Who is Your Infallibe Teacher?

[geometer]

The whole problem is that the starting place is all wrong. God’s voluntary condecension is the starting place. As Protestants, we believe that God condescended to man, and wrote the scriptures in a manner that those taught and stable could understand. This is what Catholics believe about the church and its teaching, so, there is no problem either way.

The ideas of the bible are not in the printed words themselves. Remember the Rosetta stone discovery. The Rosetta stone was not readable from the symbols themselves. It could only be translated because the egyptian was copied on the stone in ancient greek. The greek was readable only because of the living tradition of greek scholars. What the words mean is only carried down in the minds of the people who know the language.

We only know what the scripture say because there are Greek scholars and Rabbis who still carry the ideas. Those traditions allow us to read the words…

 

[Hebrew_Student]

geometer,

The ideas of the bible are not in the printed words themselves. Remember the Rosetta stone discovery. The Rosetta stone was not readable from the symbols themselves. It could only be translated because the egyptian was copied on the stone in ancient greek. The greek was readable only because of the living tradition of greek scholars. What the words mean is only carried down in the minds of the people who know the language.

We only know what the scripture say because there are Greek scholars and Rabbis who still carry the ideas. Those traditions allow us to read the words…

Actually, the Rosetta stone is not really the norm. For example, when linear B was deciphered, we had no parallel inscription. All we had was the Greek language, and the departures from that language had to be explained when it was postulated that it was Greek. Through this process, we learned things that Greek scholars didn’t know at the time.

Also, the decipherment of languages like Ugaritic relied upon knowledge of things like comparitive semitic linguistics. Again, Ugaritic also brought us many surprises that we did not know before.

However, even if I were to grant what you have said, let us push language all of the way back. When do both Catholics and Protestants believe the first revelation was ever given? It was to Adam when God spoke to him in the garden. Hence, again, it is God voluntarily condescending to man to speak to him in language he could understand, exactly as I said.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[geometer]

However, even if I were to grant what you have said, let us push language all of the way back. When do both Catholics and Protestants believe the first revelation was ever given? It was to Adam when God spoke to him in the garden. Hence, again, it is God voluntarily condescending to man to speak to him in language he could understand, exactly as I said.

Adam never wrote it down, we only know Adams life through tradition…

 

[Hebrew_Student]

geometer,

Adam never wrote it down, we only know Adams life through tradition…

Actually, the issue the OP raised was the understanding of the scriptures in the light of human fallability.

However, in response to what you said, no Protestant rejects all tradition. That would be silly, since the scriptures themselves are a [written] tradition. We also don’t reject something just because it was, at one point in time, passed down orally. What we reject is any tradition that is not found in scripture, or that contradicts scripture.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[ababbidg]

For me. determining who has the correct interpretation of scripture was simply who made the bible? If we can’t even trust the those who assembled the bible, how can we trust what is in the bible? How can we trust that the canon is correct? Simply by beleiving the bible to be true and inspired I had to accept that those who wrote and those who assembled the bible did not get it wrong. This lead me to the Catholic Church. They assembled the bible and if I can trust them to know the correct canon of the bible, I believe I can also trust them to know the contents of the bible and what those contents really mean.

The Catholic Church (and maybe orthodox?) have the distinction of being the only Church that made the bible. All other denominations came from the bible, but the bible came from the Catholic Church

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

For me. determining who has the correct interpretation of scripture was simply who made the bible? If we can’t even trust the those who assembled the bible, how can we trust what is in the bible? How can we trust that the canon is correct? Simply by beleiving the bible to be true and inspired I had to accept that those who wrote and those who assembled the bible did not get it wrong. This lead me to the Catholic Church. They assembled the bible and if I can trust them to know the correct canon of the bible, I believe I can also trust them to know the contents of the bible and what those contents really mean.

The Catholic Church (and maybe orthodox?) have the distinction of being the only Church that made the bible. All other denominations came from the bible, but the bible came from the Catholic Church.

I would very much disagree with that. For example, the books of Genesis [Matthew 19:4-6] and Exodus [Matthew 22:31-32] were both considered canonical by the time of Christ, and Christ expected the pharasees, saduccees, and scribes to have abided by what was contained therein. Even the book of Jeremiah assumed the validity of the book of Deuteronomy, and God expected the Israelites to live by the standards contained in the book of Deuteronomy. There were clearly books that the prophets and Christ himself expected people to know were canonical long before the Catholic Church [even on Catholic standards] could have even existed.

The point is that the canonization of the Hebrew Bible occured before Christ, and hence, the Catholic Church, even on its own standards, could have had nothing to do with it.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[mark_a]

Wrong is wrong, and therefore, one is as wrong as Lutheranism. Correct?

Please!!

And if Apostolic succession is evidence of truth

That statement might work if you place “one but not the only” between “is” and “evidence”.

Christ is my infallible teacher, and whatever His Church can’t teach me, isn’t important to salvation anyway.
For me, substitute “the Holy Orthodox church. In other words the Orthodox bishops in communion with one another” with the Lutheran Confessions, and the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

And for me. . . . .

Was Luther Missouri Synod? I think his views on contraception were closer to Wisconsin Synod.

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

I would very much disagree with that. For example, the books of Genesis [Matthew 19:4-6] and Exodus [Matthew 22:31-32] were both considered canonical by the time of Christ, and Christ expected the pharasees, saduccees, and scribes to have abided by what was contained therein. Even the book of Jeremiah assumed the validity of the book of Deuteronomy, and God expected the Israelites to live by the standards contained in the book of Deuteronomy. There were clearly books that the prophets and Christ himself expected people to know were canonical long before the Catholic Church [even on Catholic standards] could have even existed.

The point is that the canonization of the Hebrew Bible occured before Christ, and hence, the Catholic Church, even on its own standards, could have had nothing to do with it.

God Bless,
Adam

Ok what about the new testament? Did the Catholic Church get that right?

And the entire old testament canon was not stated officially during the time of Christ, only the Torah and books of the Prophets. The writings were not yet official and the deuterocanonicals are not in the Torah or books of the Prophets. By the time Jews officalized their canon, christianity was alive and thriving, and thus the “power” to determine the canon had passed to the Christians.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Please!!
That statement might work if you place “one but not the only” between “is” and “evidence”.

And for me. . . . .

Was Luther Missouri Synod? I think his views on contraception were closer to Wisconsin Synod.

To be fair, though, Mark, Lutherans don’t view Martin Luther as an infallible guide. It’s tempting for Catholics to accuse them of such but really Luther is the founder of that branch of the reformation, not their sole source of inspiration and understanding of all morality. Luther’s protege, Melanchthon, didn’t always stick with Luther’s views and Lutherans in centuries proceeding Luther’s death also had their own views. The litmus test to see if a Lutheran is true to his religion is not to see if he holds lock stock and barrel the same views as Luther. The conscience of the individual and the freedom of the Christian man and secular authority played into Luther’s worldview a great deal. If Lutheran’s had to be like Luther then they would have Marian devotion, make the sign of the Cross, and hold to several Catholic devotions that he held. Luther did abhor contraception, but that doesn’t mean specifically that all Lutherans must as well. Luther also had some VERY anti-semitic views, mostly religious more than cultural as Jon NC has pointed out nicely in the past, but Lutherans aren’t commanded to go out and hate the Jewish people.

 

[geometer]

What we reject is any tradition that is not found in scripture, or that contradicts scripture.

This is a statement of your tradition, right? I think you will find that your group is forming its own tradition. It can’t be avoided. If you examine the rules that you are following you won’t be able to find all of them in scripture. I assume that you compare scripture to scripture when trying to find how a specific word has been used in the text. That rule does not come from the scripture…

 

[ababbidg]

Ok what about the new testament? Did the Catholic Church get that right?

And the entire old testament canon was not stated officially during the time of Christ, only the Torah and books of the Prophets. The writings were not yet official and the deuterocanonicals are not in the Torah or books of the Prophets. By the time Jews officalized their canon, christianity was alive and thriving, and thus the “power” to determine the canon had passed to the Christians.

Oops didn’t mean to bring up the deuterocanoncals in my last post. Was talking about those books with someone ealier and that was just in my mind I guess. But other Writings, including the deuteros, were not official canon at the time of Christ. Christians had the authority to determine those.

 

[geometer]

Oops didn’t mean to bring up the deuterocanoncals in my last post. Was talking about those books with someone ealier and that was just in my mind I guess. But other Writings, including the deuteros, were not official canon at the time of Christ. Christians had the authority to determine those.

The Psalms were pretty well thought of they are a major part of the Crowning writings.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

Ok what about the new testament? Did the Catholic Church get that right?

Actually, Athanasius’ 39th Festal Letter came long before any council or pope had given any canon. In fact, the Catholic Church never dogmatically defined the canon until April of 1546. Again, this would be impossible, if the assembly of the canon was dependent upon the Roman Catholic Church.

And the entire old testament canon was not stated officially during the time of Christ, only the Torah and books of the Prophets. The writings were not yet official and the deuterocanonicals are not in the Torah or books of the Prophets.

First, I don’t understand your argument here. If the Torah and Prophets were considered scripture, then you can you say that the Catholic Church assembled the Bible. At best, all you could say is that it assembled part of of the Bible * as part of the Bible had already been assembled by the time the Catholic church came around.

Second, There is absolutely no evidence for what you have said at all. In fact, the threefold division of the canon [which includes the writings] goes back clear the time of Jesus Ben Siriach, and there is an implication in his statement that it goes back to the time of Siriach. Also, around the time of Christ, you have Philo who gives us a threefold division of the canon. Hence, the writings were considered scripture long before the time of Christ.

Secondly, Josephus himself who died in the year c.a. 100 only lists 22 books, and lists a threefold division. Now, one is going to have to show that the contents of this threefold division were different, when there is no evidence that anything ever changed. Not only that, but there are apocryphal works like Jubilles which contain certain varients that list the number of the books of the canon at 22, and there is good reason to believe that these were in existence at the time of Christ. Far from the idea that something had changed, all the evidence points to the fact that it remained the same.

By the time Jews officalized their canon, christianity was alive and thriving, and thus the “power” to determine the canon had passed to the Christians.

So, then, what you are saying is that the Jews did, at one point, have the “power” to determine the canon. The simple conclusion is that the Catholic Church did not assemble the Bible at all. It, at best, only assembled part of it, and, therefore, the assembling of canonical books does not depend on the Catholic Church.*

 

[JRKH]

ababbidg,

Actually, Athanasius’ 39th Festal Letter came long before any council or pope had given any canon. In fact, the Catholic Church never dogmatically defined the canon until April of 1546. Again, this would be impossible, if the assembly of the canon was dependent upon the Roman Catholic Church.

First, I don’t understand your argument here. If the Torah and Prophets were considered scripture, then you can you say that the Catholic Church assembled the Bible. At best, all you could say is that it assembled part of of the Bible * as part of the Bible had already been assembled by the time the Catholic church came around.

Second, There is absolutely no evidence for what you have said at all. In fact, the threefold division of the canon [which includes the writings] goes back clear the time of Jesus Ben Siriach, and there is an implication in his statement that it goes back to the time of Siriach. Also, around the time of Christ, you have Philo who gives us a threefold division of the canon. Hence, the writings were considered scripture long before the time of Christ.

Secondly, Josephus himself who died in the year c.a. 100 only lists 22 books, and lists a threefold division. Now, one is going to have to show that the contents of this threefold division were different, when there is no evidence that anything ever changed. Not only that, but there are apocryphal works like Jubilles which contain certain varients that list the number of the books of the canon at 22, and there is good reason to believe that these were in existence at the time of Christ. Far from the idea that something had changed, all the evidence points to the fact that it remained the same.

So, then, what you are saying is that the Jews did, at one point, have the “power” to determine the canon. The simple conclusion is that the Catholic Church did not assemble the Bible at all. It, at best, only assembled part of it, and, therefore, the assembling of canonical books does not depend on the Catholic Church.*

Hebrew Student,
All of this is quite interesting, but could you answer the OP question for us?
Who is your infallible teacher?

Peace
James

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

Actually, Athanasius’ 39th Festal Letter came long before any council or pope had given any canon. In fact, the Catholic Church never dogmatically defined the canon until April of 1546. Again, this would be impossible, if the assembly of the canon was dependent upon the Roman Catholic Church.

The canon had to be dogmatically declared at the Coucnil of Trent in response to Protestants claiming certain books were not inspired. Before then, there was no need to because no one ever questioned the canon before. There are many examples of this happening in regards to other dogmas

First, I don’t understand your argument here. If the Torah and Prophets were considered scripture, then you can you say that the Catholic Church assembled the Bible. At best, all you could say is that it assembled part of of the Bible * as part of the Bible had already been assembled by the time the Catholic church came around.

I never said that the Jews did not have the authority to determine the canon at one point. I simply stated they no longer have that authority.*

Second, There is absolutely no evidence for what you have said at all. In fact, the threefold division of the canon [which includes the writings] goes back clear the time of Jesus Ben Siriach, and there is an implication in his statement that it goes back to the time of Siriach. Also, around the time of Christ, you have Philo who gives us a threefold division of the canon. Hence, the writings were considered scripture long before the time of Christ.

Secondly, Josephus himself who died in the year c.a. 100 only lists 22 books, and lists a threefold division. Now, one is going to have to show that the contents of this threefold division were different, when there is no evidence that anything ever changed. Not only that, but there are apocryphal works like Jubilles which contain certain varients that list the number of the books of the canon at 22, and there is good reason to believe that these were in existence at the time of Christ. Far from the idea that something had changed, all the evidence points to the fact that it remained the same.

not sure about any of this so I cannot address this part. I do know that some Jews do accept the deuterocanonicals (ethiopian jews), so even among the Jews there is no conscensus on the canon of Hebrew scriptures

So, then, what you are saying is that the Jews did, at one point, have the “power” to determine the canon. The simple conclusion is that the Catholic Church did not assemble the Bible at all. It, at best, only assembled part of it, and, therefore, the assembling of canonical books does not depend on the Catholic Church.

The assembling of the Bible does depend on christians. The old testament is not the Bible, the Bible is the new and the old testament combined. The Jews had no part in the new testament. Why would you think the Catholic Church is right about the new testament but not the old?

 

[Hebrew_Student]

JRKH,

Hebrew Student,
All of this is quite interesting, but could you answer the OP question for us?
Who is your infallible teacher?

I already did in posts 40 and 42. The short answer is that our infallible teacher is God himself who condescended to us to reveal himself in a way that those who are fallible, yet taught and stable can understand.

The only reason we are talking about this is because ababbidg said that he believes Catholic interpretations to be correct because he believes that the Catholic Church assembled the Bible.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

The assembling of the Bible does depend on christians. The old testament is not the Bible, the Bible is the new and the old testament combined. The Jews had no part in the new testament.

The point is that it was being assembled all along. You cannot point to one time and say that this was the time when the whole Bible was assembled. Books were recognized as scripture, some have even argued as early as the days of Joshua [and I think that they are probably right], and, as they were written, they were recognized as inspired and binding in their authority long before the Catholic Church came along. Thus, it was not a point in time, but a process.

Why would you think the Catholic Church is right about the new testament but not the old?

That’s not good logic. You believe, as a Catholic, that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church got the New Testament canon right. Why would you think the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is right about the New Testament, and not the Old?

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

That’s not good logic. You believe, as a Catholic, that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church got the New Testament canon right. Why would you think the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is right about the New Testament, and not the Old?

Because the Orthodox Prebyterian Church didn’t assemble the bible. They didn’t even exist for at least 1100 years after the bible was made. Not sure when that denomination came into existence.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

Because the Orthodox Prebyterian Church didn’t assemble the bible. They didn’t even exist for at least 1100 years after the bible was made. Not sure when that denomination came into existence.

However, I do not believe the Catholic Church assembled the Bible. In other words, the argument you used already assumes what you are setting out to prove, that is, that the Catholic Church assembled the Bible.

 

[geometer]

All of the scriptures were assembled into one book for the first time by Constantine.