Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
ya got one here. I think proper definition and clarity helps a great deal. However..
Even with it, I think we try too hard sometimes to find disagreement, it's almost a reflex. Going back no doubt to protest and protested against. Sometimes, it seems to me, we work hard on splitting apart what can't be split, like faith and works. We build a legalistic framework and then fight over it, two levels removed from reality, three from the Divine.
May we never becom like sunni/shiite, and may we never go back to killing each other. Looked at in light of history, these vituperative threads are a great improvement. :)
thanks for your post.
1. No one has to read anything to be baptised and beleive and follow Christ. There's no reading requirement. Christians were following Christ long before the printing press and most alphabets.
2. There's nothing grand about English. There's no 'must speak english' sign on the gates to heaven. Orthodox countries were the firsts to translate the word into native languages! They also have been preaching in North America since 1794 often to people who don't understand a word of English.
3. Presuming there is the church to guide folks there's nothing wrong with many ambiguities in translations because the church is there to keep the sheep headed on the correct path. it's when folks run off and proclaim themselves personal popes of scripture that one needs a perfect translation. if one has Orthodox clergy to help one along thent he KJV is 'good enough' for most things, but always understandings MUST be the same as were present in the Greek & Hebrew original texts. When one runs afoul of those they're no longer hearing the word of God but instead the word of men.
4. The Orthodox study Holy Scripture plenty hence the Study bible. They simply don't pray to books or proclaim themsleves as individuals with perfect knowledge of scripture.
Thank you
No, not necessarily. The Bible is full of instances where unsuspecting individuals, sometimes unbeknowns to them, serve God's purpose, or for that matter any purpose.
Well, that would raise the possibility of teaching against what Christ taught actually serving God's purpose in His Holy word. Wouldn't that make the word unholy? It would also put a very strange twist on the concept of inerrancy.
Let's be brutally frank: without +Paul there would be no Christianity. But, by the same token, Pauline Christianity is not the Judaism preached by Jesus Christ.
You know how much I love Paul and what he taught, but I would never give him this much credit. The only one indispensable to Christianity is Christ. ......... Would you say that Paul contradicts Christ, or taught in a complimentary, but different way? It just isn't possible that Paul contradicts Christ.
Through interpretation, the Bible can be seen to mean anything. I had the impression that you were saying that the Reformed interpretation of Paul was closer to the actual words of Paul, and that was different from what Christ taught.
Herein lies the rub, FK. Everyone who calls on Christ's name claims to teach the 'right' faith.
I suppose that's true, and the ones who have the strongest scriptural support will be closest to the truth. It's the interpretation that causes the problems, not the reliance on scripture.
God is a riddle we cannot solve, but if God revealed Himself to men we presume that He did so that men would 'know' Him and would know what God expects from us. That is not the case. Many if not all those who teach anything the Bible says claim to have the Holy Spirit as a Guide. That's not possible, because the teachings differ so much they are unrecognizable in some cases.
That is exactly the case. :) God reveals Himself to the extent of His will. The scriptures are clear as to what God expects from us. Again the problem is interpretation. When two people stand next to each other preaching different things, and both claim to be led by the Spirit, all we need to do is what the Bereans did, check it against scripture. Different interpretations by different men will lead to different answers. That's unavoidable. I know you believe that a certain group of men always interpret correctly. We disagree because we don't see how those interpretations can reasonably square with the actual words of scripture.
What could be the cause of that discord? The Holy Spirit teaches everyone something else or men fail to understand the essence of faith? I would say the latter.
The Spirit won't lead anyone down a wrong path, but it does appear that He leads according to His own schedule with different people. I wouldn't take it to the level of essence of faith, but it does appear that not all apprehend the truth of the Spirit's leading exactly the same way.
Just because the same-minded people or even individual readers agree with themselves doesn't mean they are right!
Absolutely right. Numbers do not equate with truth.
Western Christian 'confidence' is an expression of this rationalistic dogmatic mindset that believes man can solve every enigma and explain everything through reason. That might be true if man (a) had all the information necessary and (b) the capacity to process it. We don't. So, no matter what we do, we can only 'hope' in God's mercy because we can never be sure that we really 'know' anything for certain.
Even the most learned Reformers would not claim to have everything figured out. There are mysteries. Some just believe there are more than others. :) We do not think the basics of salvation are, or were meant by God to be, mysteries. So, I do think that a) and b), above, do apply to the basics of the faith, but not to everything under the Son. Yes, we have hope in God's mercy, but we can be sure of this hope.
Heb 11:1 : Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Heb. 10:10 : By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Now we may debate whether the "for all" means all men everywhere or all believers, ...
We may not need to even go that far. I originally read "once for all" to be as in "once and for all" or "for all time". Strong's has "once for all" being one term (ephapax - [2178]) and it appears to only refer to time.
And the younger son did? You must be joking!
As for the verses, don't forget the Flood and the Firstborn of Egypt, and the slaughters in Chronicles and the Kings. There is enough curelty in the Bible to write a spearate book on it.
We tend to ascribe to God things God really has nothing to do with. That son could have done an honorable thing: pay back his squandered money, ask his father for forgiveness and throw a party for his father and his brother. I am sure God would not have been 'offended.'
That is baloney, BD. What is "hellenistic?" The Alexandrian Jews, like the Jews in Asia Minor were hellenized the way American Jews are americanized. They are still Jewish! It doesn't make them second-class Jews or less 'nationalistic.'
They spoke Greek as their native tongue the way German Jews speak German and American Jews speak English. They wanted a Bible they could understand.
As for the temple, the Sadducees controlled the Temple, and their canon was nothing like the Pharisaic/rabbinic/Protestant OT canon; it consisted of the five books of Moses only.
I agree wholeheartedly, jo. Thanks for your posts.
We tend to ascribe to God things God really has nothing to do with. That son could have done an honorable thing: pay back his squandered money, ask his father for forgiveness and throw a party for his father and his brother. I am sure God would not have been 'offended.'
Do you think God was offended as it was ?
Do you not think that He presented the parable in the way that He wished ?
Do you need to have the original? Would that help your faith? If the original Hebrew manuscripts were here in front of you, missing the vowels, would that help?
Yes I would very much like to have the original of every book of the Bible. No it wouldn't help my faith. I have faith, just not the pre-fabricated type most others do.
There is sufficient reason to believe that what we have today accurately reflect the things God wishes to communicate with us
Scriptures are full of human redactions and erros. It may be 'sufficient reason' for you.
These things were handed down to us by the Jews and our church fathers
So, now you base your faith on men?
Well, if this isn’t confusing.
Wrong. I mentioned Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Alexandrinus; these are complete Bibles (OT and NT), the oldest ones we have. The Alandrinus (5th century AD) has a lot of additional text that makes it more "Christian" in both the OT and the NT. The original Septuagint had no Christian bias; Christ wasn't around yet.
It's confusing only if you don't know the subject but rely on Google wisdom.
Kosta [Septuagint, the Essene Hebrew text, the Sadducee Bible and the Pharisaical Hebrew text] were all Hebrew text and they did not contain the same canon (for the nth time)
HD Wrong. They were NOT the same canon...
Thank you, you actually agreed with me. :)
They were different Septuagints
No they were not. Go back and Google some more.
I’m not sure who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek
That's obvious top anyone who knows even the basics about the Septuagint.
All I can say is that it was someone who knew Greek and it must have been intended for someone who read Greek (and they had an agenda)
They were Hebrews (Jews) who lived in Alexandria 200 years BEFORE Christ. They spoke Greek the way sapnish Jews speak Spanish. It doesn't make them 'less' Jewish.
They had no agenda. The rabbis in Jamnia did. The various Christian scribes who aletered the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus did. The onyl agenda the Alexandrian Jews has in 3rd century BC was to have a Bible (OT) they can read in their language.
You would also not have made the above comment because the Masoretes confirmed the Christians were using the same text as the Jews
Which Christians? The Orthodox Church NEVER used the Masoretic Text. Your Masorets are rabbinical Jews, former Pharisees, who represent only one of several Jewish sects at the time of Jesus, and their canon did nbot agree with the canon of other equally Jewish sects. They are the only surviving sect so their canon became 'the" Hebrew canon to those who are confused.
There was no disagreement in scripture between the two groups; only theological
Yes there is. The Apostles used the septuagint. The early Church used the Septuagint, The Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint. Only the Protestants use the Masoretic Text.
God is not offended either way, for that would make Him subject to passions.
Do you not think that He presented the parable in the way that He wished ?
Maybe as a minimalist approach.
It would be rather laughable, if it wasn't so sad that the Catholics would join in for Jerome translated the Vulgate directly from the Hebrew. Now do they want to say that Jerome wrongly translated the Latin Vulgate? Did Jerome waste his time? What utter nonsense.
I would just encourage readers to study the formation of scriptures and then simply ask themselves what would they prefer to follow, the word of God or a man-made institution that denigrates and cast doubt on God's word.
But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and in establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures. Neither, then, do they want to turn to the truth, being ashamed to abandon the claims of self-love; nor are they able to manage their opinions, by doing violence to the Scriptures. But having first promulgated false dogmas to men; plainly fighting against almost the whole Scriptures, and constantly confuted by us who contradict them; for the rest, even now partly they hold out against admitting the prophetic Scriptures, and partly disparage us as of a different nature, and incapable of understanding what is peculiar to them. And sometimes even they deny their own dogmas, when these are confuted, being ashamed openly to own what in private they glory in teaching. For this may be seen in all the heresies, when you examine the iniquities of their dogmas. For when they are overturned by our clearly showing that they are opposed to the Scriptures, one of two things may be seen to have been done by those who defend the dogma. For they either despise the consistency of their own dogmas, or despise the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope. And they invariably prefer what seems to them to be more evident to what has been spoken by the Lord through the prophets and by the Gospel, and, besides, attested and confirmed by the apostles. - Clement of Alexandria
Yes, an industrial strength no brainer. :) No one is forced against his will, no one is tricked, or anything like that.
Can I ask on what basis this choice is made? Also, what is it precisely that makes one off/on, saved?
My view is that the basis of the choice is the perceived need of God. As lost people in our sinful natures we perceive having no real need for God and utterly reject Him. Once God removes from us our heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh, then we realize that we do need God.
Maybe this structure: One minute one is not saved, the next minute, or two let's say, he is saved. What happened internally and externally in that time?
Normally, and within time, one moves from unsaved to saved by a conscious (informed) decision to admit one's need to God and accept Christ into the person's life as Lord and Savior. This is usually accomplished by some form of the "sinner's prayer".
Internally, among other things, the Holy Spirit has indwelt, and the person is "set free". Sanctification also begins at this time. Externally, the fruits of that sanctification should start to manifest themselves, but that does not always start immediately. If after saying the sinner's prayer, a person simply goes back to a sinful life and no change apparently takes place for a period of time, then that is evidence that the person's prayer was not efficacious, i.e. not sincere. It's not proof, since only God and the person can be certain, and sanctification takes place according to the time table of the Spirit, which varies from person to person. If the person goes back to the same sinful life permanently, then that approaches "proof". POTS says that won't happen for the truly saved.
Having some use for other books and considering them Scripture are two different things. Paul quoted from some pagan authors. He hardly considered their words Holy Scripture.
Now, you specifically have stated that in your research you have found that "Jerome was the only one." Considering Jerome's knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew and his translation of the very Bible your church uses, I would consider his word to be authoritative if I were a Catholic. But, since you eagerly dismiss him as the "only one", please read along. Some are mentioned at the Bible Researcher website which the folks on this thread seem to be avoiding like the plague.
Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (AD 350) wrote: "Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And read none of the apocryphal writings; for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the divine Scriptures, these twenty-two books of the Old Testament that were translated by the seventy-two translators . . . for the translation of the divine Scriptures that were spoken in the Holy Spirit was accomplished through the Holy Spirit. Read their twenty-two books but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study diligently only these that we also read with confident authority in the church. For much wiser and holier than you were the apostles and ancient bishops who led the church and handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, do not transgress its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you desire to have learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nun, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the historical writings. But those which are written in verse are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five prophetic books; of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament."
Athanasius of Alexandria says in his Thirty-ninth Festal Epistle: "7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded."
Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: Let not other books seduce your mind: for many malignant writings have been disseminated. The historical books are twelve in number by the Hebrew count, [then follow the names of the books of the Old Testament but Esther is omitted, one Esdras, and all the Deutero-Canonical books]. Thus there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament which correspond to the Hebrew letters. The number of the books of the New Mystery are Matthew, who wrote the Miracles of Christ for the Hebrews; Mark for Italy; Luke, for Greece; John, the enterer of heaven,602602 This seems to imply a knowledge of the Revelation, although it is not mentioned. was a preacher to all, then the Acts, the xiv. Epistles of Paul, the vii. Catholic Epistles, and so you have all the books. If there is any beside these, do not repute it genuine. (also found at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xxii.html )
Amphocilus Bishop of Iconium- We should know that not every book which is called Scripture is to be received as a safe guide. For some are tolerably sound and others are more than doubtful. Therefore the books which the inspiration of God has given I will number. [Then follow the names of the Old Testament books as in Gregory of Nazianzus, but concluding with "some add Esther."] It is time for me to speak of the books of the New Testament. Receive only four evangelists: Matthew, then Mark, to whom, having added Luke as a third, count John as fourth in time, but first in height of his teachings, for I call this one rightly a son of thunder, sounding out most greatly with the word of God. And receive also the second book of Luke, that of the catholic Acts of the apostles. Add next the chosen vessel, the herald of the Gentiles, the apostle Paul, having written wisely to the churches twice seven epistles: to the Romans one, to which one must add two to the Corinthians, that to the Galatians, and that to the Ephesians, after which that in Philippi, then the one written to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, and to Titus and to Philemon, one each, and one to the Hebrews. But some say the one to the Hebrews is spurious, not saying well, for the grace is genuine. Well, what remains? Of the catholic epistles some say we must receive seven, but others say only three should be received that of James, one, and one of Peter, and those of John, one. And some receive three of John, and besides these, two of Peter, and that of Jude a seventh. And again the Revelation of John, some approve, but the most say it is spurious. This is perhaps the most reliable canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures.
Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers: There are twenty-two books of the Old Testament because this corresponds with the number of their [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition: the books of Moses are five, Joshua son of Nun the sixth, Judges and Ruth the seventh, first and second Kings the eighth, third and fourth [Kings] the ninth, the two of Chronicles make ten . . . Ezra the eleventh, the book of Psalms twelfth, of Solomon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs are thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets sixteenth, then Isaiah and Jeremiah (with Lamentations and the Epistle) and Daniel and Ezekiel and Job and Esther complete the number of the books at twenty-two. To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome . . .
There are more. Some accepting of the Apocryphal books, some not, some with mixture. But this should suffice to answer your assertion that "Jerome was the ONLY one."
As I'm comparing it now, it seems to me-this part we're talking about-could be, in my terms a "conversion experience" and salvation as something ongoing. This for example:
It's not proof, since only God and the person can be certain, and sanctification takes place according to the time table of the Spirit, which varies from person to person. If the person goes back to the same sinful life permanently, then that approaches "proof". POTS says that won't happen for the truly saved.
It's after the fact knowledge and it could be efficacious in varying degrees over time, long, short, up and down, spirals..
The knowledge of it I'm speaking of, looking back, in hindsight. You would say, 'he wasn't really saved then', we might say, he stepped off the path then. In a manner of looking at it, it's just a different way of framing the time.
I realize you're making distinct theological differences; I'm looking at it as comparative religion.
And interesting thing, to me, is that all religions I'm fairly familiar with have an internal argument about "gradual vs. sudden": whether salvation (enlightenment, etc..) occurs at once or over time, some call it an educational enlightment, though I don't like the term.
So, for a while at least I'll view our differences on this as gradual vs. sudden and compare the saved experience you describe with the conversion experience I'm familiar with.
It's a difference in how you categorize things and how you look at time. In the scheme of time, both are but a flit anyway.
Thanks very much for your explanations.
say what you will about veneration the orthodox have never claimed that a book is God which is exactly what protestants have aledged on this thread.
also why werent all these famous protestants converting eskimos like the Orthodox were, or does preaching the word cut into reading 'God the book'?
i find the whole protestants hate the extra books thing interesting because their chief complaint is that catholics use them to substantiate crazy things like puirgatory which the orthodox dont have anyway.
lets be honest is this more about whats scripture or finding a lame way to refute catholic innovations which would be easily dispensed with by noting that rome is 1 of the 5 original sees which split with the rest!
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.