Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[justasking4]

LittleDeb;3129272]:
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Those books did not have the full support of the church and there were many who did not accept them as being fully inspired-inerrant. There are some serious problems with these books.
LittleDeb
Please define “full support.” They have been in Scripture continuously since the canon was determined around 400 AD.
1600 years is a long time to not have “full support.”

The deutrocanonical books were not fully accepted by the church because many had doubts about them.

LittleDeb
And those “serious problems” you note, really aren’t. They were made up to justify removing them. We’ve had threads on Judith and the single historical error that makes it supposedly uninspired.

Not so. These books were considered at the same level as the others in the canon because they had historical inaccuracies and even moral incongruities. Secondly none of these books were written by an accredited prophet of God. More could be said against them being inspired-inerrant.

LittleDeb
Followers of the Reformation tout these “errors” while blithely ignoring those “errors” that atheists point out about the rest of Scripture.

What errors?

That inconsistency within Protestantism makes all of Christianity look like blind followers.

Can you give me a couple of example of “inconsistency within Protestantism”?

 

[justasking4]

alanjeddy;3129518]You have the audacity to question the one true church, and Luther broke from us, without looking at all your splintered Protestant faiths? Do you really have any room to talk?

The problem with your reasoning is that this is not were discussing.

You have zero credibility i am sorry. You are not going to change any Catholics’ beliefs with your feeble attacks. You are part of 30,000 splintered faiths. You have no credibility. who is going to listen to you except the birds of a feather who flock together in total disunity. The Protestants.

I guess you have the ability to read the minds of others on this forum then.

 

[guanophore]

:banghead:

You really are headbanging here, ja4. If you seek a fruitful harvest by pulling Catholics away from their faith, you will be very frustrated looking for it here. There is not a more informed and passionate collection of Catholics anywhere!

 

[guanophore]

JA4 - Or do you only accept as New Testament scripture those books that the Catholic Church (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) included in the canon of the Bible?

Yes

Ok, so how and when did the Church go astray? Those same people that created the canon believed in the Real Presence, praying to the saints, and used the Sacred Tradition to canonize the NT.

 

[alanjeddy]

Ok, so how and when did the Church go astray? Those same people that created the canon believed in the Real Presence, praying to the saints, and used the Sacred Tradition to canonize the NT.

We have all tried to reason with him but he has eyes that do not see and ears that do not listen. He has been put here to try our patience . I for one can see through him . He is just trying to cause what he only knows–disunity. I wonder where justasking 4 gets all of that??? well there are 30,000 of them with there own erroneous interpretations. Is it any wonder?

 

[justasking4]

alanjeddy;3129743]
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
Ok, so how and when did the Church go astray? Those same people that created the canon believed in the Real Presence, praying to the saints, and used the Sacred Tradition to canonize the NT.

The catholic church has gone astray in a number of areas. I would suspect that many catholics would agree that the way indulgences were sold prior to the reformation was wrong. The inquisitions that went on for centuries are just 2 examples of your church going astray.
Praying to the saints would also be an example of a theological error since the Scriptures never teach such a thing and even the catholic church itself does not know with any certainty where a specific dead catholic is. Is that catholic in purgatory or hell? Can a person in those places hear from there? Instead of following the command to pray to Christ directly another barrier is put in to place for catholics.
The catholic church did get the NT canon right. That does not mean they got everything else right though. We know otherwise.

alanjeddy
We have all tried to reason with him but he has eyes that do not see and ears that do not listen. He has been put here to try our patience . I for one can see through him . He is just trying to cause what he only knows–disunity. I wonder where justasking 4 gets all of that??? well there are 30,000 of them with there own erroneous interpretations. Is it any wonder?

I’m encouraging all catholics to look deeply at what they are commanded to believe. QUOTE]

 

[guanophore]

The catholic church has gone astray in a number of areas. I would suspect that many catholics would agree that the way indulgences were sold prior to the reformation was wrong.

Yes, and the Church also decided it was problematic, so it was addressed. What you don’t seem to understand is the difference between the Church making errors, and members of it making errors. Perhaps it is not possible for you to distinguish that there is a Body of Christ, and individual members of it, and that individuals can err, but the Teaching of Jesus cannot.

The inquisitions that went on for centuries are just 2 examples of your church going astray.

I think a careful study of the Inquisitions might reveal otherwise. However, I do agree that many personal sins were committed during the course of the Inquisitions.

Praying to the saints would also be an example of a theological error since the Scriptures never teach such a thing and even the catholic church itself does not know with any certainty where a specific dead catholic is.

You believe this because the Scripture is your only source of divine revelation. Your lack of agreement with this practice does not make it an error. Furthermore, the second part of your statement is just slanderous. You know well, from participation on other threads, that the Church itself does know where the saints are, and She also knows they are not dead, but alive in Christ.

Is that catholic in purgatory or hell? Can a person in those places hear from there?

This question is irrelevant when it comes to the Saints.

Instead of following the command to pray to Christ directly another barrier is put in to place for catholics.

It is ok if you do not accept the doctrine of the Commuion of saints, ja4. However, it is not right to say that the intercession of the Saints creates a barrier for Catholics.

The catholic church did get the NT canon right. That does not mean they got everything else right though. We know otherwise.

I wonder, ja4, is your goal in being here to pursuade Catholics to join your “we”?

I’m encouraging all catholics to look deeply at what they are commanded to believe. QUOTE]

I agree that all Catholics should look deeply at what we are commanded to believe. However, I think you don’t receive this commandment from Jesus, as we do, but you think that the Magesterium of the Church has “commanded” or “forced” Catholic to believe things that are not from Jesus. This is calumny.

 

[alanjeddy]

justasking4 just wishes he had the magisterium. Look what happened 30,000 faiths including his own none of which can come into agreement with each other. No wonder he is so confused. If the real truth be known he doesn’t care what he believes, or the truths that we follow. He only wants to create tension and disunity. He quite simply craves attention.

One Holy and Catholic Church. As St Augustine said, " Our hearts will never rest until they rest in You. Our church has through the ages survived all sorts of attacks, including the devil’s
and yes, even justasking4 and we are still here.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, magisterial teachings led by the Holy Spirit. This is our authority and this has guided us from the moment Jesus said to Peter, " You are rock and on this rock I will build My Church and the powers of evil will not prevail upon it.

I thank God for the gift of my faith, for to us much has been given, therefore much is expected.

 

[sterryfamily]

These books are not scripture.

Yes

Then you are saying you agree that Christ, as he promised, sent the Spirit to guide the Church into all truth? At least at the time that they determined the canon of scripture?

 

[sterryfamily]

Not so. These books were considered at the same level as the others in the canon because they had historical inaccuracies and even moral incongruities. Secondly none of these books were written by an accredited prophet of God. More could be said against them being inspired-inerrant.

“…accredited prophet of God.” Accredited by whom?

You do realize who the authors of the New Testament books are don’t you? You understand that many were not written by apostles?

Jesus is the head of His Church and promised to guide her into all truth - till the end of time. The divine element of the Church is innerrant - the human element is human. It works the same way in the New covenant as it did in the Old.

When David or Moses sinned in the Old Testament, did it somehow negate the infallibility of the Word of God issued through them?

Yes, the way indulgences were sold was wrong and the Church made corrections. The Church describes herself as a “pilgrim in constant need of reform”. The Church needed reform in the middle ages, just as she needed reform when St Paul had to remind St Peter of his duty toward the Gentiles. And she needs reform today when a bishop in Africa tries to ordain married men against the order of the vatican or when American priests molest children. The need for reform among the human element in the Church never has nor never will negate the infallibility of the divine element.

And just as Christ ratified the authority of the pharisees who sit on Moses’ seat (Matt 23:2-3), so he gives the same authority to the magisterium of His Church (Matt 16:19, 18:18). Why? Because the Spirit will be doing the teaching (John 16:13).

 

[justasking4]

alanjeddy;3130174]justasking4 just wishes he had the magisterium. Look what happened 30,000 faiths including his own none of which can come into agreement with each other. No wonder he is so confused. If the real truth be known he doesn’t care what he believes, or the truths that we follow. He only wants to create tension and disunity. He quite simply craves attention.

Your right i wish there was such a thing as an infallible Magisterium but we know there is no such thing. Even with this claim by many catholics, there are still multiple interpretations given by catholics what the scriptures mean but also what their own church proclaims.

One Holy and Catholic Church. As St Augustine said, " Our hearts will never rest until they rest in You. Our church has through the ages survived all sorts of attacks, including the devil’s
and yes, even justasking4 and we are still here.

Thank you for being here…

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, magisterial teachings led by the Holy Spirit. This is our authority and this has guided us from the moment Jesus said to Peter, " You are rock and on this rock I will build My Church and the powers of evil will not prevail upon it.

I thank God for the gift of my faith, for to us much has been given, therefore much is expected.

Many of your responses are quite lacking for one who claims to have the truth.

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3130315]"…accredited prophet of God." Accredited by whom?

Were any of the 7 extra books in the catholic Bible written by a prophet? If so, who was it?

You do realize who the authors of the New Testament books are don’t you? You understand that many were not written by apostles?

Yes

Jesus is the head of His Church and promised to guide her into all truth - till the end of time. The divine element of the Church is innerrant - the human element is human. It works the same way in the New covenant as it did in the Old.

The problem is that history and some of your doctrines show otherwise.

When David or Moses sinned in the Old Testament, did it somehow negate the infallibility of the Word of God issued through them?

No

Yes, the way indulgences were sold was wrong and the Church made corrections.

How could it be wrong to begin with if as it is claimed that the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals?
How was it possible for the Holy Spirit not to stop these abuses?

The Church describes herself as a “pilgrim in constant need of reform”.

This is a contradiction in that if it were true that your church could not err in matters of faith and morals the need for reform would be absurd. The mere fact that a reform was required shows that the claim your church cannot error in matters of faith and morals to be false.

The Church needed reform in the middle ages, just as she needed reform when St Paul had to remind St Peter of his duty toward the Gentiles. And she needs reform today when a bishop in Africa tries to ordain married men against the order of the vatican or when American priests molest children. The need for reform among the human element in the Church never has nor never will negate the infallibility of the divine element.

If your church truly was infallible it would not need to be reformed. Look at the Lord Jesus. He was infallible in everything He said and did and was never in need of reform.

And just as Christ ratified the authority of the pharisees who sit on Moses’ seat (Matt 23:2-3),

What is the chair of Moses?

so he gives the same authority to the magisterium of His Church (Matt 16:19, 18:18). Why?
Because the Spirit will be doing the teaching (John 16:13).

No doubt the church must teach but it mus teach biblically and the truth and not speculations of men. If she fails to do this then it is not being guided by the Spirit.

 

[alanjeddy]

Your right i wish there was such a thing as an infallible Magisterium but we know there is no such thing. Even with this claim by many catholics, there are still multiple interpretations given by catholics what the scriptures mean but also what their own church proclaims.

Thank you for being here…

Many of your responses are quite lacking for one who claims to have the truth.

Tell me justasking4 what is your IQ?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Were any of the 7 extra books in the catholic Bible written by a prophet? If so, who was it?

Where does it say that OT books have to be written by prophets in order to be considered inspired? Was Esther a prophet? Who wrote 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles?

The Hebrews divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order). By the time of Christ, the law—and most likely the prophets—was set in number, but the writings were not yet closed.

In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septaguint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.

How could it be wrong to begin with if as it is claimed that the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals?
How was it possible for the Holy Spirit not to stop these abuses?

It was not the Church who committed these abuses, but individuals, poorly trained in many cases. The Church has always taught that it is wrong to sell indulgences and relics.

This is a contradiction in that if it were true that your church could not err in matters of faith and morals the need for reform would be absurd. The mere fact that a reform was required shows that the claim your church cannot error in matters of faith and morals to be false.

Reform in the sense of how to better educate, reach, spread the good news. How to better address abuses by individuals. We are not referring to Reforming the TEACHINGS, but rather REFINING as our understanding matures.

If your church truly was infallible it would not need to be reformed. Look at the Lord Jesus. He was infallible in everything He said and did and was never in need of reform.

No doubt the church must teach but it mus teach biblically and the truth and not speculations of men. If she fails to do this then it is not being guided by the Spirit.

The Church is based on the Bible, she, in fact compiled the Bible. She is guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals, and not by speculations of men. Protestants and the Protestant Bible are based on the speculations of men. ML removed 7 books of the Bible, removed James, and added “alone” to Romans. If ML, Calvin, and Zwingli were inspired by the Holy Spirit, how come their views of salvation differ so dramatically? Surely the HS is not Schizophrenic?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septaguint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.

How do we know which books were included in their version of the septuagint? Does someone like Josephus list them for us? Do we have manusripts of the Jewish septuagint available to us and if we do, could you give us some information on those Jewish septuagint manuscripts?

 

[qui_est_ce]

How do we know which books were included in their version of the septuagint? Does someone like Josephus list them for us? Do we have manusripts of the Jewish septuagint available to us and if we do, could you give us some information on those Jewish septuagint manuscripts?

It’s part of the historical record:
*The Septuagint (IPA: /ˈsɛptuədʒɪnt/), or simply “LXX”, is a collection of Jewish scriptures, largely the Hebrew Bible, in Koine Greek, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria.[1]

It incorporates the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The word septuaginta[2] means “seventy” in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy-two Jewish scholars (seventy being the nearest round number) translated the Pentateuch (or Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for one of the Ptolemaic kings, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285–246 BC.[3][4] Since Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), Greek had become the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean.

The Septuagint includes some books that are not in the Hebrew Bible. Many Protestant Bibles follow the Jewish canon and exclude these books. Eastern Orthodox Christians use the Septuagint itself.

The Septuagint was held with great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its authors.[4] Besides the Old Latin versions, the LXX is also the basis for the Slavonic, Syro-Hexaplar (but not the Peshitta), Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Old Testament.[5] Of significance for all Christians and for bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the Christian New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers. While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. The oldest surviving codices of LXX (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) date to the fourth century AD.[4]*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagent

Although I am not an ardent fan of Wikipidia, I tthought this would provide a more impartial view than if I had quoted New Advent.org.

 

[justasking4]

Tell me justasking4 what is your IQ?

-12:doh2:

 

[guanophore]

justasking4 just wishes he had the magisterium. Look what happened 30,000 faiths including his own none of which can come into agreement with each other.

I don’t think so. I think he has some very serious authority problems, and does best when he acts as his own authority. The use of some of his language such as “force” and “command” in reference to matters of faith indicate that he has been abused by authorities.

No wonder he is so confused. If the real truth be known he doesn’t care what he believes, or the truths that we follow. He only wants to create tension and disunity. He quite simply craves attention.

Do you mean to say, he does not care to learn what Catholics believe? If so, then I agree. I disagree, however, that he only wants to create tension. He has been very clear that he is urging Catholics to question the teaching of the Church, realize that the teachings don’t match up with scripture (in his opinion) and go to a bible believing community.

As far as craving attention, I am not sure about that. I am puzzled about his goal in being here, but I am not sure it is that.

 

[Pwrlftr]

It’s part of the historical record:
*The Septuagint (IPA: /ˈsɛptuədʒɪnt/), or simply “LXX”, is a collection of Jewish scriptures, largely the Hebrew Bible, in Koine Greek, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria.[1]

It incorporates the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The word septuaginta[2] means “seventy” in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy-two Jewish scholars (seventy being the nearest round number) translated the Pentateuch (or Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for one of the Ptolemaic kings, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285–246 BC.[3][4] Since Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), Greek had become the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean.

The Septuagint includes some books that are not in the Hebrew Bible. Many Protestant Bibles follow the Jewish canon and exclude these books. Eastern Orthodox Christians use the Septuagint itself.

The Septuagint was held with great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its authors.[4] Besides the Old Latin versions, the LXX is also the basis for the Slavonic, Syro-Hexaplar (but not the Peshitta), Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Old Testament.[5] Of significance for all Christians and for bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the Christian New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers. While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. The oldest surviving codices of LXX (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) date to the fourth century AD.[4]*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagent

Although I am not an ardent fan of Wikipidia, I tthought this would provide a more impartial view than if I had quoted New Advent.org.

Thanks for your post but as far as I know the only manuscripts we have a record of are those of Christian origin dating back to only around the 4th century which the article mentions also.

The article mentions both Josephus and Philo but to the best of my knowledge neither one of those Jewish writers accepted the deutero’s and Philo never quoted from them at all.

I guess what I am getting at is if the only manuscripts we have are from Christians and date only to the 4th century can we or do we know what precisely was contained in the Jewish manuscripts of the septuagint and how much detail do we know about those manuscripts?

 

[guanophore]

Your right i wish there was such a thing as an infallible Magisterium but we know there is no such thing.

I am curious, ja4, who is this “we” upon whom you are speaking in behalf?

Even with this claim by many catholics, there are still multiple interpretations given by catholics what the scriptures mean but also what their own church proclaims.

Are you trying to deny the role of the Magesterium by pointing out how badly people need it?

How do the mistakes of individuals invalidate the authority? How did Judas denying Christ invalidate His ministry? I don’t see what one thing has to do with the other.

Were any of the 7 extra books in the catholic Bible written by a prophet? If so, who was it?

This is a very misleading question. It is kinda like asking…“so, when did you stop beating your wife?” It assumes that the catholic bible has “extra books”, which is not the case. On the contrary, the Reformers removed books that had been included for 1500 years. Jesus and the Apostles used those books, and if they are good enough for the Son of God and His chosen, they are good enough for me!

How could it be wrong to begin with if as it is claimed that the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals?

People err, though God does not. Also, disciplines, devotions, practices and customs change over time, though doctrine does not. Reform is often needed in these areas. For example, we don’t have inqusitions now, or instead of debate here, we would have bloodshed.

How was it possible for the Holy Spirit not to stop these abuses?

I am sure that we can ask this about a number of things. How is it the HS does not “unite” the church, so that there are no denominations at all? In fact, it is becuase humans are involved, and humans are ignorant, willful, and prone to sin. Furthermore, the HS has created us in the image and likeness of God, which means we all have free will, and often use that free will to thwart the purposes of God.

This is a contradiction in that if it were true that your church could not err in matters of faith and morals the need for reform would be absurd.

It is only absurd for people who don’t know the difference between Tradition and tradition.

The mere fact that a reform was required shows that the claim your church cannot error in matters of faith and morals to be false.

Oh, contraire! No one said that the doctrine needed reform. Only the behavior of those who claimed to espouse it!

If your church truly was infallible it would not need to be reformed. Look at the Lord Jesus. He was infallible in everything He said and did and was never in need of reform.

Exactly so! Which is why, since He is the Head, the Church also is infallible in Teaching faith and Morals.

What is the chair of Moses?

The teaching authority that was passed on to Peter.

No doubt the church must teach but it mus teach biblically and the truth and not speculations of men. If she fails to do this then it is not being guided by the Spirit.

I would broaden this to say that she must teach according to Divine Revelation, part of which is found in the scriptures. If she fails to do this, then she has spurned the HS.