Not the same God?

[PRmerger]

No “passive-aggressive” behavior with Protestants – we flat-out reject the sacerdotal priesthood and the “seven” sacraments because the Bible knows nothing of these things.

Well, not exactly. There is no such thing as a “Protestant we”. There are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, and as such there is no such way to p(name removed by moderator)oint what it is that Protestants believe.

Indeed, some Protestants do believe in the sacerdotal priesthood, as well as the 7 sacraments.

 

[PRmerger]

We’re all aware that the specific word need not be used and yet the concept be explicitly taught, i.e., The Trinity.

Exactly.

And it is only through the Church that you have this revelation from God regarding the Trinity. Not only is the concept a Catholic concept, the word itself is brought to you, sponsored by, and created by the Catholic Church. You would not know the dogma of the Trinity were it not proclaimed to you by the CC.

The same is applicable with the biblical concept of the sufficiency of Scripture. In 2Tim 3:15-17 we see this principle clearly. As far as I can tell, God declares only of Scripture that it is able to bring men to salvation and sanctify the Christian unto godliness.

If you could find the place where God declare “only” of Scripture that it brings men to salvation, that would be helpful.

Book, chapter and verse, please.

If you know where the Bible states that something else can bring salvation, what is it?

Perhaps you missed it.

The Bible says A LOT of things bring us to salvation. But, curiously, never says that it, itself, does.

The Scriptures say we are saved

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

Notice what’s egregiously missing: NOWHERE does it say that we are saved by the Bible.

 

[kelman]

Returning to the subject of the canon, as far as the West was
concerned rejection of the Deutrocanonical’s was the exception rather
than the rule.

*”**Philo of Alexandria *(c 20 BC-AD 50) evidently knew the scriptures in the Greek version only. He was an illustrious representative of Alexandrian Judaism, and if Alexandrian Judaism did indeed recognize a more comprehensive canon than Palestinian Judaism, one might have expected to find some trace of this in Philo’s voluminous writings. But, in fact, while Philo has not given us a formal statement on the limits of the canon such as we have in Josephus, the books which he acknowledged as holy scripture were quite certainly books included in the traditional Hebrew Bible…he shows no sign of accepting the authority of any of the books which we know as the Apocrypha.” F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1988), pp. 29-30

Commenting on the statements by the grandson of Jesus ben Sirah(130BC) indicating that the Hebrew Bible, even at that early date, did not contain the Apocrypha books, Roger Beckwith writes: ” It appears, then, that for this writer there are three groups of books which have a unique authority, and that his grandfather wrote only after gaining great familiarity with them, as their interpreter not as their rival. The translator explicitly distinguishes ‘these things’ (i.e. Ecclesiasticus, or uncanonical Hebrew compositions such as Ecclesiasticus) from ‘the Law itself and the Prophets and the rest of the Books.’ Moreover, he regards even the Hagiographa as ‘ancestral’ (patrivwn) books, long enough esteemed to have been translated into Greek, and their number as complete (‘the others that have followed in their steps’, ‘the other Books of thefathers’, ‘the rest of the Books’). And not only does he state that in his own day there was this threefold canon, distinguished from all other writings, in which even the Hagiographa formed a closed
collection of old books, but he implies that such was the case in his grandfather’s time also.” Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, p. 111.

The most important evidence we have is from the Lord Himself demonstrating that He did not consider the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. We find Him referring to the same three-fold division as did Philo, Jesus ben Sirah(130BC) and Josephus, Melito,Jerome and others: ”… which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” (Luke 24:44).

• "** *also testified to the extent of the Old Testament canon. In Luke 11:51 he spoke of “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.” Abel was the first martyr in Scripture (Genesis 4:8), and Zechariah was the last martyr named in the Jewish arrangement of the Old Testament (where 2 Chronicles is listed as the last book of the Old Testament: 2 Chronicles 24:21). Jesus thus gave his approval to the entire canon of the Old Testament with the same contents we have today.” (Josh McDowell, Josh McDowell’s handbook on apologetics)

The whole argument that the Jews were the custodians of theoracles of God is simply irrelevant,…

It’s difficult, rather impossible, to get behind any church which considers certain inspired holy words of God to be “irrelevant”, even in face of the fact they alone among all of Christendom, do not consider themselves to be “people of the Book”. Is it so much an argument or simply the plain words of God?

There’s no justification for your church to decide which inspired holy words of God are “irrelevant”. Do you have some evidence that God abrogated, annulled, rescinded, made null and void both Acts 7:38 and Rom 3:2? If not, then I believe we need to follow both the sacred Scriptures and the historical record and not follow those who seek to support their private judgment by rejecting the commandments of God: ”And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”(Mark7:9).

….since they ceased being the chosen people with the sacking of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD. Therefore why should Christians have to accept the unauthoritative Jewish determination of the canon,
rather that the Catholic Church’s decision?; Why should Christians opt for the truncated canon of disenfranchised Jews?

First, the RCC has no authority to decide for Christendom what the canon is. To choose a canon for itself?..sure, go right ahead.

The historical evidence demonstrates quite handily that the “truncated” Hebrew canon is the extent of God’s revelation to the Jews which, btw, was closed well before 70AD – well before they became, according to you, the unchosen people. No, the Hebrew nation was and will always be the “chosen people” – there has never been another individual nation alone to whom God chose to reveal Himself and out of whom the Messiah would come. This does not imply that the “chosen people” were chosen unto salvation – just as the NT visible churches were not chosen unto salvation. Only the spiritually chosen – the elect – of both the nation of Israel and the NT church are chosen unto salvation.

 

[kelman]

The Jews had their own very biased reasons for rejecting the
wider canon that included the LXX, for as the Protestant scholar, F.F.
Bruce observed, “'Greek Judaism, it has been said, 'with the!
Septuagint had ploughed the furrows for the gospel in the western
world; but it was the Christian preachers who sowed the seed. So
thoroughly, indeed, did Christians appropriate the Septuagint as their
version of the Scriptures that the Jews became increasingly
disenchanted with it”. (The Canon of Scripture, Inter Varsity Press,
1988, p. 50).

Juxtaposing your opinion with a quote from Bruce could be seen as leading to a misrepresentation of his views. The fact that the Jews were “disenchanted” with the Septuagint has no bearing on the true canon of the OT. In fact, Bruce points out the following:

*”The thirty-nine books which make up the Old Testament according to our common reckoning are the books which, from the beginning of the Christian era at any rate, have been accepted as the books of the Hebrew Bible…. In the Hebrew Bible these books are divided into three divisions: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings…. In particular, itappears that Chronicles came at the end of the Bible which they used: when our Lord sums up all the martyrs of Old Testament times He does so by mentioning the first martyr in Genesis (Abel) and the last martyr in Chronicles (Zechariah). (See Lk. xi. 51 with 2 Ch. xxiv. 21)… There is evidence, indeed, that this threefold division was known in the second century B.C., for the translator of the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew into Greek was plainly acquainted with it, and makes more than one reference to it in the preface to his translation, written about 132 B.C….

** “The books of the Apocrypha were not included in the Hebrew Bible, nor were they regarded as canonical by the leaders of official Judaism anywhere. Even Jews who wrote in Greek at the beginning of our era, like Philo and Josephus, recognized only the Canon of the Hebrew Bible, although they used the ‘Septuagint’ translation.** The books of the Apocrypha, while they were written in Greek or translated into Greek by Jews, first received canonical recognition from Greek-speaking Christians.”

Our Lord and the apostles certainly did not regard the apocryphal books as part of Holy Scripture; the evidence is that they acknowledged as canonical only the books of the Hebrew Bible and that is the justification for the Protestant Evangelical attitude. **Our supreme reason for acknowledging the divine authority of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament is the fact that Christ and (following Him) His apostles acknowledged it. **….*holyfear.net/pdf/bruce/canon_bruce.pdf

Unfortunately, many Protestants are only too eager to accept
the Jewish determination of the O.T. canon because of their hostility
to the Catholic Church and its teachings.

Yes, indeed, very eager to accept the oracles of God given to the Jews. Especially when that “Jew”, Jesus Christ Himself, divides the OT canon into the historically accepted division of three-fold. On the contrary, the only “hostility” in evidence is the Roman Catholic disdain for the true OT canon which God entrusted to the Jews – not to Christians.

However, many men wisely prefer to trust the determination of
the new covenant people of God, the new priesthood (I Pet. 2: 9). Had
not our Lord prophesied that the kingdom of God would be taken away
from the Jews “and given to nation producing the fruits of it”? (S.
Matt. 21: 43).

Are you implying that because most Jews did not recognize their Messiah that the fact God entrusted His “oracles” to them is somehow made null and void? If so, I ask again to please present chapter and verse where your assertion is supported, where God has abrogated entrusting His “oracles” to the Jews.

What will be next?..we will be asked to accept that on the Sinai mountain top the tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were written really were given to a Roman pope?

Unlike St. Augustine the authority of the Church is not
paramount with Protestants when it comes to the canon of Sacred
Scripture.

Protestants recognize the limits of the church. Sadly, we see for Roman Catholics that the authority of the inspired words of Scripture, the words of the Lord Jesus Himself, is not “paramount” when it rejects the “oracles of God” given to the Jews.

Flavious Josephus, the Jewish historian, writes: ”We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with everyJew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them. Time andagain ere now the sight has been witnessed of prisoners enduring tortures and death in every form in the theatres, rather than utter asingle word against the laws and the allied documents.”

It is absurd in the extreme to posit that the Jews would tamper with their most reverenced holy sacred books * just* to “get” Christians.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure this precisely true – that rejection of the Apocrypha was the “exception” rather than the rule. The list of fathers who rejected the Apocrypha is long.

Many of the fathers agree that the Apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon of inspired Scripture.

Melito of Sardis, (Eusebius – Lib. IV. Cap. 26.) testifies he knew the OT canon. He took great pains in research, as we are told by Eusebius, and comes to the exact number of books as the Protestants and Jews do.
Origen (Eus. Lib. VI c. 25) acknowledges the same books as the Protestants as canonical.
Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon. The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.”
Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, says, “The law of the OT is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.”
Nazianzen fixes the same number.
Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th catechetical discourse says much, “Do thou learn carefully from the church what are the books of the OT, Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books. (Cyril. Hiersol. Catech. IV. 33. p. 67. ed Tuttei.)
**Epiphanius ** counts twenty seven, or by the Hebrew doubling, twenty two, “delivered by God to the Jews.” And he says of the apocryphal books, “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant.”
Ruffinus, in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed, says “But I should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees.
Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.)

“The church knows nothing of the apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples chose their examples. What is not extant in them is to be flung away from us.” (Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah)

Jerome, in his preface to the books of Solomon, “As therefore the church, while it reads Judith and Tobit and the book of Maccabees, yet receives them not among the canonical Scriptures; so she may read these two volumes (Wisdom and Sirach) for the edification of the people, not for affirming the authority of faith.”

They are absurd who imagine a double canon. Jerome calls the Pelagians heretics (rightly so) for citing testimonies of the Apocrypha while attempting to prove something of heaven.

Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.) expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest.
Josephus also agrees. In his first book against Apion the grammaritan “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other, but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of our highest credit.” (Contra Apion. L. I. C. 8.)
Isidore, who lived in those times almost, (Lib. Isad. De Eccl. Offic. Lib. 1. c. 12.) says that the OT was settled by Ezra in two and twenty books, “that the books might correspond by the number of the letters.”
**John Damascus says (Lib. IV. C. 18) “It must be known that there are only two and twenty books of the OT, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language.”
** Nicephorus, “There are two and twenty books of the OT.”
**Rabanus Maurus **(De. Institutes. Cler. C. 54) says that the whole OT was distributed by Ezra in two and twenty books, “that there may be as many in the law as in the letters.”
Radalphus (Lib. XIV. in Lev. c. 1.), “Tobit, Judith and the Macabees, although they be read for instruction in the church, yet have they not authority.”
Leotinus says in his book of Sects (act. 2.) that there are no more than twenty two canonical books as the churches receive.
**Hugo S. Victoris **(Prolog. Lib. I. De Sacram. C. 7.) says “that these books are read indeed, but not written in the body of the text or in the authoritative canon; that is, such as the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus.”
**Richard de S. Victore **(Exception. Lib. II. C. 9), Lyra (prolog. In Libros Aprocryph.)
**Dionysius Carthusianus **(Comment in Gen. in Princip.) ,
Abulensis (in Matt. c. 1),
Antonius (3 p. Tit. XVIII. C. 5.),
**Cardinal Hugo (Prologue to Joshua) says the apocryphal books are not a rule for faith.
Cardinal Cajetan and ** Erasmus both declare the canon glossed by the apocryphal books being included in it in their time. (See Leo’s Epistle “Dilecto Filio Erasmo Roterd.”
Athanasius, who was the bishop of Alexandria where the LXX originated, rejected the Apocrypha. This is an important historical piece of supporting evidence that the LXX, at that time, did not include the Apocrypha. However, the evidence mounts as we continue to look into additional historical records.

Is there a list of “fathers” that you use, kelman?

This list of “fathers” is curious, as most are not part of the ECFs who are normally tossed about as having the marks of an ECF: antiquity, sanctity, orthodoxy and Church approval.

 

[PRmerger]

To all intents and purpose the Lord Jesus did write “things down” – through the Holy Spirit.

This is an insightful point, kelman, and ***one that I don’t think you realize its import. *** The fact that you have italicized and underlined that Jesus did write things down (that is, he proclaimed the gospel in some other way than writing) is quite revealing.

This tells us that you acknowledge that God did not utilize a literal pen to paper method for the kerygma.

This is HUGE.

It is of such import that I will offer your quote again:

To all intents and purpose the Lord Jesus did write “things down” – through the Holy Spirit.

:extrahappy:

It is, of course, the Catholic position that, through the Holy Spirit, Jesus did write “things down” and that Holy Spirit has assisted the Church in proclaiming the kergyma through Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. Both are methods of Jesus writing “things down.”

If you can see that Jesus did not literally have to put pen to paper to proclaim the gospel, you can see that, well, Jesus did not have to use Scripture alone to proclaim the gospel.

:bounce:

To all intents and purpose the Lord Jesus did write “things down” – through the Holy Spirit.

AMEN!!!

 

[illusion_buster]

Firstly, illusion, if you could learn how to use the quote feature properly that might make it easier for you, rather than cutting and pasting and changing colors.

See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19771]

Anyway, could you give an example of another shepherd teaching something in his own voice yet being subject to the teaching of Jesus?

(Incidentally, is there any other way to know what the teachings of Jesus are, except through the Catholic Church? what other teachings of Jesus are you aware of?)

]

I still can’t get the hang of ‘how to quote’… Thankyou anyway…I’ll keep trying and hope not to annoy you too much.

Jesus commandments were very simple…Love God, Love one another… This was Jesus ONLY command… anything else is subjective. If you mean by ‘Catholic Church’ you mean the one apostolic faith accepting Jesus Christ as the awaited massiah (our saviour)…Then, at that time there was ONE voice…or one rite (although such an notion hadn’t been formulated at the very begining). What I mean by ONE voice or ANOTHER voice…really implies TRADITIONS. The fundamental teaching is the same but the customs & traditions differ so completely that (on the surface) it appears completely different. These other voices I believe are all the different RITES accepted in the ‘one fold’ and entered by ‘the gate’ Jesus…This doesn’t account for the ‘other sheep NOT of this fold’. The obviously don’t enter through the gate as this term applies only to the enclosed fold to which there IS a gate or entry…Jesus said, HE has to bring them too…NOT bring them into the enclosure with the other sheep…but bring them to SALVATION TOO… and that TOGETHER…(as they ARE) will make up ONE flock. The Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

]

I still can’t get the hang of ‘how to quote’… Thankyou anyway…I’ll keep trying and hope not to annoy you too much.

Jesus commandments were very simple…Love God, Love one another… This was Jesus ONLY command… anything else is subjective. If you mean by ‘Catholic Church’ you mean the one apostolic faith accepting Jesus Christ as the awaited massiah (our saviour)…Then, at that time there was ONE voice…or one rite (although such an notion hadn’t been formulated at the very begining). What I mean by ONE voice or ANOTHER voice…really implies TRADITIONS. The fundamental teaching is the same but the customs & traditions differ so completely that (on the surface) it appears completely different. These other voices I believe are all the different RITES accepted in the ‘one fold’ and entered by ‘the gate’ Jesus…This doesn’t account for the ‘other sheep NOT of this fold’. The obviously don’t enter through the gate as this term applies only to the enclosed fold to which there IS a gate or entry…Jesus said, HE has to bring them too…NOT bring them into the enclosure with the other sheep…but bring them to SALVATION TOO… and that TOGETHER…(as they ARE) will make up ONE flock. The Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church.

If you could just give an example of this, that would be helpful:

Anyway, could you give an example of another shepherd teaching something in his own voice yet being subject to the teaching of Jesus?

Perhaps if you could give an example of what this shepherd would proclaim that still is “subject” to Jesus’ teaching?

 

[illusion_buster]

[The Good Shepherd parable:-
[COLOR=“magenta”]the one who enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep recognize his voice and come to him. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. After he has gathered his own flock,he walks ahead of them, and they follow him because they know his voice. They won’t follow a stranger; “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who came before me were thieves and robbers. But the true sheep did not listen to them. Yes, I am the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved.They will come and go freely and will find good pastures. The thief’s purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life.COLOR]

“I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. So I sacrifice my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd. ]

Could the ‘Gatekeeper’ be the pope? This would explain the different Rites coming under the same authority. But…these other sheep??..Jesus says ‘they will listen to my voice’ not the voice of the OTHER shepherds OR the gatekeeper…but Jesus Himself. (Speaking to their hearts). Jesus HIMSELF is the Good Shepherd…under whom is all the other shepherds AND the OTHER sheep.

 

[PRmerger]

I still can’t get the hang of ‘how to quote’… Thankyou anyway…I’ll keep trying and hope not to annoy you too much.

Look at it this way: hit the “quote” button on the post that you’re responding to.

Whatever is between these markers:

blah blah blah blah
/ QUOTE] will appear in the darkened rectangle.

That’s what you respond to.

 

[PRmerger]

[The Good Shepherd parable:-
[COLOR=“magenta”]the one who enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep recognize his voice and come to him. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. After he has gathered his own flock,he walks ahead of them, and they follow him because they know his voice. They won’t follow a stranger; “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who came before me were thieves and robbers. But the true sheep did not listen to them. Yes, I am the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved.They will come and go freely and will find good pastures. The thief’s purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life.COLOR]

“I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. So I sacrifice my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd. ]

Could the ‘Gatekeeper’ be the pope? This would explain the different Rites coming under the same authority. But…these other sheep??..Jesus says ‘they will listen to my voice’ not the voice of the OTHER shepherds OR the gatekeeper…but Jesus Himself. (Speaking to their hearts). Jesus HIMSELF is the Good Shepherd…under whom is all the other shepherds AND the OTHER sheep.

Right.

So anyone who proclaims a gospel that has divorced itself from that which was given, once for all, to the Church, is proclaiming a false gospel.

 

[illusion_buster]

If you could just give an example of this, that would be helpful:

Perhaps if you could give an example of what this shepherd would proclaim that still is “subject” to Jesus’ teaching?

]

First of all… it was Jesus Himself who said this…

"and the sheep recognize his voice and come to him. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. After he has gathered his own flock,he walks ahead of them, and they follow him because they know his voice.

I suppose examples would be:- (1) The Coptic Orthodox Church
(2) The Easter Orthodox Church

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria[1] is the official name for the largest Christian church in Egypt and the Middle East. The Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox family of churches, which has been a distinct church body since the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, when it took a different position over Christological theology from that of the body of churches that would later split into Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

 

[illusion_buster]

So anyone who proclaims a gospel that has divorced itself from that which was given, once for all, to the Church, is proclaiming a false gospel.

]

I am assuming you are refering to 'Other Sheep"? and not the shepherds with other voices who can come & go freely?.
Jesus is the one who said there was other sheep not me…I in turn am interested in whom He ment, as Jesus never said anything without intent. It seems (according to Jesus) that not all beliefs ourside the ‘gated flock’ is false gospel.

 

[PRmerger]

I suppose examples would be:- (1) The Coptic Orthodox Church
(2) The Easter Orthodox Church

'kay.

So now if you could offer an example of a message that they are proclaiming that is still “subject to the teachings of Jesus.”

Your original premise was this:

The other shepherd Jesus referred to had their OWN voice but subject to the teachings of Jesus. This implies something else.

I’d like to know what teaching would this be that is offered by, say the Coptic Orthodox Church, that is in its OWN voice but is still subject to the teachings of Jesus. That is, differs from the Catholic Church yet agrees with Christ.

 

[illusion_buster]

'kay.

I’d like to know what teaching would this be that is offered by, say the Coptic Orthodox Church, that is in its OWN voice but is still subject to the teachings of Jesus. That is, differs from the Catholic Church yet agrees with Christ.

]

when it took a different position over Christological theology from that of the body of churches followed by another split by the Eastern Orthodox… If they were of one voice, they wouldn’t have split. But the fundamenals were the same…This is the whole point… The sheep in the closure STARTED as one flock but other shepherds came THROUGH the gate (Jesus) and called with a different voice to their sheep who followed ONLY them. If the other shepherds had the same voice, the sheep would have gone with ANY one of them. But not so…they considered the other shepherds as strangers. If you have another opinion as to what Jesus ment please share, as I think this parable if VERY relevent to this thread.

 

[illusion_buster]

In order for one to partake of the Coptic Orthodox Sacarments, one must have the same believes as the Coptic Church believes and confess their faith.

• Since there are many differences between the Coptic Orthodox Creed (Belief) and the Catholic Creed. A catholic person can not partake from the Coptic Orthodox Sacarmentsand the opposite is true. Unless, the Catholic person accepts the believes of the Coptic Orthodox Church and receives the sacrament of Baptism in the Coptic Orthodox Church.
• Some of these differences are as follow:

1. Coptic Orthodox Church believes in the One Nature of Christ out of two Nature, The Nature of the Incarnate Word “Logos”. Catholics do not.
2. Coptic Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. As the Bible teaches us, “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Trurth who proceeds from The Father, he will testify of Me” (St. John 15:26). Also looke up (St. John 14:26).
   The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, which is a heresy.
3. The Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in Purgatory

 

[Portrait]

I’m always amazed that Roman Catholics want to believe the Babylon of 1Peter 5:13 is really Rome. I mean I know “why” you’d want to but really I’d give it up considering the horrific references to Babylon in the Book of Revelation. Paul felt no need to “hide” where he was writing from so why should Peter?

And remember, Peter was the Apostle to the Jews - sent to the Jews - not to the Gentiles.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well and that you had a pleasant weekend.

With regards to the “Babylon” of I Pet. 5: 13 being identified with Rome, this is hardly an exclusively Catholic interpretation of the sacred text. As the prestigious Protestant reference work The *Oxford Dictionary *of the Christian Church says, “…the identification of ‘Babylon’ in I Pet. 5: 13 with Rome seems highly probable” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Ed. F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1974, p. 1261).

Unfortunately, the estimate of the evidence of the authors which you cite is not really surprising, dear friend, as they all had a biased brief against the Catholic Church. They seem so intent on showing that the claims of the Church are unproven and false, that an obligation is almost laid upon them to disprove what they deem an essential element in the 'papal chain of evidence". Mr Boettner, for example, is renowned for being a bitter opponent of the Catholic Church and its teachings. The words of the Protestant controversialist, George Salmon (author of “The Infallibility of the Church”), are most apposite, “The connexion of Peter to Rome has been so much insisted on by Roman Catholics, that Protestants have thought it a duty to deny it; and thus there is a certain number of commentators whose views have been so biassed…by the effect their decision may have upon modern controversies, that their opinion deserves to go for nothing” (Introduction to the New Testament, John Murray 1889, p. 482). Thus, the anti-Catholic bias of some writers is so obvious that what they say must be viewed with a great deal of distrust.

Interestingly, Goerge Salmon, who was certainly no friend of Catholicism, was a balanced controversialist who at least always made every effort to analyse the evidence impartially. He is of the opinion that the ‘Babylon’ of I Peter is indeed Rome because most trustworthy tradition makes the West and not the East, the scene of St. Peter’s labours. Moreover, “…if the scene of Peter’s activity were on the Euphrates at so late a period as that which I have assigned to his Epistle, it is unlikely that he should be found as soon afterwards suffering martydom at Rome” (Salmon op.cit. p. 484). Incidently, the martydom of St. Peter at Rome is jolly well attested. We learn from St. John’s Gospel (21: 12) that St. Peter suffered martyrdom and no other city apart from Rome claims to have been the place. Some time before the end of the second century the Christian world generally acknowledged the Roman martyrdom.

It is perfectly reasonable that St. Peter would have employed the code name ‘Babylon’ even in a non-mystical writing, since such a name would not have been given until Rome had, by its presecution of the Church,come to regarded by the Christians as the true successor of the tyrant city which oppressed the Jewish Church in Old economy. Persecution is always a good reason for the use of cryptic phraseology. St. Peter was known to the authorities as a pillar of the Church and so he was extremely wise not to publicise his presence in the metropolis, to say nothing of the other Christians who were with him also. The Romans eagerly wanted to capture the Apostle, so why make their job easier by initiating a manhunt? In any event, at the time of the writing of I Peter there was no Jewish colony in Euphrates Babylon, thus St. Peter’s journey to that place becomes quite surprising and rather unaccountable. Therefore there are very good reasons for concluding that ‘Babylon’ denotes the great city of Rome.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

In order for one to partake of the Coptic Orthodox Sacarments, one must have the same believes as the Coptic Church believes and confess their faith.

• Since there are many differences between the Coptic Orthodox Creed (Belief) and the Catholic Creed. A catholic person can not partake from the Coptic Orthodox Sacarmentsand the opposite is true. Unless, the Catholic person accepts the believes of the Coptic Orthodox Church and receives the sacrament of Baptism in the Coptic Orthodox Church.

This is not exactly correct. the COC does not allow its members to receive the sacraments in the CC, but permission has been given by our popes/bishops to receive the sacraments in the Orthodox Churches, (given certain parameters.)

• Some of these differences are as follow:

1. Coptic Orthodox Church believes in the One Nature of Christ out of two Nature, The Nature of the Incarnate Word “Logos”. Catholics do not.

This is curious. The COC does not believe that Christ has a divine nature and a human nature?

1. Coptic Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. As the Bible teaches us, “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Trurth who proceeds from The Father, he will testify of Me” (St. John 15:26). Also looke up (St. John 14:26).

Okay.

The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, which is a heresy.

Given this statement, I assume that you are a member of the COC?

1. The Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in Purgatory

Ah. So to the degree that any shepherd is proclaiming a gospel different from that which was given, once for all, to the apostles, is the degree that they ought not be preaching.

Anyone who preaches a different gospel is divorcing himself from the One Faith.

 

[Portrait]

I’m not sure this precisely true – that rejection of the Apocrypha was the “exception” rather than the rule. The list of fathers who rejected the Apocrypha is long.

Dear kelman,

Hello again.

Whilst there was widespread rejection of the wider canon in the East, the very same Fathers who in theory confine inspiration and canonicity to the Hebrew canon, in practice highly esteem and cite as Sacred Scripture all the books of the wider canon. As the old Victorian Protestant scholar, S. Davidson, said, “Surely the practical use of writings is an evidence of their canonicity as strong as theoretical opnions” (The Canon of the Bible, 1878, p. 60).

As regards St. Jerome, he was undoubtedly carried away by his long stay in Palestine and his Hebrew studies, which probably explains why he threw the great weight of his authority against the canonicity of the Deutrocanonical’s. In any event after the African Synods, St. Jerome does appear to have changed his whole attitude with respect to the Deutrocanonical books, for after the declarations by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage he modified his opinion in his later works. Thus in his later commentaries, for example, on Isaias, he quotes the Deutrocanonicals as authorities.

A further illustration of the established position of the wider canon in the Church is St. Jerome’s admission that he translated the deutrocanonical books into Latin as a concession to the authority of the bishops, and that the Church herself has read them for the edification of the faithful. St. Jerome was still a faithful Catholic at heart who recognised the authority of the Catholic Church.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[rinnie]

It’s as I said, there is no biblical evidence, no suggestion that Mary was assumed. We even find RCC scholars(below) admitting that the patristic sources are scarce and the doctrine cannot be laid at their feet. Besides wasn’t such an idea condemned by two popes? It seems the idea originated in a spurious apocryphal book condemned by at least two popes in the 5th and 6th centuries? I see this as another example of RCC “chaos”.

”In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts…Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’” (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).

”The history, therefore, of the belief which this festival was instituted to commemorate is as follows: It was first taught in the 3rd or 4th century as part of the Gnostic legend of St. Mary’s death, and it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable down to the end of the 5th century. It was brought into the church in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, partly by a series of successful forgeries, partly by the adoption of the Gnostic legend on part of the accredited teachers, writers, and liturgists. And a festival in commemoration of the event, thus came to be believed, was instituted in the East at the beginning of the 7th, in the West at the beginning of the 9th century” (A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, Ed., (Hartford: J.B. Burr, 1880), pp. 1142-1143).

Sure there is. It is a teaching of our faith. The idea of the Mother of Christ not being defined until later has nothing to do with it not always being a true fact and belief of the faith.

It was just not questioned before it was always believed. so the Church never had to defend it.