Magisterium will NEVER replace the higher teaching of the HOLY SPIRIT

Bible | 2011 | bibletruth

[kosta50]

I once met with an Orthodox priest during my religious search...I asked him, then what was the difference between the two of us sitting there in his attic office conversing and Adam in the Garden of Eden. None, he said.

There was probably a deeper meaning in what he said but you failed to grasp it. In the end, there is no difference between us and Adam, if you think about it. But not every Orthodox priest is the sharpest knife in the kitchen or an angel. St. John Chrysostomos wrote 17 centuries ago that the way to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops! Why? Because they are often the biggest sinners, selfish, proud, egotistical, power hungry, etc. when they should be held to higher standards, beyond reproach.

Maybe the vile passions are a Southern thing as well? I guess that's why we tend to believe in "total depravity" and letting G-d do all the work!

Part of the reasons I became an agnostic is because of what I saw Christians say to other Christians, right here on the FR! We are no different than Abel and Cain, CZ. Some people here sound like they would torch the "apostate" in a heartbeat, if they could, over what is essentially a man-made religion.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Okay, but you wrote "These are the things created [not programmed to appear!] 'in the twilight' between the first Sixth Day and the first Shabbat". So, where was the she-ass all this time since her creation and the moment when she was supposed to appear?

Now who's being a literalist? ;-)

Are you saying God pre-created everything that is to appear, including the souls of all humans who have lived or will live? Now, that (the pre-existence of the souls) is mostly definitely not an Orthodox/Catholic belief.

Maybe not, but I bet it ain't as bad as Biblical literalism!!!!!

Before iron they used bronze and before bronze they used sheet rocks or wet wood, or tongs made of wooden spoons filled with rocks, etc. Improvise, and overcome.

::Salutes:: Yes sir, Gunny Highway! ;-)

Yes, interesting exchange. I don't think he is calling your an ignoramus, CZ. To the contrary, I think he was impressed with your knowledge. But he also drew a line, namely that you as a Noachide have no business in judging who is orthodox and who is apostate. That is to be expected. You are simply not one of them, no matter how much you know.

Jews themselves label themselves as "Orthodox," "Reform," Conservative," "Reconstructionist," etc. I merely point out that "Orthodoxy" is the term used among 'Ashkenazim for the historical Judaism Proper that existed before the enlightenment, while Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist are part of that enlightenment. I do not define who a Jew is; that's done by Halakhah. Everybody born to a Jewish mother or who converts keHalakhah to Judaism is Jewish--period. I do wish he'd stop misinterpreting my position as that only Orthodox 'Ashkenazim are Torah Jews. "Orthodoxy" is merely the term 'Ashkeanzi Torah Jews have come to use for themselves.

It's just a culture, CZ. To a Greek, it doesn't matter if the story is true or not, it is part of their faith and it's good and necessary in their minds to give such stories their proper place, to use them as guides and for edification, whether factual or symbolic.

You see, for whatever reason, I simply am not capable of understanding that position. Why would G-d relate events that never happened without clearly marking them as such?

Greeks treat the "pillars" of the Faith as facts

The stories are my pillars, and I cannot help it. If the stories have no facticity, then what use are they? Why make them up or write them down? Because "primitive man" lacked the vocabulary for communicating abstract concepts and had to get all his ideas across by telling stories? I don't think so.

By the way, why have I become CZ in the last few posts to me?

I'm currently awaiting a very important phone call. While you and I and harmonium argue I'm undergoing a major life disruption.

Courtesy ping to harmonium simply because I mentioned him.

[kosta50]

Yes sir, Gunny Highway! ;-)

At least we watch the same movies. :)

I do not define who a Jew is; that's done by Halakhah...

I realize that. The way I read it, harmonium was saying you are educated but this is a peer issue and you are not among the peers.

You see, for whatever reason, I simply am not capable of understanding that position. Why would G-d relate events that never happened without clearly marking them as such?

Parables are educational examples. Clearly it is irrelevant if they are factual or not. It's the message they convey for the listeners to take home that matters, i.e. a homily.

By the way, why have I become CZ in the last few posts to me?

Because I am dyslexic. :) My apologies ZC.

[MarkBsnr]

Bingo! More "Paulinaity", Mark. The more you dig the more you will find how the whole thing choreographed, ex post facto!

Still, I wonder what the original Paul really had to say.

Of course this indicates that the Church was divided between the Pauline and Petrine camps, and that Christian beliefs were not held "everywhere and always" (i.e. catholic) from the Pentecost, as the official Church claims.

We have spoken several times about the harmonizing efforts of the Church.

Anyway, the rest of it is correct. And who was Origen? First, he was Greek. Second, he is one of the most influential late 2nd century Christian apologetics. In fact he is largely responsible for the "orthodox doctrine" in the early Church. It was him who insisted Mary is the Ever-Virgin Theotokos.

Yet, he was disgraced as a heretic. His canon contained many Gnostic works, which he considered "inspired". His triniatrianism is subordinaitonalist. He taught universal salvation, and the pre-existence of the souls, both of which are officially heretical. In the second half of his life, he embraced Gnosticism.

So, the Church basically cherry-picked a little here and a little there of that what was desirable and rejected the rest.

That is why none of the Church Fathers on their own are considered authoritative. That is the purpose of the Magisterium.

[MarkBsnr]

Somehow, it was more fitting the Christian doctrine to choose the former which is the meaning it never had in Hebrew! Just as some scribe in 1 Tim 3:16 changed the word ΟΣ (he) to ΘΣ (a ligature for Theos, God)! Close enough for doctrinal manipulation. We know this was done deliberately because whoever did it did so in a slightly contrasting ink.

So, the deeper you dig, the more you see the manipulating work that was taking place in the development of early Christianity, which remains largely unknown by your average Joe. These are not slanders, but facts, and some people just can't handle the truth.

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

Yes, Mark, but think about it, what is the earliest copy of Matthew 4? The oldest known Papyrus, P102, dated at end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century AD. The famous Chester-Beatry collection (end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd century AD) contains only Matthew's chapters 20, 21, 25, and 26. Then other ealry collection, the Bodmer Papyri, specifically Bodmer XIX contains a section of Matthew'as Gospel 14:28-28:20 only.

So, the earliest copy of Matthew 4 is rather late. Thre copies of Mark 1 and Luke 1 fair no better than the 3rd century. This leaves plenty of room for the story to fit the already developed and established beliefs. In absence of earlier copies and/or originals, we can't say for sure.

The nest best approach is to search what the early Christian apologetics and Church Fathers wrote on the temptation of Jesus referencing the earlier copies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke the way Eusebius references the earlier copy of the Great Commission without the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost (no less than 17 times before Nicene 1)!

It is well and interesting, but the Church still has decreed them Canon.

It is notable to mention that the Gospel accounts differ, as to what happened before and after. And John's Gospel omits it altogether.

And none of the accounts of Resurrection Sunday or the inscription above Jesus' head on the Cross agree either.

Is it important?

[MarkBsnr]

The Gospels were not originally identified as to the author.

How do you know that?

Let me put it this way: where do you find evidence that the identified authors wrote the Gospels?

Does it matter who penned it?

Only to the extent that it was or was not penned with Apostolic imprimatur.

Was it given the Church imprimatur?

Do you reject Daniel?

No. Why would I? Are you going to tell me that the LORD Jesus Christ was mistaken when he referred to the visions of Daniel as true prophecies and explicitly named Daniel as their writer?

Where does Jesus explicitly name Daniel as the author?

[kosta50]

That is the purpose of the Magisterium

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

[kosta50]

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.

Is it important?

Depends.

[Diamond]

Let me put it this way: where do you find evidence that the identified authors wrote the Gospels?

If you look at my posts previously in this thread you will see some of the evidence. One of the evidences concerns the question I have been asking you, to which I have not yet seen a specific answer: If the Gospels were not originally identified as to the author, as you claimed, why is there no other surviving tradition of another author for the Gospels? If the Gospels did not receive their titles early inevitably a multiplicity of titles would have arisen as people speculated about who had written them, a problem which would have only gotten worse with the passage of time and increasing number of copies being circulated and being given different titles by different libraries and collectors.

Moreover, as I have asked you before, how did these anonymous writers convince the early church that they knew what they were writing about? How could the early church accept them as authoritative unless they knew who had written them and that the writers knew what they were writing about? And how in the world did these anonymous writers manage to bamboozle first and second generation eyewitnesses that their anonymous writings were authoritative? Why was there, as far as we know from the surviving evidence, no speculation about who had written these "anonymous" Gospels?

If you are going to make a claim, as you did, that the Gospels were not originally identified as to the author then the burden of proof to provide positive evidence for the claim is on you. You need to explain how to overcome the foregoing critical problems inherent in your claim.

Was it given the Church imprimatur?

Yes. These writings came to be recognized as inspired revelation of God which is the source of their authority, and in the first 2 centuries of the Church apostolic authenticity and/or authority was the criteria for deciding to keep or reject a particular writing.

Where does Jesus explicitly name Daniel as the author?

Matthew 24:15-16

Cordially,

[MarkBsnr]

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

Is that why there are small differences in the canon of Scripture?

[MarkBsnr]

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

I thought that both pseudoephigraphic works and textual revision were common in Jewish writings during the several centuries before Christ, and after.

[MarkBsnr]

Let me put it this way: where do you find evidence that the identified authors wrote the Gospels?

If you look at my posts previously in this thread you will see some of the evidence.

Some of the evidence, sure. But let us look at a good place of analysis. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1988/who-wrote-the-bible-part-4 uses these sources:

The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, Belknap Press, 1987

The Gospel of John, by William Barclay, Westminster John Knox Press, 1975

The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible, by Robin Lane Fox, Knopf, 1992

The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins, by Burton Mack, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993

Testament, by David Morell, Warner Books, 1993

The Synoptic Gospels, by Keith F. Nickle, John Knox Press, 1980

The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders, Penguin Books, 1993

The Catholic Encyclopedia - online at www.newadvent.org/cathen/

in order to arrive at this:

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.

The first generation of Christians didn't see any need for a permanent written record of the sayings and stories of Jesus. Jesus' return and the restoration of the Kingdom of God on earth were imminent--why bother preserving stories if the world was about to end? Stories were simply passed along orally, primarily as a means of preaching and convincing outsiders. But as the first generation began to die off and hopes for the Second Coming dimmed, there was a need to preserve Jesus' words and deeds for posterity.

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. Some argued for the physical resurrection, with the mantle of leadership falling on those who had experienced it firsthand: the apostles. Others said the resurrection was a spiritual event that anyone could experience. Some thought this latter "heresy" would have led the church away from an organized entity into a situation where anyone could judge the truth for themselves. As Elaine Pagels points out in The Gnostic Gospel, this was no trivial matter. The decision on which interpretation was "correct" was central to the future of the church.

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."

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. 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?

Where does Jesus explicitly name Daniel as the author?

Matthew 24:15-16

Wrong. Your NIV source says:

15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

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

[kosta50]

[Mark, the Eastern Church doesn't have a "Magisterium."] Is that why there are small differences in the canon of Scripture?

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

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.

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.

[kosta50]

“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” should read “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 is Orthodox, regardless of their canon.”

[daniel1212]

It is a quite simple question based upon your quote. If it is a question you don't care to deal with, o.k., so be it, but if so at least make that clear.

I was asking for a clarification, as i see no dilemma.

You asked, "But which one is Father and which one is Son if both are definite, “the” God? in John 1:1" but the answer is quite obvious. If the Word was both with God and was God, then you have at least a duality, and if the the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth, (n. 14) with v. 17 identifying Him as Jesus Christ, and v. 18 as the Son who is in the bosom of the Father, who declares/manifests God, then Word is the Son, and God consists at least of the Father and the Son. The Spirit is mentioned in v. 33, and which other texts attributing personhood and Deity to Him.

I know you've thought about the subject a good deal as your work at that link [hyperlinked added]. I'm trying to get a bit more into your thinking if you will.

I have indeed wrested with this, seeking the truth, and after praying and consideration of all that is said, i feel that the evidence demands the conclusion that the Holy Spirit, mainly thru John as well as Hebrews and other texts, is purposely if often subtly declaring the Son to be God, and that the objections to that do not warrant a contrary conclusion.

[kosta50]

I thought that both pseudoephigraphic works and textual revision were common in Jewish writings during the several centuries before Christ, and after.

Which revisions? Each Jewish sect, be it Sadducees, Essenses, Samaritans, Pharisees, Alexandrian Jews, etc. had their versions of the books. The only sect that survived and claims monopoly on Judaism, is the rabbinic Judaism of the Pharisees and their scriptures (Masoretic Text), or Tanakh, aka the "Old Testament".

The oldest copy of the Tanakh (10th century AD, Moscow synagogue) fully agrees with all other copies of the Masoretic Text scrolls made prior or subsequent to that date. So, unlike Christian books, the Jewish books retained remarkable consistency.

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.

[count-your-change]

John certainly wasn’t saying the God was the God and the Logos was also the God, was he? That seems to be what you are saying if both times “God” appears in John 1:1 is definite, “THE” God.

[OLD REGGIE]

Anyway, the rest of it is correct. And who was Origen? First, he was Greek. Second, he is one of the most influential late 2nd century Christian apologetics. In fact he is largely responsible for the "orthodox doctrine" in the early Church. It was him who insisted Mary is the Ever-Virgin Theotokos.

Yet, he was disgraced as a heretic. His canon contained many Gnostic works, which he considered "inspired". His triniatrianism is subordinaitonalist. He taught universal salvation, and the pre-existence of the souls, both of which are officially heretical. In the second half of his life, he embraced Gnosticism.

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

[OLD REGGIE]

That is the purpose of the Magisterium

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.

[MarkBsnr]

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

You mean like this one?