Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Thanks for the informative, Scriptural, accurate ping.
Just my own as far as I know.. All those sources have had an influence(on me) to some extent.. Methods for authentication?.. None.. I even see some possiblity of a vestige of "truth" in some versions of Animism..
I don't hold much (human teaching) as sacrosanct.. But have read much from different christian and other sources.. but mostly christian.. Christian sources seem to be on a higher spiritual plane to me..
Since I became old I have mostly limited myself to engrams and intonations of Jesus words.. I can't seem to exhaust their content.. The metaphors are so rich and deep in meaning..
We, you and I, seem to be observing from observation posts quite different from each other.. I don't get the feel you are understanding me.. even though presentations are made from different angles.. But I understand you quite well..
My poor presentations may be the problem, but then others understand me quite well.. . If something in me "resonates " to it.. I don't trash it..
The phrase "war against Scripture" is piercing.
BTTT
Israel had experienced many miracles - the delivery from bondage in Egypt through mighty miracles, the parting of the Red Sea, the manna and water and so on. Even their clothes and shoes did not wear away over forty years. But they did not have the "ears to hear" - the gift of God that we have - so observing all those miracles did not avail them as we can see below and in the prophesy of the Song of Moses.
Yes indeed. Even many who witnessed the miracles of Christ did not believe. God must ready the person to understand. About those who did witness but did not believe I am sure we have all thought "what was the matter with them?". But then we have only to look at ourselves, with all of our advantages, and see when we have not believed or been faithful. We are the same.
The power of God is Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God. When we convey the words of God and our testimony - we have done the very best we can do for anyone.
AMEN! That's all our job is. It is God alone Who saves souls. We never fail nor succeed when it comes to the salvation of another. But it is always such a blessing when God lets us watch Him work. :)
***The way the term “Gnostic” is used around here I suspect the polar opposite would be “Empiricist.”
An empiricist accepts as certain knowledge only that which is obtained by sensory perception, and to that he adds reason. He excludes Spiritual perception on principle.***
By the grace of God, we Catholics are neither. We are instructed not to tempt God or to demand proofs, as empiricists (such as St. Thomas) do. We believe; we have faith. We hope in eternal salvation with God in Heaven.
We do as we are instructed. We have the Faith; we are neither Gnostic nor empiricist.
***Man is not the “measure” of God. ***
No, he is not. Man is the creature of God made in His own image. With many here, God is the creature of man made in his own image.
St. Augustine is revered by the Reformation followers up to and only up to the point where, in his heretical years, he embraced thoughts that are and were unacceptable to the Church.
It is poison to them that St. Augustine is considered one of the greatest Church Fathers, so the portions of his life and his theological developments are ignored as if they never existed.
***Yes, Christ was addressing his disciples. But he did so that all might hear, including the attending multitudes, and even those of us who read His words to this very day.***
When I spoke my wedding vows, I spoke to my betrothed, but I did so that all might hear. It most certainly did not mean that I meant that I was speaking to all. I did not offer to marry everyone in attendance.
It is the same with this example. Yes, Jesus wanted everyone to hear, but his words were directed to the disciples.
***I may not be following you, but it’s based on the fact that we know that Gentiles are saved.***
Point the 1st: We have faith, not knowledge. Indwelling knowledge is Gnosticism; Jesus taught faith.
Point the 2nd: Gentiles CAN be saved; there is no guarantee.
Who did this?
Seems like a lot of time went by before this was done, why is that?
It seems like there is a big gap from the end of the Apostolic Era around 100 AD and the late 4th century apprx. 374 AD. State sponsorship helped the centralized hierarchy, to eliminate all who would disagree, but it did not impart the power to determine who receives the Holy Spirit, or to lay claim to the "right way" to worship God.
Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
It is the indwelling Holy Spirit that identifies all Christians not a state monopoly. We were warned about not placing our trust in historic ancestry.
Luke 3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father." For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Amen!
It is foolishness to some and a stumbling block to others, but it is THE GOOD NEWS. God has reconciled us to Him through His Son. It can't be said enough. It only becomes complicated when we make it complicated.
The basic flaw in what you are saying is "the bishops who determined the canon". The bishops recognized the writings that were inspired and the inerrant Word of God. Christians during the preceding 275 years had already done the same. A group of Christians making a pronouncement did not all of a sudden change these writings from uninspired to inspired.
Also, where was your sister congregation from Rome during this process? How did Jerome know which books to include in his Latin Vulgate? He started his translation before any council had met.
Dream on. The NT was written pieacemeal and kept in churches, not distributed to the people. Are you just making up history as you go along?
Where does it say in the Bible the NT was received with the Help of the Holy Spirit?
IT: You’ve got to be kidding me.
First, I said "St. Paul is not the Bible," except for "Paulines" (aka Protestants); second, the Bible is not interpreted against St. Paul as the standard. Rather, St. Paul is interpreted against the Gospels as the standard.
Many religions contain some truth ("sporoi" or seeds, as the Greeks call it). That doesn't mean they are acceptable as truth.
I don't hold much (human teaching) as sacrosanct
Every human, including you, is "guilty" of human teaching. That is the first lesson in humility.
Since I became old I have mostly limited myself to engrams and intonations of Jesus words.. I can't seem to exhaust their content.. The metaphors are so rich and deep in meaning
Certainly seems that way, doesn't it?
I don't get the feel you are understanding me.. even though presentations are made from different angles.. But I understand you quite well..
What is there to "understand?" Understanding implies knowledge. It's your own concoction of beliefs. I can accept them as such, but no, I do not "understand" them.
***”[T]he Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit’s injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
In this sense, we can understand possible imperfections in the books of the Bible, since they are the result of the cooperation between the all-perfect and perfecting Divine Author, the Spirit, and the imperfect human author.” ***
Very well said. No frogmarching involved here either.
***The Scriptures (at that time) by the RC were locked up in Latin (nobody understood latin but priests or the highly educated) locked up BY LAW in many/most places.. Some people were prosecuted for even having bibles or portions of bibles in latin.. i.e. Fox’s Book of Martyrs(googleable)***
The percentage of the population that was literate prior to Gutenberg was less than 10%. There simply was not enough manpower available to copy Bibles out by hand.
Fox’s Book of Martyrs is a propaganda hit piece; besides, the Church is not responsible for secular law.
With the manpower allocated to copying out the Bible, the Church decided that that manpower was best suited to producing the Bibles that they could in as accurate a form as possible in the language of the Church - Latin. Is there any doubt that the secular efforts to translate the Bible turned out highly inaccurate and misleading translations ie Tinsdale?
It is quite funny how what we consider to be educated people think that folks 500 years ago are exactly as educated and have as much wealth and leisure as folks today. We must look at circumstances and the times.
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.