Interpreting the Bible
Steve Hayes
Protestants accuse others (like Roman Catholics and Orthodox) of just stating
their own opinings that are not "based on the Bible", and gratutiously advise
them to just follow the Bible -- and then they go on to give their own
opinions, not based on the Bible, blithely ignoring the inconsistency.
This means that there are few meaningful discussions, and if one tries to have
a meaningful ndiscussion it usually tends to peter out into exchanges of ad
hominems.
The following quote from someone's blog looks at some possible reasons for
this, and might be worth reading:
I hoped to post some things from Father John Behr’s introductory chapters in
The Way to Nicaea, but have been putting off doing so because they are rather
dense and touch on many issues. However, I have also been aware, particularly
recently when in conversation with evangelical Christians, that questions
around authority, hermeneutics and the sources of revealed truth are often
unaddressed but nevertheless constitute a serious stumbling block to real
communication. All too often evangelical colleagues will tell me what “the
Bible says” and assume that that settles things. And given that I am not very
good at responding with chapter and verse proof texts, and that the context
usually precludes a serious discussion of hermeneutics and their underlying
presuppositions, this can be rather frustrating and I usually just end up
pointing out that that is their interpretation of what the Bible says and
leave it at that!
But I have also been aware – and reading Father Behr highlights this – that
the popular Orthodox (and Catholic) response to such a challenge, while not
entirely untrue, is both simplistic and not without its own dangers. Such a
response is of course to point out that the Bible is the Church’s book, that
it was the Church that decided on the canon of Scripture, and that Scripture
can only be properly interpreted within the Church. But the danger with that
is that it can objectify the Scriptures and can appear to view the Church as
being above the Scriptures. In an extreme form one ends up with “Scripture”
and “Tradition” as two separate sources of authority as the (Roman Catholic)
Council of Trent taught. Such developments would appear to fit better in a
scholastic mode of theologising than in a patristic one.
As Father Behr notes, the early Christian struggle for truth – and the
establishment of a normative Orthodox understanding of the Gospel – was
inseparable from the engagement with a particular set of texts and with the
correct interpretation of these texts. The two key challenges that the early
Christians encountered regarding these came from Marcion and from Valentinus.
Marcion wanted to discard the Jewish (and some of the Christian) Scriptures
and to emphasise the discontinuity between the vengeful and malicious God of
the Old Testament, and the gospel of Jesus. Thus he establishes an opposition
between the Law and the Gospel and attempts to sever the Gospel from the Law,
the Psalms and the Prophets – an attempt, incidentally, that von Harnack
thought Protestantism should have followed.
If Marcion wanted to fix a (reduced) body of authoritative writings, then the
Gnostic Valentinus saw no need to do this, but sought rather to creatively
reuse texts and images from Scripture in a way that resonates with people’s
hearts but without any relationship to an objective authority. There is thus
no distinction between Scripture and commentary, or between source and
interpretation. As Frances Young notes, “Gnostic doctrine is revelatory,
rather than traditional, textual or rational.” (21) Or, as Ireneaus notes,
such a reading produces the reader’s own fabrication rather than the handiwork
of God. However, the use that they make of Scripture, can give the impression
that they are really being “biblical”.
See it all at:
http://avowofconversation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/christ-the-gospel-and-the-scriptures/
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
ThomMadura
> One of the problems with discussing Christian theology on Usenet is that many
> Protestants accuse others (like Roman Catholics and Orthodox) of just stating
> their own opinings that are not "based on the Bible", and gratutiously advise
> them to just follow the Bible -- and then they go on to give their own
> opinions, not based on the Bible, blithely ignoring the inconsistency.
No - the inconsistency is the idea that the bible is the sole source for
the faith - which it is NOT
The catholic church is not led by a POPE_ it is led by the CHRIST (on
this rock I will build MY church) ANd the christ can and does continue
to provide guidance through the human leaders of his church
THAT you claim that the bible is the oNLY source for the faith is simply
NOT TRUE
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Aye, well, mmm...
I wonder if "Thommadura" is a troll bot, programmed to pose stuff that bears
no relation to wehat it is ostensibly replying to.
infowolf1
To determine if those human leaders are being led by Christ
or not, which is important, because Our Lord Jesus Christ said,
that "if the blind follow the blind, both will fall into the ditch,"
we have
to check two things.
a. EVERYTHING the Bible says on the matter at issue,
b. how the early Church, closer to the Apostolic times, viewed
the same issues and Scriptures.
the church didn't create the Bible, The Apostles who were part
of the Church but like lesser founders after Christ, wrote the NT,
and as St. Irenaeus shows, the canon was determined by what
was in use as being legitimate apostolic written material.
That written material prevents the subjective fantasy element
from gaining control, not just in regards the Bible, but in regards
how to deal with things, the sort of input leaders might make.
Regarding Relics and Blessed Objects, so despised by the
protestants, there are at least TWO BIBLICAL MANDATES
FOR THEM. Elisha's bones bringing a man back to life
(there's a relic for you) and one of the Apostles, I forget if
it was Peter or Paul, blessing cloths and sending them around
to people, who were healed by them.
As for incense, candles, and so forth, this was part of the
Jewish Temple service, mandated by God, so hardly to be
excluded from Christian services just because pagans use
them also.
There is enough contradiction in The Bible between free will,
and election, with warnings about the possibility of losing your
salvation, that it should be obvious that the truth is the synergy
concept, between God and man.
Now, there is a flexibility to some extent, not enough to validate
the gay lifestyle or incl. false gods or stuff like that, which you
can see in Biblical variant ways of dealing with things, and
Trullo 102 mandates this flexibility.
There were at times developments other than heresy, but
perhaps reflecting heretical baggage, such as the North
African excesses in Donatism (condemned) and in demanding
bishops be celibate (tolerated but chided but allowed only
for North Africa, later the practice spread and the current
practice of taking bishops from celibate priesthood or monastics
is a way of making the dispute a moot point. Canonically,
however, it was a concession ONLY for the pusilanimous
North Africans.
There was the idea that sin after baptism could not be
forgiven, which is not Biblical, and penance was the solution
to this problem.
The fasting rules developed over time, and the Eucharistic
Fast seems to have originated in a misunderstanding by
the 400s AD of what was just that no one had breakfast
before 11 am anyway, so naturally the Eucharist was taken
on an empty stomach, but probably had taken water. This
particular development as it went, contributes to the failure
to partake of the Eucharist very often. Of course I will
continue to follow the discipline of the Church, but I can
see from the Gospels that Christ performed the first
Eucharist AFTER everyone had eaten, and history shows
the fast before the Eucharist idea developed over a few
centuries later, especially as Christianity spread to places
where eating patterns were different in timing of breakfast.
The no fasting on weekends rule was eventually treated
in a canon as forbidding meat and milk and eggs on
Sundays and Saturdays, but hey, no fasting means no
fasting. Canons don't have the same weight as dogmatic
definitions always positioned first. the Sunday no fasting
matter, is based on it being the day Christ rose, and I
would think that should trump all other concerns. As it is,
you have no fast days falling at times on Wednesday
or Friday, I don't mean Bright Week or the Publican
and Pharisee Week or the week after Pentecost
either. That is expressly forbidden in the Canons. So
strongly was the Wednesday and Friday and Holy
Week fasts valued, that these alone are an issue for
excommunication if you don't keep them.
Modern developments among leaders incl. corruption
and winking at homosexual activity among priests
and bishops. Clearly, since this is explicitly listed
among the things that will cost us salvation in The
Apostle Paul's Epistles, this is not an option.
Justina
CO2
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:7k2mu6h68p4isbpa7...@4ax.com...
> One of the problems with discussing Christian theology on Usenet is that
> many
> Protestants accuse others (like Roman Catholics and Orthodox) of just
> stating
> their own opinings that are not "based on the Bible", and gratutiously
> advise
> them to just follow the Bible -- and then they go on to give their own
> opinions, not based on the Bible, blithely ignoring the inconsistency.
You are right. THere is only Holy and universal (=Catholic) Church
established by Jesus Christ.
The Bible is written by people who may (or may not be) inspired by God.
> But I have also been aware - and reading Father Behr highlights this -
> that
> the popular Orthodox (and Catholic) response to such a challenge, while
> not
> entirely untrue, is both simplistic and not without its own dangers. Such
> a
> response is of course to point out that the Bible is the Church's book,
> that
> it was the Church that decided on the canon of Scripture, and that
> Scripture
> can only be properly interpreted within the Church. But the danger with
> that
> is that it can objectify the Scriptures and can appear to view the Church
> as
> being above the Scriptures. In an extreme form one ends up with
> "Scripture"
> and "Tradition" as two separate sources of authority as the (Roman
> Catholic)
> Council of Trent taught. Such developments would appear to fit better in a
> scholastic mode of theologising than in a patristic one.
>
> As Father Behr notes, the early Christian struggle for truth - and the
> establishment of a normative Orthodox understanding of the Gospel - was
> inseparable from the engagement with a particular set of texts and with
> the
> correct interpretation of these texts. The two key challenges that the
> early
> Christians encountered regarding these came from Marcion and from
> Valentinus.
>
> Marcion wanted to discard the Jewish (and some of the Christian)
> Scriptures
> and to emphasise the discontinuity between the vengeful and malicious God
> of
> the Old Testament, and the gospel of Jesus. Thus he establishes an
> opposition
> between the Law and the Gospel and attempts to sever the Gospel from the
> Law,
> the Psalms and the Prophets - an attempt, incidentally, that von Harnack
CO2
"ThomMadura" <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4deb1783$0$9082$607e...@cv.net...
> On 6/5/2011 12:55 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> One of the problems with discussing Christian theology on Usenet is that
>> many
>> Protestants accuse others (like Roman Catholics and Orthodox) of just
>> stating
>> their own opinings that are not "based on the Bible", and gratutiously
>> advise
>> them to just follow the Bible -- and then they go on to give their own
>> opinions, not based on the Bible, blithely ignoring the inconsistency.
>
>
> No - the inconsistency is the idea that the bible is the sole source for
> the faith - which it is NOT
Sure. Sounds like "only my wife has a pussy". Protestan are exclusive
no-brainers.
We should all worship GOD and NOT the book of any kind writen by people.
If GOD wanted us to follow ONLY the Bible, there will be no today's
miracles, because they are not in the Bible so faith would become useless
and everyone should agree with atheists that there is no GOD.
But, Catholics have the Bible and other books and many other documents and
many other archeological findings and the words passing for thousands of
years and remembered. Tradition of the Catholic Church is important to
understand GOD.
People who follow just one book are plain stupid.
Jesus replied that the most important command is to love. And many false
protestant religions (for example 7day adventist) DO NOT FOLLOW the last
Jesus commandements: DRINK WINE ALL OF YOU.
I am a Catholic but think about papal idiocy called celibacy that this is
AGAINST the one of the 1st Commandements given directly to Adam and Eve: "Go
and multiply and fill the Earth". In other words, have productive sex (not
homosexual relation or celibacy as they do not product children!!!!).
>
> The catholic church is not led by a POPE_ it is led by the CHRIST (on this
> rock I will build MY church) ANd the Christ can and does continue to
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
In writing this article, the editor acknowledges his special
indebtedness to Edward John Carnell's outline of hermeneutics in The
Case for Orthodox Theology, (Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan & Scott,
1961).
If we are going to successfully read any scientific, philosophical or
religious work, there are fundamental rules to follow. Basically, the
same rules apply to a proper reading of the Bible.
We are not suggesting that people will understand the Bible if they
follow correct rules. The Bible makes it perfectly clear that no man
will understand the truth unless he is aided by the Spirit of God. Yet
the Holy Spirit is not given as a substitute for human responsibility
in the area of reason and common sense. Hermeneutics is the area of
human responsibility in approaching the study of the Bible.
The person who follows no rules in studying the Bible, yet expects to
be illuminated by the miracle of the Spirit, is no better than the
sick man who refuses to accept reasonable medical attention while he
expects to be healed by a divine miracle. The man who successfully
prays, "Lead us not into temptation," is not unmindful of his part in
steering clear of temptation. And the man who intelligently prays,
"Lord, give me Thy Spirit to teach me the truth in Thy Word," will not
ignore his duty to search the Word with diligence and discretion.
A. A Grasp of the Overall Outline of the Bible
The Bible has been written by at least thirty authors from every rank
and class of society over a period of about 1500 years. Yet it has a
theme, and it is important to get a grasp of the dominant outline. It
commences with creation, the fall of man and the intimation of divine
intervention for the sinful race (Gen. 3:15). The activity of God for
man's redemption is progressively and gradually unfolded, and climaxes
in the coming of Jesus Christ.
One of the greatest events in sacred history was the covenant, or
promise, which God made to Abraham. He was promised a Seed through
whom all the nations on earth would be blessed. As the drama of divine
intervention unfolded, that Seed turned out to be Christ (Gal. 3:16).
The significance of the Abrahamic covenant had to be progressively
unfolded.
Although Abraham obviously did not grasp the full significance of the
blessing through the promised Seed, it is clear that he knew it
somehow pointed to the Redeemer to come (John 8:56). This much is
clear: Beginning with Abraham, the Hebrew nation was given the promise
of a coming Messiah, and it was their great privilege and
responsibility to keep that hope alive in the waiting centuries.
Four hundred thirty years after God confirmed the promise of Christ to
Abraham, another great event took place. God gave the Law to Israel.
Since it was given through Moses, the Law is sometimes simply called
"Moses." Moses (or the Law) embraced the whole corpus of instruction
given for the existence and governance of Israel as God's special
nation. It included laws that were ceremonial, judicial, hygienic and
moral. It is important that we correctly relate these two great events
— the giving of the promise to Abraham and the giving of the Law to
Moses. St. Paul says that the Law (Moses) added nothing to the promise
(Gal. 3:17). The Law was given "because of transgression, till the
Seed should come." Gal. 3:19. Without the Law, Israel would have
degenerated into a pagan state and lost the hope of Christ's coming.
The Law was therefore necessary to help Israel nurture and keep alive
the hope of the coming Messiah. How did the Law do that? In two ways:
1. Its stern, unbending moral requirements served as a constant
reminder of sin and kept God's people sensitive to their need of
redemption.
2. Its ceremonial aspects foreshadowed that needed redemption. For
example, the Passover not only commemorated Israel's redemption from
Egypt, but it pointed forward to the real redemption by the blood of
Jesus Christ. Every offering at the tabernacle served to be a shadow
of the one great offering of the body of Christ (Heb. 10:10-14). The
giving of manna, the water from the rock, the healing by the brazen
serpent and many other things which took place under Moses, were a
type of the coming Seed. They were a "shadow of good things to come."
Heb. 10:1. These shadows and types of the coming Seed were what the
writer to the Hebrews calls the "old covenant". The things under the
old covenant could not be the reality or the fulfillment of the
Abrahamic covenant. Aaron, the high priest, was only a shadow of
Christ The earthly tabernacle was only a figure of the heavenly
reality (Heb. 8:1-5). The land of Canaan was only a type of that
"better country, that is, an heavenly," which the worthies looked
forward to. Jerusalem and the kingdom of David were at best only a
shadow of the "city which hath foundations, whose Builder and Maker is
God." Heb. 11:16, 10.
We say again: That which God gave to Israel in the Law and under the
Law — tabernacle, Canaan, Jerusalem, kings, etc. — was the old
covenant, and at best it could only point to something better. It was
not the reality of what God promised Abraham. The Jews in Christ's day
tried to turn the shadow into the reality, and not a few are still
trying to do this today. Since the Seed has come, how can we go back
to a temple ritual, blood of animals, Palestine or old Jerusalem as if
these things were any part of reality? Now that the full light of the
gospel has come, we must see that real circumcision is of the heart
(Rom. 2:29), the real Jerusalem is "above" (Gal. 4:26), the real Mount
Zion and the real Jerusalem are heavenly (Heb. 12:22), the real
tabernacle is in heaven (Heb. 8:1-5), the real country promised to
Abraham is not any part of "this present evil world" (Heb. 11:10-16),
and the real children of Abraham (Jews) are those who believe in Jesus
Christ (Gal. 3:29; Rom. 2:28).
Summarizing: The promise of Christ was given to Abraham. The Law (or
old covenant) was given to help Israel keep the hope of Christ's
coming alive. The Law was not the fulfillment of the promise but a
shadow that pointed forward to its realization. To take anything of
the Law (including Jerusalem and the land of Palestine) and call that
the promise made to Abraham is to utterly miss the purpose of the Law.
When Christ finally came, the dispensation of Law (Moses, or the old
covenant) had fulfilled its function in history. The blood of animals,
feast days, the Jewish temple, Jerusalem and the "holy land" had
fulfilled their function, and any return to those things now is a
denial of the reality brought to us by Jesus Christ.
B. A Grasp of the Rules of Interpretation
We need to pay attention to five fundamental rules of Biblical
hermeneutics:
1. The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New. Once we grasp the
overall outline of the Bible and see that it is a progressive
revelation, we will always look to see how the New Testament
interprets the Old Testament. For instance, God promised Abraham a
Seed which would bring a blessing to all nations. The New Testament
interprets that Seed as Christ (Gal. 3:16). We are not to take the
things of the old covenant and fabricate the meaning of them out of
our own head. The New Testament interprets the meaning of the
Passover, the offerings under the Law, the priestly ministry, etc.
The same principle applies to the handling of Old Testament
prophecies. Those prophecies are not self-interpreting. Some people
pride themselves that they can understand these prophecies if they
simply take them "literally." And without consulting the
interpretation of the New Testament, they arrive at all sorts of
fantastic things which are supposed to happen in modern day Palestine.
A prophecy may or may not be meant to be understood literally. For
example, Isaiah declared that God would put a foundation stone in
Zion, one that would support a building in time of wind and hail (Isa.
28:16). He does not say he means that the stone is a person. It is a
veiled prophecy of Christ. We need the New Testament to interpret it
for us. The same prophet speaks in terms of a highway building program
in the desert to make a way for the King of Israel (Isa. 40:3, 4). Few
would be foolish enough to see this being fulfilled in the freeways
which the Israelis are now constructing in the new State of Israel.
The New Testament authoritatively interprets the prophecy for us as
meaning the mission of John the Baptist. Malachi 4:5 speaks of
Elijah's coming before the day of the Lord. No intimation is given
that it is not to be taken with strict literalness. When we read the
New Testament, "Elijah" turns out to be John the Baptist.
The prophet Amos writes about the time when God would "raise up the
tabernacle of David that is fallen . . . and . . . build it as in the
days of old." What does this mean? The rebuilding of Solomon's temple?
The New Testament interprets it for us. This took place in the
outpouring of the Spirit in the raising up of the Christian church
(see Acts 15:16).
Not only does the New Testament show us how to interpret the
prophecies of the Old Testament, but it shows us how to interpret the
laws of the Old Testament. The New Testament shows us how the laws of
ceremony have met their spiritual reality in the person and work of
Christ. But not all the laws found in the Old Testament are ceremonial
in nature. Some are moral, and their moral principles are perpetually
binding. The apostle Paul refers to a number of them as a rule of life
for Christians. The Sermon on the Mount interprets the moral precepts
of the Ten Commandments and, instead of lessening their binding force,
strengthens their demand for holiness (see Matt. 5:17-28). Jesus
claimed the authority to interpret the law. When a dispute arose about
proper observance of the Sabbath, He claimed His Lordship of the
Sabbath (Mark 2:28) and interpreted the law to allow for works of
mercy and necessity to be performed on the Sabbath.
All this goes to show how important it is that we allow the New
Testament to interpret the Old Testament.
2. The Gospels must be interpreted by the Epistles. The Gospels record
the historic events of our redemption—the incarnation, life, death,
resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. But by themselves historic
events are not sufficient. We need an authoritative word that tells us
the true significance of those events.
If a man thinks he can look at a historic event and out of his own
head interpret what that event means, he puts himself in the place of
God. Take the historic fact of the resurrection for example. It is not
for us to presume what the resurrection means. The Epistles spell out
to us what it means, and he who goes beyond what is interpreted in the
Epistles is fabricating a doctrine out of his own head—or passing on
what someone has fabricated out of his head. Neither is it the
prerogative of the church to interpret any of the events of redemptive
history. God sent apostles for that purpose, and we must not add or
take away from their word.
We need to go to the Epistles to correctly interpret the events
recorded in the Gospels.1 The church often fails to follow this
fundamental principle. She often tries to justify some practice or
custom by drawing some "spiritual" lesson from the life, death or
resurrection of Christ, but this is a human rather than a divine
interpretation of the gospel. "He that hath an ear, let him hear."
3. The incidental must be interpreted by the systematic. This rule
applies to the proper reading of any literature. It is common sense,
but how hard it is to use common sense when we are so anxious to prove
our point!
For example, the heart of all Bible doctrine is the great doctrine of
justification by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith. There are
two books in the Bible (Romans and Galatians) which present this
doctrine systematically, and they do it also in the perspective of
sacred history—the promise to Abraham, the giving of the Law, etc.
Common sense should teach us to build our understanding about
justification by going to the places where the subject and all the
ramifications of it are treated systematically.
Now there are places where Paul touches on justification incidentally,
like in Titus 3:5-8. He is writing to a fellow minister and has no
need to speak in detail. Some have used the incidental passage in
Titus (i.e., the Roman Catholics at Trent) in an effort to
substantiate the doctrine of justification by infused righteousness
(inward renewal). Now let us grant the point that it is possible to
get that idea out of Titus 3:5-8. Then there is the book of James, a
wonderful place where some go to build a prima facie case for
justification by works.
Major heresies are often the result of turning minors into majors. In
1 Corinthians15 Paul incidentally makes some reference to "baptism for
the dead," and most scholars will admit that Paul's meaning here is
obscure. But the Mormons use this as the basis of a whole doctrine on
baptism for the dead. And while we are talking about the dead, how
hard it is for us humans to think rationally when we are governed
sentimentally. If we want to prove something about the intermediate
state badly enough, we will find a text somewhere to support it, but
the chances are that we will build a great edifice on an incidental
passage. Rather, we should honestly go to where the subject is treated
in a systematic way. Do not interpret the systematic passage in the
light of the incidental one, but the incidental must be interpreted by
the systematic. It is positively foolhardy to build a doctrine on an
incidental passage.
4. The local must be interpreted by the universal. The Bible often
inculcates universal principles in the context of a local culture. We
must be very careful not to make some feature of local culture a
universal norm. For instance, Moses took off his shoes as a token of
reverence in the presence of God. That was an Eastern custom which is
still practiced in some parts of the world. We Westerners show
reverence by taking off our hat. Christian men would not think of
going into church with their hat on, for this would show disrespect.
But if we were associating with people of another culture, we might
take our shoes off before entering the church.
Paul commands us to greet the brethren with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16).
A strict literalist may insist that this form of Christian fraternity
is still obligatory today, but most Christians understand it to mean
that we should treat fellow Christians like a blood brother. Similar
things may be said about Paul's instruction on the covering of the
head of women in the churches, the length of a man’s hair, advice to
slaves, etc. We must not make the custom of a local culture a
universal imperative.
5. The symbolic must be interpreted by the didactic. If we want to
know something about the "rapture" question, we should not try to
build a theory on passages that are written in a symbolic context.
There are passages in 1 and 2 Thessalonians that speak on the matter
of being "caught up," and if these didactic passages are not
interpreted in the light of some speculation from a symbolic passage,
they are clear enough. Our doctrinal positions should be established
by a plain "Thus saith the Lord" from a straightforward didactic
passage.2 Then we should use this information to interpret a symbolic
passage. If we do not do this, we might just as well follow those wild-
eyed prophetic expositors who take their text from the Bible and
preach from the newspapers.
Conclusion
These rules of Biblical interpretation are by no means exhaustive.
Neither are they suggested as a magic formula to solve all problems
and cause all Christians to see eye to eye. Obviously, difference of
opinion will remain. Yet if these rules are honestly applied, they
will prevent us from using arguments not entirely sound and will
perhaps help us to see the difference between "pet theories" and great
testing truths. Again we say: These rules are not a substitute for the
Holy Spirit, for without a conscious dependence upon His guidance and
illumination, all is lost. But on the other hand, many good people
need to be reminded that the Holy Spirit does not cancel the need for
the human agent to use a sound and sensible approach to Bible study.
1The same thing may be said about the historic portion of the book of
Acts. It cannot necessarily be assumed that because an event is
recorded in the book of Acts, it is normative for today's church. This
is a basic fallacy of Pentecostalism. If speaking in tongues is
normative for a man baptized in the Holy Spirit, why not wind and
tongues of fire too? And why not the slaying of dishonest givers at
the offertory as with Ananias and Sapphira? Because Acts records how
Paul was converted, we must not make the manner of his conversion
normative. A historical must not be turned into an ought. We have no
right to turn indicative historical narrative into imperative
ecclesiastical precepts without a clear word from the Lord.
2 To our knowledge, the popular American evangelical view of the
'rapture" cannot be substantiated from any didactic portion of the New
Testament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): They are charging me with innovation,
and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame
me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they
are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that
their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree.
What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which
obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy.
If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is
certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which
obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow
them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on
whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in
favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth. NPNF2: Vol. VIII,
Letters, Letter 189 - To Eustathius the physician, §3.
Greek text: Ἀλλὰ καινοτομίαν ἡμῖν προφέρουσιν, οὑτωσὶ τὸ ἔγκλημα καθ᾿
ἡμῶν συντιθέντες τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ὁμολογούντων• μίαν ἀγαθότητα, καὶ
μίαν δύναμιν, καὶ μίαν θεότητα λέγειν ἡμᾶς αἰτιῶνται. Καὶ οὐκ ἔξω
τοῦτό φασι τῆς ἀληθείας• λέγομεν γὰρ. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐγκαλοῦντες τοῦτο
προφέρουσιν, ὅτι ἡ συνήθεια αὐτῶν τοῦτο οὐκ ἔχει, καὶ ἡ Γραφὴ οὐ
συντίθεται. Τί οὖν καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ἡμεῖς; Οὐ νομίζομεν δίκαιον εἶναι
τὴν παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς ἐπικρατοῦσαν συνήθειαν νόμον καὶ κανόνα τοῦ ὀρθοῦ
ποιεῖσθαι λόγου. Εἰ γὰρ ἰσχυρόν ἐστιν εἰς απόδειξιν ὀρθότητος ἡ
συνήθεια, ἔξεστι καὶ ἡμῖν πάντως ἀντιπροβάλλεσθαι τὴν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν
ἐπικρατοῦσαν συνήθειαν. Εἰ δὲ παραγράφονται ταύτως ἀκολουθητέον
ἐκείνοις. Οὐκ οῦν ἡ θεόπνευστος ἡμῖν διαιτησάτω Γραφή• καὶ παρ᾿ οἷς ἂν
εὑρεθῇ τὰ δόγματα συνῳδὰ τοῖς θείοις λόγοις, ἐπὶ τούτους ἥξει πάντως
τῆς ἀληθείας ἡ ψῆφος. Epistola CLXXXIX, §3, PG 32.685-688.
Gregory of Nyssa, the younger brother of Basil of Caesarea wrote: But
the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit
this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do
not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and
rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of
soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if
they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the
inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will
surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the
Divine words. NPNF2: Vol. V, On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead
of the Holy Spirit, second paragraph.
The two texts are virtually identical in patristic Greek, and most
scholars now believe that the text originated with Gregory of Nyssa
rather than his older brother, Basil the Great (of Caesarea). The text
for Gregory of Nyssa can be found in Werner Jaeger, ed. Gregorii
Nysseni Opera Dogmatica Minora, Vol. 3-I:5-6 (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1958). It is listed among Gregory's works in Migne PG 46 as "dubia"
with no text. But most scholars, at least those whom I've been able to
consult, have revised this view, and do indeed attribute it to Gregory
of Nyssa.
DTK .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04-18-2009 08:20 AM #2 fredtgreco
Vanilla Westminsterian
http://www.puritanboard.com/f35/basil-gregory-adjudicating-nature-scripture-47148/
ThomMadura
> Hermeneutics Present Truth Magazine
THe problem with the claim is that "truth" is something that has been
PROVEN to be factual
NONE of the supernatural claims of religions can be established to be truth
However -the bible HAS been established to contain things that are NOT TRUE
SO using the bible as proof FAILS
Andrew W
>> One of the problems with discussing Christian theology on Usenet is
>> that many Protestants accuse others (like Roman Catholics and
>> Orthodox) of just stating their own opinings that are not "based on
>> the Bible", and gratutiously advise them to just follow the Bible --
>> and then they go on to give their own opinions, not based on the
>> Bible, blithely ignoring the inconsistency.
>
>
> No - the inconsistency is the idea that the bible is the sole source
> for the faith - which it is NOT
>
> The catholic church is not led by a POPE_ it is led by the CHRIST (on
> this rock I will build MY church) ANd the christ can and does continue
> to provide guidance through the human leaders of his church
>
Sorry but there's no evidence for that last claim. It has never been
observed that the church was ever actually guided by Christ. Its a belief.
In fact it looks like all of Christianity has badly misunderstood Christ's
mission. Most still think that he only came here to kill himself to pay for
a petty deed.
--
Education cures religious fundamentalism.
infowolf1
wrote:
> 04-18-2009 08:20 AM #2 fredtgreco
> Vanilla Westminsterian
>
Indeed, I haveoften noticed, that while RC and Orthodox writers of the
past
several centuries to now, refer mostly to various saints and fathers,
and
the protestants to persons held venerable among them of more recent
provenance up to the past 50 years or less,
THE FARTHER BACK YOU GO, THE MORE THE ORTHODOX -RC
SHARED FATHERS READ LIKE EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS.
That is, they do not refer to other fathers or even to councils so
much as
to the Scriptures. The Creed itself refers to The Scriptures as the
source
of proof of the Resurrection "and rose again on the third day
according
to the Scriptures."
The Fathers who gathered in Council to settled dogmatic issues, were
men who were steeped in Scripture, with plenty of time to read all of
it over and over.
As an evangelical, I was used to seeing all the major early heresies
refuted without a single reference to a church council, but strictly
from the Scriptures.
Justina
ThomMadura
> "ThomMadura"<Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4deb1783$0$9082$607e...@cv.net
>> On 6/5/2011 12:55 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> One of the problems with discussing Christian theology on Usenet is
>>> that many Protestants accuse others (like Roman Catholics and
>>> Orthodox) of just stating their own opinings that are not "based on
>>> the Bible", and gratutiously advise them to just follow the Bible --
>>> and then they go on to give their own opinions, not based on the
>>> Bible, blithely ignoring the inconsistency.
>>
>>
>> No - the inconsistency is the idea that the bible is the sole source
>> for the faith - which it is NOT
>>
>> The catholic church is not led by a POPE_ it is led by the CHRIST (on
>> this rock I will build MY church) ANd the christ can and does continue
>> to provide guidance through the human leaders of his church
>>
>
> Sorry but there's no evidence for that last claim. It has never been
> observed that the church was ever actually guided by Christ. Its a belief.
I never said it was true - all religion is BELIEF not truth
NO supernatural god is proven to exist - NONE at all.
I do not beleive the christ ever lived - he is clearly a MYTH - a
genetic impossibility - and a really stupid story to begin with.
However it remains the position of the Catholic church.
Gladys is trying to enforce the HER CULTS rules on a different religion
I went to a seminary for two years - had two Uncles who were catholic
priests - had nuns in the family - and went to Catholic schools through
college - only my medical school was not catholic - I was very catholic
until the religion PROVED to me it was a FRAUD. I know what their belief
system is.
THE Catholic church does NOT accept the bible or any part of the bible
as the SOLE source for the faith - while according to gladys - that MUST
be. She is simply wrong.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece
THe article "Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible"
THe catholic church accepts that their leaders are inspired directly bu
the christ - and the christ speaks through them on matters of faith and
morals - and that is why their statements on these matters are Infallible.
THEy do not accept the that bible is inerrant in other subjects as well.
nickk - not the imposter
Church, they are inseparable. Any interpretation of Biblical scripture
cannot be done outside the Church, the Fathers and the Tradition of
the Church. Basically, any interpretation WILL NOT contradict any of
these. If there is CONTRADICTION, then the interpretation must be re-
examined. Case in point, the RC's insistence on the Filioque
contradicts the Gospel of John, John I and above all, Christ's own
words!
Interpretation CANNOT be outside the Church. If it is contradictory,
it probably isn't the Truth!
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
My studies have found the same thing.
Jim
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all
readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so.
ThomMadura
> Let's keep this REAL simple. Since the Bible is the language of the
> Church, they are inseparable. Any interpretation of Biblical scripture
> cannot be done outside the Church,
Nonsense
THE bible was NOT written by a church - it was written by humans outside
of the church
One Half of the bible - the old testament - is actually a bunch of
Jewish Legends - that were Not written by a christian
AND the rest of the book - called the new testament is a compilation of
SELECTED WRITINGS - authors UNKNOWN - that were VOTED into the bible by
a bunch of Catholic Bishops - but there is NOTHING to say that they were
written BY the church
LETS KEEP THIS REAL SIMPLY
Both books are a bunch of created religious MYTHOLOGY written by ancient
humans - that have little value
THEY describe the tirades of a tyrannical MASS Murdering god in his
exploits of Infanticide and genocide against his enemies - YES - that is
the predominant story of the whole book.
THE book includes a number of FAIRY TALES - that NEVER happened as
decribed - and any educated Grade school student KNOWS that.
Among them - based on the timeline of the bible - which IS the Jewish
calendar which is continuous from the day after the supposed creation -
claiming the the earth is about 6000 years old - which in only off BY
BILLIONS of years
IT claims that creation happened in six days - when that is NONSENSE
IT claims the earth is a FLAT CIRCLE - BUILT on Pillars and unmoving in
the sky - NOT OUR EARTH
IT claims that the sun is what MOVES OVER THE EARTH - when it doesn't.
IT claims that there was morning and evening on earth BEFORE the sun was
created - which CANNOT be true - morning and evening on earth are caused
by the rotation of the earth on its axis - based on the surface facing
the sun at the time.
IT claims that the god left all seed bearing plants for humans to eat -
but there are MANY seed bearing plants that are DEADLY poison to humans
IT claims that \there was a tower of Babel where languages were mixed -
but the hisotical record shows that there were many civilizations BEFORE
the supposed event that had NO such action
IT claims a worldwide flood that never happened - and that is PROVEN.
THE great Pyramid - which existed BEFORE that supposed event - shows NO
flood damage - and a flood of the described magnitude would have
pulverized every human created structure because of the water pressure.
THE salt contamination of the earth would have left the earth without
plant life till serveral billion years from NOW.
IT also claim that there is a HIGH Mountain in the Israeli desert from
the top of which you can see ALL THE KINGDOMS of the earth - which is
also NOT POSSIBLE. OUR earth is a sphere - there is NO single point on
the earth from which YOU can see all the earth surface - a child KNOWS
that you cannot see all the surface of a ball - from one point.
THERE are MANY other errors, contradiction - and STUPIDITIES in the
bible - it is very poorly written. The NT often quotes passages that do
not exist in the OT. THE gospels often do not agree on main issues.
So - the bible is a FICTIONAL MYTHOLOGY
TO say that you need a religions to SPIN the meaning to have it make
sense is stupid. ONE MUST remember the bible was NOT written for many
humans to see. Books in ancient times were HAND WRITTEN - and were
INCREDIBLY expensive for a short book - LONG EPIC FICTIONS like the
bible could only be afforded BY the very upper class
And only they would waste that amount of money on a bunch of fictional
stories as poor written = poorly edited - and contradictory
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"the new testament is a compilation of
SELECTED WRITINGS - ...- that were VOTED into the bible by
a bunch of Catholic Bishops
That is just not true. Please, document where this unknown
vote took place.
Jim
What Really Happened at Nicea?
DN206
James R. White
Summary
The Council of Nicea is often misrepresented by cults and other
religious movements. The actual concern of the council was clearly and
unambiguously the relationship between the Father and the Son. Is
Christ a creature, or true God? The council said He was true God. Yet,
the opponents of the deity of Christ did not simply give up after the
council’s decision. In fact, they almost succeeded in overturning the
Nicene affirmation of Christ’s deity. But faithful Christians like
Athanasius continued to defend the truth, and in the end, truth
triumphed over error.
The conversation intensified quickly. "You can’t really trust the
Bible," my Latter-day Saints acquaintance said, "because you really
don’t know what books belong in it. You see, a bunch of men got
together and decided the canon of Scripture at the Council of Nicea,
picking some books, rejecting others." A few others were listening in
on the conversation at the South Gate of the Mormon Temple in Salt
Lake City. It was the LDS General Conference, and I again heard the
Council of Nicea presented as that point in history where something
"went wrong," where some group of unnamed, faceless men "decided" for
me what I was supposed to believe. I quickly corrected him about Nicea
— nothing was decided, or even said, about the canon of Scripture at
that council.1
I was reminded how often the phrase "the Council of Nicea" is used as
an accusation by those who reject the Christian faith. New Agers often
allege that the council removed the teaching of reincarnation from the
Bible.2 And of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses and critics of the deity of
Christ likewise point to that council as the "beginning of the
Trinity" or the "first time the deity of Christ was asserted as
orthodox teaching." Others see it as the beginning of the union of
church and state in light of the participation of the Roman Emperor,
Constantine. Some even say it was the beginning of the Roman Catholic
church.
THE BACKGROUND
Excepting the apostolic council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, the
Council of Nicea stands above other early councils of the church as
far as its scope and its focus. Luther called it "the most sacred of
all councils."3 When it began on June 19, 325, the fires of
persecution had barely cooled. The Roman Empire had been unsuccessful
in its attempt to wipe out the Christian faith. Fourteen years had
elapsed since the final persecutions under the Emperor Galerius had
ended. Many of the men who made up the Council of Nicea bore in their
bodies the scars of persecution. They had been willing to suffer for
the name of Christ.
The council was called by the Emperor Constantine. Leading bishops in
the church agreed to participate, so serious was the matter at hand.
To understand why the first universal council was called, we must go
back to around A.D. 318. In the populous Alexandria suburb of
Baucalis, a well-liked presbyter by the name of Arius began teaching
in opposition to the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. Specifically, he
disagreed with Alexander’s teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, had
existed eternally, being "generated" eternally by the Father. Instead,
Arius insisted that "there was a time when the Son was not." Christ
must be numbered among the created beings — highly exalted, to be
sure, but a creation, nonetheless. Alexander defended his position,
and it was not long before Arius was declared a heretic in a local
council in 321.
This did not end the matter. Arius simply moved to Palestine and began
promoting his ideas there. Alexander wrote letters to the churches in
the area, warning them against those he called the "Exukontians," from
a Greek phrase meaning "out of nothing." Arius taught that the Son of
God was created "out of nothing." Arius found an audience for his
teachings, and over the course of the next few years the debate became
so heated that it came to the attention of Constantine, the Emperor.
Having consolidated his hold on the Empire, Constantine promoted unity
in every way possible. He recognized that a schism in the Christian
church would be just one more destabilizing factor in his empire, and
he moved to solve the problem.4 While he had encouragement from men
like Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine
was the one who officially called for the council.5
THE PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR VIEWS
The Council of Nicea was mostly Eastern. According to tradition, 318
bishops were in attendance, though most historians believe this number
is a bit high. The vast majority came from the East, with less than a
dozen representing the rest of the Empire.
The council was divided into three groups. Arius was in attendance, at
the command of the Emperor, along with a few supporters. Most notable
of these were two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, as well as
Eusebius of Nicomedia. This group represented the viewpoint that
Christ was of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the
Father, that is, that He is a creature.
The "orthodox" group was led primarily by Hosius of Cordova and
Alexander of Alexandria (accompanied by his brilliant young deacon,
and later champion of the Nicene position, Athanasius6). They
represented the view that Christ was of the same substance (Greek:
homo-ousios7) as the Father, that is, that He has eternally shared in
the one essence that is God and in full deity.
The middle group, led by Eusebius of Caesarea (and hence often called
the "Eusebian" party), distrusted the term homoousios, primarily
because it had been used in the previous century by the modalistic8
heretic Sabellius and others who wished to teach the error that the
Father and the Son were one person. This middle group agreed with the
orthodox party that Jesus was fully God, but they were concerned that
the term homoousios could be misunderstood to support the false idea
that the Father and Son are one person. The middle group therefore
presented the idea that the Son was of a similar substance (Greek:
homoiousios) as the Father. By this means they hoped to avoid both the
error of Arius as well as the perceived danger of Sabellianism found
in the term homoousios.
Party/Leaders
View of Christ
Arian/Arius
of a different substance — heteroousios
Orthodox/Alexander, Hosius, Athanasius
of the same substance — homoousios
Eusebian/Eusebius of Caesarea
of a similar substance — homoiousios
THE ROLE OF CONSTANTINE
We are dependent, in large measure, on the words of Eusebius of
Caesarea for our knowledge of many of the events at the council. This
is somewhat unfortunate, because Eusebius, the first "church
historian," was a partisan participant as well. Historians recognize
that his viewpoint is influenced by his desire for the favor of the
Emperor and by his own political and theological goals and positions.
Philip Schaff, in reproducing Eusebius’s description of the entrance
of the Emperor into the council, speaks of Eusebius’s "panegyrical
flattery."9 Eusebius presents Constantine in the highest possible
terms so as to enhance his own position.
What really was Constantine’s role? Often it is alleged (especially by
Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example) that, for whatever reasons,
Constantine forced the "same substance" view upon the council,10 or,
at the very least, insured that it would be adopted. This is not the
case. There is no question that Constantine wanted a unified church
after the Council of Nicea. But he was no theologian, nor did he
really care to any degree what basis would be used to forge the unity
he desired. Later events show that he didn’t have any particular stake
in the term homoousios and was willing to abandon it, if he saw that
doing so would be of benefit to him. As Schaff rightly points out with
reference to the term itself, "The word...was not an invention of the
council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had previously arisen
in theological language, and occurs even in Origen [185-254] and among
the Gnostics...."11 Constantine is not the source or origin of the
term, and the council did not adopt the term at his command.
THE DECISION AND THE CREED
The truth of how the council came to use the term is not difficult to
discern. Athanasius notes that the gathered bishops truly desired to
express their faith in primarily scriptural language, and they tried
to do so. But every time they came up with a statement that was
limited solely to biblical terms, the Arians would find a way of
"reading" the statement so as to allow for agreement.12 They were
forced to see that they needed to use a term that could not be
misunderstood, that would clearly differentiate between a belief in
the full deity of Christ and all those positions that would compromise
that belief. Therefore, they focused on the term homoousios as being
completely antithetical to the Arian position, and at the same time
reflective of the scriptural truth that Jesus Christ is not a
creature, but is fully God, incarnate deity.
The "orthodox" party had to express clearly to the "middle group" that
by the use of the term homoousios they were not in any way attempting
to give aid and comfort to the modalists and Sabellians in the East
who continued to teach their errors even in the days of Nicea. They
were not compromising the existence of three Persons, but were instead
safeguarding the full deity of the Persons, and in particular, the Son.
13 The resulting creed, signed by all but Arius and two bishops, was
quite clear in its position:
We believe...in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from
the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not
made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all
things were made....
The creed also contained the "anathema" (i.e., condemnation) for those
who rejected these truths, and for the first time, such anathemas
carried with them civil repercussions. Arius and some of his followers
were banished, even though for a short time. This set a precedent that
eventually would have tremendous impact on culture and church, but it
is also a separate issue from the theological proclamation of the
council.
Nicea did not come up with something "new" in the creed. Belief in the
deity of Christ was as old as the apostles themselves, who enunciated
this truth over and over again.14 References to the full deity of
Christ are abundant in the period prior to the Council of Nicea.
Ignatius (died c. 108), the great martyr bishop of Antioch, could
easily speak of Jesus Christ as God at the opening of the second
century. More than once Ignatius speaks of Jesus Christ as "our
God."15 When writing to Polycarp he can exhort him to "await Him that
is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, (who for our sake
became visible!), the Impalpable, the Impassible, (who for our sake
suffered!), who in all ways endured for our sake."16 Ignatius shows
the highest view of Christ at a very early stage, when he writes to
the Ephesians: "There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit,
generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary
and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our
Lord."17
Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180), a much less well-known figure, was
tremendously gifted in expressing the ancient faith of the church
regarding the deity of Christ:
And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was provided
too, to indicate who was being killed. Who was it? It is a heavy thing
to say, and a most fearful thing to refrain from saying. But listen,
as you tremble in the face of him on whose account the earth trembled.
He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in
place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on
the tree. The Master is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel
is destroyed by an Israelite hand.18
Nicea was not creating some new doctrine, some new belief, but
clearly, explicitly, defining truth against error. The council had no
idea that they, by their gathering together, possessed some kind of
sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical
truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a
second source of authority.
This can easily be seen from the fact that Athanasius, in defending
the Nicene council, does so on the basis of its harmony with
Scripture, not on the basis of the council having some inherent
authority in and of itself. Note his words: "Vainly then do they run
about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the
faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but
if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the
Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but
stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words
honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards
Christ announced in divine Scripture."19
The relationship between the sufficient Scriptures and the "Nicene
Bishops" should be noted carefully. The Scriptures are not made
insufficient by the council; rather, the words of the council "remind"
one of the "religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture."
Obviously, then, the authority of the council is derivative from its
fidelity to Scripture.
CANON #6
While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not
the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting.
Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues
within the church. Of most interest to us today was the sixth, which
read as follows:
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that
the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the
like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and
the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.20
This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time
there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with
jurisdiction over everyone else. While later Roman bishops would claim
such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at this
time no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final
authority. This is important because often we hear it alleged that the
Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a "Roman
Catholic" concept "forced" on the church by the pope. The simple fact
of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not
acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the
most influential church in the West.21
THE AFTERMATH
Modern Christians often have the impression that ancient councils held
absolute sway, and when they made "the decision," the controversy
ended. This is not true. Though Nicea is seen as one of the greatest
of the councils, it had to fight hard for acceptance. The basis of its
final victory was not the power of politics, nor the endorsement of
established religion. There was one reason the Nicene definition
prevailed: its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures.
During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of
Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories. There were
periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible
ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political
power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of
Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to
overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might
succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the
influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a
politically worded "confession" from Arius. Constantine put little
stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the
last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East,
and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their
rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a
common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their
side.
Under Constantius, council after council met in this location or that.
So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote of the time,
"The highways were covered with galloping bishops."22 Most
importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and
Sirmium presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were
coerced into subscribing to them. Even Liberius, bishop of Rome,
having been banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to
return, was persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter.23
During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had
become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed
from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the
front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years
old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give
place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century,
it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe
this moment in history as the time when "the whole world groaned and
was astonished to find itself Arian."24
Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong.
Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from
refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around
Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give
place — even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the
established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike
— gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius
against the world." Convinced that Scripture is "sufficient above all
things,"25 Athanasius acted as a true "Protestant" in his day.26
Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established
church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority.
Athanasius would have understood, on some of those long, lonely days
of exile, what Wycliffe meant a thousand years later: "If we had a
hundred popes, and if all the friars were cardinals, to the law of the
gospel we should bow, more than all this multitude."27
Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God’s truth)
eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as
if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned
to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They
had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the
tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople
could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete
with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed,
not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be
so. Nicea’s authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A
century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine,
writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: "I must not press the
authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I
do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come
to ground that is common to both — the testimony of the Holy
Scriptures."28
NICEA TODAY
Why do Christians believe in the deity of Christ today? Is it because
they have been forced to do so by legislated theology from councils
and popes? No, it is because the Scriptures teach this truth. When
orthodox believers affirm the validity of the creed hammered out at
Nicea, they are simply affirming a concise, clear presentation of
scriptural truth. The authority of the Nicene creed, including its
assertion of the homoousion, is not to be found in some concept of an
infallible church, but in the fidelity of the creed to scriptural
revelation. It speaks with the voice of the apostles because it speaks
the truth as they proclaimed it. Modern Christians can be thankful for
the testimony of an Athanasius who stood for these truths even when
the vast majority stood against him. We should remember his example in
our day.
James R. White is Scholar in Residence at the College of Christian
Studies, Grand Canyon University, an adjunct professor at Golden Gate
Baptist Theological Seminary (AZ Campus) and Faraston Theological
Seminary, and Director of Ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries in
Phoenix, Arizona.
NOTES
1The Council of Nicea did not take up the issue of the canon of
Scripture. In fact, only regional councils touched on this issue
(Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397) until much later. The New Testament
canon developed in the consciousness of the church over time, just as
the Old Testament canon did. See Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura: The
Protestant Position on the Bible (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria
Publications, 1995).
2See Joseph P. Gudel, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., and Dan R. Schlesinger,
"Reincarnation — Did the Church Suppress It?" Christian Research
Journal, Summer 1987, 8-12.
3Gordon Rupp, Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms (New York: Harper
and Row Publishers, 1964), 66.
4Much has been written about Constantine’s religious beliefs and his
"conversion" to Christianity. Some attribute to him high motives in
his involvement at Nicea; others see him as merely pursuing political
ends. In either case, we do not need to decide the issue of the
validity of his confession of faith, for the decisions of the Nicene
Council on the nature of the Son were not dictated by Constantine, and
even after the Council he proved himself willing to "compromise" on
the issue, all for the sake of political unity. The real battle over
the deity of Christ was fought out in his shadow, to be sure, but it
took place on a plane he could scarcely understand, let alone
dominate.
5Later centuries would find the idea of an ecumenical council being
called by anyone but the bishop of Rome, the pope, unthinkable. Hence,
long after Nicea, in A.D. 680, the story began to circulate that in
fact the bishop of Rome called the Council, and even to this day some
attempt to revive this historical anachronism, claiming the two
presbyters (Victor and Vincentius) who represented Sylvester, the aged
bishop of Rome, in fact sat as presidents over the Council. See Philip
Schaff’s comments in his History of the Christian Church (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 3:335.
6Athanasius’s role at the council has been hotly debated. As a deacon,
he would not, by later standards, even be allowed to vote. But his
brilliance was already seen, and it would eventually fall to him to
defend the decisions of the Council, which became his lifelong work.
7The Latin translation is consubstantialis, consubstantial, which is
the common rendering of the term in English versions of the final form
of the Nicene Creed.
8Modalism is the belief that there is one Person in the Godhead who at
times acts as the Father, and other times as the Son, and still other
times as the Spirit. Modalism denies the Trinity, which asserts that
the three Persons have existed eternally.
9Schaff, 3:624.
10The only basis that can be presented for such an idea is found in a
letter, written by Eusebius of Caesarea during the council itself to
his home church, explaining why he eventually gave in and signed the
creed, and agreed to the term homoousios. At one point Eusebius writes
that Constantine "encouraged the others to sign it and to agree with
its teaching, only with the addition of the word
‘consubstantial’ [i.e., homoousios]." The specific term used by
Eusebius, parakeleueto, can be rendered as strongly as "command" or as
mildly as "advise" or "encourage." There is nothing in Eusebius’s
letter, however, that would suggest that he felt he had been ordered
to subscribe to the use of the term, nor that he felt that Constantine
was the actual source of the term.
11Schaff, 3:628.
12Someone might say that this demonstrates the insufficiency of
Scripture to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the
church; that is, that it denies sola scriptura. But sola scriptura
does not claim the Bible is sufficient to answer every perversion of
its own revealed truths. Peter knew that there would be those who
twist the Scriptures to their own destruction, and it is good to note
that God has not deemed it proper to transport all heretics off the
planet at the first moment they utter their heresy. Struggling with
false teaching has, in God’s sovereign plan, been a part of the
maturing of His people.
13For many generations misunderstandings between East and West,
complicated by the language differences (Greek remaining predominate
in the East, Latin becoming the normal language of religion in the
West), kept controversy alive even when there was no need for it.
14Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, John 1:1-14, Col. 1:15-17, Phil. 2:5-11,
etc.
15See, for example, his epistle to the Ephesians, 18, and to the
Romans, 3, in J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds., The Apostolic
Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 141 and 150.
16Polycarp 3, The Apostolic Fathers, 161.
17Ephesians 7, The Apostolic Fathers, 139.
18Melito of Sardis, A Homily on the Passover, sect. 95-96, as found in
Richard Norris, Jr., The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1980), 46. This homily is one of the best examples of
early preaching that is solidly biblical in tone and Christ-centered
in message.
19Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, as found in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace,
eds., Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983), IV:453.
20Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, XIV:15.
21For those who struggle with the idea that it was not "Roman
Catholicism" that existed in those days, consider this: if one went
into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did
not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate
Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory,
indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation
replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and
substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches,
would one think he or she was in a "Roman Catholic" church? Of course
not. Yet, the church of 325 had none of these beliefs, either. Hence,
while they called themselves "Catholics," they would not have had any
idea what "Roman Catholic" meant.
22Ammianus Marcellinus, as cited by Schaff, History of the Christian
Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), III:632.
23For a discussion of the lapse of Liberius, see Schaff, III:635-36.
For information on the relationship of Liberius and the concept of
papal infallibility, see George Salmon, The Infallibility of the
Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 425-29, and Philip
Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1985), I:176-78.
24Jerome, Adversus Luciferianos, 19, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers,
Series II, 6:329.
25Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series
II, 4:453.
26I credit one of my students, Michael Porter, with this phraseology.
27Robert Vaughn, The Life and Opinions of John de Wycliffe (London:
Holdworth and Ball, 1831), 313. See 312-17 for a summary of Wycliffe’s
doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.
28Augustine, To Maximim the Arian, as cited by George Salman, The
Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959),
295.
http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-
nickk - not the imposter
It's clear you have no clue!
Percival P. Cassidy
>> http://www.puritanboard.com/f35/basil-gregory-adjudicating-nature-scr...
> Indeed, I haveoften noticed, that while RC and Orthodox writers of the
> past
> several centuries to now, refer mostly to various saints and fathers,
> and
> the protestants to persons held venerable among them of more recent
> provenance up to the past 50 years or less,
>
> THE FARTHER BACK YOU GO, THE MORE THE ORTHODOX -RC
> SHARED FATHERS READ LIKE EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS.
>
> That is, they do not refer to other fathers or even to councils so
> much as
> to the Scriptures. The Creed itself refers to The Scriptures as the
> source
> of proof of the Resurrection "and rose again on the third day
> according
> to the Scriptures."
>
> The Fathers who gathered in Council to settled dogmatic issues, were
> men who were steeped in Scripture, with plenty of time to read all of
> it over and over.
>
> As an evangelical, I was used to seeing all the major early heresies
> refuted without a single reference to a church council, but strictly
> from the Scriptures.
I have even found cases where the Orthodox are quoting their hymns to
support a view that is without clear Biblical support.
Perce
ThomMadura
> On Jun 7, 2:32 pm, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> "the new testament is a compilation of
> SELECTED WRITINGS - ...- that were VOTED into the bible by
> a bunch of Catholic Bishops
>
> That is just not true. Please, document where this unknown
> vote took place.
One must remember what the COUNCILS AND SYNODS of the chruch were in the
early times
THEY were congregation of the bishops of the church getting together to
decide the business of the church - the early POPES were not as powerful
as the current ones are - not having been considered infallible yet -
and not having gone through the middle ages - where the popes became
divine right complete rulers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod#Roman_Catholic_usage (See Roman
Catholic usage on this page -
So - the cannon of the bible - as all business of the council at that
time - was VOTED on by the councils bishops
So - at the SYNOD at Hippo - in 393 CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
"First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a
canon of Sacred Scripture that corresponds to the modern Orthodox and
Roman Catholic canon "
The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage in 397 CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage
YOU can GOOGLE that yourself
ThomMadura
> Well, it's pretty clear you are a non-believer - why are you here?
> It's clear you have no clue!
>
I have been the largest poster in the theology group for years
I was invited by a long term member of that group who still occasionally
visits
IF I have NO clue - PROVE it
First - prove any supernatural god exists
THEN prove that the earth is a flat circle(THe hebrew word is the word
for circle - a sphere is NOT a circle) that is stationary and unmoving
in the sky - is built on pillars- the sum moves OVER it during the day
and HURRIES back at night to where it must rise again in the morning -
the moon generated light like the sun - and there is a Firmament of
water ABOVE the "sky"
Then - tell me where this MAGICAL mountain is:
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil took him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
them."
THERE is no single place on a sphere from which you can see the ENTIRE
surface of the sphere - and at 20 CE - there were kingdoms on ALL
non-ice continents that we can PROVE
NONE of that above - although stated as fact in the bible - are true -
they are ALL fairy tales.
Among the fairy tales -
USING THE Jewish calendar dates of the old testament events - since that
calendar started the day after creation
Creation - the earth is Billions of years old - not 6000. THE Hebrews
had an advanced calendar - and had definitions of what a day was - early
one - well before the Tanakh was written down in 450 CE.
EDEN - there were people on earth LONG before the timeline of the
creation of the bible - so the story of eden is NONSENSE
THe great flood - - the great Pyramid of Egypt - which predates the
flood - shows NO water damage - among the many structure that still
exist from BEFORE the flood. A column of water the height of MT EVEREST
(TO cover the earth) would have pulverized not only EVERY human created
thing on earth - but crushed every plant and animal on earth - there
would be a layer of a massive killing in the earth - it does not exist.
The tower of Babel is babel. Chinese - Nubian - Hitite - and CHINESE
documents show no change of language at the time.
In fact - there are SO many fairy tales - errors and contradictions in
the bible - that one cannot even use it to suggest truth - it would have
to be independently verified. ANd authorship of the bible has NEVER been
actually established. Most of the new testament books - show clear
writing of more than one author.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage in 397 CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage
YOU can GOOGLE that yourself "
Sorry the Council of Carthage doesn'r
agree with you or il papa.
(d) Text according to Metzger. According to Zahn (Geschichte, ii,
pp.
252-3),
in 419 another council held at Carthage gave the concluding words
in the following form: "the Revelation of John, one book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of
Rome],
and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this
canon,
for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to
be
read in church."
And so in Westcott.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
Jim
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Gladys is trying to enforce the HER CULTS rules on a different religion
Who's Gladys and why are you talking about her here?
I've seen threads about Gladys, and don't read them, so why import Gladys into
threads that are not about her?
Just goes to show that thommadura is a trollbot
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://khanya.wordpress.com
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
"She believed in nothing. Only her scepticism kept her from being an atheist."
-- Jean-Paul Sartre
Steve Hayes
<remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>"ThomMadura" <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:4deb1783$0$9082$607e...@cv.net
>> The catholic church is not led by a POPE_ it is led by the CHRIST (on
>> this rock I will build MY church) ANd the christ can and does continue
>> to provide guidance through the human leaders of his church
>>
>
>Sorry but there's no evidence for that last claim. It has never been
>observed that the church was ever actually guided by Christ. Its a belief.
>In fact it looks like all of Christianity has badly misunderstood Christ's
>mission. Most still think that he only came here to kill himself to pay for
>a petty deed.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I just moved it to its own thread, because
it had nothing to do with the thread it was originally posted in.
infowolf1
> I have even found cases where the Orthodox are quoting their hymns to
> support a view that is without clear Biblical support.
>
> Perce
If you dig enough, you will find it. Most protestants
reject blessed objects and relics, both of which have
minute but explicit Scriptural support.
The liturgics are drawn from belief shaped by Scripture
soaked early Fathers.
Justina
infowolf1
wrote:
That is only true for fine details. St. Athanasius said somewhere that
all you need to know for salvation is in The Scriptures. Recently I
saw some new martyrs honored, who were moslems who converted
strictly from reading The Bible (a moslem teacher came to believe,
kept
it secret but started teaching his students) and the lot of the them
were killed eventually. This was on an Orthodox site. This fellow
started reading The Bible.
Justina
ThomMadura
> On Jun 7, 7:43 pm, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> "The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage in 397 CE
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage
>
>
> YOU can GOOGLE that yourself "
>
>
> Sorry the Council of Carthage doesn'r
> agree with you or il papa.
THe question was - whether the books of the NT were voted on
I established that they were - at the SYNOD of Hippo.
IT is inherently dishonest of YOU to snip that part of the answer -
YOU have established yourself as a fraud
ThomMadura
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:00:04 -0400, ThomMadura<Tomm...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Gladys is trying to enforce the HER CULTS rules on a different religion
>
> Who's Gladys and why are you talking about her here?
>
> I've seen threads about Gladys, and don't read them, so why import Gladys into
> threads that are not about her?
Follow MY statements in this thread - and you will see that originate
with a statement I made to Gladys - that the catholic church recognizes
the christ as its leader - which it does -= and that the christ leads
the catholic church through its leader - which is what the catholic
church claims
Andrew W - in this thread - copied that statement of mine to Glayds -
and said that there is NO evidence that the CHrist is the leader of the
church
Since there is NO evidence the christ is anything but another stupid
religious MYTH - which is ALL he is proven to be - Andrew was correct
I do not disagree
THAT you are dishonest to the point of changing the newsgroups on reply
established YOUR lack of credibility
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Again read what was said,
(d) Text according to Metzger. According to Zahn (Geschichte, ii,
pp.
252-3),
in 419 another council held at Carthage gave the concluding words
in the following form: "the Revelation of John, one book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of
Rome],
and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this
canon,
for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to
be
read in church."
And so in Westcott.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
The Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Armenian, and other
ancient churches weren't even there so weren't bound
by it. So, I have shown the NT wasn't decided by
any council.
"this
canon,
for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to
be
read in church."
This is the same as the Church of England.
Article VI
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received,
we do receive, and account them Canonical.
nickk - not the imposter
scripture. Again, within the Orthodox Church, you will find no
inconsistencies in worship, theology, scriptures, Tradition, etc. If
you can, I'd like to discuss it!
ThomMadura
> On Jun 8, 9:21 am, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 6/7/2011 10:21 PM, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 7:43 pm, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage in 397 CE
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage
>>
>>> YOU can GOOGLE that yourself "
>>
>>> Sorry the Council of Carthage doesn'r
>>> agree with you or il papa.
>>
>> THe question was - whether the books of the NT were voted on
>>
>> I established that they were - at the SYNOD of Hippo.
>>
>> IT is inherently dishonest of YOU to snip that part of the answer -
>>
>> YOU have established yourself as a fraud
>
> Again read what was said,
Sorry - I have read what was said - IN LATIN
THE synod did indeed take up the subject of what BOOKs would be
considered canon in the bible -which is a CATHOLIC Document - at the
time of the Synod.
THE bishops voted on what to include - and what NOT to include
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
"The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. First, for the
first time a council of bishops listed and approved a canon of Sacred
Scripture that corresponds to the modern Orthodox and Roman Catholic canon"
IT clearly says that the BISHOPs of the church listed and approved the canon
My statement IS correct
AND your is wrong
>
> This is the same as the Church of England.
>
THE church of england did not exist when the bible was made canon was
originally developed by the catholic church
It is therefore of NO use
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> On 6/8/2011 11:17 AM, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 9:21 am, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On 6/7/2011 10:21 PM, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 7, 7:43 pm, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>> "The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage in 397 CE
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage
>
> >>> YOU can GOOGLE that yourself "
>
> >>> Sorry the Council of Carthage doesn'r
> >>> agree with you or il papa.
>
> >> THe question was - whether the books of the NT were voted on
>
> >> I established that they were - at the SYNOD of Hippo.
>
> >> IT is inherently dishonest of YOU to snip that part of the answer -
>
> >> YOU have established yourself as a fraud
>
> > Again read what was said,
>
> Sorry - I have read what was said - IN LATIN
>
> THE synod did indeed take up the subject of what BOOKs would be
> considered canon in the bible -which is a CATHOLIC Document - at the
> time of the Synod.
>
>
> "The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. First, for the
> first time a council of bishops listed and approved a canon of Sacred
> Scripture that corresponds to the modern Orthodox and Roman Catholic canon"
>
> IT clearly says that the BISHOPs of the church listed and approved the canon
>
> My statement IS correct
> AND your is wrong
>
>
>
> > This is the same as the Church of England.
>
> THE church of england did not exist when the bible was made canon was
> originally developed by the catholic church
>
> It is therefore of NO use
Letter by Athanasius Concerning the Councils of Remini
And Seleucia [A.D. 361/362]
[The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea], without
Prefixing consulate, moth, and day, wrote concerning Easter .
“The following has been decided.” And it was at that time
Decided that all should comply . But concerning matters of
Faith, they did not write: “It has been decided,” But “Thus the
Catholic Church believes.” And thereupon they confessed how
They believed. This they did in order to show that their judgment
Was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times,
And that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, but is
Simply that which was taught by the Apostles..
The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol I, William A. Jurgens
The Litugical Press, p 338
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
The previous issue of Present Truth Magazine dealt with Sola Scriptura
and the importance of correctly handling the Bible. In this issue we
wish to carry on from there and discuss specific areas that will help
us all to be better readers of the Bible.
1. The first article deals with hermeneutics – the basic rules of
interpretation.
2. The next two presentations deal with the central Bible doctrine of
justification by faith. Unless we have its meaning correctly in focus,
other things are not going to be in focus either. Following G.J.
Paxton's lecture on the meaning of justification is a challenging
statement by T.F. Torrance on "The Radical Consequences of
Justification."
3. Luther often said that no one can be a good reader of the Bible
unless he gets a grasp of the doctrine of original sin. We have
therefore reproduced Spurgeon's great sermon on "Indwelling Sin." What
light it throws on true Christian experience! And what distortions of
the Christian message would be avoided if this matter were properly
considered!
4. Since the book of Romans is the most systematic presentation given
of the gospel of Christ, we are reproducing Luther's famous "Preface
to the Epistle to the Romans." The Reformer's incisive definitions of
key words have opened a door to many who were searching for clearer
light on the Bible. It was this preface which led to the evangelical
conversion of John Wesley. No doubt many of our readers have read it
before, but this immortal classic is so moving that it is like a good
song which one likes to hear again and again.
5. The final article is called "A New Reformation?" It discusses the
contrast between Greek and Hebrew thought, and shows how Greek
philosophy affects our theology today.
The editor is well aware that many of our readers will not agree with
every point in every article. That would be too much to expect. The
editor himself does not necessarily subscribe to every point by every
writer, but he thinks that the material is challenging enough to merit
serious attention. T.F. Torrance's statement, found in his article
within this issue, applies to us as much as to anyone else:
"Justification means that at every point in our theological inquiry we
have to let our knowledge, our theology, our formulations, our
statements, be called into question by the very Christ toward whom
they point. . ." We therefore send out this issue of Present Truth
Magazine with the earnest desire and prayer that it may be used to
awaken many to a clearer understanding of the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XII/12-1.htm
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On 6/8/2011 2:52 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:00:04 -0400, ThomMadura<Tomm...@optonline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gladys is trying to enforce the HER CULTS rules on a different religion
>>
>> Who's Gladys and why are you talking about her here?
>>
>> I've seen threads about Gladys, and don't read them, so why import Gladys into
>> threads that are not about her?
>
>
>
>Follow MY statements in this thread - and you will see that originate
>with a statement I made to Gladys - that the catholic church recognizes
>the christ as its leader - which it does -= and that the christ leads
>the catholic church through its leader - which is what the catholic
>church claims
No they don't, they originateed with your statement claiming that I had said
all kinds of things I never said at all, thus establishing that you are a
troll.
The rest of my reply is nin alt.troll, where the rest of your remarks belong.
>
>Andrew W - in this thread - copied that statement of mine to Glayds -
>and said that there is NO evidence that the CHrist is the leader of the
>church
>
>Since there is NO evidence the christ is anything but another stupid
>religious MYTH - which is ALL he is proven to be - Andrew was correct
>I do not disagree
>
>THAT you are dishonest to the point of changing the newsgroups on reply
>established YOUR lack of credibility
--
ThomMadura
THAT is MY point - the Bishops - whose decision was BY VOTE - made
decisions on what their religion's belief was.
They defined that by INCLUDING some books in the bible - and NOT
INCLUDING others as part of the BIBLE
A "bible" of any field is simply a authoritative text of what the field
includes
Among the texts NOT included in the bible - there were the Gospels of
THOMAS - and Mary Magdalen - the Didache -The letter of Clement 1 - The
FIrst apology by Justin Martyr - the Gospel of the Hebrews - THe Infancy
Gospel of Thomas - and The Church History of Eusebius.
THERE a dozens of other from THE gospel of ADAM and EVE -THE Psalms of
Solomon - THe THrid Baruch - The Shepherd of Hermas - THE odes of
Solomon that were considered to be FRAUDS by the church
How they determined what was considered to be fraud was by vote.
THis was decided by a bunch of BISHOPS - not be any god - and not by
provable acts - they are beliefs.
ALL religions are beliefs - not TRUTH
Steve Hayes
And that is what this thread was originally intended to be about, so yes,
let's discuss it.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
ThomMadura
> Pointers on How to Read the Bible
YES = read it from the very first page - and stop when it makes a
statement YOU know is in question or is NOT true
FOr example - any sentient person who has any education knows that
MORNING and EVENING on the earth is caused by the rotation of the earth
on its axis - based on which part of the surface faces the sun.
So morning and evening on our earth requires the sun to exist - and
requires an earth that is NOT stationary and unmoving in the sky.
THE very first verse of the bible conflicts with the TRUTH - there could
NOT be what is morning and evening as WE know it on earth without the
sun. THERE might have been light and darkness - but NOT morning and
evening as we know it in reality.
THE first verse of the BIBLE is a FAIRY TALE
SO is the second - and the third - and the fourth - and so on
SO - remember when you are reading the bible - that it is fairy tales -
not reality
ThomMadura
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:17:06 -0700 (PDT), nickk - not the imposter
> <nick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, you don't understand. orthodox hymnology is ALL based on
>> scripture. Again, within the Orthodox Church, you will find no
>> inconsistencies in worship, theology, scriptures, Tradition, etc. If
>> you can, I'd like to discuss it!
>>
>>>
>>> I have even found cases where the Orthodox are quoting their hymns to
>>> support a view that is without clear Biblical support.
>
> And that is what this thread was originally intended to be about, so yes,
> let's discuss it.
Okay - first let us define what biblical support is
DOES it establish TRUTH or just belief?
ThomMadura
> <nick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, you don't understand. orthodox hymnology is ALL based on
>> scripture. Again, within the Orthodox Church, you will find no
>> inconsistencies in worship, theology, scriptures, Tradition, etc. If
>> you can, I'd like to discuss it!
>>
>>>
>>> I have even found cases where the Orthodox are quoting their hymns to
>>> support a view that is without clear Biblical support.
>
> And that is what this thread was originally intended to be about, so yes,
> let's discuss it.
>
>
Okay - then let us define the need or value of biblical support then -
and note - I am posting from THEOLOGY - which YOU included in your
thread - from which Orthodox Church has NO special meaning
Noting that the majority of christians DO NOT accept the bible as the
sole source of the faith - why would a statement NEED clear biblical
support?
NOTING that there are MANY things in the bible that are NOT TRUE - what
does biblical support provide?
Stating that the bible says that the earth is UNMOVING in the sky and
built on Pillars (THE Hebrew word USED refers to pillar used in building
contruction )- means - what?
Stating that the bible says that YOU can eat ALL seed bearing plants for
food - -means what - that YOU can safely eat those seed bearing plants
that are deadly poisons too?
nickk - not the imposter
http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=108
The Bible is the book of sacred writings of God's People of the Old
and New Testaments.
The People of God of the Old Testament were the Jews, the descendants
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose name was changed by God to Israel
(Gen 32:28). These people are also called the Hebrews. They remain
forever as God's chosen people for from them "according to the flesh"
Christ, the Son of God, was born (Rom 9:5). This Son of God is Jesus
of Nazareth, the Messiah-King of Israel and the Savior of the world
(See Mt 1-2, Lk 1-2, Rom 8:3, Gal 4:4, Heb 1-5). The Old Testamental
writings of the People of Israel remain forever as the Word of God for
all who believe in God and wish to know His divine Truth and to do His
divine Will.
The People of God of the New Testament are the Christians -- those who
believe in Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the Living God" and who
belong to the Church which He has founded upon faith in Himself (See
Mt 16:13-20). The People of God of the New Testament also have their
holy writings which bear witness to Christ and which are affirmed to
be the Word of God.
Thus, the Bible as a book, or a collection of many books, has two main
parts. It has the Old Testament writings which prepare the world for
the coming of Christ, and, it has the New Testament writings which
testify to the fact that Christ has come and has saved the world.
The Bible is called the written Word of God. This does not mean that
the Bible fell from heaven ready made. Neither does this mean that God
dictated the Bible word for word to men who were merely His passive
instruments. It means that God has revealed Himself as the true and
living God to His People, and that as one aspect of His divine self-
revelation God inspired His People to produce scriptures, i.e.,
writings which constitute the true and genuine expressions of His
Truth and His Will for His People and for the whole world.
The words of the Bible are human words, for indeed, all words are
human. They are human words, however, which God Himself inspired to be
written in order to remain as the scriptural witness to Himself. As
human words, the words of the Bible contain all of the marks of the
men who wrote them, and of the time and the culture in which they were
written. Nevertheless, in the full integrity of their human condition
and form, the words of the Bible are truly the very Word of God.
The Bible is truly the Word of God in human form because its origin is
not in man but in God, Who willed and inspired its creation. In this
sense, the Bible is not like any other book. In the Bible, in and
through the words of men, one finds the self-revelation of God and can
come to a true and genuine knowledge of Him and His will and purpose
for man and the world. In and through the Bible, human persons can
enter into communion with God.
All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the
man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim
3:16-17).
It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-
inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or
inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the
world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential
character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal
message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains
perfectly consistent, authentic, and true.
The Bible has many different human authors. Some books of the Bible do
not indicate in any way who wrote them. Other books bear the names of
persons to whom authorship is ascribed. In some cases it is perfectly
clear that the indicated author is in fact the person who actually
wrote the book with his own hands. In other cases it is as clear that
the author of the book had another person do the actual writing of his
work in the manner of a secretary. In still other cases it is the
Tradition of the Church, and not seldom the opinion of biblical
scholars, that the indicated author of a given book of the Bible is
not the person (or persons) who wrote it, but the person who
originally inspired its writing, whose name is then attached to it as
its author.
In a number of instances the Tradition of the Church is not clear
about the authorship of certain books of the Bible, and in many cases
biblical scholars present innumerable theories about authorship which
they then debate among themselves. It is impossible to establish the
authorship of any book of the Bible by scholarship, however, since
historical and literary studies are relative by nature.
Because the Orthodox Church teaches that the entire Bible is inspired
by God Who in this sense is its one original author, the Church
Tradition considers the identity of the human authors as incidental to
the correct interpretation and proper significance of the books of the
Bible for the believing community. In no case would the Church admit
that the identity of the author determines the authenticity or
validity of a book which is viewed as part of the Bible, and under no
circumstances would it be admitted that the value or the proper
understanding and use of any book of the Bible in the Church depends
on the human writer alone.
The Bible is the book of sacred writings for God's People, the Church.
It was produced in the Church, by and for the Church, under divine
inspiration as an essential part of the total reality of God's
covenant relationship with His People. It is the authentic Word of God
for those who belong to God's chosen assembly of believers, to the
Israel of old and to the Church of Christ today and forever.
The Bible lives in the Church. It comes alive in the Church and has
the most profound divine meaning for those who are members of the
community which God has established, in which He dwells, and to which,
through His Word and His Spirit, He has given Himself for
participation, communion and life everlasting. Outside of the total
life and experience of the community of faith, which is the Church of
Christ, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) no one can
truly understand and correctly interpret the Bible.
First of all you must understand that no prophecy of scripture is a
matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy came by the
impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet
1:20).
Scholars of the Bible can help men to understand its divine contents
and meaning. Through their archeological, historical, and literary
studies they can offer much light to the words of the scriptures. But
by themselves and by their academic work alone, no men can produce the
proper interpretation of the Bible. Only Christ, the living and
personal Word of God, Who comes from the Father and lives in His
Church through the Holy Spirit, can make God known and can give the
right understanding of the scriptural Word of God.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word
was God. … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace
and truth. … For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came
through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known (Jn 1:1-18).
Jesus Christ, the Word of God in human flesh, alone makes God known.
And Jesus, besides being Himself the living incarnation of God, the
living fulfillment of the law and the prophets (Mt 5:17), is also the
One by whom the Bible is rightly interpreted.
And [being risen from the dead] he said to them, "O foolish men and
slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Was it not
necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into
his glory?"
And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them
in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (Lk 24:25-27).
And he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I
was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of
Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." Then he
opened their minds to understand the scriptures. … (Lk 24:44-45; also
Jn 5:45-47).
Jesus Christ remains forever in His Church by the Holy Spirit to open
men's minds to understand the Bible (Jn 14.26, 16:13). Only within
Christ's Church, in the community of faith, of grace, and of truth,
can men filled with the Holy Spirit understand the meaning and purpose
of the Bible's holy words. Thus, speaking about those who do not
believe in Jesus as the Messiah, the apostle Paul contends that when
they read the Bible a "veil" hides its true meaning from them "because
only through Christ is it taken away" (2 Cor 3:14).
Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds;
but when a man turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is
the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And
we all [i.e. believers in Christ] with unveiled face, beholding the
glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree
of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Therefore, … we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's
word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend
ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if
our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In
their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the glory of
Christ, who is the likeness of God (2 Cor 3:15-4:4).
In the New Testament, Christ not only provides the correct
interpretation of the Bible, He also allows the believers themselves
to be directly enlightened by the Holy Spirit and to be themselves
"the letter from Christ. … written not with ink, but with the Spirit
of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human
hearts" (2 Cor 3:3). Thus is fulfilled the prediction of the old
covenant that in the time of the Messiah "they all shall be taught of
God" by direct divine inspiration and instruction (Jn 6.45, Isa 54:13,
Ezek 36:26, Jer 31:31, Joel 2:28, Micah 4:2, et. al.). It is only
within the living Tradition of the Church under the direct inspiration
of Christ's Spirit that the proper interpretation of the Bible can be
made.
ThomMadura
> Go here and read more:
>
> http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=108
>
> The Bible is the book of sacred writings of God's People of the Old
> and New Testaments.
No - the bible is a group of books put together in one edition - By at
least two different groups of religions(judaism and
christianity)-specifically to define their BELIEFS.
IT is NOT proven to have any connection to a god since no supernatural
god is proven to exist
Percival P. Cassidy
>> No, you don't understand. orthodox hymnology is ALL based on
>> scripture. Again, within the Orthodox Church, you will find no
>> inconsistencies in worship, theology, scriptures, Tradition, etc. If
>> you can, I'd like to discuss it!
>>> I have even found cases where the Orthodox are quoting their hymns to
>>> support a view that is without clear Biblical support.
> And that is what this thread was originally intended to be about, so yes,
> let's discuss it.
OK, Steve and Nick, the particular view that I found Orthodox supporting
by references to hymnody was that the Theotokos gave birth without her
hymen being broken and without labor pains.
Even a quotation from the Fathers would carry more weight than the
hymns; Scriptural evidence would carry still more weight. (BTW, I
recently heard from an Orthodox priest who told me that he had only
recently discovered that this is what he was supposed to believe.) As I
have written here before: "lex orandi lex credendi est" to me means that
the Church's prayer (and that would include what she sings) faith must
be in accordance with her faith. IOW, "If it's not true, we shouldn't
pray or sing it." But the Orthodox seem to be saying: "If we pray or
sing it, it must be true." I think the same kind of thing has led to
some of the Roman Catholic accretions, such as belief in the immaculate
conception and bodily assumption of the Theotokos.
I like what I read a few decades ago (but I no longer recall where): The
locus of authority is not the church, the Bible, or the Holy Spirit but
the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture in the Church. The Church
(all religious bodies) must always be willing to admit that it has made
mistakes not merely in actions but also in its understanding.
Perce
Steve Hayes
<Nob...@NotMyISP.com> wrote:
>On 06/08/11 02:00 pm, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>> No, you don't understand. orthodox hymnology is ALL based on
>>> scripture. Again, within the Orthodox Church, you will find no
>>> inconsistencies in worship, theology, scriptures, Tradition, etc. If
>>> you can, I'd like to discuss it!
>
>>>> I have even found cases where the Orthodox are quoting their hymns to
>>>> support a view that is without clear Biblical support.
>
>> And that is what this thread was originally intended to be about, so yes,
>> let's discuss it.
>
>OK, Steve and Nick, the particular view that I found Orthodox supporting
>by references to hymnody was that the Theotokos gave birth without her
>hymen being broken and without labor pains.
Which hymns were those?
But one of the bits that I thought might be interesting to discuss, and fitted
in better withe the text I quoted, seems to have got lost, and as I was
following this in alt.religion.christianity and this part of the discussion
didn't seem to make it nthere, I may have missed something.
ThomMadura
Ah - but WHY would anyone accept that "scripture" can only be found in
the BIBLE. After all - the christ NEVER saw a bible - he only saw Jewish
documents - THE Tanakh - the Torah.
Scripture is a word that simply means religious writings - and there
are MANY different religious writings- beyond the bible
WHY do people automatically assume that the bible is the inspired word
of a god - who apparently STOPPED inspiring people about 100 years
after his supposed death - covered it all - and NO longer had that
power afterwards.
I mean - it is NOT like there has been any PROGRESS or invention since
1900 years ago - life is exactly the same - NOT. THE bible does not
cover LOTS of what rules out lives today -a computer alone is an example
of one thing never thought of then.
WHy would NOT the correct term be - the sole source for scripture is the
god?
ANd the god - with infinite capability =- STILL has that ability - and
guides his church every day - inspiring its leaders to pass along
scripture.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"THAT is MY point - the Bishops - whose decision was BY VOTE - made
decisions on what their religion's belief was. "
No, they only spoke about the texts they
had RECEIVED
(d) Text according to Metzger. According to Zahn (Geschichte, ii, pp.
252-3),
in 419 another council held at Carthage gave the concluding words
in the following form: "the Revelation of John, one book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of
Rome],
and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this
canon,
for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to
be
read in church."
And so in Westcott.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
Irenaeus of Lyons
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews33103310 On
this and similar statements in the Fathers, the reader may consult Dr.
Roberts’s Discussions on the Gospels, in which they are fully
criticised, and the Greek original of St. Matthew’s Gospel maintained.
in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and
laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the
disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing
what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul,
recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the
disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself
publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html
we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles,
[and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in
the Churches
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iii.html
Chapter III.—A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the
various Churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up.
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may
wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the
apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a
position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted
bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these
men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything
like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known
hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the
perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered
them especially to those to whom they were also committing the
Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be
very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving
behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of
government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions
honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should
fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this,
to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to
confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-
pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble
in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that
tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by
the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing
out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means
of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity
that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its
pre- eminent authority,33133313 The Latin text of this difficult
but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem
principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text
and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible
to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem
principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the
rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of
anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to
find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic,
which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of
more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is,
those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by
those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which
is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it
is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there
from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here
orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others,
but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of
book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of
Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome. that is, the
faithful everywhere,
416 inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved
continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church,
committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of
this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him
succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the
apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen
the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said
to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and
their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for
there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the
apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having
occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched
a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace,
renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately
received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the
Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the
deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt,
spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has
prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document,
whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand
the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of
older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who
conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of
all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus.
Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus
was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred;
then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having
succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from
the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order,
and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the
apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And
this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying
faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until
now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and
conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in
Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my
early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a
very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,
33143314 Polycarp suffered about the year 167, in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius. His great age of eighty-six years implies that he was
contemporary with St. John for nearly twenty years. departed this
life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the
apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are
true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also
those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—a man
who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth,
than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was
who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away
from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he
had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,—that, namely,
which is handed down by the Church.33153315 So the Greek. The Latin
reads: “which he also handed down to the Church.” There are also those
who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe
at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-
house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-
house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is
within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one
occasion, and said, “Dost thou know me?” “I do know thee, the first-
born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their
disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any
corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, “A man that is an heretic,
after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is
such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
himself.”33163316 Tit. iii. 10. There is also a very
powerful33173317 ἰκανωτάτη. Harvey translates this all-sufficient,
and thus paraphrases: But his Epistle is all-sufficient, to teach
those that are desirous to learn. Epistle of Polycarp written to the
Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious
about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the
preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by
Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times
of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
Percival P. Cassidy
>>>> No, you don't understand. orthodox hymnology is ALL based on
>>>> scripture. Again, within the Orthodox Church, you will find no
>>>> inconsistencies in worship, theology, scriptures, Tradition, etc. If
>>>> you can, I'd like to discuss it!
>>>>> I have even found cases where the Orthodox are quoting their hymns to
>>>>> support a view that is without clear Biblical support.
>>> And that is what this thread was originally intended to be about, so yes,
>>> let's discuss it.
>> OK, Steve and Nick, the particular view that I found Orthodox supporting
>> by references to hymnody was that the Theotokos gave birth without her
>> hymen being broken and without labor pains.
> Which hymns were those?
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?5987-Perpetual-virginity-of-the-Theotokos
See Fr. David Moser's (he's ROCOR; does that make a difference?) post on
03/05/2009 at 4:00AM:
' I happened to notice this evening (Myrrh-bearers) when chanting the
canon during matins:
" Thou didst not break the doors of the Virgin at Thine incarnation, O
King of Creation, nor didst though [sic] break the seals of Thy tomb ..."
Ode V Canon of the Theotokos, 2nd Tropar
" Thou didst arise from the tomb, maintaining the seals intact, O
Christ Who in Thy birth didst not break the seal of the Virgin; ..."
Ode VI Canon of Pascha, 1st Tropar
Here, in today's service we see the confession of the
ever-virginity of Mary for we confess that in His incarnation, Jesus did
not "break the seal" thus leaving the physical virginity of Mary intact
even in His birth.
There are references to the ever-virginity of Mary through and
through the Divine Services and prayers of the Church. The above is just
a minor example that I happened to see "by chance" just because it was
in front of me. If the prayers and services of the Church are not
"official doctrine" then I don't know what is.
Fr David Moser '
Perce
ThomMadura
> On Jun 8, 12:52 pm, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> "THAT is MY point - the Bishops - whose decision was BY VOTE - made
> decisions on what their religion's belief was. "
>
> No, they only spoke about the texts they
> had RECEIVED
Posting the same nonsense over and over again - fails to change the
reality.
In fact - the Synod at Hippo not only accepted some texts INTO cannon -
they rejected some as well
And indeed - the same was done at Carthage.
Among the BOOKS left out - were a lIST I gave YOU - that included the
Gospel of Thomas -= the Infancy Gospel of thomas - the odes of Soloman-
THe letter of Clement 1 - The Didache - the gospel of the hebrews - and
a number of others
ANd they did that BY VOTE which is HOW it was done in synods and
councils of the church
I am not trying to say that these councils established the FINAL canon
of the bible- that was NOT done until over 1000 years later and the
council of Trent. I am also not saying that these were the first
councils to consider what would or would NOT be considered as well
I am saying that it was through VOTES of the bishops of the church by
which SOME books were put into the list - and others were elimonated
nickk - not the imposter
What you don't understand, it wasn't their VOTE that made the canon of
books "The Bible" and those not. It was that in these "apocryphal"
books, some aspects are True and are consistent with all the other
books and some aspects are "far fetched." They may or may not be true.
The vote was only their "seal" on what was already shown. You clearly
don't understand!
ThomMadura
> Thom:
> What you don't understand, it wasn't their VOTE that made the canon of
> books
YOU do not understand - it was INDEED the vote of BISHOPS that determine
what books were included in the canon - and which were NOT.
THAT is a Historical fact
nickk - not the imposter
prays that the Holy Spirit will guide them. This is what you don't
understand. We, really believe, the Spirit of God will guide us if we
ask him to. So, when the BISHOPS asked to be guided and studied ALL
the books of the Bible, they could see that some were inconsistent in
their content and some utterly fantastic and couldn't be included as
the canonical books of the Bible. Here's one instance: the Birth of
the Virgin Mary, her being raised in the Temple until she was
betrothed to Joseph is not in the canonical books, but apocryphal
books. We accept the events regarding the Virgin Mary outlined there,
but there are some unbelievable things we don't and therefore, not in
the canonical books. So, when the BISHOPS voted, they prayed, studied
the texts and asked the Holy Spirit to guide them. We believe the Holy
Spirit acted and STILL acts; as Christ said He would. This Sunday is
Pentecost - the descent of the Holy Spirit on men. Read the Scriptures
regarding this; go to an Orthodox Church and listen to the texts and
readings - TRULY, GOD IS WITH US!
Steve Hayes
Perhaps being ROCOR does make a difference, I don't know.
It depends on what you mean by "physical virginity". To me it means not having
had sexual intercourse. But in some cases "virginity" is purely physical,
because people who may not have had physical sexual intercourse have done
everything but, so they may be virgins "physically" but not in any other
sense.
I suspect that one problem here is approaching premodern writings (which
include most Orthodox hymns, and the Bible itself) with a modernist worldview,
and treat them as scientific treatises (that's one of the problems with
Fundamentalism -- it's a product of the worldview of modernity).
St John Chrysostom, writing about ordination to the priesthood, referred to
male virginity, and said that those who committed fornication in their youth
ought not to be ordained, even if they had done so unwillingly. He used the
metaphor "his vessel is broken". A modern metaphor is "you can't put the
toothpaste back in the tube", meaning you can't restore the status quo ante.
The hymns are saying, without going into physical details, that God can, and
sometimes does, restore the status quo ante.
But I suspect that if you take these things over literally, you might regard
toothpaste as evidence of fornication.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
ThomMadura
> OK Thom, last time then I quit.
Done
THE councils decided to include some texts in the cannon and not to
include others BY VOTE
THAT is simply a historical truth
nickk - not the imposter
relations. She conceived, gave birth yet remained a virgin. We are not
speaking of examinations by a OBGYN.
Percival P. Cassidy
But that's NOT what Fr. David understands it to mean. He is disagreeing
with Fr. Thomas Hopko, who seems to take the same position as you.
Fr. David's view seems to derive from the non-canonical
"Protevangelion/Protoevangelium of James," according to which midwives
examined the Theotokos after the birth of the Savior and found her to be
still virgo intacta.
Perce
nickk - not the imposter
Percival P. Cassidy
find support in the hymns and accuse of error (if not outright heresy)
those who seek to correct them.
Perce
infowolf1
>
> YOU can GOOGLE that yourself "
>
> Sorry the Council of Carthage doesn'r
> agree with you or il papa.
>
> pp.
> 252-3),
> in 419 another council held at Carthage gave the concluding words
> in the following form: "the Revelation of John, one book.
> Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of
> Rome],
> and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this
> canon,
> for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to
> be
> read in church."
> And so in Westcott.
>
> http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
>
Here is the entire text at that site, it lists ALL the Bible
books we have as canon, plus some the reformers
rejected on no good grounds.
"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing
be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The
Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings,
3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of
Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two
books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the
Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of
the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two
Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of
Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also
to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of
those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have
received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church.
Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their
festivals are kept."
Prior to this, St. Irenaeus c. AD 150 quotes from most
of the NT canon as authoritative, and argues against
secret special texts and traditions that were invented later,
on the basis that they are not part of what churches who
were founded by Apostles, not missionaries from other
Apostolic churches, and whose leaders and elders were
therefore trained personally by Apostles or by those so
trained, accept.
Justina
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
but who do so only in the most superficial and casuistrous way?
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]
RVG
> On Jun 4, 10:43 pm, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 6/5/2011 12:55 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> One of the problems with discussing Christian theology on Usenet is that many
>>> Protestants accuse others (like Roman Catholics and Orthodox) of just stating
>>> their own opinings that are not "based on the Bible", and gratutiously advise
>>> them to just follow the Bible -- and then they go on to give their own
>>> opinions, not based on the Bible, blithely ignoring the inconsistency.
>>
>> No - the inconsistency is the idea that the bible is the sole source for
>> the faith - which it is NOT
>>
>> The catholic church is not led by a POPE_ it is led by the CHRIST (on
>> this rock I will build MY church) ANd the christ can and does continue
>> to provide guidance through the human leaders of his church
>>
>> THAT you claim that the bible is the oNLY source for the faith is simply
>> NOT TRUE
>
> To determine if those human leaders are being led by Christ
> or not, which is important, because Our Lord Jesus Christ said,
> that "if the blind follow the blind, both will fall into the ditch,"
> we have
> to check two things.
>
> a. EVERYTHING the Bible says on the matter at issue,
In which translation(s) ?
Just seeing how many times the Tintin books have been redrawn and
rewritten during Hergé's lifetime, how many times has the Bible being
rewritten before the version we know, and that comes from Gutenberg's
printer, has been established as the definitive text ?
For example, we know that the Hebrew canon has been around since the
Babylon captivity (6th century BC), not before. So far, for example,
we're allowed to think that the captivity of the Hebrews in Egypt is a
metaphor, probably written by Daniel, about the Jews's condition at that
time. We *know* that such an event never happened, ie that the Hebrews
have never been slaves in Egypt since Israel didn't exist at that time.
For the same reason, the so-called kings of Israel have never existed,
and Salomon's proverbs are an almost litteral translation of Hesiod's
"Works and Days". Salomon himself, like David, etc. has never existed.
Therefore a Jesus of Nazareth as "son of David" has never existed either.
--
The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake
http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/
infowolf1
we do not know any of what you say we know, and there are finds
that suggest otherwise. translation if done correctly is not redrawing
something. as for hesiod and proverbs, I took a look at the former,
and there is scarcely any resemblance. http://www.theoi.com/Text/HesiodWorksDays.html
did you get this strange notion from someone and not bother to
check his facts? or do you just have some kind of reading and
comprehension problem? or did you rely on some paraphrase of
hesiod and not the full text?
Justina
infowolf1
what of them? that is their problem. one example comes to mind,
seems there is a canon against a holy synod meeting during lent,
and the oca holy synod raised holy hell when the metropolitan jonah
told them not to do this, and further exercized the authority given by
the canons for him to be the one to decide where they should meet,
and other things like this.
the constant whining about the uncanonical condition of orthodoxy
in america lately strikes me as a disguised bid for some kind of
empire, since more important canons regarding morality are
routinely ignored, homosexual clergy and "nonjudgemental" clergy
reinforcing each other.
Justina
RVG
> that suggest otherwise.
Source ?
> translation if done correctly is not redrawing
> something.
The problem is, we have no manuscripts of the Bible older than the 6th
century BC, ie the Babylon exile, ie prophet Daniel. The story of Daniel
has striking resemblances with Moses's. The tale of Genesis as well as
the word "paradise" itself are Babylonian. There's absolutely no trace
or vestiges of a kingdom (= large towns and cities) around Israel from
the 9th century BC. As for Egypt, we have ALL the Egyptian documents
from the time when the Hebrews were supposedly prisoner or slaves there,
and there's absolutely no mention of them.
> as for hesiod and proverbs, I took a look at the former,
> and there is scarcely any resemblance. http://www.theoi.com/Text/HesiodWorksDays.html
> did you get this strange notion from someone and not bother to
> check his facts? or do you just have some kind of reading and
> comprehension problem? or did you rely on some paraphrase of
> hesiod and not the full text?
>
Read Hölderlin. Back then (he was the son of a pastor) he had studied
both greek and hebrew and was struck by the similarities between the two
books. He lost faith some time after.
I have the original translation of Hesiod by Leconte de Lisle (as in the
original print of the book) and the Greek text, and the anglophone
specialist is R.M. Frazier who explains extensively the common sources
of Hesiod's poetry and the biblical books of wisdom in "The poems of
Hesiod".
--
The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake
http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"Here is the entire text at that site, it lists ALL the Bible
books we have as canon, plus some the reformers
rejected on no good grounds."
The Reformers used the same standard for the Old Testament, texts
not received by the Jews, as those not received from the
Apostles or their scribes for the New Testament, as
Artticle VI of the Articles of Religion states:
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for
example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply
them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees
http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/39articles.htm
Athanasius the Great puts it best
Letter by Athanasius Concerning the Councils of Remini
And Seleucia [A.D. 361/362]
[The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea], without
Prefixing consulate, moth, and day, wrote concerning Easter .
“The following has been decided.” And it was at that time
Decided that all should comply . But concerning matters of
Faith, they did not write: “It has been decided,” But “Thus the
Catholic Church believes.” And thereupon they confessed how
They believed. This they did in order to show that their judgment
Was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times,
And that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, but is
Simply that which was taught by the Apostles..
The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol I, William A. Jurgens
The Litugical Press, p 338
The Canon and matters of Faith are not decided
by any vote, but received from the Jews and the
Apostles.
All the Books of the New Testament,
as they are commonly received,
we do receive, and account them Canonical.
http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/39articles.htm
> Justina- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rea...@man.com
either."
How do you know?
ThomMadura
THIS has been badly snipped BUT I can answer it
1 - IN Ancient Israel and most other countries - BLOOLINES were through
the MALE (Father's) line - the mother's line was NEVER considered.
However - according to the fairy tale - the christ's father was NOT a
human - so it has NO human blood line from the father.
2 - THe letter "j" did not exist in language until around the 14th
century. NO human had the name "jesus" before that time. IN Hebrew - his
name would have been Yeshua of some type.
IN english - however - the rule is NOT to translate a PROPER NAME of a
person. I gave an example of Mikhail Gorbachev - whose first name is the
Russian Equivalent to the English Michael - but you DO NOT change his name.
THERE are two exception -
1 - IN a language like chinese where the first name and last name are
given in a different order - it is Okay to Place the names in the order
of the new language.
2- Names of FICTIONAL characters CAN BE translated.
So - if the christ were are REAL PERSON - we would still call him by his
given HEBREW name - Yeshua
THAT he is a fictional character allows us to translate that name
rea...@man.com
> either."
>
> How do you know?
"THIS has been badly snipped BUT I can answer it
1 - IN Ancient Israel and most other countries - BLOOLINES were through
the MALE (Father's) line - the mother's line was NEVER considered.
However - according to the fairy tale - the christ's father was NOT a
human - so it has NO human blood line from the father."
This is quite muddled in its details. . But more important, relevancy
to the question of the bible and of Jesus?
"2 - THe letter "j" did not exist in language until around the 14th
century. NO human had the name "jesus" before that time. IN Hebrew - his
name would have been Yeshua of some type.
IN english - however - the rule is NOT to translate a PROPER NAME of a
person. I gave an example of Mikhail Gorbachev - whose first name is the
Russian Equivalent to the English Michael - but you DO NOT change his
name.
THERE are two exception -
1 - IN a language like chinese where the first name and last name are
given in a different order - it is Okay to Place the names in the order
of the new language.
2- Names of FICTIONAL characters CAN BE translated.
So - if the christ were are REAL PERSON - we would still call him by his
given HEBREW name - Yeshua
THAT he is a fictional character allows us to translate that name"
Again muddled details. Again relevancy to the question of the bible and
Jesus?
Clearly the poster is not well versed in the question of transliteration
of names among various languages and the bible.
As to the assertion that Jesus did not exist.
How do you know?
infowolf1
>Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil took him up into an exceeding high
>mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
>them."
>THERE is no single place on a sphere from which you can see the >ENTIRE
>surface of the sphere - and at 20 CE - there were kingdoms on ALL
>non-ice continents that we can PROVE
>NONE of that above - although stated as fact in the bible - are true -
>they are ALL fairy tales.
you are overlooking something. that this was shown as a vision,
a descriptive mirage, St. Luke 4:5 who often gives more details,
and puts things in chronological order, says that the devil showed
Jesus all these kingdoms "in a moment of time."
Getting up in a high mountain wouldn't even show you a nearby
great kingdom, it would look small and not that glorious, let alone
several or all. More like ALL the kingdoms that EVER were as
well as then currently existing, in a vision like a mirage.
you need no geographic craziness for this.
as for your or anyone's complaints about God being murderous,
you forget that God, being the Creator, Who has the ability to
kill AND to make alive again which second ability none but God
has, has the RIGHT of life and death over all of us. Murder
is unrighteous life taking, and by definition God Who made us
all cannot murder, only kill.
Firmaments with water in them are open to many interpretations,
incl. one I am toying with, that some of that water was water on
Mars, that was swung in close enough for cataclysmic effects
I notice that in addition to the coastal lines, there are the
continental shelf edges here, TWO layers of water level. Where
did the second layer come from?
The Genesis account of all land being once in one place, is
consistent with scientists' pangaea theory.
Justina
infowolf1
The historical truth, as shown by the ancient writings BEFORE
all that, is that it was known what were Apostolic writings and
what were valuable but not Apostolic, and what were totally false
as evident by content conflict with known Apostolic materials,
given to the predecessors of the bishops by the Apostles
themselves.
the council was to settle disputes about a few remaining books
some rejected and many accepted as of Apostolic provenance,
not to mention the rash of heretical crap.
They simply reviewed the evidence, and confirmed what was
already established among legitimate churches with legitimate
Apostolic succession. That the canon they validated, and
prohibited use of fraudulent materials, was the same known long
before, is shown by the use of these and none others as
authoritative to quote by Church Fathers as far back as AD 150.
Justina
ThomMadura
> On Jun 9, 5:03 am, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 6/8/2011 11:35 PM, nickk - not the imposter wrote:
>>
>>> OK Thom, last time then I quit.
>>
>> Done
>>
>> THE councils decided to include some texts in the cannon and not to
>> include others BY VOTE
>>
>> THAT is simply a historical truth
>
> The historical truth,
THe historical truth remains that which books that are included in the
New TEstanmen- and which books are NOT included in the NT - was indeed
voted on by a bunch of catholic Bishops
ThomMadura
> On Jun 7, 6:01 pm, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil took him up into an exceeding high
>> mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
>> them."
>> THERE is no single place on a sphere from which you can see the>ENTIRE
>> surface of the sphere - and at 20 CE - there were kingdoms on ALL
>> non-ice continents that we can PROVE
>> NONE of that above - although stated as fact in the bible - are true -
>> they are ALL fairy tales.
>
> you are overlooking something.
that this was shown as a vision,
NOPE - it does NOT say that - I reject additions to the words UNLESS you
can provide an ancient document that YOU can prove - that supports that
statement outside of the bible
> a descriptive mirage, St. Luke 4:5
Luke is rejected - he admits not to be an eye witneess to the christ
SO he cannot have any first hand knowledge - and based on the story - he
was not there either
I accept the bible ONLY to be a tome of religious BELIEF - nothing more.
THERE are clear errors in it - and that passage above that I quoted is
ONE of them
>
> Getting up in a high mountain wouldn't even show you a nearby
> great kingdom,
THAT is the point- since the earth is a sphere as we know today
OF course - the Hebrews who made up the bible thought that the earth was
a Slightly concave CIRCLE - ie - FLAT -and they thought they COULD see
the enitire surface of the earth from a single high place.
THAT is why the used terms like ENDS of the earth - and others - that
clearly show that he hebrews did not know the earth was a sphere.
Of course - if it WERE a vision - there would NOT even be a reason to GO
to a Exceeding high mountain as well.
OF course - since the christ is a MYTH and a genetic impossibility to
begin with = the whole story is MYTH
rea...@man.com
How do you know?
ThomMadura
A god and a human would have to be two different species of animals -
not the same.
WE know that when TWO different species of animals procreate - they
normally produce NO RESULT - they are NOT compatible
WHEN they are sort of compatible - they produce a cross between the two
animals - A MUTT - not one or the other. A mule is an example of that
type. But that assumes that they are sexual animals. IN the case of
gods- a SON is claimed - but NO female god is - so reproduction MUST BE
Asexual - no sex involved - and not compatible with Humans. THEREFORE
that christ cannot be true in that case
Now - if the god was a sexual being,- the christ CANNOT be a human male
- because the combination of a god and human female does NOT contain a
HUMAN Y chromosome- the christ would have to be an INFERTILE Female.
So - either way - the christ cannot be as claimed
ANd as we KNOW - there is NO proof such a miracle is possible - we
ALREADY know that NO being can be ALMIGHTY - as well - so the god of the
bible is a MYTH as well
rea...@man.com
> begin with , the whole story is MYTH"
>
> How do you know?
"A god and a human would have to be two different species of animals -
not the same. WE know that when TWO different species of animals
procreate - they normally produce NO RESULT - they are NOT compatible
WHEN they are sort of compatible - they produce a cross between the two
animals - A MUTT - not one or the other. A mule is an example of that
type. But that assumes that they are sexual animals. IN the case of
gods- a SON is claimed - but NO female god is - so reproduction MUST BE
Asexual - no sex involved - and not compatible with Humans. THEREFORE
that christ cannot be true in that case"
Now - if the god was a sexual being,- the christ CANNOT be a human male
- because the combination of a god and human female does NOT contain a
HUMAN Y chromosome- the christ would have to be an INFERTILE Female."
My, what a great muddle again. Ever hear of dolly the sheep and the
many of both genders produced after her? Actually the first example of
which I'm aware was in frogs. Either no daddy or mommy, just baby
critters.
"So - either way - the christ cannot be as claimed
ANd as we KNOW - there is NO proof such a miracle is possible - we
ALREADY know that NO being can be ALMIGHTY - as well - so the god of the
bible is a MYTH as well"
Muddle flows like water. There is no claim that there was a physical
union to produce Christ. Which makes most of the above an empty
gesture.
Your disclaimer about a miracle to the contrary notwithstanding.
By definition a miricle is not understood by usual means and is outside
the purview of science. Again only adding to the empty gesture.
Your conclusion is an assertion, not the product of a valid series of
logical steps nor of application of science.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"THe historical truth remains that which books that are included in
the
New TEstanmen- and which books are NOT included in the NT - was
indeed
voted on by a bunch of catholic Bishops "
Even if your theory of the Councils of North Africa
is true, amd it isn't, since their concern was Jeromes
and il papa trying to change the Scriptures received
from the Fathers, it would have had no power to
change the Scriptures received by the Aramaic, Greek, Coptic,
and other ancient churches which have the same four
Gospels and letters of Paul with small scribal
variations.
Jim
Heb 12:1 - Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so
great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin
which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race
that is set before us,
Steve Hayes
>"OF course - since the christ is a MYTH and a genetic impossibility to
>begin with , the whole story is MYTH"
"Myth is a reality immeasurably greater than concept. It is high time that we
stopped identifying myth with invention, with the illusions of primitive
mentality, and with anything, in fact, which is essentially opposed to
reality... The creation of myths among peoples denotes a real spiritual life,
more real indeed than that of abstract concepts and rational thought. Myth is
always concrete and expresses life better than abstract thought can do; its
nature is bound up with that of symbol. Myth is the concrete recital of events
and original phenomena of the spiritual life symbolized in the natural world,
which has engraved itself on the language memory and creative energy of the
people... it brings two worlds together symbolically."
- Nicolas Berdyaev
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
ThomMadura
> On Jun 14, 7:11 am, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> "THe historical truth remains that which books that are included in
> the
> New TEstanmen- and which books are NOT included in the NT - was
> indeed
> voted on by a bunch of catholic Bishops "
>
> Even if your theory of the Councils of North Africa
> is true, amd it isn't, since their concern was Jeromes
> and il papa trying to change the Scriptures received
> from the Fathers, it would have had no power to
> change the Scriptures received by the Aramaic, Greek, Coptic,
> and other ancient churches which have the same four
> Gospels and letters of Paul with small scribal
> variations.
SOrry - it is TRUE - and the bible we are talking about is that from
that cathlic church - the others are of no conequence
infowolf1
> On 6/8/2011 7:44 PM, nickk - not the imposter wrote:
>
> > Thom:
> > What you don't understand, it wasn't their VOTE that made the canon of
> > books
>
> YOU do not understand - it was INDEED the vote of BISHOPS that determine
> what books were included in the canon - and which were NOT.
>
> THAT is a Historical fact
what is being missed by both sides, is ON WHAT BASIS ANYONE
VOTED HIS OPINION.
the books such as of adam and eve, gospel of so and so etc. you
mention, were excluded BECAUSE OF BEING EITHER MORE
RECENT than the Apostles, OR OLDER (but also excluded by
Jews because) not proven as from a prophet. Either way, such a
book even if it contains much truth, is a FRAUD.
The bishops "vote" was essentially a poll as to what they knew was
the received tradition from Apostolic times in their own lineages in
their own dioceses, and what they thought of any research
presented.
If it wasn't written by an Apostle, or had an Apostle's imprimatur so
to speak, such as Luke and Mark Gospels, and wasn't already
accepted as legitimately from a prophet and therefore OT Jewish
Scripture, then it wasn't accepted, period, except by deceived
people among the laity and the occasional deceived or agenda driven
priest.
For a long time, the power of Tradition handed down in the churches
had kept the transmission to the laity pure, and the laity would
reject
falsehood presented to it, but this had begun to break down, so an
authoritative pronouncement, backed up with anathemas, had to be
issued.
Justina
infowolf1
> On 6/8/2011 1:18 PM, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
.......
> A "bible" of any field is simply a authoritative text of what the field
> includes
>
> Among the texts NOT included in the bible - there were the Gospels of
> THOMAS - and Mary Magdalen - the Didache -The letter of Clement 1 - The
> FIrst apology by Justin Martyr - the Gospel of the Hebrews - THe Infancy
> Gospel of Thomas - and The Church History of Eusebius.
>
> THERE a dozens of other from THE gospel of ADAM and EVE -THE Psalms of
> Solomon - THe THrid Baruch - The Shepherd of Hermas - THE odes of
> Solomon that were considered to be FRAUDS by the church
>
> How they determined what was considered to be fraud was by vote.
>
Gospels of Thomas - one is a list of Christ's statements, incl. one or
two not in the real Gospels, the rest are in them, and as such it is
not a Gospel per se, and is not false, but is not important,
containing
nothing new and not certainly put together by Thomas. There is another
Gospel of Thomas that has gnostic tendencies, no proof Thomas
wrote it, ergo FALSE.
Gospel of Mary Magdalene - dated from much later than Mary
Magdalene therefore not written by her, ergo a FRAUD. If it is the
same book I think it is, it is obscene masochistic nonsense besides.
Which content brands it as false.
The Didache -The letter of Clement 1 - The FIrst apology by Justin
Martyr and The Church History of Eusebius. These books didn't
belong in The Bible, because The Bible was to be the touchstone of
truth, to judge all other writing and experience by, and the only
possible
writings to use for this are those by those who were personally taught
by Christ Himself.
these books were never declared anathema or denounced, merely
not to be in use for authoritative preaching in Church. Neither did
these
writings pretend to be Apostolic.
the Gospel of the Hebrews a gnostic heretical product, much later
than any Apostle, ergo, a FRAUD.
THe Infancy Gospel of Thomas - all infancy gospels pretend that
Christ performed miracles as a child, before the turning of water into
wine at Cana.
This miracle at Cana is explicitly stated as the first of His
miracles,
in the writings of His Apostles who knew first hand from Him, and
often by their own eyewitnessing.
Either the infancy gospels that claim prior miracles by Him occurred
are false, or the regular gospels are false, because they contradict
each other. (probably on other points as well.) And they were more
recent productions than the regular gospels, ergo FALSE. Whatever
facts they contained were interspersed with lies and fantasies.
THE gospel of ADAM and EVE This was considered false by the
Jews as well. To be legitimate authoritative Scripture, something
must have been written by a prophet. This book claims to be from
Adam and Eve, who might qualify as prophets, HOWEVER it is
too recent to be written by them, aside from any content issue.
ergo, FRAUD.
THE Psalms of Solomon - THe THrid Baruch -
Again, rejected by Jews as well. the writings were not traceable
to the alleged authors. If they contained known truth, fine, but they
might contain lies as well, and being too recent or with content
in conflict with what was known to be legitimate, they were frauds.
The Shepherd of Hermas this was not anathematized, merely
relegated to valuable reading but not authoritative for use in Church
to
establish doctrine.
THE odes of Solomon Again, not something accepted by the Jews
either.
You see, the whole point about religious truth in Christianity is that
it must be FACTUAL, not mere subjective "beliefs" but HISTORICAL
FACT, incl. the fact that Christ taught a, b, c, but not d or e. the
latter
only in literature of later date, and usually in conflict with what
was
known as historical fact to have been written by Christ's Apostles.
>THis was decided by a bunch of BISHOPS - not be any god - and not by
>provable acts - they are beliefs.
The bishops each declared what they knew to be historical fact
regarding the legitimacy of these books, as being from God Incarnate
Jesus Christ as recorded by HIs Apostles, or written by them under
His influence applying in specific situations, such as St. Paul's
Epistles,
or lack thereof.
They then sealed their positions in a formal vote, after all had
shared what they knew, and were persuaded or not.
>ALL religions are beliefs - not TRUTH
The whole point about Christianity is that it is an exception from
that rule. It is not about mere beliefs. It is about something that
happened that was written about by eye witnesses who also
received doctrine from Christ Himself.
The purpose of the canon is to rule out the upstart materials
that were frauds, that were deceiving many who were in the
churches, or who were interested in Christianity and being
deceived by false teachers pretending to represent Christianity,
often claiming you could live a dissolute life and be a good
Christian because of some garbage they wrote.
The SAME books were accepted already back to earliest
times as Irenaeus and others who quote them show, and these
writers DO NOT use the fraudulent books and sometimes
name them as recent frauds.
If the standard of truth is Apostolic authoriship, and a book
fails this test, then it cannot be used to establish doctrine
in church sermons. It may be used for instruction like the
Wisdom of Sirach.
If further it conflicts with the Apostolic writings in content,
then it is excluded from any use.
Would you want the board of education to allow textbooks
that teach lies about chemistry and mathematics to be
used in schooling your children or yourself? Same thing
here.
Justina
ThomMadura
> On Jun 8, 5:12 pm, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 6/8/2011 7:44 PM, nickk - not the imposter wrote:
>>
>>> Thom:
>>> What you don't understand, it wasn't their VOTE that made the canon of
>>> books
>>
>> YOU do not understand - it was INDEED the vote of BISHOPS that determine
>> what books were included in the canon - and which were NOT.
>>
>> THAT is a Historical fact
>
> what is being missed by both sides, is ON WHAT BASIS ANYONE
> VOTED HIS OPINION.
UNLESS you have interviews with the actual Bishops involved - NO one knows.
Since they do not exist in the historical record either - I simply and
again reject YOUR attempt to rationalize the situation
IT rests on what we know - not what YOU can make up
ThomMadura
> On Jun 8, 10:52 am, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 6/8/2011 1:18 PM, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> .......
>> A "bible" of any field is simply a authoritative text of what the field
>> includes
SORRY - but in this case - the word authoritative does NOT apply
WHERE are all the other religions and gods ? IF it is a bible of an
entire field - it would have to cover that entire field.
IT doesn't
Until someone can Provide proof of the existence of a supernatural god -
NO religious writing that assumes one does - has any authority.
Christians do not accept the AUTHORITATIVE text of Islam - do they?
THE christinsanity bible is just another collection of religious writing
who "authority" has NEVER been established
THERE are many different such writing - from many religions - that are
on an equal footing with the babel of the bible.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
OH! So you are only talking about the Roman Catholic Bible(i.e.
Jerome)
not the Bibles of the Aramauc,Greek, Coptic, Netus Latin,
and other ancient Apostolic Churches.
You can go to your local Bible Society and check out
that they all have the same four Gospels and letters
of Paul/ You may even check out the Arian Bible.
http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/
infowolf1
1. paradise is a persian word, not babylonian.
2. any similarities between Genesis and babylonian mythology
actually VALIDATE Genesis, because you could expect that
anything as major as Genesis describes, would have some
presence in other peoples' histories, however warped those
histories might be. A total absence of similarities, coming from
the same locality, would make Genesis far more suspicious
looking as a late invention.
3. archaeological finds tend to negate your idea, there are
disputes as to which century what happened in. A level of
Jericho 9of the falling walls) has been found that is strangely
lacking in walls and massive destruction except for one house
in a corner, just like The Book of Joshua says.
4 a. which king or even dynasty was the one of the Exodus is
still in dispute.
b. the actual length and placement of some dynasties, a few
of which were simultaneous and ignoring each other, is another
problem. Egyptian chronology is the cornerstone used for most
ancient chronology, and Egyptian chronology is seriously wrong.
c. The Leyden Papyrus describes some disasters that may
be the Exodus disasters. There are other references. As for
lack of reference, the Amarna Letters refer to people that may
be them, and also names names that appear in the books of
Kings.
d. Egypt had a magical kind of thinking, that would attack by
destroying a name, erasing it, and not mention it. Also they
didn't like being embarassed. it is hardly to be expected that
they would broadcast such events. one of the most extreme
punishments that could be given a criminal, was the erasure
of one of his souls by eliminating his name and giving him
another. Kings took additional names without losing names.
>
> > as for hesiod and proverbs, I took a look at the former,
> > and there is scarcely any resemblance.http://www.theoi.com/Text/HesiodWorksDays.html
> > did you get this strange notion from someone and not bother to
> > check his facts? or do you just have some kind of reading and
> > comprehension problem? or did you rely on some paraphrase of
> > hesiod and not the full text?
>
> Read Hölderlin. Back then (he was the son of a pastor) he had studied
> both greek and hebrew and was struck by the similarities between the two
> books. He lost faith some time after.
then he was stupid. I don't need anyone else's opinions, I read
Hesiod online for myself instead of depending on someone else's
take on it. I don't see any serious similarity. structure and some
themes are not "similarity," this may well be a normal feature of
wisdom literature in general. where are identical passages and
lists of contrasting and identical pairs of wisdom vs. folly? they
are not there.
infowolf1
> On 6/13/2011 10:59 AM, rea...@man.com wrote:
>
> > "Therefore a Jesus of Nazareth as "son of David" has never existed
> > either."
>
> > How do you know?
>
> THIS has been badly snipped BUT I can answer it
>
> 1 - IN Ancient Israel and most other countries - BLOOLINES were through
> the MALE (Father's) line - the mother's line was NEVER considered.
> However - according to the fairy tale - the christ's father was NOT a
> human - so it has NO human blood line from the father.
Adoption was considered just as valid as blood. David could
not have been king if not Israelite, dur to a law in Deuteronomy,
and could not have been counted as of Israel, due to his Moabite
ancestry that gal Ruth, if Naomi had not taken his ancestor Ruth's
baby boy into her arms, and engaged in a mock nursing, at which
point the people who had just said, "a son is born to Ruth" now
said "a son is born to Naomi."
In I Chronicles you will find a man of Judah who had no son, so
he married his daughter to his Egyptian slave, Egyptian blood
being allowed to integrate into Israel in the third generation, unlike
Moabite, and counted resulting son to his family name.
Jesus was descended from David patrilineally with one female
jog in the line, Mary the Virgin, and by adoption patrilineally
through Joseph. The blood was Davidic through Mary, and
the adopted lineage was Davidic through Joseph. In Genesis
we read that Abraham, despairing of having a blood son, was
going to make Eleazar of Damascus, his slave, to be his heir
and de facto son, but God said no, it will be a born son.
>
> 2 - THe letter "j" did not exist in language until around the 14th
> century. NO human had the name "jesus" before that time. IN Hebrew - his
> name would have been Yeshua of some type.
>
> IN english - however - the rule is NOT to translate a PROPER NAME of a
> person. I gave an example of Mikhail Gorbachev - whose first name is the
> Russian Equivalent to the English Michael - but you DO NOT change his name.
>
> THERE are two exception -
>
> 1 - IN a language like chinese where the first name and last name are
> given in a different order - it is Okay to Place the names in the order
> of the new language.
>
> 2- Names of FICTIONAL characters CAN BE translated.
>
> So - if the christ were are REAL PERSON - we would still call him by his
> given HEBREW name - Yeshua
>
> THAT he is a fictional character allows us to translate that name
Total nonsense. it is nothing unusual to mispronounce names
from one language to another, just look at ancient materials. I never
heard of such a rule, you made it up.
Christ is mentioned by two or three puzzled and irritated pagan
writers.
Only a blind faith devotion to the authoritative but baseless position
that He never existed, can argue those passages have to be forgeries.
The context of at least one, segues into the Christ reference such
that
the reference is no forgery.
Justina
infowolf1
The fact you acknowledge, that climbing up in a mountain would not
even show you much of one nearby kingdom, it follows that it had
to be some kind of vision.
As for St. Luke, he says that he had personal knowledge of these
things, AND sought to others who knew personally the things he
didn't. I notice you get some critical details wrong often. You need
to calm down and read carefully.
St. Luke acted and wrote like a proper historian of current events
would do today, someone who had seen part, and got more details
from those who saw other parts, and also wrote with a view to
chronological order. St. Luke's is the last Gospel you should chose
to reject.
Justina
infowolf1
you are hung up on the ROMAN Catholic Church, which didn't
even exist as it is known now until the 10 th century to some
extent and the 11th century, 1054 AD, and developments later.
do you research on those other churches before you spout
your ignorance. Forget everything you got from Calvin or
Adventism or Jehovah's Witnesses or Theosophy or whatever,
and everything you know or think you know about the RC and
the Protestants and Anglicans, and look at the ancient Greek
and Aramaic and Egyptian church that they are the confused
heirs of.
Justina
infowolf1
> > "OF course - since the christ is a MYTH and a genetic impossibility to
> > begin with , the whole story is MYTH"
>
> > How do you know?
>
> "A god and a human would have to be two different species of animals -
> not the same. WE know that when TWO different species of animals
> procreate - they normally produce NO RESULT - they are NOT compatible
>
> WHEN they are sort of compatible - they produce a cross between the two
> animals - A MUTT - not one or the other. A mule is an example of that
> type. But that assumes that they are sexual animals. IN the case of
> gods- a SON is claimed - but NO female god is - so reproduction MUST BE
> Asexual - no sex involved - and not compatible with Humans. THEREFORE
> that christ cannot be true in that case"
>
God is not an animal, and does not reproduce. He creates.
> Now - if the god was a sexual being,- the christ CANNOT be a human male
> - because the combination of a god and human female does NOT contain a
> HUMAN Y chromosome- the christ would have to be an INFERTILE Female."
WRONG, as usual. even given your inadequate view of the Incarnation,
there are male mules and female mules.
There is only one way Christ would be female, and would not be
infertile.
it would be spontaneous parthenogenesis, rare but occasional in
mammals,
and usually induced not spontaneous. The result is twin sister to the
mother.
In birds and reptiles, the result is male. That Christ is male, as
shown
by the circumcision reference, proves this was not natural
parthenogenesis.
But the Y chromosome would be created on the spot by divine
intervention,
and this is not about sexual intercourse type breeding. This is a one
time
only event, the transportation of the Logos the one and only God the
Son
eternally begotten of The Father, and in these latter days entered the
womb
of a virgin became man and was born among us, with the overshadowing
of the one and only All Holy Spirit YHVH or YHWH the Third Person of
the All Holy Trinity, to make the necessary adjustments to an
unfertilized
egg, to make it a male zygote.
Justina
ThomMadura
> On Jun 13, 11:12 am, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 6/13/2011 10:59 AM, rea...@man.com wrote:
>>
>>> "Therefore a Jesus of Nazareth as "son of David" has never existed
>>> either."
>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>> THIS has been badly snipped BUT I can answer it
>>
>> 1 - IN Ancient Israel and most other countries - BLOOLINES were through
>> the MALE (Father's) line - the mother's line was NEVER considered.
>> However - according to the fairy tale - the christ's father was NOT a
>> human - so it has NO human blood line from the father.
>
> Adoption was considered just as valid as blood.
Nonsense
Adoption is not BLOOD relation at all
IT is not even considered that today
ThomMadura
No - it follows that it is some kind of FAIRY TALE
If it were a vision - why go up on a mountain at all?