Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Interesting that ignore the context of that (that the church has discernment to bind and loose; not individuals)
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
We have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Luke, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John.
Of those writers, Luke definitely did not live with Jesus, but his words are from the records of the Christians that he compiled under their guidance while in Jerusalem.
Paul studied under Gamaliel and was a recognized leader to the extent that he received letters from the High Priest to capture Christians. He was the ring-leader of those who stoned Stephen. Since this occurred some time before the death of Herod Agrippa I (44 AD) mentioned in Acts 12, a mere ~11 years after the founding of the Church on Pentecost, we have Paul in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus or immediately thereafter. This is certain because Paul had been sent back to Tarsus by his friend Barnabus and then was searched out for help in Antioch by Barnabus. Paul in Galatians mentions 3(?) years being taught by the Lord in the desert.
Therefore, in that 11 year period we have to account for Paul's conversion, his 3 year training period, his return to Tarsus, and his time in Antioch.
Paul knew much of what he knew from having lived in Jerusalem. Also, don't forget that Paul's sister lived in Jerusalem as did his nephew (who warned him of a plot.) This suggests immediate longstanding family presence in Jerusalem. As a student of Gamaliel and as a man with immediate family in Jerusalem, it is fairly safe to suggest that Paul had extensive contacts in Jerusalem.
Paul, of course, was also a witness to the Resurrected Christ, and no Apostle disputed that. Instead, Acts, Peter, and Galatians portray that fact as fully accepted by the Apostles.
Therefore, of the list of NT authors, there is only 1 who was not present during Jesus' ministry or the early formation of the church. There is probably only one who was not "physically" present at the time of Jesus' ministry.
Apparently, the EO extrapolates that quest into one which is undertaken by a hierarchy of men whom believers bow to rather than a journey made by individuals whose only mediator between God and them is Jesus Christ.
Ultimately, it's all about "to whom do you kneel?" And the more I read, the more I realize the EO and RC really do deny the work of the Holy Spirit in individuals.
I don't mean to do that. For clarity's sake, do you believe the Holy Spirit can and does work through Scripture in the hearts and minds of individuals?
Actually the Orthodox look to Christ while protestants bow down before themselves and their 'knowledge'; perhaps this is why so many protestants are tempted by the gnostic gospels (the gnostics held knowledge above God or Christ too).
It's simply not conceivable that 330+ bishops and thousands of clergy and laity meeting within a century or 2 of Christ death were meeting in the presence of the Holy Spirit. It's quite conceivable that a handful folks meeting thousands of years after Christ death, reading a translation written by a King or a biased 'scholar' in fact meet in the presence of something quite other than the Holy Spirit.
certainly it is possible however it's implicitly obvious that it does not always.
for instance the local prebyterian parish split in two after during 'bible study' some folks agreed with the pastor and some with eachother and split the study into two separate groups. At BEST one of those groups is incorrect, and quite possibly BOTH are.
1Cr 14:33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
You made the claim:we go by the greek originals . So what??? Fifty years ago I might have been impressed. Today with all the search tools and various Greek lexicons all over the Internet, one can read how an actual Greek piece of scripture read. If you want to look at a different Greek text, it's there. To be honest, there isn't much difference between the various text. What's normally argued here is content and doctrine; not whether a particular passage is accurately translated.
What really bothers the Church is the capability of people being able to look up the original writings for themselves. The fall back plan is to say, "Father Jones felt blah-blah-blah about Passage X. So don't go interpreting it for yourself. Your mind can't handle it. All translations are wrong except the one Father Jones uses." As soon as people understand that Father Jones isn't any different than Sam Smith down the street and he uses the same version as what everyone else uses, the jig will be up.
And, at least my version isn't written by bias gentlemen.
If you'l recall the New Testament original language is Greek; it's not a translation.
As for your second claim it's plain silly; why do most protestants not follow Corinthians? Because they read their translation which is worded poorly and seems to suggest that 282 of St Paul's words which have been accepted as scripture for almost 2000 yeras are meaningless and do not apply today. It's not simply the doctrine (women refraining from preaching and covering their heads) it's the translation and the 'interpretation' of the reader which is iseparably linked to that translation.
Further we get things like the revised standard edition which, for example, leave off 8 versus at the end of Mark amoung which is the one where Christ says folks must be baptised.
It's a fact that since the 14th century there have been rampant attempts by folks with an axe to grind to translate the Bible into what they'd LIKE it to say in English rather than what the original says.
Many people in those days were tortured and murdered then, common folk like you and me. It's still going on today in many countries. They won't be canonized but God will still see them as saints if they die for the faith.
Another time a Mary washed his feet with her long hair, so she defintely was uncovered, except for the hair, in that instance.
Paul taught in synagogues where a shaved head would have represented a Hebrew slave. A good scripture explaining the origin of the custom is Deut 21.
I won't make excuses. It's my personal feeling Christianity, like Judeism, is degenerating. We are drifting farther away from scripture. What you are pointing out is one (among many) of these drifts. It is much the same in the Catholic, and yes, Orthodox Church. There is substantial evidence in scripture of this happening throughout both the Old and New Testament. And we are warned by the fathers this would happen and is the reason they preserved for us the scriptures. I know this may sound pessimistic but I look at it as simply a realistic assessment of our situation.
These drifts are corrected by God throughout the course of time by different methods.
Better versions explain where they got their text from and list other text interpretation. Anyone who is even remotely interested in understanding the scriptures should have a good lexicon and can still see the Greek structure. You're living in the 14th century.
your comment mentions a translation; the original text ain't a translation; your comment is non-applicable.
My point with the revised standard is that there exist English translations which are biased garbage. They do nothing but confuse people and promote false interpretations of scripture. One can disagree with which ones are the poor translations but you've already made my point with your admission about the revised standard there exist translations written by biased men which do not promote the truth of Holy Scripture.
Just an historical side note: A custom of nomadic people living in hostile environments, such as a desert or the Arctic, was for the mother to use her long hair to clean her baby. While no doubt a good custom in those places,and still in effect, I'm sure it's one no man really wants to see his wife keep today.
ABUSE! ABUSE! :)
FK: "From man's POV, the elect spend the first part of their lives being "lost" and on a road to hell. Then God touches the elect and they accept Christ and are "saved". So technically, the action of accepting Christ is something that is done and makes a difference."
Are you of the irresistible grace school? Or is there a choice possible at this point?
I'm a TULIP-totin' Calvinist, so I'm a full supporter of irresistible grace. At the same time, irresistible grace fully supports my saying that I made a free-will choice in accepting Christ. (Surprised? :) That was my experience. No one was holding a gun to my head, and I didn't do anything against my will. I wanted to accept Christ, so I did. What I didn't know at the time was that the nature of the grace God gave me was of super-industrial strength. In fact, as it turns out, exactly 100% of the people so graced throughout history have wound up choosing Christ as their savior.
Jesus Christ spoke Greek?
I don't doubt for a second Christ spoke all languages perfectly being GOD and all.
That said the brunt of the new Testament writers spoke greek; Greek is the language of the new testament.
Right on all counts. My point, even the original text was filtered through men's understanding. The Gospels tell the same teachings, yet there are differences in the wording, probably due in part to "translation" into Greek.
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.