Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

Crisis Magazine ^ | October 3, 2014 | RICHARD BECKER

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

No, definitely not. If it is accurate, how can it be over any line?

---

Perhaps this is a better illustration as to how your post appeared based upon your behavior and actions (no “mind-reading” involved)...

Mark 12:13-27

Later, the Jewish leaders sent some Pharisees and some men from the group called Herodians to Jesus. They wanted to catch him saying something wrong. They went to Jesus and said, “Teacher, we know that you are an honest man. You are not afraid of what others think about you. All people are the same to you. And you teach the truth about God’s way. Tell us, is it right to pay taxes to Caesar? Should we pay them or not?”

But Jesus knew that these men were really trying to trick him. He said, “Why are you trying to catch me saying something wrong? Bring me a silver coin. Let me see it.” They gave Jesus a coin and he asked, “Whose picture is on the coin? And whose name is written on it?” They answered, “It is Caesar’s picture and Caesar’s name.”

Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” The men were amazed at what Jesus said.

Then some Sadducees came to Jesus. (Sadducees believe that no one will rise from death.) They asked him a question: “Teacher, Moses wrote that if a married man dies and had no children, his brother must marry the woman. Then they will have children for the dead brother. There were seven brothers. The first brother married but died. He had no children. So the second brother married the woman. But he also died and had no children. The same thing happened with the third brother. All seven brothers married the woman and died. None of the brothers had any children with her. And she was the last to die. But all seven brothers had married her. So at the time when people rise from death, whose wife will she be?”

Jesus answered, “How could you be so wrong? It’s because you don’t know what the Scriptures say. And you don’t know anything about God’s power. When people rise from death, there will be no marriage. People will not be married to each other. All people will be like angels in heaven. Surely you have read what God said about people rising from death. In the book where Moses wrote about the burning bush, it says that God told Moses this: ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ So they were not still dead, because he is the God only of living people. You Sadducees are so wrong!”

[BlueDragon]

"The Deuterocanon was a part of the Christian Scripture at the time of St. Paul’s writing..."

That is both misleading and erroneous assertion.

What we were discussing here pertained to what was Hebrew Scripture at that time --- which would be what Paul himself was referring to when he made mention of Scripture.

The abundance of evidence points against the Maccabean books and all the rest of the so-called deuterocanon having been inclusive of the corpus of writings known to Paul himself as Scripture.

There are too many witnesses arrayed against your own assumptions to the contrary.

I don’t respond to attempts at vague irony.

There was nothing vague in what I said to you, but it was your own vague assumptions and broad generalizations which were under investigation.

If you have a direct and plain question, I’ll answer.

If there are any "questions" those are for you to discover the answers for. I already know the correct answers...

Previously, as has been shown and discussed, Josephus witnessed directly as to what the corpus of Jewish Holy Writ was composed of. His testimony did not include the written works in dispute here.

Melito of Sardis, upon purposeful investigation of his own found the same corpus of writings as Josephus wrote of were still regarded by the Israelite Jews to be their own "Scripture" -- which is powerful evidence that the Apostle Paul when himself wrote of that same was NOT referring to those written works which you refer to as deuterocanon.

Previously, you had wrote;

"...the parts of the scripture unconverted Jews half a century later decided to like"

Suggesting as you have that the "unconverted Jews" retained only what they "half a century" [after Christ] "decided to like" -- means you are accusing those Jews of having redacted their own sacred writings.

Continuing along in the conversation, it appeared to me that allegation was based upon nothing more than what you imagine the Greek writings somewhat erroneously, misleadingly labeled Septuagint to have been precisely synonymous/matching to what Paul would have from his own perspective considered to be Scripture.

There is no logical room for assumptions such as you made [as in the immediate above highlighted] which again -- for the second time has been brought to your attention.

"...at the time of St. Paul’s writing, and he said “all scripture” is inspired."

At the time of Paul's writings, he did say all scripture was inspired -- but he did not say all Hebrew/Jewish religious writings were inspired -- thus those also "scripture".

Writings such as the Wisdom of Ben Sira (or The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach or merely Sirach), also called Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes) as the names for that writing indicate -- are but a preaching and collection of allegedly "wise" sayings, and as such were as Targum -- as I have already pointed out to you, although previously when doing so I was less explicit, not previously having singled out this one as Targum-like, early rabbinical period commentary.

That *some* Hellenized Jews who scarcely knew their own religion may have mistaken that writing (and possible others) as belonging to corpus of Hebrew Scripture most certainly does not equate with the Apostle Paul having held that same view.

Again -- the evidence is against those sort of assumptions, leaving it here to be that when Paul wrote of Scripture he was writing of that collection of writings identified by Josephus, and again identified in Targum dating to the 1st century.

That corresponds/agrees with what is now in content (as to 'books' themselves) what is known as Masoretic text -- which as to books the modern "Protestant" OT canon aligns with also.

If the Jews were to have as you previously insinuated -- redacted their own canon --- then you must show that to having occurred rather than merely assert that it did so on strength of further assumption as to the contents of Greek Septuagint circulating at the time of Christ, Paul, the rest of the Apostles, and early Hebrew/Jewish converts in Israel, with it there being also needed to to be established (by yourself, other than on strength of mere assertion) that any Greek inclusion of what Jerome termed Apocrypha was viewed by Paul as "Scripture".

Which is why I set before you twice, and now for a third time;

Here, again, you do need to establish (rather than merely assert or assume) that the Jews either;

lacked concept of what their own Holy Writ consisted of

OR changed what that consisted of some time soon after the overthrow of the Temple.

to which I may as well [again] add Paul to those whom you must show was of the list of those Jews who didn't know their own Scripture, mistaking various spurious writings and Targum-like rabbinical writings for being capital "S" Scripture.

In other words --- lean on something more than concept or notion of what Greek Septuagint may have been composed of, while including consideration that such writings were at the time of Christ written upon scrolls --- not bound in codex or 'book' form.

The scrolls were typically organized after the following manner;
Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")

This last category, "writings", was widely perceived to have been closed according to Josephus, as daniel1212 in comment #121 on this thread presented

limits his books to those written between the time of Moses and Artaxerxes, thus eliminating some apocryphal books, observing that "(Jewish) history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time."

[snip]

While other have different opinions, in the Tosfeta (supplement to the Mishnah) it states, "...the Holy Spirit departed after the death of Haggai, Zecharaiah, and Malachi. Thus Judaism defined the limits of the canon that was and still is accepted within the Jewish community." Once that limit was defined, there was little controversy. Some discussion was held over Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but the core and bulk of the OT was never disputed. (Tosfeta Sota 13.2, quoted by German theologian Leonhard Rost [1896-1979], Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971; http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)

If other scrolls came to be associated in the minds of some Hellenized Jews with those which previously had been their own Holy Writ -- that does not make those additional writings any more to be what Christ Himself came to fulfill, and include what He himself was referring to when He spoke of prophets having prophesied of Himself -- or in other words --- contents of Tanakh.

Some Christians, those in the know of such aspects and significant shadings of consideration towards various Jewish- origin texts which early on circulated with Christianity, later referred some of what you refer to as deuterocanon as "ecclesiastical", fit for reading in church setting, but not inspired and inerrant Scripture.

Previously you had said the Holy Ghost was author of the Septuagint.

One question was posed to you;

Who is it you think created the Septuagint

You answered;

The Holy Ghost.

yet you by-passed the others as she wrote;

"...and why did they? And then, to what version of it are you referring? Do you know the actual history of it?

There are several questions there, all of them inconvenient to the contention that can be more or less boiled down to a simple minded -- "if it was in the Greek Septuagint -- it was Hebrew Holy Writ".

Not only does that argument not fly, but upon critical examination, it no longer even rolls along the ground either.

I would suggest abandoning the little truckload of mix-and-match Catholic apologetic you have been engaging in on this thread, for the arguments won't stand up to scrutiny, despite all the wriggling and wiggling of wording to attempt to retain usage of that same pitiful argumentation.

This guy circles 'round all the usual (or typical) Catholic attempts to use the Apocrypha/deuterocanon as form of RC apologetic weapon and blasts it all smithereens.

I wonder if he ever manned a Vulcan cannon or flew one of these things? hehehh...

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

So you cannot answer “yes” you just spew examples that you know - if you actually were Catholic and taught as a Catholic is taught - are NOT examples of Godhood. Right?

---

Sixteen years of Catechism?

Twenty years in the Catholic Church including serving as a Lectern at the Altar?

Narses, you really presume too much.

[boatbums]

Really? You claim the Church taught you Mary is God?

It wasn't really a "simple yes or no answer" after all, was it? What's next, "you were poorly catechized"?

[boatbums]

And I attended “Our Lady of Assumption” Roman Catholic grade school.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

And I attended “Our Lady of Assumption” Roman Catholic grade school.

---

It seems many of us “low IQ” non-Catholics were raised in the Catholic Church.

I’d love for these mockers to set aside their Mary worship, rituals and traditions for one month and simply read His word, focus on Him and pray to him in His name alone.

I don’t expect it to happen but it would be amazing.

[narses]

” It wasn’t really a “simple yes or no answer” after all, was it? “

No it wasn’t. Does that mean you cannot answer it with a simple “yes”?

[narses]

“Pointing out” something with an opinion about other posters as if it is a fact is personal and considered mindreading as you can not know another poster’s thoughts.

Please consider carefully the above points as mods don’t wish to spend anymore time removing your posts.

461 posted on 10/5/2014 4:21:01 PM by Religion Moderator

“What’s next, “you were poorly catechized”?”

[narses]

No it wasn’t. Does that mean you cannot answer it with a simple “yes”?

[narses]

In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”, Rides_A_Red_Horse wrote:

I’d love for these mockers to set aside their Mary worship, rituals and traditions for one month and simply read His word, focus on Him and pray to him in His name alone.

But here is the thing, we do. Daily, in the Mass. Since we do not and have NEVER worshiped Mary as God your comments are either uninformed or deliberately offensive. Since you claim a Catholic upbringing, deliberate seems more likely, unless you are simply a liar. Either way you chose to be provocative in your false claims.

Me, I will always call out those who, either through ignorance or malice, misrepresent the teaching of the True Church.

[narses]

Making things personal, like claiming I am exactly like Satan would be against the rules. But you knew that, right?

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

No it wasn’t. Does that mean you cannot answer it with a simple “yes”?

---

Luke 20:1-8

One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”

He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me: John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

[boatbums]

Good rebuttal. Thanks.

You know, I seriously think that if the Council of Trent hadn't made the Apocryphal books an issue in their battle against the Reformation, I wonder if the FRoman Catholics would even be arguing so hard in favor of it. I've asked more than a few times for someone to give me a list of all their "favorite" passages from those books, or to elucidate all the critical doctrines ONLY those books define and if they can generally prove why their inclusion was so critical to Roman Catholicism. I've not received a reply yet. I think the main reason there is such insistence on their canonicity is as you said, it's a Roman Catholic attempt to use the Apocrypha/deuterocanons as a form of an RC apologetic weapon. Yet, in truth, it is just another feeble strike against the solid rock who is Christ - the Word made flesh.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Making things personal, like claiming I am exactly like Satan would be against the rules. But you knew that, right?

---

Did someone truly state “You are exactly like Satan” with those exact words, Narses?

Perhaps they commented on your behavior, debate tactics and general attitude but you misunderstood their chastisement.

Pray to the Lord for discernment and meditate for a time. Perhaps you will receive an epiphany.

[narses]

Still trying to make this about me instead of admitting you cannot answer “yes” to that simple question? Why?

[boatbums]

I think now’s the time to paste that “pot calling the kettle black” gif to yourself.

[narses]

Try not to think. It isn’t really your strong suit.

[Springfield Reformer]

Were you ever taught that Mary was God or even god? Were you ever taught that she was divine? Were you ever taught that she was due worship or taught to worship her?

Simple yes or no answers

This sort of question doesn't lend itself to simple yes or no answers.  What is a god? It can be as blatant as Ashteroth, Queen of Heaven.  It can be as subtle as wanting a nice car, too much. I don't think you'll ever get a black and white answer because technically, from what I've seen of it, the formal teaching stops short of identifying Mary with the essence of the divine being.  So if you're looking for that, so you can deny it, don't hold your breath.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

I was never a Catholic. All I had to work with were Catholics I knew personally. I have Catholic relatives who, IMHO, do cross that line, who have elevated Mary to the status of divine being, co-redemptrix, truly coequal with Christ in the redemptive process. They appear to have arrived at this based on their feminist distrust of the inherent patriarchy (Father-rule) of the Trinity, synthesized with the power of the false-ish "Mother of God" syllogism to further confuse matters.

Yes, I know that the "Mother of God" formula does not technically express deity for Mary in the sense of being very God. Theotokos is better understood as God-bearer, or as one person puts it, Mary was the mother of the one who was always God. Not so good as sound-bite theology, but it does a slightly better job of avoiding the category confusion of the oversimplified "Mother of God" formulation. But it still leaves a lot of important details unstated.

But my relatives, AFAIK, never heard of Theotokos, or Chalcedon, or Nestorius, etc. Without that intensive background, when you say "Mother of God," you trigger biological models of understanding based on practical human experience. "Mother" is the First Cause of the child.  If the child has the essence of absolute deity, "Mother" becomes First Cause even to that.  Yes, I know the councils and the teaching don't say that.  The focus at Chalcedon was preserving the seamless, hypostatic union of both human and divine natures in Christ, despite having acquired His human nature by birth to Mary.  And yes, I am aware there are debates even about the exact timing and origin of His human nature (preexistence of souls question etc.).  

But my relatives don't process any of that. They look at you funny if you don't get that, because she is God's Mother, she deserves similar respect, which we evangelicals would characterize as idolatry, when directed at Mary.  This is a difficult to avoid side-effect of the expression "Mother of God," as it plays out in the minds of rank-and-file Catholics, such that no amount of improvement in catechism can rectify the impulse to ontological errors, because they are forced on the mind by the language itself.

Add to that mix all the activities associated with Marian devotion, not to mention using some of those grandiose titles associated with well-known false deities, and you end up sending a message that unmistakably conveys "god" if not "God" to many an honest mind, though the formal teaching may try to come artfully short of such a declaration.  But having a pope actually call her Queen of Heaven?  Is not the queen coequal regent with the king? And if equal in rank, under monotheistic principles, how do we see her as not some way entangled with the Trinity as a peer?  But the formal teaching doesn't say it is so.  We just have Pope Pius XII sending a message via labeling that is nigh impossible to read any other way:

From the earliest ages of the catholic church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven. And never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother's solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.

See: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam_en.html

It's like common law marriage.  There doesn't have to be a piece of paper saying its official for it to be real. All you need are the elements.  The evangelical heart cannot give prayer or hymns of praise or titles of heavenly monarchy to any but God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and no one else.  He will not give His glory to another. So we won't either, either formally, or materially.

Peace,

SR

[narses]

“This sort of question doesn’t lend itself to simple yes or no answers.”

Sure it does. God is God. Mary is NOT God. See?

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)

[boatbums]

Still trying to make this about me instead of admitting you cannot answer “yes” to that simple question? Why?

LOL! Narses, the queen/king of making threads about others! What WOULD you do without your gifs???