Does scripture interpret scripture?

[PRmerger]

No evidence whatsoever for ordination in the first century or until the 3rd.

Rob

Well, then, Rob, that’s a different argument than saying that a Catholic priest has confirmed that there was no ordination until the 3rd century.

What you are asking for, then, is evidence for priestly ordination before the 3rd century?

 

[PRmerger]

I can provide many top historian quotes to this effect. No clergy in the NT. No ordination in the NT. Catholic scholars affirm this.

Rob

Only in the same say that a “top scholar”, that is, St. Paul, has confirmed that Jesus was not God, but only a man.

From your very top scholar, Rob: “the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ”.

Does he not “affirm” Jesus is a man? So the Muslim can argue that Christians indeed believe Jesus is not God? That is, if we apply your paradigm.

 

[guanophore]

There was no canonization in 382. You are referring to local councils where often the Roman church was not even consulted. They were not church wide councils.

You seem to be suffering from a very warped perception of history. Yes, there were local councils prior to 382 that listed the books that later were infallibly proclaimed by the ecumencal council as the NT canon.

Scholars know that the bible was not canonized until Trent.

This is a common ruse used by Protestants to deny that the Catholic Church had a solid canon prior to Trent. However, no Protestant has ever been able to produce a Bible prior to the Reformation that did not comply with the canon ratified in 382.

Trent did what all the councils have done when heresy is rampant, which is to restate the Truth dogmatically, to protect the faithful, and prevent their falling into heresy.

I can provide some history quotes for you if you need it but you should be able to verify the accurate history without much trouble.

No need, Rob. My extensive graduate studies on the formation of the canon have met my needs entirely. Besides, this is not a thread on the canon.

You might reconsider yours.

I do so regularly. Whenever I find that I have an idea in my head that is not consistent with the Apostolic faith, I change my mind.

Here is Paul Johnson (Catholic) from his book A History of Christianity. It can be purchased cheap and used at amazon.com.

p 44.
“The church was an inversion of normal society. Its leaders exercised their
authority through gifts of the Spirit, not through office. The two noblest
gifts were prophecy and teaching. The apostles set the process in motion,
then the Spirit took over and worked through many people: ‘And God has
appointed in the Church first apostles, then prophets, third teachers, then
workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in the
various kinds of tongues.’ Worship was still completely unorganized and
subject to no special control. There was no specific organization to handle
funds. And there was no distinction between clerical class and the laity.
There were, indeed, presbyters in the Judaic Christian Church, but not in
Paul’s new convert congregaions. The atmosphere in short was that of a
loosely organized revivalist movement. Many from time to time ‘spoke with
tongues’; all expected the parousia soon. Clerical control seemed needless
and inappropriate. And the atmosphere in the Pauline churches was reproduced
elsewhere, in a rapidly spreading movement.”

Rob

I gotta hand it to you, Rob, I don’t remember when I have seen so much claptrapp in one place, claiming to represent the Catholic truth.

I can provide many top historian quotes to this effect. No clergy in the NT. No ordination in the NT. Catholic scholars affirm this.

Yes, I am sure you can, but none of that will change the Truth. Ordination is seen in the OT, the NT, the early church writings, and has been practiced constently since Jesus ordained His Apostles in the upper room. No amount of “scholarly” writing will change the facts.

For some reason it is important to you to deny the role of the clergy in the Church. I am not sure why, but I will respect your need to deny the facts to preserve your beliefs.

 

[submariner2]

The fact that they were declared in the changeable conceptions of a given epoch does not make them wrong. The Church declares the Truth that has been revealed to her, as she understands the infallible Sacred Tradition that has been passed down from the Apostles. As human beings, we learn as we go, and new discoveries in science and other fields help the declarations to be more clear. The doctrine does not change, but our understanding and application of it does.

guano,

I never said they were wrong. I said they were “changeable”. The document does not exclude doctrine.

My church has also recieved the traditions of the apostles - scripture and the presence of Christ in our lives.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

I never said they were wrong. I said they were “changeable”. The document does not exclude doctrine.

My church has also recieved the traditions of the apostles - scripture and the presence of Christ in our lives.

Rob

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Just to reiterate, doctrine is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith, a once for all time gift to the Church. It cannot change - cannot be added to, or subtracted from. Explanations of doctrine can change, but the doctrine cannot.

Yes, I was a Methodist for 6 years, and attended a United Methodist/Brethern seminary for three after that. I am aware that the Methodists retain a great deal of the Apostolic Traditions, despite the fact that some has been lost. Methodists came into being in separation from the Apostolic faith, and many don’t even realize that they are separated from it.

 

[submariner2]

PRmerger;9392121]Only in the same say that a “top scholar”, that is, St. Paul, has confirmed that Jesus was not God, but only a man.

PR,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

From your very top scholar, Rob: “the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ”.

Does he not “affirm” Jesus is a man? So the Muslim can argue that Christians indeed believe Jesus is not God? That is, if we apply your paradigm. :eek

You talk in riddles. What do you mean?

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Yes. Just as the elements of ordination were already in the NT.

:

Not according to the top historians and bible scholars. Think whatever you want.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

:

Not according to the top historians and bible scholars.

Rob

It seems you might have missed a few of those historians and bible scholars.

: Think whatever you want. Rob

This is not the statement of a man who is open to dialogue or learning. It is a conversation stopper. Was that really your intention when you came here?

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I am doing the same thing that you are doing: taking a great writer and saying that because he says , it means also means

Your great writer says that Catholics believe in the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You proclaim that this means that Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Body and Blood.

I am offering you another “great writer” who says that Jesus is a man. Therefore, by your paraidgm, a Muslim can take this writing and proclaim, “Christians do not believe Jesus is God. Your very own Paul, a ‘top scholar’ says that Jesus is a MAN!”

And you, sadly, will not be able to refute this Muslim.

Now, I am guessing that you are going to feign ignorance in understanding this parallel.

But I am also quite certain that you get it.

 

[guanophore]

I am doing the same thing that you are doing: taking a great writer and saying that because he says , it means also means

Your great writer says that Catholics believe in the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You proclaim that this means that Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Body and Blood.

I am offering you another “great writer” who says that Jesus is a man. Therefore, by your paraidgm, a Muslim can take this writing and proclaim, “Christians do not believe Jesus is God. Your very own Paul, a ‘top scholar’ says that Jesus is a MAN!”

And you, sadly, will not be able to refute this Muslim.

Now, I am guessing that you are going to feign ignorance in understanding this parallel.

But I am also quite certain that you get it.

Don’t worry, PR, the rest of us get it. Faulty hermeneutic technique exposed!

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t worry, PR, the rest of us get it. Faulty hermeneutic technique exposed!

:sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

You talk in riddles.

No, Rob. Not riddles. Analogies. And it seems that you have a peculiar inability to think in the abstract here.

So let’s make it more concrete. Pretend that you’re having a discussion with a Muslim and he tells you, “How can you say that Jesus is God? I happen to have read your best evangelist and he says, right here, that even he believes your Jesus is a MAN.”

How do you respond to him?

(No need to apply it to the discussion we were having about Pope B16 saying that the Eucharist is spiritual. Just take the concrete example I’ve given and tell us how you would answer this Muslim)

 

[submariner2]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Just to reiterate, doctrine is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith, a once for all time gift to the Church. It cannot change - cannot be added to, or subtracted from. Explanations of doctrine can change, but the doctrine cannot.

Yes, I was a Methodist for 6 years, and attended a United Methodist/Brethern seminary for three after that. I am aware that the Methodists retain a great deal of the Apostolic Traditions, despite the fact that some has been lost. Methodists came into being in separation from the Apostolic faith, and many don’t even realize that they are separated from it.

guano,

I am one of those. I believe we are fully within the apostolic tradition and see no reason to think otherwise. Why dont you open a thread if you want to discuss it further?

Rob

 

[GaryTaylor]

Really no need, the burden of proof remains yours. The Apostolic Churchs and its documented history is there for anyone to read . St Ignatius, St Irenaeus, St Clement which brings us to 70-AD. And Pope Benedict is in agreement with the date of the letter from 70-75 AD. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture all still here.

Irenaeus wrote of the necessity for every Church to agree doctrinally with the Church of Rome.

“For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere”

Among the apostolic Churches, only the Church of Rome was so distinguished. It is not impossible that the reason for this was a belief in the primacy of the papal magisterium.

Hebrews is 13-chapters on the Priesthood is the most exhausting revelation we have on the meaning of Christ’s priesthood and of our share in that priesthood.

When did this participated ministerial priesthood of Jesus begin? It came into existence at the Last Supper when the Savior did two things. He first changed bread and wine into Himself and already offered, the night before He died, the death He would endure. Then He told the disciples to “do this” thus “in commemoration of me”. It is a defined article of the Catholic Faith that the ordained ministerial priesthood, the sacrament of orders, was instituted personally by Jesus at the Last Supper.

Acts documents the Council of Jerusalem 48-AD thus the teaching authority.

I see no recourse here but to twist that which the Catholic and Apostolic Churchs present, for there is no contrary historic evidence. If fact 2000 of existing Tradition in all the Apostolic Churchs contradicts the debate in their reality.

 

[Lochias]

:
Think whatever you want.

Rob

This kind of response isn’t going to get you anywhere, man. Take a deep breath, and look at it all objectively…what are you here to learn about? Are you here to learn at all? Are you just here to dialogue? (Nothing at all wrong with that.) Are you here to proselytize? (If so, that’s against board rules, just fyi.)

No need to get needlessly frustrated or angry over it, right? We’re all just talkin’ here.

 

[submariner2]

Hebrews is 13-chapters on the Priesthood is the most exhausting revelation we have on the meaning of Christ’s priesthood and of our share in that priesthood

.

Gary, That deals with the Jewish Levitical priesthood and Christs High Priesthood, not a christian clergy.

Rob

 

[Dhugz]

I think that we also need the Church Fathers, Tradition and the Magesterium. My friend thinks that all we need is the bible. So to what extent does scripture interpret scripture or does it?

I listen to Michael Voris and I thought that in one of his talks, and I can’t remember which one, he said that scripture does not interpret scripture. I hope that I am not miss-speaking here but I thought that is what he said.

Thanks
Phyllo

Only the Catholic Church interpret its own Book the Bible. How does the bible interpret its own? Take note that the bible tell us that the Catholic Church is the Pillar and ground of the Truth. in 1 tim 3:15.

 

[guanophore]

.

Gary, That deals with the Jewish Levitical priesthood and Christs High Priesthood, not a christian clergy.

Rob

I wonder why the Early Church did not take it this way? Did you know that the Apostles taught their successors that the ordained were taken up in to the priesthood of Christ?

Did you know that the successors of the Apostles believed that those who are ordained to the priesthood act in persona Christi or in the “person” of Christ?

I wonder why it is so important to you to believe that the Apostles did not teach and model a Christian clergy?

What do you think happened to Jesus, that He was too weak or disinterested in His church to correct this error for 1500 years? What happened to the powerful Jesus shown in the book of Revelation who was so capable of correcting the flock when they strayed?**

 

[submariner2]

I wonder why the Early Church did not take it this way? Did you know that the Apostles taught their successors that the ordained were taken up in to the priesthood of Christ?

Guano,

No. I never heard of that. Where did you get that? I have read the ECFs but never ran into that idea. In fact they did not mention ordination as far as I can tell.

Did you know that the successors of the Apostles believed that those who are ordained to the priesthood act in persona Christi or in the “person” of Christ? **

Never heard of that either. Where is that taught?

I wonder why it is so important to you to believe that the Apostles did not teach and model a Christian clergy?

It is not important to me and makes no difference one way or the other if there was clergy in the NT. But the history books I read by Catholic scholars say no clergy in the early church. Naturally I accept that the bishops and pastors of todays churches have taken on the tasks of the apostles and are thererfore successors.

What do you think happened to Jesus, that He was too weak or disinterested in His church to correct this error for 1500 years? What happened to the powerful Jesus shown in the book of Revelation who was so capable of correcting the flock when they strayed

Ordination began in the 3rd century not in the 15th. I think Jesus has lost none of his power. He has inspired his bishops and pastors for 2000 years.

Rob

 

[PRmerger]

Rob

Oh, good. You’re online now.

Could you please address this question, Rob?

Pretend that you’re having a discussion with a Muslim and he tells you, “How can you say that Jesus is God? I happen to have read your best evangelist and he says, right here, that even he believes your Jesus is a MAN.”

How do you respond to him?

(No need to apply it to the discussion we were having about Pope B16 saying that the Eucharist is spiritual. Just take the concrete example I’ve given and tell us how you would answer this Muslim)