Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?
As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.
So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.
The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:
Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.
Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama…
I know, I know.
Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…
Okay, smart guy.
Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.
Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.
Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.
Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?
In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….
The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.
Aka, Anti Christ
The valuable and correct criticisms advanced by schismatics and sedevacantists and semiprivationists have also been made (and in a far superior fashion) by those who maintain those necessary Bonds
I disagree with your analysis which is easily disproved by the New Testament itself when it illustrates a Divinely-Designed Hierarchy with authority not a democratised free-for-all in which each and every individual has been given authority to decide for his own self what Scripture means.
The Bible is necessary but not sufficient and it is not the pillar and ground of truth. The Catholic Church is:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
And I thought MORMONs were arrogant!
The Bible that Mormon's use calls Christ's Church "the pillar and foundation of truth." Jesus tells us to take our disputes "to the church."
If you take the Bible seriously, the only question is whether the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded.
This determination requires only a cursory examination of history.
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." --Cardinal Newman
Peace be with you
Please be aware that it was not "Rome" that changed the Old Testament Canon, but the Jews. In the first century there was not just one "Jewish Canon", but at least four. There was the Sadducetic canon which taught that only the Torah, the first five Books, were Scripture, the Pharisaic, the one used in the Protestant Bible, that taught that the entire Hebrew Tanakh was Scripture, the Essene canon and the Hellenistic canon, used my the vast majority of first century Jews, forms the basis of the Catholic canon. There is some evidence that each of the many qahals had a particular derivative canon.
Peace be with you.
“Please be aware that it was not “Rome” that changed the Old Testament Canon, but the Jews. In the first century there was not just one “Jewish Canon”, but at least four.”
I see. So when Protestants don’t keep up with the canon pronounced at Trent, we are accusing of “changing” the canon, but when Rome doesn’t keep up with the most recent canon pronounced by the Jewish authorities, that is “okey-dokey”.
“Taking something and then later refusing to acknowledge authorship and the Catholic contribution? Nicking it is actually a rather kind assessment.”
I don’t refuse to acknowledge authorship. God is the author, as I’ve attested to several times on this thread. I also have acknowledged that Catholics compiled and edited the books. So, where am I refusing to acknowledge something? It can only be if you deny God is the author, which you seem to be unwilling to confirm or deny, when the question is put to you directly.
I’ll answer your question, though.
“Was Luther saved or was he Protestant?”
I don’t know if Luther was saved or not, since only Christ knows for certain who belongs to Him.
I realize by your question you are trying to imply that my either/or is not valid. Why not, then? Does God share a byline? Does He tolerate men who would share His glory, or is He, as the Scripture states, a jealous god who will not share His glory with anyone?
Well, we are all priests of the order of Melchizedeck, by the ordination pronounced by Christ upon us all collectively. So, by that reasoning, I could administer the sacraments. Yet I don’t see that attitude reflected in the Catholic catechism.
It appears we need to add Apostolic Succession to your curriculum. ;o)
Peace be with you
I should have added that, if you were validly baptized (with water and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) you can validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism in some circumstances.
Peace be to you
What evidence do you have that the Pharisaic Canon is the newest or most recent? ?
If I were to adopt a Sola Scriptura argument I would point to Acts 17:11. The Hellenistic Jews of Berea used the Septuagint. So if it was good enough for St. Paul it is good enough for Catholic Church and me.
Peace be with you.
“What evidence do you have that the Pharisaic Canon is the newest or most recent? ?”
Jews today don’t include the apocrypha. So, obviously their most recent canon doesn’t include it.
“If I were to adopt a Sola Scriptura argument I would point to Acts 17:11. The Hellenistic Jews of Berea used the Septuagint. So if it was good enough for St. Paul it is good enough for Catholic Church and me.”
I have to say, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen a Catholic cite Acts 17:11, even if it was a bit backhanded. If it’s good enough for you, fine. I don’t mind if the Catholics want to use the apocrypha, just don’t accuse Protestants of some impropriety if they include in the OT only those books that the Jews, both then and now, universally accepted.
I was baptized Catholic, so that should be good enough for you, I think.
Too bad you were so poorly catechized. My hope is that you will use the time on the Religion Forum to learn what the Church really teaches. You may not accept it, but at least you will know what you are rejecting.
Peace be with you
I know Jews today who do not accept anything other than the first five books. The notion that Judaism is a monolithic group is unique only to those who do not know Judaism or a large number of Jews.
Peace be with you
“I know Jews today who do not accept anything other than the first five books.”
That’s hardly the consensus of Jews. Anyway, I don’t really believe that Christians should have to “keep up” with the Jews, but if you say Protestants must “keep up” with changes the Catholics adopt, because the Catholics were the original compilers, then that same logic must be applied by Catholics with regards to the Jews. Be consistent, one way or the other.
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.