M
medwigel
Guest
OMG, fine, he’s a scribe.He wrote down an eyewitness account. He’s not a ‘biographer’ so much as he is a ‘scribe’ for Peter’s eyewitness account.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
LOL!I’m only insisting on ‘scribe’ because it’s vitally important that we realize that the Gospel of Mark is an eyewitness account, and not a “biography” that was written by someone who didn’t have access to original sources. We can call him a “flying monkey” if we want… just as long as we don’t lose sight of the fact that his Gospel is actually Peter’s testimony.
Then, by that assertion, there is no definition of the canon.
M
medwigel
Guest
I see Scripture as truth and truth does not need man to exist. Truth is there for man to discover, so that’s what the canon is, man discovering truth. But we are the discoverers of truth, not the makers of truth or authority over truth.
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK, then: so, when one group of discoverers (whom Christ gave authority over the Church which He founded) says that the canon is this group of 73 books, and another group of discoverers (who don’t have that authority) says that the canon is this group of 66 books, what does that say about ‘truth’?
Another way of looking at it: if there’s no such thing as a definable canon, and everyone gets to decide for himself… then how do we determine what’s true and what’s not?
M
medwigel
Guest
Christ may have given the church authority but it doesn’t mean that the Church always gets it right. The Church is a steward of God’s kingdom, but it’s possible for the steward to get wrong at times (hopefully not on purpose) and anyone who is given authority has the ability to abuse that authority (and there have been instances of the Church abusing it’s authority- in both the Catholic and Protestant churches). The Church is not immune to error of the human element.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes… and no. You’re correct, of course, when you say that the members of the Church are “not immune to error of the human element.” On any number of matters of prudential judgment, members of the Church (including its leadership, up to and including the pope!) can make mistakes. In addition, we’re all sinners, so there will be times for each of us when we fall into sin.
However, are you saying that Christ would allow His Church to fall into error in doctrine? The Catholic Church would respond that, following John 16:13, the Holy Spirit “guides [the Church] into all truth”. Moreover, Christ promises that “the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against [the church]” (Mt 16:18) – if the Church taught falsehood and thus led people into error and sin, wouldn’t that be the surest sign that the devil had prevailed over the Church?
So, the Catholic Church believes that its leadership is just human, but when it makes an official declaration on faith and morals, the Holy Spirit protects it from teaching error. (Any other kind of statement doesn’t have the possibility of freedom from error in this way.)
Anyway, back to the question, since you haven’t answered it: what does it say about ‘truth’ when one group of discoverers says “the Bible has 73 books” and another group of discoverers says “the Bible has 66 books”?
Last edited:
C
Chris4
Guest
You possibly have an insecure definition and understanding of the “Church”. If we read Mat.16:17-19, We would be humbled in our dealing with matters Church. We are reading of an entity with Christ as the architect and residing in it. He is inseparable from it,(Mat.28:20) and hence He does not have to be given scripture. He is the source of Scripture. So the Church is the custodian of this Truth.
C
Chris4
Guest
I guess you are right about Mark and the eyewitness angle. It however still confirms the human element. He could not have been present and must have heard it from someone else. So first it was oral (Tradition) before it was turned to Scripture. The fact that what was oral was eventually written down does not make the oral bit any less or more than the other.
C
Chris4
Guest
Would you say that Christ would mislead the Church he founded. The effect of imputing that the Church can teach falsehood is rather misguided.
A
Agathon
Guest
Some traditions put Mark as one of the seventy, and others link Mark as the young man who ran off naked when Jesus was arrested. So at any rate, Mark is still an eyewitness.
J
jlhargus
Guest
M
medwigel
Guest
Yes, Mark could have been present in all those ways but there is no way that he was present for all the events that were document in his gospel.
If you look at an earlier exchange w/ Gorgias- Mark serves as a “scribe” to Peter and is recounting Peter’s experience with Christ.
medwigel:
Mark was not the eye witness, so he’s a biographer.
Gorgias:
He wrote down an eyewitness account. He’s not a ‘biographer’ so much as he is a ‘scribe’ for Peter’s eyewitness account.
Last edited:
M
medwigel
Guest
It means that the “discoverers” who are going with the 66 books are taking heed to Peter’s words when he warns that there can be false teachers amongst the church
2 Peter 2:1 “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.”
So it would be irresponsible and a dereliction of duty if the leaders of the church did not rightfully question the text they are reviewing to make sure that it is actually truth, and if they see something that isn’t right they should say something, because although they may be in the minority who’s to say that they are not right?
Last edited:
M
medwigel
Guest
But not all oral tradition is Scripture.
M
medwigel
Guest
To this I refer you to 2 Peter 2:1-3: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.”
Last edited:
M
medwigel
Guest
Read 2 Peter 2:1-3 and Matthew 7:15
Christ is not misleading the Church, its the devil.
Christ is giving us a warning against false teachers because sin is still in the world and the devil is alive and well and is always looking for ways to destroy the Church by any means.
1 Peter 5:8 says: Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.
So again, it’s not Christ misleading the Church, it’s satan who’s trying to mislead the Church. His goal is to destroy the Church, even though we know he’s already defeated.
The devil is like a cornered animal who know’s his time is up but he’s not going down without a fight…but you know, Christ already got us the victory.
John 10:10 “The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.”
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
In Peter’s day the “discoverers” used the LXX, the Greek Old Testament, not the 66 book canon Protestants use.
A
Agathon
Guest
That doesn’t not make him an eyewitness, does it?
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s the whole point – He wouldn’t.
So, for 1500 years, no one heeded Peter, and then suddenly, at the advent of their breach with the Church, the Reformers were the first ones to realize that everyone – up to and including the early church fathers and apostles – were mistaken?
The problem is … it wasn’t “the leaders of the church” who made this decision – it was those who decided to leave the church and make of themselves leaders!
So… how do we know that the “discoverers” who assert 73 books aren’t the ones who are heeding Scripture’s warning about “not taking away from the words of the book”?
How do you know that the Reformers aren’t who Peter is talking about? After all, they were the ones who introduced new doctrine that the Church hadn’t seen before!
M
medwigel
Guest
Because the Reformers were actually trying to steer the people back to the Bible and following what the Bible says verses going with tradition.
The Reformers wanted people to be able to read the Bible on their own and pushed to have the Bible translated into several languages so that people could read the Word.
So the intent of the Reformers did not go against the Word, they actually wanted to bring people closer to the Word, and I don’t thing satan would try to bring people closer to the Word.
- Status