Does scripture interpret scripture?

[Lochias]

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.

Never heard of that either. Where is that taught?

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.

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

This post amounts mostly to you putting your hands over your ears and saying “La la la la!!” as loudly as you can.

I’m asking you politely to please stop misrepresenting what Catholics do and don’t believe. You have been told, over and over, that the conclusions that you’re drawing from the Catholic sources you’re reading are seriously flawed. Your continued stubbornness is becoming wearying and more than a little trite. If you were much, much younger, I might say that nap-time is in order.

 

[guanophore]

No. I never heard of that. Where did you get that?

Again my compliments to you, Rob. This is a refreshing phrase to read. It is much more conducive to dialogue.

I have read the ECFs but never ran into that idea. In fact they did not mention ordination as far as I can tell.

Most of the ECF’s were writing in response to heresy. There were not any early heresies denying the priesthood, as there are today, so it was not a common topic. Not even as common as infant baptism, which was also practiced by the Church.

Never heard of that either. Where is that taught?

Scripture. Grist for another thread off topic here.

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.

If there is no such thing as ordination, then there would be no such thing as “successors”.

Ordination began in the 3rd century not in the 15th.

It is cuious that the Church received this from the Apostles, and practiced it until the 3rd century before it was formalized. This is like saying “The Trinity began in the third century”. It really leaves you looking ridiculous, since you are promoting a framework you obviously don’t believe. You have affirmed that the Trinity was not “new” or developed in the 3rd. Cent.

I think Jesus has lost none of his power. He has inspired his bishops and pastors for 2000 years.

Rob

I am sure that people who have appointed themselves bishops and pastors, or were appointed by their congreations beleive they are inspired by God.

 

[submariner2]

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)

PR,

I have had this exact discussion with a Muslim when I worked overseas. I explained that of course Jesus was a man. We see in Him who God is. God is revealed in three personas - Father - Creator and Lord of all. - Son - Jesus through Whom God expresses his love for us and Holy Spirit -God who is experienced in our heart. In this manner God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not three gods but One God in three personas.

This may not fit the exact terms of a dogma but I think it is a down to earth explanation that a Muslim might understand. I try to make sense from my own experience rather than doctrinal exactness.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

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?

PR,

If you think you have such evidence why not present it? I think that Fr Brown was saying that there was no evidence of ordination prior to the 3rd century. Of course it is always hard to prove a negative. All one can say is there is no evidence of such. Historically without evidence it did not happen. Anyone might presume it, but presumptions do not prove anything.

Rob

 

[Nicea325]

PR,

If you think you have such evidence why not present it? I think that Fr Brown was saying that there was no evidence of ordination prior to the 3rd century. Of course it is always hard to prove a negative. All one can say is there is no evidence of such. Historically without evidence it did not happen. Anyone might presume it, but presumptions do not prove anything.

Rob

And Fr.Brown is merely ONE source,not the official voice of 2,000 years of history.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I have had this exact discussion with a Muslim when I worked overseas. I explained that of course Jesus was a man.

And what would you say if this Muslim says, “Jesus is NOT God! and your own saints say that he is NOT GOD!” How would you evangelize this Muslim when he declares, “Even your own Paul declares Jesus to be NOT God. He says, very clearly, Jesus is a Man.”

 

[guanophore]

I try to make sense from my own experience rather than doctrinal exactness. Rob

This explains a LOT.

 

[guanophore]

If you think you have such evidence why not present it?

It is way off topic in this thread. YOu may not care much about the forum rules, but a lot of us want to continue having the privilege of posting here.

I think that Fr Brown was saying that there was no evidence of ordination prior to the 3rd century. Of course it is always hard to prove a negative. All one can say is there is no evidence of such. Historically without evidence it did not happen. Anyone might presume it, but presumptions do not prove anything.

Rob

I understand that this is what you believe he was saying, but when the rest of us read the text, we don’t read it that way. This is the same thing that happens with Scripture. We all interpret through a lens. You have identified that your “lens” is your own experience. How you understand what you read will be limited by that.

 

[submariner2]

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)

PR,

I have actually had such a conversation with a Muslim when I worked over there years ago. Jeus was of course a man. Who says he was not? I explained that God is Father, Lord of all, Son - Jesus who describes Gods love and forgiveness, and Holy Spirit, Gods presence in our heart. Not 3 gods but One God with 3 personas. It may not fit someones exact dogma but it makes common sense to me since the purpose is to communicate and not talk doctrines people cannot understand.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

This post amounts mostly to you putting your hands over your ears and saying “La la la la!!” as loudly as you can.

I’m asking you politely to please stop misrepresenting what Catholics do and don’t believe. You have been told, over and over, that the conclusions that you’re drawing from the Catholic sources you’re reading are seriously flawed. Your continued stubbornness is becoming wearying and more than a little trite. If you were much, much younger, I might say that nap-time is in order.

Lochias,

What is wrong with the Catholic sources I am reading? What is your specific objection?

Rob

 

[submariner2]

If

there is no such thing as ordination, then there would be no such thing as “successors”.

Guano,

That is your argument for ordination? Of course there is ordination, just not before the 3rd century. Besides there can be successors without ordination. The bishops and pastors that take on the tasks of the apostles are successors.

It is cuious that the Church received this from the Apostles, and practiced it until the 3rd century before it was formalized. This is like saying “The Trinity began in the third century”. It really leaves you looking ridiculous, since you are promoting a framework you obviously don’t believe. You have affirmed that the Trinity was not “new” or developed in the 3rd. Cent.

Trinity was described in scripture but not named. Ordination as performed in the 3rd century was never described in scripture from my research and reading of the historians and bible experts.

I am sure that people who have appointed themselves bishops and pastors, or were appointed by their congreations beleive they are inspired by God.

And why would they not be? Paul was never appointed by any man. (Gal 1.1) The Didache describes its bishop as appointed by the congregation. Was he not inspired?

Rob

 

[submariner2]

And Fr.Brown is merely ONE source,not the official voice of 2,000 years of history.

Nicea,

Of course I do not rely on only one source for my history even though the many historians I read are essentially saying the same thing. They are historians and they explain to us what christian history consists of and what the apostles meant when they wrote their verses. Quite important I would say.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

I

understand that this is what you believe he was saying, but when the rest of us read the text, we don’t read it that way. This is the same thing that happens with Scripture. We all interpret through a lens. You have identified that your “lens” is your own experience. How you understand what you read will be limited by that.

guano,

I have read a number of his books. Perhaps if you read one or two you would have an easier time understanding what he says. The context is important. I gave you the names of the books and they can be purchased cheap and used at amazon.com.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

Guano,

That is your argument for ordination?

Of course not. I told you I was not going to go off topic to have that arguement here.

Of course there is ordination, just not before the 3rd century. Besides there can be successors without ordination. The bishops and pastors that take on the tasks of the apostles are successors.

In the Church founded by Christ, no one takes ministry upon oneself. Everyone is “sent” including the Son, the Apostles, and the disciples. This modern innovation that people can just “take on the tasks” would be totally foreign to the Early Church.

Ordination was not formalized int o an official ritual until the 3rd. Century. that does not mean it was not believed and practiced before that, just as the canon of scripture was not formally closed until 382 AD, but the canonical scriptures were used from the time they were written.
They didn’t “become” scripture when they were canonized, and ordination dd not just “appear” when it was formalized in to a rite.

Trinity was described in scripture but not named. Ordination as performed in the 3rd century was never described in scripture from my research and reading of the historians and bible experts.

I can understand why it is difficult for you to see such things, wearing that heavy pair of anti-Cathoilc lenses as you do.

For some reason, it is important for you to deny the early historical evidence for ordination, not sure why. But I AM sure that it is off topic in this thread.

And why would they not be? Paul was never appointed by any man. (Gal 1.1) The Didache describes its bishop as appointed by the congregation. Was he not inspired?

All apostles were appointed by Christ, including Paul.

The Didache is a liturgical instructional document written to the clergy. If congregations acted outside of the approval of their clergy, they were censured. The Apostles taught that the Bishops held monarchial power. this is why Paul writes as he does to Timothy and Titus, who were Bishops

 

[stewstew03]

I

guano,

I have read a number of his books. Perhaps if you read one or two you would have an easier time understanding what he says. The context is important. I gave you the names of the books and they can be purchased cheap and used at amazon.com.

Rob

Submariner2 - why do you assume guano (or any of us) have not read Raymond Brown? You sound an awful lot like a poster who was on here before but was banned - highrigger1 - who used to also say things like:

“My favorite scholar is Raymond E. Brown… You may purchase his books cheap and used on amazon.com” (example here) and then proceed to quote Brown and Meier ad nauseum, while appealing quite often to history (rather than scripture), the same way you do.

highrigger used to also misspell Meier the same way you misspell it - ‘Meire’ (with the ‘r’ before the ‘e’). Coincidence…? I’m gonna go with No. Anyway, welcome back highrigger1.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I have had this exact discussion with a Muslim when I worked overseas. I explained that of course Jesus was a man. We see in Him who God is

Except that he’s going to show you that your very own top evangelist, Paul states that Jesus is a MAN. NOT God.

The Muslims consider it blasphemy that anyone would claim to be God. And now this Muslim is quoting the Bible to you, showing you that even your own scholars do not believe Jesus is God.

So what would you say to this very perceptive Muslim who can quote the Epistles of St. Paul to you, showing you quite clearly that Paul states that Jesus is not God?

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I have actually had such a conversation with a Muslim when I worked over there years ago. Jeus was of course a man. Who says he was not?

This Muslim says that your very own top scholar, Paul, states that Jesus is a MAN. NOT God.

The Muslims consider it blasphemy that anyone would claim to be God. And now this Muslim is quoting the Bible to you, showing you that even your own scholars do not believe Jesus is God.

So what would you say to this very perceptive Muslim who can quote the Epistles of St. Paul to you, showing you quite clearly that Paul states that Jesus is not God?

“the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ”.

What Bible verses would you show him that says that Paul believes Jesus is indeed God?
Do you have any to show this hapless Muslim who believes that Paul claims Jesus is NOT God?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Submariner2 - Raymond E. Brown…

Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr Browns Theories. Don’t know why Rob finds this so impressive, its but a point of view. And one often opposed.

google.com/url?q=http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm%3Frecnum%3D525&sa=U&ei=PyLbT83QFoWE8AT21-HMCg&ved=0CCMQFjAD&sig2=UnsKLCgEF9hR2AqfABTmwA&usg=AFQjCNETQEZcWzvGpQUXvjp7j9QzO4Pu4A

NOTE…

Catholics should forearm themselves by an open-minded reading of orthodox critics of Brown.

“Begin with Msgr. Kelly, then Cardinal Shehan, Fr. Miguens, Fr. Most, and Fr. Laurentin,” Fr. Gilsdorf says.

Concerning Fr. Brown, Fr. Gilsdorf asked these telling questions: “Is Fr. Brown right? How much can we rely on his teaching? Are his claims to orthodoxy valid? Is he a safe guide, or, as I would judge, a major contribution to the befogged wasteland of an ‘American Church,’ progressively alienated from its divinely constituted center?”

 

[submariner2]

FALSE-----books included in the NT were written in the First century. There is no complete NT-Bible from the first century as we know it from the 4th foward.

Gary,

The books were in the first century and used by christians. There was no consensus on what was in the NT in the first century. But Irenaeus had a near complete opinion of it in the late second century. He left out James and 2 Peter.

Show us in History where there is a “complete” NT-Bible from church to church as we know it today thus from the 4th foward.

The 27 was generally accepted by consesus from that time, but no formal canon.

However, Could we say all of the New Testament “books” were written in the first century? A statement in itself which is also debated btw. The term “Testament” itself wasn’t coined till Tertullian phrased a similar term on 208-AD. Unless you have something of historic value older?

Canonicity is analogous to codification, and implies the existence of separate books. In fact there were hundreds. Very easily the Apocalypse of Peter could have been in place of Revelation by John, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Andrew etc.

The Didache itself comes under critical view by scholars whom many believe late first to 2nd Century. Some say 40-60 AD. Let alone other Christian sects, gnostic works, apocrypha, etc etc etc. Thomas, Judas, Magdalene etc.

Interesting history but what is the point?

So no there was no NT as was known from 4th foward in the First Century, there were precisely specific books/canons used.

So what is you point since we can conclude there was NO New testament in the first century codified or thus another term…arranged or systematize, this occured in the 4th. Are we in agreement here?

The point is the primary books of the NT were existing and in use in the churches very much earlier than the 4th.

If not then provide your “source”. I’d like to read it. Perhaps I have a distorted view of Biblical History and where this New Testament as was estabished in the 4th is in fact used in the 1st century?

If what you mean by established is formally accepted by the entire church, that was at Trent.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Submariner2 - why do you assume guano (or any of us) have not read Raymond Brown? You sound an awful lot like a poster who was on here before but was banned - highrigger1 - who used to also say things like:

“My favorite scholar is Raymond E. Brown… You may purchase his books cheap and used on amazon.com” (example here) and then proceed to quote Brown and Meier ad nauseum, while appealing quite often to history (rather than scripture), the same way you do.

highrigger used to also misspell Meier the same way you misspell it - ‘Meire’ (with the ‘r’ before the ‘e’). Coincidence…? I’m gonna go with No. Anyway, welcome back highrigger1.

stew,

Thanks, If you have read Fr. Brown then great.

Rob