Eyes, and anyone else interested in a most excellent discussion - Banned from the Bible.
I watched that show and was shocked - Mark O'Malley, Goey, The Invisible Dan, Oak, Digi and others really spent a great deal of time sharing valuable information and resources with me. I continue to go back to this thread time and time again as I am still working through the information presented there. I also now lament the fact that Digi and I got off on the wrong foot with each other and she no longer visits the cafe. :(
This is why I think it's ..... I don't know the word..... I think it's dangerous? limiting? small minded? ignorant? sad? when someone says they only use the bible as their only source for truth.
Of course history is much more fun when you're not sitting at a desk waiting for the bell to ring. And we have some incredible teachers down here in the doctrinal booths.
I choose to rely on my understanding of what the bible says as my ultimate test of truth. I like reading the historical info. though. If there is a clear contradiction between the historical source and the scripture, I'll choose the scripture every time.
There are historical sources that claim Jesus Christ's resurection didn't happen for instance, I choose to believe in his resurection.
I prefer what I believe to be an informed choice, and not the result of simply being told what to believe though.
That being said, some historical sources seem so far out there that I can hardly stomach reading them, but if I choose to look no farther at least that's my choice too.
I agree, if the Bible gives a different account as in your example of the resurrection of Jesus Christ I also will choose to accept the Bible's account of things. But as has been pointed out to all of us for many many years, the Bible that we hold in our hands had lots of errors. Some of those errors lie in the telling of the history that was written down. I am not in any way saying that God did not inspire men to write. I am saying that what they wrote has changed throughout the centuries because of many things, translations being only one of those things.
So what do I do with less obvious historical accounts? I check and recheck every historian that I can find both new and old. I check geological, archeological, astronomical and meterological data from the time in question to determine what happened to the best of my ability.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for example. Four cities were completely leveled in one day. The Bible says only that God rained fire and destruction upon them. But what really happened? Fire came from heaven, how? Once the entire story is mapped out the simple explanation from the Bible becomes a living breathing event that really can strike fear into the heart of a sinner. The way it was supposed to do to begin with.
Did the writer of Genesis write down the story? Yes. Did he write all of the details? No. Perhaps when he wrote the story down he didn't need to write all of the details, because they were already known by his target audience. History was originally passed down verbally in every culture on the planet. When they started writing them down varies with each culture. But I can go and study them out using all of the tools available to me to get the rest of the story. This method helps bring the otherwise tedious OT to life for me.
I also agree with you that some historical references are not palatable. But they do make good fodder for poking fun at.
Eyes, and anyone else interested in a most excellent discussion - Banned from the Bible.
Ooohh, this looks like fun!
This is why I think it's ..... I don't know the word..... I think it's dangerous? limiting? small minded? ignorant? sad? when someone says they only use the bible as their only source for truth.
I agree and in my opinion I dont think that you should call yourself a Bible scholar if you dont use something else. The Bible is wonderful, please do not misunderstand it is my main source for faith and practice in my life. But I am not decieved, it is not the original God breathed Word. Now if it were the original scroll and I could actually read the bloody thing...well...I wouldnt be using a computer... But it's not. And I am not Jewish so much of the OT is "Greek" to me. That's why when we get into these discussions I really wish Abi were around to help me sort it all out.
There seems to me a certain necessity to being willing to consider the miraculous event stories as factual. That is clearly another choice that I make.
I don't understand the details of the Sodom & Gomorrah either. I'd be interested in any factual evidence at hand, but I will not accept it if it takes out the basic truth of the story in the bible that it was God's judgment. That it was God's judgement is a belief that I have that at the present time I cannot document factually.
A common story that scholars like to discuss is the idea that the crossing of the red sea by the children of Israel wasn't miraculous. They relegate the event to be a crossing of a body of water called the Sea of Reeds at low tide.
I can understand why someone who didn't believe in miracles would need to find another more normal explanation of the crossing, but I choose to believe in the miraculous version as it's true to what's written and as to it's effect on the readers.
There seems to me a certain necessity to being willing to consider the miraculous event stories as factual. That is clearly another choice that I make.
I don't understand the details of the Sodom & Gomorrah either. I'd be interested in any factual evidence at hand, but I will not accept it if it takes out the basic truth of the story in the bible that it was God's judgment. That it was God's judgement is a belief that I have that at the present time I cannot document factually.
Perhaps you misunderstood me, I do not discount anything that the Bible says. I simply try to ferret out why there is a contradiction with other histories, or when an account seems "weak" I try to find out, as I said "the rest of the story".
The account of Sodom and Gomorrah is incredible and worthy of researching. How God utilized everything and I do mean everything in the immediate area to accomplish His goal is truly awe inspiring.
A common story that scholars like to discuss is the idea that the crossing of the red sea by the children of Israel wasn't miraculous. They relegate the event to be a crossing of a body of water called the Sea of Reeds at low tide.
I can understand why someone who didn't believe in miracles would need to find another more normal explanation of the crossing, but I choose to believe in the miraculous version as it's true to what's written and as to it's effect on the readers.
There are archeologists in the world today, many in fact that go around and try to find the physical evidence that the "doubting Thomas's" of society need to believe in the miracle.
The whole Red Sea thing has been explained by geology... what God did to make it come to pass. He could have simply made the proverbial bush burn without burning it but that would leave no evidence to convince the next generation or three hundred generations down the road.
You see I believed God had many more purposes than those that were immediately obvious for what He did and how He did it.
I definately did not think you were discounting the stories, nor was I trying to correct you.
I was only adding what I said to what you said.
I think we're pretty much on the same page, and I'm thankful for your willingness to examine the stories.
Good to know! So glad we got that sorted out.
I get this magazine called Biblical Archeology. It really is incredible. Once a year most of these archeologists get together at seminars throughout the country and present their findings. This last year there was going to be a huge discussion on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Apparently they have once again gained solid access to them despite the conflicts in the region and translations are coming along fairly well. Mostly they have the fragments and really messed up ones to deal with now. They have a new technology that allows them to take pictures of the fragile pieces and put them onto a computer where all of the scholars have acces to them. Sometimes it really makes me wish I had gotten an Archeology degree.
I would strongly encourage you to get a copy of the Mishnah and study it along with the scriptures...it will greatly strengthen your understanding of how Christ fulfilled the OT prophesies and will help explain a lot of what was written in the NT.
Why? Am I having a problem with something? Not discounting the care and concern, for which I do thank you.
I choose to rely on my understanding of what the bible says as my ultimate test of truth. I like reading the historical info. though. If there is a clear contradiction between the historical source and the scripture, I'll choose the scripture every time.
There are historical sources that claim Jesus Christ's resurection didn't happen for instance, I choose to believe in his resurection.
I prefer what I believe to be an informed choice, and not the result of simply being told what to believe though.
That being said, some historical sources seem so far out there that I can hardly stomach reading them, but if I choose to look no farther at least that's my choice too.
Jeff, that's how I feel about the Greek. If it isn't in the Greek text, then I will choose the Greek Bible over the
There seems to me a certain necessity to being willing to consider the miraculous event stories as factual. That is clearly another choice that I make.
I don't understand the details of the Sodom & Gomorrah either. I'd be interested in any factual evidence at hand, but I will not accept it if it takes out the basic truth of the story in the bible that it was God's judgment. That it was God's judgement is a belief that I have that at the present time I cannot document factually.
A common story that scholars like to discuss is the idea that the crossing of the red sea by the children of Israel wasn't miraculous. They relegate the event to be a crossing of a body of water called the Sea of Reeds at low tide.
I can understand why someone who didn't believe in miracles would need to find another more normal explanation of the crossing, but I choose to believe in the miraculous version as it's true to what's written and as to it's effect on the readers.
If its true that they really crossed the Sea of Reeds, which was a very narrow crossing, then the miracle lies in the fact
that all of the Pharoah's horses and all of the Pharoah's men drowned in 10 inches of water. Now I would pay to see that! Either way, our Lord
and God is still a miracle working God and He is still sovereign.
Perhaps one of those 'SOmeones' was named Martin Luther. ... Mr. Sola Scriptura himself?
... Hmm...
;)
Could be...but he was probably not the first to try to silence the "other half". The list of 'considered' books that I have seen is amazingly long. And I am fairly certain that it is not complete.
I wish I could rely on the greek like you do. I must rely on the translations even though I'm used to different research tools, I'm limited by not being able to read greek. I think folks that say the aramaic texts are a good resorce are correct too. But as there is far less good research tools available it's mostly out of reach for me.
Hi guys,
I think the discution of the canon of the scripture is fascinating but I am content with the protestant bible even though I have a Catholic version on hand that I use for reference and comparison.
Could be...but he was probably not the first to try to silence the "other half". The list of 'considered' books that I have seen is amazingly long. And I am fairly certain that it is not complete.
One difference is though that he (Luther) tried to cut them out after they were established as part of the Canon of Scripture, not as part of the culling process that resulted in the formation of the Canon of Scripture.
I think the discution of the canon of the scripture is fascinating but I am content with the protestant bible even though I have a Catholic version on hand that I use for reference and comparison.
I think the issue comes up particularly when one deals with a 'sola scriptura' (by the Scriptures alone) attitude. What is Scripture? What is Apocrypha? What is Pseudographia?
If I quoted "faith without works is dead" (cf James), a person who followed Martin Luther's lead and excised James from the Canon could completely disregard it. The same thing comes with the treasures within the 7 books of the OT that were removed.
(Having said that, it's far better to stress on what is common vice what splits us and then move forward)
I'm quite certain that you are far more educated than me on these matters, but I still manage to have my own opinion. I'm fairly certain that there is a lot that we do not see eye to eye on.
I would prefer to focus on matters that we could consider together and might do us both some good.
I would prefer to stay away from matters that we could probably argue about for quite some time without either of us changing our mind.
Your references to church history are fascinating and I don't doubt you one bit. I think that with the long and varied history of the catholic church there is probably many references to every religious topic under the sun. And probably from darn near every viewpoint too.
The manner in which I consider history in such a large church is that everything is written somewhere, but often what people are thinking about and doing may have been influenced by contemporary events. It is easy for me to imagine the events in 1967 you told me about as POSSIBLY influenced by more recent events. It's also easy to speculate on that for me but practically impossible to prove one way or the other for me.
Another recolection I have of a few members of Catholic clergy is that I met a few men who were not afraid of saying to me that they thought the "VATICAN 2" writing were a travesty, or words to that effect. For me this brings to mind the consideration that even though the history and the writings in church histories may be varied, that faith and practice is often controlled mostly by the pope in the catholic church. Historically speaking practice has often been much more limited than the scope of the writngs on any particular topic. I tend to think that it's not possible for a church to practice everything that's written in Catholic archives, simply because it's too much.
I do not intend any of this to be an attack on the Catholic church, but as simple observation and consideration Mark. I hope that it doesn't seem like an attack to you at any rate. I find your historical references fascinating.
I'm quite certain that you are far more educated than me on these matters, but I still manage to have my own opinion. I'm fairly certain that there is a lot that we do not see eye to eye on.
I would prefer to focus on matters that we could consider together and might do us both some good.
I would prefer to stay away from matters that we could probably argue about for quite some time without either of us changing our mind.
Your references to church history are fascinating and I don't doubt you one bit. I think that with the long and varied history of the catholic church there is probably many references to every religious topic under the sun. And probably from darn near every viewpoint too.
The manner in which I consider history in such a large church is that everything is written somewhere, but often what people are thinking about and doing may have been influenced by contemporary events. It is easy for me to imagine the events in 1967 you told me about as POSSIBLY influenced by more recent events. It's also easy to speculate on that for me but practically impossible to prove one way or the other for me.
Another recolection I have of a few members of Catholic clergy is that I met a few men who were not afraid of saying to me that they thought the "VATICAN 2" writing were a travesty, or words to that effect. For me this brings to mind the consideration that even though the history and the writings in church histories may be varied, that faith and practice is often controlled mostly by the pope in the catholic church. Historically speaking practice has often been much more limited than the scope of the writngs on any particular topic. I tend to think that it's not possible for a church to practice everything that's written in Catholic archives, simply because it's too much.
I do not intend any of this to be an attack on the Catholic church, but as simple observation and consideration Mark. I hope that it doesn't seem like an attack to you at any rate. I find your historical references fascinating.
Hi Jeff,
While having learned to read the ancient Greek mss has opened up new worlds of understanding for me, especially when you know what part of the
church that the translators reside in, there is no replacement for the leading of the Holy Spirit. Never let Him go, so blessings be upon you this day.
I'm quite certain that you are far more educated than me on these matters, but I still manage to have my own opinion. I'm fairly certain that there is a lot that we do not see eye to eye on.
I would prefer to focus on matters that we could consider together and might do us both some good.
(Believe it or not) I agree with you. Where I run into problems (and where I will disagree) is when somebody asserts something to be a teaching of the Catholic Church and it isn't or when somebody starts to assert something as objective truth when it simply isn't. Then I engage. (I don't even usually bother with trying to defend against the Whore of Babylon type comments any more...not worth my time (for the reason you cite below).
But for the most part, I would prefer to stay on a positive light and, where I insert something from Catholic teaching, it being something that might actually assist the situation at hand.
I would prefer to stay away from matters that we could probably argue about for quite some time without either of us changing our mind.
Your references to church history are fascinating and I don't doubt you one bit. I think that with the long and varied history of the catholic church there is probably many references to every religious topic under the sun. And probably from darn near every viewpoint too.
I think that Church history is very important...not dogmatic, but important to see how thought developed on an issue. For example, the dispensationalist dogma preached by VPW, TWI, and some church groups influenced by the thought process in the Scofield Bible was actually started by a guy by the name of Darby a couple of hundred years ago. Before that time in any recorded historical references, there was never discussion of a dispensationalist viewpoint. Those facts can be verified.
So for those who claim that dispensationalist views are the accurate and original (i.e., first century church) way to interpret the Bible, it can be proven that this is not the original way the scriptures were interpreted. It removes the authoritative claim used by the proponents of that method.
(Now if somebody wishes to still advance that method of exegesis they are more than welcome to do so...and it can be judged on its merits, as compared to other methods used by exegetes)
The manner in which I consider history in such a large church is that everything is written somewhere, but often what people are thinking about and doing may have been influenced by contemporary events. It is easy for me to imagine the events in 1967 you told me about as POSSIBLY influenced by more recent events. It's also easy to speculate on that for me but practically impossible to prove one way or the other for me.
That's a very valid point. And if I was really studying the subject, I would try to find some members of that group in 1967 and interview as many of them as I could...in order to discover where their influence came from for myself. But I brought up the history lesson in order to show that, contrary to what many have taught, spiritual 'gifts' have been provided throughout the history of the Church, since the day of Pentecost. It helps put things in perspective.
Another recolection I have of a few members of Catholic clergy is that I met a few men who were not afraid of saying to me that they thought the "VATICAN 2" writing were a travesty, or words to that effect.
I hear that myself a lot. In fact, some groups (such as the Society of St. Pius the Tenth) actually left communion with the Church over it. What I see as being a more accurate statement is that the changes justified by the invocation of the "Spirit of Vatican II" have been a travesty ("The Spirit of Vatican II" is a phrase used by 'liberal' groups to justify modernist changes that were not called for (and, in some cases, condemned) by the actual results of Vatican II -- but I rarely bring that up here, as it's a little too "inside Baseball" for the folks here...mostly non-Catholic)
For me this brings to mind the consideration that even though the history and the writings in church histories may be varied, that faith and practice is often controlled mostly by the pope in the catholic church. Historically speaking practice has often been much more limited than the scope of the writngs on any particular topic. I tend to think that it's not possible for a church to practice everything that's written in Catholic archives, simply because it's too much.
I understand, and for a doctrinal discussion...unless it is a defense, specifically, on a teaching of the modern Church, you won't find me referencing modern (post 1054 AD) sources. That is for the reason you state. But if you actually look at it, though, you really don't find a Pope making any radical changes in doctrine. New applications based on changed situations (e.g., Pope Leo XIII published several teachings on the dangers of socialism in the middle of the 19th Century...the doctrine was not new but the application was because of a different situation that had come up)
I do not intend any of this to be an attack on the Catholic church, but as simple observation and consideration Mark. I hope that it doesn't seem like an attack to you at any rate. I find your historical references fascinating.
Appreciate it.
And you might actually want to check out St John of the Cross. I say this not as an effort to proselytize, but because you might get something out of his readings. And, since they're so old, they are in the public domain!
Thank you for the post Markomalley, I will certainly look at St. John of the Cross.
Often times when I look back at heated doctrinal discussions the one who started the fight is the same one who accuses the other of being mean, bigoted, and/ or unreasonable.
It seems that sometimes heat is necessary in these discussions, but most often it is unfruitful I think.
If we both lived in the 1600's it might not be as smooth between us Mark. But I'm glad for the fellowship so far.
SOMETIMES I FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT TWI AS YOU DO ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. For instance I remember Dr. Wierwille telling people that we were "just begining to scratch "the H in theHoly Bible." The context of that taped statement was how far we'd come in terms of our understanding. Perhaps in another circumstance Dr. was not as meak, but that day he was. I believe that many people in TWI were too puffed up about our supposed knowledge, but I'm not certain that it was Dr's doing. But that is kind of an "in house" thing, I mostly object to the abundance of misstatements by people who don't have any clue. I can relate to how you feel about the Catholic church in these type of topics.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
13
9
16
Popular Days
Jan 12
22
Jan 9
14
Jan 10
10
Jan 14
5
Top Posters In This Topic
markomalley 15 posts
Eyesopen 13 posts
JeffSjo 9 posts
RachelYsrael 16 posts
Popular Days
Jan 12 2008
22 posts
Jan 9 2008
14 posts
Jan 10 2008
10 posts
Jan 14 2008
5 posts
Belle
Eyes, and anyone else interested in a most excellent discussion - Banned from the Bible.
I watched that show and was shocked - Mark O'Malley, Goey, The Invisible Dan, Oak, Digi and others really spent a great deal of time sharing valuable information and resources with me. I continue to go back to this thread time and time again as I am still working through the information presented there. I also now lament the fact that Digi and I got off on the wrong foot with each other and she no longer visits the cafe. :(
This is why I think it's ..... I don't know the word..... I think it's dangerous? limiting? small minded? ignorant? sad? when someone says they only use the bible as their only source for truth.
Of course history is much more fun when you're not sitting at a desk waiting for the bell to ring.
And we have some incredible teachers down here in the doctrinal booths. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I agree, if the Bible gives a different account as in your example of the resurrection of Jesus Christ I also will choose to accept the Bible's account of things. But as has been pointed out to all of us for many many years, the Bible that we hold in our hands had lots of errors. Some of those errors lie in the telling of the history that was written down. I am not in any way saying that God did not inspire men to write. I am saying that what they wrote has changed throughout the centuries because of many things, translations being only one of those things.
So what do I do with less obvious historical accounts? I check and recheck every historian that I can find both new and old. I check geological, archeological, astronomical and meterological data from the time in question to determine what happened to the best of my ability.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for example. Four cities were completely leveled in one day. The Bible says only that God rained fire and destruction upon them. But what really happened? Fire came from heaven, how? Once the entire story is mapped out the simple explanation from the Bible becomes a living breathing event that really can strike fear into the heart of a sinner. The way it was supposed to do to begin with.
Did the writer of Genesis write down the story? Yes. Did he write all of the details? No. Perhaps when he wrote the story down he didn't need to write all of the details, because they were already known by his target audience. History was originally passed down verbally in every culture on the planet. When they started writing them down varies with each culture. But I can go and study them out using all of the tools available to me to get the rest of the story. This method helps bring the otherwise tedious OT to life for me.
I also agree with you that some historical references are not palatable. But they do make good fodder for poking fun at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Ooohh, this looks like fun!
I agree and in my opinion I dont think that you should call yourself a Bible scholar if you dont use something else. The Bible is wonderful, please do not misunderstand it is my main source for faith and practice in my life. But I am not decieved, it is not the original God breathed Word. Now if it were the original scroll and I could actually read the bloody thing...well...I wouldnt be using a computer... But it's not. And I am not Jewish so much of the OT is "Greek" to me. That's why when we get into these discussions I really wish Abi were around to help me sort it all out.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
There seems to me a certain necessity to being willing to consider the miraculous event stories as factual. That is clearly another choice that I make.
I don't understand the details of the Sodom & Gomorrah either. I'd be interested in any factual evidence at hand, but I will not accept it if it takes out the basic truth of the story in the bible that it was God's judgment. That it was God's judgement is a belief that I have that at the present time I cannot document factually.
A common story that scholars like to discuss is the idea that the crossing of the red sea by the children of Israel wasn't miraculous. They relegate the event to be a crossing of a body of water called the Sea of Reeds at low tide.
I can understand why someone who didn't believe in miracles would need to find another more normal explanation of the crossing, but I choose to believe in the miraculous version as it's true to what's written and as to it's effect on the readers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Perhaps you misunderstood me, I do not discount anything that the Bible says. I simply try to ferret out why there is a contradiction with other histories, or when an account seems "weak" I try to find out, as I said "the rest of the story".
The account of Sodom and Gomorrah is incredible and worthy of researching. How God utilized everything and I do mean everything in the immediate area to accomplish His goal is truly awe inspiring.
There are archeologists in the world today, many in fact that go around and try to find the physical evidence that the "doubting Thomas's" of society need to believe in the miracle.
The whole Red Sea thing has been explained by geology... what God did to make it come to pass. He could have simply made the proverbial bush burn without burning it but that would leave no evidence to convince the next generation or three hundred generations down the road.
You see I believed God had many more purposes than those that were immediately obvious for what He did and how He did it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Eyesopen,
I definately did not think you were discounting the stories, nor was I trying to correct you.
I was only adding what I said to what you said.
I think we're pretty much on the same page, and I'm thankful for your willingness to examine the stories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Good to know! So glad we got that sorted out.
I get this magazine called Biblical Archeology. It really is incredible. Once a year most of these archeologists get together at seminars throughout the country and present their findings. This last year there was going to be a huge discussion on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Apparently they have once again gained solid access to them despite the conflicts in the region and translations are coming along fairly well. Mostly they have the fragments and really messed up ones to deal with now. They have a new technology that allows them to take pictures of the fragile pieces and put them onto a computer where all of the scholars have acces to them. Sometimes it really makes me wish I had gotten an Archeology degree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
Why? Am I having a problem with something? Not discounting the care and concern, for which I do thank you.
RachelYsrael
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Jeff, that's how I feel about the Greek. If it isn't in the Greek text, then I will choose the Greek Bible over the
English translation every time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
If its true that they really crossed the Sea of Reeds, which was a very narrow crossing, then the miracle lies in the fact
that all of the Pharoah's horses and all of the Pharoah's men drowned in 10 inches of water. Now I would pay to see that! Either way, our Lord
and God is still a miracle working God and He is still sovereign.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Good point!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Edited because I put a post in the wrong place.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
Seems like the books written by "They of the Circumcision" James, Peter and John -
SOmeone attemped attempted to have removed. And yet, they were not successful. Hmm...
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Perhaps one of those 'SOmeones' was named Martin Luther. ... Mr. Sola Scriptura himself?
... Hmm...
;)
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Could be...but he was probably not the first to try to silence the "other half". The list of 'considered' books that I have seen is amazingly long. And I am fairly certain that it is not complete.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Brideofjc,
I wish I could rely on the greek like you do. I must rely on the translations even though I'm used to different research tools, I'm limited by not being able to read greek. I think folks that say the aramaic texts are a good resorce are correct too. But as there is far less good research tools available it's mostly out of reach for me.
Hi guys,
I think the discution of the canon of the scripture is fascinating but I am content with the protestant bible even though I have a Catholic version on hand that I use for reference and comparison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
One difference is though that he (Luther) tried to cut them out after they were established as part of the Canon of Scripture, not as part of the culling process that resulted in the formation of the Canon of Scripture.
I think the issue comes up particularly when one deals with a 'sola scriptura' (by the Scriptures alone) attitude. What is Scripture? What is Apocrypha? What is Pseudographia?
If I quoted "faith without works is dead" (cf James), a person who followed Martin Luther's lead and excised James from the Canon could completely disregard it. The same thing comes with the treasures within the 7 books of the OT that were removed.
(Having said that, it's far better to stress on what is common vice what splits us and then move forward)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Now that is a wonderful idea! BYOB= bring your own Bible!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Markomalley,
I'm quite certain that you are far more educated than me on these matters, but I still manage to have my own opinion. I'm fairly certain that there is a lot that we do not see eye to eye on.
I would prefer to focus on matters that we could consider together and might do us both some good.
I would prefer to stay away from matters that we could probably argue about for quite some time without either of us changing our mind.
Your references to church history are fascinating and I don't doubt you one bit. I think that with the long and varied history of the catholic church there is probably many references to every religious topic under the sun. And probably from darn near every viewpoint too.
The manner in which I consider history in such a large church is that everything is written somewhere, but often what people are thinking about and doing may have been influenced by contemporary events. It is easy for me to imagine the events in 1967 you told me about as POSSIBLY influenced by more recent events. It's also easy to speculate on that for me but practically impossible to prove one way or the other for me.
Another recolection I have of a few members of Catholic clergy is that I met a few men who were not afraid of saying to me that they thought the "VATICAN 2" writing were a travesty, or words to that effect. For me this brings to mind the consideration that even though the history and the writings in church histories may be varied, that faith and practice is often controlled mostly by the pope in the catholic church. Historically speaking practice has often been much more limited than the scope of the writngs on any particular topic. I tend to think that it's not possible for a church to practice everything that's written in Catholic archives, simply because it's too much.
I do not intend any of this to be an attack on the Catholic church, but as simple observation and consideration Mark. I hope that it doesn't seem like an attack to you at any rate. I find your historical references fascinating.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Hi Jeff,
While having learned to read the ancient Greek mss has opened up new worlds of understanding for me, especially when you know what part of the
church that the translators reside in, there is no replacement for the leading of the Holy Spirit. Never let Him go, so blessings be upon you this day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
(Believe it or not) I agree with you. Where I run into problems (and where I will disagree) is when somebody asserts something to be a teaching of the Catholic Church and it isn't or when somebody starts to assert something as objective truth when it simply isn't. Then I engage. (I don't even usually bother with trying to defend against the Whore of Babylon type comments any more...not worth my time (for the reason you cite below).
But for the most part, I would prefer to stay on a positive light and, where I insert something from Catholic teaching, it being something that might actually assist the situation at hand.
I think that Church history is very important...not dogmatic, but important to see how thought developed on an issue. For example, the dispensationalist dogma preached by VPW, TWI, and some church groups influenced by the thought process in the Scofield Bible was actually started by a guy by the name of Darby a couple of hundred years ago. Before that time in any recorded historical references, there was never discussion of a dispensationalist viewpoint. Those facts can be verified.So for those who claim that dispensationalist views are the accurate and original (i.e., first century church) way to interpret the Bible, it can be proven that this is not the original way the scriptures were interpreted. It removes the authoritative claim used by the proponents of that method.
(Now if somebody wishes to still advance that method of exegesis they are more than welcome to do so...and it can be judged on its merits, as compared to other methods used by exegetes)
That's a very valid point. And if I was really studying the subject, I would try to find some members of that group in 1967 and interview as many of them as I could...in order to discover where their influence came from for myself. But I brought up the history lesson in order to show that, contrary to what many have taught, spiritual 'gifts' have been provided throughout the history of the Church, since the day of Pentecost. It helps put things in perspective.
I hear that myself a lot. In fact, some groups (such as the Society of St. Pius the Tenth) actually left communion with the Church over it. What I see as being a more accurate statement is that the changes justified by the invocation of the "Spirit of Vatican II" have been a travesty ("The Spirit of Vatican II" is a phrase used by 'liberal' groups to justify modernist changes that were not called for (and, in some cases, condemned) by the actual results of Vatican II -- but I rarely bring that up here, as it's a little too "inside Baseball" for the folks here...mostly non-Catholic)I understand, and for a doctrinal discussion...unless it is a defense, specifically, on a teaching of the modern Church, you won't find me referencing modern (post 1054 AD) sources. That is for the reason you state. But if you actually look at it, though, you really don't find a Pope making any radical changes in doctrine. New applications based on changed situations (e.g., Pope Leo XIII published several teachings on the dangers of socialism in the middle of the 19th Century...the doctrine was not new but the application was because of a different situation that had come up)
Appreciate it.
And you might actually want to check out St John of the Cross. I say this not as an effort to proselytize, but because you might get something out of his readings. And, since they're so old, they are in the public domain!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Thank you Brideofjc.
Thank you for the post Markomalley, I will certainly look at St. John of the Cross.
Often times when I look back at heated doctrinal discussions the one who started the fight is the same one who accuses the other of being mean, bigoted, and/ or unreasonable.
It seems that sometimes heat is necessary in these discussions, but most often it is unfruitful I think.
If we both lived in the 1600's it might not be as smooth between us Mark. But I'm glad for the fellowship so far.
SOMETIMES I FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT TWI AS YOU DO ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. For instance I remember Dr. Wierwille telling people that we were "just begining to scratch "the H in theHoly Bible." The context of that taped statement was how far we'd come in terms of our understanding. Perhaps in another circumstance Dr. was not as meak, but that day he was. I believe that many people in TWI were too puffed up about our supposed knowledge, but I'm not certain that it was Dr's doing. But that is kind of an "in house" thing, I mostly object to the abundance of misstatements by people who don't have any clue. I can relate to how you feel about the Catholic church in these type of topics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
It's probably too late to way in on this discussion, but what Joey said
hit the mark with me, not the Malley Mark.LOL.
I too am fascinated in what people believe, and why they believe it.
If I found one person on this earth who shared the same beliefs I have,
I would be amazed. I mean all of them.
The RC's had their Marcion,{I think he translated some of the Epistles for them}.
They threw him out of the fold only to have him rival their church in numbers. He threw out everything
except Paul's letters.
It's been a long time on that read. and no I am not Marcionite.
I believe people who belong to denominations share beliefs, but not all the beliefs.
Even you Mark could get a good argument from a fellow Catholic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
LOL. You are bringing up a bunch of history....discussions between the invisible one and myself...from a LONG time ago. Good times.
Trust me, you have no idea....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.