Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
It's still a jolt for some people to realize this, but the Bible did not fall down out of the sky, leather-bound and gold-monogrammed with the words of Christ in red, in 95 AD. Rather the canon of Christian Scripture slowly developed over a period of about 1500 years. That does not mean, of course, that Scripture was being written for 1500 years after the life of Christ. Rather, it means that it took the Church some fifteen centuries to formally and definitively state which books out of the great mass of early Christian and pseudo-Christian books constituted the Bible.
The process of defining the canon of Scripture is an example of what the Church calls "development of doctrine". This is a different thing than "innovation of doctrine". Doctrine develops as a baby develops into a man, not as a baby grows extra noses, eyes, and hands. An innovation of doctrine would be if the Church declared something flatly contrary to all previous teaching ("Pope John Paul Ringo I Declares the Doctrine of the Trinity to No Longer Be the Teaching of the Church: Bishop Celebrate by Playing Tiddly Winks with So-Called 'Blessed Sacrament'"). It is against such flat reversals of Christian teaching that the promise of the Spirit to guard the apostolic Tradition stands. And, in fact, there has never ever been a time when the Church has reversed its dogmatic teaching. (Prudential and disciplinary changes are another matter. The Church is not eternally wedded to, for instance, unmarried priests, as the wife of St. Peter can tell you.)
But though innovations in doctrine are not possible, developments of doctrine occur all the time and these tend to apply old teaching to new situations or to more completely articulate ancient teaching that has not been fully fleshed out. So, for example, in our own day the Church teaches against the evils of embryonic stem cell research even though the New Testament has nothing to say on the matter. Yet nobody in his five wits claims that the present Church "invented" opposition to embryonic stem cell research from thin air. We all understand that the Church, by the very nature of its Tradition, has said "You shall not kill" for 2,000 years. It merely took the folly of modern embryonic stem cell research to cause the Church to apply its Tradition to this concrete situation and declare what it has always believed.
Very well then, as with attacks on sacred human life in the 21st century, so with attacks on Sacred Tradition in the previous twenty. Jesus establishes the Tradition that he has not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them (Mt 5:17). But when Tradition bumps into the theories of early Jewish Christians that all Gentiles must be circumcised in order to become Christians, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is still necessary to authoritatively flesh that Tradition out. Moreover, the Council settles the question by calling the Bible, not to the judge's bench, but to the witness stand. Scripture bears witness to the call of the Gentiles, but the final judgment depends on the authority of Christ speaking through his apostles and elders whose inspired declaration is not "The Bible says..." but "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28).
In all this, the Church, as ever, inseparably unites Scripture as the light and Sacred Tradition as the lens through which it is focused. In this way the mustard seed of the Kingdom continues to grow in that light, getting more mustardy, not less.
How then did Tradition develop with respect to the canon of Scripture?
In some cases, the Church in both east and west has a clear memory of just who wrote a given book and could remind the faithful of this. So, for instance, when a second century heretic named Marcion proposed to delete the Old Testament as the product of an evil god and canonize the letters of Paul (but with all those nasty Old Testament quotes snipped out), and a similarly edited gospel of Luke (sanitized of contact with Judaism for your protection), the Church responded with local bishops (in areas affected by Marcion's heresy) proposing the first canons of Scripture.
Note that the Church seldom defines its teaching (and is in fact disinclined to define it) till some challenge to the Faith (in this case, Marcion) forces it to do so. When Marcion tries to take away from the Tradition of Scripture by deleting Matthew, Mark and John and other undesirable books, the Church applies the basic measuring rod of Tradition and says, "This does not agree with the Tradition that was handed down to us, which remembers that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and John wrote John.
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at his bosom also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 3, 1, 1)
In other words, there is, we might say, a Standard of Roots (based on Sacred Tradition) by which the Church weighs her canon. So when various other heretics, instead of trying to subtract from the generally received collection of holy books, instead try to add the Gospel of Thomas or any one of a zillion other ersatz works to the Church's written Tradition, the Church can point to the fact that, whatever the name on the label says, the contents do not square with the Tradition of the Church, so it must be a fake. In other words, there is also a Standard of Fruits. It is this dual standard of Roots and Fruits by which the Church discerns the canon -- a dual standard which is wholly based on Sacred Tradition. The Church said, in essence, "Does the book have a widespread and ancient tradition concerning its apostolic origin and/or approval? Check. Does the book square with the Tradition we all learned from the apostles and the bishops they gave us? Check. Then it is to be used in public worship and is to be regarded as the word of God."
It was on this basis the early Church also vetoed some books and accepted others -- including the still-contested-by-some-Protestants deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach and Baruch as well as some pieces of Daniel and Esther. For the churches founded by the apostles could trace the use of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in public worship (a Greek translation of the Old Testament which includes all these books) back to the apostles. In fact, many of the citations of Old Testament Scripture by the New Testament writers are, in fact, citations of the Septuagint (see, for example, Mark 7:6-7, Hebrews 10:5-7). Therefore, the Body of Christ living after the apostles simply retained the apostles' practice of using the Septuagint on the thoroughly traditional grounds, "If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us." In contrast, the churches had no apostolic tradition handed down concerning the use of, say, the works of the Cretan poet Epimenides (whom Paul quotes in Acts 17), therefore they did not regard his works as Scripture, even though Paul quotes him. It was by their roots and fruits that the Church's books were judged, and it was by the standard of Sacred Tradition that these roots and fruits were known.
These Root and Fruit standards are even more clearly at work in the canonization of the New Testament, especially in the case of Hebrews. There was, in fact, a certain amount of controversy in the early Church over the canonicity of this book (as well as of books like 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation). Some Fathers, especially in the west, rejected Hebrews (in no small part because of its lack of a signature). Yet the Church eventually accepted it. How? It was judged apostolic because, in the end, the Church discerned that it met the Roots and Fruits measure when stacked up against Sacred Tradition.
The Body of Christ had long believed that Hebrews said the same thing as the Church's Sacred Tradition handed down by the bishops. Thus, even Fathers (like Irenaeus) who rejected it from their canon of inspired Scripture still regarded it as a good book. That is, it had always met the Fruits standard. How then did it meet the Roots standard? In a nutshell, despite the lack of attestation in the text of Hebrews itself, there was an ancient tradition in the Church (beginning in the East, where the book was apparently first sent) that the book originated from the pen of St. Paul. That tradition, which was at first better attested in the east than in the west (instantaneous mass communication being still some years in the future) accounts for the slowness of western Fathers (such as Irenaeus) to accept the book. But the deep-rootedness of the tradition of Pauline authorship in the East eventually persuaded the whole Church. In short, as with the question of circumcision in the book of Acts, the status of Hebrews was not immediately clear even to the honest and faithful (such as Irenaeus). However, the Church in council, trusting in the guidance of Holy Spirit, eventually came to consensus and canonized the book on exactly the same basis that the Council of Jerusalem promulgated its authoritative decree: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."
Conversely, those books which the Church did not canonize as part of the New Testament were rejected because, in the end, they did not meet both the Root and Fruit standards of the Church's Sacred Tradition. Books like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas, while meeting the Fruit standard, were not judged to meet the Root standard since their authors were not held to be close enough to the apostolic circle -- a circle which was, in the end, drawn very narrowly by the Spirit-led Church and which therefore excluded even Clement since he, being "in the third place from the Apostles" was not as close to the apostles as Mark and Luke (who were regarded as recording the gospels of Peter and Paul, respectively). The Church, arch-conservative as ever, relied on Sacred Tradition, not to keep adding to the New Testament revelation but to keep it as lean and close to the apostles as possible. This, of course, is why books which met neither the Root nor Fruit standards of Sacred Tradition, such as the Gospel of Thomas, were rejected by the Church without hesitation as completely spurious.
Not that this took place overnight. The canon of Scripture did not assume its present shape till the end of the fourth century. It was defined at the regional Councils of Carthage and Hippo and also by Pope Damasus and included the deuterocanonical books. It is worth noting, however, that, because these decisions were regional, none of them were dogmatically binding on the whole Church, though they clearly reflected the Sacred Tradition of the Church (which is why the Vulgate or Latin Bible--which was The Bible for the Catholic Church in the West for the next 1200 years looks the same as the Catholic Bible today). Once again, we are looking at Sacred Tradition which is not fully developed until a) the Reformation tries to subtract deuterocanonical books from Scripture and b) the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s finally makes that Tradition fixed and binding. This is the origin of the myth that the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonical books to Scripture at Trent. It is as historically accurate as the claim that the Catholic Church "added" opposition to embryonic stem cell research to its tradition during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.
In summary then, the early Church canonized books because they were attested by apostolic tradition. The books we have in our Bibles (and the ones we don't) were accepted or rejected according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards which were based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ.
Since you deny that God is one, your premise about Isaiah is just plain silly.
God can't be one and three. To insist that he is is sheer insanity. And insanity is what I call it to deny clear Bible verses.
Start with there being one God and that God is one.
God is not a man that he should lie nor the son of man that he should repent.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
God is spirit.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Jesus came in (gr: 'en' entirely within the realm of) the flesh.
Jesus was born, lived, and died. God subsequently raised him from the dead and seated him (Jesus) at his (God's) right hand.
The man Chrsit Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man.
Therefore, a trinity is unbiblical, a triune god is not the one the followers of Christ should follow, and anyone who sets another human as a mediator between God and men is in disobedience to God.
I'm done bludgeoning myself against your brick wall. May God bless you.
Yes, you'd best run away since you can't refute anything with Biblical authority.
Where did anyone say this? If you have to fabricate to make a point, then you don't have a point.
Why then are you surprised that God split the Church just as He did Israel?
Another fabrication. Where does it say anywhere that God split the Church? Man split the Church. Specifically, Martin Luther.
Seriously, anything can become an idol if we let it become more important than our Lord or if we start performing acts of worship to it.
Define an "act of worship".
You claim that you're not really bowing down to the statue, but simply respecting the person the statue represents, and them as a servant of God
At one point, you seem to be saying that "worship" is subjective to the intent of the violator, yet you've made yourself judge and jury of those you THINK are worshipping as if it's strictly something objectively measured. Which is it?
With full support of their elders, members of both bow down to these statues, say ritualistic prayers to them, have festivals in their honor, etc
Like the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, and Flag Day? Is patriotism nation worship?
Yet, while following the example of the Pharisees in burying the true Word of God beneath your traditions, you want to post article after article attacking those who in principle, if admittedly not always in practice, seek to follow the Scriptures as the Lord did?
The Lord followed Scripture by revealing what was not explicitly revealed, but inferred, in the Old Testament. Jesus didn't have a problem with the Pharisee-endorsed traditions of circumcision and Passover, did He? As a matter of fact, Jesus explicitly told His disciples to follow what the Pharisees TAUGHT, not what they DID in spite of what they taught. He didn't come to "abolish" anything (certainly not tradition) and He didn't call the Pharisees false teachers, just hypocrites.
you want to post article after article attacking those who in principle, if admittedly not always in practice, seek to follow the Scriptures as the Lord did?
Do you feel threatened by these articles? If the faith you follow is strong, it should mean nothing to you.
Also, I daresay Jesus wasn't the fundamentalist in the Pharisee/Christ relationship. You know, pulling an oxen out of the ditch on the Sabbath, and all that...
So too might the Hindu point out that their idols merely represent their gods, and the gods are merely eminations of the Brahman. There's no practical difference.
They might, but then, the Catholic church doesn't have idols and doesn't raise either Mary or the Saints to the level of Christ, regardless of how many times you stomp your feet and say it.
Do you have a photograph of a loved one, thou "idol-worshiper"? Do you have a feast on their birthday, thou "idol-worshiper"? Do you pledge undying love to your spouse, thou "idol worshiper"?
If you are truly Christians, being conformed into the image of the Lord, then you should follow His example.
Jesus told His disciples to brush the dust from their feet if they weren't received. I'd do the same here, but I'm Catholic, and this is a Catholic thread, so maybe you should just leave instead.
Further, I see a lot of you trying to pile on here, but all of your arguments were refuted far earlier in the thread. You obviously haven't read my posts, or you wouldn't simply be repeating the same things over and over again.
Your earlier posts were not worthy of comment, nothing more.
I'm closing out my end of the debate.
Prayers answered.
It was formed 1974 years ago by Yeshua HaMashiach, if you want to play that game. As I said, the sect of the Nazarines (Messianic Jews) is documented to have survived as a cohesive group for at least a thousand years after the Messiah came. I can't prove a continuation of leadership beyond that point, but I can prove a continuation of Spirit.
How? Very simple: Compare our teachings and practices to what is in the Bible, which predates Catholic tradition by between a century (the earliest ECF writings coming from the Second Century) and 1600 years (to the Exodus and the writing of the Torah).
For its modern history: For the last 50 or so years, and increasing number of Christians have been spontaneously and without a single human leader been discovering the Jewish roots of their faith. At the same time, and increasing number of Jews have been discovering that Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus the Christ, really didn't teach against the Torah or tell them to stop being Jewish.
There was no central organization, no one leader. In 1989, a guy named David H. Stern put out the Messianic Jewish Manifesto, a commentary on the NT, and his own translation of the Bible. However, while this provided some direction in Messianic congregations, it would be inaccurate to call him the leader of the movement, as there were many others who have also published books on everything from a Messianic theology and Messianic commentaries to practical guides on keeping the Feastdays and other Torah-based Jewish customs.
You are used to thinking of the Church as a heirarchy, with a central authority handing down decrees from on high. The modern Messianic movement is a grass-roots effort, the result of the Spirit moving in many places at once. Mind you, the lack of central organization has its own problems (including a number of "Messianic" congregations that are quite fruity and even heretical; not that the RCC doesn't suffer from its own fruity parishes), but it has its advantages as well--most particularly that there is earnest discussion on the Scriptures, the one authority that we all agree on.
I'm not going to waste any more time on Messianic history with you. It's candidly irrelevant. Only whether our beliefs and practices come from the Scriptures matters. If you wish to challenge me on that basis, all well and good, but don't pull the tired argument that "the RCC's been here (visibly) the longest, so we must be right." To quote Tertullian, "Custom (i.e., tradition) without truth is error grown old."
Yes. Again, I'm not objecting to art, or even religious art. But to use your analogy, there's a difference between me keeping a picture of my grandfather around and the Japanese practice of building a whole shrine around that picture, bowing in front ot it, and saying a ritual prayer every day. One is just keeping a picture; the other is worshipping the dead.
God bless.
See post 153 (and my response in 182). For one example: The Bible says the Sabbath is on the seventh day; the RCC says it is on Sunday, and claims that the authority to bind and loose permits it to make the change. Ergo, you change the Word of God.
And now, I really am moving on. Seriously, before you make accusations that I'm making this stuff up of me, try going upthread to see what I was responding to.
When is the "seventh day" exactly? Did the Jews follow the Julian Calendar? Where does it say in Scripture, "the Sabbath day is 'Saturday'"?
On the other hand, the calendar is a virtual tribute to pagan gods. Do you have a calendar?
When is the "seventh day" exactly? Did the Jews follow the Julian Calendar?
Where does it say in Scripture, "the Sabbath day is 'Saturday'"?
On the other hand, the calendar is a virtual tribute to pagan gods. Do you have a calendar?
409 posted on 02/08/2006 11:22:38 AM MST by Rutles4Ever As outlined in the Holy Word of G-d.
We use G-d's calendar.
b'shem Y'shua
See those Jews were pretty smart. God confirmed which day it was by withholding manna in the wilderness on the seventh day. And we've counted every 7th day since. Just so happens to fall on the gregorian Saturday.
I'm just tired of trying to reason with a juvenile. Go away, kid.
No, the real problem is that you have been forced to face the fact that you are rejecting God's word in favor of man's traditions and doctrines of devils.
Calling me a juvenile and kid doesn't bother me in the slightest. It is obviously a diversionary tactic and defense mechansim done out of fright and ignorance.
God will still accept you but wants you admit your errors.
So were yours.
You're trying to have it both ways here
Actually, it is Christ Himself who had it both ways, you are merely ignoring the submission to authority issue.
Remember, Luther didn't leave the RCC on his own accord. He was kicked out for attempting to reform it over the issue of selling indulgences.
Nice try. Luther may have had a point regarding indulgences, but his real problems stemmed from setting himself up as a mini-Pope and deciding which books constitite the canon of Scripture and what the true nature of the Eucharist was. Two things that belonged to the Chair of Peter who holds the keys.
For someone who preaches about the evils of "sola scriptura" it sure is amussing watching you insist on a literal interpretation regarding "the keys".
Thanks for the info.
If you have a question or disagreement on the Torah, who do you go to?
It gets really tiresome demonstrating the same things over and over on FR. However, you, junior, have ticked me off...
See post #379 for an overt Old Testament attestation to the three distinct persons of our one God.
John 14: 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." 8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ...
This next part is long but taken from the online Catholic Encyclopedia... it does a better job than I can do in a shorter time...
But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10). Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (Theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:4). In the Apostolic writings Theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Kyrios of the Son (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father (1 Corinthians 3:5; 7:17) or Theos of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to Christ passages of the Old Testament in which Kyrios is used, for example, I Corinthians 10:9 (Numbers 21:7), Hebrews 1:10-12 (Psalm 101:26-28); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (Acts 9:31; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:21), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of God the Father and of Christ (Acts 2:21; 9:14; Romans 10:13). The profession that "Jesus is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, Romans 10:9; Kyrios Iesous, 1 Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh. The texts in which St. Paul affirms that in Christ dwells the plenitude of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9), that before His Incarnation He possessed the essential nature of God (Philemon 2:6), that He "is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his Epistles.
The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers: "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas . . ." (Acts 13:2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" (Acts 16:7; cf. Acts 5:3; 15:28; Romans 15:30). Divine attributes are affirmed of Him.
- He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries known only to God (1 Corinthians 2:10);
- It is He who distributes charismata (1 Corinthians 12:11);
- He is the giver of supernatural life (2 Corinthians 3:8);
- He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men, as in His temple (Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).
- The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to Him (1 Corinthians 6:11; Romans 15:16), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 2:17).
Now, as I said earlier, I can read as well as you and can clearly see Biblical text affirming the Godhead of Christ as taught by the RCC. Think on the following regarding your rejection of Church authority:
2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Now I am done with you and will bang my head against this wall no longer. May the Spirit of God touch your heart and mind.
see buggman's post on the history of messaianic jewish christians..
The difference is, I refuted the responses I was given, providing logical arguments, illustrations, and Biblical citations/examples which were never addressed by subsequent posters, or even those I posted them to. Instead, you just went for repeating things that I had already addressed.
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.