Magisterium will NEVER replace the higher teaching of the HOLY SPIRIT

Bible | 2011 | bibletruth

[MarkBsnr]

The fact is that text revision is endemic in not only the NT, but the Old as well

By Christians, yes. Not by the Jews. You had a buffet of different verison of ths LXX commissioned in the Christian era.

Didn't each Jewish sect have its own version(s)?

[MarkBsnr]

Mark, the Russian canon is slightly different form other Orthodox canons.

As well as the Ethiopian canon.

The Orthodox Holy Tradition (life in the Church) is different for the Catholic Sacred Tradition in that the latter sees the Tradition alongside the Scriptures (T + S = ST), and the former sees the Scriputres as part of the Holy Tradition, and not separate form it.

Tradition has given us Scripture and the Creeds.

What's on the altar are thew Gospels. That's the New Testament or Covenant of God in his own words. That's the core. The rest is secondary or deuterocanonical, and is interpreted through the Gospels, including the Old Testament.

That's the way it ought to be everywhere.

Whoever professes the same faith as stated in the Nicene Creed (sans filioque) and maintians the life in the Church through the Eucharistic liturgy of the Church, regardless of their canon. No Ecumenical Council has ever established the Church canon, and Trent is not recognized as Ecumenical by the East.

Good points. I know a few nominal Catholics that don't make the first cut.

[MarkBsnr]

Differences in Jewish scriptures are related to their sects, not copyists. Thus, Samaritan Torah differs form the rest and the Essene books do not always agree with the MT, just as the Alexandrian LXX differs from others (textually and canonically) while partially agreeing with Qumran scrolls.

That is my understanding.

[MarkBsnr]

Mark, the Eastern Church doesn't have a "Magisterium."

Weellll.........nor does any Church. It is an conveniently invented word "Teaching Authority Of The Church" which is used when the "Church" has no real answer.

It is an agreement of what is considered to be correct by the Church. Every sect or denomination or nondenominational church that has a set belief or creedal system has something of its own Magisterium. UUs obviously don't, since they are not required to believe in anything particular.

Did you hear about the insomniac dyslexic Unitarian?

She stayed awake all night wondering if there really was a Dog.

[Diamond]

Do you remember this book?
Do you remember the intense speculation about who wrote it? There was even some of that here on FreeRepublic. In your answer here you still haven't answered my questions about the inevitable speculation and multiplicity of titles that would had arisen had the Gospels originally been written anonymously, not to mention how and why such anonymous material would have been received as authoritative by first and second generation eyewitnesses.

From your source:

As with the Old Testament, we just don't know who wrote most of the New Testament. Tradition has assigned the Gospels and most of the Epistles to certain authors, all of whom were important figures in Jesus' life or the early days of the faith. It was important for the early church to believe the authors wrote the works attributed to them, since their eminence lent the writings authority. But since we don't have the original signatures, none can be verified except through textual clues.

Reading that is like reading the strange perspective twisting and spinning of an AP or TIME news story. "Their eminence lent the writings authority"??

Quite a few collections of stories about Jesus circulated in the early church, among them The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John. Some of these gave very different and in some cases conflicting accounts of the gospel and, most importantly, of Jesus' alleged resurrection.

ALL of the earliest Gnostic "gospels" postdated the earliest canonical gospels by at least a hundred years. The canonical Gospels were well-established and accepted throughout the early church prior to the later, more developed forms of Gnosticism and the Gnostic 'gospels". Why do you want to allow the heterodox late-comers to undermine what was already established historically?

We'll return to the question of how the "canonical" books of the New Testament were determined in the fifth and last installment of this answer. For now we'll just say that Iraneus, the bishop of Lyons in 180 AD, decided that the validity of any work had to be judged by whether it was "apostolic." That is, it should have been written by or for one of the twelve apostles. But, as Pagels goes on to say, regardless of whether the names given to the Gospels are those of the actual authors or merely reflect a claim to apostolic authority, "we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the Gospels."

More spin. Irenaeus "decided"? As if Irenaeus invented the criteria as a novelty in a vacuum, totally divorced from his own knowledge of history and from what he himself had received - the same Irenaeus who as a boy he had listened to the sermons of bishop and martyr, Polycarp, who was regarded as a disciple of the apostles themselves.

It was important to note that the Gospels were written by either eyewitnesses or with their input, but at a much later date than Jesus' Incarnation.

No kidding. That's good. Never overlook the obvious.

Another conjecture is that the Q source may have been written by a community or group of writers who were eyewitnesses, and used by the Gospel writers as a source much later. And think of this: why would Matthew (traditionally the tax collector and Apostle and eyewitness) need to use Mark (a non witness) as a source?

Matthew being dependent on Mark as a source assumes facts not in evidence.

-----------------------------------------------------

(Matthew 24:15-16) This does not say, neither does it say anywhere that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel.

Does not say anywhere that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel?

Daniel 7:1 - "In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream.
2 Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. 3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea...."

Explicit 1st person references in the Book itself include
Dan. 7:2, 15, 28; 8:1, 15, 27; 9:2, 22; 10:1, 2, 7, 11, 12; 12:5

Daniel was commanded to preserve the scroll in which these words are found:
Daniel 12:4 - But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end." Did Daniel disobey this command? Did he fail to obey it?

Jesus explicitly quoted Daniel, called him a prophet, and endorsed his writing. Even if he did that only one time (there are many more allusions by Jesus to the Book of Daniel) was He mistaken that one time? Did He lie that one time? If one time is not enough for you I don't know what else is. What does it mean to you that Jesus explicitly quoted Daniel, called him a prophet (a personal attribution) and endorsed his writing?

Not that what Ezekiel wrote would matter much to you if you reject Jesus on the subject, but was Ezekiel mistaken or lying when he quoted GOD as commending Daniel, again, by personal attribution?

Cordially,

[OLD REGGIE]

The first Unitarian. (We have a very big tent.)

You mean like this one?

BIGGER!

[OLD REGGIE]

Did you hear about the insomniac dyslexic Unitarian?

She stayed awake all night wondering if there really was a Dog.

OK, that is funny!

[daniel1212]

In his typically enigmatic way, he is simply saying that not only was the Word as a person with God, but that the word was God as the Son having the same nature.

You can protest the puzzling phraseology, and try to make the Word out to be a god (or “was a god” if you want to press it), despite the problems that also entails, or you can see, if you could allow it, that the God whom Isaiah saw, and who of old hast laid the foundation of the earth, and whose work includes the heavens, and who essentially is the same, yesterday, today and forever, (Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8) is the Son, who with the Father and the Spirit possess the same uncreated nature, the true God and eternal life. To God be the glory.

[count-your-change]

Sometimes questions can clarify what is being said.
Since Psalm 102 is addressed to Jehovah, the Father, how is it you say, “it is the Son”?

“You can protest the puzzling phraseology, and try to make the Word out to be a god (or “was a god” if you want to press it),........”

I simply asked you what you were saying the word “God” meant, were both instances “THE” God, definite?

“In his typically enigmatic way, he is simply saying that not only was the Word as a person with God (THE, definite, God, the Father?), but that the word was God (THE, definite, God, Son) as the Son having the same nature.”

Are the italics I added a correct understanding of what you are saying? If not, in what way did I miss your meaning?

[kosta50]

Didn't each Jewish sect have its own version(s)?

The Samaritan Torah differs, Mark, as regards where the Temple should be or is (Mt. Gerisim instead of Jerusalem). The other sects followed the "regular" Torah, as far as I know.

Obviously the Alexandrian version of the OT in Greek (Septuagint) is vastly different form the Masoretic Text (aka Hebrew Bible). Qumran scrolls also show variants. I was referring to the Masoretic Text, the only surviving Jewish canon, which shows remarkable absence of copyist errors and variants.

[kosta50]

As well as the Ethiopian canon.

That's not surprising. The Ethiopian (Orthodox) Church is non-Chalcedonian, and has been separated from the catholic Church since the 5th century AD. The Russian Church is fully Chalcedonian, like any other catholic Church, yet it has its own canon (which differs only slightly, but nonetheless differs)

Tradition has given us Scripture and the Creeds

The Western Church doesn't see it that way, Mark. The scriptures are Separate from the Tradition. The East knows and professes only one Creed, the one that was declared by an Ecumenical Council, and is binding on the whole Church.

All other creeds are meaningless and have no effect on the catholicity of the faith. One can be orthodox only if he or she professes the one and only Creed, the Symbol of Faith (as it is known in Greek).

I know a few nominal Catholics that don't make the first cut

Mark, hypocrisy is alive and well in the Church of the East as well. Just research how many Eastern Orthodox politicians support abortion, receive Communion on a regular basis, and are recognized as outstanding members (and role models!) in their respective churches, simply because they have the "right" ethnicity!

[kosta50]

OR:Did you hear about the insomniac dyslexic Unitarian? She stayed awake all night wondering if there really was a Dog

LOL!

[kosta50]

This does not say, neither does it say anywhere that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel

Good point, Mark.

[Diamond]

So when Jesus explicitly quoted Daniel, called him a prophet, and endorsed the words, "The Abomination of Desolation" he says were SPOKEN BY DANIEL, from WHAT was he quoting?

The words, "let the reader understand" can be understood as either the words spoken by Jesus, or the words written by Matthew. If the former, Jesus' words on the Mount of Olives would have been taken by his listeners to be referring to a person who reads the Book of Daniel. If they are the words of Matthew he is telling the reader of his Gospel to understand the words of Jesus. Either way, the words, ‘The Abomination of Desolation’ quoted by Jesus appears in Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11.

Never mind the incontrovertible facts that Daniel 7:1 states that, "He wrote down the substance of his dream", or that there are various 1st person references by Daniel in Chapters 7 through 12.

If the claim that it does not say anywhere that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel is intended to be understood in the hyper-literal, idiotic sense of, 'nowhere does it say, "Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel"', then the claim is so stupid as to be unworthy of a dignified reply. Understood in any meaningful way, however, the claim that it does not say anywhere that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel contradicts the written record that Jesus attributed these words to Daniel, a fact which demonstrates the claim to be baseless and false.

Cordially,

[kosta50]

I just find it interesting that Jesus would have seen Daniel's Book as prophetic given that it is the last OT book to be written (circa 160 BC).

[daniel1212]

>”Sometimes questions can clarify what is being said.
Since Psalm 102 is addressed to Jehovah, the Father, how is it you say, “it is the Son”?<”

Because it is, as per the references. Ps. 102 is addressed to God, while Hebrews applies it the Son, which would be blasphemous if the Son were not God. Many others refs do likewise.

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. (Hebrews 1:8-12)

As for Jn. 1:1, again, the being called God includes the Word, notwithstanding the refusal to allow the poetic expression of Jn. 1:1 as conveying that. I see no problem myself, but which does not stand alone.

[count-your-change]

“Because it is, as per the references. Ps. 102 is addressed to God, while Hebrews applies it the Son, which would be blasphemous if the Son were not God. Many others refs do likewise”

However Paul doesn't confuse the Father with the Son. The Son is not the Father but as Jesus said (John 7:28, 29), he was a representative of his Father who could do nothing on his own initiative. (John 5:19).

“... which would be blasphemous if the Son were not God.”

Certainly not! Paul had many instances of agents of the Father, being called God when they acted at His direction.
Genesis chapter 22 has an angel speaking to Abraham as though the angel were God. In verse 12 the angel says,

‘Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.’

In Genesis 32:24 Jacob grapples with “a man” yet says Jacob in verse 30, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”

That the agent and the one empowering him are both spoken of as acting is thus hardly novel language or concept by Paul.

As John 1:3 says, ‘All things were made through the Logos’,.
The Logos was the agent or channel. He was with God in the beginning.

Psalm 45 is directed to the king that has God as his throne or source of authority not to God the Father. And it is that sense that Paul quotes it.

[Diamond]

What is really interesting is how this pseudonymous forger in 165 b.c. was so good that he used the unique Imperial Aramaic textual and linguistic styles of of a much earlier era (unlike the other pseudonymous writings of his own era in which word order is reversed) and that he also demonstrated such intimate familiarity with obscure and arcane details of Babylonian and Persian government systems that had already been forgotten hundreds of years before his time.

Not only that, by very deviously omitting any information from the era of Antiochus IV that would have mattered to contemporary readers because that would have tipped off his readers to the scam, he was also managed to bamboozle those Qumran apocalyptic nut-jobs that the work was inspired, even though that Antiochus thing didn't quite work out as he predicted by the ushering in of the Messianic age.

And that credulous messianic dupe Jesus got taken in by it as well, although he himself wasn't above using deception for noble purposes because he used the work to stage the date of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his subsequent trial and execution by the Romans, and he even tricked the Romans into destroying the temple in 70 A.D.

What do you think - do I need the </sarcasm> tag here?

Cordially,

[kosta50]

Of course the scholars who place the Book of Daniel in 165 BC know nothing. Only scholars who unquestionably accept the Bible for its word know better. And of course, everything Jesus says in the NT is exactly what he said...What do you think - do I need the </sarcasm> tag here?

Cordially

[MarkBsnr]

So when Jesus explicitly quoted Daniel, called him a prophet, and endorsed the words, "The Abomination of Desolation" he says were SPOKEN BY DANIEL, from WHAT was he quoting?

Obviously the Book of Daniel.

Either way, the words, ‘The Abomination of Desolation’ quoted by Jesus appears in Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11.

Yes. And?

Never mind the incontrovertible facts that Daniel 7:1 states that, "He wrote down the substance of his dream", or that there are various 1st person references by Daniel in Chapters 7 through 12.

And who says that that means that Daniel was the writer?

If the claim that it does not say anywhere that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel is intended to be understood in the hyper-literal, idiotic sense of, 'nowhere does it say, "Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel"', then the claim is so stupid as to be unworthy of a dignified reply.

Who says that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel?

Understood in any meaningful way, however, the claim that it does not say anywhere that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel contradicts the written record that Jesus attributed these words to Daniel, a fact which demonstrates the claim to be baseless and false.

Since the actual Scripture is that Daniel wrote down the substance of his dream and there is no futher claim that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel, where is your claim? I can write down the substance of my dream and you can write a book about it, for instance.