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.
That’s a circular argument, btw. Arguing “You should already know” isn’t a great argument.
“how does one determined which books were inspired?”
“Just as I would discount any other cults high councils.”
Which is why you accept Chalcedon, Nicaea, First Constantinople and Ephesus?
“The idea of an “Alter Christos” is anathema and an abomination”
So sayeth Pope CynicalBear. When did you become Pope, CB?
“So it is incorrect to say that the Vulgate was the first ‘Catholic’ bible.”
I never said that.
“That’s a circular argument, btw.”
What exactly is a circular argument?
““You should already know” isn’t a great argument.”
It wasn’t so much an argument as a retort, as I’ve already answered that question on this thread and I don’t see any point in rehashing that again, since I doubt it would have any effect on you.
“St. Paul was a celibate Catholic priest and bishop.”
Who ordained him? Who elevated him to bishop? What diocese did he preside over?
St. Paul was ordained when Ananias placed his hands on him (Acts 9:17), the same way ordination takes place today within the Catholic Church.
St. Paul, along with Barnabas, was made a bishop (set aside) by the laying on of the hands of Barnabas, Simeon (Acts 13:3).
Peace be with you
“
Ok, you are aware that Catholic theology teaches that indulgences are only sold for those who are in Purgatory?
You only get to Purgatory after you have already been saved.
“
Purgatory is another issue. I find no scriptural basis for it.
To think that you go get punished after you get saved denies the work of Christ. He took your punishment. His sacrifice was sufficient.
To think you can somehow pay God to get time off of a place of torment where you for some reason go even though Jesus already paid for your sins is so anti-gospel. There is not a crumb of truth there. Also, God is not in need of any of your money.
“temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven,”
Hmm.
There are temporal punishments for sins that have been forgiven. Were I to commit adultery, and my spouse were to forgive me, and Jesus also, still, I might have the STD to deal with or the shame or the baby or etc.
However, a hell-like place where punishments are meted out for sins already forgiven is a fabrication.
“An indulgence will not shorten your time in purgatory?” That is news to me. It is my understanding that indulgences help you skip purgatory, or get out early. Otherwise, what is their purpose? To shorten or eliminate the effects of our sins upon us in this life? That is news to me.
“She dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the the satisfactions won by Christ AND THE SAINTS,” oh, that is so terrible, really, if the saints were able to win us satisfactions with God, what need do we have of a Savior? Christ is our sacrifice, His sacrifice was sufficient; we need no other; and no man is capable of satisfying God on his own behalf, let alone on mine.
Purgatory is not a time or place, nor bound by time or space. Purgatory is a cleansing process (purgation) in which the final perfection of our imperfect souls is made possible by Jesus dying on the cross. If you believe that the Blood of the Lamb washes away your sins you believe in Purgatory.
Peace be with you.
God's Holy Spirit inspired WORD is The FINAL Authority and JESUS IS THE WORD made flesh.
I already have many takers for my offer, but thank you for giving me an opportunity to forgive and the grace that accompanies forgiveness.
Peace and Blessings.
“Purgatory is another issue. I find no scriptural basis for it.”
If Heaven puts you in God’s presence - we know that from the OT - nothing can sin and see God.
“To think that you go get punished after you get saved denies the work of Christ. He took your punishment. His sacrifice was sufficient.”
For our salvation, yes. Again, purgatory concerns itself with purging our sins committed after becoming a Christian. Not with whether we are or are not save.
So what happens when you sin after becoming a Christian? Is it all just ‘swept under the rug’ so to speak?
“To think you can somehow pay God to get time off of a place of torment where you for some reason go even though Jesus already paid for your sins is so anti-gospel.”
Only if you believe that Purgatory is for those who are not saved.
“Also, God is not in need of any of your money.”
Then why does Jesus himself praise the lady who tithes? Indulgences are for the soul of those in Purgatory.
So rather than address the question (which you haven’t done so), you’d rather ignore it? Fair enough.
Like I said, I’ve already addressed the question on this thread. If you’re keen to find out the answer, you can dig back through the hundreds of posts, but I don’t see any point to rehashing the same questions we’ve already been over.
“St. Paul was ordained when Ananias placed his hands on him (Acts 9:17), the same way ordination takes place today within the Catholic Church.”
Ananias laid hands on Saul to restore his sight, and give him the gifts of the Holy Spirit. A great many people received the gifts of the Holy Ghost that way in Acts, so they are all now Catholic priests?
For example the 12 men in Acts 19, who had just been baptized when Paul laid hands on them. Were they priests now, having only been baptized a moment ago?
Scripture is pretty clear that the laying on of hands is for two purposes, healing, and conferring the Holy Spirit. Those who had hands laid on them had the power to prophecy and speak in tongues. Do Catholic priests demonstrate those gifts, if the ordinance is the same, as you claim?
“St. Paul, along with Barnabas, was made a bishop (set aside) by the laying on of the hands of Barnabas, Simeon (Acts 13:3).”
Paul was already an Apostle at that time, was he not? How can someone who is lesser than an Apostle confer a lesser office upon an Apostle? Why would an Apostle need to have a lesser office conferred on them? Also, aren’t you saying here that Barnabas laid hands upon himself to make himself a bishop?
And what diocese was Paul the bishop of?
Sorry. I’ve been away for a while and haven’t followed this thread. However, after reading the article I would say that the issue is moot. Catholics no longer follow the written word but the teachings of the Church. They can have their dusty canons. They gave Protestants the copyright long ago.
That Popes are not bound by the decisions of councils without his consent is not a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, as it is the Pope which makes conciliar teaching binding, and which i knew.
Nor is my statement that it is "Rome that makes the individual the supreme authority, that being an assuredly infallible pope as supreme over councils," "a deep misunderstanding of what Papal Infallibility means," as in fact that is what it means, despite what you read into my statement in typical Roman reaction.
I accept what? Where ever did you get that idea? Are you just assuming for some reason?
>>So sayeth Pope CynicalBear. When did you become Pope, CB?<<
LOL That pope nonsense is only a Catholic thing you know. There is no such thing as a pope in the true body of Christ. All believers are priests.
No, but all Catholic priests received their ordination in that manner. Through Apostolic succession all priests have a direct and unbroken line to the first Pentecost.
"Were they priests now, having only been baptized a moment ago?"
It is entirely possible.
Scripture is pretty clear that the laying on of hands is for two purposes, healing, and conferring the Holy Spirit.
Every priest regularly performs the Anointing of the Sick. Further, not everyone receives the same gift from the laying on of the hands (1 Corinthians 12:1-11)
"Paul was already an Apostle at that time, was he not?"
There were 120 persons present at the first Pentecost, St. Paul was not among them. In order to participate in the Apostolic Succession directly to the Pentecost St. Paul received his ordination from one who had been present.
Also, aren’t you saying here that Barnabas laid hands upon himself to make himself a bishop?"
There was more than one Barnabas.
And what diocese was Paul the bishop of?"
The word diocese is from the Greek dioikēsis, it simply means an administrative jurisdiction. Which ever church or churches St. Paul had temporary or permanent jurisdiction over was his diocese.
Peace be with you
“I accept what? Where ever did you get that idea? Are you just assuming for some reason?”
So you reject Nicaea?
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.