- This topic has 1 reply, 8 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by Anonymous.
May 9, 2007 at 4:39 pm #8266AnonymousInactive
[quote:9mrn0mvx]I don’t have to know everything on How or why we got what we have — but more important is to believe in what it says — unlike your supposedly correct “traditions” which you follow because of men. That would be my question to you-Why?[/quote:9mrn0mvx]
As we are taken on a trip further and further from the reality that God created, I’m wondering…. Did the TRANSLATION from the Original languages, of which only copies (and Catholic copies hand written by Catholic monastics at that) by some act of God either have a special indult from God so that King James (who’s authority to authorize a translation question like most questions was never answered) and his translators would have a copy not infected with Catholic “additions and modifications”? Or perhaps the translation floated down on a cloud, much like the cream cheese on the television commercial.
There is Faith that God created the Universe out of nothing, and Faith that He inspired men to write the Scriptures. And there is the Fiction that Fundies have created in order to deny what Christ did and said, in founding the Church, in having been given authority to bind and loose, or in His promise to remain with the Church until the consumation of the Earth…. But I guess if you want to be the only person who has the correct view, and can feel superior to everyone else, condemning them, and proclaiming that they know nothing, and you know everything, then it helps to live a life of fiction.May 9, 2007 at 5:10 pm #8267AnonymousInactive
“God was in control”
Of course He was. But how did He bring the Bible to us?May 9, 2007 at 5:17 pm #8268AnonymousInactive
But LARoberts, you never answered my question about why you follow a church with the many traditions that aren’t biblical?
I’d like to know what your problem is with someone being a fundie and what makes you think that we do any of those things that you claim?
[quote:6v68f02i]have created in order to deny what Christ did and said, in founding the Church, in having been given authority to bind and loose, or in His promise to remain with the Church until the consumation of the Earth[/quote:6v68f02i]
I don’t deny any of those things. I deny nothing of what God said, but I do deny that your church is THE Church.
[quote:6v68f02i]But I guess if you want to be the only person who has the correct view, and can feel superior to everyone else, condemning them, and proclaiming that they know nothing, and you know everything, then it helps to live a life of fiction[/quote:6v68f02i]
It does help to know what te Word of God says, even for me a sinner who only did as Scriptures told us to do: test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21)May 9, 2007 at 6:02 pm #8269AnonymousInactive
[quote:3un3i7en]your books sren’t disussing Heaven or Hell either, so how can you say that they are even relavent to this topic?[/quote:3un3i7en]It is called [i:3un3i7en]reductio ad absurdum[/i:3un3i7en]. An argument is evaluated by assuming it is true and then taking it to its logical end. John took the criteria by which you established the Bible was the word of God, assumed that the argument was true, and then showed how a math textbook and the Quran are also the word of God by the exact same argument.May 9, 2007 at 6:08 pm #8270AnonymousInactive
[quote:3fqjna4g][color=blue:3fqjna4g]Do you see how your reasoning falls flat[/color:3fqjna4g]
I don’t think the Bible is wrong – NO [/quote:3fqjna4g]The Bible is not your reasoning.
[quote:3fqjna4g]But don’t you use the same “circular reasoning?”[/quote:3fqjna4g]No.
[quote:3fqjna4g]You defend Catholicism with Cstholic material and sources such as
Catholic Answers or all of the witnesses that you quote even though none are infallble,[/quote:3fqjna4g]This is both a gross ignorance of what constitutes circular reasoning and a complete non sequitur in regards to infallibility.
[quote:3fqjna4g]that is more of an example of what not to trust, then to trust in that God’s word tells us about the past, present, and future[/quote:3fqjna4g]And once again assuming the conclusion instead of proving it.May 9, 2007 at 6:14 pm #8271AnonymousInactive
[quote:1gecl2fw]But LARoberts, you never answered my question about why you follow a church with the many traditions that aren’t biblical? [/quote:1gecl2fw]
I’d love to live in a world of delusions, but I live in the real world Ron. The question was answered, you simply have overlooked, or have such a vested interest in being the only one who knows anything to admit (even if you disagree with the answer) that your questions are answered. There will be more joy in heaven when you give up your pretentions and return to God and His Church. It will happen, and sooner than you know.May 9, 2007 at 8:16 pm #8272AnonymousInactive
come on guys, all you can say is to say that I’m assuming my beliefs? We
know that the Bible is truth, yet you say I’m only “assuming” my stand. And we know that a math book can get outdated, have errors, occasionally somewhere over the years and needs constant updating. The same goes for the Qu’ran where it doesn’t gives you the view of the one and only God or Paul wouldn’t have told you that Scriptures were the power to save (Romans 1:16) and then you make the charge that I’m not living in the real world…. and you know something? You are right because this world has Satan as it’s leader, whereas my Home is not here. (Ephesians 2:2) It pays to know God’s word.May 9, 2007 at 9:10 pm #8273AnonymousInactive
Poor deluded pitiful man. But that is what happens when you turn your life over to the Christ of your own invention rather than the Christ of history. As I’ve said before, you remain in my prayers, and in the prayers of our Lady and the Saints.May 10, 2007 at 12:03 am #8274AnonymousInactive
As Ron said
[color=red:1dbf28ky]If so, is it as my Thessalonians quote says, that it’s God’s word not the words of men?[/color:1dbf28ky]
As far as I know there is only ONE true Bible.
Our New Testament canon is identical to that of the Protestants other than some minor translation differences. Our difference lies in the contents of the Old Testament where we have Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and additions to Esther and Daniel. These books were called apocryphal by the Protestants and deuterocanonical (Second canon) by the Catholics.This has its roots among the Jews back in the three centuries before the beginnings of the Christian Church.
There were two groups of Jews in those days. The Palestinians who worshipped in the temple, used the Hebrew Scripture (Masoretic text), and maintained a separatist religion in which contact with gentiles and Samaritans was prohibited. They had distilled 613 laws from the Torah which governed their conduct.
The other group, a majority, were the Hellenized Jews of the diaspora who lived away from Palestine. The largest centers were found in Rome, Babylon, and Alexandria, Egypt and other major cities of the Mediterranean basin. They were Greek speaking, worshipping in synagogues, and had reduced the law into three demands: circumcision, observing the Sabbath, and abstention from pork. However they also had developed a high moral code centered in the ten commandments.
Origin of the Septuagint (LXX)
During the second temple period more and more of the Diaspora had abandoned the use of Hebrew in their synagogues using Greek instead. Three centuries BCE the Jews at Alexandria asked and received permission from the high priest in Jerusalem to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek. This was done over the next centuries and finally included the deuterocanonical books as well which they revered and read in their synagogues. This Greek Bible used by the Jews of the Diaspora was called the Septuagint (LXX).
It is most interesting that the codices of the LXX do not isolate the deuterocanonical books as a group but mixes them in with the prophets and the writings indicating that there was no awareness that they were thought to be later or foreign to an already existing Hebrew canon. It is also significant that some of these books were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran.
In the early second century the LXX was, like the Church thrown out of the synagogue and Greek speaking Jewish Orthodoxy was supplied with a different text minus the deuterocanonicals, and was subservient to the authority of the Hebrew text and the Pharisaic scribes and Rabbis.
The Church adopts the Septuagint
When Christianity moved out of its Palestinian matrix into the Greek speaking pagan world the LXX became its Bible. Paul’s letters and other New Testament writings show quotes from the LXX. In the fifth century when Jerome made his Latin translation (Vulgate) he noted that the deuterocanonical books were not used by the Jews.
However the great doctor of the Church, Augustine, argued that on the basis of usage the majority of the Churches including the most emminent ones, accepted the Greek additions as canonical. His great stature tended to close the discussion. This reaffirmed the canonical lists of the Western Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage III (397), and Carthage IV (419) and the letter of Pope Innocent I (405) which included the Greek books.
Luther argued in his debates (1519) that the Bible was superior to the authority of the Church (sola Scriptura). It was while arguing against the doctrine of purgatory that this came back to haunt him. He was confronted with 2 Maccabees 12:46:
“He made atonement for the dead that they may be delivered from their sins.”
Thus pressed he argued that the Church had no right to decide matters of canonicity. He held that the internal worth of a book was the factor. He pointed out that Jerome had questioned the status of these books because the Jews didn’t use them. This was no valid argument because the Jews obviously do not use the 27 Christian books either. He refused to accept that the Church through usage and the guidance of the Holy Spirit had selected them.
In his German translation of the New Testament he relegated Hebrews, Revelation, Jude and James which he called a “strawy” epistle to the appendix. His followers later restored them to their proper place in the canon.
What is the value of these books?
First of all they are part of our Christian heritage. Our forebearers used them for sixteen centuries. These books give us an in-depth view into the religious and secular culture of those times.
Tobit and Judith are fascinating stories that enjoyed popularity in both Jewish and Christian circles.
Maccabees give us the history of the war for freedom and the pious practice of prayers for the departed.
Sirach or Ecclesiasticus meaning “Church Book” was widely used to give moral teaching to the catechumens.
Readings from Wisdom are used at funerals because of its clear teaching on immortality. This was in dispute among the Jews of the first century (Pharisees vs. Sadducees).
In response to the reformers the Council of Trent (1546) declared as inspired by the Holy Spirit those 73 books with all their parts.May 10, 2007 at 7:02 am #8278AnonymousInactive
[quote:mho4883k]come on guys, all you can say is to say that I’m assuming my beliefs? We
know that the Bible is truth, yet you say I’m only “assuming” my stand.[/quote:mho4883k]First, allow me to commend you for acknowledging that Catholics know and accept the Bible as truth. It surprised me because the last time I had a similar conversation, he turned the conversation into an attack on my belief in the Bible (as though to take issue with his argument for Scripture was an attack on Scripture itself).
Second, we say that you are assuming your belief because, in large part, you are. Your theology holds that the Bible is the sole and final rule of faith and so you learn about the Bible based on what the Bible says. “Scripture is the inerrant word of God because Scripture says it is” makes all the sense in the world to you, right? Now, you do make progress when you state that its prophecies have been fulfilled and its historical record is accurate but notice that in your initial response those reasons are mentioned as an afterthought, as secondary to “because Scripture says so.”
But then in your latest post, you go on to argue that the Quran is not true because it conflicts with the Bible. That is a total step backward in reasoning and a complete misstep with regards to the topic (that is, the Quran was only introduced as part of the reductio ad absurdum refutation of your criteria; showing that the Quran is not inspired would only serve to further disprove the argument it was introduced to disprove – shooting oneself in the foot).
And do not get so caught up in distancing yourself from the world. Christians are called to live in the world because that is where everyone else happens to be.
In other related news, I am reading the book “That’s Just Your Interpretation” by Paul Copan. It is an apologetic handbook on how to deal with skeptics. As I have never lacked a belief in God, theist and Christian apologetics (that is, arguing for a belief in God in general and Christianity in particular) has never been a strong suit of mine (I cannot relate to the atheistic position at all).
How is this on-topic? Well, throughout the author has quoted or footnoted references to the Deuteroncanonicals. The reference that inspired this post (the response to Ron above was just because he posted since I last read the thread) was about the lack of reference to God in the Old Testament as [i:mho4883k]abba[/i:mho4883k]. In the OT, God is referred to as a Father, for sure, but His Fatherhood is collective (Father of Israel) rather than individual (my heavenly Father). However, Wisdom and Sirach (two of my favorite books) both contain such references and bridge the gap between the testaments.
Given how often the author has to reference the Deuteros in defending Christianity, you think he would figure it out.May 10, 2007 at 6:15 pm #8283AnonymousInactive
How apropos. Tim Jones offers “Thought Experiment 451” on Jimmy Akin’s blog today.
In his book Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury imagined a tyrannical, all controlling government with absolute power over the media and a deep animosity toward the written word… toward books. In this future society, people get all their information through state run radio and television, and books are prohibited. Those who secretly keep books are arrested, and all books are burned.
Let’s say that this actually comes about. Imagine that some future world government is completely successful in eliminating all books – including all copies of the Bible. Let’s add to Bradbury’s vision the proposition that this government also completely destroys all personal computers and, of course, the Internet.
Now the Bible exists only in the minds of those who know and remember it (this is actually an element of Bradbury’s story, too. The main character meets a kind of secret society, where people keep entire books alive in their heads, having memorized them verbatim). The Church goes underground, once again, her sacraments performed only in secret.
Imagine further that this oppressive regime is toppled, and that the Bible can once more be printed with freedom. The Underground Church comes out of hiding and coordinates an effort to begin printing and distributing the Bible again. The text (in several translations) is re-assembled from the memories of many people, and checked against the memories of many other people. It wouldn’t even take that long… a surprising number of people have committed whole books to memory in real life. Huge numbers of people can recite from memory individual chapters and passages.
The thought experiment is this; what authority – if any – would this new Bible have? Where would this authority come from, as far as future generations are concerned? It would be based, not on a constant, uninterrupted written tradition, but on oral tradition. Later readers, in asking how they could be sure this was the authentic text, would have to be content with the answer of the current generation…”Trust us”.
From a Catholic perspective, of course, the answer would be that this Bible would have precisely the same authority it always had, that is, the testimony of the Church (that’s all of us) that this is the Real Thing. In the long run, this is the only assurance we have to begin with. In order for there to be Holy Books, there must be a group, a society – a Church – that testifies “these are the Holy Books, and they are authentic”. When the original autographs of the Bible texts were first preserved, copied and passed on, the only assurance people had that these books were indeed authoritative and correct was the word of the Church – those who had been taught the Apostles doctrine. Letters that made the rounds during the early Church were not all assumed to be authentic and trustworthy, unless they were verified by the testimony of the Church and compared against what was already known to be the sound doctrine of the faith… in other words, they had to be in line with the Tradition handed on through the Apostles.
This is reflected in the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, where that church is warned, ” not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.”. Later in that same chapter, they are reminded “… brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”. Paul later writes to Timothy, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it”. So, the authority of the teaching is based on Who it comes from, and not whether it is written or oral.May 10, 2007 at 8:27 pm #8284AnonymousInactive
A very interesting proposition. What is most striking is that the Torah and Tihkun, (What is now referred to by Christians as the Old Testament) For dozens of generations in ancient Israel was transmitted not as writings, but orally. For those who read Hebrew, many of the books of the OT are written in a verse form which makes it easier to pass on from generation to generation. While it takes alot of jumbling to make the verse stand out in English or other modern languages, in Hebrew it is quite melodic, (at least to the Hebrew speaking ear.) Much of the parsha, or the segment of the Torah reading I learned for my Bar-Mitzvah was made easier because it is proclaimed in the Synagoge in the same fashion as at a Solemn Liturgy in a Western or Eastern Catholic Church, ie with a melody that is used Liturgically. While the Hebrew has an easier melody than the Latin or Greek, (liturgically) it makes the memorization of the text easier.
You will note in films of Madras’ (Muslim Koranic Schools) the children bobbing as they recite the Koran, using the same priciple of melody to memorize the text as I learned in Hebrew school as a kid. Although I don’t see the Koran as inspired, it is another example of how God has made in creation the same themes and developments in mankind regardless of exposure to the Truth, something inate that drives us to look outside of ourselves and seek out God, and rituals to unite ourselves with God, even when we do not know about His Revelation in the Scriptures and the Oral Tradition of the Church He founded.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.