B
buffalo
Guest
Where did the Bible come from?
- Status
J
jim1130
Guest
At the bottom of the essay: "If we would be faithful children of God, if we would be noble, we must proceed as the Bereans did. We must follow the example of Moses and Paul and our Lord Jesus. Do not rest your confidence on the wisdom of men who claim infallibility. Stand rather with the Apostle Paul who wrote in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “Do not go beyond what is written.”
Hmmmmm catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp
And this?
"Let me begin with certain clarifications so as not to be misunderstood. I am not arguing that all truth is to be found in the Bible, or that the Bible is the only form in which the truth of God has come to His people. I am not arguing that every verse in the Bible is equally clear to every reader. Nor am I arguing that the church—both the people of God and the ministerial office—is not of great value and help in understanding the Scripture. As William Whitaker stated in his noble work: “For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men.”1
"The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.
Then why evangelize? Why not just print copies of the Bible and distribute to everyone then let them come to their own conclusions? Certainly a tribe in Africa and a tribe in South American will reach the same conclusions as fishermen in Iceland based on the authoritativeness of the Bible, right?
Peace.
J
JohnGunther
Guest
Wow, did this thread take a turn. Just wanted to share an answer to the original question that I received from a staff member of Scott Hahn’s office.
Dear John,
I don’t see any problem with saying Christ founded the Church depending on what we mean by Church and what we mean by founded.
Christ did not “found the Church” in the sense that he started a new religion or that he started a brand new institution with no connection at all to God’s past dealing with ISrael. The Church is really best understood as the people of God who entered their final stage of history with the resurrection of Jesus. The Church as Vatican II teaches is the new Israel or perhaps we might say it is the renewed Israel, since their has always been and always will be only one Israel. The founding of the Church really amounts to reconfiguring Israel’s story around Jesus and His ministry. Christ’s work is best seen as fulfilling the promises God had made to Israel (Acts 13:32-33). I don’t know but perhaps this is what the catechist was getting at.
Now clearly He did “found the Church” in the sense that the people of God as reconfigured around Him bore his imprint and carried His impression. The Church which He said he would build in Matt 16:16 for instance was new in some ways–there would be no more animal sacrifices, no more Old Temple and Peter at the head. Clearly Jesus believed that God would be doing something new here through Him. And the beginnings of the institutions of the sacraments and the hierachy which we see in the book of Acts and the epistles are also reflections of a Church that saw itself in continuity with Jesus and His ministry. Now it can be admitted that not all of these institutions which are essential elements of the Church can be traced back to Jesus and his historic ministry. The institution of the diaconate began in Acts 6 well after Jesus ascended for instance. Clearly this takes place in the age of the Holy Spirit of Jesus and thus all that the Church is bears His imprint. But this is also why the CCC 846 is nuanced by stating that the Church is founded by God through Christ which is not quite the same as saying “founded through Christ.”
All this having been said though I think the Catechist was a little misleading and confusing. But from what you have said I can only take a guess at what he was getting at.
Blessings,
Staff
St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology
www.salvationhistory.com
www.scotthahn.com
Dear John,
I don’t see any problem with saying Christ founded the Church depending on what we mean by Church and what we mean by founded.
Christ did not “found the Church” in the sense that he started a new religion or that he started a brand new institution with no connection at all to God’s past dealing with ISrael. The Church is really best understood as the people of God who entered their final stage of history with the resurrection of Jesus. The Church as Vatican II teaches is the new Israel or perhaps we might say it is the renewed Israel, since their has always been and always will be only one Israel. The founding of the Church really amounts to reconfiguring Israel’s story around Jesus and His ministry. Christ’s work is best seen as fulfilling the promises God had made to Israel (Acts 13:32-33). I don’t know but perhaps this is what the catechist was getting at.
Now clearly He did “found the Church” in the sense that the people of God as reconfigured around Him bore his imprint and carried His impression. The Church which He said he would build in Matt 16:16 for instance was new in some ways–there would be no more animal sacrifices, no more Old Temple and Peter at the head. Clearly Jesus believed that God would be doing something new here through Him. And the beginnings of the institutions of the sacraments and the hierachy which we see in the book of Acts and the epistles are also reflections of a Church that saw itself in continuity with Jesus and His ministry. Now it can be admitted that not all of these institutions which are essential elements of the Church can be traced back to Jesus and his historic ministry. The institution of the diaconate began in Acts 6 well after Jesus ascended for instance. Clearly this takes place in the age of the Holy Spirit of Jesus and thus all that the Church is bears His imprint. But this is also why the CCC 846 is nuanced by stating that the Church is founded by God through Christ which is not quite the same as saying “founded through Christ.”
All this having been said though I think the Catechist was a little misleading and confusing. But from what you have said I can only take a guess at what he was getting at.
Blessings,
Staff
St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology
www.salvationhistory.com
www.scotthahn.com
N
NonDenom
Guest
Hi
You are right when you say That Christ said that HE would build HIS church. Your problem is that you say that he founded the Catholic church when in fact he founded the catholic, or universal church. The Catholic church is a group of organized believers in Christ. It was at Antioch that we were called Christians, not Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church was first established around the year 400 AD. The first Christians never met in a church for fear of being killed.
In Him and Him Only
J
jim1130
Guest
Where did you get this information?
E
EPHRIAM777
Guest
buffalo writes…
You won’t find the word Bible, Trinity or Sola Scriptura in scripture either.
Eph replies…
Your right about that… Hey come to think of it…you won’t find Ford… Chrysler…or Toyota in there either…!
You won’t find the word Bible, Trinity or Sola Scriptura in scripture either.
Eph replies…
Your right about that… Hey come to think of it…you won’t find Ford… Chrysler…or Toyota in there either…!
E
EPHRIAM777
Guest
vern humphrey writes…
Can you show me where it says, “I will build my Protestant Church?”
Eph says…
No…because that’s not what Jesus said either vern… Jesus said MY Church… period…!
Vern writes…
“Catholic” means “universal.” He built one and only one Church. He meant it for everyone – that is, He meant it to be universal.
Eph says.
Then you agree with me that Jesus should have said “Catholic” then right…? Ahh…but he didn’t say that did he Vern.
“One Church” made up of MANY members correct…!
Those MANY members in the ONE Church might not see eye to eye on ALL things… what then Vern…?
Vern…
Please review Mark 9:38:40 …and then we’ll discuss the differences and “divisions” that Jesus allowed for in HIS… ( not yours or mine )… “One Church”…!
Can you show me where it says, “I will build my Protestant Church?”
Eph says…
No…because that’s not what Jesus said either vern… Jesus said MY Church… period…!
Vern writes…
“Catholic” means “universal.” He built one and only one Church. He meant it for everyone – that is, He meant it to be universal.
Eph says.
Then you agree with me that Jesus should have said “Catholic” then right…? Ahh…but he didn’t say that did he Vern.
“One Church” made up of MANY members correct…!
Those MANY members in the ONE Church might not see eye to eye on ALL things… what then Vern…?
Vern…
Please review Mark 9:38:40 …and then we’ll discuss the differences and “divisions” that Jesus allowed for in HIS… ( not yours or mine )… “One Church”…!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I disagree. Jesus didn’t tell us what to call His Church.
But He clearly taught the truth. And truth is constant and unitary.
EPHRIAM777 said:
Are you saying truth is dependent on each individual’s perception. that it changes from person to person?
It doesn’t. There is only one truth. No matter how one perceives it, there is only one truth.
And that truth is taught by the Church Christ founded on Peter.
This says nothing about truth. Christ says he has empowered this man, and he is “for us.”
This is a typical attempt to find great things in a few words, without mentioning the total theme of the scripture.
E
EPHRIAM777
Guest
vern humphrey:
I disagree. Jesus didn’t tell us what to call His Church.
But He clearly taught the truth. And truth is constant and unitary.
Eph replies…
Well then why didn’t he just say it and be done with it…??
Vern says
Are you saying truth is dependent on each individual’s perception. that it changes from person to person?
Eph writes…
NOPE…not at all…that would be stupid…Gee you really went off the deep end by saying that…?? What would lead you to say that…? Maybe you have ME confused with someone else on this forum that you posed with…?? Yeah…That’s gotta be it…!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
vern humphrey:
Say what?
Are you saying He was in error, and you have the right to edit His words?
No, I don’t have you confused with anyone.EPHRIAM777 said:[Vern says
Are you saying truth is dependent on each individual’s perception. that it changes from person to person?
Eph writes…
NOPE…not at all…that would be stupid…Gee you really went off the deep end by saying that…?? What would lead you to say that…? Maybe you have ME confused with someone else on this forum that you posed with…?? Yeah…That’s gotta be it…!
- Christ created a Church.
- This Church still exists, and has taught a constant, coherent message for 2,000 years.
- Those who, in their overweening pride, thought they knew better split off – and split again, and fragmented, quarreled, re-split, re-fragmented into literally thousands of sects – each proclaiming they have the truth.
E
EPHRIAM777
Guest
im1130 writes…
Where did you get this information?
Eph says…
My guess is he got that from the Bible…
Where did you get this information?
Eph says…
My guess is he got that from the Bible…
E
EPHRIAM777
Guest
vern humphrey writes.
Are you saying He was in error, and you have the right to edit His words?
Eph replies…
Of course not…
Vern says…
No, I don’t have you confused with anyone.
Eph replies…
Well then you shouldn’t write things like that to people…It borders on being slanderous…and it sure is hurtful…!
vern says…
I agree with all three…now what do you have to say Vern…?
Of course I would say that my answer to number 3 would be different than your own…with regards to the ones who were "pridefull…and devisive…etc etc…!
Are you saying He was in error, and you have the right to edit His words?
Eph replies…
Of course not…
Vern says…
No, I don’t have you confused with anyone.
Eph replies…
Well then you shouldn’t write things like that to people…It borders on being slanderous…and it sure is hurtful…!
vern says…
- Christ created a Church.
- This Church still exists, and has taught a constant, coherent message for 2,000 years.
- Those who, in their overweening pride, thought they knew better split off – and split again, and fragmented, quarreled, re-split, re-fragmented into literally thousands of sects – each proclaiming they have the truth.
I agree with all three…now what do you have to say Vern…?
Of course I would say that my answer to number 3 would be different than your own…with regards to the ones who were "pridefull…and devisive…etc etc…!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You make smarmy comments like this:
Any you claim* I* say things that are slanderous and hurtful?
Once again, the smarmy use of a name where it isn’t needed.
There is only one Church claiming to be universal. And that is the Church that has been in existance since the beginning.
J
jim1130
Guest
Hardly. All I did was ask to substantiate the information. If a claim like that is made, why not provide supporting documentation? By the way, “Roman” was not applied to the Catholic Church until the Refoerms..
My guess is he got that from the Bible…
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The term “Roman” is still not used by Catholics. We are simply the Catholic Church.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
This is true, but Christ established one Church, so technically we are the Church
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That is correct. No modifiers are needed – we are simply the Church.This is true, but Christ established one Church, so technically we are the Church
The term “Catholic” was used very early to indicate the Church was universal.
The term “Roman” or “Roman Catholic” was coined by Protestants.
E
EPHRIAM777
Guest
vern humphrey says…
There is only one Church claiming to be universal. And that is the Church that has been in existance since the beginning.
Eph writes…
Vern…I agree Jesus Christ’s Church has been in existance since he built it…! He said he would build “IT” (singular)…and HE did build it…!
Not anyone else…!
There is only one Church claiming to be universal. And that is the Church that has been in existance since the beginning.
Eph writes…
Vern…I agree Jesus Christ’s Church has been in existance since he built it…! He said he would build “IT” (singular)…and HE did build it…!
Not anyone else…!
E
EPHRIAM777
Guest
Roman_Catholic writes…
This is true, but Christ established one Church, so technically we are the Church
Eph says…
That of course…would include ONLY Christians then… because only Christians are members of the Church…!
For example Buddists aren’t members of the Church…neither are Muslims or Hindu’s…!
Christians are literally “The Church” so only they are members of the Church…!
Now I agree that ANYONE can become a member of the Church…but unless they do…they aren’t a Christian and thus by definition…they aren’t a member of “The Church”…!
This is true, but Christ established one Church, so technically we are the Church
Eph says…
That of course…would include ONLY Christians then… because only Christians are members of the Church…!
For example Buddists aren’t members of the Church…neither are Muslims or Hindu’s…!
Christians are literally “The Church” so only they are members of the Church…!
Now I agree that ANYONE can become a member of the Church…but unless they do…they aren’t a Christian and thus by definition…they aren’t a member of “The Church”…!
B
buffalo
Guest
By your baptism you are a member of the Catholic Church. What you decide to do after is another story altogether. Does one stay Catholic or be a member of a Protestant denom?Roman_Catholic writes…
This is true, but Christ established one Church, so technically we are the Church
Eph says…
That of course…would include ONLY Christians then… because only Christians are members of the Church…!
For example Buddists aren’t members of the Church…neither are Muslims or Hindu’s…!
Christians are literally “The Church” so only they are members of the Church…!
Now I agree that ANYONE can become a member of the Church…but unless they do…they aren’t a Christian and thus by definition…they aren’t a member of “The Church”…!
- Status