- Status
Want simple answers ? Don’t ask twisted questions.
Church and scripture is not either/or. It’s both/and.
C
ColoradoCatholic
Guest
See this is why I stopped responding to your previous posts, this isn’t a conversation, no matter what we say you are just going to say that’s false and then not answer the question.
If the Catholic Church were the True Church would you convert?
If the Catholic Church were the True Church would you convert?
Last edited:
It is the true Church, part of it. The Catholic Church is the congregation of believers, gathered around word and sacrament. Right?
The Catholic Church has that. So do the Eastern Orthodox. So do Lutherans and Anglicans and others.
Those who deny the Catholic Church is part of the true Church fail to recognize the central role it has played in the history of the faith.
There are specific teachings of the CC that I believe contradict the teachings of the early Church. I’m particular, universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.
Where I usually say something is false is when someone says something about Lutheranism, such as when you said Luther rejected the DCs because of faith alone.
If you tell me what the Catholic Church teaches, and it is an accurate portrayal of Catholic teaching, all I can do is agree or disagree with the teaching.
C
ColoradoCatholic
Guest
the fact that you can’t simply say yes, confirms what i said before.
This is pretty cut and dry what the early church believed, take a look at it. You are also on a great website to understand why the catholic church’s teaching are correct.
This is pretty cut and dry what the early church believed, take a look at it. You are also on a great website to understand why the catholic church’s teaching are correct.
Last edited:
Who arguing for relativism? I’m arguing against triumphalism and misinformation.
I appreciate the information.
M
mcq72
Guest
Well, is it rational that you accept that Jesus was a Jew, that Salvation is of the Jews?
If they err in one area or time have they erred in all?
Even the Catholic church omitted some of the Jewish books. They did not accept all the books that have been found in Septuagint copies
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’ve never really understood why which books are considered ‘canonical’ to Jews is so important to some Christians.
The Tanakh could be considered “Torah plus commentary,” the Christian ‘Old Testament’ is background to Jesus. In other words, completely different purposes.
The Tanakh could be considered “Torah plus commentary,” the Christian ‘Old Testament’ is background to Jesus. In other words, completely different purposes.
M
mcq72
Guest
Indeed we should trust Jesus on this one. I trust Him for correction, even coaching.
I have been working in a nuclear power facility. Everything from a janitor to a site leader is considered important in this critical industry. Anyone can stop any other person if they are not following explicit procedures in a safe manner. Eveyone is responsible to “coach” anyone who isn’t. Even I as a painter I can stop the site manager from entering an area if he doesn’t have proper ppe on (hard hat, safety glasses). We are all supposed to accept any " coaching" graciously, and with a thank you. We are all responsible because any mistakes could be costly and
catastrophic.
Jesus never promised perfection for the church but certainly strives with her to make corrections, to be coached. We must trust that Jesus will send corrections and coaching from varied people and sources. He even used a donkey to do so in OT.
The Didache says to avoid making a schism and pacify those that contend.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
You are really asking two different questions:
“Why this prohibition?” he [Rabbi Abaye] asked. “Is it on account of such and such verses?” With the exception of two verses written in Aramaic and which are not by Ben Sira at all, all of R. Abaye’s citations are distinctly frivolous, being those relating to the anxiety caused by a young girl before and after her marriage, the uselessness of repining, and the danger of introducing strangers too freely into one’s home. Abaye then condemns the misanthropy, misogyny, and Epicureanism of the author. To Ben Sira’s Epicurean tendency must be attributed his denial of a future life, and, perhaps, also his pre-Sadducean spirit of reverence for the priesthood, with which the panegyric on his brethren is animated.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13785-sirach-the-wisdom-of-jesus-the-son-of
- Why is this book not in the Protestant canon?
- Why is this book not in the Jewish canon?
“Why this prohibition?” he [Rabbi Abaye] asked. “Is it on account of such and such verses?” With the exception of two verses written in Aramaic and which are not by Ben Sira at all, all of R. Abaye’s citations are distinctly frivolous, being those relating to the anxiety caused by a young girl before and after her marriage, the uselessness of repining, and the danger of introducing strangers too freely into one’s home. Abaye then condemns the misanthropy, misogyny, and Epicureanism of the author. To Ben Sira’s Epicurean tendency must be attributed his denial of a future life, and, perhaps, also his pre-Sadducean spirit of reverence for the priesthood, with which the panegyric on his brethren is animated.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13785-sirach-the-wisdom-of-jesus-the-son-of
N
Norseman82
Guest
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Yes, while “doing their own individual thing” individual Protestants will object to and protest quite a bit. As I see it, taking up an imagined right to “private interpretation”, they are individual authorities unto themselves.
M
mcq72
Guest
Lol…please tell us how you really see it…don’t hold back.
B
Bithynian
Guest
Largely because, at the time of the Reformation, some Reformers advanced an understanding that there was a singular, strictly delineated Tanakh canon recognised universally by the Second Temple Jewish community. It was also believed that this canon was shared by the then contemporary Jewish community.
I should note that the Reformers did not entirely originate that thesis: adumbrations of it also occurred amongst early Christians, especially during the initial process where the New Testament canon was delimited.
With all that in mind, modern research amongst Tanakh textual critics has identified two problems with that understanding: (1) there was no single, monolithic Second Temple Jewish community; and (2) there existed multiple Greek and Hebrew Tanakh manuscripts that circulated amongst the disparate Jewish communities.
Willem Smelik’s (Professor of Hebrew Literature at University College London) chapter on ‘The Languages of Roman Palestine’ in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine notes that some Greek-speaking Jewish communities held the Septuagint to be inspired and, apparently, co-equal with the Hebrew text.
The same textual research has also demonstrated that there is no singular Septuagint: there are multiple Greek translations, some of which were completed in the 2nd century CE by Jewish translators (Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion), and these translations were compiled dissimilarly in different manuscripts by Jewish and Christian scribes. In the case of the Book of Daniel in the Septuagint, the “Old Greek” text (that is, the earliest translation undertaken by Jewish scholars prior to Christianity) was entirely replaced by the one that Theodotion made in the 2nd century CE.
Where the NT does quote the Septuagint, there is scarcely a single instance where this is not some variation, minor or major, with the extant corpus of Septuagint manuscripts.
Last edited:
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
That’s your private judgment. Others could judge differently. We can love people who don’t hold our point of view. In fact, we can submit to people and trust Almighty God to work through people who don’t hold our point of view. If every individual did their own judgment of everything and everyone else, we would all end up in denominational splinter groups the size of one person. “If you want to be the big fish in the pond, then you just need to find a pond that’s small enough for you to be the biggest fish there.”
Of course. I suspect your private judgment differs from mine.
Agreed.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Thank you, that was very helpful.
Did/does the inclusion/exclusion of certain of these writings have a real impact on the different understandings of Christ/Christianity/Christian teachings? In other words, would the inclusion/exclusion in some way substantiate/invalidate the beliefs of Catholics or Protestants?
B
Bithynian
Guest
They do touch upon a few key doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants. Namely, Tobit identifies the salvific nature of almsgiving; and 2 Maccabees the ongoing intermeditorial role between the living and the deceased. Both issues are soteriological, that is, related to salvation and understandings about Christ’s saving work.
I use the phrase ‘touch upon’, because it’s unclear if they are truly irreconcilable to Protestant theology. Most key doctrines are developed systematically and do not otherwise hinge upon singular proof-texts. From another perspective, there are passages in the NT that, upon plain reading, present similar difficult issues in being reconciled with fundamental Christian beliefs (cf. John 14:28 ‘The Father is greater than I’ and the Trinity).
There simply hasn’t been much sustained Protestant theological reflection on the deuterocanonical texts. But a wider interest in the LXX was sparked in the mid-20th century due to the discovery of the Qumran scrolls: it demonstrated that the Septuagint derived from a Tanakh text tradition that was parallel to that of the Masoretes. Currently the Gottingen University (historically Protestant) is now preparing a critical edition of the LXX with their committees also involving Catholic, Orthodox and Jewish scholars.
- Status