Posted on 12/16/2006 5:18:34 AM PST by NYer
Hey, that's pretty good, WM. Nice find. :) Kawaii, while I know the above is Roman Catholic, I noticed that you immediately changed the subject in your response. :) Do you, or the Orthodox in general, agree with this part of the Catechism? Many, many Catholics have argued, it seems, in direct contravention of it.
I don't see anything particuraly wrong with it... I'm confused as to the context in which its written though.
OK, thanks. That makes sense.
I totally agree. That sounds very bad. I have counseled new believers (anyone, really) to never be afraid to answer a question with "I don't know, but I will get you the answer". That's SOP.
So if a Protestant has a disagreement with a Catholic about an interpretation, then the only thing to do is bring it before the Roman Catholic Church for a fair hearing. Got it. :)
And, as you well know, the Church, which wrote the NT, has always taught that Jesus was quite clear about building His Church upon Kepha/Cephas/Peter, the Rock. So, what's your beef?...:)
Well, I thought that you and WM both posted sections of the Catechism on this, that appeared to contradict. The latest position from you I have read is that it was both, which doesn't match your above.
And of course, I would respectfully disagree that the RCC "wrote" the NT. :) I would say that the Spirit "wrote" the NT through the authors, and allowing parts of the authors' personalities, etc., to come through. I give all the credit to God for writing God's word.
Thank you also. Kolo had the same answer. I think it's really interesting that two seminaries that focus so much on different cultures and languages come away with the exact same theology.
Gnosticism has a wide following in the United States. Few people have real knowledge of theology or traditional Christian teaching or the Bible. It is no longer taught in the schools, and not deeply in the schools that purport to be Christian. They go to college where they encounter a general atmosphere of skepticism, where the professors, for the most part are unbelievers. The entertainment media are filled with persons who are actively hostile to Christianity. The amazing thing is that so many Americans retain their faith despite all this. But confronted with such new "facts." most are defenseless.
You have to concede that the "Church." either in the Calvinist or the Catholic sense of the word, wrote the New Testament. It is now clear that unbelievers recongized that the authority of the Church depends on the Bible, that if they can discredit the Scriptures, they can discredit the Church. But that goes both ways. The Bible, at least the New Testament, consists of what traditional Christianity-- Latin or Eastern--says it is. The modern gnostics are trying to persuade the public that the "lost gospels" are as authenetic, or more so than the canonized gospels, They claim that they were suppressed after Constantine adopted Chrstianity as the State religion. Assuming that Constantine did adopted Christianity to butress his political position, one must also accept that he would have chosen the most powerful Christian factions, namely the Catholics. Certainly, this was no inconsiderable number. We have only to look at the number of bishops at Nicaea to see how numerous the Catholics were. Even without the power of the State behind them, even with the power of the State opposed to them, they have prevailed over their rivals.
Why do you think it's 'interesting?'
"Why do you think it's 'interesting?'"
Excellent question, K. FK, why DO you find that interesting? You should know that The Faith, the exact same Faith, has formed both of those cultures at least at the village level to this day and before the infection of those societies in the past, say, 150 years, by Western Enlightenment notions, at all levels.
Actually, to an untrained eye, a Gnostic text would seem perfectly 'orthodox.' What betrays Gnostic heresy in a text are specific words used in a specific context, which resemble the words used in orthodox Christianity (i.e. Sofia, Wisdom).
Also one would find theological constructs which actually 'make sense' (for example, the infusion of secret knowledge, or gnosis about God, such as +Paul's instant conversion on the road to Damascus) and could easily be construed as the workings of the 'indwelling Spirit.'
Gnosticism also posits that there is God in each and every one of us. Thus, +Paul's statement (Gal 1:16) that "God revealed His Son in me" and not "to" me is one of the many reasons Gnostics claim +Paul as one of their own. But such claims, of course, do not prove that +Paul was Gnostic.
They do show, however, how delicate the line of separation could be (which is why it took the Church Fathers three hundred years to sift through some 200 scrolls and determine with certainty which of them were orthodox and which were Gnostic fraud).
Most church-going people do not realize that there is a fine line between an 'indwelling Holy Spirit' and 'God in me' concept.
Books talking Gnostic trash are like drugs: if there are no buyers, they will go away. Thus we can't blame America's Gnostic leanings on what's in Barnes and Noble; people buy them because they don't know any better, and they don't know any better because the "me-me'me" mindset believes that each man knows what's best for him/her.
So, as long as you have buyers, you will have Gnostic trash on the shelves (the business doesn't care what they sell as long as it sells, and if they don't someone else will).
vices will exist and sell as long as there are customers.
I draw pretty sharp distinctions on this topic, so yes, men of the "Church", penned the words and ideas. I just hold that those ideas came directly from God. In my mind there is way too much cohesiveness in the NT for the books to have been written independently, rather than under a divine inspiration.
It is now clear that unbelievers recognized that the authority of the Church depends on the Bible, that if they can discredit the Scriptures, they can discredit the Church.
That sounds reasonable.
The modern gnostics are trying to persuade the public that the "lost gospels" are as authentic, or more so than the canonized gospels, They claim that they were suppressed after Constantine adopted Christianity as the State religion.
The Gnostics would have to explain what they think the Spirit's role was in assembling the NT. They would have to say "none". If I am following your overall point, though, I would certainly agree that Catholicism was the dominant faith within Christianity at the time, and always has been in terms of numbers (as far as I know).
Kosta: "Why do you think it's 'interesting?'"
Excellent question, K. FK, why DO you find that interesting? You should know that The Faith, the exact same Faith, has formed both of those cultures at least at the village level to this day and before the infection of those societies in the past, say, 150 years, by Western Enlightenment notions, at all levels.
Since I don't know much about village culture, I was thinking more of on a national level. Since the 1940's, one culture grew up behind the Iron Curtain, and one did not. So, I thought it was good that the faiths remain the same today. I think American culture has driven several Protestant denominations right into the sewer, and that's just in my lifetime. I admit that and lament it. So, I just meant my remark as a compliment. :)
The Spirit works through men, and their natural gifts which they owe to God. What they heard from Jesus, what he heard about Jesus from the Apostles, is the truth and that is what is written.
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.