Posted on 05/14/2014 10:02:57 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The original writings from the Apostles themselves (the autographs) no longer exist.
This is due partly to the perishable material (papyrus) used by the writers, and partly the fact that the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians (Edict of Diocletian, A.D. 303).
Before translating the Bible into Latin, St. Jerome already translated into more common languages enough books to fill a library. (Saint Jerome, Maisie Ward, Sheed & Ward; A Companion to Scripture Studies, Steinmuller.)
In the year 383, he revised the Latin New Testament text in accordance with some Greek manuscripts. Between the years 390 and 406 he translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew, and this completed work is known today as the "Old Latin Vulgate". The work had been requested by Pope Damasus, and Copies of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate appeared uncorrupted as late as the 11th century, with some revisions by St. Peter Damian and Lanfranc. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Place of the Bible in the Church", C.U.A.)
Pope Benedict XV wrote about St. Jerome's translation in his 1920 encyclical, Spiritus Paraclitus, "Nor was Jerome content merely to gather up this or that teacher's words; he gathered from all quarters whatever might prove of use to him in this task. From the outset he had accumulated the best possible copies of the Bible and the best commentators on it," . . . "he corrected the Latin version of the Old Testament by the Greek; he translated afresh nearly all the books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin; . . . he discussed Biblical questions with the brethren who came to him, and answered letters on Biblical questions which poured in upon him from all sides; besides all this, he was constantly refuting men who assailed Catholic doctrine and unity."
(Excerpt) Read more at cathtruth.com ...
Of course they have to distort Scripture and strain at the eye of a gnat to get there.
Iscool:
Well, and not to get into who is right vs wrong with you. I reject Luther’s canon. Lets just leave it at that. The Orthodox Church rejects it as well.
Radio Replies First Volume - Indulgences
Indulgences - and Why they Remain Vital to us Today [Catholic Caucus]
Pope OKs plenary indulgence for Lourdes' 150th anniversary [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
[What Every Catholic Needs to Know about] Gaining Indulgences [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 26: Indulgences
Vatican says Catholics can get indulgence for sick-day activities (Devotional Announcement)[World Day of the Sick]
ortiuncula Indulgence can be obtained this Sunday
He who holds the keys to the kingdom - the Catholic practice of granting indulgences
POPE GRANTS PLENARY INDULGENCE FOR YEAR OF THE EUCHARIST
New Plenary Indulgence to Mark Year of the Eucharist
Infallible Infallibility
Docility (on Catholic dogma and infallibility)
Beginning Catholic: Infallibility: Keeping the Faith [Ecumenical]
Papal Infallibility [Ecumenical]
Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)
Pope: may all recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Pope St. Leo the Great and the Petrine Primacy
The Epiphany of the Roman Primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH [Ratzinger]
Program 14: Peter’s Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
Program 16: Papal Authority and Paul’s Rebuke of Peter
Program 22: Papal Infallibility
Program 23: Peter is the Rock of the Church
Program 25: Peter Alone Has the Keys to the Kingdom
Program 38: Core’s Rebellion and Church Authority
Program 39: The Church is the Judge of Scripture
Program 18: Purgatory in 1Cor 3:15
Program 19: Purgatory in Matthew 5
Program 49: There is a Purgatory
Traditional Catholicism Is Winning
Number of Priests Worldwide Continues Steady Increase (and other good news!)
Ordained as Priest After Wife Died
What the heck is a cardinal, anyway?
Catholic Word of the Day: TRANSITIONAL DIACONATE, 12-07-11
"The Dignity and Duties of the Priest" (excerpt) by St. Alphonsus Liguori [Catholic Caucus]
Charisma, Conservatism Gifts of Newest Priests
"The Dignity and Duties of the Priest" (excerpt) by St. Alphonsus Liguori [Catholic Caucus]
On the Catholic Priesthood, AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII, Encyclical (Long) [Catholic Caucus]
Meet The U.S.’s Largest Ordination Class
The FSSP Experiences Tremendous Growth
Survey Indicates Increase in Inquiries For The Priesthood and Religious Life
Young Catholics Hear Call to Serve
US Dominican Province Welcomes Its Biggest Class of Novices in Decades
It Was the Rosary: Mainz Priest Talks About His Vocation
The Priesthood (Holy Orders) [Catholic Caucus]
[CATHOLIC / ORTHODOX CAUCUS] The priesthood: the love of the Heart of Jesus
More Heeding The Call to Priesthood at Menlo Park Seminary
Nephew of slain Germantown priest follows uncle's path
On the menu: the priesthood
Of priests and possible priests to be
Priests are a gift from the Heart of Christ, Pope Benedict says
Convert looks forward to serving God in unique way [Father Doug Piece]
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Opportunities of Grace: [Holy] Orders
From Krishna to Christ: The Conversion Testimony of Father Jay Kythe
'Come Follow Me': Grant Desme Lays Aside Baseball Career and Responds
A's MVP Desme retires for priesthood [ Grant Desme]
THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE
Faith Journey Leads United Methodist from Pastorate to Catholic Priesthood
Former Protestant Minister Pursues Priesthood
Married man to be ordained (RC) priest [Ecumenical]
A Father and Son Swim the Tiber and become Priests [Ecumenical]
Cardinal Arinze discusses the priestly vows of obedience, poverty and chastity (Catholic Caucus)
Pope Gives Key to Being Highly Effective Priests [Ecumenical]
Priests: Ordinary Men Made Extraordinary by Grace [Holy Orders/Chrism Mass]
7 Reasons To Be a Priest
The Nature of Priestly Ordination: Theological Background and Some Present Concerns
The Priesthood of Jesus Christ - Body and Blood (Confessional ... Consecration ... and Calvary)
What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Priesthood (Holy Orders) [Catholic-Orthodox Caucus]
What You {Catholics} Need to Know: Celibacy [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
New priest finds joy in sacrifice
No shortage of priests in Atlanta, more than 50 seminarians
Debt, the Vocation Killer [Catholic Caucus]
Identical twins become Green Bay priests
A Modern Roman Rite Priest reports on Classical Roman Rite Training
Number of new priests expected to rise in 2007
Father, Mother, Sister, Brother [Part One of a series on Celibacy] -- Catholic Caucus
It Takes a Village of Vocations [Part Two of a series on Celibacy] -- Catholic Caucus
Living Single and Celibate in God’s Service [Part Three of a series on Celibacy] -- Catholic Caucus
Brothers and Sisters in Christ [Part Four of a series on Celibacy] -- Catholic Caucus
The Adventure of the Priesthood [Part Five of a series on Celibacy] -- Catholic Caucus
This Is the Body of Christ [Part Six of a series on Celibacy and Vocations] -- Catholic Caucus
14 men are ordained into the priesthood (at St. Patrick's Cathedral NYC)
To Know, To Love, To Lead (Pope Benedict XVI ordains 22 new priests)
The Indispensable Priesthood -- Holy Thursday, [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Why Does the Catholic Church Ordain Only Men to the Priesthood? Part Three[Cath/Orth/Angl Caucus]
Why Does the Catholic Church Ordain Only Men to the Priesthood? Part Two
Why Does the Catholic Church Ordain Only Men to the Priesthood? Part One [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Vatican Said (Again!) Not Revising Celibacy Rule
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Pope Francis: Mary’s faith unties the knot of sin
Pope consecrates world to immaculate heart of Mary
Mary, Mother of God
Mary 'can only bring us to God,' expert says as entrustment nears
Pope Francis: "Mary, look upon us" (Mass in Cagliari)
Devotion to the Most Holy Name of Mary [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Pope Francis: contemplate the “suffering humanity” of Jesus and the sweetness of Mary
Mary's Nativity Draws Tens of Thousands to Indian Basilica
Veneration of Mary in Luke 11:27-28
Pope at Mass: Learning from Mary to keep the Word of God
Pope: Mary is always in a hurry to help us (first pastoral visit to a diocese in Rome)
Catholic Word of the Day: MARY'S SINLESSNESS, 04-01-13
Letter #47: To Mary (Pope Francis prays at (tomb of Pope St. Pius V) [Catholic Caucus]
Catholic Word of the Day: MARY'S VIRGINITY, 02-26-13
Mariaphobic Response Syndrome: Part Two
Mariaphobic Response Syndrome: Part One
A Mother’s Love, The Blessed Virgin Mary Saying YES To God
Chesterton on devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary [Ecumenical]
The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
A Comparison is Instituted Between the Disobedient and Sinning Eve and the Virgin Mary..
Magnificat: The Hymn of the Blessed Virgin Mary [Catholic Caucus]
The Blessed Virgin Mary's Role in the Celibate Priest's Spousal... (Pt 2) (CATHOLIC CAUCUS)
The Blessed Virgin Mary's Role in the Celibate Priest's Spousal and Paternal Love (CATHOLIC CAUCUS)
Discovering Mary [Excellent New Book For Converts]
Beginning Our Lady's Month [Catholic Caucus]
Give it all to Mary [Catholic Caucus]
JESUS LIVING IN MARY: HANDBOOK, SPIRITUALITY OF ST. LOUIS DE MONTFORT, ROSARY [Ecumenical]
Mary, Tabernacle of the Lord By Archbishop Fulton Sheen(Catholic Caucus)
A Protestant Discovers Mary
Mary is our Mother and Queen of the New Davidic Kingdom (Scriptures Agree With Catholic Church)
Hail Mary
Holy Water Silhouette (Virgin Mary -video))
How could Mary be the Mother of God?
Mary, the Mother of God (a defense)
Calling Mary “Mother of God” Tells Us Who Jesus Is
The Holy Spirit And Mary (Catholic Caucus)
Mary, Our Cause of Rejoicing
Mary in Byzantine Doctrine and Devotion (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
Radio Replies First Volume - Devotion to Mary
The Blessed Virgin Mary and the Catholic Discovery of America(Catholic Caucus)
Mary is the star that guides us to holiness, says Holy Father during Angelus [Catholic Caucus]
The Efficacy and Power of One Hail Mary [Ecumenical]
When Did Belief in the Virgin Birth Begin?
Mary, Motherhood, and the Home BY Archbishop Fulton Sheen
On Mary, Mother of Priests
Benedict reflects on Mary and the priesthood [Catholic Caucus]
Radio Replies First Volume - Mary
Scholar says Baptists neglect lessons from Virgin Mary
Mary and the Sword Continued Part #2 by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
Mary and the Sword by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen(Catholic Caucus)
Why Did Mary Offer a Sin Offering? [Ecumenical]
Mary and Intercessory Prayer
Mary: Holy Mother
Mary not just for Catholics anymore
Pope concludes Month of Mary in the Vatican Gardens
Consecration to Mary(Catholic Caucus)
Mary’s Marching Orders
Praying the Hail Mary Like Never Before [Ecumenical]
Our Lady of the Most Blessed Sacrament [Catholic Caucus]
Catholic Caucus: The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas - THE HAIL MARY
Our Jewish Roots: The Immaculate Conception [Ecumenical]
The Blessed Virgin in the History of Christianity [Ecumenical]
Archbishop Sheen Today! -- Mary and the Moslems
Mary Immaculate: Patroness of the United States [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
"The Woman He Loved": Fulton Sheen and the Blessed Mother(Catholic Caucus)
September 12: The Most Holy Name of Mary and Militant Islam
Catholic Devotional: Feast of the Holy Name of Mary
A Homily on the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary
May Devotion: Blessed Virgin Mary
Catholic Caucus: Mary, The Power of Her Name [The Most Holy Name of the Blessed Virgin Mary]
“All truth goes through three stages.
First it is ridiculed.
Then it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.”
— Schopenhauer
Mr. Rogers:
Once again, your interpretation, like that of many American Protestants is void of any theological foundation and how that has been understood by more learned men than you and me both, i.e, the Church Fathers of the early Church.
Saint Jerome, without a doubt the greatest Biblical scholar of the Church Fathers during the period 100 to 420AD in his letter to Saint Augustine deals precisely with the issue of Saints Peter and Paul in Galatians and his interpretation, not mine [being the good Catholic that I am, and thus also I will take his over your interpretation].
http://newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm
Following Saint Jerome, I contend that Paul in no way was correcting Peter for teaching false doctrine. If this were true, then Paul would also be guilty of what he was correcting Peter of doing. Again, no Father ever interpreted Peter as teaching unorthodox doctrine. The most we see is that some of the Fathers (St. Augustine being one of the) accused him of acting hypocritically, and thus sinning, which is what the text actually states (c.f. Gal 2:13).
St. Jerome’s Letter Number 112, addressed to his friend St. Augustine, which I have linked goes through the Scriptures and points out, correctly, the problem one has if one assumes that St. Peter was teaching false doctrine. I encourage you to read St. Jerome’s commentary and go back to the Scriptures and see how your interpretation in the end, is not correct.
I seem to remember some years back that this issue was discussed her and I think I may have pointed out Saint Jerome’s take on it as well as Saint Augustine’s and I think I may have pinged both you and Iscool in a post.
In the link I cited above [Jerome’s Letter 112], Saint Jerome points out that first, Biblical scholars and theologians need to read Acts 15 first, to understand Galatians in proper context. Some key texts from that chapter are as follows, first we read “After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, My brothers, you are aware from early days God made his choice among you that the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…..on the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way they are.”” (cf. Acts 15: 7-11). We next read, “the whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the sings and wonders”(c.f. Acts 15:12).
Now you and I can agree that St. James was the overseer[Bishop]/leader of the Church in Jerusalem, which was made up of ethnic Jewish-Christians. So, a theological question is who had more authority at the Council, Peter or James. However, I think the text is clear that St. James begins his statement in verse 13 after the council fell silent and he makes specific reference to St. Peter [called Symeon by James] as we read “After they had fallen silent, James responded, My brothers listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.” (c.f. Acts 15:13-14). Thus, St. James assents to St. Peters doctrinal declaration, by specifically referencing Peter, and then as leader of the Church in Jerusalem, gives a pastoral plan on how the Jewish-Christian community can implement Peter’s decision and stay in communion with the gentile Christians coming into the Church [c.f. Acts 15:19-21]
Next, in the context of what we read in Acts 15, it is also important to note that the Jewish-Christians from the Church in Jerusalem were causing the friction in Galatia and having trouble accepting gentiles as Christians “came from James” (c.f. Gal 2:12 and Acts 11: 2-4). So, given the Jewish-Christians at Jerusalem having difficulty with the gentiles becoming Christians, it was important for St. Luke to record in Acts, that St. James accepted St. Peters decision recorded in Acts 15.
Now back to Galatians and St. Peter and St. Paul. Again, Acts 15 also shows that it was St. Peter who first came to see that the Jewish ceremonial laws were not longer in effect and that it is through Grace that God saves humanity (c.f. Acts 15:11). It is also true that the context of Galatians that ST. Paul does in fact regard ST. Peter has a great authority (c.f. Gal 1:18, 2:1-2) as he mentions those of repute several times and claims that those of repute “made me add nothing” (c.f. Gal 2:2; Gal 2:6).
St. Jerome in his Letter 112 to St. Augustine quotes Galatians 2:11-14 and then writes:
“No one can doubt, therefore, that the Apostle Peter was himself the author of that rule with deviation from which he is charged. The cause of that deviation, moreover, is seen to be fear of the Jews. For the Scripture says, that at first he did eat with the Gentiles, but that when certain had come from James he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Now he feared the Jews, to whom he had been appointed apostle, lest by occasion of the Gentiles they should go back from the faith in Christ; imitating the Good Shepherd in his concern lest he should lose the flock committed to him.”
So from St. Jerome’s writing, which was also consistent with Origen before him, it is clear that St. Peter was being a good shepherd and feeding Christ sheep, as Christ commanded him [cf. John 21: 17-19], and trying to strengthen the faith of the Jewish-Christians from Jerusalem. So it is clear that were still problems with the ethnically mixed Christian Churches that had both Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians, as was the case in Antioch.
So, St. Jerome suggests that St. Paul rebuked St. Peter in a “figurative sense”, as a way to provide both an opportunity to stress again that gentiles are saved by Grace and no longer to keep the Jewish Ceremonial Laws. To argue that St. Peter was “literally wrong” and taught doctrinal error is problematic because later in Letter 112, St. Jerome shows that St. Paul, when confronted with similar situations did similar things that St. Peter did and cites three passages to make his point [c.f. Acts 16: 1-3; Acts 18:18; Acts 21: 18-26).
For example, in Acts 16: 1-3 we read “He reached [also] Derbe and Lystra where there was a disciple named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke highly of him and Paul wanted him to come along with him. On account of the Jews in that region Paul had him CIRCUMCISED [emphasis mine], for they new that his father was a Greek.” So since Timothy was not fully Jewish, as he had not been circumcised and he had a gentile Father, Paul accepted circumcision so that Timothy could do missionary work among Jews, knowing that the ceremonial Jewish Laws were abrogated. Paul allowed this, while still maintaining what St. Peter declared in Acts 15” 6-12, that the Jewish ceremonial laws can’t be imposed on the gentile converts to Christianity.
In Acts 18:18 we read “Paul remained for quite some time, and after saying farewell to the brothers he sailed for Syria together with Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchrea he had his “HAIR CUT” because he had taken a vow.” (i.e. The Nazirite vow described in Numbers 6: 1-24).
In Acts 21: 18-26, we see St. Paul giving instructions to four men to have their heads shaved and have them purified.
ST. Jerome goes on to say the reason that St. Paul did this [3 cases] was for fear of offending the Jews who had come to believe in Christ, the same reason St. Peter did. So, St. Jerome and in fact comments that some writers [St. Jerome disagrees with those writers] felt that St. Paul sometimes had envy towards ST. Peter and boasted of things that he did not do. Remember, St. Paul himself notes that he struggled with a sin throughout his life; Perhaps Jerome was telling us that certain writers like Porphyry [who accused St. Paul of envy towards St. Peter with respect to Paul claims he “had written boastfully of things which he either had not done, or, if he did them, had done with inexcusable presumption.”] are using St. Paul’s own words and trying to claim that the sin he had was envy towards St. Peter. Again, St. Jerome disagrees and puts forth an interpretation that protects the orthodoxy and memory of both St. Peter and St. Paul and argues to claim they were rivals is blasphemous.
Again, one can gather [and many Protestants seem to make this interpretation, most likely to challenge the authority of St. Peter, which the Catholic Church sees as primacy] from reading Galatians that St. Paul is claiming that he settled the doctrinal question with respect to Gentile Christians and the Jewish Law, but as St. Luke records in Acts [and independent source], it was clearly St. Peter.
In closing, whatever interpretation one has with respect to Galatians 2, the entire biblical text does not allow for an interpretation that St. Paul was correcting St. Peter on “False Doctrinal Teaching.” In addition, St. Jerome in his closing sort of takes a friendly jab at his friend St. Augustine and asks Augustine to forgive him [Jerome] for this humble attempt to correct Augustine with respect to how Peter and Paul at Galatia.
I think it is clear that St. Peter was not living like a Jew any longer, and again in Acts 15, he was the one who put for the doctrine that gentiles would not have to observe the Jewish ceremonial laws. The best we can say is that Peter was not celebrating table communion/fellowship with the gentiles in Antioch as he was worried about the flock under St. James from Jerusalem, who were ethnically Jewish Christians.
Perhaps what happened was St. Peter, in humility, allowed himself to be publicly rebuked, and in doing so, publicly gave witness that St. Paul was a fellow Apostle and peer in the missionary field. Recall, that St. Paul was constantly having to defend himself as being an “Apostle” (cf. 1 Cor 9:1-3). The Second Letter to the Corinthians also has a defense of Paul of his ministry and status as an apostle [Chapter 10].
In closing, perhaps God inspired St. Jerome, who is recongized by modern scholars as the greatest biblical scholar of the post apostolic Church, to come up with the interpretation that protects the memory of both St. Peter and Paul and does not pit them against each other.
Kudos ... they did not hide anything, especially their love in Christ for the lost.
“In closing, perhaps God inspired St. Jerome, who is recongized by modern scholars as the greatest biblical scholar of the post apostolic Church, to come up with the interpretation that protects the memory of both St. Peter and Paul and does not pit them against each other.”
No.
It is obvious they WERE pitted against each other, and why. Again, one does not need to resort to someone 400 years after the fact to figure it out:
“Later, however, when Peter came to Antioch I had to oppose him publicly, for he was then plainly in the wrong. It happened like this. Until the arrival of some of James’ companions, he, Peter, was in the habit of eating his meals with the Gentiles. After they came, he withdrew and ate separately from the Gentiles—out of sheer fear of what the Jews might think. The other Jewish Christians carried out a similar piece of deception, and the force of their bad example was so great that even Barnabas was affected by it. But when I saw that this behaviour was a contradiction of the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter so that everyone could hear, “If you, who are a Jew, do not live like a Jew but like a Gentile, why on earth do you try to make Gentiles live like Jews?”
Peter was an Apostle, and a great one. But while he had moments of tremendous faith, he also had moments of great weakness. None of what I wrote was intended to suggest Peter was not outstanding, but he obviously was rebuked by Paul, in public, and for reasons that struck at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.
Timothy had apparently been raised as a Jew in many ways: “Remember from what sort of people your knowledge has come, and how from early childhood your mind has been familiar with the holy scriptures”. He may not have been formally circumcised and fully accepted as a Jew, but he had been raised “from early childhood” learning the Old Testament. His mother was Jewish.
In Acts 18, we had Paul, a JEW, acting Jewish. And in Acts 21, it involved, again, Jews acting Jewish - as was acceptable and even common practice among Jewish converts. But Peter rejected his Gentile friends, and went further: “why on earth do you try to make Gentiles live like Jews?”
Acts 18
“Why Paul made this vow, or on what occasion, the sacred historian has not informed us, and conjecture, perhaps, is useless. We may observe, however:
(1) That if was common for the Jews to make such vows to God, as an expression of gratitude or of devotedness to his service, when they had been raised up from sickness, or delivered from danger or calamity. See Josephus, i. 2,15. Vows of this nature were also made by the Gentiles on occasions of deliverance from any signal calamity (Juvenal, Sat., 12,81). It is possible that Paul may have made such a vow in consequence of signal deliverance from some of the numerous perils to which he was exposed. But,
(2) There is reason to think that it was mainly with a design to convince the Jews that he did not despise their law, and was not its enemy. See Acts 21:22-24. In accordance with the custom of the nation, and in compliance with a law which was not wrong in itself, he might have made this vow, not for a time-serving purpose, but in order to conciliate them, and to mitigate their anger against the gospel. See 1 Corinthians 9:19-21. But where nothing is recorded, conjecture is useless. Those who wish to see the subject discussed may consult Grotius and Kuinoel in loco; Spencer, De Legibus Hebrae., p. 862; and Calmet‘s Dictionary, “Nazarite.”
Acts 21
“That thou teachest all the Jews … - From all the evidence which we have of his conduct, this report was incorrect and slanderous. The truth appears to have been, that he did not enjoin the observance of those laws on the Gentile converts; that the effect of his ministry on them was to lead them to suppose that their observance was not necessary - contrary to the doctrines of the Judaizing teachers (see Acts 6:14. The word “customs” denotes “the rites of the Mosaic economy the offering of sacrifices, incense, the oblations, anointings, festivals, etc., which the Law of Moses prescribed.”...
...Which have a vow on them - Which have made a vow. See the notes on Acts 18:18. From the mention of shaving the head (in Acts 21:24), it is evident that the vow which they had taken was that of the Nazarite; and that as the time of their vow was about expiring, they were about to be shaven, in accordance with the custom usual on such occasions. See the notes on Acts 18:18. These persons Paul could join, and thus show decisively that he did not intend to undervalue or disparage the laws of Moses when those laws were understood as mere ceremonial observances....
...As touching the Gentiles - In regard to the Gentile converts. It might be expedient for Paul to do what could not be enjoined on the Gentiles. They could not command the Gentile converts to observe those ceremonies, while yet it might be proper, for the sake of peace, that the converts to Christianity from among the Jews should regard them. The conduct of the Christians at Jerusalem in giving this advice, and of Paul in following it, may be easily vindicated. If it be objected, as it has been by infidels, that it looks like double-dealing; that it was designed to deceive the Jews in Jerusalem, and to make them believe that Paul actually conformed to the ceremonial law, when his conduct among the Gentiles showed that he did not, we may reply:
(1)That the observance of that law was not necessary in order to salvation;
(2)That it would have been improper to have enjoined its observance on the Gentile converts as necessary, and therefore it was never done;
(3)That when the Jews urged its observance as necessary to justification and salvation, Paul strenuously opposed this view of it everywhere;
(4)Yet that, as a matter of expediency, he did not oppose its being observed either by the Jews, or by the converts made among the Jews.
In fact, there is other evidence besides the case before us that Paul himself continued to observe some, at least, of the Jewish rites, and his conduct in public at Jerusalem was in strict accordance with his conduct in other places. See Acts 18:18. The sum of the whole matter is this, that when the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law was urged as necessary to justification and acceptance with God, Paul resisted it; when it was demanded that its observance should be enjoined on the Gentiles, he opposed it; in all other cases he made no opposition to it, and was ready himself to comply with it, and willing that others should also.”
These quotes are from Barnes (http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/view.cgi?book=ac), whose explanation, unlike Jerome’s, matches the events recorded in scripture.
Peter was not advocating that Jews show respect for the law of Moses, so as not to hinder the salvation of their brother Jews, but imposing it on Gentiles. That comes, not from a “Church Father”, but from the Apostle Paul & the Word of God.
And for teaching that, he was publicly rebuked in the strongest possible terms by Paul. Thus we see Peter, who was a man of great faith, being rebuked for wrong teaching. There is no trace here of Peter being superior in rank, nor of him being infallible. On the contrary, he is vividly portrayed in God’s Word as both a great Apostle, AND as a fallible man subject to rebuke by the Apostle who didn’t walk with Jesus during Jesus’ ministry on earth.
What source material do you have for this Edict of Diocletian? All I can find is that it was concerning maximum prices for the Roman empire and no mention of Christian book destruction. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_on_Maximum_Prices:
Earlier in his reign, as well as in 301 around the same time as the Edict on Prices, Diocletian issued Currency Decrees, which attempted to reform the system of taxation and to stabilize the coinage.
It is difficult to know exactly how the coinage was changed, as the values and even the names of coins are often unknown or have been lost in the historical record. The Roman Empire was awash with other coins from outside of the Empire – especially in the Mediterranean. The implied coinage changeover time was at least a decade.
Although the decree was nominally successful after it was imposed, market forces led to more and more of the decree being disregarded and reinterpreted over time.
The full text can be seen HERE. I read it through, and found nothing that even mentions Christian writings. What it DOES say about the Edict of Diocletian is:
Pardon me. Should have said Catholic scholars working through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The papists DO call them "Deuterocanonical" (second canon).
Except that the church Jesus established is a spiritual house of which all genuine believers in Christ are being built up into it as LIVING stones (I Peter 2:5) and not a single, physical organization that only claims it is the one, true church. The word "catholic", at one time, meant the universal faith believed by the body of Christ and was an ADJECTIVE describing that faith - as taught by Jesus and which the holy men of God, who were carried along by the Holy Spirit, wrote down God's revealed truths which are found in sacred Scripture. We have "the prophetic word made more sure", to which we do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in our hearts. (II Peter 1:19).
And you would know this how???
When atheists, pagans and satanists mock Christianity, they bother ALL Christians. We "Protestants" just don't get our knickers in a knot frantically worrying that Jesus will get trapped in our Communion bread and forcibly subjected to desecration should someone sneak out with a piece. Don't you guys get it that they are doing this to stir up trouble to get more attention for their schemes? Like grade school children, they use ridicule to bully and what is the best way to disarm them, ignore them and let them know their tactics won't work and your faith is unmovable.
We don't see Jesus holding a prayer vigil and march when He was tempted by Satan to get off His game, do we? He answered him back with the Word of God as His "sword of the Spirit" and Satan went away deflated.
The author builds up straw men so he can knock them over and claim victory! NO, "Protestants" do NOT do what he claims they do. The Reformation started because the Roman Catholic Church had perverted the Gospel and invented dogmas that were NOT part of the ancient traditions of the church of Jesus Christ and which were NOT taught by Scripture - the divinely-inspired word of God. God gave us Scripture so that we could have an objective rule of faith to guide us.
Roman Catholicism gradually replaced the inherent authority of sacred Scripture with man made traditions and their self-proclaimed infallibility of the "magesterium". Instead of holding to what has always been believed, everywhere and by everyone (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus), they surrendered to the faulty idea of doctrinal "development". Jesus NEVER gave his church the power to create doctrine or to change what He taught through His ministry on earth and which continued with His apostles. Truth IS absolute. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. The gospel of the grace of God will never change. Jesus is our ONLY rock!
Amen!
We can say,think,do,believe what we want but we either stand on THAT rock or we will fall.
“Except that the church Jesus established is a spiritual house of which all genuine believers in Christ are being built up into it as LIVING stones (I Peter 2:5) and not a single, physical organization that only claims it is the one, true church.”
Wrong. What Peter wrote he wrote about the only Church that existed. That was the spiritual house and it contained all genuine believers in Christ. No Protestant sect established 1400 years later need apply.
“The word “catholic”, at one time, meant the universal faith believed by the body of Christ and was an ADJECTIVE describing that faith”
Actually the first use of the phrase “Catholic Church” shows it was a proper noun. The word “Catholic” was certainly adjectival but it was part of a proper noun.
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.