Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
First P72 contains 1 and 2 Peter, second you make it sound like the entire NT is constructed from that one collection. But, really, what was this in response to? It was in response to my statement in #308 that "The earliest copies of the complete Bibles (that are in no way in full agreement with the current ones) date back only to the 4th century. The rest of the NT dating to the 2nd century and later are usually pieces of papyrus with half a dozen verse at most."
With the exception of a few longer finds, most of the fragments are small pieces with few lines. If anything, the 20th century finds of various codices only have the opposite effect: they prove that heterodoxy was alive and well, and that Christianity was a heterodox mix of parts of our current NT and (Jewish, pagan, and Gnostic) books hat have been purged since the 4th century AD.
What I said was, without going into too much detail, that there was no Christian "Bible" but many hererodox collections of various writings, little local codices that were used for reading and doctrine, and other books the Church no longer considers inspired. The various local canons were reflective of the heterodox nature of Christianity, and heterodox doctrine. Christianity, as we know it in the form of the "Mother Church," which gave us her version of the Bible, did not exist prior to the 4th century. So, for you to say that we find no doctrinal problems with the papyri is to ignore the other books that were included with the ones still considered orthodox.
Various Fathers and early Church theologians used most of the books we use today but they also used other books in their doctrinal message. So, when you speak of papyri giving us pretty much a complete NT, except "the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John)" and all being doctrinally sound, you are giving an incomplete, if not skewed picture of the reality of the Church canon and doctrine prior to the First Ecumenical Council in AD 321.
Neither was there a Bible the mainline Christians could accept today, nor was there a doctrine that reflects fully what mainline Christians professed since then. The whole thing was evolving and is hardly something that was known everywhere and always. All one has to do is read what some of the brand-names of the Church used as their "scriptures" and what they wrote about some of the dogmatic pronouncements prior to AD 321 (such as Trinity and Christology).
The fragments of codices that were recovered contain errors, omissions, and are missing and awful lot of materials. There are of course versions of the Bible that are no longer extant, and cannot be counted. We know that the Church at various times undertook to destroy unwanted books.
When you say the NT fragments agree in 98% of the cases that doesn't mean it's not significant. And, using them isolated from other books that formed the codices is completely off target. You can't ignore what other books were found attached to these NT books. They formed a cohesive unit that a particular church preached and believed in and they reflect the doctrine of that particular church.
“Just watch my arguments over any scripture on this thread: I stay close tot he text, and the Protestnat opponents offer ways not to read the passage as all that meaningful and offer theories out of their own head. Or theor pastor’s head, or some commentator.”
Your readings may represent what you have been taught,
but you have decidedly not stayed close to the text.
I’ve interacted with you on this thread and seen it
first hand. I think you are projecting onto Protestants,
those vile people.
“Many, by the way, after studying in Protestant seminaries, convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, because they sense that their reading of the scripture cannot explain the entirety of it.”
I don’t deny that some do. I would not say “many”. Thousands
study in seminaries every single year. How many is many
to you? I can assure you tens of thousands of church members
go the opposite direction each year. I’m not sure either
of those points means what you are arguing.
Best to you,
ampu
Lets see if I’ve got this right...
“Yes, the woman gives birth to a child (v.2) Who is with God (v 5) and hated by Satan (v.4), the son Whose angles defeat Satan (v.9) and Whose name is Christ (v.10). I wonder who this woman might be.”
“1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.”
So Mary appeared in Heaven while pregnant with Jesus.
“5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”
Remember, in Revelations 2, Jesus tells a church, “25 Only hold on to what you have until I come. 26To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— 27’He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’— just as I have received authority from my Father.”
So the son the woman gives birth to is not Jesus, because Jesus will GIVE this one authority to rule with an iron scepter.
But after Mary gives birth to Jesus - or maybe after His ascension, she flees into the wilderness:
“And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.”
This son defeats Satan, although in verse 11 we read this one - well, actually, they - “11 They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” - which sounds more like the Church than Christ. Nor does verse 10 specify the son mentioned earlier is Christ.
And after this, we read, “13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman [Mary?] who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman [Mary?] was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman [Mary?] and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her [Mary?] offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.”
I may wonder a bit about who the woman may be, but it is pretty certain it isn’t Mary the mother of Jesus.
“Or do we have a reason to think that St. Stephen who prayed for his murderers while alive, who was sanctified by the Holy Ghost onto perfection in his life time, would stop praying for us in heaven?”
This is a good example of how you are approaching Scripture
in this thread. You reference something in Scripture and
then draw a conclusion not taught by the passage itself.
In this case, two things. And then you claim to be staying
close to the text. I don’t think you see what you are doing.
best,
ampu
“With the exception of a few longer finds, most of the fragments are small pieces with few lines.”
Yes. That is like saying, “With the exception of 80% of the book, we only have a few fragments...” You ignore the majority of the NT, which has texts dating back to 150-225 AD, and then claim only fragments.
“the 20th century finds of various codices only have the opposite effect: they prove that heterodoxy was alive and well, and that Christianity was a heterodox mix of parts of our current NT and (Jewish, pagan, and Gnostic) books hat have been purged since the 4th century AD.”
Thus sayeth kosta50. Every scholar who has studied it has come to a different conclusion. As before - if forced to choose between the ‘scholarship’ of kosta50, and FF Bruce, I’ll choose the latter.
“What I said was, without going into too much detail, that there was no Christian “Bible” but many hererodox collections of various writings, little local codices that were used for reading and doctrine, and other books the Church no longer considers inspired.”
This statement is contradicted by every scholar who has studied it. It is contradicted by the MAJOR text finds, and it is contradicted by the writings of the Church Fathers. I’ve posted links to world authorities on the subject. You...you have decided not to go into too much detail.
“When you say the NT fragments agree in 98% of the cases that doesn’t mean it’s not significant.”
Of course not. However, I’ve posted the major passages in dispute - and NO doctrine is founded on them.
“You can’t ignore what other books were found attached to these NT books. They formed a cohesive unit that a particular church preached and believed in...”
Umm, no. Not true. They were part of a collection. In my house, you would find lots of Bibles, but you would also find perhaps a thousand other books. That doesn’t mean I don’t know the difference between them.
The mere fact your faith allows a man to make such statements is the error, the sin. In essence, it states that a man may speak as God Himself. Whether or not the power is executed is irrelevant; the granting of that power is what is simply and unequivocally wrong and non-Biblical.
There is a difference between generalized corruption and specific corruption. If a postal clerk in Bozeman is corrupt, is the Postmaster General expected to be immediately aware of that corruption? The PG is responsible, yet he may not be ever made aware.
So your contention is that the Pope or the cardinals were unaware of the grave sins of the Church, perpetrated for hundreds of years in their name? You seriously believe that?
You may wish to take a look at the timing of the various events. Luther was around for 450 years before this horrific affair.
This is just the latest example which had an attempted whitewash; it was only because of broad media coverage that the Church could not hide this latest round of sin by its own. And The coverups that went on for decades show the complicity involved.
A humble, Christ-loving and Christ-following institution would beg for forgiveness from those it offended, make public amends, and go forth. The Catholic Church has done little and only by being dragged to do so. The belief of infallibility in the Church - the organization - is the cause of this most un-Christian behavior.
Very responsible. You guys are to be commended if indeed the restoration process was of utility. Was it?
Yes, his family wasn't torn apart, his relationship with his wife was restored, and he is now a welcomed, loving member of a local congregation, and a counselor and minister at a local funeral home.
By what inference do you not infer that the consequences of Luther’s actions were evil?
By the fact we are called as Christians to hold each other accountable, and that Luther was calling out the Church, to hold it accountable to Christ.
By what inference do you conclude the consequences of his actions were evil (and, by extension, each and every Protestant being evil)?
You show the typical Catholic Church position (which, unfortunately, my relatives who are ordained in your faith have a tendency towards): an arrogance and belief in the infallible nature of your Church, and as a result an inability to acknowledge the evil and destruction perpetrated by those within - and retained therein, even after their actions were known - the very organization you worship.
No organization or man is above Jesus; none are blameless or infallible. If only you would open your eyes and see the truth that your Orthodox and Protestant brothers proclaim!
“A fire that cleanses inferior works at the time of judgement in order to prepare man to be saved — is it Purgatory or should we just skip this passage because it sounds too Catholic?”
Actually, a fire that puts the man’s ministry to the TEST: “and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work” - NIV. “the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.” - ESV “the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.” - NASB
Nor does it cleanse inferior work - it burns up poor work. “If any man’s work is burned up...”
It has nothing to do with a man’s soul being refined, nor with a man paying the temporal penalty of his sin. It just says a man’s work will be revealed on that Day. The Greek word is used to describe finding out if a coin is counterfeit or not.
As for ‘adelphos’, it is used in Greek like we use brother in English. Context determines if it refers to spiritual brothers, or not. So if it says, “3”Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” - the context makes the brothers and sisters like to his mother Mary - NOT spiritual brothers, or kin (which word is used elsewhere).
And when Paul writes ‘I met with James the Lord’s brother’, but no one EVER uses that term for Peter or John...then the TEXT drives it to mean brother.
I’m not explaining Scripture away. I’m quoting it. YOU are explaining it away to match your theology.
And that is the crux of the matter; the Church is the sole arbiter of what is in the Bible, and what it means. It is proclaimed as infallible and inerrant, and thus you cannot question it.
Jesus should never have said "turn the other cheek" or that anyone who looked at a woman with lust in his heart also committed adultery; after all, the Scriptures were written and fleshed out by the Rabbis, how dare He try to reinterpret the Holy Writings!
***List for me the infallible pronouncements, if you would, please.
The mere fact your faith allows a man to make such statements is the error, the sin. In essence, it states that a man may speak as God Himself. Whether or not the power is executed is irrelevant; the granting of that power is what is simply and unequivocally wrong and non-Biblical.***
A man may not speak as God Himself. You appear to be saying that the Pope is merely a man in the street, making pronouncements as if he were God. The Holy Spirit will not allow the Pope to make pronouncements at whim; the very fact that you cannot produce any infallible pronouncements that you have a Christian based problem with lessens the veracity of your claim.
***There is a difference between generalized corruption and specific corruption. If a postal clerk in Bozeman is corrupt, is the Postmaster General expected to be immediately aware of that corruption? The PG is responsible, yet he may not be ever made aware.
So your contention is that the Pope or the cardinals were unaware of the grave sins of the Church, perpetrated for hundreds of years in their name? You seriously believe that? ***
Show me hundreds of years of perpetrated grave sins, if you would.
***You may wish to take a look at the timing of the various events. Luther was around for 450 years before this horrific affair.
This is just the latest example which had an attempted whitewash; it was only because of broad media coverage that the Church could not hide this latest round of sin by its own. And The coverups that went on for decades show the complicity involved.
A humble, Christ-loving and Christ-following institution would beg for forgiveness from those it offended, make public amends, and go forth. The Catholic Church has done little and only by being dragged to do so. The belief of infallibility in the Church - the organization - is the cause of this most un-Christian behavior.***
If you would stick to the example as discussed, it would be easier to take your posts seriously. The cause of the events was the allowed removal of American bishops from the close scrutiny of the Vatican. And the increasingly permissive society from which new priests were drawn and not vetted properly. You may wish to address the elevated numbers which married Protestant ministers abuse their flocks if you would address the whole deal of abuse of children.
***Very responsible. You guys are to be commended if indeed the restoration process was of utility. Was it?
Yes, his family wasn’t torn apart, his relationship with his wife was restored, and he is now a welcomed, loving member of a local congregation, and a counselor and minister at a local funeral home.***
If you guys did it right, then you are to be commended. Most institutions don’t get it right; either they whitewash the individual or else they whitewash the institution.
***By what inference do you not infer that the consequences of Luther’s actions were evil?
By the fact we are called as Christians to hold each other accountable, and that Luther was calling out the Church, to hold it accountable to Christ.***
Luther held that every milkmaid was able to create her own theology in opposition (if necessary) to the doctrines of the Church. That is evil.
***You show the typical Catholic Church position (which, unfortunately, my relatives who are ordained in your faith have a tendency towards): an arrogance and belief in the infallible nature of your Church, and as a result an inability to acknowledge the evil and destruction perpetrated by those within - and retained therein, even after their actions were known - the very organization you worship.***
I do not worship the organization and I have been a serious thorn in the sides of those who attempt to maintain the status quo. I am not ordained, by the way. I am merely a lay person, who subject myself to Jesus Christ in the Church that He created.
***No organization or man is above Jesus; none are blameless or infallible. If only you would open your eyes and see the truth that your Orthodox and Protestant brothers proclaim!***
Remember that when you pronounce truth. We do not claim that any man is above God; we only say that with the Holy Spirit influencing the Church, that we may finally get it right.
“Luther held that every milkmaid was able to create her own theology in opposition (if necessary) to the doctrines of the Church. That is evil.”
Luther held that a milkmaid, if she applied herself, could see for herself if teaching squared with the Scripture. After all, if Christian, she has the Holy Spirit as well, and Jesus said, “”But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
It also says, “26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”
Laugh at the lowly milkmaid if you wish, but SHE may be the one in the right!
If your Church teaches that only the Church knows the true interpretation of Scripture, then it devalues Scripture below its own teachings, since Scripture can only say what your Church allows it to say. Muzzling Scripture is evil.
Of the former, how is the Pope not merely a man on the street in the eyes of God? All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Of the latter, that is your dogma, not mine. You hold that a man can speak infallibly; that in itself is heretical and unbiblical. However, you have your own supra-Bible to uphold (the Catechism) and thus must defend what cannot be defended.
Show me hundreds of years of perpetrated grave sins, if you would.
Selling of indulgences. Meddling the in the affairs of States. Selling of bishoprics. Theft of lands by promising "heaven" to those who would kill in the name of the Pope. And more recently, sexual abuse of children with subsequent coverups.
I'm sure you'll come back and say these are all mistakes, and not real, and the Church never meant it and the Pope was not to blame; after all, you must defend the man who leads you, and defend his office!
If you would stick to the example as discussed, it would be easier to take your posts seriously. The cause of the events was the allowed removal of American bishops from the close scrutiny of the Vatican. And the increasingly permissive society from which new priests were drawn and not vetted properly. You may wish to address the elevated numbers which married Protestant ministers abuse their flocks if you would address the whole deal of abuse of children.
The difference is, the Protestants call the offending pastors on the carpet, defrock them, and - if the pastor wants to stay within the body - put them through restoration. We don't buy off silence, fight with lawsuits, deny, and then try every legal trick in the book to keep the gold and silver and wealth of the Church.
ALL have sinned; I do not deny that. It's how you deal with sinners and brothers gone astray within your flock. The Catholic Church could learn a LOT from the Protestants. But why pay attention to us, we're just illegimate, evil people...
Oh, we address it, we acknowledge it, we confess it, we ask for forgiveness for the failings of our pastors. The question to you is, does your Church do the same? Have your leaders and your priests and bishops asked for forgiveness from those offended? Have they turned the other cheek? Have they sat down and made restitution and peace with those sexually assaulted?
The Christian response is to sit down and hash it out, make amends. That is, unfortunately, not the Catholic response.
Luther held that every milkmaid was able to create her own theology in opposition (if necessary) to the doctrines of the Church. That is evil.
And that is simply a lie - a bald-faced one perpetrated by your twisted Catechism and infallible Church. Luther held that the Bible will reveal truths to people in different ways, but that the underlying moral messages will be the same.
You have to lie - and continue to lie for 450+ years - to destroy the man who called your precious organization on the carpet; an action that was entirely Biblical! And you continue to do so, and call him evil.
That is sinful, that is evil, that is false witness. That is not Christian. But I know, the official position of the Church supports you, thus you are correct.
Remember that when you pronounce truth. We do not claim that any man is above God; we only say that with the Holy Spirit influencing the Church, that we may finally get it right.
Then why the policy of ex cathedra? Is that not the formal position where a Pope can speak without fail, without blame? You may not put him above God, but by granting any man that power you make him an equal. By stating that the only institution qualified to interpret Scripture is the Church you make the Church the gatekeeper to salvation.
Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father but through Me". He didn't state the Church, or the Pope. Just Him. The Word. The Word of God.
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word became flesh. Jesus is the Word, He is the Bible. But your Church teaches that the only way to reach the Word - to interpret and understand what is written - is to first check with your own authorities.
If you cannot see how your position can be considered heretical and fallacious, then you truly are blind to Scripture. The Catechism has become your Bible.
AMEN!
And to bring this back to the origins of the thread, the Orthodox Church, from whom the Catholics split, do not agree with papal infallibility either, and it is my understanding they consider that the Holy spirit will correct the body at large, even if some men go astray.
In fact, I believe the Orthodox hold the first 7 councils as infallible not because of who participated, but because of the general consensus of the entire church body - the laity and priesthood! Quite different from the “on high” approach of the Catholic Church...
“List for me the infallible pronouncements, if you would, please.”
From what I’ve read, the Catholic Church doesn’t HAVE a list of infallible pronouncements. However, from Wikipedia:
“Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII’s 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church’s magisterium [2]. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.
Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):
* “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
* Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
* Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
* Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
* Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
* Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
* Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.”
Anything that is not complete is a fragment. They are fragments of the NT, because the New Testament as we know the collection of the books did not exist in any Church until AD 367, when Athansius of Alexandria listed them in his 39th Festal Letter, later accepted as canon by a local African Council in Carthage.
The codices you mention, discovered in the 20th century, as combinations of NT and profane books testify that there was no uniformity in doctrine in the first 3 centuries of Christianity.
Furthermore, we know from Eusebius' writings that there were other versions of the same New Testament books which are obviously no longer extant, and most probably purged by the Church. So, it should not be surprising that what is preserved is, of course, "doctrinally sound," since the other copies have vanished even though we know of them indirectly through references made by pre-Nicene writers.
The most important doctrinal issues, the Trinity and Chrsitology do not lend themselves easily discernible in the New Testament. It took the Church scholars three centuries to define dogmatic foundations of the Church precisely because they are not spelled out in the NT.
Kosta: “...there was no Christian “Bible” but many heterodox collections of various writings, little local codices that were used for reading and doctrine, and other books the Church no longer considers inspired.”
Mr. Roger: This statement is contradicted by every scholar who has studied it.
There was no Christian Bible as we know it before the end of the 4th century, period. The codices discovered form the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries contain profane books. All canons of major theologians and scholars (Irenaeus, Origen, Clement, Eusebius, etc.) contained books that are not considered inspired any longer. The Christian canon evolved over centuries.
Moreover, there is strong evidence that late 2nd century and early 3rd century Church officials (Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Origen) never heard of Philemon, II Peter or II John because they were most likely still not written and "sold" as apostolic writing. None of them lists them in their canon. How could there be a Christian Bible when some of its books weren't even written yet, and other coexisted with profane writings later rejected?
Why do you think the First Ecumenical Council was convened if not because of heterodox teachings and beliefs of different churches? There was no official dogma or doctrine of the Church and there was no official scripture of the Church. Everyone had his own doctrine and "canon." It is no coincidence that the Church first set it's dogma in two Ecumenical Councils of the 4th century and then agreed (more or less) on the canon.
Kosta: “You can’t ignore what other books were found attached to these NT books. They formed a cohesive unit that a particular church preached and believed in...”
Mr. Rogers: Umm, no. Not true. They were part of a collection. In my house, you would find lots of Bibles, but you would also find perhaps a thousand other books. That doesn’t mean I don’t know the difference between them.
And you are a scholar? The codices were kept in churches for public reading. And whatever was read in the church was considered canon. It wasn't Professor Rogers's private library of interesting and old biblical
biblical=biblical editions.
But I explained the text. You told me I should ignore it altogether.
Seminary-educated Catholics rarely convert, if they do that would be due to a personal failure. Read up on the names I gave you; you’d be surprised.
It is true that the battle, the exile, the river, etc. are allegorical. It is also true that both Mary and Christ in this chapter operate not by themselves but together with the entire Catholic Church, who has the “iron scepter”.
It your fantasy that the son mentioned in vv.2-5 is not Christ mentioned in v. 10.
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.