Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
And by the way, contrary to popular thought, the Jews didn't have a formal canon either until well after Christ died and rose again. So it's not like that "Scripture" existed either before the Church.
I do not have enough of a knowledge of the history of Jewish Scripture to answer that although I do not believe the claim is accurate.
So I'm pining the only person I can think of who might be able to answer the question adequately.
Thank you for the ping, metmom.
FourtySeven, you are incorrect, though your position doesn't surprise me in a modern Roman Catholic.
The Torah (Pentateuch) has never had to be canonized by any human authority since it was dictated to Moses by G-d letter-by-letter and has been in Israel's possession since that time. I'm sure you've been told the Torah is a fraudulent document cooked up in the Second Temple period from the J-E-P-D "strands" but this is irreverent mythology based on nothing but the wishful thinking of those who want the Torah to be fraudulent. The entire "higher critical" theory is nothing but a fugue of the human imagination, but it seems to serve its purpose for its inventors and promoters.
As for the rest of the Hebrew Bible, it was canonized by the Men of the Great Assembly (which consisted of such people as Ezra, Daniel, and Mordecai). They then closed the canon and ruled no further books were to be added. This is why, when the festival of Chanukkah was created, no book about it could be added to the Hebrew Bible.
Please note that I am not a Protestant, do not believe in sola scriptura, and disagree most profoundly with metmom's religious beliefs. But these claims that the Hebrew Bible is fraudulent or mythology and that there was no Hebrew Bible until the chrstian church canonized it is simply too much.
Stick to defending your church's canonization of the "new testament" and leave the TaNa"KH out of it, please. Can you help out here, ZC?
What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?
This is a loaded question in that it implies God is careless with his facts (which is not the Catholic claim). But I'll answer it anyway.
We read from Scripture itself the following: John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
This follows: 21:24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
So the context is clear: verse 25 is clearly saying that there are many other things Jesus did that are *also* helpful so that "we know his testimony is true", that aren't recorded. This obviously necessitates a greater repository of Truth than is contained in the written Word.
Well; you gave an answer; but not to the question asked...
You will have to show me where Paul was a 'Roman Commander'. IIRC, He was a Pharisee of high caliber.... A Rabbi... That is where his authority lies. That was the authority he operated under in order to persecute Christians, either in his own right, or under the authority of the Pharisees...
Here’s another cross purposes tenet of Paul’s. He says that men should wear their hair short (as he did, Roman style)[...]
The Torah says a man should 'poll' his hair. That is roughly a handful gathered at the nape (same with the beard, I reckon). More than that is considered 'long hair' Less than that is ok, except for prohibitions against shaving the head, and a specific prohibition against the 'tonsure'.
[...] Yet Jesus - and James, who led the flock after the Crucifixion, wore their hair long, as rabbis from the Mt. Carmel Nazorite sect (nothing to do with Nazareth) of the Essenes (the marrying Essenes) who wore their hair long - indeed, in a long braid down the back. (Samson was a Nazorite/Nazarite).
You'll then have to explain Paul shaving his head before the Temple - Typically, and only done at the completion of a Nazarite vow. And I see no evidence in the Word that long braided hair was evident in any of the disciples... Or Yeshua for that matter - While it is possible that they all were under a perpetual Nazarite vow, I think it improbable...
Another aspect of the Nazarite vow is abstinence from the fruit of the vine... I think they all drank wine.
Again, Paul is not the problem - It is what others have done with Paul that is the problem...
So you are equating the Comforter with the Roman Catholic Church?
You can not further nor defend your position by perverting scripture...There is nothing in verse 25 that says the things Jesus did beyond what was written are 'also helpful'...It plain flat out does not say that...And John goes on to say that what was given us is all we need...
If you can't base your position on the truth of the bible, you don't have a position...
A fellow in DIRE straits asked for a little bit of water:
Luke 16:29
"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
So the things Jesus did that aren't recorded in Scripture are of no value whatsoever? Jesus actually did things that have no value whatsoever?
Who are the people that don't love Jesus again? That don't think he's important?
And John goes on to say that what was given us [in Scripture] is all we need...
Wrong! Talk about reading something that isn't there.
If you can't base your position on the truth of the bible, you don't have a position...
Which is the Protestant game, not mine. I refuse to subject myself to that notion until and unless you, or anyone, can prove to me "sola scriptura" is correct!
It's just that simple. So you can claim that ("If you can't base your position on the truth of the bible, you don't have a position...") all you want. Claims aren't proof though. And neither are mere opinions of Scripture meanings either.
Why does your religion then have a catechism??? Why does it have missals??? Why is there church history written from the church fathers??? Why doesn't the Holy Spirit just jump into someones mind when they want to speak of things of God???
Obviously the Holy Spirit was sent to refresh the memories of the disciples so when they wrote these things down, they were 100% accurate...
Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Clearly Jesus was speaking to the apostles and disciples in his presence...Did the disciples ever tell anyone else that the Holy Spirit would be teaching them in the future??? Nope...
He that loveth his CHURCH more than me is not worthy of me:
“Did the disciples ever tell anyone else that the Holy Spirit would be teaching them in the future?”
Amazing!
How do you know your interpretation of Scripture is correct then? Are you one of the Apostles using a time machine?
Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Works for me...
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
How's that for an example...Jesus could have rattled this off from the top of his head but he didn't...It's scripture...God's recorded words for the ages...
Any one can rattle of some 'word of the Lord' but how do you prove him right or wrong??? You compare it to the written scriptures to see if he is telling the truth...
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Could any one of your popes teach the scriptures without a written copy of the scriptures setting in front of them???
Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
That's enough to sink your ship right there...
Deu 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: Deu 17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
God puts his words in a book...And for good reason...
“Answer this then...WHY isn’t the Bible sufficient according to Catholics?”
Why are you always so wrong about what Catholics believe?
MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY
By JAMES AKIN
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 10
October 1993
Up Front
By Karl Keating
Letters
Dragnet
CAN YOU STOUP (SIC) TO CONQUER?
By KARL KEATING
THE WHITE MAN’S BURDEN
By PATRICK MADRID
Sidebar
Universal Negatives
By James Akin
Sidebar
Material and Formal Sufficiency
By James Akin
Classic Apologetics
My Conversion to the Catholic Faith
By Most Rev. Duane G. Hunt
Fathers Know Best
Old Testament Canon
Old Testament Guide
Job
By Antonio Fuentes
Verse by Verse
Quick Questions
Subscribe
Permissions
MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.
Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.
It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter .aspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.
French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, `All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.’ .. `Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge” (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).
This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to g.asp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency. http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp
“What is lacking in it that makes it inadequate for the man of God to be complete?”
Is there a table of contents inspired by God?
“What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?”
Again, is there a table of contents inspired by God?
“WHY is sola Scriptura not valid?”
1) It is self-refuting in that it appears nowhere in scripture and goes against scripture.
2) Invented and maintained only by heretics.
Actually, that's part of the requirement for the theory of sola scriptura.
It says scripture...It doesn't say scripture and popcorn...It doesn't say scripture and the Harvard 5 foot shelf of Classics...
It says with scripture, the man of God may be complete; equipped...That means; scripture + nothing, ALONE...You do not have to say 'alone' to know it clearly means alone...
It says it is profitable/useful for..
Flour is useful for a perfect cake; flour alone does not make a cake. Your interpretation adds "alone" where it does not exist.
John 5:39 & 46-47. Luke 24:27 & 44.
Would you agree that what is described in those passages is also what is described, at least in part, in Acts 17:1-11?
Yes or no please.
Did Flavius Josephus and Roman writers invent Paul and Christianity?
That is essentially what the Catholic church is saying.
God didn't include everything we needed to know so here they are, the heroes, providing everything they claim God left out of Scripture.
Because spiritual truths are foolishness to the man without the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is essential to understanding spiritual matters. And the Holy Spirit did give us what we need to know when He breathed out Scripture.
That could be "the force of evolution." It could be anything. All it is, is a statement that it does NOT come from government (because if government giveth, then government taketh away, to paraphrase a quote.) It's just a line in the sand, saying "beyond this point I will not argue, I'll just start shooting."
Sadly, it hasn't actually stopped the government from taking our rights, as we have seen from FDR on.
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.