Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?
As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.
So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.
The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:
Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.
Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama…
I know, I know.
Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…
Okay, smart guy.
Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.
Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.
Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.
Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?
In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….
The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.
I’ll say one thing for you...you can sure dig up the dumbest essays I’ve ever seen from Catholics who like to pretend they are theologians! It was such a nice, but short, respite from the usual.
How true.... God can set a stage better than Busby Berkeley!
Glad you gained something from my posts, hopefully we can all learn a little something and get closer to God’s truth. I know I have a lot to learn to get the whole picture too :)
Here's an example of that dumb stuff. The "Church" he refers to is, of course, the Roman Catholic Church and he says it spread and gained political clout then he claims "Christians" began to shamefully mistreat the Jews. The only thing is, genuine Christians weren't the ones doing these acts since the Holy Spirit would not be leading them to act against the law of God and do wrong to their neighbors. So, the "Church" (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church) was really who did the persecuting and mistreating not only to Jews but to the genuine Christians who refused to follow the false religious leaders who presumed to speak and act for all of Christendom. This writer, in trying to sound humorous, only exposes his own lack of knowledge about the truth and the joke's on him.
Reading the RF forum here for the last decade has made me thankfull I was an atheist before my heart was nuked by God.
There is a difference between substance and property. The divine substance (epiousios) in the Eucharist has no relation to its host which maintains the properties of bread. Think of this as an encounter with the Jesus in the first century. Although He was 100% man and 100% God there would be no way for you to scientifically or forensically establish His divinity.
Peace be with you
“And that’s precisely the question Cajetan answers. They are canonical. “
You didn’t even bother to read the quote. Cajetan differentiates between the two “canonicals.” The apocrypha are only considered useful so far as they provide “edification of the faithful.” They are not brought over for matters of confirming doctrine. IOW, they do are not useful for reproof, correction, for doctrine, etc, but are useful in the same sense as a good Christian movie is useful.
“Hmm, that wouldn’t have anything to do with your church’s proscriptions of Incense, now would it? I can see why Luther might want to chop that out of his bible.”
It has to do with my church’s proscription against witchcraft as found in the Books of Moses. The angel isn’t teaching to burn incense. He is teaching how to use fish guts to ward off evil spirits.
““Truly, truly. This I tell you - whatsoever you did for the least of these - you also did for me.””
This does not vindicate Tobit’s teaching that alms giving results in the washing away of sins, and wards off death and darkness.
“You’ve been called out on this before. King of Babylon became King of Assyria when Babylon defeated Assyria.”
So did the King of Babylon move from ruling in Babylon to ruling in Ninveh?
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in NINIVE the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
Sorry, but that is illogical.
“Even to describes an upper bounded limit.”
The upper bounded limit is 70 years:
Jer_25:11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
Jer_25:12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.
Jer_29:10 For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.
Dan_9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
Zec_7:5 Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh month, even those seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me?
“Oddly fitting to go with the Epistles of the ‘least of the Apostles”.”
What?
“Ah, so we accept the Magisterium when it agrees with you and disregard the Magisterium when it disagrees with you.”
You’d be surprised how much the Magisterium of those centuries disagreed with you.
For example, “Pope” Gregory the 1st maintained that the See of Peter was ruled by three Bishops. Thus, the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome were all “Popes” as you would today define them.:
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
“Do you believe that the Magisterium has authority over the Body of Christ?”
Obviously not, since it is the Word of God that must have authority over the Word’s Body.
“So you admit “
I admit that all of the Epistles of Paul are scripture, as defined by the scripture itself. But as to “where they come from.” They come from the hands of Paul who wrote them and distributed them among the church, as ordained by God. Ignatius and Polycarp, for example, quotes from the vast majority of the New Testament, indicating their usage and well-known place in the church long before the end of the first century. Meanwhile, none of these writers, not even Clement, mentions the Papacy or its traditions.
Bibles existed before Gutenberg.
I just find the idea of copyrights to the Bible as nonsense.
“The divine substance (epiousios) in the Eucharist has no relation to its host which maintains the properties of bread.”
Exactly, as the divine substance of God’s Word has no relation to the paper and ink, which maintain the properties of paper and ink. The bread is the body of Christ, Christ is the Word, and the Word is the bread of life. Those terms are not coincidental or inconsequential, but direct analogs, pointing to the same divine being, Jesus Christ.
Excellent answer! The Divinely-inspired (which means "God-breathed") Scriptures have authority over anything and anyone who presumes to be above them. Man can NEVER be the authority over God's word!
“I just find the idea of copyrights to the Bible as nonsense.”
Of course they are nonsense. The Bible is, in point of fact, the greatest example of “Public Domain” that exists, since its Author explicitly commanded for it to be distributed freely to everyone in the entire world!
“Man can NEVER be the authority over God’s word!”
Amen, and God have mercy on anyone who presumes to elevate themselves so.
Ever wonder why it was you began to read it yourself...being an atheist and all?
I began reading it because I needed some answers for a situation I was facing. When you're out of resources and those you have aren't coming thru with what you need to hear....I figured I'd go to the only place I hadn't looked which might shed some light on the situation.
God never addressed the situation I went there for.....He did a U-turn instead!
BTW I'm still laughing he “nuked your heart”....never heard it quite said that way....
Amen! You got that right!!!
Hey...I like the RF forum....but you have to know the fur can fly from time to time going in. If the kitchen gets to hot...as is said.
It’s a good place to learn and it will challenge you, I’ve found, always drives me back to His word...and for that alone, it’s a good place....and I DO learn!
No but some certainly seem to go to a lot of trouble to diminish it's importance.After all,so much of it is simply poetic stories and can't be taken at face value.
.....”The Divinely-inspired (which means “God-breathed”) Scriptures have authority over anything and anyone who presumes to be above them. Man can NEVER be the authority over God’s word!”.....
I love it when truth is spoken!
I don't mind the flying fur it's the mind-lock tradition seems to have that I can do without and it's that that makes me thankfull for the lack of 'religious' upbringing I had.
When it dawned on me what I was actually reading it wasn't smothered by religion.Rather it blew up in my face!
.......”The Bible is, in point of fact, the greatest example of “Public Domain” that exists”.....
I understand there isn’t a single, not one, ancient document that has even remotely the support the Bible has for it’s authenticity.....not even close.
Ok...I understand your point...I think there are those who have been raised with religious upbringing who do, at some point have a need to discover what is true for themselves as well, rather than just hold to what someone taught them. It has to be real for them and not just teaching they are expected to believe.
But yes, you had a “clean slate”...God just zeroed right 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.