Does scripture interpret scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phyllo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?”
I don’t have a problem with Brown as long as his work is understood through the historical-critical lens. In other words, from an academic perspective, there is absolutely no good evidence that Jesus was resurrected, or that He was one person of the Triune God. For a Catholic, some issues are a matter of faith, but that doesn’t mean we reject historical evidence.
 
If you look at the similarities between highrigger1 and submariner2, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Even the username choice - high vs sub, rigger vs mariner, 1 vs 2… I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
 
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.
Whats books were used in the 1st exactly? What source are you referring to?

Your first and second sentence vaguely imply different meanings. What is your source?

I fail to see to point with Trent also since we discussed the authentic history of this through the Ecumenical Councils already.

Whats obvious is Luther chose to pick and choose what he felt was inspired in the Bible. Contrary to all the Ecumenical Councils. Well here is a brief summary. I have Irenaeus and his 5-books on file also if you want to see what we actually do have from the first century.

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm&sa=U&ei=yknbT5f_H4jM9QScmeDYCg&ved=0CBUQFjAB&sig2=tPqKf3OKZ420JerDM7IvFg&usg=AFQjCNGGobQoZ_fefEoPSqUapdp8KhYkLQ

Mention of books exist, the actual fragments we have is limited. Heres a bad source but nonetheless it gives an idea of what I am saying. Irenaues and others do speak of usage of Canons though.

google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible&sa=U&ei=_kvbT6CZG4K09QTW17iDCw&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=L6yeDbL1w0KR0J2UwIqMBg&usg=AFQjCNFZOSBEQsRNT8IYOhGlgv-K0QQtJg
 
Whats books were used in the 1st exactly? What source are you referring to?

Your first and second sentence vaguely imply different meanings. What is your source?

I fail to see to point with Trent also since we discussed the authentic history of this through the Ecumenical Councils already.

**Whats obvious is Luther chose to pick and choose what he felt was inspired in the Bible. Contrary to all the Ecumenical Councils. Well here is a brief summary. I have Irenaeus and his 5-books on file also if you want to see what we actually do have from the first century. **
google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm&sa=U&ei=yknbT5f_H4jM9QScmeDYCg&ved=0CBUQFjAB&sig2=tPqKf3OKZ420JerDM7IvFg&usg=AFQjCNGGobQoZ_fefEoPSqUapdp8KhYkLQ
Gary,
Then so did Cardinal Cajetan, here:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
“In the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful”, or as Luther said, “…useful and good to read.”

Jon
 
Writing prior to the canon decision at the Council of Trent BTW;).

google.com/url?q=http://thesearewritten.blogspot.com/2007/08/cardinal-cajetan-on-biblical-canon.html&sa=U&ei=LlLbT_eZF4eQ9QSu5s3LCg&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=nBIAk9Cz13TJGpwY0aFc3g&usg=AFQjCNE_ZRIT-cojM588uKJ7Cd2OZwdyKw

Note; " In the first place the words of Cardinal Cajetan are not the words of the Magisterium.

In the second place, all he is doing is saying that he believes St. Jerome was right about the canon, even when he contradicts St. Augustine and the Council of Carthage. This is hardly what one may call a convincing argument. "

I agree epecially after reading much on Augustine who basically states “Perhaps he misunderstood God in certain content/context”

google.com/url?q=http://www.canapologetics.net/deutero_2.html&sa=U&ei=HlHbT5yqA4b48gSQham-Cg&ved=0CBQQFjAC&sig2=tykR6cxgHez1il7HXNgLXg&usg=AFQjCNGSQKzrCT88AjZxN8zdqdB6qpX8uw
 
=GaryTaylor;9411609]Writing prior to the canon decision at the Council of Trent BTW;).
Yes, Yes, Gary. An important point! So did Luther. Yet, a different standard seems to be set for Luther than the good Cardinal.
Note; " In the first place the words of Cardinal Cajetan are not the words of the Magisterium.
I absolutely agree. I mention it because, obviously if a Cardinal can question the canonicity of the D-C’s without disciplinary actions, why would we think it wasn’t ok for Luther?
In the second place, all he is doing is saying that he believes St. Jerome was right about the canon, even when he contradicts St. Augustine and the Council of Carthage. This is hardly what one may call a convincing argument. "
That’s all Luther was saying, essentially, and most important, they were allowed to be the Church!

Do you see my point, Gary?

Jon
 
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.
guano,

Not so modern since Paul did just that.He was sent by Christ as those who take on the tasks of the apostles. Gal 1.1
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.
Cannot find evidence before the 3rd century. If you can, that is fine.
All apostles were appointed by Christ, including Paul.
No dispute there.
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
Dunno where you get this from. Bishops were elected,

Rob
 
Whats books were used in the 1st exactly? What source are you referring to?
Gary, We are sure that Pauls letters were used in the first since they are called scripture in 2 Peter assuming that letter was written in the first. Could have been early second.
I fail to see to point with Trent also since we discussed the authentic history of this through the Ecumenical Councils already.
The history you cited does not change the fact that no church wide council determined canon until Trent. I do not deny that the 27 books of the NT was generally accepted back then quite early by consensus but not officially church wide.
Whats obvious is Luther chose to pick and choose what he felt was inspired in the Bible. Contrary to all the Ecumenical Councils. Well here is a brief summary. I have Irenaeus and his 5-books on file also if you want to see what we actually do have from the first century.
He selected those approved by consensus. The Deuterocanicals never were until Trent.
He prepared his translation as did Jerome.

Rob
 
Gary, We are sure that Pauls letters were used in the first since they are called scripture in 2 Peter assuming that letter was written in the first. Could have been early second
And how is it that you know that 2 Peter is inspired, Rob?
 
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?
PR,

Discussed this very issue. The one I would quote would be the one where Paul says that the life of Christ is the face of God. In other words we see the nature of God in the life of Christ. In fact Paul actually says Christ is Lord.

Rob
 
PR,

Discussed this very issue. The one I would quote would be the one where Paul says that the life of Christ is the face of God. In other words we see the nature of God in the life of Christ. In fact Paul actually says Christ is Lord.

Rob
Ah. So very good. Then you would use *other *quotes from Paul to show that this Muslim was not presenting an accurate portrayal of Christianity.

Interesting…


in light of your proposal that Pope B16 does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist.

🙂
 
That’s like a Muslim saying, “I know that you believe that Paul says that Jesus is God. But that’s not how I interpret his words. He said that Jesus is a man.”

And isn’t it true, Rob, that St. Paul does indeed say that Jesus is a man?
PR,

Yes of course. He says that Jesus was a man and also Lord. What is the problem with that?

Rob
 
You have posted here an excellent example of why the Church is fragmented today, and why the principle of scripture interpreting scripture falls short.

Basically, without an authority, each man makes up his own mind what the text means to him. Persons who believe God created the Church for a reason will usually go seeking out other Christians who also espouse the same view as his own. If a group has a disagreement about how to interpret the words, they split, and separate.

This is not the method Jesus put in place for the faith, which was to be handed down (paradosis) by those to whom it was entrusted. The Reformers rejected the idea that God was able to preserve His Word where He placed it, so they rejected the paradosis.
guano,

I think it is a bad idea to split and separate becasue of a difference of opinion. I dont agree with all in my church but we dont have to split over it. But I dont think the Reformers rejected God Word. They embraced it.

Rob
 
Ah, so another concept you’ve proclaimed that cannot be backed up. :eek:

As another poster proffered, these comments that you keep making that cannot be substantiated do make your credibility suspect.

Please be aware, Rob, that there are way too many knowledgeable Catholics here on the CAFs for you to offer or argue points that can’t be substantiated.

I suggest you re-arrange your modus operandi so that the points you offer can be backed up. 🙂
PR,

I am not following you. Perhaps we need to back up and try again. I simply said that the Vatican II statement appeared to me to offer that magisterial statments can be changed.
Only scripture and the presence of Christ in our lives is the Word of God. That should therefore govern everything. What is wrong with that?

Rob
 
PR,

Yes of course. He says that Jesus was a man and also Lord. What is the problem with that?

Rob
Very good.

So to evangelize the Muslim, he needs to read lots of things St. Paul wrote. Not just one text, right, in order to understand what St. Paul was saying?

To take one concept, out of context, and proclaim, “This guy believes ! See! It says so right here!”

when everyone knows that Christianity proclaims

is clearly misguided, no?
 
PR,

I am not following you. Perhaps we need to back up and try again. I simply said that the Vatican II statement appeared to me to offer that magisterial statments can be changed.
And, indeed they can!

Doctrines and dogmas can’t.
Only scripture and the presence of Christ in our lives is the Word of God. That should therefore govern everything. What is wrong with that?
Well, the biggest thing wrong with that is that you can’t support that tradition in Scripture.

You heard someone proclaim it, who heard another person proclaim it, who heard another person proclaim it…

but not a single person ever read “Scripture should govern everything” in a single page of the Bible.

It’s a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Rob.:sad_yes:
 
Gary, We are sure that Pauls letters were used in the first since they are called scripture in 2 Peter assuming that letter was written in the first. Could have been early second.
Source Rob? Whos “we” you and who?

“The apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35).”

Where the earliest “reference” of Pauls work, when Rob? What year? Clement as I already mentioned on this thread.
The history you cited does not change the fact that no church wide council determined canon until Trent. I do not deny that the 27 books of the NT was generally accepted back then quite early by consensus but not officially church wide.
“The Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the “Greek” translation known as the “Septuagint”. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew… . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.”
J. N. D. Kelly

Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks, “For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings… ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense… Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405” (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).

Perhaps its easier to hear from a Protestant.

Symantics is your path. Council of Rome foward affirmed. The “Greek” translation known as the “Septuagint” is a history known, as is the Vulgate of St Jeromes.
He selected those approved by consensus. The Deuterocanicals never were until Trent.He prepared his translation as did Jerome
Read above history actually existed “before” Trent with the Deuterocanicals. The only attention placed at Trent was due to the severe Historical break in Christianity by the Reformers.

Course we know how the Reformers embraced the “Hebrew” version and the why.

“He” who had no-authority severed from the church is who you refer to thus Luther, Rob? Yes we went through this with “he”. Established facts of history. We understand Luthers errors.

“The Protestants often charge, the Catholic Church “added” the deuterocanonicals to the Bible at the Council of Trent. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. All the Council of Trent did was reaffirm, in the face of the new Protestant attack on Scripture, what had been the historic Bible of the Church—the standard edition of which was Jerome’s own Vulgate, including the seven deuterocanonicals!” Atkin

“To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90.”

Thus the “Hebrew” version…and…

"They ignored [Protestants] the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that “The Jews don’t except these books.” In short, they [Reformers] went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

Pretty much the same as you today Rob. Theres History then theres the altered version according to Luther and the Reformers.

So who had the “Authority” to choose what Canons were used prior to 380 Rob? Thats the Authority Jerome followed btw Rob. The one which Luther was severed from, then he ran to the East…“rejected” theology their also. That also is “history”, as the compromise carried on by those who “thought” they knew better and continues till today as we see with the Eucharist distorted theology, snake handling, OSAS etc. 🤷
 
With your indulgence,I would like to interject a couple of thoughts.
=GaryTaylor;9414844]
“The Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the “Greek” translation known as the “Septuagint”. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew… . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.”
J. N. D. Kelly
Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks, “For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings… ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense… Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405” (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).
Perhaps its easier to hear from a Protestant.
This is true, and the reason why, I think, that Luther included them in his translation. I think it is just as unfair to say that Rome added the D-C’s as it is to say Luther excluded them. The issue for Luther was that they are not universally attested in the early Church.
Read above history actually existed “before” Trent with the Deuterocanicals. The only attention placed at Trent was due to the severe Historical break in Christianity by the Reformers.
And perhaps other who were not the reformers - Cajetan, and maybe Erasmus, too.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top