New Thread For Israel's Idea

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Hi, I'm Anthony Valentino, I'm Roman Catholic, and I live in NJ.

I don't know about Eugene, but I also had included those points in my postings.

Israel, I think you'll find us all with you except on point five, but I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with you even there. The problem is that the protestant churches can trace themselves back as independent entities for five hundred years to the point where they became an offshoot of the body that is the modern Catholic Church today. The last fifteen hundred years of tracing back to the apostles are within that body.

Here's where I have trouble. Protestant beliefs not only contradict the Church but also eachother. They can't all be right. By looking at beliefs that many protestants slam, it is clear that the Church remains consistent with the earliest accounts of Christian beliefs and structure, while the protestants are clearly different.

I think it should be rather obvious that we must say the apostles taught the early Christians right. That they got it right, and they passed it along right. Otherwise, there's no sense in arguing because we'd have no idea what, if anything, had changed.

So if the apostles were right, and the Holy Spirit aided the transmission of their message, then that message/teaching/belief is the correct one and all others must be incorrect. This message could never die and would not be adhered to only by an organization "on the outs." Therefore, the organization that holds to all of that is the only one with legitimacy to its teaching.

That is why I often have a hard time seeing where the question is (Catholic vs protestantism, I mean). I only see one clear answer. I didn't use to. I used to feel we were all the same but for "details." But I have a protestant friend who had discussions with me that often look like this board. The more I would research (in the writings of both sides) the more I became convinced of the truth of the above statement.

Protestantism is just the sort of thing the Church was created to avoid. It is what happens when people try to do their own theolog

-- anthony (antaine@aol.com), January 22, 2001

Answers

Excellent first post, Anthony. You have accepted all of Irael's conditions, then? Is he sincere?

Now, I know he's not to blame for the mistakes (he doesn't call them mistakes, either) of Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin and the other ''reformers''.

But Israel made a big deal out of the supression of the Catholic religion in favor of a ''New Exodus''; one whose blessings make it apparent to him God wanted a breakup of Jesus Christ's Church. It was God's doing! Seems to me, he can mince words now, and appear to be magnanimous. That's the kind of ''reforming'' his allies are doing in Mexico and South America these days. He claims he's neither Protestant nor Catholic. Is he a Jew? Is he agnostic? I'm openly a Catholic, and I'm not impressed at all by Israel's empty rhetoric. He's not in this to acquire knowledge; he wants to instill doubt in Catholic minds. Forgive an old man for sounding paranoid. But I'm just wide-awake.

Let's see what he replies to this frank statement. +++ May Our Lord help me, as well as Israel, be honest and understanding with one another. +++

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 22, 2001.


Anthony,

I don't know what's wrong with your software, but it seems to clip the end of your posts pretty consistently. Why not try adding a few "nonsense" repeated words at the end of each post so we'll get to see all of what you write?

Sort of a usenet telomere,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 22, 2001.


Greetings: Have you read the bok of Hebrews, not only does it talk about Jesus our high preist who lives forever. It talks about the Jews and how God will open their hearts to Jesus the savior. Please read Hebrews and get back to me because traditions are fading away. I hope God open your eyes lest you stand condemed for rejecting Jesus Christ Gods one and only son. Do not be decieved by false teachers that tickle your ears, they didnt die for you.

-- Alex saved by Jesus (Jesusislife@christianemail.com), January 22, 2001.

Alex, I thank you for your postings. In stepping back and taking a look at what we've been saying, we've been saying alot of the same things, we just don't realise it.

For starters, Mary is in no way, shape, or form exalted above Jesus. This has been a big point for the last few days, and I hope I'm seeing the topic yield to more debate-worthy subjects.

Without question, tradition is relativly unimportant. As I stated earlier, tradition are those things like a Latin Mass that serve the purpose of facilitating the spread and practice of the faith. They can be altered or dropped as times avoid. But there is something else: Tradition (capitalized). This amounts to an oral component to God's word. Yes, the Bible is true. Yes, God's word is complete. But God's word involves that oral component transmitted by Jesus through the apostles to the communities and then perpetuated by those communities to the present day. I'm sure if the apostles had forseen the future splintering and what has been going on on this board, they would have written it down post-haste. But keep in mind that as leaders of a persecuted religion they were trying to write as little as possible. Indeed it was forty years before Mark wrote his Gospel and it took (was he saw as) the destruction of the Jewish world to get him to the table! So the small, distinctive teachings (trans-substantiation, praying to and for the dead, et cetera) that could be transmitted orally were handled orally. By the time it was safe to write them down, they were all common knowledge and practice and so there was no need to write them down. Please however, check out prominent figures from Constantine's day, and you will see many of these beliefs being written down, defended, and explained to still-pagan leaders and communities.

Our difference of opinion exists because I believe in the oral component to the Word (which was *strictly* oral for at least forty years, at least the New Testament) and you do not. Or perhaps you have never thought of it (Tradition with a capital T) as such before. I can lay out what I feel are compelling arguments, but if you can think of a way for me to convince you that there is an oral component to the Word, or for you to convince me that there is not (which I'm pretty sure will be your belief, but I may be pleasantly surprised) I invite you to tell me.

Short of that, I feel our conversation has reached an impasse, the point at which further argument is without the possiblilty of bearing fruit due to fundamental differences of philosophy and theology. In short, we may not have enough in common philosophically (much like the messianic debate between Christians and Jews, working with seperate definitions) to move any further without comparing apples and oranges and repeating ourselves. This saddens me, because I have thoroughly enjoyed putting together my posts and they way yours made me think, so I do invite fresh comm

-- anthony (antaine@aol.com), January 22, 2001.


Anthony,

Great you made a few opening statements and now I know a bit more about where you are coming from. Wow we have five things we can agree on! I bet there is more than that, you think? You seem to believe that protestant beliefs contradict the catholic church as well as other protestant chuches. I totally agree with you. How many of these catholic bashers out there actually have the exact same beliefs? I bet not too many!

I also agree with you that for the most part that the apostles taught the first christian believers right. There are a few instances in the sriptures that I would say may differ a bit, but lets stick to the no scripture for a while.

I believe there is a truth that has not been defiled. But the question is where is it? This is where we will start to dissagree I presume. This is also where I would like to find out how you have come to your belief that the truth is in the catholic church and nowhere else. How did you come to believe this? Was there a certain thing that was the determining factor or what? If you can try to explain this to me as if I am an alien from a different planet having no knowledge about religion.

Eugene,

Thanks for your concern. I can see where you are coming from. I am wide awake as well. I don't want to disscuss this topic in hopes that I will change anyones religous beliefs. But, then again yes I do. I believe with understanding each other all parties can gain knowledge and it will change their beliefs. How, well if nothing else maybe a little love for their enemy. I believe if we can understand one another although not always agreeing we can treat each other better.

The reason for this disscussion is quite simple. Forget all the name calling and childish things, lets state our points of view and let others decide for themselves if they want. If we each truly believe that we are right than there should be no fear. I do not fear anyone concerning my beliefs and I can show and reason with anybody as to why I have my beliefs. Is it possible for someone to change the way that I believe? Absolutely! A few years ago I could have made a lot of the same remarks as our protestant lurkers do. But, now through a greater knowledge I can truly say that some of my most sincere beliefs have changed. I don't personally know all truth and if I said I did I would be a liar. I continually search for the truth but have yet to find it. It seems to me that there are a lot of bad fruit hanging off the trees of catholicism and protestantism. I believe that there was only one man that walked the earth that new all truth, his name the Son of God, Yeshua, Jesus christ! I don't mean this to offend you personally but if you can not defend your beliefs than you are showing your brothers and would be converts that your religious beliefs are weak and shallow. I personally would like to take this disscussion as a mediator betwwen protestant and catholic because I sincerely believe that both of you are wrong. Like I said, I am not a catholic or a protestant nor any denomianation. I am a "believer" thats it. Am I a Jew , possibly.

It does concern me though that you ask if I am a Jew. Does this matter?

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 23, 2001.



Well, let me start by getting one thing out of the way real quick. Whether or not you're a Jew prompts curiosity because of your name, some statements you've made, and the fact that you requested that we all identify ourselves. I had faith you wanted a serious discussion, and am not being disappointed.

But anyway...I'm not going to say that the Church is the only place where Truth can be found, but I must say that everyone else is missing *very* important parts of that Truth. Someone brought up recently on another thread the Eucharist, and indeed all the Sacrements have been handed down directly from the apostolic students of Jesus. Anyone who is missing that is missing a big chunk of Truth.

In addition, it is clear that the Church is the Church of antiquity, while protestant beliefs disqualify them from making that claim (for instance, we know that Saints were a very important part of the religion for the early Christian movement. Any break with that tradition is a break with them.)

When you boil it all down and reduce the matter to it's simplest, it is clear that the question is one of legitimacy and authority. If the Church does not meet the requirements (through beliefs, teachings, interpretations, history, and practices) for legitimacy and authority, then certainly none of the protestant churches does.

As I had stated originally, I did not always think it mattered. However, the more I look into it through both Church writings and protestant writings, the more I find that authority of interpretation and the legitimacy of that authority rest squarely with Rome.

But now I must ask you to reciprocate. Where do you stand right now? Where did you come from prior to finding this board (philosophically speaking, that is)? What other questions stand out in your mind?

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.


I'm really glad you ask me, Israel. I know all there is to know about Jews. In fact, I'm hoping you ARE one. I can relate much better to the Jew than to the ''Bible-Christian'', a good one that went bad.

Jesus Our Divine Lord is the Holy One of Israel. Our Eternal Father Yawheh has called Him ''My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well-pleased.''

When Our Lord returns in glory to judge the living and the dead, He will come Jewish King and Judge. Why? Because God is the God of Abraham. All God's promises to Abraham are fulfilled in the Messiah Jesus Christ. The Founder of the Catholic Church!

We are all going to be heirs to the Promise through Jesus Christ. No one enters the heavenly Jerusalem but through Him. Why should Christians not love Jews? Their Lord is a Jew, and Our Blessed Mother the daughter of David. But you have rejected His Church on earth.
Go figure.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 23, 2001.


Anthony,

I guess I was a little missunderstood about the "identifiy ourselves" thing. What I was meaning to say was have a thread just where each person who speaks on here can say a few words about who they are and what beliefs they have etc. For example, I'm from the midwest, thirty something, married, and I belong to this denomination etc. You know just a few words to let people get an idea who they are talking to. People don't have to get real personal if they don't want to. I wasn't demanding , just a suggestion.

I understand what you mean by the legitamcy thing. It would seem practical. I only have one problem with that. There seems to be quite a lot of conflict going on in the first few years of the church. The apostles had different ideas concerning things such as eating certain foods and circumcision. The apostles were even correcting other groups or churches at the time concerning matters of faith. In general there seems to be a vibe of missunderstanding all points of faith. Most of the New Testament is Epistles or letters to different chuches and it seems a lot of people like to base their beliefs on these letters. I find that to be nonconclusive since we are not able to read the letters or hear the words that the apostles are responding to. For instance, it is like a third person walking in to a room of a phone conversation and only hearing the response. Our minds can really come up with multiple ideas and reasons for the answers. We can not really be assured our thoughts are right without first knowing the original question, does this make any since? Now this may sound a little blasphemous, but I don't know if I believe that all the Epistles in the New Testament were actually supposed to be there as "God's Word". I can pretty much base my beliefs on mainly just the Old Testament,the four gospels, Acts, and Revelations. I guess here is where I do agree with catholicism. I believe the bible is full of truth but not all truth. Meaning that the bible can be interpreted and the actual specific words may not be the exact meaning that is being portrayed in all instances. Do I make any sense here? There are no words in the bible that tell us which books are supposed to be in it so, I think the protestant bible only theory is a little lame. In contrast though, I don't agree with the catholic version that they are who put the bible together and therefore are the true church. The catholic church very well put what we call the bible together but still they lack any first church authorization for it. For catholics to claim "you protestants wouldn't have the bible if it wasn't for us catholics" I find it to be a very childish response. The reason: there was no bible during the time of the first church so claiming ownership of it proves nothing but pride. I think both protestant and catholic a like would agree that the people of the first church will make it to the kingdom of God, but with no bible? How? So, we must discredit the bible fight in any dissagreement, wouldn't you agree? So, there must be more to the truth than just the bible, right? I would agree! Faith in God is not to be equated with faith in a book. The first church didn't have the book so, there is possible true faith without it. Possibly by word of mouth? I would agree! Now don't get me wrong here I do believe that every word that is written in the bible is truth. I believe it testifies of God and his son Jesus which is the truth. I also believe there are words that are not written in it that are truth too. These of course would be interpretations of things and may be a leap of faith in the minds of some people. I believe that both catholic and protestants would have to agree that the bible leaves much room for interpretation, wouldn't you agree? So, the "legitamcy" matter must be who interprets truthfully, correct? But wait we must go back! The apsotles were not interpreting matters the same. Some thought that circumsision was needed while others thought it wasn't. I could go the protestant catholic bashing way here but I will not. I believe that both the arguments about circumsision were correct and simultaneously incorrect. How? Well, I believe the dissagreement was more importantly "Physical Law vs Spiritual Law". The winner- Spiritual Law. So, it's Peter vs Paul right? Nope! Protestants like to claim this was a showing of how Peter is not the first pope. I dissagree. Do you understand why? It's not Peter vs Paul, it's Physical(old law) vs Spiritual(new law). And the winner is, Spiritual (new law)! I believe there are many other situations in the first church that testify of this same dissagreement, Physical vs Spiritual. Anyhow, I have ranted long enough for now so I will let you respond before going any further. BTW, I am trying to get at the "legitamcy" factor here. I believe there is one, do you see where I might be going with this? I believe to have this "legitamcy" in truth you must have this "Spiritual Law" as your root. Would this make any since?

Looking forward to hearing your response. Others are welcome too, how about some of you protestants out there get on in the real action. Let's be adults and stop the childish behavior. I will say I am sorry if I have offended anyone and lets be like our Lord and forgive and continue as he would want us to.

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 24, 2001.


Eugene,

Thanks for the kind words concerning me being a Jew, that makes me feel more at ease with you. BTW, I am not going to disclose my race since that would be the same if I were to ask if you were African American or Asian etc. That really should not matter should it? I too believe that christians should not hate Jews for the same reasons you stated. Hope you will join in the disscussion, I do believe that we can put differences aside and disscuss are beliefs civily. I am not going to respond to the other thread in which I have come across not quite favorably, my bad , I let it get to me. So, I hope that you can except my apology for it and continue without letting ourselves get to hot blooded. It just leads to nonsense and words that are meant harmful.

Peace?

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 24, 2001.


Peace! Yes, what could be sweeter than that, Israel.
I don't care about race. What I said re: Jesus as messiah andking of the jews-- is not to butter up Jews. It's just true. God revealed it.

We do need some moderation in this board, and I take blame for some of the hard feelings. I'm prone to stick it in some people's faces, Israel. Not because I'm a fighter. I am really a shy guy-- I just have tremendous faith in the Will of God, and the Saviour of Mankind, Our Loving Saviour. He lost His temper once or twice. He apologized to NO ONE!!!

I have a bunch of apologies on back-log. Maybe later, when things cool off.

By the same token, a good bulletin board must include the opposite ends of the spectrum, to avoid losing people's interests. (I shoulda been an impressario.) Many others here are ''Golly, let the man speak. He has a ''right'' to his opinion, Hmmm.'' and suffer fools gladly. I'm the opposite. My whole world depends on honesty and NO JIVE! If you disagree, fine. But a forum like this one-- THIS IMPORTANT; needs somebody with more than a smile on his face.

Our Lord is a model for all of us, Catholics and non-Catholics. He paid His dues in this world. He overcame the world. We have to OVERCOME the world, just as He has. We aren't supposed to compromise with the truth. We have to TAKE SIDES! Ciao, Israel. I'll come back later if you're interested.
Blessed Virgin Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death. Pray for your new forum, Dear James, apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 24, 2001.



Well, I must say that the point about the early troubles you stated lends credence to the pro-Papacy theory in that (through letters and what we know about the history of the Jesus-movement) while the apostles had disagreements, it becomes increasingly clear that Peter has the final say. Nobody ever said these people were perfect, but the apostles recognised Peter's authority.

As far as a "book" and the early Church, Mark wrote the earliest Gospel around AD70. The letters predate that. Matthew and Luke were next to write. We know this because they obviously used Mark as a source. They did, however, also both use a "Q" (for the German Quelle, or "source") source which we do not have but feel we can reconstruct. This must predate them, and possibly Mark. Also, Matthew and Luke each use one source apiece that the other doesn't, making for three no- longer-existant sources (possibly more) contributing to the Synoptic Gospels.

The compilation made official at the Council of Nicea (St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate) was in use, completely unchanged, long before that. The debates people hear about at the CoN were debates over the Creed. There were no debates over whether or not to include, say, the gospel of Thomas. People read these other texts, but did not consider them inspired or sacred. So depending on how early is the "Early Church," they most certainly *did* have "the Book," as you put it, and this version jives with the "Catholic Bible" of today and obviously doesn't jive with the others.

aaaaaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaa

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.


Jmj

Hi, Anthony.
This is no major problem, but I think that I should point a couple of mistakes in what you just wrote here (and, I think, on another thread) -- your references to the Council of Nicaea as the occasion for the establishment of the canons of the Testaments, and your mention of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate as being involved in that Council. St. Jerome lived from about 340 to 420. The Council of Nicaea was held in 325 A.D., and it did not establish the canons. Here is what the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia explains to us:
"At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the [seven] books [erroneously] classed by Protestants as 'Apocrypha'). The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, 'But let Church beyond the sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon.' St. Augustine was one among the forty-four bishops who signed the proceedings." I believe that the pope at that time, or shortly thereafter, did indeed confirm the canon. It was the very same canon that was later dogmatically proclaimed at the 16th-century Council of Trent, though it was already clearly infallible by its "ordinary magisterial" use for almost 1200 years.
[I have recently read, in a magazine, of a "Council of Rome" of 380, in which the same canon was supposedly declared, but I have not been able to verify the accuracy of this.]

Now, Anthony, I would like to touch on one other subject that you have raised here (and, again, on another thread, I believe). It is usually referred to as "Marcan priority" -- the theory that St. Mark was the first Gospel writer. I am not going to say outright that you are mistaken, because there is no way for me to know for sure. But I would just request that you speak with a little more restraint and with disclaimers, rather than so matter-of-factly, when discussing things that are uncertain. I'm speaking of the order in which the books of the Bible were written and the years in which they were written. These are things about which we can speculate or theorize -- but not state firmly. If you are near St. Charles Borromeo seminary in Philadelphia or Mount Saint Mary's seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, you may want to take a "refresher" course on this subject. I think that you would learn that thinking on this subject is undergoing a change. My understanding of the situation includes the following factors:
1. The idea that the Gospel according to Mark was the first of the four written is a very modern one (19th or 20th century).
2. The idea of Marcan priority came from questionable sources and has been falling into greater and greater disfavor in the last 1/4-century. Many articles and at least one full book have been written about this. [Some parts of so-called "higher Biblical criticism" are now being evaluated as less than reliable.]
3. There are ancient sources (in the Fathers) that claim that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, possibly in the 40s A.D.. [The fact that his Gospel appears first in the New Testament is not an accident.]
4. Obviously, since we have no "Q," the idea of its existence is only a theory, and people are now disputing its existence and giving reasons for their doubts.

I am not an expert on this topic, so I cannot debate it with you (and don't want to either). As I said earlier, I am just asking for prudent restraint in the words used (e.g., saying, "some believe that Mark wrote the earliest Gospel," rather than a flat-out "Mark wrote the earliest Gospel" -- and "there may have been a now-lost written source of information shared by Sts. Matthew and Luke," rather than "They did also both use a "Q" source.")

I hope that this message will prove to be helpful and not a source of discomfort to you. My wish was to pass the information along with all goodwill.

St. James, please unite your prayers with those of our Blessed Mother Mary for the benefit of this forum.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 24, 2001.


Thank you very much for your concern. I think your call for "restraint" and "disclaimers" is more than fair. I did not mean that the Latin Vulgate was involved in the Council (I'm sorry if it came out that way, I can see how it did), but his was the first of that compilation translated into the language of the people, and readily available and decipherable to the average person here today. I have also read that the Bible that would eventually be set into Latin by St. Jerome (better?) was already in use "unofficially" before AD325 (simply using the Council date as a benchmark for saying "prior to this date (and the formation of the Creed) this text was in use (just not in Latin)"). Also, St. Jerome's version is important because we know the amount of scholarship that went into it involving what must have been considerably more (and more contemporary) texts than are available now (after centuries of barbarians burning libraries), or at the time of the compilation of the KJV. In short, St. Jerome's text (while not around in 325, is believed by many scholars (still better?) to be an accurate translation of text that predates 325) is the earliest I can think of that can be found by our readers sharing this forum and reflects the canon made "official" by the Church at a time when protestants who have altered it would have still been part of that same Church. I mentioned it because it is my impression that many protestants (such as Anglicans, who believe to be an extention of the medieval English church) feel they can trace their roots back to the start of the faith, and it is the Church that has veered off track.

As far as the theory in the numbered points, I have my information from studying with Dr. Kogan (chairman) and Dr. Young of the religion dept. at Montclair State University in New Jersey. This is not to say that the theory is 100% certain, if it was, it wouldn't be a theory. I do feel that there is strong evidence both for (why leave out the infancy narrative if you were Mark?) and against (as you pointed out), but I don't feel it compromises the sacredness or inspiration of the texts either way (whichever order, whether or not a "Q" exists, et cetera).

Again, I do see that my post was a little confusing, thanks for the heads-up on both language and why I shouldn't compose these things at two am ;o)

aaaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaa

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.


Eugene, you said,

He apologized to NO ONE!!!

Splitting hairs maybe, but how about if we say he didn't apologize to the people he lost his temper with? We don't really know what he said in his prayers about it, or how he later felt.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 24, 2001.


Hi, Frank,
Maybe my enthusiasm is leading me into unnecessary argument. If Christ ever did apologize to someone, (He probably did.) we have to think it was for doing them a discourtesy. Not for doing injustice; because He was perfect. My impression is, the gospel relates only one incident in which Our Lord might have later gone back to apologize. Just suppose, in His zeal to expel the money-changers, Jesus caused one of them a slight injury. Like a black eye? It's entirely possible that next day, when He saw the man, He went over there, and said, ''Look, Solomon --whatever-- Please pardon my rough behaviour over at the Temple yesterday, would you? Believe me, I feel bad about your eye! Have you tried putting a piece of steak on it? I'm truly sorry!'' --Or something like that.

I stand corrected, Frank. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 24, 2001.



--And, Frank --I should have qualified my first statement this way: Jesus never apologized about what He was teaching His disciples, nor the authority He had from His Father to teach. He spoke the same to His disciples as He did to Pontius Pilate. I'm not forgetting either, that He plainly said, ''I am meek and humble of heart.''

Glorious and Scared Heart of Jesus, we adore Thee; Pray for us, Holy Mother of Jesus; Be with us here, Saint James, to pray for us also! Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 24, 2001.


Eugene,

What I was thinking of was Jesus in prayer later. With God's wisdom, he must have (when reflecting on it) realized how poor in spirit these people were to be using his Father's house in such a fashion. I can't help but think that he felt sorry for them at that time, even if he was angry at them, and wonder if (since he WAS a man) that he in some way regretted his actions.

I don't think I've heard (or maybe listened to) anything official on it though.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 25, 2001.


Well, Frank,
I think that is a very accurate guess. Your intuition is, Jesus Is a Man. Subject to all men feel and understand humanly; yet in a Divine detachment. (Don't know if that is the right expression--)

Every aspect of a man's world except sin. Jesus most probably felt great compassion and identified Himself very much with sinners. Look at the way He contemplated the woman taken in adultery. He actually seemed to identify with her, and say-- ''I still love you. Go, and sin no more.'' How can we not love Jesus Christ? --God bless you, Frank. I appreciate this good input /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 25, 2001.


Hey now that you guys got that all cleared up, can anyone respond to the questions in my previous post?

-- Isreal (notofthis@world.com), January 25, 2001.

Do you mean the ''Spiritual Law'' part? In order to find legitimacy?

It might not be what you think. Is it this question?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 25, 2001.


Yes Eugene, thats what I'm trying to get answers for. I guess the next move from there might be on to the big "T".

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 26, 2001.

HAAAAAAAAA! Come on, Man!

--What's the big 'T'?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 26, 2001.


Israel,

Sorry about that. Threads do wander around on occasion.

The catholic church very well put what we call the bible together but still they lack any first church authorization for it.

I disagree here. We CAN claim the authority to decide what books are in the Bible and which aren't as we trace the Popes back to Peter and Jesus. (We do have a list of all the Popes, BTW, as well as their writings if you are interested). The point is that the Church has Tradition (big T) back to Jesus, and the authority through Peter to determine what is binding and what isn't. That is how the Church can decide which books truly belong in the Bible and which don't, a feat that no Protestant denomination can do.

Has this answered at least part of your question?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2001.


OK, Tradition;
But inevitably someone starts to protest that Catholics fall back on the ''traditions of men'', meaning God's word is supplanted by false doctrines. Context and clarity would suggest Sacred Tradition, which is backed by the guidance and infallibility of the Holy Spirit. Forgive me, but Big 'T' is not Cool.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 26, 2001.

I just happened to stumble across this discussion board while looking for sites about Saint Jerome's mistranslations of words which changed the catholic church forever. I was very interested by your discussion and I must admit a little upset by it. If you don't mind me saying I can't help but get the feeling that you guys don't really understand what the protestant denominations really believe. I'm not trying to be condemning. I'm just making an observation. One of you mentioned earlier that oral traditions should be held in the same regard as written scripture, however, the Bible says that you have to test all things to find if they are from God. Paul never quotes tradition. He always makes reference to what has been written. It is the same with Jesus Christ. When He is asked questions or makes points He always makes reference to what has been written in the Hebrew scripture, not what people have said about Him. If we rely on oral tradition to show the way to do things it can too easily get altered over time. Paul tells Timothy to study to show himself approved. You cannot study oral tradition. Even Saint Augustine said, "For among the things that are plainly laid down in scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the matter of life..." (St. Augustine On Christian DoctrinesBook II, Chapt. 9, online at the University of Pennsylvania.)In the City of God Augustine goes on to say that scripture is the supreme authority for matters of faith. Most people seem to have a hard time giving all credence to scripture simply because it lays down boundaries that we have to stay within in order to be a true christian. Many heretical teachings have come out of oral tradition and I don't believe that even you can deny that. So, please don't be so quick to attack what you don't understand.

-- Jessa (ich_liebe_gott@hotmail.com), April 14, 2003.

Jessa, you wrote:
"Many heretical teachings have come out of oral tradition and I don't believe that even you can deny that."

I do deny it ... emphatically.
I assume that, by "oral tradition," you are referring to Sacred Tradition (also called Apostolic Tradition), one of the TWO fonts of Divine Revelation, the other being Scripture. In fact, the New Testament revelation was once ALL "oral tradition" -- until part of it was written down. Sacred Tradition is from God, so it cannot contain "heretical teachings." Keep reading St. Augustine (all five million words), Jessa. I'm sure that you'll find out that he believed (and passed down) Sacred Tradition. After all, he was a Catholic bishop.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ