Why Does The Shroud of Turin Still Exist?

Do you accept the principle of using Scripture to interpret Scripture?

Please notice that the plain word of Paul, multiple times calling various men on earth "fathers,""teachers" and "masters", and so forth --- using the very terms Jesus used. Thus Scripture itself (Paul and other inspired NT authors) authentically interprets the words of Jesus.

Ignoring that won't make it go away.

Please notice that the plain word of Paul, multiple times calling various men on earth "fathers,""teachers" and "masters", and so forth

I can't NOTICE it if you do not POST it.

If you are going to teach me something; just don't tell me, "It's in the textbook; now go find it."

Placemarker

Do you accept the principle of using Scripture to interpret Scripture?

Please notice that the plain word of Paul, multiple times calling various men on earth "fathers,""teachers" and "masters", and so forth --- using the very terms Jesus used. Thus Scripture itself (Paul and other inspired NT authors) authentically interprets the words of Jesus.

IF, and it's a huge IF, you believed your first paragraph you would understand the error in your second paragraph.

There is actually one more thing I wanted to address, regarding a certain disposition: namely, with regards to how one approaches Scripture. There's a particular attitude I've noticed that seems to treat the Bible as its own completed product, handed down directly from on high (as the Quran allegedly was in the religion of Islam, from the angel Gabriel to Muhammad). I've even been told that wanting to be of the same mind as the Church with regards to Scripture (and not reliant on my own authority or wisdom), is to lack comprehension, or even to admit that I am simply dumb. I would rather think of it as not being prideful enough to say that my own learning is sufficient to unlock all of the mysteries of Scripture; likewise, I am unwilling to profess that every single imagining or interpretation of a verse that goes through my mind is directly inspired by the Holy Ghost. There are many who go that far, with a lack of caution I find interesting.

I think we can all come to an agreement that Scripture is inerrant and divinely inspired. However, in the logical order, we can only make that claim about the original writings themselves, as penned by Moses, David, the various prophets, the Apostles and other NT Evangelists, and so on. Now I ask, does the some divine inspiration apply to those who copied the originals? Does the same protection of inerrancy apply to the copiers?

We can see from relatively recent history that this does not hold even for completed Bibles, due to errors in printing or transcription. Just from the KJV alone, you have the Wicked Bible, the Judas Bible, the Vinegar Bible, and so on. Thus, we cannot claim outright that those who copied the originals were protected from any and all error. How then, would one have attested to the legitimacy of the Old Testament Scriptures in the time of Jesus? Would a Jew not have trusted implicitly in the word of the Mosaic priesthood that - in each and every synagogue and temple - that these texts are truly representative of what was handed down to them from the days of Moses, of the judges, of David, and of the prophets?

Would not the same then apply to the writings accepted as inspired amongst the New Testament writers? If you had in your hands a writing claiming to be from St. Paul, would you not have checked with a person of authority (such as your local presbyter), with someone who had been sent to your place by an Apostle (or one of their successors) to ensure what you had was indeed a true writing, and not something fallacious trying to pass itself off as apostolic (as was so common it has its own term, pseudepigrapha)?

So, I am told that the Bible in and of itself is trustworthy, as though there is no thought spent into how it arrived in its current state, and why certain texts were believed to be inspired over others. Part of the weight of the Bible's authenticity is the historical weight behind those who promulgated it.

Speaking of promulgation, we then come to the matter of translations...and there are quite a few, just speaking of English. I dare not claim that translation can be a matter of mere preference, for your translation can have different connotations depending on the verse (Luke 2:14 comes to mind, just as an example)! Can we say that the Holy Ghost inspires all of these different translations? If not, then which translation can claim to be inspired, or the one that is most truly reflective of the original meaning?

Which translation is the most correct one? Which group can claim the weight of being the most truthful? Was it the fifteen “Bible scholars” of Biblica who made the NIV? Was it the 47 Anglican scholars who created the KJV? Was it the 130 scholars who made the NKJV? Was it Crossway who published the ESV in 2001? Was it the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churchs who produced the RSV in 1952? Was it the Lockman Foundation when they produced the NASB in 1971? What about Eugene Peterson when he created the Message in 2002? Or the Christian Resources Development Corporation who promulgated the CEB in 2011? And so on and so forth.

Also, for what other reason is a new translation made, if because the ones making it believe that the currently available ones are lacking in some way? Do they have the authority to make that claim or judgment about the current translations?

Is my own wisdom sufficient to determine this? Can I just choose whatever Bible I want and be okay, regardless of where they fall on the 'literal-dynamic' spectrum? I would think the answer about such an important book would involve something more than personal preference.

Of course, notwithstanding the numerous items of disagreement amongst the Protestant denominations on matters of faith and morals, let's take a direct example from the Ten Commandments: thou shalt not kill.

First of all, depending on your translation, you'll either get 'kill' or 'murder', and in modern English, these have very different connotations (of course, the context involves bloodguilt and unlawful killing, but you might not know that at first glance.) Secondly, you then run into a variety of issues regarding self-defense, war (and whether it can ever be just), capital punishment, how far one can enact violence in defense of another, one's level of culpability when mentally impaired, and so on (to the point the question becomes 'is this particular action an example of murder'?, which even then can have people who disagree). It's why that there are various different flavors of Christian pacifism, to the point where some eschew all violence of any kind (regardless of whether it can be justified or not). To which I then ask: whose interpretation of this commandment is correct? And how would you know? They can't all be inspired by the Holy Ghost, can they?

Granted, this then brings to mind a question as to why Scriptural commentaries (of which there are many) are even necessary at all, if one's own wisdom suffices to comprehend the Scriptures. I'm then told that it's only so long as you have the Holy Ghost to guide you; to which I ask, how would you even be able to tell that the Holy Ghost is guiding you? Is it just by your own profession? Is it just by your own subjective emotional experience? If it were that simple, you'd think everyone who read the Bible would intrinsically be of one mind on any questions that they may have.

However, given that there is not one singular Protestant denomination, but many...well, the empirical evidence doesn't seem to bear that hypothesis out. Either that, or there are a lot of people professing to be guided by the Holy Ghost who actually aren't.

So you can say that I lack comprehension all you'd like, or even insult my intelligence; feel free. I've never claimed to be the end-all and be-all, and am simply trying to apply what I know in light of the Faith handed down to me.

But if you think I'm going to favor my interpretation over that of the Apostles and their successors, you're out of your mind.

A most hollow screed. You claim that a believer should consult other sources besides The Scriptures for the meaning of The Scriptures, yet I dare say you would refuse to look at a site like PreTrib.org, thoroughly, to see if there is much you could learn.

I suspect that if the source of the extra-biblical data is not of the Catholic Org, you will forego it. And ya know, that is not a great negative ... if what you want is to support the Catholic perspective. Many of us maligned Protty have read the Catechisms of your religion. We even quote from them when debating issues with the catholic religionists.

This thread is still going?!

There is actually one more thing I wanted to address, regarding a certain disposition: namely, with regards to how one approaches Scripture. There's a particular attitude I've noticed that seems to treat the Bible as its own completed product, handed down directly from on high

If your argument is that the magisterial stewards of Scripture are the sure and supreme authority on what it consists of and means then you have just nuked the NT church.

So, I am told that the Bible in and of itself is trustworthy, as though there is no thought spent into how it arrived in its current state, and why certain texts were believed to be inspired over others. Part of the weight of the Bible's authenticity is the historical weight behind those who promulgated it.

Therefore since those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

Then they should not have followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

If anything, all you have done so far is provide an argument against the Catholic church.

Can we say that the Holy Ghost inspires all of these different translations? If not, then which translation can claim to be inspired, or the one that is most truly reflective of the original meaning? A question without a direct answer, but what is implied is that the judgment of the Catholic church is to be trusted. The very church which has produced the New American Bible as its official Bible for America (in its various editions) with required notes, which is criticized even by Catholics for its erroneous translations (for one, the NABRE, will not use render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as simply rendering the words for fornication/fornicator as "immorality" or "immoral persons" among the many occurrences of the words for sexual immorality. (Matthew 5:32 Matthew 15:19 Matthew 19:9 Mark 7:21 John 8:41 Acts 15:20 Acts 15:29 Acts 21:25 Romans 1:29 1 Corinthians 5:1 1 Corinthians 5:9 1 Corinthians 5:10 1 Corinthians 5:11 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Corinthians 6:13 1 Corinthians 6:18 1 Corinthians 5:9 ,10,11; 7:2; 6:9; 1 Corinthians 10:8 2 Corinthians 12:21 Galatians 5:19 Ephesians 5:3 Colossians 3:5 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Hebrews 12:16 Jude 7 Revelation 2:14,20,21; 9:21; 14:8;17:2,4; 18:3,9; 19:2) even though in most cases it is in a sexual context, and many liberal note, and its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory.

Thus what you have done is provide an argument against the Catholic church.

Do they have the authority to make that claim or judgment about the current translations?

Meaning we should trust your bishop's for approved translations , which are among the most poor, like the Good News Translation and the Contemporary English Version.

Thus what you have done is provide an argument against the Catholic church.

And note that the body of wholly inspired writings that had been established by the time of Christ, and thus so often appealed to, "(such as "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27) were not established due to any infallible conciliar decree, and their establishment was essentially die to the unique heavenly qualities and attestation, while likely have somewhat different versions.

Thus what you have done is provide an argument against the Catholic church.

Of course, notwithstanding the numerous items of disagreement amongst the Protestant denominations on matters of faith and morals, let's take a direct example from the Ten Commandments: thou shalt not kill. First of all, depending on your translation, you'll either get 'kill' or 'murder', and in modern English, these have very different connotations (of course, the context involves bloodguilt and unlawful killing, but you might not know that at first glance.)

And which party has produced the most accessible dictionaries and classic extensive commentaries which explains such things?

Granted, this then brings to mind a question as to why Scriptural commentaries (of which there are many) are even necessary at all, if one's own wisdom suffices to comprehend the Scriptures.

If so, then why has evangelical faith has produced the most accessible dictionaries and classic extensive commentaries, which overall are in agreement on the main issues at the least?

Thus what you have done is provide an argument against the Catholic church. .

However, given that there is not one singular Protestant denomination, but many...

And in Catholicism there is even more varied beliefs than among "Bible Christians," who are the group most unified is core beliefs, much more than Catholics. Whom Rome manifestly counts as members in life and in death, from proabortion, prohomosexuality public figures to cultic TradCaths.

And you would have us leave our conservative evangelical fellowships and become brethen with them in your unholy amalgam? And note no one here by Catholics are arguing for their church being the one true one.

Thus what you have done is provide an argument against the Catholic church.

But if you think I'm going to favor my interpretation over that of the Apostles and their successors, you're out of your mind.

Rather, if you think the so-called successors to the apostles have the veracity of the apostles then that is absurd. For in reality, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

Thus what you have done is provide arguments against being a Catholic.

Substitute "Vatican II sect" for "Catholic Church", and your points would have more merit (as the NAB was promulgated in 1970). For is it any surprise that a religion which proclaims non-Catholic sects can be used as means of salvation would advocate for translations of Holy Writ that are tainted by liberal and Modernist thought?

If your argument is that the magisterial stewards of Scripture are the sure and supreme authority on what it consists of and means then you have just nuked the NT church.

How so?

Then they should not have followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

As the stewards and authorities of the Old Testament, they more than anyone else had no excuse for not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. Yet Christ did not come to abolish, but to fulfill, did He not? To whom much is given, much is expected; if those who merely heard the Scriptures were able to recognize Christ as the Messiah - through not only His knowledge and teaching, but also His many miracles and His claims of divinity (implicit or otherwise) - then those who actually could read the Scriptures should have known better. Yet they did not (or were purposefully blind, or purposefully let their conceits rule the day instead of devotion to God), and thus were condemned quite venomously by our Lord.

And note that the body of wholly inspired writings that had been established by the time of Christ, and thus so often appealed to, "(such as "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27) were not established due to any infallible conciliar decree, and their establishment was essentially die to the unique heavenly qualities and attestation, while likely have somewhat different versions.

And yet, historically speaking, questions about the canonicity of certain texts appeared to have been the focus of much debate, even centuries after the last of the OT Prophets passed away:

If you're going by the record of the Talmud, then according to this article, "much of the Tanakh was compiled by the men of the Great Assembly (Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah), a task completed in 450 BCE, and it has remained unchanged ever since." That sounds a lot like some kind of council to me. Of course, there are scholars who disagree with this, it would seem.

Strictly speaking of the Old Testament portions of Scripture, to assert that the Jewish canon was set by the time of Christ is at least a matter of debate, as per the first link: "There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE),[5] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.[6]"

And which party has produced the most accessible dictionaries and classic extensive commentaries which explains such things?...If so, then why has evangelical faith has produced the most accessible dictionaries and classic extensive commentaries, which overall are in agreement on the main issues at the least?

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not disparaging or discouraging the use of commentaries, concordances, or other such study tools. In fact, I believe that they can be highly efficacious to one's understanding of Scripture (for there are many who have a deeper knowledge of the Bible than you or I).

I was simply pointing out what seemed to be a contradictory message: throughout this thread, my notion of saying that there is a higher authority regarding the interpretation of Scriptures than myself was lambasted, and that my comprehension must be lacking to say such a thing. If that mentality is true - that one's own knowledge is sufficient to rightly interpret the Scriptures, so long as you profess to be guided by the Holy Spirit - then the very existence of Scriptural commentaries is superfluous and an exercise in vanity.

After all, if your interpretation and analysis of Scripture warrants being its own separate commentary, then it is implicitly arguing for its own superiority over those interpretations that aren't in a commentary.

And in Catholicism there is even more varied beliefs than among "Bible Christians," who are the group most unified is core beliefs, much more than Catholics. Whom Rome manifestly counts as members in life and in death, from proabortion, prohomosexuality public figures to cultic TradCaths.

Of the modern Vatican II sect, this is true, which is part of the thrust of sedevacantism:

The current counterfeit religion masquerading as Catholicism lacks substantial unity, on this you and I can agree.

Substitute "Vatican II sect" for "Catholic Church", and your points would have more merit (as the NAB was promulgated in 1970). For is it any surprise that a religion which proclaims non-Catholic sects can be used as means of salvation would advocate for translations of Holy Writ that are tainted by liberal and Modernist thought?

But unless you are going to operate like an evangelical, in the sense that the laity ascertain the veracity of church teaching based upon their own judgment of what historical church teaching says (for us that is the wholly inspired Scriptures, while for TradCaths it is what premodern pope and council say the word of God teaches), rather than trusting "the Living Magisterium" to clarify it.

As per much historical papal teaching:

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources )

If your argument is that the magisterial stewards of Scripture are the sure and supreme authority on what it consists of and means then you have just nuked the NT church.

How so?

It was obvious, for as said, those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

Thus if the magisterial stewards of Scripture are the sure and supreme authority on what it consists of and means then 1st century souls "should not have followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected," yet which the common people judged to be of God, as they did concerning John.

As the stewards and authorities of the Old Testament, they more than anyone else had no excuse for not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. Yet Christ did not come to abolish, but to fulfill, did He not? To whom much is given, much is expected; if those who merely heard the Scriptures were able to recognize Christ as the Messiah - through not only His knowledge and teaching, but also His many miracles and His claims of divinity (implicit or otherwise) - then those who actually could read the Scriptures should have known better. Yet they did not (or were purposefully blind, or purposefully let their conceits rule the day instead of devotion to God), and thus were condemned quite venomously by our Lord.

Which charge is laid upon your church based upon her claims, yet rather than being consistent with what the NT church manifestly believed, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

And yet, historically speaking, questions about the canonicity of certain texts appeared to have been the focus of much debate, even centuries after the last of the OT Prophets passed away: If you're going by the record of the Talmud, then according to this article, "much of the Tanakh was compiled by the men of the Great Assembly (Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah), a task completed in 450 BCE, and it has remained unchanged ever since." That sounds a lot like some kind of council to me. Of course, there are scholars who disagree with this, it would seem.

And RCs claim that the canon of Scripture was settled in the 4th century, yet in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.

But regardless of scholastic debate about the status 2,000 years ago, it is rather obvious that as said, there was a body of wholly inspired writings that had been established by the time of Christ, as seen by "Scripture/it is written..." often being appealed to, plus the searching of them exhorted and exampled. As in the case of our Biblical canon, certain books would become more solidified as belonging in the canon, yet that there was a body of wholly inspired writings that had been established as authoritative is undeniable. Even if Rome asserts one cannot discover the contents of Holy Writ apart from faith in her which must tell us.

If you're going by the record of the Talmud, t

No, we certainly are not going to go by the Talmud.

I was simply pointing out what seemed to be a contradictory message: throughout this thread, my notion of saying that there is a higher authority regarding the interpretation of Scriptures than myself was lambasted, and that my comprehension must be lacking to say such a thing. If that mentality is true - that one's own knowledge is sufficient to rightly interpret the Scriptures, so long as you profess to be guided by the Holy Spirit - then the very existence of Scriptural commentaries is superfluous and an exercise in vanity.

Context. Some the same parties whom you see as dismissing commentaries as superfluous and an exercise in vanity can also be seen posting what commentaries state, or discussing them. For as with "ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things..." (1 John 2:27) the context is that of the claim that one needs some sort of infallible or elite teacher in order to know what Scripture consists of and means, with what these non-inspired men say being supreme, versus Scripture itself.

And in Catholicism there is even more varied beliefs than among "Bible Christians," who are the group most unified is core beliefs, much more than Catholics. Whom Rome manifestly counts as members in life and in death, from proabortion, prohomosexuality public figures to cultic TradCaths.

Of the modern Vatican II sect, this is true, which is part of the thrust of sedevacantism:

That is some chart! But incomplete. What one poster wryly commented fits here,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html like the wryly

All and all, despite you being a schismatic in the eyes of official Rome, as before, you have actually provided an argument against becoming a Catholic, regardless of which sect.

May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)

And Catholics criticize non-Catholics for *every man his own pope*.

So much for ONE faith and one deposit of teaching.

Pfffftttt.......

Seems like there’s more variation among Catholics about what to believe in Catholicism than they condemn non-Catholics for.

I guess it’s their own personal interpretation of Catholicism, - YOPIOC.