Early Christian Writings

[Root of Jesse]

Very imaginative.



Not convincing, considering that you've been ouspoken against Scripture Alone and in favor of making dogma from traditions instead of Scripture.

To quote you...Very imaginative. I've done no such thing. All I've done is prove that Scripture Alone is no such thing.
There is no Catholic doctrine which doesn't have some basis in scripture.

 

[Albion]

There is no Catholic doctrine which doesn't have some basis in scripture.

We've already been all around that issue and don't have any reason to re-argue it now. We've discussed Roman Catholic doctrines that have no basis in scripture and you are perfectly OK with them, as most Catholics are.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Albion responded in post #74 : It seems to me that the real point there has been missed once again. The fact that many Protestant churches come up with many different interpretations of Scripture doesn't prove a thing.



This statement couldn't be more wrongheaded. There is no reason to suppose that any combination of Protestant churches has any particular reason to come together on doctrine. They are not, never were, the same church divided into warring factions. You are talking about different churches with different histories, different origins, and different beliefs and practices. To criticize them in this way makes no more sense than saying that because the Roman Catholic Church and the Amish haven't created a coherent, logical consensus, both are proven wrong. It's nonsense, proving nothing.

Which leads us back to this:

Jesus Christ created one Church. His Church is coherent. And logical. He didn't really care about consensus. He cared that people obeyed Him. Which is one of the things John 6 proves-he allowed his disciples to go back to their former lives, without trying to correct any misunderstanding.

 

[Albion]

Which leads us back to this:

Jesus Christ created one Church. His Church is coherent. And logical. He didn't really care about consensus.

That's certainly one way of looking at it, i.e. that Christ is not especially desirous of unity. But Clearly's alternate idea--that we can select completely dissimilar denominations almost at random and then fault them and them alone for failing to achieve unity--is illogical.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's certainly one way of looking at it, i.e. that Christ is not especially desirous of unity. But Clearly's alternate idea--that we can select completely dissimilar denominations almost at random and then fault them and them alone for failing to achieve unity--is illogical.

Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's not there. I've shown you concrete evidence of the doctrine of the Papacy, and you simply disagree. That doesn't mean it's not there. The same thing can be said for every Catholic doctrine and dogma. They all have Scriptural basis, and Traditional backing.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's certainly one way of looking at it, i.e. that Christ is not especially desirous of unity. But Clearly's alternate idea--that we can select completely dissimilar denominations almost at random and then fault them and them alone for failing to achieve unity--is illogical.

No, it is entirely attributable to two things-fallen mankind, and the Devil. Look how nice God made Eden, and how easily man messed it all up.

 

[Clearly]

Clearly wrote in post #77 : “My point was made in agreement with Albion's claim that Catholics do not seem to connect their doctrines with the biblical text as often nor as well as protestants. I believe he is correct in this specific claim if the recent threads are to be the evidence.

My comment rested upon the points that we do not HAVE the original record of what Jesus and the apostles actually said, so we do not know what the actual words were. Yet we DO KNOW that Jesus did NOT, and could not have said "this IS my Body" or "this IS my Blood" (which biblical reference is one of the main reasons Catholic Theologians developed their version of the eucharist).

One cannot SAY "this IS" as a literal sentence in aramaic or Hebrew. (unless one assumed Jesus was speaking Greek, in which case he could have used the equivalent εστιν...) It is a translational necessity of Greek that required the creation and insertion of a verb in that sentence. Early translators simply used εστιν rather than to leave it blank (as would have sufficed in the semetic). Since other versions are based on Greek, the error perpetuated.”

Root of Jesseasked in post #78 “1) To answer in Jeopardy style...What is estin?
2) This is why it is dependent on Tradition to understand what Jesus meant.”



I apologize Root of Jesse that I did not explain more (however, I tend to be faulted for the amount of data I DO include...)

1) ΕΣΤΙΝ (εστιν) represents the greek for the english word “IS”.

The most common Greek translation renders Mark 14:22 : “…τουτοεστιντο.σομα.μου…” (i.e. lit. “this is the body mine&#8221. One cannot literally say, “this IS my body” in Aramaic It is a highly contextual language on this pointt.

2) IF the actual contextual words were “this represents my body” , then the single word difference changes the theology entirely. THIS is what I mean that the Catholic Theologians were dependent upon one word when they created this doctrine.

They early Roman Catholic theologians did NOT have the same context as the earliest Judao-christians. Without the same context, one cannot produce the same meaning.




THE VALUE OF A STUDY OF EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN HISTORIES AND TRADITION AND THEIR DOCTRINES

Certain histories were in the early bibles which are missing in later redactions. One MUST turn to histories OUTSIDE the current biblical text in order to know what is meant.

For example, the cup that Benjamin is accused of stealing (Is not this it [the cup] in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth? (gen 44:5) The entire story of Joseph pretending to use the cup to “divine” how to sit the brothers down by birth mother is missing from current old testaments. The missing stories tell us WHY it was the CUP that would have been so important for the brothers to steal. Without the stories surrounding the cup, it is merely an insignificant reference of no import. WITH the stories, it references the entire history of the brothers and their deep regret and repentance regarding Joseph BEFORE going to Egypt.

Another example is Tharbis, Moses first wife, “the Ethiopian woman”, the non-isrealite, whom Moses had married BEFORE he had married Zipporah in midian. (exo 2:21) The story of Moses marriage to this princess is missing from the biblical text.

WITHOUT this history, it makes Moses appear to be a hypocrite (as the Israelites are not to marry outside of Israel). WITH the story, Moses is not a hypocrite and Miriam and Aaron are obviously wrong for speaking against Moses for his prior marriage to a non-Israelite.

In this way, biblical texts often refer to much larger histories with greater meanings and context that affect the narratives and their message in profound ways.

Without extrabiblical history and context, the texts cannot always make the kind of sense as they can in combination WITH the history. Without this history, one can very easily assume that certain beliefs and traditions are “non-biblical” (or even "non existent" ) simply because the reader is completely unaware of how entirely biblical they used to be.

These early traditions are quite important to understand the context of biblical texts whether old or New Testaments. I believe that one strong point with Catholic-type Christian theology is that they attempt to understand the value of extra-biblical history.


Clearly
twtwvidrrw

 

[Albion]

Why don't you just use the "quote" function like everyone else does, Clearly? It would save you some effort and make the rest of us able to follow what you're saying. It really is difficult to follow the train of thought at times.

 

[Clearly]

Albion responded in #74 : It seems to me that the real point there has been missed once again. The fact that many Protestant churches come up with many different interpretations of Scripture doesn't prove a thing.

Clearly responded in #76
The FACT that Protestant churches have failed to create a coherent, logical concensus Christian theology PROVES that Protestant churches have failed to create a coherent, logical, concensus Christian theology.

This inability to come to a concensus on what many of the very simple and basic Christian doctrines are, has resulted in religious movements characterized by a great deal of infighting and disharmony among themselves. If individuals will be known as disciples of Christ partly because they will “ love one another” (jn 13:35) , then this infighting represents a very inefficient system of producing disciples of Christ.

This Protestant inability to create concensus regarding basic doctrines can be compared to the wonderful coherent, logical, and consistent doctrinal themes described in the earliest Judao-Christian writings that describe the orthodox Earliest Judao-christian beliefs. While these beliefs are referred to in biblical texts, the theory of sola scriptura has not been especially useful in helping Christians discover and understand many of the basic early Judao-Christian doctrines.

In contrast, the simple process of reading early Christian diaries; their hymns; their synogogal prayers; their early sacred texts and mishnas provide doctrinal context which then can be applied to the biblical text for greater understanding. For example : though pre-mortal council themes are in the bible, they are not illuminated well and are very likely passed over as a “confusing bit of text” without the context of prior description of what such texts meant to the early Judao-Christians beforehand. Some references in the Biblical text are no longer connected to the supporting text and so outside material MUST be referred to in order to understand what the biblical text refers to."

[FONT=&quot]Albion Said in post #80 “This statement couldn't be more wrongheaded. There is no reason to suppose that any combination of Protestant churches has any particular reason to come together on doctrine. They are not, never were, the same church divided into warring factions. You are talking about different churches with different histories, different origins, and different beliefs and practices. To criticize them in this way makes no more sense than saying that because the Roman Catholic Church and the Amish haven't created a coherent, logical consensus, both are proven wrong. It's nonsense, proving nothing. “[/FONT]



Albion;

I very strongly agree with you that the Protestants represent different churches who've created many differing theologies for themselves.


What I was responding to was the intimation that SOLA SCRIPTURA was somehow helpful to the protestants in ensuring that their competing doctrines were correct and consistent and non-contradictory.




THE HISTORY OF THE DISAGREEMENT REGARDING SOLA-SCRIPTURA

You had faulted the Catholics for using extra-biblical tradition in their theology


The Catholic Root of Jesse felt that Protestants did not seem to be much different (i.e. their theology did not appear to be based on biblical text moreso than Catholics)


In #62 I agreed with the Catholics that Protestants did NOT simply use the bible, but interpreted the biblical text as they wanted so as to create differing theologies


In #63 You compared Catholics deriving their doctrines from extra-biblical sources but then admitted that Protestants used personal characteristics (common sense, reasoning, etc).


In #73 I pointed out that Protestant characteristics ARE extra-biblical and did not result in any coherent concensus theology (which negates the possible value of sola scriptura to ensure true and consistent doctrine)


In #74 You said that “[FONT=&quot]different interpretations of Scripture doesn't prove a thing.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In # 76 I showed that protestant reliance on SOLA SCRIPTURA to produce illogical; incoherent and a dizzying array of competing, inconsistent religions shows that SOLA SCRIPTURA isn’t particularly helpful to insure logic, coherence and consistent theology.[/FONT]






SOLA SCRIPTURA, as a hypothesis, has NOT been particularly helpful for those groups attempting to use it in helping them come to any coherent concensus theology. Instead, even those who adhere to SOLA SCRIPTURA, continue to create an increasing number of incoherent, mutually exclusive and unreasonable Christian religions.

I have consistently attempted to compare this situation with the example of early Judao-christian texts that show significant logical, coherent, concensus Christianity that existed anciently. The modern Christian theories have no advantage over the Earliest Judao-Christian theology and, in fact, the modern theories have many disadvantages to the earliest Christian traditions.

Clearly
twtwsiseot

 

[Albion]

Sorry. It would take too much to decipher that.

I know that proving one's point is important to all of us, but I still think of this as a discussion board, not a bulletin board for the posting of something that looks like it came from a government office.