Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
WRT the RCC asserting its authority just as that of "the seat of Moses", you need only look to this very thread and those of your "side" who asserted such. Also, there are many Catholic apologists who also assert such. See http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp, who says:
Turn to Matthew 23, verses 1 and 2, "Then said Jesus to the crowds and to His disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do, for they preach but they don't practice.'" They preach, but they don't practice what they preach. What's he saying? Jesus says, "The scribes and the Pharisees." Now, what does Jesus think of the scribes and the Pharisees? Well, read the rest of Matthew 23 and you will discover it. He goes on in this chapter to call the scribes and the Pharisees "fools, hypocrites, blind guides, vipers and whitewashed tombs." He doesn't think too highly of the scribes and the Pharisees, does He?
But what does He say here? "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat." Therefore, "you have to," it's in the imperative tense, "You have to practice and observe whatever they tell you." "Whatever they tell you," you have to practice and observe. Why? Because they sit on Moses' cathedras. The Greek word is "cathedra". The Church, when it speaks of Peter's authority and the Popes speaking ex-cathedra are simply borrowing from Jesus' teaching.
The whole idea of "ex-cathedra" from the chair/seat of St. Peter came about from the very idea of the Seat of Moses. So, I'm NOT making anything up here, NL. Though the church, Paul said, is supposed to be the support and upholder of the truth, whatever it teaches MUST be backed up by the revealed word of God. What the Apostles taught those first believers is in there and, no matter what authority a church has by anointing, it becomes worthless if the truths are not upheld. There is no automatic approval of everything the "church" says if it goes against God's word. We believe the Roman Catholic Church HAS abandoned that holy truth in some of the major areas of the Christian faith so that is why we have left. It has nothing to do with hatred but only with speaking the truth in love, when and where ever we are led by the Lord.
I totally get it that you are a good and faithful Roman Catholic and you have a lot riding on them being right about everything they say is right, but sometimes I wonder if the reason why you so adamantly defend against any and all who dare to criticize the Catholic Church is because so much of what we say makes sense and maybe there is a glimmer of truth that bothers you. Perhaps that is your reason, I don't claim to be reading your mind nor questioning your motives. But, by the same token, why can't you also respect the motives we who have been Catholics have - that of leading others to the light of truth and that is nothing that I need nor want to lie about.
I apologize if you took it that I was calling you a liar, I never intended that. I was trying to pointing out that you had bought into the lie. Respect your faith enough to accept that it will stand up to and be strengthened by the truth.
There is no point in quarreling over verifiable history. As uncomfortable as it may be it is what it is and is not dependent upon faith or subject to theological influence.
Simply ask yourself this, if the Canon did not exist prior to Trent how was the statement of work established for St. Jerome in 383 AD to produce a Bible identical to the Bible reaffirmed some 1200 years later in Trent?
“But what does He say here? “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat.” Therefore, “you have to,” it’s in the imperative tense, “You have to practice and observe whatever they tell you.” “Whatever they tell you,” you have to practice and observe.”
I think they mean “imperative MOOD”, not tense, which only means a command of whatever force and it was in the active voice, meaning the people Jesus spoke to were to perform the thing commanded as an ongoing act.
I accept your apology. I am not "uncomfortable" about verifiable history, in fact, I love learning about all kinds of history. Concerning the canon, I think a few things keep being left out of your responses back to me.
I have NEVER stated that canons compiled by the "church" excluded the Apocryphal books. What I have said repeatedly is that they were not considered on par with the already established, divinely-inspired Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament by MOST of the church theologians. Some more so than others. Even Jerome hesitated to translate them because he did not consider them inspired Scripture and, when he was commanded to, did so but separated them in a section.
It is part of history that the various canons were NOT dogmatic, official, nor ecumenical else the decrees of Trent would not have been necessary. Even now, the canon the Orthodox Church uses is different than that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Finally, there is no real going around the truth that these books were never sanctioned by the Jewish leaders, historians, Targums, etc. Though they were included in jars found in the Dead Sea, they were not complete, not included with the other OT books and not written in Hebrew - which would have been a sure sign that they were not used in Temple worship. If you want to accept these books as fully inspired as Scripture and you want to believe they came from the breath of God, go ahead, just try to hold off on condemning others who hold the Word of God to the high standards He, himself, set up. God's word will never fail.
Amen bb!
We can fool others,we can even fool ourselves but there is no way in heaven or earth that we can fool Him!...."...all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." (Hebrews 4:13)
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
...and keeping the following in mind...
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)
....that can be an unpleasant thought to say the least!.I'd wager the carnal mind wants to stay as far away from anything that might "discern the thoughts and intents of the heart" as possible.
Speaking for myself,I know that being totally honest with God is not as easy as it might sound.Because I have a heart that can deceive me,a heart that I do not fully know but I also have a God-given conscience that tells me when I am fudging His Word.
Our 'baggage' can lie to us and we'll not be rid of it until we allow God to tip us upside down.
What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?
Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee
He knows...and He loves me still!
God bless
NL: No it doesn't. Jesus fulfilled the Old Law and established the Church endowed with the power to teach. It did not replace anything.
And yet in your previous post you said this:God gave us the Catholic Church in order to, among other things, to give us a Bible.
Do try to keep track of what you are saying and be consistent.
The Catholic church is trying desperately to put its claims of spiritual authority over EVERY one on the planet beyond dispute. Their bogus claims to have *written* the Bible, that without the church the Bible would not exist, that since they're the ones responsible for *writing * it, they can be the only ones to *properly* interpret it, etc, ad nauseum, are more than transparent.
The problem they have is that too many people have more than enough discernment to see through it. The Holy Spirit will see to it that people see through the lies of the enemy and see the truth, revealed in Scripture for all to read themselves.
It's really pathetic to see the Catholic church still promulgating the lie that the individual believer is incapable of being led by the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture as Jesus promised we would be.
That's the beauty of Scripture. It never changes.
You never gave an answer. It’s the Word of God but it didn’t come complete from Heaven, so...
The Word of God IS complete.
It's delusion, plain and simple, that anyone who thinks that simply compiling the Bible into one volume makes them responsible for *writing* it.
No. The Catholic church did NOT give us Scripture. God the Holy Spirit did and Scripture was recognizes as such well before the Catholic church compiled it and put its stamp of approval on it, as if the Word of God NEEDED the RCC stamp of approval.
What hubris.
“Do try to keep track of what you are saying and be consistent.”
~ ~ ~
Really...
You should too sister, admitting here finally the Church “compiled” the Canon. * Holy Scripture * is a Catholic book.
metmom:
“It’s delusion, plain and simple, that anyone who thinks that simply compiling the Bible into one volume makes them responsible for *writing* it.”
Notice the last few sentences, you gotta ask the three questions.
The Council of Trent was called in 1545 in response to the protestant reformation. One of the things they accomplished at Trent was a “reaffirmation that the 7 disputed books were indeed inspired and would continue to be included in the canon of the Old Testament”. They did not add them. They merely reconfirmed that they should be there. All Christian Bibles for the first 1500 years of Christianity had 46 books in the Old Testament, and all Catholic Bibles today continue to have them. I have noticed that even some King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?
History of the canons of the Old Testament can be confirmed by checking the records of the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. They are readily available, as is St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint.
Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. As such, the Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever over Christianity. Suppose that next month of this year, the Jews decided to call a council in order to remove Isaiah and Jeremiah from the Old Testament and then voted to do it.
> Would Protestants also remove these books from the King James bible? It would seem they have already set a precedent. Why do Protestants accept the ruling of the Jewish Council of Jamnia, and at the same time reject the ruling of the Christian Council of Carthage regarding the Old Testament canon? Further still, why do they accept the canon of the New Testament which was decided at the same Christian Council? <
INDEED.
HOWEVER, POWER MONGERING, particularly !!!TRADITIONAL!!! and RELIGIOUS power mongering
ALWAYS have a long list of rationalizations to self-servingly support said power-mongering.
It’s really pathetic to see the Catholic church still promulgating the lie that the individual believer is incapable of being led by the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture as Jesus promised we would be.
“INDEED.
HOWEVER, POWER MONGERING, particularly !!!TRADITIONAL!!! and RELIGIOUS power mongering
ALWAYS have a long list of rationalizations to self-servingly support said power-mongering.”
~ ~ ~
“Indeed”....
What are you agreeing for, please explain? Scripture
states there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
It can’t be God the Holy Spirit leading the individual to understand Scripture. If that were true, all of them would believe the same.
Protestants are inconsistent in belief. How many denominations and non-denominations are there now?
Power mongering is a lame protest. Everyone has free will,
no on can make you do anything.
Thus something like the gospel accounts might be accepted as part of the Bible canon immediately as they were quickly circulated while other writings like Jude's might take far longer but it through the operation of God's spirit that the cnon was set not the imprimatur of councils.
This same spirit of discernment would weed many false writings such the numerous pseudo-gospels and frauds such as The Infancy Gospels of James or Thomas.
With John's writings we have the completed canon to compare anything that purports to be scripture with and so that special gift of discernment is no longer needed as Paul foretold. (1 Cor. 13:8-13)
What constituted Scripture in Jesus day was broadly divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, (Luke 24:44,45) with no recognition of any apocrypha by any Bible writer.
The apocrypha were never “taken out” of the Bible, they were never part of it.
“I have noticed that even some King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?”
You might ask the publishers since the 1611 edition of the AV had the apocrypha included. Of interest too in the 1611 edition are the translators’ comments.
“It is noteworthy that one of the gifts of the spirit Paul listed was the ability of some individuals in the congregations to distinguish between true and false writings. (1 Cor, 12:10)”
~ ~ ~
1Cor 12:10
To another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of speeches.
Which one of the gifts is the gift to distinguish between true and false writings? God gave the gift to interpret Scripture to the Church, the RCC not “some individuals in the congregations.”
Councils, whether Jewish or Catholic could only give their approval to what already existed. But as Josephus commented in “Against Apion” the Jewish canon recognized some 27 books as Scripture, 27 since some books were combined.
THERE WERE TWO JEWISH OLD TESTAMENT CANONS. MARTIN LUTHER REMOVED THE ALEXANDRIAN CANON AND KEPT THE PALESTINIAN CANON. THE PALESTINIAN JEWS NOT ONLY REJECTED THE SEVEN BOOKS, THEY REJECTED THE NEW TESTAMENT!
What constituted Scripture in Jesus day was broadly divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, (Luke 24:44,45) with no recognition of any apocrypha by any Bible writer.
SO WHAT, THE REJECTION OF THOSE 7 BOOKS THE FIRST TIME BY THE PALESTINIAN JEWISH COUNCIL CAME AFTER OUR LORD’S DEATH.
The apocrypha were never “taken out” of the Bible, they were never part of it.
THERE WERE 73 BOOKS THAT INCLUDES YOUR TERM, APOCRYPHA AND CALLED THE DEUTERO-CANONICAL BOOKS BY CATHOLICS IN THE FIRST BIBLE.
ST. JEROME CONSIDERED THE SEVEN DEUTERO-CANONICAL BOOKS TO BE not INSPIRED BY GOD, BUT HE WAS COMISSIONED BY POPE DAMASUS TO TRANSLATE ALL 73 BOOKS INTO LATIN. POPE DAMASUS CONSIDERDED TH 7 DC (apocrypha) BOOKS TO BE INSPIRED BY GOD. LATER IN 1946, AFTER THE FINDING OF THE DEAD-SEA SCROLLS, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THESE 7 DC BOOKS WERE USED BY THE JEWS IN ALEXANDRIA, EVEN IN THEIR SERVICES. THIS VERFIES THAT POPE DAMASUS WAS CORRECT.
“I have noticed that even SOME King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?”
THE SEVEN BOOKS REJECTED BY LUTHER WERE INCLUDED IN THE 1611 KJV, BUT NOT IN LATER KJV BIBLES.
You might ask the publishers since the 1611 edition of the AV had the apocrypha included. Of interest too in the 1611 edition are the translators’ comments.
ONLY FOUND IN THE 1611 KJV.
The Catholic church has what it calls the “magesterium”, the Muslims have their Muhammad, the Mormons have their John Smith, and true Christians have scripture.
That is not true unless you are looking at CHURCHES to save you. *Faith* does not equate to Roman Catholicism.
Believers who have put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation have been baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. Once is all it takes to be saved.
And yet Catholics continue to choose to ignore the numerous rites of Catholicism. There is no unity amongst them as the Roman rite demands submission to the Roman pontiff and the EO don't recognize his supreme authority. There are differences in doctrine between the rites, likely as a matter of INTERPRETATION of the writings of the church fathers./
Imagine that.
The pretense by Catholics of the kind of unity that they demand of Protestantism is a sham. It simply dos not exist and the number of rites in Catholicism demonstrates that.
Power mongering is a lame protest. Everyone has free will, no on can make you do anything.
*Inquisition*.
The Catholic church makes claims to be the only path of salvation, which can be substantiated by the Catechism of the Catholic church and writings of its popes through the ages. It hangs people's eternal destiny over their heads for not capitulating to its teachings.
Some *free will*.
Blackmail is never ethical.
Any church that claims salvation is through it is wrong and guilty of the same kind of power mongering.
Salvation is through faith in Christ and faith in Christ alone. That leaves people free to worship with whichever assembly they choose.
There is unity IN CHRIST, not in denominationalism. Churchianity never saved anyone.
As has been pointed out numerous times, the logic behind the premise that being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ makes one the assuredly infallible interpreter of it, and that promises of God’s abiding presence and guidance, and historical decent of office assurance perpetuation thru them, effectively nukes the church.
For to Israel were such promises given, (Dt. 4:31; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34, etc.) and was that instrument and steward, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 9:5)
And thus they challenged the authority of the itinerant preacher of Galilee, (Mk. 11:28-33) faith in Whom the church began, in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) but who presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation by them that Scripture did not afford them.
And thus the Lord reproved them by Scripture, that being the manifest transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and established His own authority upon Scripture and the attestation it provides for, as did the apostles. More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2885062/posts?page=185#185
Interesting who the different groups look to as their authority.
It tells a lot about who they're trusting in.
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.