Correct. Now we are getting somewhere.Enoch and Elijah did not die.
So Enoch and Elijah will have death pass upon them ?Correct we are still waiting for the two witness in Rev. They are prime candidates for the job.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.All means all in both verses. Did you not read the Greek word for word?
Your translation goes against the original Greek that I postedRom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
You can’t have it both ways. If “all” means “all” then “do death passed upon all men” must be interpreted as “all men” will have death pass upon them. But Enoch and Elijah did not have death pass upon them!
God bless.
And by ‘did have a canon’, I of course meant, ‘didn’t have a canon’…Not exactly. The Jew did have a defined canon of scripture. Unlike the NT, no body rabbis ever made a decree that a particular list of books was scripture, exclusive of any other books.
You are pinning your acceptance of a truncated OT canon on the authority of the same group of people who reject all the NT.
Which Jews, the Palestinian or the Hellenistic? And why are you accepting the OT canon of the very people who rejected Jesus? The fact is that the early church rejected the canon you use which was a later version and accepted the older Septuagint version of the canon with its 46 books. When the canon of the bible was first determined the OT was not in controversy. The Septuagint version was selected in toto. It was the NT writings where the controversies arose. Implicit in your denomination’s acceptance of the NT canon selected by the Catholic Church bishops with no additions or deletions is your acceptance of their authority to make those very selections. Your church could not decide the canon. How could it when your denomination as well as any protestant denomination denies any authority? Look at all the doctrinal divisions in protestant theology. Can you imagine if the protestants were to select which writings were inspired how many different bibles there would be?We have the same NT canon, but Protestants use an older OT canon that was put together by the people responsible for receiving, preserving, and ultimately compiling the OT. That would be the Jews.
The term you missed there is “extraordinary magisterium”. This term signifies those doctrines that have been formally defined by the church. And as Jimmy Akin points out very few doctrines have been formally defined. But there is also the “ordinary magisterium” of the church. This is the teaching authority of the church. Scripture is very clear on this. Jesus established a church with the authority to bind and loose in heaven as well as on earth. No protestant denomination [there are no protestant churches] claims this authority.Interpretations by non-Catholics are no more vast than what the CC deals with. Check out this page from CAF on the interpretation of Scripture. This article deals with some of the facts on Catholic interpretation…doesn’t really answer the question I put out there, but it does pertain to your response. (It’s written by Jimmy Akin).
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp
“As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent:”
And then he lists them, of course. The main point here is that the CC has not created an infallible commentary that tells you how to interpret every verse in the Bible. Jimmy tells us why. There’s only seven passages, to Jimmy’s knowledge, that have been partially interpreted as if by an infallible person.
We also don’t have any body of individuals that PRETENDS to be infallible. We do have infallibility under certain conditions. Do you know what those conditions are? As for what is standard in protestantism I have to ask you what you consider is the “lunatic fringe” [your words]. Baptism is a pretty basic standard to christianity, after all Jesus’ last command to his church was to go teach the nations and to baptize in the name of the Trinity. Yet we see a wide divergence within protestantism regarding Baptism doctrine. First of all protestants are not agreed on whether it is necessary or not [this despite Jesus’ command]. Next protestants can’t agree on whether baptism saves. Does it remit sin or not. Is it a sacrament or an ordinance? Adult only or infant too? Immersion or pouring? This is basic stuff which 'classic protestantism" cannnot agree on.This is what Jimmy has to say on the bounds within which Catholic interpretation exists:
"It is much simpler to adopt the approach that the Church has in fact pursued—that is, to allow Scripture scholars liberty to interpret any Bible passage in whatever way they feel the evidence best supports provided certain minimal boundaries are not crossed."
It’s not so different with Protestants. We don’t have any body of individuals that pretends to be infallible, and we certainly don’t have seven verses that have been partially but not fully interpreted like this. But the rest is pretty much standard. Within classic Protestantism and with the exception of the somewhat lunatic liberal fringe, there is a set of boundaries that cannot be crossed. There is a healthy respect for certain core doctrines that are held in common as orthodox. It’s not quite as expansive as the “Catholic core,” but it’s not that far short. I don’t think it’s perfect, but I do think it’s better.
Aside from that, scholars have freedom to interpret as they feel the evidence leads, provided they don’t cross certain boundaries. It is differences on these sorts of interpretations that lead to the different denominations- which, for the record, cannot be accurately portrayed as “divisions” in the same way that the Schism was a division in the church. There are virtually identical differences within Catholicism, but denominationalism does not tend to express itself in the same way as there is a different sort of hierarchy- in that there is one. In terms of different groups of people who rightly exercise their freedoms of interpretation within comparable bounds, however, the things that happen among Protestants aren’t as unique and different as you make them out to be.
You are quite wrong! The early church was heirarchial as the book of Acts clearly attests. There were bishops [episcopoi], priests [presbuteroi] and deacons [diakonai] then as there are now. Early churches were not autonomous. If they were then the events of Acts 15 would never have occurred. Antioch would have settled their own dispute and not requested help from Jerusalem. Again in 80 AD the church in Corinth had a dispute and appealled to Clement. Why Clement? The Apostle John was still living and was closer to Corinth than Clement. So why go to Clement. Because the Corinthians knew that Clement was the successor to Peter and so they went to Rome not to Ephesus where John was. Jesus chose 12 Apostles and elevated one of them [Peter] higher than the others [recall the keys given to Peter]. That was in accord with the Davidic kingdom [Jesus was of the line of David] where the king had 12 ministers [also known as stewards] representing eachof the tribes. One of these stewards was selected to be the chief steward and was given the keys to the kings house and whatever he would shut no one could open and whateve he opened no one could shut. Look it up in Isaiah 22:22 Does that sound familiar? Try Matthew 16:18-19 where Peter is given keys and can bind [shut] and loose [open]. We see Jesus using similiar words in giving the Apostles authority to forgive sins. There He uses the words for remitting and retaining. So the church heirarchy is very much scriptural.In other words, the existence of various interpretations within mutually agreed-upon boundaries is a common reality within Protestantism and Catholicism. With few exceptions, we’re looking at the same kind of thing. There are a bunch of denominations within Protestantism, but it’s not because of this thing on which we have so much in common. It has to do with what we don’t have in common- a hierarchy that closely resembles the Roman system of government as it was at the rise of Christianity in Rome.
What you say about “kids who grow up Catholic” is called the great Apostasy. But what you fail to state is that it is not just “high profile evangelicals” that are converting to Catholicism. Sure there are the Scott Hahn’s, Jimmy Akins, Pat Madrid, Marcus Grodi and the like but there are also rank and file protestants of every denomination. They all say the same thing and that is that they have found the fullness of truth in the Catholic church. In a word they became Catholic for theological reasons. Protestantism was and is, incomplete. Those “Catholics” [there is a question whether they were truly Catholic] leaving the church do so for a variety of reasons and none of them are theological. Most of them will not stop at evangelical protestantism but will continue on to being “unchurched.”You’re right, there is no comparison. Would you like to know why? Let me tell you.
“Because the accounts of a number of high-profile Evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism have hit the press, we sometimes overlook the fact that statisticians tell us that in America, Catholics are becoming Evangelicals faster than the reverse by a ratio of about three to one.”
This is just America, but I don’t think the Catholic inability to evangelize people bodes well for you in the rest of the world, either. Oh, one explanatory note: The Catholic population in America has stayed pretty static because nearly half the immigrants that come here are Catholic. Kids who grow up Catholic wind up being something else about a third of the time, though. Those two things pretty much offset one another.
- D. A. Carson.
I think you’re trying to describe a variation of the Argument From Age. That’s a different fallacy.
Very true.everything that God says is true
god the father is God
Jesus is God
the Holy Spirit is God
since everything God says is true
you do not have to worry about if it is in the Bible.
Hebrews 5-12 yes the author of Hebrews is taking them to task because they have not made it a priority to learn basic bible truth. But verse 14 goes on to say But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.Instead not everything that is true
is easily understood.
Guidance is needed to interpret scriptures see Hebrews 5-12
No personal interpretation of scripture. see 2 Peter 1: 20-21.
The church is the pillar of truth. See 1 Timothy 3:15
the verse speaks of spiritual prophecy which would include the second coming of Christ, the rapture,the end of the world etc.Very true.
Hebrews 5-12 yes the author of Hebrews is taking them to task because they have not made it a priority to learn basic bible truth. But verse 14 goes on to say But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
By constantly reading the word they have made themselves mature and are now by themselves can distinguish good from evil.
Do you have any examples of what a you may consider a personal interpretation?
What are the elementary truths these people fialed to learn? They were unable to go deeper into spiritual truth.the verse speaks of spiritual prophecy which would include the second coming of Christ, the rapture,the end of the world etc.
they fail to understand God’s unceasing mercy. That God is always willing to give man a second and third and four hundred and ninetieth etc… chance. God is beyond time and is not limited to time. God is a God for all and not a chosen few. Nothing can cause a greater loss of faith than to promise a certain event to happen and not happen. Prophecy is used to encourage those who are oppressed that God has not forgotten them and that he will save them not to make life easier by crushing their enemies. Lets not make the same mistake of the 1st century of looking for some type of military victory over human enemy when the real battle is over sin.What are the elementary truths these people failed to learn? They were unable to go deeper into spiritual truth.
Do they disagree on the use of the Tanakh? Oh, I see. You’re referring to the first-century Greek-speaking Jews who tended to use the Septuagint. They probably used the Septuagint because it’s in Greek and that’s the language they spoke. What I don’t think is that it indicates a disagreement among Jews as to whether or not they should add some books to the ones they knew were inspired by God.Which Jews, the Palestinian or the Hellenistic?
Because they’re God’s chosen people (still are, by the way) and it was to them that the OT was given. How is your preceding comment anything other than an example of the genetic fallacy?And why are you accepting the OT canon of the very people who rejected Jesus?
It is true that the Septuagint, over the course of several hundred years, saw the gradual addition of several books to it. Now a few questions for you.The fact is that the early church rejected the canon you use which was a later version and accepted the older Septuagint version of the canon with its 46 books.
No one really fought over it, but it wasn’t universally agreed upon. Some Roman Catholic leaders were among those who supported using the anagignoskomena as the Jews used it. Certain orthodox leaders, as well, but more on the Roman side.When the canon of the bible was first determined the OT was not in controversy.
Didn’t most Christians (ie., Augustine) wrongly believe the Septuagint was a divinely inspired translation and (a false story) that 70 translators worked independently in producing 70 identical translations? As Augustine was the one presiding over the Councils of Carthage, shouldn’t his erroneous beliefs about the Septuagint cause you to question whether or not he and his colleagues (mostly identical to him in their erroneous beliefs about the Septuagint) made a good decision in saying the anagignoskomena is just the same as every other part of the Septuagint?When the canon of the bible was first determined the OT was not in controversy. The Septuagint version was selected in toto.
Have you ever seen a translation that accurately translates these passages on “binding and loosing”? If so, which ones? If you wonder why I ask this, it’s because nearly every translation of the Bible gets these verses wrong. I’m curious to know whether or not you’ve ever even seen one that does an adequate job with these verses.This is the teaching authority of the church. Scripture is very clear on this. Jesus established a church with the authority to bind and loose in heaven as well as on earth.
Again, I don’t have a denomination. There is a church I belong to, though. It’s the Body of Christ. And yet I’m not a part of the Roman Catholic Church. Funny how that works.No protestant denomination [there are no protestant churches] claims this authority.
I have not found that interpretation in the commentaries I have read but none the less it is inspiring. Here is what I have found.they fail to understand God’s unceasing mercy. That God is always willing to give man a second and third and four hundred and ninetieth etc… chance. God is beyond time and is not limited to time. God is a God for all and not a chosen few. Nothing can cause a greater loss of faith than to promise a certain event to happen and not happen. Prophecy is used to encourage those who are oppressed that God has not forgotten them and that he will save them not to make life easier by crushing their enemies. Lets not make the same mistake of the 1st century of looking for some type of military victory over human enemy when the real battle is over sin.
Hold on for a moment here. You seem to be extremely loose with historical fact. Who said that books were added to the Septuagint? I know of no bible scholar, Catholic or protestant, who teaches that. In the first century AD [during the lifetimes of the Apostles and Jesus] the canon of the Greek and Hebrew versions were identical. Instead, the difference between the Jewish scriptures of today and the septuagint is because writings were removed from the Hebrew version. The Jews never had a closed canon until at least the second century. In fact, today, some Jews claim it is still not closed. Nothing was added to either of them. As for the Septuagint declinining in use I’m not so sure about that. Jews in Ethiopa, Russia, Eastern Europe and other places in the world still use it. Also most of the early converts to christianity were Jews who used the Septuagint. Who do you think Paul was preaching too when he went into the synagogues on his missions?Do they disagree on the use of the Tanakh? Oh, I see. You’re referring to the first-century Greek-speaking Jews who tended to use the Septuagint. They probably used the Septuagint because it’s in Greek and that’s the language they spoke. What I don’t think is that it indicates a disagreement among Jews as to whether or not they should add some books to the ones they knew were inspired by God.
Of course, the use of the Septuagint among Jews declined drastically when most Jews in the Greek-speaking eastern Roman Empire were “somehow” displaced and wound up in the Aramaic-speaking Persian Empire. This supports the assertion that the Greek-speaking Jews who used the Septuagint did so out of necessity and perhaps as an effort to contribute something to Hellenistic culture in its own language, not because there was a significant plurality of opinion among Jews as to which books of the Bible actually had divine origins.
Because they’re God’s chosen people (still are, by the way) and it was to them that the OT was given. How is your preceding comment anything other than an example of the genetic fallacy?
It is true that the Septuagint, over the course of several hundred years, saw the gradual addition of several books to it. Now a few questions for you…
The very same thing can be said of Paul’s epistle to Philomen. Name a doctrine contained in that piece of inspired writing. Have you ever heard it used for instruction? devotion or example? The only example I have heard it being used for was to support the position of protestant slave traders and plantation owners. How is that for christian doctrine? But we see the same distinctions in the New Testament as the OT. The Gospels are first and foremost amongst the NT writings. Then come the other writings in various degrees. As for Anagignoskomena [are you trying to impress me with big words?] it is a term used in a variety of different contexts. Originally, the term referred to secret texts of wisdom found in Gnostic and some heretical Christian sects. Thus, over time, the term developed negative connotations and became associated with texts of uncertain authenticity, thus meaning “spurious” or “false.” Apocrypha was the protestant term applied to what we know as the deuterocanonicals. The word “apocrypha” was used to describe the books in the Roman Catholic canon that are absent from the Protestant version of the Bible; however, we [Catholic and Orthodox Christians] describe these books as deuterocanonical and consider them to be canonical parts of their scripture. The use of the word ‘apocrypha’ was an attempt by protestants to subvert the support for the deuterocanonicals in order to justify removing them from the scriptures. The canon of scripture had been set for over a millenium at 73 books. But it was never formally defined. The reason was there was no need to formally define the canon. That changed with the protestants. The canon of scripture was formally defined, meaning it was It was bound, at the council of Trent as being the same canon as existed in Jerome’s Vulgate.Were these books regarded in just the same way as all the others? Was any differentiation made between the ones that became your deuterocanonicals and the ones that Jews have always known were God-inspired? You may want to look into the word Anagignoskomena as you answer these questions. It fits the classic idea that these books not found in the Hebrew Tanakh are to be read as instruction, devotion, and example, but not to establish doctrine. This is a distinction practiced by some Roman Catholic authorities before the Council of Trent, the Anglican Church, and at least part of the Orthodox church…
No books were added to the Septuagint. The Septuagint were a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures and existed 200 years before Christ. They were the scriptures that the majority of Jews used. It was also used along side the Hebrew version in the Temple. It thus was in use during the lifetime of Christ. Now Jesus cleaned out the temple because men had profaned it. So why didn’t He clean up the scriptures too, if, as you say, men had profaned them also? Did Jesus allow His word to be thusly profaned? I don’t think so.Who added these books to the Septuagint? Can you cite names and general time periods? How would you assess the process of their addition? Do you have any reason to believe the Holy Spirit was guiding these additions? And isn’t that a moot point if they weren’t actually regarded as definitively God-inspired along with all the others?
No one really fought over it, but it wasn’t universally agreed upon. Some Roman Catholic leaders were among those who supported using the anagignoskomena as the Jews used it. Certain orthodox leaders, as well, but more on the Roman side…
First of all Augustine didn’t preside over the two councils at Carthage. He presided over the council at Hippo. Some more errors you make about historical facts Second it wasn’t just Augustine who set the canon. Athanasius was the first then came the councils at Rome, Hippo and Carthage. Then came Jerome’s Vulgate. So, as great as Augustine was, he was not the one who set the canon. Some more examples of your errors.Didn’t most Christians (ie., Augustine) wrongly believe the Septuagint was a divinely inspired translation and (a false story) that 70 translators worked independently in producing 70 identical translations? As Augustine was the one presiding over the Councils of Carthage, shouldn’t his erroneous beliefs about the Septuagint cause you to question whether or not he and his colleagues (mostly identical to him in their erroneous beliefs about the Septuagint) made a good decision in saying the anagignoskomena is just the same as every other part of the Septuagint?.
Binding and loosening are rabbinical terms well understood by the Jews and the early church. The scriptures are clear that the Apostles looked to Peter as their leader and chief steward. So did the early church. Acts 15 clearly shows that the church exercised authority without referring to scripture and claimed a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. Apparently you choose to disregard Jesus plan for mankind and follow yourself. The gospels tell of Jesus giving power and authority to His church and the role of the chief steward in the Davidic kingdom was also well understood by the converted Jews. As for your not having a denomination that too is not true. You do have a denomination. Your denomination is that of the cafeteria christian who thinks they can pick and choose what to believe because somehow you feel empowered by a demonic doctrine known as sola scriptura that you can tell scripture what it means and not be part of a church established by Jesus Christ. You like to claim you uphold scripture but you really uphold your own vanity.Have you ever seen a translation that accurately translates these passages on “binding and loosing”? If so, which ones? If you wonder why I ask this, it’s because nearly every translation of the Bible gets these verses wrong. I’m curious to know whether or not you’ve ever even seen one that does an adequate job with these verses.
If you haven’t- and I don’t think you have, nor would you even know the difference- that makes everything a bit less clear for you.
Actually, I take that back. One thing would still be very clear- that your purpose in quoting Scripture is to use it as a proof-text in order to create the illusion that CC teaching either flows from or agrees with Scripture. What becomes far less clear is how you can keep kidding yourself about this whole process when it becomes equally clear (to you) that the passages you always cite as proof-texts for Church authority don’t really mean what you always thought they meant and yet this doesn’t change the conclusions you draw from them or the way you use them.
Again, I don’t have a denomination. There is a church I belong to, though. It’s the Body of Christ. And yet I’m not a part of the Roman Catholic Church. Funny how that works.
And so on……You’re referring to the first-century Greek-speaking Jews who tended to use the Septuagint. They probably used the Septuagint because it’s in Greek and that’s the language they spoke. What I don’t think is that it indicates a disagreement among Jews as to whether or not they should add some books to the ones they knew were inspired by God.
Of course, the use of the Septuagint among Jews declined drastically when most Jews in the Greek-speaking eastern Roman Empire were “somehow” displaced and wound up in the Aramaic-speaking Persian Empire. It is true that the Septuagint, over the course of several hundred years, saw the gradual addition of several books to it. Now a few questions for you.
Who added these books to the Septuagint? Can you cite names and general time periods? How would you assess the process of their addition? Do you have any reason to believe the Holy Spirit was guiding these additions? And isn’t that a moot point if they weren’t actually regarded as definitively God-inspired along with all the others?
Actually this thread started when coosa posted a comment in a thread about Mary’s death. fermat then started a new thread because coosa’s question would have taken that thread away from its original theme.You may well be right but I’m curious as to how you came to that view considering that poster did not even mention Mary at all.
I am concerned about your interpretation, not the exact translation. Please quote me chapter and verse which says: “Enoch and Elijah will be sent from heaven.”Your translation goes against the original Greek that I posted
This is a literal word for word translation of the Greek.
because of this just as therefore one man the sin into world entered and therefore sin the death so to all man death passed through because that all sinned.
Sin is upon ALL men and Death is upon All men.
These two witnesses will be sent from heaven and are men.
With your selective interpretation maybe sin and did not enter in through one man
That is true, Trinitarian Christians (Catholics and Protestants) agree that what we know as the Trinity is in the scriptures. But groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses are very effective in converting both Catholics and Protestants to the Watchtower by convincing them that the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine.You will find all of what we know as the Trinity in the scriptures common to all christians.
Child please.Also, what anti-Catholic author wrote what you refer to and what credible ancient sources did he research to derive this opinion you make claim?
No thanks, I know my way around that kind of thing.Would you like references of Christ’s teachings that show relation to the Septuagint and what you refer to as apocrypha?