Posted on 05/20/2008 7:45:05 AM PDT by NYer
The Bible doesn't portray Him as doing much of anything as He was growing up...Where did you get that nonsense...
Could have does not equal did.
And yet you want us to believe Mary is answering prayers in heaven ...
I think I found the translation.
2 Timothy 3:15-17, "And that from a child thou hast known (well not really since all the holy scriptures have not been completely interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church), which (when interpreted later) are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and , (as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church and only the Roman Catholic Church since there will be further interpretations hundreds of years from now), is profitable (but not sufficient) for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be (almost) perfect, thoroughly (but not completely) furnished unto all good works.
................. It was the Catholic clergy who wrote the New Testament,
explained the Old Testament,
and decided on canonicity. Historical fact.
800 posted on May 23, 2008 12:31:02 PM MDT by annalex
New Testament Scriptures were written by Jews for Jews. There was no Catholic clergy until centuries later. It was not until Paul was called to be the Apostle to the GentilesTwaddle !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
that the good news was extended to the gentiles by YHvH.
The Catholic or physical perspective emphasizes the physical history of Scripture and the Protestant or spiritual perspective emphasizes the Spiritual origin of Scripture.
Both consider it holy but neither can see what the other sees.
The difference is also apparent in textual criticism v. Biblical preservation. See Sovereign Word for more.
Concerning translation, many scholars take the critical or physical approach. For instance, they defer to the oldest available ancient manuscripts – often, the Chester Beatty papyri – even though they also recognize that papyri typically contain many transcription errors (P46 for example) and that both schools of Greek manuscripts (Alexandrian and Byzantine) are not necessarily fully represented in the archeological record. The NIV is this type of translation.
Scholarly critical translations are not considered conclusive because (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) more papyri may yet be uncovered.
The other two approaches to translation are majority text (consensus) and Textus Receptus. The majority text surveys the general population of ancient manuscripts and looks for a consensus.
As another example of the critical approach, scholars often date an ancient manuscript based on content. Thus, when the manuscript speaks of an actual historical event they date the manuscript after the date the event occurred – in other words, they exclude prophesy (indeed all things supernatural and most especially God Himself) on principle. More specifically, the principle of science is “methodological naturalism.” To their chagrin, carbon dating of certain fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls has belied that scholarly presupposition. LOLOL!
And, of course, the Biblical preservation doctrine - the spiritual perspective - trusts God to look after His own words and thus excludes the critical approach on faith.
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. - Isaiah 55:10-11
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
The Catholic Church started with the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, AD 33.
“The two you offered, from the last chapter of John and from the letter to Timothy do not quite say it.”
That’s exactly what the passages say without qualification. Nowhere do the scriptures leave the interpretation of the scriptures up to an elite class of professionals or an institution. If that were the case then the Roman Catholic Church would take all of the bibles out of the hands of the lay people and substitute mechanical liturgies and commentaries, approved by the clergy, in their place. Why let the people read the scriptures for themselves if they are forbidden to interpret them for themselves? That work has already been done by the professionals; just cut out the middle man, the bible, and let them memorize the finished product.
When Paul wrote his last letter to Timothy all of his letters had been written along with most of the Gospels along with Peter’s letters, who called Paul’s writings, scripture (2Pe 3:15-16), “even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction”. There was more to the scriptures than the Old Testament.
“Are you saying that the authority of the scriptures is derived from the Catholic Church?”
“Yes, absolutely.”
So, the scriptures becomes the word of God when the Roman Catholic Church says so.
They don't. One says "This is written so that you may believe", not that it is alone sufficient for belief; the other says "is inspired and profitable for a man of God", not that it is alone sufficient for clergy and laity alike.
Nowhere do the scriptures leave the interpretation of the scriptures up to an elite class of professionals or an institution.
That is debatable; In Acts 8 the eunuch complains that he cannot understand what he reads without Deacon Philip's help; St. Paul writes that one cannot teach unless he is sent; St. Peter warns that St. Paul's writing is easy to misinterpret.
There was more to the scriptures than the Old Testament.
I, in fact, agree that all of New Testament is likewise inpsired and profitable, but not because the Bible says so. The point remains that the text in 2 Timothy qualifies the scripture in question by "since infancy", and that is the Septuagint alone.
the scriptures becomes the word of God when the Roman Catholic Church says so
The scripture is word of God as soon as it was written, but we wouldn't know it without the Church canonizing it.
I think you overstate the dichotomy between the two strands of Xty and also in individuals. (I consult the critics, I consider what they offer. I do not burn incense at their altars. Lots of different people come to the Bible, bringing their own baggage with them. I am interested even in wht the Jehovah's Witnesses have to say.)
And from MY POV to say that the Catholic Church wrote the NT (which is not the way I would have put it, but I'll take it) is not material. The C/catholic Church, the assembly of the baptized (and in those days it wasn't normal or fashionable to be baptized so, leaving aside the question of the kiddies, I think we can guess that the vast majority got baptized because they believed fervently) included the writers of the books of the NT. The C/catholic Church included the poor guys (I assume, I don't imagine they hired it out) who made the copies. (Maybe the variants come from mercenaries?) The C/catholic Church included the folks who said, "Okay, Hermas OUT; Revelation IN (if we have to ...); Gospel of Thomas - HECK no; Romans, in youBETcha! Any of you guys like the one with the clay birds flying away? Me neither. It's out."
The Spirit is promised to all of us, one way or another. So I figure the spirit "drove" the C/catholic Church as the NT precipitated out of all the writings that were floating around the culture and through all the processes that ended up at Zondervans (or wherever).
We all know about Marcion, but I, taking note of the scripturally notorious power of widows of influence, imagine some poor bishop of the Asia Minor equivalent of the the East Overshoe & Bugtussle yoked congregations and how old Pulcheria comes up Sunday after Sunday and says "DEAR bishop, WHEN are you going to read that WONDerful letter I showed you from my nephew? SUCH a nice and pious boy! I REALLY think the whole congregation would benefit from hearing his words."
And the poor bishop, swallowing the words, "Is it you, you troubler of Bugtussle?" hastily dashes off a letter to the synod or whatever and PLEADS for someone to "for crying out loud PLEASE CLOSE the CANON so I don't have to disappoint Pulcheria any more!"
If the spirit can work with such as us, I'm sure even the, notable in her day but now swathed in black, Pulcheria could have had a hand in the closing of the canon.
As to Spearchool and Fizzickle: I don't think my miraculous medal is magic. I believe in the visions, that is that they happened, that it really was our Lady, and that she wanted the medals struck. I believe in at least some of the miracle stories. Mary means a lot to me. I wear the medal. I don't think it's like wonder Woman's magic belt buckle or whatever.
I don't have a rigorous theology of what it means to "bless" a "sacramental." I do trust God and I trust Him to work through the holy ones.
Say it another way. When my kid was sick, we went to a local Baptist pastor of great virtue and he prayed with us and over her. Some months later we took her to Hopkins and she was pretty much cured. The Doc and others didn't know and wouldn't have cared about the pastor. The final doc was a non-observant Hindu anyway.
But I say God worked through the prayers of the pastor to get us to Hopkins and all the rest. It's not Physical XOR Spiritual. It's God.
Are you saying that Christ was disobedient (dishonoring) to His parents, thus committing sin? I’ll assume you are not. Jesus, said to Mary, “Shouldn’t I be about my Father’s business?” In other words, the fault was Mary’s and Joseph’s for not understanding Jesus’ full nature/mission. Jesus did no sin, neither was there any guile in His mouth (so that even His answer to His mother was in no way shaded or tinged with sin.) He is the perfect Son (to His heavenly Father and to His earthly parents.)
The advancing in wisdom He did was in no way in terms of learning about wisdom, truth, knowledge, understanding—these were His before birth, at birth—in fact, He is the very definition of all these. The wisdom he was attaining to was in experiencing life as a human, dwelling in the presence of sin with all the noxious intimacy that His earthly life could experience, knowing what it was like to feel fatigue in His arms, hunger in His belly, etc. But there was never, at any time a moment in His life where He lacked for knowledge, understanding, wisdom when it came to God, Godliness, God-likeness—He is God come in the flesh, well-pleasing to the Father, in all points tempted (yet apart from sin.) He is Lord of all!
IN all seriousness, (no really, heh heh) I'm having a good time working with the word "reliable". Imagine hanging around before books were bound in codices that a fellow could afford and when there were bunches of different writings floating around. So here I am, an educated, well-off gentleman of the empire in the 2nd or 3rd century and I'm devout. A little paranoid about another persecution, but devout and wanting to do and believe the right thing. And all these guys are saying, "Hey! Acts of Pilate! Great stuff. Inside skinny on what redemption really is like!"
To whom do I turn?
FWIW and I know ou don't think it's worth much -- I'm just tyring to present a thought here -- I'm suggesting that when the Church says, "These ones are the ones you should read," THEN, at last, I know which scrolls to spend my drachmas and my time on. I can rely on them.
IN other word, it might be the Bible (or part of it) or it might not. Who knows? But now we know. I have it right here in, uh, brown and light brown, on parchment from so-and-so who got it from that guy in Rome. I'm reading these books.
Peter's letter is a general to all the churches, not to just the professionals. He says "in which are some things hard to be understood", not all and to this day some still are. But the letter was written to common folk in the churches who were interpreting the scriptures as can be seen by their interpreting Peter's letters, the Gospels, and all of Paul's letters (with the exception, maybe, of those to Timothy and Titus) to them.
"The scripture is word of God as soon as it was written, but we wouldn't know it without the Church canonizing it."
Well the early churches recognized the authenticity of the scriptures and preserved them. What the councils did was to archive them. Their work added nothing to the inspiration or authority of the scriptures. There were lists of the authentic scriptures that are included in the canon at least 100 years before the councils.
I am SO glad you posted that! I’ve wondered why the RCs insisted on their PRIVATE (not available to those of us not their club) interpretation. Thanks for clearing up that mystery.
“The scripture is word of God as soon as it was written, but we wouldn’t know it without the Church canonizing it.”
Actually, annalex, people in the church were being taught the Word by the oral tradition (mostly). The church (not yet the RCC - as it didn’t emerge until the 4th century) began to canonize (or document and organize) the Scriptures because false teachers were claiming to be Christ and spreading other deceptive doctrines (see letters from John, Paul, Peter - who was not pope - for examples).
So the Scripture was initially canonized so lost people would know what the Word of God was. And so saints would not easily be led astray. The church discovered what God had delivered to man.
That's absurd.
New Testament Scriptures were written by Jews for Jews.
They did not believe Christ was their Savior?
Exclusively? Should I stop reading them?
Bunkum. The Catholic perspective is at least as spiritual as the Protestant.
The point remains that “common folk in the churches” are warned that they may misinterpret scripture — it is not perspicuous, contrary to the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura.
The people who wrote the New Testament were themselves of the Church, so the church both wrote the New Testament and sorted out what is and what is not inspired. The councils indeed, put a stamp of approval on that work. The Deuterocanon, by the way, was approved along with the rest.
I’m sorry but I have to leave this thread for a while. I have to take my father to his guitar lesson. He is 94 and very short on patience when having to wait.
The Catholic Church emerged on Pentecost AD 33. Yes, sorting out the heresies is the job of the Church as well; the scripture is great help in that task. It is so much easier, for example, to prove that Protestantism is false by just looking at the scripture, rather than arguing about the oral tradition.
805 posted on May 23, 2008 12:59:07 PM MDT by annalex
The word catholic was not used for hundreds of years into the future. The good news was not offered to the gentiles until Paul was selected as the apostle to the gentiles. The breath of G-d came upon the gathered Jews on the YHvH commanded Feast of Shavuot.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
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.