Sola Scriptura family problem

[Victorious]

How do you know when you as a catholic read the bible know that you understand correctly what you just read? How do you know your interpretation and understanding is correct?

The real question is, how does a Protestant, who adheres to the notion of private judgment in lieu of the teaching authority of the Church, know that he correctly understands the Bible? Why does the proliferation of Protestant denominations not shake his faith in private judgment and sola scriptura?

By the way, as regards Protestants being heretics: I agree that Protestants objectively hold heretical beliefs. However, it also seems quite clear that from a moral standpoint, the Protestants of today are quite differently situated from those who originally instigated the Reformation. It seems to me that in order to incur guilt on a par with that of the original Protestants, a Protestant of today would have to stay out of the Church even despite being convinced that it is the one, true Church.

 

[Victorious]

If you look at this passage you quote here [1 Timothy 3:14-15], it has nothing to do with a promise for the church not to teach error. Paul is stating here a characteristic of the church and not that it is incapble of teaching error.

Weeeeeeellllllll, if the Church is capable of teaching error, then she can’t be much of a bulwark of truth, can she?

 

[justasking4]

Corrupt doctrine is that which deviates from the depost of faith that Jesus passed to the Apostles. This is known as Sacred Tradition.

If we use your defintion here, then what we have then is the catholic church teaching falsely on a number of doctrines. There is no doctrine or teaching in the scripture that we should pray to Mary, her assumption, indulgences etc.The only thing we know that is what the scripture tells us. It is the scripture alone that is inspired and inerrant. No tradition, church or man can supersede their authority.

Sacred Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition, so there are some doctrines that are not articulated as clearly in Scripture, but are preserved incorrupt by the Church of whom Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail.

Can you give me a couple of examples what you are saying here?

I used to be Protestant, so I know where you’re coming from. It is not that Catholics take a lower view of Scripture by asserting doctrines that are not clearly articulated in Scripture. It is that they take a higher view of Christ as the Word of God (John 1:1). All revelation comes from Him. Sola scriptura is, itself, a corrupt doctrine because it discounts Jesus as the Word of God and discards much of what He passed to His Church.

Are you saying that the catholic church has revelation outside of scripture?

If so, can you give me an example of this revelation from Jesus and that you know its from Him and not from men?

 

[Victorious]

Are you saying that the catholic church has revelation outside of scripture?

If so, can you give me an example of this revelation from Jesus and that you know its from Him and not from men?

[sign]2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.[/sign]

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Justaking4:

Your statement:

“Did Jesus and His apostles believe the OT scriptures were inspired-inerrant word of God? Yes, and that is part of what is involved in Sola Scriptura.”

You’re wrong here. Jesus added to the Law in many instances. Examples include His teaching on divorce (Matthew 5:31-32); giving offers at the altar without first embracing your brother and being reconciled (shades of the Sacrament of Confession!!); killing with a thought; lusting in your heart; working on the Jewish Sabbath.

The OT which the Biblios (Books we call the Bible) is translated into is the Septuagint. Protestant sects did not use the Septuagint until the late 19th century as one of its sources. And there are variations among the existing manuscripts!

Jesus (according to manuscripts of the NT) quoted from the Septuagint. It was the Vulgate of St Jerome and the early Catholic Church’s manuscripts of the Septuagint that the Rabbis in Jamnia (led by Jochanan ben Zakkai) used to retranslate the Tanakh in Hebrew.

You Protestants call that the Received Text (Textus Receptus). Many of the Septuagint’s references (in Isaiah and Malachi, for example) were changed to NOT support the popular idea (among converted Jews to christianity) that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The famous example is Aquila’s removal of the word *parthenos *(virgin) from Isaiah 7:14 and rendering it as “a young woman (neanis) shall conceive.”

This is the stuff most Prostestants believe (JWs for example).

It’s impossible to justify the substitution on historic (all the Apostles were dead at the time of Jamnia) or scholarly (really now, its like changing Shakespeare to show how he predicts current events!) grounds, and the Protestant co-option of the Jamnian canon has caused all kinds of problems for good people trying to figure out Christianity.

It has provoked all of the incompatible ideas about the Cylce of Redemption found among American sects that center on goofy things like “the Rapture” and the “End Time.” It keeps people from reading passages like Sirach 5:1-7, which is why so many of you separated brethren ask bewildering questions like, “Have you been saved?”

It’s even led some mainline Protestant sects to declare that there’s no such thing as a human soul.

Finally, Justasking4, search the net and you will find Protestant scholars acknowledging the situation indirectly by referring to the Septuagint as “the Greek original” and the Jamnian as “the received version.”

The very idea that each and every word collected by the early Catholic Church 300 plus years after Paul and the Gospels, is sacrosanct is ridiculous. The quotes attributed to our Lord (and thank you God for not writing things down for us: we would end up like those Moslems and Mormons!!) vary in some important places and it is disingenuous to claim that we have failed in the proper translation of it. It is better to say that we do not understand it and this is where Tradition (what was taught about those passages as recorded in early Church documents by Church Fathers) comes into our understanding of what Jesus taught.

Justasking4: how do you explain the two endings to Mark??
Or the insertion (in a totally different koined Greek) of the woman caught in adultery episode of John 8? The sources we have are attested mainly in Old Latin manuscripts, it is missing from all early Greek manuscripts.

I await your reply.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Justasking4

Your question on the Assumption of Mary:

It’s important to remember that pronouncements *ex cathedra *(from the Pope) only confirm articles of faith embodied in Tradition when such clarification is needed: they do not introduce them.

Pope Pius XII defined this doctrine in 1950. But it’s also a very important part of Tradition, reflected in early Christian and patristic (Church Fathers) writings. By the 5th century the Assumption was already celebrated on its own Feast Day, in fact, it is the very first canonical feast of Mary in history.

As to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This is the first and only time the (dreaded by Protestants) doctrine of Papal Infallibility came up. The doctrine of IC (that Mary was preserved from original sin) was formally pronounced by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Heck, that date is older than most American christian denominations! Sorry, got off track!

Anyway, the IC is implicit in early Christian hymns and explicit in the writings of (get your pencil out) Sts Ambrose, Augustine, Andrew of Crete, Germain of Constantinople, and other Fathers up to and including St John Damascene.

It was also explicit in liturgy (how those early Christians praised God and worshipped Him in the Mass, for example); a feast day commemorating the IC was celebrated annually in the East by the 7th century. It was formally approved (by not promulgated) and given a standardized liturgy by Pope Sixus IV in 1476, and extended to the whole Church in 1568 by Pope St Pius V.

However, by then the whole doctrine of IC had been detailed in theological tracts like Gaguin’s De intemeratae Virginis conceptione of 1849, maintained at the University of Paris and generally accepted as consistent with tradition.

I hope this helps clear your confusion.

 

[justasking4]

Weeeeeeellllllll, if the Church is capable of teaching error, then she can’t be much of a bulwark of truth, can she?

not necessarily. It is not necessary for the church to be infallible to be the bulwark of truth. The church derives its authority from Christ. It is He that is the way the truth and the life. He is the anchor. All is not lost when the church does error.

 

[justasking4]

Justaking4:

Your statement:

“Did Jesus and His apostles believe the OT scriptures were inspired-inerrant word of God? Yes, and that is part of what is involved in Sola Scriptura.”

You’re wrong here.

Are you saying that Jesus did not believe that the OT scriptures were the inspired Word of God?

Jesus added to the Law in many instances. Examples include His teaching on divorce (Matthew 5:31-32); giving offers at the altar without first embracing your brother and being reconciled (shades of the Sacrament of Confession!!); killing with a thought; lusting in your heart; working on the Jewish Sabbath.

I wouldn’t use the word “add” to what Jesus is doing in these examples here. Rather He was explaining them in a deeper way than before. Take adultery. The jews thought of adutlery only in terms of the act itself while He explained that it also involved the thinking of wanting to do it was also sin

The OT which the Biblios (Books we call the Bible) is translated into is the Septuagint. Protestant sects did not use the Septuagint until the late 19th century as one of its sources. And there are variations among the existing manuscripts!

Jesus (according to manuscripts of the NT) quoted from the Septuagint. It was the Vulgate of St Jerome and the early Catholic Church’s manuscripts of the Septuagint that the Rabbis in Jamnia (led by Jochanan ben Zakkai) used to retranslate the Tanakh in Hebrew.

I thought the coucil of Jaminia was in 90 AD while Jerome was until around the 3rd-4th century. Do you know if this is correct?

You Protestants call that the Received Text (Textus Receptus). Many of the Septuagint’s references (in Isaiah and Malachi, for example) were changed to NOT support the popular idea (among converted Jews to christianity) that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The famous example is Aquila’s removal of the word *parthenos *(virgin) from Isaiah 7:14 and rendering it as “a young woman (neanis) shall conceive.”

This is the stuff most Prostestants believe (JWs for example).

It’s impossible to justify the substitution on historic (all the Apostles were dead at the time of Jamnia) or scholarly (really now, its like changing Shakespeare to show how he predicts current events!) grounds, and the Protestant co-option of the Jamnian canon has caused all kinds of problems for good people trying to figure out Christianity.

It has provoked all of the incompatible ideas about the Cylce of Redemption found among American sects that center on goofy things like “the Rapture” and the “End Time.” It keeps people from reading passages like Sirach 5:1-7, which is why so many of you separated brethren ask bewildering questions like, “Have you been saved?”

It’s even led some mainline Protestant sects to declare that there’s no such thing as a human soul.

I’m confused on the point you are making here. Can you briefly clarify for me?

Finally, Justasking4, search the net and you will find Protestant scholars acknowledging the situation indirectly by referring to the Septuagint as “the Greek original” and the Jamnian as “the received version.”

The very idea that each and every word collected by the early Catholic Church 300 plus years after Paul and the Gospels, is sacrosanct is ridiculous. The quotes attributed to our Lord (and thank you God for not writing things down for us: we would end up like those Moslems and Mormons!!) vary in some important places and it is disingenuous to claim that we have failed in the proper translation of it. It is better to say that we do not understand it and this is where Tradition (what was taught about those passages as recorded in early Church documents by Church Fathers) comes into our understanding of what Jesus taught.

Are there a large number of manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts from the NT period in whcih scholars can draw from?

I have a question for you on the church fathers. Perhaps you can help me here. What is a church father? Does He speak for the entire church of the period in which he lives?

Justasking4: how do you explain the two endings to Mark??
Or the insertion (in a totally different koined Greek) of the woman caught in adultery episode of John 8? The sources we have are attested mainly in Old Latin manuscripts, it is missing from all early Greek manuscripts.

It appears that the ending in Mark was lost since what we have today is not in the earlier manuscripts as you say. I haven’t read up on this issue in awhile so i won’t be able to answer you that well. I’m sure there are excellent resources out there to look at

I await your reply.

 

[john654]

Justasking

:Originally Posted by john654 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Hi,
I was wondering why it doesn’t say any thing about sola scriptura in the Bible?
John

What is your defintion of sola scriptura? That would be helpful. Then we can see if such a thing exist in scripture.

I just want to know where it says anything about “scripture alone” in the bible.
John

 

[justasking4]

Justasking4

Your question on the Assumption of Mary:

It’s important to remember that pronouncements *ex cathedra *(from the Pope) only confirm articles of faith embodied in Tradition when such clarification is needed: they do not introduce them.

Pope Pius XII defined this doctrine in 1950. But it’s also a very important part of Tradition, reflected in early Christian and patristic (Church Fathers) writings. By the 5th century the Assumption was already celebrated on its own Feast Day, in fact, it is the very first canonical feast of Mary in history.

This still doesn’t show that she was assumned though. Just because its mentioned in some early tradition does it mean that event happened.

Again, this does not arise to the level of proof or certainty. Look at the evidence Paul gives for the resurrection of Christ in I Cor 15. That’s the kind of evidence that is needed for this assumption of Mary. We should settle for nothing less than this kind of criteria.

Do you happen to know the 1st time this tradition was mentioned?

As to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This is the first and only time the (dreaded by Protestants) doctrine of Papal Infallibility came up. The doctrine of IC (that Mary was preserved from original sin) was formally pronounced by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Heck, that date is older than most American christian denominations! Sorry, got off track!

Anyway, the IC is implicit in early Christian hymns
I would think you are aware that such a thing as this is totally absent from scripture. No apostle ever taught this of her or anyone else except the Lord Jesus.

and explicit in the writings of (get your pencil out) Sts Ambrose, Augustine, Andrew of Crete, Germain of Constantinople, and other Fathers up to and including St John Damascene.

Do you happen to have some dates for these men?

It was also explicit in liturgy (how those early Christians praised God and worshipped Him in the Mass, for example); a feast day commemorating the IC was celebrated annually in the East by the 7th century. It was formally approved (by not promulgated) and given a standardized liturgy by Pope Sixus IV in 1476, and extended to the whole Church in 1568 by Pope St Pius V.

Do you have a date for the “early christians” that you mention here?

However, by then the whole doctrine of IC had been detailed in theological tracts like Gaguin’s De intemeratae Virginis conceptione of 1849, maintained at the University of Paris and generally accepted as consistent with tradition.

I hope this helps clear your confusion.

Thanks for your work here. However, it making things worse because it showing there is no eyewitness evidence for her assumption for example. Her assumption is a historical event if it happened. That’s what the catholic church seems to be incapable of showing. If I had to believe in resurrection of Christ based on the evidence for Mary’s assumption i would reject it.

 

[justasking4]

[sign]2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.[/sign]

Look at the context for this verse. Who is Paul referring to when he says “hold to the traditions which you were taught by us”?

What “traditions” is Paul specifically referring to here?

 

[justasking4]

The real question is, how does a Protestant, who adheres to the notion of private judgment in lieu of the teaching authority of the Church, know that he correctly understands the Bible?

I agree that a protestant does have a responsiblity to justify his understanding is correct when he studies scripture. My question for you still stands. How does a catholic know when he reads the scripture he is understanding it correctly and in line with the catholic church?

Why does the proliferation of Protestant denominations not shake his faith in private judgment and sola scriptura?

In the protestant churches that i have been involved with is that there is wuite a range of agreement on a number of issues and doctrines. For example, all that I have been with all believe that Christ is God, died for our sins, and the Bible is the Word of God. That doesn’t mean that there are not secondary issues that we may disagree with. I am troubled though by various protestant churches that do teach falsely. Things like the prosperity gospel come to mind.

By the way, as regards Protestants being heretics: I agree that Protestants objectively hold heretical beliefs. However, it also seems quite clear that from a moral standpoint, the Protestants of today are quite differently situated from those who originally instigated the Reformation. It seems to me that in order to incur guilt on a par with that of the original Protestants, a Protestant of today would have to stay out of the Church even despite being convinced that it is the one, true Church.

No doubt each side believes the other holds to false beliefs. I believe the catholic church does in a number of areas. That’s why these discussions are so important. Perhaps we can help each other to see the truth

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by JOE OBERR forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I would ask them “please quote the bible verse that says to use ‘no book but the bible’”.

there is no such verse. However, for the protestant bases its belief on the very nature of the scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant Word of God. No church traditions or man for example can rise to this level of authority

Justasking4:

Since there is no verse supporting that concept the concept by definition is extra-biblical, i.e. it comes from outside of Scripture. Which means that a man came up with the concept (ex Catholic priest Fr. Martin Luther in approximately 1520).

It doesn’t matter where something comes from so long as its true. The issue is: are the Scripture truly inspired and inerrant (which is part of the beleif of sola scriptura)?

Which means it is a tradition of men as no one practiced sola scriptura prior to the Martin Luther beginning the practice on his own authority in the 16th century.

Are all of men’s traditions false and wrong?

And this tradition of men contradicts the holy inspired written Word of God in Scripture as it is not in Scripture either directly or indirectly.

Just because a word concept is not in scripture doesn’t mean its wrong. What matters in this context is as stated in 2 Tim 3:16-17—
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

is the scripture inspired by God or not?

Jesus did not practice it nor did he teach his apostles to practice it. He taught them to preach the gospel he had taught them orally.

Back then it made sense to do it that way. Since the time of the passing of the apostles the church has had to rely on the written-inspired Word of God. Not also that Jesus and His apostles look to the OT written scriptures to ground their teachings. The written OT scripture carried the authority of God Himself

Jesus taught orally just as all the great teachers of the day did. He directed his apostles to teach the same way. St Paul taught orally. About 98% of the time when he mentions the gospel or Word of God the context is oral (I preach the gospel, you heard the word of God, faith comes by hearing etc).

good point.

Since he had made known to them “all” the Father had told him (Jn 15:15). What is this “all”?

I suspect He is referring to His teachings and ministry. What does the catholic church say it is?

He did spend three years teaching them the secrets of the kingdom of heaven. It was more than just three or four sentences.

I agree. John as you may know alludes to much more than we have in the gospel when he writes;John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that *would be written.

Joe

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I’ll address your points seriatum.

1. To Catholics, Jesus is the Word of God. Your quote uses the phrase “inspired-inerrant.” That is two distinct concepts so I will give you two distinct answers. Yes, to inspired or He would not have quoted them. No, to inerrant or there would have been no need for Him to walk among us and teach the Apostles (“Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.” Matthew 13:11 and “Hear and understand. It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one.” an interesting denial of the dietary laws, don’t you think? Matthew 15:10-11)

If the OT was inerrant, then I want to know to what purpose would Jesus have to walk among us to fulfill the Law?

1. You’re mincing words here. If Scripture is inerrant then Scripture must be plain, of one source, and, generally agreed to over the centuries by many different people. If I say adultery is something other than what the OT says it is, then I am ‘adding’ to that definition. Parallels abound in Constitutional law. The First Amendment was written to prevent the former colonies from “establishing” a state sanctioned church (like most of them had) and taxing those landowners who were not tithing members of that established church. It had nothing to do with providing state-authorized textbooks to Christian schools. If I were to accept the Protestant outlook, I should be throwing my legal acumen to the support of the ACLU where personal interpretations of federal and state law abound.

Don’t be Orwellian: Jesus adds to and subtracts from OT law and customs. Heck, the whole history outlined in the OT is one of having some prophet jerk those stubborn people back towards God. It is not giving a deeper meaning.

Jewish midrash (commentary on the Torah from 400 to 1200 AD) supports the old view outlined in the OT. Jesus is not even mentioned as a Rabbi with another view. My Israeli father-in-law (Moshe Dreksler of blessed memory) was very specific on this point to me.

1. I was wrong. You are correct. I meant to say St Jerome was used as a source for documents predating Jamnia. Jewish scholars mention him in the Midrash, and he is still considered an authority for textual questions (as per my father-in-law).
2. “I’m confused on the point you are making here.” Justasking4, many of the current non-denominational beliefs (I list them in those paragraphs) have NO scriptural basis in the Septuagint or in the manuscripts accepted by mainstream Christian (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) churches. A perfect example is the “left behind” whirlwind. Those “left behind” in the two quotations taken out of context are those who believe in Jesus. The non-believers are taken away.

Also, if you hinge your belief in a book that doesn’t tell you it is the book that must be the final authority for belief in Christ, using the recent (19th century) Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura as your foundation, then you have the responsibility to justify why your texts are more doctrinal than those used by mainstream Christians: the Septuagint and the Codex Vaticanus and (for the OT) the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The prophesy concerning Mary in Isaiah is the prime example. The oldest manuscript (the Septuagint) verifies and enforces the Catholic view of Mary. To accept otherwise is to accept the Jamnian version compiled after the events and in direct contradiction to the original.

The confusion is why does every Tom, Dick and Harry set up a ‘church’ and profess to know what the Bible says. Look around you, there are people whose only knowledge of Greek or Latin is a secondary source (what someone else said or wrote). At least in the Catholic Church there is a long, very long Tradition of this is what is meant and why. We don’t rewrite Scripture: we collect it. Its the others who change it.

1. The RSV is based on Catholic (mostly) manuscripts including the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the Codex Vaticanus which were released for study to non-Catholics in the early part of the 20th century. Catholics use the RSV-CE which includes those books the Protestants (after the Reformation) said were not canonical (based upon Jamnian or post Christian faith formation sources!).

The Oxford University Press has a great non-denominational Companion to the Bible. It list various manuscripts and theories such as those wacky ones I mentioned in my prior missive.

More to follow (too long!)

 

[Reformed1]

If the OT was inerrant, then I want to know to what purpose would Jesus have to walk among us to fulfill the Law?

I thought Leo XIII wrote an encyclical saying that the scriptures, both OT and NT were free from error?

I think it was in “PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS” where in paragraph 21 he stated:
“21. It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error,…”

 

[Victorious]

Thanks for your work here. However, it making things worse because it showing there is no eyewitness evidence for her assumption for example. Her assumption is a historical event if it happened. That’s what the catholic church seems to be incapable of showing. If I had to believe in resurrection of Christ based on the evidence for Mary’s assumption i would reject it.

Do you think God couldn’t assume Mary body and soul into heaven?

Matthew 12:38:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.”

 

[justasking4]

part 1

I’ll address your points seriatum.

1. To Catholics, Jesus is the Word of God.

Protestants would agree. However, the Word of God is also the scriptures.see Hebrews 4:12 for example

Your quote uses the phrase “inspired-inerrant.” That is two distinct concepts so I will give you two distinct answers. Yes, to inspired or He would not have quoted them.

can you clarify what you mean here?

No, to inerrant or there would have been no need for Him to walk among us and teach the Apostles (“Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.” Matthew 13:11 and "Hear and understand.
Inerrancy has to do without error.

It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one." an interesting denial of the dietary laws, don’t you think? Matthew 15:10-11)

He was not denying these deitary laws but teaching that what defiles a man is not what he eats but what comes out of his heart.

If the OT was inerrant, then I want to know to what purpose would Jesus have to walk among us to fulfill the Law?
Inerrancy has to do without error. The OT has its source in God Himself. Part of the reason Christ came was to fulfill the Law of God in which man was incapble of doing. Christ was our representative Who perfectly fulfilled the Law that we might be justified. He also took the penalty of our breaking the Law that we might be justified by faith

1. You’re mincing words here. If Scripture is inerrant then Scripture must be plain, of one source, and, generally agreed to over the centuries by many different people.
   Scripture is without error in its original manuscripts. It is also without error when it speaks of the mind of God and other related issues. Inerrancy has nothing to do with it being plain or people agreeing on its message.

If I say adultery is something other than what the OT says it is, then I am ‘adding’ to that definition.

If anyone were to say it means something else then they would be in error.

Parallels abound in Constitutional law. The First Amendment was written to prevent the former colonies from “establishing” a state sanctioned church (like most of them had) and taxing those landowners who were not tithing members of that established church. It had nothing to do with providing state-authorized textbooks to Christian schools. If I were to accept the Protestant outlook, I should be throwing my legal acumen to the support of the ACLU where personal interpretations of federal and state law abound.
not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

 

[justasking4]

part 2

Don’t be Orwellian: Jesus adds to and subtracts from OT law and customs. Heck, the whole history outlined in the OT is one of having some prophet jerk those stubborn people back towards God. It is not giving a deeper meaning.
Only Christ has the authority to do so. Being God in the flesh and the author of scripture only He has the authority to do so. No chuch or man is above the scripture.

Jewish midrash (commentary on the Torah from 400 to 1200 AD) supports the old view outlined in the OT. Jesus is not even mentioned as a Rabbi with another view. My Israeli father-in-law (Moshe Dreksler of blessed memory) was very specific on this point to me.

Why do you think this is so? The Jews thought He was a deceiver who led the people astray. Should we expect to see Him quoted in their writings in a positive way?
It would have been interesting to ask your father in law’, to see what his answer would be who has had a greater impact on history than Jesus? Is their any rabbi or group of rabbi’s who have had a greater impact than Christ?

1. I was wrong. You are correct. I meant to say St Jerome was used as a source for documents predating Jamnia. Jewish scholars mention him in the Midrash, and he is still considered an authority for textual questions (as per my father-in-law).
2. “I’m confused on the point you are making here.” Justasking4, many of the current non-denominational beliefs (I list them in those paragraphs) have NO scriptural basis in the Septuagint or in the manuscripts accepted by mainstream Christian (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) churches.

Most protestant churches i’m aware of use the NIV or Nasb translations. It is primarily from these translations that are preached from. I’m most familar with the NASB which is based on excellent manscripts.

A perfect example is the “left behind” whirlwind. Those “left behind” in the two quotations taken out of context are those who believe in Jesus. The non-believers are taken away.
That would not suprise me

Also, if you hinge your belief in a book that doesn’t tell you it is the book that must be the final authority for belief in Christ, using the recent (19th century) Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura as your foundation, then you have the responsibility to justify why your texts are more doctrinal than those used by mainstream Christians: the Septuagint and the Codex Vaticanus and (for the OT) the Dead Sea Scrolls.
To answer this kind of question would require some complex technical expertise that would lose a lot of people. Let me give you a short brief answer though. There are many good translations on the market today. Each have their own emphasis and are translated by scholars who know far more than i do. i would also say this is the best time in history to know the Scriptures. The wealth and resources availble to the average Christian is mind boggling.

The prophesy concerning Mary in Isaiah is the prime example. The oldest manuscript (the Septuagint) verifies and enforces the Catholic view of Mary. To accept otherwise is to accept the Jamnian version compiled after the events and in direct contradiction to the original.

The confusion is why does every Tom, Dick and Harry set up a ‘church’ and profess to know what the Bible says.
No doubt there is confusion but not i think that confusion comes from the lack of scripture knowledge rather than from to much. Most catholics and prots i know don’t know it that well

Look around you, there are people whose only knowledge of Greek or Latin is a secondary source (what someone else said or wrote). At least in the Catholic Church there is a long, very long Tradition of this is what is meant and why. We don’t rewrite Scripture: we collect it. Its the others who change it.

Who in your church has made the final and complete “commentary” of what each verse or passage in the bible means? If such a book exist, can tell me where to get it?

1. The RSV is based on Catholic (mostly) manuscripts including the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the Codex Vaticanus which were released for study to non-Catholics in the early part of the 20th century. Catholics use the RSV-CE which includes those books the Protestants (after the Reformation) said were not canonical (based upon Jamnian or post Christian faith formation sources!).

The Oxford University Press has a great non-denominational Companion to the Bible. It list various manuscripts and theories such as those wacky ones I mentioned in my prior missive.

More to follow (too long!)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

You are 16, 1st honor your father in heaven, then honor your parents. Read the bible and get away from a place where the opinions aren’t generally going to be unbiased… in opposition to your parents. Nothing against the people here! but this issue is between you our Lord in heaven and your parents. Keep it that way.
Peace and may Christ be with you.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Now, where was I when I was interrupted…

1. Church Fathers. Well, from a very early date the honorific “Father” was applied to bishops as witnesses of the Christian tradition. Teaching bishops were known as “fathers” of their students. St Paul in Corinthians applied this title to himself: “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Good News” ( 1 Cor 4:15). Many Catholic scholars believe this to be the beginning of the tradition of using the term “father.”

By the 5th century, the term came to be used in a more comprehensive manner to include ecclesiastical writers who were not bishops but were known and acknowledged for personal sanctity and doctrinal purity. St Jerome was not a bishop but he was listed by that polymath St Augustine as a Father of the Church.

By the 13th century, the title “Apostolic Father” became reserved for the Christian Apologists who wrote before the reign of Constantine. It is interesting that clarification was going on as early as St Paul and into the age of Constantine!

It was Pope Boniface VII who started the official (as Bishop of Rome and as Pope) promulgation by declaring Sts Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and Gregory the Great as outstanding teachers of the Church (egregii doctores ecclesiae).

Here are some primary (original language and translation) sources for you to consider: Early Latin Theology, Volume V, from the Library of Christian Classics (ed. John Baille, McNeill and Van Deusen (Phila., Westminster Press, 1956). Also, The Early Church by Henry Chadwick (Baltimore, Penguin Books, 1969). A few of these guys are Protestant scholars on early Church history.

1. “appears to be lost” in reference to some supposed original manuscript of Mark. Well, there you have it; like Shakespearean scholars who posit non-existent Hamlets we have come full circle to discussions of our common heritage. We have what we have and it is what it is. The longer ending is radically different from the shorter ending in Mark and has been fodder for the Mary Magdalene marries Jesus of Nazareth and founds the royal house in France conspiracists.

The shorter ending is found in four or five (I don’t have my source handy and it is late) Greek manuscripts from the 7th or 8th centuries. Also, and I apologize if I repeat myself, in an Old Latin version where it appears alone without the longer ending.

So contra to your statement, there is NO lost ending to Mark. There are two endings to Mark. Inerrancy, anyone?