How do we know . . . .

[ScottBot]

You'd think if they were interested in making it available to all the faithful, they would've translated it so that non-latin readers could understand it. Unless your definition of faithful doesn't include the general population of believers.

1. You realize that most people were illiterate during this period. Most bibles that were available had pictographs so people COULD understand it in a way.

2. In case you didn't catch it the first 4 times it was said, these bibles were transcribed and the art was painted by hand. Go ahead and transcribe your bible by hand, add some illustrations, and have the whole thing bound. Let us know how long that takes. I'll put my order in for 10 of them.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

1. You realize that most people were illiterate during this period. Most bibles that were available had pictographs so people COULD understand it in a way.

I'm not sure what specific period we are talking about, but I can live with your assertion.

2. In case you didn't catch it the first 4 times it was said, these bibles were transcribed and the art was painted by hand. Go ahead and transcribe your bible by hand, add some illustrations, and have the whole thing bound. Let us know how long that takes. I'll put my order in for 10 of them.

No, I didn't catch it, my apologies. I don't know the specifics of the transcription process, or how many people were even used to do it. I'm not too keen on a visual depiction of my Savior, as no one in our time knows exactly what He looked like, and one can assume that He wasn't a light skinned european man.

but anyhow.


Why would the church be interested in giving the literature to the people, when they are most definitely against individuals interpreting for themselves? Why should I even have a bible when I'm bound to doctrinally agree to the man that teaches me? Why would I dare read and come to my own understanding, at the risk of being called a heretic and excommunicated?

 

[squint]

I find it very interesting that Jesus, while He often scathingly rebuked the Pharisees, nevertheless says:

• The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.
  
  (Matthew 23:2-3; NRSV)

Pharisees had the teaching authority at that time, but were hypocritical in not following their own teaching. Yet Jesus (somewhat surprisingly) said to follow them as authorities anyway, because they sat on "Moses' seat" (i.e., they preserved the ongoing Tradition).

They, Israel, were given The Law and a structure that came from God. It was and is The Law that was to be and still is meant to be held up and held forth.

The nearly meaningless "traditions" that were developed in the Pharisees in large part exactly because of the "working" of the Law was WHY the Pharisee's got so out of whack, no different than what "tradition" has continued to do to the Law, by that same LAW.

The Law today continues to be practiced as a joke and a sham by "traditions" of men who sit in the seats of "mens traditions." And it is not just the RCC who is the grandest purveyor of nearly the exact warnings that traditions have wrought and were warned of by Jesus. You could read nearly any WOE written to the Pharisees and see nearly identical workings in the RCC and nearly all religious "social" organizations.

Ritualized nonsense. Pablum that is fed to the masses.

Before the advent of printing, the rarity of books mad them available only to the wealthy. they were often locked away in chests. The Church, wishing to make the Bible available to all the faithful and still to ensure it against loss, chained it to a desk or lectern near a window. There even poor students had its use and it was in popular demand. Bias and ignorance have interpreted this chaining as proof that the Church withheld the Bible from the laity.

In the RCC it would not matter if the Bible were distributed or not. No "common" member is allowed to press upon any RCC determinations in any sense of the case, and if any common member of the RCC disagrees, then there is the possibility of technical sanctions no different than "common law" practice in our ordinary societies.

Facing the facts of "tradition" the RCC's governance was largely adapted from secular governments and secular interests. They were "compromised" so very long ago in no different of a fashion than the Pharisees were "compromised."

God gave the nation of Israel over to CAPTORS called Romans. Their "governmental bodies" were largely incapacitated except for their own "internal authority" only, which is also what happened to the RCC.

To me, there is no deader thing than to sit through any weekly vain repititions and become ensconsed in some "social organization" with the name of God painted across the door.

enjoy!

squint

 

[ScottBot]

I'm not sure what specific period we are talking about, but I can live with your assertion.

No, I didn't catch it, my apologies. I don't know the specifics of the transcription process, or how many people were even used to do it. I'm not too keen on a visual depiction of my Savior, as no one in our time knows exactly what He looked like, and one can assume that He wasn't a light skinned european man.

but anyhow.


Why would the church be interested in giving the literature to the people, when they are most definitely against individuals interpreting for themselves? Why should I even have a bible when I'm bound to doctrinally agree to the man that teaches me? Why would I dare read and come to my own understanding, at the risk of being called a heretic and excommunicated?

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/did_the_catholic_church_forbid_bible_reading.htm

Here is an article on the whole discussion of Catholics and the bible.

 

[ScottBot]

[/FONT]

They, Israel, were given The Law and a structure that came from God. It was and is The Law that was to be and still is meant to be held up and held forth.

The nearly meaningless "traditions" that were developed in the Pharisees in large part exactly because of the "working" of the Law was WHY the Pharisee's got so out of whack, no different than what "tradition" has continued to do to the Law, by that same LAW.

The Law today continues to be practiced as a joke and a sham by "traditions" of men who sit in the seats of "mens traditions." And it is not just the RCC who is the grandest purveyor of nearly the exact warnings that traditions have wrought and were warned of by Jesus. You could read nearly any WOE written to the Pharisees and see nearly identical workings in the RCC and nearly all religious "social" organizations.

Ritualized nonsense. Pablum that is fed to the masses.



In the RCC it would not matter if the Bible were distributed or not. No "common" member is allowed to press upon any RCC determinations in any sense of the case, and if any common member of the RCC disagrees, then there is the possibility of technical sanctions no different than "common law" practice in our ordinary societies.

Facing the facts of "tradition" the RCC's governance was largely adapted from secular governments and secular interests. They were "compromised" so very long ago in no different of a fashion than the Pharisees were "compromised."

God gave the nation of Israel over to CAPTORS called Romans. Their "governmental bodies" were largely incapacitated except for their own "internal authority" only, which is also what happened to the RCC.

To me, there is no deader thing than to sit through any weekly vain repititions and become ensconsed in some "social organization" with the name of God painted across the door.

enjoy!

squint

Opinion. I am aonly interested in something substantial.

 

[squint]

Opinion. I am aonly interested in something substantial.

Hey Scott, when the RCC puts the choke hold on loving ones neighbors as themselves and are the True and Only purveyor of such a practice, give me a shout. I may join you.

In the meantime however I will consider such practice to be very well and far beyond vain and rote repititions and recitals performed under any roof by any number of people wearing purple robes.

 

[ScottBot]

Hey Scott, when the RCC puts the choke hold on loving ones neighbors as themselves and are the True and Only purveyor of such a practice, give me a shout. I may join you.

In the meantime however I will consider such practice to be very well and far beyond vain and rote repititions and recitals performed under any roof by any number of people wearing purple robes.

You could just as easily apply your criteria to anywhere two or more "christians" gather in His name.

 

[squint]

You could just as easily apply your criteria to anywhere two or more "christians" gather in His name.

What a concept!

I do vaguely recall GOD making that presentation....hmmmmm?

 

[ScottBot]

What a concept!

I do vaguely recall GOD making that presentation....hmmmmm?

Right. Neither I nor the Catholic Church have ever claimed to have a stranglehold on God's love. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.

 

[squint]

Right. Neither I nor the Catholic Church have ever claimed to have a stranglehold on God's love. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Your association is the ONLY claimant to God...by it's own determinations.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Uh no . . . the passage:

Acts 17:5
5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people.

says it was because they were jealous . . . not anything about verbatim with the word dude.



And no again. The passage:
Acts 17:11
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
NASU

Paul's teaching was BASED completely on the Scriptures . . . nothing here about oral tradition. The entire fact that the Bereans went to the Scripture to see if what he said was true PROVES the fact that here Paul was expositing the texts.

Again, I have no problem with oral tradition . . . but everywhere I see the NT hint at this . . . it is founded in SCRIPTURE first . . . so tradition is good and worthy of consideration . . . but it derives its authority FROM the scripture FIRST.

NOTICE NONE OF THE NT AUTHORS ARGUE FROM THE TARGUMS or THE OTHER JEWISH TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE. Save for an obscure reference from Jude about the consumption of Moses . . .
NASU

This was for you Scottbot . . .

 

[sunlover1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet_A_Jockey
I'm not sure what specific period we are talking about, but I can live with your assertion.

No, I didn't catch it, my apologies. I don't know the specifics of the transcription process, or how many people were even used to do it. I'm not too keen on a visual depiction of my Savior, as no one in our time knows exactly what He looked like, and one can assume that He wasn't a light skinned european man.

but anyhow.


Why would the church be interested in giving the literature to the people, when they are most definitely against individuals interpreting for themselves? Why should I even have a bible when I'm bound to doctrinally agree to the man that teaches me? Why would I dare read and come to my own understanding, at the risk of being called a heretic and excommunicated?

Here are some dates and information about
Bible banning:

Even after the Catholic inquisition was outlawed in many lands in the 18th and 19th centuries, the popes continued to condemn the free distribution of Scripture. Pius VII, in 1816, condemned the Bible society in Poland and claimed that the distribution of Scripture was undermining "the very foundations of religion" and was "eminently dangerous to souls." He said, "The Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Leo XII, in 1824, said that "if the sacred Scriptures be everywhere indiscriminately published, more evil than advantage will arise." In 1825 Leo mandated that the decrees of the Council of Trent be enforced against distribution of Scriptures. Pius VIII, in 1829, condemned the Bible societies and the free distribution of Scripture. Gregory XVI, in 1836, and again in 1844, affirmed the decrees of his predecessors. In another bull of 1845, this pope repeated his condemnation of Bible society Scriptures and denied that the Scriptures should be freely distributed to all people. Pius IX, in 1850, issued an encyclical letter which condemned the Bible societies. In 1864 this pope issued a Syllabus of Errors, in which he again condemned Bible societies, lumping them together with Communism, secret societies, and other evils, labeling them "pests of this kind." Leo XIII, in 1897, prohibited "all versions of the vernacular, even by Catholics, unless approved by the Holy See, or published under the vigilant care of bishops."
The entire article

 

[sunlover1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet_A_Jockey
I'm not sure what specific period we are talking about, but I can live with your assertion.

No, I didn't catch it, my apologies. I don't know the specifics of the transcription process, or how many people were even used to do it. I'm not too keen on a visual depiction of my Savior, as no one in our time knows exactly what He looked like, and one can assume that He wasn't a light skinned european man.

but anyhow.


Why would the church be interested in giving the literature to the people, when they are most definitely against individuals interpreting for themselves? Why should I even have a bible when I'm bound to doctrinally agree to the man that teaches me? Why would I dare read and come to my own understanding, at the risk of being called a heretic and excommunicated?

Here are some dates and information about
Bible banning:

Even after the Catholic inquisition was outlawed in many lands in the 18th and 19th centuries, the popes continued to condemn the free distribution of Scripture. Pius VII, in 1816, condemned the Bible society in Poland and claimed that the distribution of Scripture was undermining "the very foundations of religion" and was "eminently dangerous to souls." He said, "The Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Leo XII, in 1824, said that "if the sacred Scriptures be everywhere indiscriminately published, more evil than advantage will arise." In 1825 Leo mandated that the decrees of the Council of Trent be enforced against distribution of Scriptures. Pius VIII, in 1829, condemned the Bible societies and the free distribution of Scripture. Gregory XVI, in 1836, and again in 1844, affirmed the decrees of his predecessors. In another bull of 1845, this pope repeated his condemnation of Bible society Scriptures and denied that the Scriptures should be freely distributed to all people. Pius IX, in 1850, issued an encyclical letter which condemned the Bible societies. In 1864 this pope issued a Syllabus of Errors, in which he again condemned Bible societies, lumping them together with Communism, secret societies, and other evils, labeling them "pests of this kind." Leo XIII, in 1897, prohibited "all versions of the vernacular, even by Catholics, unless approved by the Holy See, or published under the vigilant care of bishops."
The entire article

 

[ScottBot]

Your association is the ONLY claimant to God...by it's own determinations.

Hardly. You should do a little more research. Try some unbiased sources.

 

[racer]

Testing....

So one becomes a Catholic scholar, and one becomes a Lutheran scholar.... both have equal intelligence... both claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit... What went wrong?

You didn't answer my question. My point being two people, same class, same teacher, same instruction, two separate levels of understanding? Did the teacher lead us differently?

There is one Holy Spirit leading all of Christianity according to one Gospel. HE does not place preference on one group over the others--he leads us all the same. The difference lies in how we all follow His teachings.

Presuming that there is something "wrong," that anybody is all wrong or anybody is all right, what went wrong is that some understand/listen/discern better or are more dedicated and faithful than others, therefore they come closer to the truth.

The question, or questions, are 1) does any one group have it all right, 2) does any one group have it all wrong, 3) Is God keeping score? Is He judging each individual believe according to the church he/she attends or is He judging each individual according to his individual faith and devotion?

Ultimately, in the end, God judges each and every one by what's in our hearts, not what pew we sat in.

 

[racer]

Indeed. Protestants are demanding for evidence, but accepting only what's written down.

We'll accept evidence of equally divine authority of some unwritten/unrecorded Traditions as soon as we are provided with this evidence. What is it? Where do we find it's authority?

Well it's better than arguing everyone is right, even when they all oppose each other.

How is claiming that all ECFs taught and believed in Papal Infallibility or the PV or IC (when they did not) any different? How is spinning history to serve your own ambitions any different?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Right. Neither I nor the Catholic Church have ever claimed to have a stranglehold on God's love. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Hello again, Scott.

They may not have directly (or may have, I haven't the time to research it now), but by their actions they have shown that they try to control it. Selling of indulgences, i.e. afterlife insurance, i.e. passing the overabundance of grace from a saint to the highest bidder is one example. Excommunication is another example, which was equal to damnation, both in this life and the next. Most people don't realize how bad it was to be excommunicated back when the empire was in control of most of europe. It includes a total loss of all civil rights, for example, exile, as well as falling out of God's grace ( by their determination ofc).

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

this got pushed back in the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottBot
Right. Neither I nor the Catholic Church have ever claimed to have a stranglehold on God's love. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Hello again, Scott.

They may not have directly (or may have, I haven't the time to research it now), but by their actions they have shown that they try to control it. Selling of indulgences, i.e. afterlife insurance, i.e. passing the overabundance of grace from a saint to the highest bidder is one example. Excommunication is another example, which was equal to damnation, both in this life and the next. Most people don't realize how bad it was to be excommunicated back when the empire was in control of most of europe. It includes a total loss of all civil rights, for example, exile, as well as falling out of God's grace ( by their determination ofc).


p.s. thank you scott for the link, and you as well sunlover1 ! God bless, my friends.

 

[Rick Otto]

Right. Neither I nor the Catholic Church have ever claimed to have a stranglehold on God's love. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Unam Sanctum comes pretty close.

 

[Montalban]

We'll accept evidence of equally divine authority of some unwritten/unrecorded Traditions as soon as we are provided with this evidence. What is it? Where do we find it's authority?

Why's it got to be written down?

What for you constitutes proof? The Trinune nature of God is not properly defined in the Bible. It's only in Ecumenical Councils that the church finally stated these

How is claiming that all ECFs taught and believed in Papal Infallibility or the PV or IC (when they did not) any different? How is spinning history to serve your own ambitions any different?

You're loaded questions don't help.

If the Bible is all sufficient then why do Protestants have less books in their OT than the Catholics?

Did the books they discard say "Discard me"?

If they didn't - if Luther used some other means - other than the Bible - to determine that they should be so discarded, then you've proof that the Bible itself is insufficient as a guide - it does not authenticate itself!