THE CHURCH OR THE BIBLE

http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/chorbibl.html ^ | August 2002

[NYer]

I assert that it is faith in Jesus as Messiah and the Son of God.

O Sacred Heart of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to You I consecrate and offer up my person and my life, my actions, trials and sufferings, that my entire being may from now on only be employed in loving, honoring and glorifying You. This is my irrevocable will, to belong entirely to You, and to do all for Your love, renouncing with my whole heart all that can displease You. "I take You, O Sacred Heart, for the sole object of my love, the protection of my life, the pledge of my salvation, the remedy of my frailty and inconstancy, the reparation for all the defects of my life, and my secure refuge at the hour of my death. Be, O Most Merciful Heart, my justification before God Your Father, and screen me from His anger which I have so justly merited. I fear all from my own weakness and malice, and placing my entire confidence in You, O Heart of Love, I hope all from Your infinite goodness. Annihilate in me all that can displease or resist You. Imprint Your pure love so deeply in my heart that I may never forget You or be separated from You. I ask You in Your infinite goodness to grant that my name be engraved in Your Heart, for in this I place all my happiness and all my glory, to live and to die as one of Your devoted servants. Amen.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I see want to continue to use "report," when shew has just as many other meanings - "show" being the most obvious show, illustrate, manifest, evidence, demonstrate etc. It seems to me that you have forced "report" into the KJV. Let's agree this doesn't necesarily mean what you initially claimed - that Peter reported to James - and move on to your next point. Agreed?

It seems to me that you just prefer that this does not mean that Peter reported to James.

No dice. My reading of Acts 12 is honest and organically consistent with the other Scriptural passages referencing Peter's administrative subordination to James. I am under no obligation to indulge your personal preference that these passages would not serve as indictments against your Petrine fantasies -- when they clearly do.

[NYer]

It is Jesus Christ Who is our supreme good, joy and glory; and the One to Whom every human person belongs by right of love and of sovereignty. Jesus Christ died and returned from death to make our death a return to Him--He is the origin, the eternal end and judge of every human heart.

[NYer]

The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.[19]
Catechism of the Catholic Church

....... your turn.

[The Bard]

Were the Apostles Christians, I ask you, my dear Protestant friends? You say, "Yes, sir; they were the very founders of Christianity. Now, my dear friends, none of the Apostles ever read the Bible; not one of them except, perhaps, Saint John. For all of them had died martyrs for the Faith of Jesus Christ and never saw the cover of a Bible. Every one of them died martyrs and heroes for the Church of Jesus before the Bible was completed.

Of course they could not have read the Bible as we have it today, But they did have access to old testament scripture. Plus, God used them to write the new testament. How could they read a book that was still in the process of being written?

I had always been told that the Bible was not one book. but a binding of several books/scriptures. the comment "...a good book..." seems to show the problem. The Bible is not just some sort of large Novel, but a binding of several books and scriptures, assembled for us to use to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15)"

Considering how apostate churches have become (not just the Catholic church, but many other denominations), I will stick to the Bible and a good Bible teaching church.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Yup. Far be it from Orthodox Presbytery to permit the receipt of the Sacrament by any who are not proper Communicant Members (in Good Standing, not Under Discipline) of the Body of Christ (the Bible-believing Local Church).

Other than that, I've postponed "the_doc"s latest Article on the Eucharist, given the latest bombshell of the American Bishops (to wit, "come one, come all, Roman Salvific Theology is hereby up for grabs!!"), but I expect I'll post it soon.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4: ".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem." That's right, they elected James Bishop of Jerusalem. Everyone knows that. So what?

"Everyone knows that"? Thanks for obliging me.

Okay, then, half-time switch...

"Everyone knows" that James was elected to the Episcopal Throne at Jerusalem (which implies Headship of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem [Acts 15] and administrative supremacy over Peter when ALL the Elders were present [Acts 21])...

Now... Prove that Peter was the Universal Pontiff at Rome, exercising Administrative Supremacy over all Bishops.

For reasons of authenticity, no citations post-dating the Apostles by more than 100 years will be accepted (i.e., nothing after 190 AD).

Ball is in your court, hit it.

[The Bard]

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are mentioned 130 times.

I couldn't pass this up... It was a good change to test some bible software I had. Doing just a simple name search (Thus not anywhere near a complete or accurate search), I found the following:

Peter - 164 hits in 156 verses (Appears that Peter is mentioned a few more times than you thought)

John - 133 Hits in 130 Verses (obviously pulling in references to John the Baptist, so obviously I can't say that this is exclusive to John the apostle)

Luke - 2 hits in 2 verses

Mark - 16 hits in 16 verses

Thomas - 12 hits in 12 verses

Saul - 26 Hits in 23 verses

Paul - 163 Hits in 159 verses

James - 42 hits in 38 verses

Again, no where near an extensive search, but interesting (at least to me).

[Catholicguy]

It seems to me that you just prefer that this does not mean that Peter reported to James.

It is not a preference. "report" is not part of a definition of "shew." If you don't accept the KJV as written, fine.

No dice. My reading of Acts 12 is honest and organically consistent with the other Scriptural passages referencing Peter's administrative subordination to James. I am under no obligation to indulge your personal preference that these passages would not serve as indictments against your Petrine fantasies -- when they clearly do.

I hear ya. You are unwilling to budge from your polemics. We can't even agree to define "shew" as show, which is what the old English word means. That SHEWS you are not doing exegesis but this

Hermeneutics, is considered, the science of the art of interpretation, however, in the true Biblical sense, it is neither a science nor an art. Hermeneutics, as far as the Christian is concerned, is a branch or method of Theology that signifies practices by which the Bible, (Scripture), should be interpreted. These practices are intended to render the true meaning and intent that Scripture has for all believers.

The third discipline that we come in contact with is the term Exegesis. This term also comes from the Greek, (ex - "out"), and (hegeisthai - "to guide"), "interpretation".

Exegesis is a method of understanding a Biblical passage in its natural form. In this discipline, the exegete must undertake the job of understanding of the grammatical components, (word definitions, word order, literary device and literary sense), that are present in a particular passage of Scripture. This discipline is tied directly to the discipline of Linguistics. Exegesis is the "drawing out" of the Text its True meaning.

A special note regarding a term that is the antonym of Exegesis, called Eisegesis. Eisegesis, is the method of interpreting a passage of Scripture according to personal bias, (personal notions or opinions), rather than the original intent of the Text.

Unfortunately, this method will be encountered more often than not. Why, because we all come to Scripture with a sincere desire to discover its true meaning, however, before very long, we begin to apply notions, understandings and presuppositions that we have adopted or believed, based upon the encountered "opinions" and "beliefs" of others. This along with our lack of understanding of our own language can send us in a direction away from the true meaning and intent of the Text.

O.P., you are engaged in eisegesis and the example of this one word "shew," shews that. I knew when I began this exercise with you that we wouldn't get past your first example.

I gave it my best shot. Good luck, O.P.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So that's your interpretation of Paul's "not discerning the Lord's body"? Not discerning "the Bible-believing Local Church"? Since there was no Bible in Paul's time, your interpretation that "the Lord's body" refers to the local "Bible-believing Church" is quite nonsensical. But this is not surprising, since personal interpretation does lead to all sorts of nonsense.

There was no Bible?

No Genesis, no Psalms, no Prophets... really? Pray tell, then, when the Bereans "studied the Scriptures to see whether these things were so", what Scriptures did they study?

(lol!!)

[OLD REGGIE]

Contrary to popular belief, Catholics do not have to interpret every verse of the Bible according to some dogmatic proclamation of the Church. I am allowed to freely interpret almost any text on its own, provided I don't go against a dogma of the Church.

Out of curiosity, why did you find it necessary to make an issue of your freedom to "interpret almost any text on its own, provided I don't go against a dogma of the Church." and then proceed to copy, almost verbatim, the The Introduction to Mathew as written in the NAB, and present it as your interpretation?

[NYer]

The Introduction to Matthew was provided as background information to ksen. This was a discussion on interpretation of verses - personal interpretation vs Magesterium.

[Codie]

I've postponed "the_doc"s latest Article on the Eucharist,

Post it please.I'd like to read it.

[OLD REGGIE]

The Introduction to Matthew was provided as background information to ksen. This was a discussion on interpretation of verses - personal interpretation vs Magesterium.

I understand; but, it wasn't clear whether it was your interpretation or an interpretation from the Magisterium which you posted. It is expected that you will provide sources and/or quotes when appropriate.

[CCWoody]

I expect I'll post it soon.

I'll expect a ping then....