Posted on 01/15/2011 8:05:51 AM PST by topcat54
When I was in college and took 3 years of Koine' Greek, I discovered from sufficient documents that the composite texts available now, recompiled from extant manuscripts are extremely close to what we have been using. Of course, we had some C & D readings, but these tended to be things like "John went to town" and "John went down to the town". Nothing of theological importance. I would need to reproduce two years of work to demonstrate this to you and I suspect your pre-understanding would argue against the findings, anyway.
But, I came away satisfied that the remaining issues were translation and hermeneutic oriented. That is, now that we know with a fair degree of certainty what the writers had penned, what do these words mean in English? It is here that I find the beginning of Catholic bias loaded against the ordinary uses of the terms and redefined to support their agenda. By this I mean, they will take a simple word such as "elder" (older greybeard) and translate it "priest" knowing full well "priest" is derived from another word altogether.
This kind of tampering with the text is what persuades me that it is not so much "sola scriptura" that is important (it is), but the real argument is to continue speaking against the preconceived notion that the Catholic Church is permitted at all costs support its own system by tinkering with the translation. We are to be diligent to translate as the ordinary uses of the term were during their day.
You may argue (I think you did elsewhere, or perhaps another Catholic did) that the Catholic Church by denying access to the text for so many years was simply protecting us and trying to keep kooks (like me) from "mistranslating" and misusing the Scripture to our own detriment. But, now that we have access to what is very close to the original texts, we find the opposite to be true. You may have difficulty with this conclusion, but it is the case.
Further, beyond translation comes the process of hermeneutics. Once I have a text in my native tongue, I still must find out what the writers are getting at and, more importantly, what the Author meant. If this Bible is truly the Word of God, then I have the responsibility to treat is as such working diligently to understand His message to man. Here is yet another area where the RCC has dragged its constituency into the darkness. Of course, I understand God is managing all of this, but it is like Israel's rebellion, still a sad situation.
If one cannot notice that the Scriptures develop much like a historic novel is structured, one will end up believing all form of mistaken theology. The great majority of the world wrongly understands the Bible as a sort of spiritual encyclopedia. That is, if I want to know about "love", I simply look at all the appearances of the word and begin to synthesize their local uses into a generalization. This practice is just as common in the Evangelical world as it is in the Catholic world.
But, this is not how the Bible is structured. As a developing "historic novel" (I mean this only analogically, not absolutely), there is a story line developing along the action line. The Catholics/Evangelicals recognize this fact when it serves their purposes, but they fail to use it consistently when it destroys their system. When they want the Mosaic Law to stop, they notice Paul says it has ceased. But, by "consistently" I mean that they don't notice that during Jesus' life on earth, He said it was still operative and continued so until His death, burial, resurrection. This is the time when Paul said it ceased.
When this is understood, one recognizes that the remarks Jesus is making in the Gospels are prior to the ending of the Law and His "teachings" were actually the Mosaic Law opened up to Jews. He says this fact several times throughout the Gospels, but the Catholics/Evangelicals either ignore these remarks or disregard them. After all, they say, this is Jesus. Interestingly, they don't consistently do this in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. even though this is God the Father speaking. Somehow, Jesus speaking means He is speaking to me. Not so with a good hermeneutic. I am watching to see when the story turns to me. And the difference is staggering.
Such care is called heresy by a lot of folks who love to use the words of Jesus as a whip on themselves or others. They refuse to recognize that, as Paul eventually decodes after being told directly by Christ, Jesus' "teachings" were intended to weigh the Law down and show that no one can keep the Law. They are not, repeat not, Christian principles. But, that doesn't stop the Catholic/Evangelical machinery. On it goes claiming false uses of the "golden rule" and the "Lord's prayer". None of these folks bother to read the rest of the story.
But, in the tail end of the story that we discover the "musterion" hidden for ages. The message of rescue would be thrown wide open and be granted to entire world. And, it is that men are by nature at war with God, evil in intent, but only because they begin that way. We are dead in our trespasses and sin, imbued with the sin nature of Adam and in spite of the things we think are kind, we are desparately wicked when measured by God's holiness.
In ages past, God determined that He would rescue some. Like He did for Paul, He opens their eyes to see that there is no hope, no help, no goodness to be found in themselves, but that if we are not clothed in His righteousness, the righteousness of His Son, we are lost. You may recognize this, I think I do. This is not pomposity, but a devastating humiliation that nothing good dwells in us, that is in our humanity.
He adopts us, makes us alive (regeneration), clothes us in His Son. Then He begins the slow process of awakening our understanding to what is going on. He asks us to strain to cooperate, but reminds us that even the wanting and doing is His work in us.
This is what a proper hermeneutic will understand from the text. It will not look at the Gospels and derive a bunch of tenets for "good Christian living". We were not even called Christians until Acts 11:26 in the story. But, again, this doesn't stop the Catholic/Evangelicals that want to put a load on folks they do not even carry themselves. These are modern day Judaizers. But, grace is of a different material. It is the free gift of God, so no man can boast by claiming, "At least I (fill in the blank, decided, obeyed, was baptized, joined the church, did the sacraments, etc.), so I deserve salvation."
Compare my take on the Gospel message to that apppearing in the recent thread by some St. John Damascene (sp?). His is full of "merit" and "behavior" and "effort". He may not use these words, but the sense is the same. And, with it he denies predestination, absolute foreknowledge, and foreordination while dancing around with the most bizarre words imaginable. He attempts to make complete sentences out of phrases which make no logical sense, but must be said as he tries to tie errors together into "truth". It all comes from a defective hermeneutic and an attempt to support the group, instead. Go read him.
So, Mark, perhaps you can see why we look so much at the text itself, and not the agenda of any man or group. We "respect" but we do not "revere" (check the use of these words out in the Scriptures). And, we do not acknowledge that the RCC had much at all to do with the recognition of the text...it found itself long before the words "Roman Catholic Church" were even on the scene (290 AD?). You may wish to laud their longevity, we do not. They have been obstructionist in their work. The Gospel we cling is told in the text and actually goes all the way back to Adam, originally begun to be penned by Moses. That is our "organization". The rescued from the beginning of history.
To those of us Gentiles who now cling to the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ of Nazareth now exalted above all and seated at the right hand of the Father, we see the story unfolding all along the Book. And, while I suspect we may be a ways apart in how we see how the text arose and how it should be handled, it doesn't stop me from also suspecting that He may also be dragging you into His family, irrespective of the Roman obstructionists.
DB: When I was in college and took 3 years of Koine' Greek, I discovered from sufficient documents that the composite texts available now, recompiled from extant manuscripts are extremely close to what we have been using. Of course, we had some C & D readings, but these tended to be things like "John went to town" and "John went down to the town". Nothing of theological importance. I would need to reproduce two years of work to demonstrate this to you and I suspect your pre-understanding would argue against the findings, anyway.
But, I came away satisfied that the remaining issues were translation and hermeneutic oriented. That is, now that we know with a fair degree of certainty what the writers had penned, what do these words mean in English? It is here that I find the beginning of Catholic bias loaded against the ordinary uses of the terms and redefined to support their agenda. By this I mean, they will take a simple word such as "elder" (older greybeard) and translate it "priest" knowing full well "priest" is derived from another word altogether.
This kind of tampering with the text is what persuades me that it is not so much "sola scriptura" that is important (it is), but the real argument is to continue speaking against the preconceived notion that the Catholic Church is permitted at all costs support its own system by tinkering with the translation. We are to be diligent to translate as the ordinary uses of the term were during their day.
I was speaking only partially to the translational issue. I was speaking mostly to the issue of the books being changed from the originals. We do not have the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (whoever they were). We have second and third century reproductions of them (however accurate they are). The Church was responsible for their Nicene incarnation, however different from the original they were. That is what I mean about your acceptance of the Catholic organization's authority.
You may argue (I think you did elsewhere, or perhaps another Catholic did) that the Catholic Church by denying access to the text for so many years was simply protecting us and trying to keep kooks (like me) from "mistranslating" and misusing the Scripture to our own detriment. But, now that we have access to what is very close to the original texts, we find the opposite to be true. You may have difficulty with this conclusion, but it is the case.
Oddly enough, I have never heard a Catholic put this forth: it is always antiCatholics. The real reason that Bibles were not in every home was because almost nobody could read until well after Gutenberg, and because a hand copied Bible could take up to a full man-year to copy out. There weren't that many monks available to copy them.
If one cannot notice that the Scriptures develop much like a historic novel is structured, one will end up believing all form of mistaken theology.
Standing applause. You are bang on, my friend.
When this is understood, one recognizes that the remarks Jesus is making in the Gospels are prior to the ending of the Law and His "teachings" were actually the Mosaic Law opened up to Jews. He says this fact several times throughout the Gospels, but the Catholics/Evangelicals either ignore these remarks or disregard them. After all, they say, this is Jesus. Interestingly, they don't consistently do this in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. even though this is God the Father speaking. Somehow, Jesus speaking means He is speaking to me. Not so with a good hermeneutic. I am watching to see when the story turns to me. And the difference is staggering.
The difference in theology certainly is staggering. If your presumption is true, then the Gospels would more rightly be classified as Old Testament. It has been considered the pinnacle of the New Testament (of Christ). If the Gospels are to the Jews, then Jesus becomes irrelevant, and it is Paul that is the Messiah, not Christ.
In ages past, God determined that He would rescue some. Like He did for Paul, He opens their eyes to see that there is no hope, no help, no goodness to be found in themselves, but that if we are not clothed in His righteousness, the righteousness of His Son, we are lost. You may recognize this, I think I do. This is not pomposity, but a devastating humiliation that nothing good dwells in us, that is in our humanity.
Without the Grace of God, we are lost. In this, I believe we agree.
This is what a proper hermeneutic will understand from the text. It will not look at the Gospels and derive a bunch of tenets for "good Christian living". We were not even called Christians until Acts 11:26 in the story. But, again, this doesn't stop the Catholic/Evangelicals that want to put a load on folks they do not even carry themselves. These are modern day Judaizers. But, grace is of a different material. It is the free gift of God, so no man can boast by claiming, "At least I (fill in the blank, decided, obeyed, was baptized, joined the church, did the sacraments, etc.), so I deserve salvation."
However, Jesus charges all men with his addresses in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain, and so on. I will reject the idea that Christianity did not start until Acts 11. When does Jesus tell Peter that He will build His Church upon him? Even the Holy Spirit commissions the Church in Acts 2. The Gospels tell us what the Church is to believe and do. Acts is the start of the Church.
Compare my take on the Gospel message to that apppearing in the recent thread by some St. John Damascene (sp?). His is full of "merit" and "behavior" and "effort". He may not use these words, but the sense is the same. And, with it he denies predestination, absolute foreknowledge, and foreordination while dancing around with the most bizarre words imaginable. He attempts to make complete sentences out of phrases which make no logical sense, but must be said as he tries to tie errors together into "truth". It all comes from a defective hermeneutic and an attempt to support the group, instead. Go read him.
Indeed, he is one of the great Fathers of the Church. If your reference is not Christ, but Paul, then perhaps your posting might make more sense. I will not attempt to do so, so I will simply not comment.
So, Mark, perhaps you can see why we look so much at the text itself, and not the agenda of any man or group. We "respect" but we do not "revere" (check the use of these words out in the Scriptures). And, we do not acknowledge that the RCC had much at all to do with the recognition of the text...it found itself long before the words "Roman Catholic Church" were even on the scene (290 AD?). You may wish to laud their longevity, we do not. They have been obstructionist in their work. The Gospel we cling is told in the text and actually goes all the way back to Adam, originally begun to be penned by Moses. That is our "organization". The rescued from the beginning of history.
Firstly, I must enquire as to why you are hung up on Rome? It is the Catholic Church, not the bishopric of Rome that is the Church. Reverence is used many times in Scripture and with deliberation. Also, there is the use of relics and the healing by objects of holy men. And so on. The Gospels do not go back to Moses - they are the New Covenant of Christ versus the Old of Moses. The Bishop of Rome became the elder of the bishops by simply being more orthodox in the first millennium than the other four. No more than that.
To those of us Gentiles who now cling to the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ of Nazareth now exalted above all and seated at the right hand of the Father, we see the story unfolding all along the Book. And, while I suspect we may be a ways apart in how we see how the text arose and how it should be handled, it doesn't stop me from also suspecting that He may also be dragging you into His family, irrespective of the Roman obstructionists.
The Messiah is rejected by the Jews based upon the OT. Please consider that. If I ever am saved, and it would take a miracle such as only He is capable of, then I would promise to sit in the very back row and be very quiet and not disturb anybody.
If you mean by this, we do not possess the original manuscripts themselves, I fully agree. And, thank God we do not. If men have a tendency to worship/venerate icons, how much more trouble would we have if men were bowing to books? But, if you mean we do not know what those original manuscripts contain, I would vigorously disagree. My point was that the vast majority of our composite texts are now A or B certainties. This did not arise from a Catholic Church pronouncement, but from good scholarship.
"The real reason that Bibles were not in every home was because almost nobody could read until well after Gutenberg,"
So, you have never heard of the Roman Catholic Church preventing people from possessing the Scriptures? Interesting.
"The difference in theology certainly is staggering. If your presumption is true, then the Gospels would more rightly be classified as Old Testament. It has been considered the pinnacle of the New Testament (of Christ). If the Gospels are to the Jews, then Jesus becomes irrelevant, and it is Paul that is the Messiah, not Christ."
This is even more interesting. I cannot follow the logic, here. Point one: The Gospels would more rightly be classified as Old Testament.
Standing applause, bang on, back to you! If by this you mean the Law is still in effect.
Point two: It has been considered the pinnacle of the NT. Here I begin to get confused. There are no "pinnacle" books in the Bible. It is all equally the Word of God. It tells the story of redemption throughout. Unless you mean the "events" recorded right at the end of the Gospel accounts: The death, burial, resurrection and ascension (Acts) of Jesus. But, if we are correct about the development of the story line (historic novel), this occurred AFTER the teaching times of Jesus. And, it is He who said He was sent "...only to the Jews." and that the golden rule was the "Law and the Propehts", not me. It is then Paul who tells us when the blood was shed, the curtain was torn and you and I were grafted in (Eph. 2).
Without this developmental understanding, we are left with Jesus teaching us salvation by works (Luke 10:25, "And behold , a certain lawyer stood up and put to the test saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life" And He said to him, 'What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?' And he answered and said, 'You shall love the Lord your God with ...(Mosaic Law, 10 commandments'. And He said to him, 'You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.'" This is the Law that even you claim is gone. How can it be gone if Jesus is teaching it? Why has the RCC added joining their organization and the six other sacraments?
And what of Jesus telling His disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ (Matt. 16:20) Do you follow this? I do not, because as the story develops I find that the situation changes. Now, now, we can tell everyone. But, then He was teaching the children of Israel the weight of the Law. He was demonstrating that no one is able to do righteousness, no one seeks God, no one is holy (sounds like Romans 3?).
Point three: Jesus is irrelevant. Nonsequitor. I am making the point that the Messiah of Israel is teaching His people that none of them are holy, none of them want to follow the Law, none of them are righteous enough to merit heaven. When they finally get what He is actually saying, they turn on Him, and kill Him. If He meant that the Law was doable with just a bit more effort, why in the world would the Jews kill Him? Especially, why would the Pharisees kill Him? This is exactly what they had been saying all along since Ezra. The Mishna, remember?
Point four: Paul is the Messiah.
Okay...meltdown. Cannot follow logic, error 4593, reboot. Virus located.
That Paul begins to set out for us Gentiles how our consciences operated for Gentiles the way the Law operated for Jews (Romans 2) and teaches us that there is no one that seeks God and no one can do righteousness, does not make him the Messiah. That Paul was sent to the Gentiles to tell us that when Jesus lays hold of a man, He will bring him to saving faith, period, doesn't make Paul the Messiah. Quite the opposite...he is just another messenger.
My point...the RCC stopped reading along the story line and missed the point of the story: God alone chooses whom He will rescue and He brings those men/women/children to faith by the free gift of grace. No ceremony, no work, no Law, no mediators (except His Son).
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.