What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Catholic4aReasn]

(CONTINUED)

The New Testament commended the Bereans for checking out what was taught (by an Apostle, by the way) against what? Tradition? No Scripture. That is the test to use against those who create dissensions. (Act 17:11)

No, the Bereans weren’t commended for checking scripture. The Bereans were said to be “more fair-minded” than the Thessalonicans, who went Scripture too (Acts 17:2). Doing what the Thessaloicans did would make them equally fair-minded, not more so. Scripture says that what made them more fair-minded was the fact that they “received the word with all willingness”. NOT the written word of scripture, but the ORAL word of Paul…Tradition. What Paul was saying wasn’t in scripture, but Paul showed them where what he was preaching was consistent with the OT scriptures. This is a good thing, as all Christian teaching must be consitent with scripture. However, the idea that scripture is the test to use against those who create dissensions simply can’t be found in scripture. You didn’t get that idea from scripture, you got it from the “tradition” of those who taught you that it was so.

OK, create the same list for the history of the Church and the Church fathers. You will come up with simular results. This is just the way it is, has been, and will be until Christ comes. Remember “we see in a mirror dimely” which means that we will not know everything and we don’t need to know everything. This is a false assumption to believe that there cannot be disagreement within God’s will.

That’s incorrect. The Church has never once contradicted herself on official teachings of faith or morals. Not once in 2000 years. That’s what happens under the guidance of the holy Spirit. Of course there are going to be disagreements, we see that at the Council of Jerusalem. There was much debate which means there was much disagreement. But the disagreeing parties didn’t part ways and start their own churches,each teaching what they personally believed was true.They didn’t turn to the scriptures alone. They appealed to those who could render an authoritative decision on the matter, under the guidance of the holy Spirit. And that’s just what they did. Not because the bible alone said such and such, in fact when rendering their decision they didn’t appeal to scripture at all as their authority. In their letter they cited themselves, under the guidance of the holy Spirit, as the authority by which they made their decision.

So no, it’s not a false assumption that there cannot be disagreement, not on officially declared doctrine. Christians cannot claim that both “A” and “not A” are true and supported in scripture at the same time. That’s absolutely contrary to scripture.

The situation in Christianity is not what Christ had in mind when he established his Church.

Really, God is pretty big. I think that He can take care of things. Remember "The gates of Hell cannot prevail against His church, even if you believe they are.

I totally agree. God still protects His Church from officially teaching error, just like He’s done for 2000 years. That one’s a cinch for Him!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[MrS]

ahimsaman72:

One should not presume.

There is no “matching game” in my Bible.
Peace…

No offense meant… but it is not your bible. It is the book/bible of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not a church of the bible. The Church, founded by Jesus Himself was the receipient of the scriptures from the Holy Spirit. And the same fallible men who received it are the same fallible men given the grace to interpret. Only they and their successors have the Christ-given authority to accept (bind and loose) or reject interpretations.

You cannot in good conscience claim Jesus as your founder. Your inspiration, your God, your brother… but not your founder.

 

[MrS]

michaelp:

This was the common Greek of the day as the word “koine” suggests. Why did God have the Scriptures written in the common tongue, if it was not intended for the common people of that day.

The WRITERS used Greek (though Matthew was first written in his own tongue of Aramaic).

Most of the “common” people could understand the language but not all could read… and certainly could not purchase their own copy.

God established… “I will build My Church”

I = God does the building with His plans
My = His Church, His book, His Traditions
Church = only one … not two, not three

One Lord One Faith One Baptism (there is that word again…must be pretty important to be grouped with Lord and Faith)

 

[ahimsaman72]

MrS:

No offense meant… but it is not your bible. It is the book/bible of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not a church of the bible. The Church, founded by Jesus Himself was the receipient of the scriptures from the Holy Spirit. And the same fallible men who received it are the same fallible men given the grace to interpret. Only they and their successors have the Christ-given authority to accept (bind and loose) or reject interpretations.

You cannot in good conscience claim Jesus as your founder. Your inspiration, your God, your brother… but not your founder.

Wow, you’ve really floored me here. I’m at a loss for words. I cannot remain charitable given these comments, so I bid you farewell and God speed.

Peace…

 

[MrS]

ahimsaman72:

Wow, you’ve really floored me here. I’m at a loss for words. I cannot remain charitable given these comments, so I bid you farewell and God speed.

Peace…

Sorry you feel offended by historical and scriptural fact. One of my son’s, a Baptist by the way, admits to these facts… just has not come home yet.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

michaelp:

You are not understanding or you are dodging. Let me clarity. God had the Scriptures written in koine Greek. This was the common Greek of the day as the word “koine” suggests. Why did God have the Scriptures written in the common tongue, if it was not intended for the common people of that day. Why not write it in angelic language so that the “common” man would get the point that he was not to try to interpret it?

Couple of problems here. The only texts that were written in Koine Greek were the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John, and all of the Epistles and Letters, and Revelations. The Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated into Koine Greek later. Almost none of the Old Testament Scriptures were written in Greek (it is thought that the Book of Wisdom was), the rest were either written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Secondly, Koine Greek was the official language of correspondance throughout the Roman empire, not Latin (yet). This does not mean it was the “common” language. It was the “official” language.

 

[MrS]

Scott_Lafrance:

Couple of problems here. The only texts that were written in Koine Greek were the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John, and all of the Epistles and Letters, and Revelations. The Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated into Koine Greek later. Almost none of the Old Testament Scriptures were written in Greek (it is thought that the Book of Wisdom was), the rest were either written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Secondly, Koine Greek was the official language of correspondance throughout the Roman empire, not Latin (yet). This does not mean it was the “common” language. It was the “official” language.

:yup:

 

[ahimsaman72]

MrS:

Sorry you feel offended by historical and scriptural fact. One of my son’s, a Baptist by the way, admits to these facts… just has not come home yet.

I’m not offended by facts, but by your views - which are two distinct animals.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

ahimsaman72:

I’m not offended by facts, but by your views - which are two distinct animals.

I agree that you probably are not offended by facts, but you do seem awefully confused by them.

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

Nancy, we have the Massoretic text of the TNK, we have the DSS, and we have the translation into Greek that predates Yavneh. We even have what may be a few leafs of Matthew’s autograph: in the British Museaum there are a few leaves of a codex of Matthew’s gospel that date to within 17 (or was it 12?) years of the ressurection. In Greek.

The koine was the common tongue of the Roman Empire. Latin was used some in the West, but Greek was used everywhere.

Michael, in my earlier post in this thread, I was merely presenting the Protestant view more clearly. I wasn’t intending to start a war. I prefer the UBS 3/NA26 for the NT, there may be a newer one out, I’m not sure. For the Old Testament, I’m inclined to favor a majority vote between the Masoretic, DSS, Peshita and LXX. Since my ability in some of the languages involved isn’t very useful, I tend at present to use the NIV, knowing that it isn’t perfect.

I don’t trust one-man translations. I prefer ones with a committee that has reiterative reviews of the translations, from more than one tradition, yet all solidly orthodox and trained, it is also very important that the reasons for their choices be publically available.

C4R, how do you know that your interpretation of the translations of Church documents is correct?

Mr.S, keep training, your response to Ahima was rude. And surely you can understand that some of the interpretations that you claim as facts are in fact the very things that are at issue?

 

[ahimsaman72]

Scott_Lafrance:

I agree that you probably are not offended by facts, but you do seem awefully confused by them.

Rhetoric: Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous:

 

[ahimsaman72]

Wil Peregrin:

Nancy, we have the Massoretic text of the TNK, we have the DSS, and we have the translation into Greek that predates Yavneh. We even have what may be a few leafs of Matthew’s autograph: in the British Museaum there are a few leaves of a codex of Matthew’s gospel that date to within 17 (or was it 12?) years of the ressurection. In Greek.

The koine was the common tongue of the Roman Empire. Latin was used some in the West, but Greek was used everywhere.

Michael, in my earlier post in this thread, I was merely presenting the Protestant view more clearly. I wasn’t intending to start a war. I prefer the UBS 3/NA26 for the NT, there may be a newer one out, I’m not sure. For the Old Testament, I’m inclined to favor a majority vote between the Masoretic, DSS, Peshita and LXX. Since my ability in some of the languages involved isn’t very useful, I tend at present to use the NIV, knowing that it isn’t perfect.

I don’t trust one-man translations. I prefer ones with a committee that has reiterative reviews of the translations, from more than one tradition, yet all solidly orthodox and trained, it is also very important that the reasons for their choices be publically available.

C4R, how do you know that your interpretation of the translations of Church documents is correct?

Mr.S, keep training, your response to Ahima was rude. And surely you can understand that some of the interpretations that you claim as facts are in fact the very things that are at issue?

Wil, I’m glad you noticed - thank you. Maybe you can continue on from here. I cannot do so.

There’s more to being an apologist than “knowing your stuff” and being able to present your views well. Respect should be part of the job description as well. Actually, Karl Keating does a good job in that area.

Peace…

 

[MrS]

Wil Peregrin:

Mr.S, keep training, your response to Ahima was rude. And surely you can understand that some of the interpretations that you claim as facts are in fact the very things that are at issue?

I will, thank you for your comment. But why would you say the truth is rude. Those were facts, not opinion. If we continue to discuss issues it has to be with the understanding that there is no comprimising of the truth. That would be “rude” to the Truth.

The truth is not something, it is somebody. And His name is Jesus Christ.

 

[MrS]

ahimsaman72:

There’s more to being an apologist than “knowing your stuff” and being able to present your views well.
Peace…

Amen… an apologist explains, defends and shares the truth in charity/love.

Comprimising the Truth, or allowing misstatements to be read by others as true (because they are not challanged) is not charitable.

Ecumenism is not profitable when it requires us to “let’s just get along”, and just discuss the things we agree on to build dialogue.

The luke-warm will be spit out.

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

Mr.S.,
You should never compromise what you believe to be true (which of course, could be the truth), but there is a huge difference between compromise, and lovingly respecting them as persons made in the Image of the Living God, and in the case of evangelicals, your brothers and sisters in Christ.

If I’m not mistaken, St. Francis de Sales was very good at this, he was able to communicate without being rude, as was Dr. Schaeffer. I’m not holding myself up as an example, I’m still being formed in this area, too.

You don’t have to discard your belief about the relationship between the Church and the Bible to understand that it is just that that lies behind the other disagreements. You can’t demand of evangelicals to agree with your conclusion that is the very thing at issue. You have to understand that they -don’t- agree. Come to understand what they do believe, and why, and engage with that. If you are correct, God will help you show us this, so long as both you and we try to be right with God throughout the process.

 

[michaelp]

SocaliCatholic:

Greetings to you Michael,

You may have some knowledge that I am not aware of.

If you could kindly set aside the Magesterium vs. Bible for a moment, and let me know by what standard that you would believe anything such as the sky is blue or 1+1=2.

Are beliefs based on what is self evident or common sense?

When does the need to interpret stop? or, When do we stop interpreting what is interpreted? or, When can we be confident that we have arrived at the Truth that was intended, thus eliminating the need for further interpretation?

Thanks!

Sorry, I cannot interpret this. Really, I can’t. I don’t know what you are asking or saying.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

quote=Catholic4aReasn

No, the Bereans weren’t commended for checking scripture. The Bereans were said to be “more fair-minded” than the Thessalonicans, who went Scripture too (Acts 17:2). Doing what the Thessaloicans did would make them equally fair-minded, not more so. Scripture says that what made them more fair-minded was the fact that they “received the word with all willingness”. NOT the written word of scripture, but the ORAL word of Paul…Tradition. What Paul was saying wasn’t in scripture, but Paul showed them where what he was preaching was consistent with the OT scriptures. This is a good thing, as all Christian teaching must be consitent with scripture. However, the idea that scripture is the test to use against those who create dissensions simply can’t be found in scripture. You didn’t get that idea from scripture, you got it from the “tradition” of those who taught you that it was so.

That’s incorrect. The Church has never once contradicted herself on official teachings of faith or morals. Not once in 2000 years. That’s what happens under the guidance of the holy Spirit. Of course there are going to be disagreements, we see that at the Council of Jerusalem. There was much debate which means there was much disagreement. But the disagreeing parties didn’t part ways and start their own churches,each teaching what they personally believed was true.They didn’t turn to the scriptures alone. They appealed to those who could render an authoritative decision on the matter, under the guidance of the holy Spirit. And that’s just what they did. Not because the bible alone said such and such, in fact when rendering their decision they didn’t appeal to scripture at all as their authority. In their letter they cited themselves, under the guidance of the holy Spirit, as the authority by which they made their decision.

So no, it’s not a false assumption that there cannot be disagreement, not on officially declared doctrine. Christians cannot claim that both “A” and “not A” are true and supported in scripture at the same time. That’s absolutely contrary to scripture.

I totally agree. God still protects His Church from officially teaching error, just like He’s done for 2000 years. That one’s a cinch for Him!

In Christ,
Nancy
[/quote]

I am sorry Nancy, but every one of your interpretations suffers from eisegesis. You are trying to proves something you already believe. You are using the Scripture to do so. When used this way, the Scripture can be made to say anything you want.

Besides, I fail to see how you are qualified to interpret, much less argue these point. I would just stick to quoting the Magisterium if I were you.

You whole methodology is question begging (you really ought to study up on this). I have said this since the beginning, You already believe something, therefore you are going to do everything you can to make all of Scripture support it. I know, I know. I am glad that you have the confidence in your Magisterium that you do, but I don’t and with the way it seems they interpret Scripture, it baffles me that you do.

Oh, well, God is good and gracious to us both. At least we agree that Christ is the only way to heaven and that he is Lord.

Until next time . . .
Michael

 

[michaelp]

MrS:

The WRITERS used Greek (though Matthew was first written in his own tongue of Aramaic).

Most of the “common” people could understand the language but not all could read… and certainly could not purchase their own copy.

Papias suggested that the logoi of Matthew was written in Arimaic, but scholars arn’t sure what this means (but that is another story).

I said nothing about buying their own copy. So . . . here is your theory. Only the Bishop could read. Paul, knowing this, addresses the entire congregation, but he really did not address them because they were never going to hear the letter INTENDED FOR THEM. In the back of his mind as he wrote to these congregations, he says to himself, “I really hope that the average Joe does not get his hands on this.” But even though this is in the back of his mind, he never mentions it and in fact addresses the entire congregation.

Wow! No wonder you think Scripture is hard to interpret. To be able to get this much background information from this situation is great!

I really disagree if you cannot tell. But I pray you have a great day,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Scott_Lafrance:

Couple of problems here. The only texts that were written in Koine Greek were the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John, and all of the Epistles and Letters, and Revelations. The Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated into Koine Greek later. Almost none of the Old Testament Scriptures were written in Greek (it is thought that the Book of Wisdom was), the rest were either written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Secondly, Koine Greek was the official language of correspondance throughout the Roman empire, not Latin (yet). This does not mean it was the “common” language. It was the “official” language.

Koine Greek was not the common language. I think you need to check your sources my brother.

Michael

 

[MrS]

michaelp:

Papias suggested that the logoi of Matthew was written in Arimaic, but scholars arn’t sure what this means (but that is another story).

God intervened again… He foresaw the attacks on His Church regarding Matthew 16:18, and gave the answers by way of the Aramaic. He is awesome!!

I said nothing about buying their own copy. So . . . here is your theory. Only the Bishop could read.

***Where are you coming from… The early bishops were common fishermen. Luke was a physician, not a Bishop. I said the WRITERS could write in Greek. I also said most(many?) common people could understand the Early Fathers, but not necessarily “read” them. ***

---

Would that more of us would ask of a Bishop (Phillip) "How do I know (what I am reading - out loud) if no one tells me?"

Paul, knowing this, addresses the entire congregation, but he really did not address them because they were never going to hear the letter INTENDED FOR THEM. In the back of his mind as he wrote to these congregations, he says to himself, “I really hope that the average Joe does not get his hands on this.” But even though this is in the back of his mind, he never mentions it and in fact addresses the entire congregation.

Wow! No wonder you think Scripture is hard to interpret. To be able to get this much background information from this situation is great!

I really disagree if you cannot tell. But I pray you have a great day,

Michael

My days are great when the Lord graces me with the opportunity to defend Him.

But we must take a different approach when discussing a topic one-on-one, as opposed to discussing it on an open forum where others are only viewing, and hoping to understand. In the former, we can be “fair”, but in the latter we must be honest so as not to mislead those “observers” when we condone error with our silence. If that is “rude” of me, … an apology would defeat the purpose which is to defend the Truth of the Catholic Church.