|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
[Deleted] - 7/15/2005 10:14:27 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/16/2005 12:38:03 AM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Dear Kelman,
I assure you while certian of their writings are highly respected, neither Origen nor Tertullian are numbered among the fathers of the Church. This is especially true for Tertulian who died in communion with the heretic Montanists, not the Church. St. Augustine is considered a Father in the western Tradition. His position as such is much disputed in Orthodox circles since certain of his teachings by our lights display an ignorance of the fuller Eastern Patristic Tradition or worse tread close in points to heresy..in any event teaching things utterly repudiated by the Eastern Church. The middle ground in the East is to recieve him as a minor Father paying attention to the corrective works of his contemporaries like St. John Cassian.
Second I am Orthodox Catholic and am not in communion with Rome nor do those of my faith either laity or heirarchy recognize any authority of the Pope of Rome, nor do we give credance to those doctrines that have arisen and been enshrined within Rome since the time of the Great Schism. That doesn't mean we have no good will, but courtesy (often strained) is not communion. So to reference any post schism council recieved by Rome carries no authoritaive weight either. My faith does not recognize those councils or their canons...even on those points where we do agree.
Third you obviously don't know how the ancient communions reference and use the testimony and teaching of the Church Fathers. We do not go by what just one or two says, even if they are absolutely right. We go by the concensus of the Fathers. That means some father's word carries more weight than others. It means that the Life of the Spriit is looked for first in the Body and not in any particular teacher of the faith however individually right and holy. It means where the weight of theological opinion and experience come down among the Fathers in that we may discern the true faith as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
So if your argument is with Rome and its claims of universal sovereignty for its Pope...I'll more likely agree with you than disagree so long as your reasoning and presentation of historical evidence is sound. That said, the seat of Rome cannot be categorically dismissed. Its authority and standing were well known among a great number of the fathers of the Church. Namely it had primacy. It was the most senior of all Christian Sees, and served as kind of court of appeal brother patriarchates had difficult to resolve administrative and minor theological disputes among them (big disputes generally got a council summoned by the emperor). The Orthodox perspective is that this primacy of honor went to Rome's head when it conflated primacy with supremacy....but that was a centuries long process...abated unfortunately at times by either lawless or heretical conduct on behalf of one or more of the Eastern patriarchates, which required Rome's intervention to set right. Make no mistake from a relatively early date Rome enjoyed a much deserved prominance in the Church. Now of course you would not expect to find much of a clarion and definitive nature on the matter within the first couple of centuries, most of the great trials that would beset the Church that would require the administrative machinery of the Patriarchates and the collective wisdom of the Councils was still in the future....but that future is now long in our past.
You have to recall much of what is define of Chruch doctrine and practice was set down in Conciliar canons to articulate the normative faith and practice of the Church against that of heretics. Where there was no trouble, there was no council. Even the definative canon of Scripture exists primarily as a response to the lists of the heretics by the Church. Romes particular history after the great Schism in their view necessitated even more definative statements concerning the content of Holy Scripture than did the East. We had no protestants throwing out books they didn't like and so we have never had to develop a more rigid response on the matter. We know what our Scripture is and how it is to be used in the Church...what others do outside the Church is not our concern.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/16/2005 5:14:35 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
toolman
quote:
St. Augustine most certainly did know about the papacy. By his time, the Roman bishop held a powerful position in the Catholic Church. I agree the Roman bishop’s power began to emerge BUT only because of the power of the church in Rome, since it was the capital of the empire. Nothing to do with a papacy of any kind.
quote:
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . Different sources give other rendering of the list of bishops in Rome. But regardless this says nothing about a papal office only about the various bishops in Rome. The same would be said about the bishops in other cities such as Alexandria, Antioch etc.
Augustine as others believed that ALL the bishops of the church were successors of Peter. Repeatedly Augustine wrote similar to this: “Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.” (Sermon 229).
Augustine did not endorse the Roman Catholic interpretation. Again and again he states that the rock is Christ, not Peter. Augustine claims no exclusive Petrine succession in the Roman bishops and no papal office.
kelman
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/16/2005 5:25:05 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
sdaw
quote:
During the period of Jerome, Athanasius, et al, the OT books under discussion can be divided into three groups: those of undisputed inspired status; those whose status was disputed; and those rejected as uninspired/heretical. J, A, et al put the 7 Deuterocanonical books in the second group, considering them useful for edification, even for use in the liturgy, but not to be used in support of doctrine. These Fathers deferred however to the decision of the Church over their personal opinion. They and many other church fathers made it quite clear what they considered canonical and their “personal opinion” was joined by no less than Christ Himself and the apostles. Jesus spoke in the Jewish tradition of a three fold division of the OT as The Law of Moses, The Prophets, and the Psalms or in general terms as “the Scriptures”. There is no doubt Christ, the apostles and the Jews of that day knew exactly what canonical writings were contained in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Rufinus and Jerome. Not to mention the discovery at Qumran…all numbering the OT books as Christ and the apostles did….The Law of Moses, The Prophets and the Psalms.
kelman
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/16/2005 5:39:31 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
seraphim
quote:
We do not go by what just one or two says, even if they are absolutely right. We go by the concensus of the Fathers. That being the case it would be best not to claim "unanimous" agreement when there is but a concensus.
quote:
That said, the seat of Rome cannot be categorically dismissed. Its authority and standing were well known among a great number of the fathers of the Church. Namely it had primacy. I am not denying Rome had primacy only the reason for its primacy. It stemmed from its geographical location and from societal and political concerns. Certainly not because of biblical justification.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/16/2005 7:16:39 AM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
sdaw
quote:
During the period of Jerome, Athanasius, et al, the OT books under discussion can be divided into three groups: those of undisputed inspired status; those whose status was disputed; and those rejected as uninspired/heretical. J, A, et al put the 7 Deuterocanonical books in the second group, considering them useful for edification, even for use in the liturgy, but not to be used in support of doctrine. These Fathers deferred however to the decision of the Church over their personal opinion. They and many other church fathers made it quite clear what they considered canonical and their “personal opinion” was joined by no less than Christ Himself and the apostles. Jesus spoke in the Jewish tradition of a three fold division of the OT as The Law of Moses, The Prophets, and the Psalms or in general terms as “the Scriptures”. There is no doubt Christ, the apostles and the Jews of that day knew exactly what canonical writings were contained in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Rufinus and Jerome. Not to mention the discovery at Qumran…all numbering the OT books as Christ and the apostles did….The Law of Moses, The Prophets and the Psalms.
kelman
Dear kelman,
Certainly the Law and the Prophets were closed categories. The Writings were not. You indicated to UWS that you were willing to do more research on issues. This is one.
On the Feast of St. Mary Magdelene Postel
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/16/2005 11:33:20 AM
|
|
|
itsjustdave1988
Posts: 4
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
|
kelman,
quote:
Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Rufinus and Jerome. Not to mention the discovery at Qumran…all numbering the OT books as Christ and the apostles did….The Law of Moses, The Prophets and the Psalms.
Didn't these men all accept the Catholic/Orthodox book of Daniel (Theodotian recession), which the Protestants reject? In fact, until the middle ages, didn't ALL of Christianity accept the Theodotian recession of the Book of Daniel? If so, why does Protestantism reject this recession of Daniel and opt for a shorter text?
God bless,
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/16/2005 12:26:29 PM
|
|
|
itsjustdave1988
Posts: 4
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
|
"The Writings" unsettled until after the first century...
Jesus refers to the "Law and the Prophets." Some argue that this preference inidicates a two-part canon in his day, with the "writings" still being formed and disputed among Jews. As late as the 2nd century AD, the Mishnah shows this dispute about the canon still ongoing among the rabbis.
The use of “Law, Prophets, and Psalms” in Luke 24:44 may reflect a primitive development of a tripartite canon. (For more, see: Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel After the Exile, Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 35 & 46)
Philo of Alexandria doesn’t show a third category of Writings, neither does the first century Jewish historian, Josephus.
“Psalms” in Luke 24:44 does not refer to Writings. The canonical expression in Luke 24:44 is very similar to one of the oldest documents from Qumran, 4QMMT. Andrew Steinmann, writes:
quote:
"...One document from Qumran, the Halakhic Letter (4QMMT), seems to indicate a different classification of the books. This letter is one of the oldest Qumran documents. It was written by a leader of the Qumran sect (perhaps the Teacher of Righteousness) to the leader of its opponents, perhaps Jonathan (160-143 BC) or Simon (143-135 BC). Near the end in the epiloque we read:
'...we have wr[itten] to you so that you may carefully study the book of Moses [and] the books of [the p]rophets and Davi[d events of] past generations.' ...
We can see that the author of this Halakhic letter was probably working with a concept of a threefold division of the OT into Law, Prophets, and David. This, however, is not identical to the later Jewish divisions of Law, Prophets, and Writings. Only the book of Psalms in the section known as the Writings could reasonably be characterized as the words of David. Ruth, by its contents (without any reference to other factors that indicate authorship) could theoretically have been written by David, but no one, ancient or modern is known to have held that view. Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes could be assigned to Solomon, but not to David. It is impossible to see how Job, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah or Chronicles could be characterized as words of David. Therefore, it would appear that the author of 4QMMT is making a threefold distinction by singling out Psalms as unique...
(The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon, Concordia Academic Press, 1999, pp. 69-70)
God bless,
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/17/2005 3:30:23 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
cristoiglesia
quote:
There actually was very little agreement of Calvin with St. Augustin. One area of disagreement was that Augustine believed you could lose salvation but would regain before death. Other than that I don’t see much difference. In fact it was from Augustine that Calvin adopted his position.
Some Augustine Comments:
V. Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no one, desirous of the credit of piety, dares absolutely to deny.
VII. Though it is sufficiently clear, that God, in his secret counsel, freely chooses whom He will, and rejects others, His gratuitous election is but half displayed till we come to particular individuals, to whom God not only offers salvation, but assigns it in such a manner, that the certainty of the effect is liable to no suspense or doubt.
From: Oliver J. Thatcher, ed., The Library of Original Sources (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), Vol. V: 9th to 16th Centuries, pp. 141-150.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html
kelman
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/17/2005 3:35:44 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
dave
quote:
Philo of Alexandria doesn’t show a third category of Writings, neither does the first century Jewish historian, Josephus.
According to these words of Josephus, he knew the inspired Hebrews Scripures contained only 22 books. He also separated them by the Law, the Prophets and the Hagiographa:
”we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with one another, [as the Greeks do]; but our books, those which are justly believed, are only 22…Of these, five are the books of Moses…the prophets after Moses wrote the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.”
kelman
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/17/2005 3:41:42 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
dave
quote:
Didn't these men all accept the Catholic/Orthodox book of Daniel (Theodotian recession), which the Protestants reject? In fact, until the middle ages, didn't ALL of Christianity accept the Theodotian recession of the Book of Daniel? If so, why does Protestantism reject this recession of Daniel and opt for a shorter text? I couldn’t say whether all those men did or did not. But since the Hebrews Scriptures contain only the shorter version naturally Protestants would consider only the shorter version of the Hebrew Scriptures to be inspired.
kelman
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/17/2005 3:48:46 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
sdaw
quote:
Certainly the Law and the Prophets were closed categories. The Writings were not. You indicated to UWS that you were willing to do more research on issues. This is one. I agree, we all should have a willingness to learn more.
There is more than ample evidence that the Jews of that day considered the inspired Hebrew Scriptures to consist of only 22 books.
kelman
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/17/2005 1:09:54 PM
|
|
|
itsjustdave1988
Posts: 4
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
sdaw
quote:
Certainly the Law and the Prophets were closed categories. The Writings were not. You indicated to UWS that you were willing to do more research on issues. This is one. I agree, we all should have a willingness to learn more.
There is more than ample evidence that the Jews of that day considered the inspired Hebrew Scriptures to consist of only 22 books.
kelman
I think you are missing the point. The Jews of the first century had varying views of what the canon of the OT was. It wasn't until after the first century that some Jews decided what their Jewish Bible would look like. By that time, the Christians had already been using some books as Sacred Scripture which the Jews decided to omit. Christians weren't about to change their minds about what the written Word of God was, simply because a group of Jews (not even all of them), who rejected the Christian savior, didn't agree with them. Afterall, what authority do the Pharisees have after Christ's life, death, resurrection, ascension, and the dissent of the Paraclete which Jesus promised? What makes their authority greater than the Ethiopian Jews, for example, who accept the Septuagint even today as their Bible? Obviously, to Christians of the 1st century and later, the Jews had no authority to determine what the Word of God was. The Bible the apostles used was what the Christians of the second century continued to use, disregarding the later Jewish revisions of the 2nd century AD, based upon the opinion of some rabbis.
I find it ironic that Protestants reject what the Christians thought was the Bible, and accept what the Jews thought was the Bible, the very Jews that rejected Jesus as their savior.
Origen, for example, accepted a recession of the Book of Daniel that the later Jesus-rejecting Jews would not accept. Every Christian Church until the middle ages accepted the Christian Book of Daniel and disregarded the Pharisees' authority on the matter. Yet, Protestants rejected Christian judgment in favor of the Jesus-rejecting judgment of the Pharisees of post 1st century AD. Do you see why Catholics and Orthodox might have a problem with this kind of thinking?
I find it rather odd to reject Christian judgment on the written Word of God, for that of Pharisees who explicitly rejected the living Word of God.
God bless,
Dave
< Message edited by itsjustdave1988 -- 7/17/2005 1:22:16 PM >
_____________________________
God bless,
Dave
"Lord, in my zeal for the love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love"
-- St. Thomas Aquinas
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/17/2005 1:42:56 PM
|
|
|
itsjustdave1988
Posts: 4
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
|
kelman,
quote:
One area of disagreement was that Augustine believed you could lose salvation but would regain before death. Other than that I don’t see much difference. In fact it was from Augustine that Calvin adopted his position.
Incorrect. St. Augustine never asserted that predestination to grace was the same as predestination to eternal life. In fact, he states the opposite. Observe,
Augustine describes the gift of faith and the gift of perseverance as being two distinct gifts. Those that "have righteousness...if even faith" may never have the gift of perseverance.
A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance by Augustine (A.D. 428 OR 429)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15122.htm
quote:
Quote:CHAP. I --OF THE NATURE OF THE PERSEVERANCE HERE DISCOURSED OF..
I HAVE now to consider the subject of perseverance ... I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. ... For if any one ... have righteousness ... if even faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these virtues and to have them no longer; for he was ... righteous, or he was ... believing, as long as he was so; but when he ceased to be so, he no longer is what he was. ... And the believer of one year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than the believer of many years' standing, if a little time before his death he has fallen away from the stedfastness of his faith.
Augustine asserted that the grace of God is like light that illuminates every man (against limited atonement):
quote:
That light, however, does not nourish the eyes of irrational birds, but the pure hearts of those men who believe in God and turn from the love of visible and temporal things to the fulfilling of His precepts. All men can do this if they will, because that light illuminates every man coming into this world. (Genesis Defended Against the Manicheans, AD 389)
Grace, according to Augustine, is obviously not always efficacious grace (against irresistible grace). God gives some more grace than others (and perhaps differing kinds of grace). But all men can believe in God if they will, according to St. Augustine.
Augustine teaches that some of those regenerated and justified in Christ are among the elect, but some are not.
quote:
We, then, call men elected, and Christ's disciples, and God's children, because they are to be so called whom, being regenerated, we see to live piously; but they are then truly what they are called if they shall abide in that on account of which they are so called. But if they have not perseverance,--that is, if they continue not in that which they have begun to be,--they are not truly called what they are called and are not; for they are not this in the sight of Him to whom it is known what they are going to be,--that is to say, from good men, bad men. ("On Rebuke and Grace" (De Correptione et Gratis), Ch 22)
... But those who do not belong to this number of the predestinated ... [some] receive the grace of God, but they are only for a season, and do not persevere; they forsake and are forsaken. For by their free will, as they have not received the gift of perseverance, they are sent away by the righteous and hidden judgment of God (ibid, Ch. 42)
If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, "I have not received," because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God, that he had received. (ibid, ch 9)
Does the above sound like Augustine taught the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security to you?
_____________________________
God bless,
Dave
"Lord, in my zeal for the love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love"
-- St. Thomas Aquinas
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/18/2005 3:16:40 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
dave
quote:
Does the above sound like Augustine taught the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security to you? Yes surprisingly it does, in some places as we see in Chap. 10
A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance by Augustine (A.D. 428 OR 429)
Chap 10 [VI.]
“But since no one has perseverance to the end except he who does persevere to the end, many people may have it, but none can lose it.”
“For it is not to be feared that perchance when a man has persevered unto the end, some evil will may arise in him, so that he does not persevere unto the end. This gift of God, therefore, may be obtained by prayer, but when it has been given, it cannot be lost by contumacy.”
A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance by Augustine (A.D. 428 OR 429)
Chap. 1
“If it be thought that this also should be called perseverance, as it were for so long as it lasts, assuredly he is not to be said to have had in any degree that perseverance of which we are now discoursing, by which one perseveres in Christ even to the end.”
Obviously Augustine is saying if one does not persevere until the end he has not the perseverence given by God. The same is taught by Paul “a faith not unto salvation”. Basically if one does not perservere to the end they were never given the gift of faith/salvation. That’s pretty standard.
Augustine’s and the Reformers’ views on predestination held a number of similarities:
“[they]believed that election is not conditioned upon foreseen merits, but that it is the source of faith and good works; that predestination unto glory always implies predestination unto grace; that negative reprobation is not to be explained as an act of God's justice but as an act of his sovereignty, and that it logically precedes sin; that this negative reprobation is followed by a decree to permit sin and to allow some to remain in their fallen state and that positive reprobation takes sin into account.” Not so very different.
kelman
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/18/2005 3:29:37 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
dave
quote:
I think you are missing the point. The Jews of the first century had varying views of what the canon of the OT was. It wasn't until after the first century that some Jews decided what their Jewish Bible would look like. I didn’t miss your point, I simply do not share it. You may think this because of the Council Jamnia(75-117AD) and its “alleged” result. The theory of Jamnia is unsupportable because the Apocrypha was never considered for the canon. It was never even discussed. Even if Jamnia closed the canon (suggesting it had been open) the Apocrypha was never part of the discussion. And the history of Judaism following Jamnia demonstrates that the Apocrypha was never accepted by the Jews.
We can even see some internal evidence from an Apocrypha book itself concerning its non-canonical status. The author of I Maccabees wrote that at the time of the writing of his work there was no prophet in Israel (I Macc. 4.46). In so doing he was admitting he was not a prophet and therefore not inspired.
quote:
The Bible the apostles used was what the Christians of the second century continued to use, Just because the fragments we have today of the Septuagint have some Apocrypha books does “not” mean the Septuagint that Christ and the Apostles used contained “any” Apocrypha books. We cannot know, but regardless Jesus followed the traditional Jewish view of the canon, referred to the Scriptures by the threefold division of the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms (a common way of referring to the Hagiographa).
quote:
I find it ironic that Protestants reject what the Christians thought was the Bible, and accept what the Jews thought was the Bible, the very Jews that rejected Jesus as their savior. We are told by the apostle Paul that the Jews had been entrusted with the 'oracles of God' (Rom. 3:2) by God. Though they later rejected Christ, this in no way minimizes the fact that the authoritative Old Testament Scriptures were committed uniquely to them and them alone.
kelman
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/18/2005 11:21:53 AM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7678
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: online
|
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
A quick reminder... the topic of this thread is as follows:
Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible
Off-topic posts will be dealt with harshly and without prejudice.
Keep it on topic.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/18/2005 2:28:28 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
How does the lack of a prophet in Israel disqualify Maccabees? Ezra and Nehemiah were not prophets either, yet their works are considered inspired.
What we are faced with essentially is two seperate traditional streams of Scripture transmission within the Jewish community. It really doesn't matter if the Jews at Jamnia did not deal specifically with the Maccabees or other works, the stream they worked with was less complete than the Alexandrian stream which is what underlies the LXX which is accepted by the ancient communions as the foundational OT. That one came to us only in its Greek translation and the other in the original Hebrew tongue is in the end irrelevant to the critical question of which tradition represents the fullness of God's OT Scriptural revelation. The Church from apostolic times accepted the the tradition of transmission behind the LXX as the fullness and not that of the more limited so called Palestinin Canon. That the limited and later somewhat edited text of that transmission tradition was adopted as authoritative by Christ haters speaks volumes.
The early Church especially in the Middle East could not have been ignorant of the Massoretic tradition or its roots. It was not rejected for the LXX and its tradition of transmission for empty reasons. Those who support the Masoretic againt the LXX, especially those of the Protestant persuation who give such solitary weight to the Scriptures, must ask themselves a very pointed question, Why did God allow the Church to go through the first 1500 years of its existance with the "wrong" Bible? If as they claim true believer communities outside the hierarcy of the "offical" church kept the "true" "evangelical" faith until the time of the Reformation (and even if they didn't exist), why did God not preserve with some Christian body a correct Bible as well? Why did it take what amounted to many decades if not a couple of centuries among Protestants to fully break with the Canon of the old "bad" Bible? That makes very little theolgical since to me. If the Bible is pretty much the be all and end all in knowing God's will for Protestantism, Why did God wait until so recently to get the "correct" Bible into the world?
It would seem then that the Canon adopted by the ancient communions has a far greater claim, and a far sounder one than some of the posters here seem willing to give credit for.
< Message edited by unworthyseraphim -- 7/18/2005 2:35:19 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/19/2005 4:34:24 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
seraphim
quote:
How does the lack of a prophet in Israel disqualify Maccabees? Ezra and Nehemiah were not prophets either, yet their works are considered inspired. 4) Cessation of Israelitic Prophecy -- The prophetic institution had ceased to exist in the time of the Machabees. Israel clearly recognized this, and was awaiting its reappearance. Its necessity had ceased. Religious revelation and the moral code expressed in Holy Writ were full and clear. The people were being instructed by the scribes and doctors- a living magistracy, fallible, it is true, and bound overmuch by letter of the law, but withal zealous and learned. There was a feeling that the promises were about to be fulfilled and the consequent apocalypse increased and intensified this feeling. It was not unfitting, therefore, for God to allow an interval to elapse between the prophets of the Old Covenant and Jesus Christ, who was to be the crown and consummation of their prophecies.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm
It was accepted by OT Jews that special revelation ended with the prophet Malachi . The Apocrypha was never officially considered Scripture by anyone until the Roman Catholic church mandated its full acceptance in the Council of Trent in 1546.
quote:
It would seem then that the Canon adopted by the ancient communions has a far greater claim, and a far sounder one than some of the posters here seem willing to give credit for Well surely Jerome knew the inaccuracies and limitations of the LXX since he ended up translating most of the OT from the Traditional Text, in addition to his decided refusal to accept the Apocrypha as inspired.
quote:
Why did God allow the Church to go through the first 1500 years of its existance with the "wrong" Bible?
The early Church especially in the Middle East could not have been ignorant of the Massoretic tradition or its roots. It was not rejected for the LXX and its tradition of transmission for empty reasons. God provided the LXX to serve as a temporary substitute until such time as the ancient Hebrew Bible could be restored. So much “mysticism” has been attributed to the LXX, but it really just arose out of the need of the Alexandrian Jews. From Alexandria the use of the LXX rapidly spread until in the days of the Apostles it was read everywhere in the synagogues of the Greek-speaking Jews outside of Palestine. Then, at length, converts from these Greek-speaking synagogues brought their LXX with them into the Christian Church.
kelman
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/20/2005 3:43:52 AM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Dear Kelman,
You say you make some startling comments would be an exercise in understatement.
Consider, you said that the prophetic institution had ceased to exist by the time of the Maccabees. First that does not address the question of Ezra and Neimiah not being prophets, and yet composing books of Scripture. Second, your assertion simply cannot be true, for two very prominant reasons, Anna and John, neither of whom could have been what the NT says they are if that institution was gone. Even old Simeon who according to the Tradition was one of the seventy who translated the LXX, a devout man who expressed doubt in one of the more fanastic of the Messianic prophecies he was translating, and who gave gave length of days to so that he might bear witness to the fulfilling of the prophecy he doubted (he would have been over 250 at the time of Christs birth). And having seen the Holy Child he uttered his famous prayer, "Now let thy servant depart in peace..." How could he have know this infant out of all the infants brought into the Temple day after day, year after year, decade after decade, was the one that fulfilled the prophecy...unless he knew of the virgin birth firsthand or unless he too walked as a prophet..perhaps a minor one to be sure, but prophet none the less. Not all the prophets of Israel wrote books of scripture, and the Scripture mentions a handful to true prophets who had only a word or two to say in the context of some other story and we hear no more about them. And John the Baptist, Jesus said he came in the Spirit of Elijah and was greater than Moses. How could John have been a prophet if prophecy had been removed from Israel? He could not have, nor could have Anna, nor Simeon. Thus your assertion seems to be without adequate foundation.
Next you said OT Jews recognized the Scripture closed after Malichi and did not accept the Apocrypha and that the it was only at the Council of Trent such recognition was given. Doesn't this beg the question in at least two important ways? First it dismisses the Alexandrian Jews and their transmission tradition who apparently did not consider the Scriptures closed with Malichi. Secondly, even for Palestinian Jews the question was open enough as late as 90 AD so that they felt it necessary to convene their own synod of rabbis to address the matter. Thirdly, your comment betrays a scadalous lack of knowledge about very basic Church history, or what "official" statements of councils regarding the faith actually mean. Maybe I can help. If the Apocrypha had no fixed place in Scripture until Trent, then how do you explain the fact that all Eastern Orthodox Churches who parted company with Rome 500 years before the Reformation consider it Scripture, some books of it indeed as primary Scripture. And if it took till Trent then how do you explain that the Coptic and other non Chalcedonian Churches which seperated 500 years before that consider the "Apocrypha" as part of the canon of Scripture? Neither the Orthodox nor the non-Chalcedonian communions care at all what pronouncements were made by Rome at Trent. So it it took till Trent for them to be considered Scripture you've got over 1000 years of previous Church history which contradicts that assertion to explain. Finally councils only make "offical" declarations on subjects critical to the faith that are being challenged by forces seen as dangerous and heretical. For example the Christian faith has always believed in the Holy Trinity, but that belief was not always explicity articulated. That didn't happen until the time of the First Great Council when it was necessary to speak very clearly on the Holy Trinity and the full diety of Christ in order to combat the rampant and growing heresy of Arianism. The Trinity was always Christian belief, but there was no "offical" pronouncement until the first Council. The same was true with Trent. Rome had long recieved the "Apocrypha" as part of Holy Scripture along with the rest of Chrisendom from ancient times, but felt it had to make a definitive pronoucement on the canon when Protestatn factions began breaking away from them and editing the Bible willy nilly as any particular group or prominant person among them saw fit. Trent on this point articulated nothing new in Rome's teaching concerning the canon, it just underscored that belief definitively.
So it seem the weight of history and ecclesiology stands against your assertions so far.
Then you go on to say the LXX was at "temporary" measure until God could restore the OT. This makes no sense...restore? when it was first translated, nothing was lost that needed restoring. The protestant world did not fully shed the Apocrypha from its Bibles and its spiritual consiousness until the early 1800s...thats a long time for a "temporary measure" by any standard. And for a theological perspective that touts "sola scritura" that's a heck of a long time for the faithful to be without a trustworthy Bible. What was God doing that He both let His Scripture be lost in measure, then affirmed by a latter day council of His enemies, and not finally "settled" for another 1700 years. That is an amazing story. And if you will pardon a small jest...I half expected some mention of the final restoritive aid of some golden tablets and a hill called Cumorah.
Pardon me...but I simply find all your assertions, espeically the last to be quite literally incredible...not credible. As for the slam against the Alexandrian Jews and their supposed unbridled need for mysticism (as if that were inherently bad) I'll save for another time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/29/2005 12:04:19 PM
|
|
|
captainfraulein
Posts: 579
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Planet Earth
Status: offline
|
What happened to this thread? Ain't nobody posting?
I was getting into this. C'mon!
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." -Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/29/2005 12:07:16 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: redwhiterose
What happened to this thread? Ain't nobody posting?
I was getting into this. C'mon!
Dear redwhiterose,
I do not mean this in any meanspirited or ugly way whatsoever, but, just for the challenge, do you have a question that has not already been asked? If so, or even if not, I would be glad to take a stab at it.
On the Feast of St. Olav Haraldson
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
