Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
If by consensus you mean the belief of the majority of Jews, in the several centuries preceding the birth of Christ and the subsequent two centuries the vast majority of Jews were Greek speakers living outside of Israel. Alexandria alone had a larger Jewish population that all of the territory that comprises modern Israel comprised almost exclusively of Greek speakers. For the consensus of the Jews Hebrew was then as it is now, largely a ceremonial language.
Peace be with you.
“I can’t judge these people. I don’t know their hearts. How is it that you seem to know there hearts?”
I am not speaking of any individual, I’ve named no person in particular, so their are no hearts to know. However, there are cases, and I believe the hypothetical one that I have laid out fits, where we most certainly can make judgements based on outward evidences as to the state of grace they are in. If they are not only producing bad fruit, but doing so continuously, then the tree can’t be good. Don’t priests judge sometimes, by these outward signs, that some are not repentant, and can’t be absolved?
Catechism 1430:
“Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm
So, I would say, if someone is a serial abuser, for years on end, there are no visible signs of interior conversion. Their penance is false.
Yes, but if the argument is that the prior compilers have special authority over the compiled work, then you can’t simply rest with what the Jews of one period held to. You must acknowledge what they hold to today, or the argument is hypocritical.
Yes, it seems evident that it’s an argument of convenience, and not principle. They might as well just say that they hold to the canon they do on church authority, and leave it at that, but that is not a convincing argument to use if you want to level a charge against Protestants.
I heed Paul’s warning to the Corinthians regarding those who preach “another Jesus”.
So now our argument over who speaks for the Christians we now must first argue who speaks for the Jews? Who does speak for the Jews?
Peace be to you
Protestants canonize scripture that is beyond dispute as scripture. Catholics take a broader approach and include some scripture that has been disputed historically, by Jews in some instances, and by some early Christians of note in others.
I can accept that without rancor. The disputed books were after all deemed good for edification even if not scripture by Protestants. Still are. What I have difficulty allowing to pass without comment is the frequent partisan claim that Protestants somehow just up and decided to cut out certain books of scripture, when in fact these had always been disputed as such in some quarters.
Where’s the documentary evidence for this thesis?
“So now our argument over who speaks for the Christians we now must first argue who speaks for the Jews? Who does speak for the Jews?”
Well, that’s a whole new knot to untangle for sure. It doesn’t matter much to me, since I don’t hold that Jews have some special authority to determine Scripture. Yet, if you want to claim the Catholics “own” the Bible, then by the same reasoning the Jews “own” the OT, so it seems you should find out what their opinion is on the matter. Can you cite even one modern Jewish group that holds to the apocrypha as support for your inclusion? That would be a start.
That’s not a thesis, it’s an observation on the inconsistency of the argument being made. You don’t need to cite evidence to point out basic failures of logic.
“What I have difficulty allowing to pass without comment is the frequent partisan claim that Protestants somehow just up and decided to cut out certain books of scripture, when in fact these had always been disputed as such in some quarters.”
Yeah, that was really my original point. The false accusation serves no constructive purpose, especially if we ever hope to reconcile on any of these matters in the future.
Here’s the problem. The actual document evidence argues against this thesis. Since documents trump the rest of it, what does that leave you?
“I can accept that without rancor.”
Of course you can since it’s your own position.
“pass without comment is the frequent partisan claim that Protestants somehow just up and decided to cut out certain books”
And from something that wasn’t theirs in the first place! What do we call people who do that? Mutilators.
“The actual document evidence argues against this thesis.”
As I pointed out it wasn’t a thesis, you’re not making any sense.
The argument, “we should use the official Jewish Canon” is a thesis.
My argument is, “we should use what the documentary evidence supports as the canon, as the documentary evidence is the highest evidentiary standard.”
The Church does not claim to own the revealed Word of God, only that God made the Church its steward.
Peace be with you
Perhaps the church doesn’t claim it, but that was the claim made on this thread that I was answering.
“The argument, “we should use the official Jewish Canon” is a thesis.”
That’s not my argument, it’s a logical extension of your argument. You say that Protestants should use the RC canon, because you “made” the Bible. Well, by extension, that argument means that RC’s should use the Jewish canon, because they “made” the OT. It’s your argument, not mine. I simply am pointing out where your logic leads.
“You would have me abandon a church founded in the first century for one founded in the fifteenth?”
Isn’t it already proven that you have abandoned the church founded by Jesus Christ for one founded by heretics and Pelagians?
I’ll ask you again: Is God sovereign in saving whom He will, according to His own purposes, regardless of merits or demerits in the man He has decided to call, justify and glorify? Is Paul correct for arguing that God foreknows and predestinates the Saints, calling them and irresistibly preserving them with His free and unmerited grace? Not that He foreknew that they would be holy, but rather that they should be holy? Did Augustine rightly condemn your Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views which deny the sovereignty and sufficiency of God’s grace? Or am I mistaken?
Give a straight answer. Don’t dodge and run away from such a fundamental issue.
“Looking over what you said - bishops have authority in their own areas - it is customary to have the Bishop of Jerusalem open things up.”
James did not open it up. He closed it. He declared the decision at the end of the debate, to which Peter only contributed. And his opinion was not the opinion put forward by Peter.
Can you please tell me where in the catechism it says that in a council, it is the Bishop of the city wherein the council is held who presides over it and makes the judgment?
“You seem to believe that a Pope can never be wrong, and that a Pope can never be corrected.”
When have I ever said that Popes can never be wrong? Didn’t I mention the Pope who was killed when he was caught in bed with another man’s wife? But the question is, would the Holy Spirit through the Cardinals elect a man who is Damned and ruled by Satan?
“Infalliability comes from the Magisterium, and the Pope’s infalliability stems from this.”
So, the Pope is most infallible when he does not make decisions. For it was James who presided and made the judgment, and Peter only gave an opinion.
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.