Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
It’s not difficult to see how the beliefs changed over time to accommodate the power Rome was trying to hold on too. Contrary to what they would like us to believe the RCC has surely not been consistent through the years.
If one starts with the knowledge that the original scriptures are indeed “authoritative” and that God did indeed preserve for us a “source” of His written word then we can begin to establish a base. The admonition to “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true” was and is wise advice. I have found that trusting any one “source” other than scripture itself is tenuous at best. I don’t use the “cynical” part of my name here in a frivolous manner. I have found that “trust but verify” is not only wise but is necessary if one wants to avoid being led astray. Even searching out the original meaning of Greek and Hebrew words has led to a better understanding of the intent and meaning of scripture. Putting ones trust in any other than God alone will lead to disastrous consequences.
The question and post were not addressed to you for a reason. I don’t you can answer for them, though I do appreciate your thoughts on it.
The question and post were not addressed to you for a reason. I don’t think you can answer for them, though I do appreciate your thoughts on it.
CB, I believe you have said that each Christian is tasked with determining his/her own interpretation, or choice of interpretation, including studying the Greek and Hebrew.
Is this an accurate statement? Is this up to each individual in your view? It seems to be consistent with your post here.
That would not be an accurate description. What I did say is that salvation is an individual thing. Putting ones trust in Jesus alone rather than an institution or individual is the only sure way. Understanding the “meat” of scripture is not paramount to ones salvation. I have also said that putting ones trust in any individual or institution is risky at best. When a person is led to understanding the “meat” of scripture it is indeed their responsibility to “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true” with all that entails. How deeply one delves into that understanding is an individual calling.
Thanks for your reply.
What is the difference between ‘meat’ and not in scripture?
Now, speaking of laying eggs, what exactly do you feel you need, D-fendr, to stamp information with your seal of approval? I gave you the reference,page, and column, and point number. If you want to discount any of the information, look it up. Unless you would rather believe that our side has no "authoritative" references, so you have no need to look them up. If that is the case, then stop griping about it. Look into it, don't look into it. It's up to you.
What do you think we do? Find our information from Chinese Fortune Cookies at the local Jade Palace? If that ever happens, I'll scan the information to you, along with your lucky numbers...:)
Thanks for your reply, however I don’t see specific answers to the questions in it.
Perhaps if I restate it more simply and specifically:
What makes this authority, the one you cite, an authority for you?
Gee, I don’t know, D-fendr. There isn’t even ONE red letter word in the Book, and yet...
Thanks. “I don’t know” it is, unless you’d like to offer more.
"Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and DOCTRINE." 2 Tim.4:2. - God. "Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text", p. 240, column 2.
The authoritative question involved history according to your source, not excerpts of scripture as in your reply here.
See how comical it becomes?
The crux of this thread is that not all agree on what today constitutes the authoritative “original Scriptures”. For all of the hyperbole regarding the reliance on Hebrew sources none of them are accepted without major alteration or recognition that those that determined if rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
The Canon of the Sadducees held that only the five books of the Pentateuch were Scripture whereas the Septuagint, accepted as Scripture by the Hellenized Jews, which constituted the largest number of Jews in the first century, held that there were 70. The Pharisee Canon, to which you give most weight, was not completely closed until the 2nd Century AD and only considers 24 books of Scripture. It was set primarily to counteract the growing Christian sect and to reverse the influence of the Hellenized Jews. The Essenes and Samaritans also held different Canons.
Even after you have determined which books you accept you have to wade through the various versions since none of the original manuscripts exist today. And if you are not a native speaker of first century Koine Greek you have to accept that the translation you are using was produced inerrantly.
I am just a little curious how anyone this deeply immersed in the chaos and discord surrounding can reject outright the idea of Jesus leaving a Church with a teaching authority to deal with it.
Yes, you are so right..very frustrating, I’m with you SusyQue.
Again to all skeptics and naysayers...God does not make mistakes. The King James version has been the rock basis for complete scripture and inspiration for centuries now. It was commissioned “by God, through the Holy Spirit” so that the word could be read and understood by all people in clear and poetic verse, being excruciatingly faithful to the oldest and most accepted manuscripts and Gospels. The Catholics Love pomp and circumstance and talk of venerating saints. A couple of extra ancient texts that may or may not have been inspired scripture is ok with them, as it makes for interesting reading and reflection. Not to say those books are not true or have any value to them, but for some reason with all their detailed solemn masses, God may have wanted to break away from the constraining structure of the Catholic church and bring men and women closer to him through a Bible that had no more or no less teaching than what mankind needed for a more personal way of study, belief and worship. A.K.A. The King James Version. I’m not saying the Catholic church is in the wrong in any way. Some people Love the quiet, meditative and long practiced Latin Mass...The books of the Apocrypha make for interesting reading, as do some of the other “Lost books of the Bible”. The New International Version, the New American Standard versions and a few select others are accurate translations for a modern world, but I still find myself quoting scripture from time to time in the language of the old King James.
What worries me more than the addition or omission of the Apocrypha and or other books, is the blatant “Re-translation” of accepted scripture to fit political correctness. Changing the meaning of verses completely or adding or subtracting words to fit their own self interests or lifestyle scares me more than any “conspiracy” surrounding the Apocrypha.
This statement belies a profound and fundamental lack of understanding of that the Church is. It is not my Church nor D-fendr's Church, it is Christ's Church. It is not, like Protestants see a church, as one among many competing institutions that one os free to join or quit at any time and for any reason. The Church is seen by Catholics as the Bride of Christ, instituted among men by Jesus Himself.
CCC - 874 Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:
In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God . . . may attain to salvation.
"Whatever one may think of its theology and ecclesiology, the cold heart fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church is not just one more institution among others. Structurally and doctrinally, it is the emblem par excellence of the ancient world, a continual reminder to our generation that its life did not begin yesterday, and that Western civilization would be unrecognizable, and probably nonexistent, without it, the Catholic Church reminds us as well that we are living off of a cultural capital that was millennia in the making. Its unabashed affirmation of the centrality of tradition to right conduct, its hierarchical conception of authority, its exclusion of females and homosexuals from the priesthood, and its demand that its clergy take a vow of celibacy are some of the more salient respects in which the Catholic Church has not only distinguished itself from the leveling impulses of our age, but resisted them."
– Jack Kerwick, The Catholic Church and the Left, American Thinker, February 20, 2011
In essence what I'm asking is 'as opposed to any and all others'. It is the general question of authority. How do you determine what is authoritative for you? I asked in general or, if you'd like, using the specific example of your cite referenced here, Drakes.
As has been noted several times, much of this comes down to a question of authority. That's at the root of my questions here.
Earlier I had asked for the source authority of your dating of Paul's epistles, since this seemed critical to your theology. I didn't receive a reply.
So both the specific and general questions remain, if you'd like to answer for yourself, according to your methodology and beliefs.
thanks for your posts.
My closest example - you've seen them here as well as outside of FR - is that of those who follow their own interpretation of Paul to the exclusion of the Gospels. I have never claimed Paul did not preach the Gospel; I claim that those who follow Paul and exclude the Gospels are doing it wrong.
For example, we have our very own smvoice and metmom on this very thread. Notice that we have the mythical division of the Twelve versus Paul. Let us see what smvoice has to say in post 217:
Can it be any clearer? Jesus Christ had mercy on Paul, Paul is the pattern for us to follow as he followed Christ. Not Peter and the 11. You would be following them and their gospel of the Kingdom, which is to Israel, and which is in abeyance now, until the fullness of the Gentiles be brought in. Those who are in heresy situations are those who are using PETER and the 11 as patterns to follow to life everlasting. According to Jesus Christ. You may not like what you read, but that doesn't change the truth of God's word. You follow the wrong pattern, you end up in deceit and heresy. Paul is the pattern Jesus Christ set forth during this age of grace, the Church the Body of Christ. Peter is the pattern Jesus Christ set forth during the age of the law, His earthly ministry, and the Millennial Kingdom, the Millenial Church.
Notice what is being said, as well as implied (although that has been said often enough in the past). The Gospels are moot. The Twelve and all that they've been taught by Christ don't matter to the Church - they're to the Jews only, don't you see? It is Paul who personifies Christ and their interpretation of Paul is the fulfillment of Jesus, not actually Jesus in the Gospels, Himself.
That is what we have been saying.
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.