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.
If you cite, poster x (whomever poster x is, you’ve never stated), said something.
You have to ping them in the top along with me. That way the other person can come in to confirm that is actually what they said and not just a lie by you claiming that they said something they actually didn’t say.
So go ahead, ping the guy.
And again, I have no idea to what this might refer. Please provide something other than abstraction when leveling such an accusation.
The “church”, the body of Christ is the totality of all believers. It is not an earthly organization such as the RCC.
Interesting. Judith might be also.
“The “church”, the body of Christ is the totality of all believers”
Ahh, I suppose you can point me out to where Jesus says this.
You were the one who brought this up in the first place. Oh well. Guess it’s not true.
Note that a Catholic convert makes his decision to submit to Rome based on reason, that of his fallible interpretation of purported evidences, and then is required to implicitly trust Rome cannot be wrong when she infallibly speaks, yet which still requires use of fallible human reasoning by the RC to discern which level a magisterial teaching falls under, and thus what level of assent is required, and if any descent might be allowed.
And it remains that the reason writings (Lk. 24:44) were established as Scripture at the time of Christ was not due to an assuredly infallible magisterium, but like as a true man of God, it was and is essentially due to their Divine enduring qualities and attestation.
The Catholic Church: formed by Christ expressly as His Church built on the person of Peter who shall convert his brethren (Matthew 16:16-19, Luke 22:31-32).
The Protestant communities of faith: not heard of till 15th c.
The Catholic Church: developed the canons of both Old Testament and the New Testament by early 5th c. when evidence of authorship and provenance was still relatively fresh; it included the Deuterocanonicals, despite objections (Canon of the Old Testament; Canon of the New Testament --historical reviews and must read for anyone interested in the formation of the canons)
The Protestant communuties of faith: developed false theology incompatible with most of the Holy Scripture, so they tossed whatever they could.
The Catholic Church: fought against major christological heresies of 1-4 cc. and formed a comprehensive body of theological work, and especially the Nicean Creed.
The Protestant communities: revitalized major heresies of old and added its own; pride themselves on ignorance of the patristic legacy and their lack of historical continuity.
You can believe what you want, but do not expect anything but scorn and ridicule from people of authentic Christian faith.
More vagueness. I guess there’s no basis for any accusation of misrepresentation since no specifics can be provided.
-—— And it remains that the reason writings (Lk. 24:44) were established as Scripture at the time of Christ was not due to an assuredly infallible magisterium, but like as a true man of God, it was and is essentially due to their Divine enduring qualities and attestation. ———
So how did Mr. Bible-alone Luther justify removing entire books from the Bible that was in use in his day?
Was he a greater authority than Scripture?
Than the Church?
Or was he fallible?
I've asked this question before and no one gave an answer. Perhaps, since you believe you and your fellow Catholics are more blessed by your "broader Scriptural library" and we Protestants are sadly limited because we don't view those extra books as coming from the Spirit of God, you might expound upon all those blessing you have gained by holding to those books? While you are at it, would you also share with us all the doctrines we have squeezed needlessly from our "limited canon" that we could have found in the "fuller" one you so prize?
If, indeed, it is a "sad joke" that Catholics have a special blessing from God due to their honoring of the Deuterocanonicals as equal to the commonly held inspired and sacred works, then surely you can name the extra blessings your fuller canon has provided? Don't hold back, share with your sad, poorer, separated brethren all those extra benefits we've missed by rejecting them.
Thank you.
“James had authority over Peter because he opened up the Conference.”
Why do you continue to present this strawman to me? James both presided over and closed the council with a final decision. It is not limited to his “opening” the council.
“Not so.”
Not so?
James speaking:
Act 15:19-20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Wherefore MY SENTENCE IS, after debate had finished, James makes his declaration which the church accepts.
Peter’s opinion earlier in the discussion was NOT to place on the disciples any yokes, but JAMES felt it was best so as not to offend those weak in faith:
Act 15:10-11 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (11) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
But it is James decision which is immediately accepted after his “sentence” is given.
So not only do you assault me with a strawman, you assault me with a mundane assertion which tells me you don’t even have any clue as to the content of Acts 15.
“far from Paul accosting and tearing down Peter”
Who said he was “accosting” Peter? No, he confronted him face to face, as an equal:
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
What a thing to write in the scriptures for all eternity! Paul facing down his “Pope” to the “face, because he was to be blamed.”
Also notice that Paul didn’t even entertain for a moment any ideas about Papal authority or holding back against Peter, who sinned publicly, and therefore is rebuked publicly.
“It is noteworthy that you failed to mention that Paul was first affirmed by Peter.”
It’s noteworthy that you even present the argument. In fact, it says James, Peter and John gave him the right hand of fellowship. So what’s your point? Are you trying to say that Paul was wrong to rebuke Peter after being given the right hand of fellowship by three Apostles, including Peter? Or are you saying that the three Apostles gave sanction to Paul, and therefore this proves Paul is inferior to them? If you’re going to present such illogical arguments, you should at least do so clearly.
“that is the custom, the resident bishop presides over the council. We see this in Ephesus, in Nicaea, and in Constantinople, where the Pope sent legates”
If it is the custom, please show me where the “resident Bishop” presides over the council and both makes and declares the judgment that the council is bound to accept.
Thanks.
I think if we could just cut to the chase here, all this back and forth over books that only marginally - though sometimes not at all - serve as proof texts for some of the doctrines not held by early believers, we would see that Catholics, who so strenuously argue for their inclusion, are not really enamored by them at all. Instead, it is used as another link in the chain that they are sure proves separation from Rome has diminished rather than enhanced the Christian experience. Other links in this chain are the insistence that ONLY the Catholic Church is the one, true, church established by Jesus and that the "throne of Peter", to which we must all be in obedience, is ONLY traceable through "their" succession of bishops. Never mind that the Eastern Orthodox claim apostolic succession and a truer fealty to the rule of faith, it is only Rome that has preserved the Christian faith as it has "always and everywhere" been believed, Catholics claim.
This argument over the canon - one that is endlessly debated here - is really only a ruse to get the proverbial nose in the tent. I've asked numerous times for someone to tell me all the truths we are missing by rejecting these extra seven books, but no one has done so yet. I think the hope is they get us to admit they are right on this, and all our other arguments will fall as well. I won't fall for it as few others, sure in their faith, will not either. I guess the hope of those, who use this point as a battering ram against the door of faith, is that someone WILL be convinced and "swim the Tiber". I know that the Good Shepherd knows His sheep and they know Him and a hireling they will not follow. I know in whom I believe and the chains of Rome will never bind me again.
“Answer the question, that you shrink from”
I DID answer the question. I said (or strongly implied) you were a heretic who abandoned the church established by Christ in the first century. I even provided evidence and directed you to a challenge to dispute it. Unlike you, who just asserted the same against me without any evidence or argument other than that you are a CATHLUCK!!@@!!!
“Salvation does not require that one be a member of the Church in order to be saved.”
A Catholic who argues that we do not need to be in communion with the Pope to be saved! Of course, I already knew that. Salvation is by the grace of God, and not through Roman works. Good to see you’ve embraced this. Too bad for you, I still argue that to be a Roman Catholic endangers your eternal soul, and therefore you should repent and convert to Christianity as soon as possible so you no longer trust on Roman works to save you.
Hopefully you’ll keep making concessions until you concede your way out of Roman Catholicism straight into the body of Christ.
“Ah, so if God knows with foreknowledge whom will be saved, does that also mean that the damned cannot?”
Let me correct you. God does not simply KNOW with foreknowledge whom will be saved. He KNOWS with foreknowledge WHO He WILL save. It’s a huge difference. The one is heretical, suggesting that man himself is accepting what the scriptures clearly declare is the gift of God. The latter, however, affirms God’s role in our salvation from start to finish. Reread the Apostle Paul on the subject, and use Augustine if you doubt the plain wording of the Apostle.
—— I’ve asked numerous times for someone to tell me all the truths we are missing by rejecting these extra seven books,but no one has done so yet. -——
Where is this test of canonicity in the Bible?
Regardless....
2 Maccabees 12:46
“Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin.”
>So how did Mr. Bible-alone Luther justify removing entire books from the Bible that was in use in his day?<
Not again!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=974#974
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=990#990
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=217#217
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2637924/posts?page=1224#1224
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2772644/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2637924/posts?page=2066#2066
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3003863/posts?page=137#137
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3003863/posts?page=226#226
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3003863/posts?page=239#239
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3003863/posts?page=260#260
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3003863/posts?page=286#286
There is no word “church” in scripture. The word is ekklesia which is simply a gathering of believers. Man has corrupted the meaning. The body of Christ (Bride of Christ) consists of all believers. Christ is the only head of that body.
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church (ekklēsias): and he is the saviour of the body.
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." Mat 18:20
1 Peter 2: 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
1 Corinthians 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church (ekklēsia), 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
No, you did not answer the question. It’s a simple yes or no question.
You would have me abandon a Church founded in the first century to join one founded in the fifteenth? Yes or no?
“abandoned the church established by Christ in the first century.”
Oh. I see. Which Church in existence today is the one established by Christ?
“A Catholic who argues that we do not need to be in communion with the Pope to be saved! Of course, I already knew that.”
You acknowledge then that the Catholic church teaches this as well then.
“Salvation is by the grace of God, and not through Roman works.”
Yet, scripture itself commands us to “work out our salvation through fear and trembling.”
“I still argue that to be a Roman Catholic endangers your eternal soul, and therefore you should repent and convert to Christianity”
Which Church ought I convert to?
“Reread the Apostle Paul on the subject, and use Augustine if you doubt the plain wording of the Apostle.”
If the saved are preordained then so are the damned.
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.