospel over the rest of the Bible, its seniority in respect among Catholics, just like the Torah among Jews, is indicated in the traditional ritual of the Mass. In an ordinary Sunday Catholic Mass there are four readings from the Bible. The first is from the Old Testament. The second is a psalm from the Book of Psalms. This is either read, with congregational responses, or is sung. The third reading is from the epistles of the New Testament. The fourth and final reading is from the Gospel.
The other readings or singing of the psalm are all done seated, but the Gospel is different. These are the words and deeds of God Incarnate, of Jesus Christ, the Risen Lord. Before the Gospel is read, the whole congregation stands: this is to be heard on one's feet, in reverent respect. And then the congregation either sings or says "Alleluia" three times (or a chant in multiples of three), representative of the Trinity. The Gospel is preceded by a reverential Alleluia, usually sung.
Now, the other readings are done by a lay reader or lector, but the Gospel is read by the priest or an ordained deacon. He makes a short invocation, to which the congregation responds "praise to you, O Lord" and makes the sign of the cross with thumb and forefinger three times, once on the head, to seal the mind, once on the lips, to seal the mouth, and once on the heart, to seal the heart.
Then the Gospel is read, and after the Gospel is read, the priest gives a blessing. Then the homily is given.
Now, the Catholic lectionary is set up so that the entire New Testament and most of the Old Testament is read out loud to the congregation over a cycle of three years. The Bible is not read in order. Rather, the Gospel - the words and deeds of Jesus Christ our Sovereign Lord - are the centerpiece, and the readings from the Epistles, the Psalm and the Old Testament are all selected to highlight Jesus' message. Indeed, if one listens carefully to the hymn selections in a Catholic Church every Sunday they, too, are invariably related the the theme in the Gospels.
To Catholics, there is no question whatever, the Gospels - the Words and Deeds of God Incarnate - are the centerpiece of the Bible, THE great source of authority. The whole rest of the Bible must be interpreted around them.
Logically, how could it possibly be any other way.
So, you see, when Jesus says that to love God with all your heart and soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself - and that this is the entirety of the Law and the Prophets - there is no question that what this MEANS is that all of those rituals and rites and complicated rules of the Torah, and all those long stories of the prophets - all of that distills down to this. How do we know? Because Jesus was God, and he said so. THIS is why the Gospel is so important. In one sweeping sentence Jesus summarized for us GOD'S point in inspiring the holiest parts of the Old Testament. We can still go read the Old Testament if we want to, for instruction, for education, for inspiration, but what it MEANS, from the perspective of God, is right there in those two sentences from God's lips, when he TOLD US precisely that.
So, you see, a Catholic is not going to see eye to eye with anybody who wants to pull something out of Deuteronomy or Nehemiah and put it up on the same plane with Jesus in a way that dilutes in any sense what Jesus said.
Jesus was God. The Bible means what Jesus said and did. Any interpretation that departs from what Jesus said or did is obviously wrong. It's not even debatable as a matter of logic, let alone theology.
Sit down to discuss Scripture with a Catholic and he's always going to turn to the Gospels and to Genesis. When there's a question that arises somewhere else, he's going to flip open to see what Jesus said or did, and say that's the authoritative interpretation.
And you will find that in every case, the traditions and acts and rites of the Catholic Church are always aimed at emulating Jesus in some way. Catholicism takes Jesus literally. Very very literally. That is why, for example, when Jesus prohibits divorce, Catholicism takes it utterly literally, and prohibits divorce, period. Other Christian sects hedge on that a bit. Catholicism does not, because it CANNOT. If you want to bind a Catholic with Scripture, you MUST turn to the Gospels and use Jesus' words and deeds. If you do that, you will find nothing to reproach Catholicism with, because THAT is where Catholics have placed the weight of belief in Scriptures. The rest of Scripture just provides background for that. This is not the way Protestants approach the Bible at all. Every faithful Catholic who attends Church regularly (as he is required to do), if he lives for 80 years hears practically the whole Bible read to him and explained to him 26 times. And he hears it all explained through the filter of the Gospels as THE authoritative prism for everything in the text. Because the Gospels record the words and deeds of God Incarnate. They are the very heart and soul and muscle of the Bible. The Bible must be interpreted in light of them, and not in any other way. How could any other way be legitimate? How could some bishop or some prophet be used as the standard about which the words and deeds of God Himself, when came to earth, should be interpreted?
That is madness!
Jesus was God! Peter and Paul, James Isaiah and Moses were not.
The Gospels are the authority. The rest of the Bible are illustrations and lessons of the Gospels.
Obviously.
Now, as to your second point, that "The Church" is not defined, and is a faceless nonentity - this is not so. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church is about 3000 pages long. EVERYTHING is defined there, laid out, tied back to the Gospels and other Scripture. The Code of Canon law binds the whole church, and it too is cross referenced to Scripture and other writings (which themselves are referenced to scripture or earlier writings). There is no free agency in the Catholic Church. To the extent that there IS a doctrine in the Church, it is older than Methuselah. To the extent there is not, the individual Catholic is left to his or her conscience, enlightened by prayer and in the light of Christ.
You refer to "convenience" and "morphing", but what in the Church has "morphed"? If you read the Didache of the Apostles, the First Century document which is essentially the first catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find it almost completely dully familiar. Catholics (and the Orthodox) have been doing the same thing over and over and over again for almost 2000 years. You might THINK that everything is in flux and amorphous, but something very near the opposite is the case. If you read Eusebius' History of the Church, which he began circa 290 AD, you will discover...nothing. You will have a bunch of names of bishops, popes, patriarchs...a discussion of a lot of martyrdoms under Roman persecution...and dreadfully orthodox Catholicism struggling against the foes of its day, one thousand seven hundred and ten years ago.
There is truly nothing new under the sun.
That was the long answer.
The short answer is that there isn't any conflict between Catholic faith and the Bible, and things have not changed very much in the Church since the time of Eusebius, at any rate.
Of course I would believe.
I've seen angels and demons, and been roughed up a bit by spirits. How can I deny what I have seen with my own eyes?
The Shroud is important in a scientific age, because for MOST people today the battle is not between WHICH Christianity, but between secularism and any kind of faith.
God knew this would happen, which is why he caused the Shroud to happen, caused it to be preserved to our day (in spite of fire and Turk). There is no such thing as blind luck.
My first round is to refer you to Post #551.
Once you have read it, you will understand why we have to start with the Gospels.
The Bible has to be read in light of the Gospels.
No other way makes any sense at all.
Agreed.
The Shroud of Turin (and its companion, the Oviedo Cloth), are fascinating precisely BECAUSE of the determined, even frenzied, efforts to disprove them as possibly the actual burial cloths of Jesus, and show them medieval frauds.
There is layer upon layer of dishonest or erroneous science that has gone into the study of the Shroud, which only later gets kicked over by better and more careful studies.
One can see in this tug of war over the Shroud the desperation that it causes in some.
At one point, the Editor of Scientific American actually wrote in a letter 'It is the policy of Scientific American that the Shroud of Turin does not exist.'
THINK ABOUT THAT for a moment!
What an astonishing statement from the chief of a scientific magazine: that a material fact of the physical world was going to be ignored completely, treated as though it doesn't EXIST!
Why would that be?
The answer is that the more one delves into the forensics of it, the more spooky and supernatural the image appears to be.
The Shroud of Turin is a threat to the skeptical mind, because the science tells us that it is, quite simply, a probabalistic miracle.
But there it is, tangible and real.
I am fully aware that RCCers never admit to any conflicts between their various authorities. That doesn't mean it ain't so! I could go through the oft repeated top ten list of contradictory positions, but it will do no good. You'll simply provide me with the usual, incredulous rebuttal, and we'll finally tire of the exercise.
Thanks for the detailed answers. If I may, the book of Daniel is in the TaNaHk. Is it considered inspired by GOD? Also, is Nehemiah in the TaNaHk and also inspired by GOD?
If the answer to the above is yes, then how do Jews disregard the time line established in Daniel 9:23-27 that was initiated in Nehemiah and corresponds with Jesus's earthly ministry.
Can you be more specific? Not really certain what you're asking here.
The first seven weeks ends in 537 B.C.E. The second segment of the Seventy Weeks period, sixty-two weeks in length, covered by verse 26, culminates in 103 B.C.E. (586-49-434=103 B.C.E.). Verse 26 indicates that "after sixty-two weeks an anointed one shall be cut off." This "anointed one" is the High Priest Alexander Yannai (103-76 B.C.E.) who came to power just at the end of the sixty-two week period in 103 B.C.E. and was the last of the important Hasmonean leaders. The phrase "after sixty-two weeks" indicates the time frame during which the "anointed one shall be cut off," that is, suffer karet, "excision." The penalty accompanying karet is here aptly described as "to have nothing," or "be no more." This punishment is given to Alexander Yannai infamous for his unjust, tyrannical, and bloody rule. He is notorious for his open violent animosity against the Pharisees and his brazen rejection of the Oral Law. For example, Josephus records that Alexander Yannai fought against the Pharisees for six years, "and . . . slew no fewer than fifty thousand of them" (Jewish Antiquities XIII. 13. 5. [373]). He also "ordered some eight hundred of the Jews to be crucified, and slaughtered their children and wives before the eyes of the still living wretches" (Jewish Antiquities XIII. 14. 2. [380]).
Verse 26 shows when Alexander Yannai, the "anointed one," would assume power and what kind of punishment would be meted out to him for his transgressions against God.
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.