How do we know . . . .

[ScottBot]

Uh . . . watered down? Explain?

The Hebrew texts are the same . . . and the DSS's proved this.

So? The Canon that has been accepted by the East and the West is the Septuagint, not the Hebrew only canon proposed by Jamnia. So, yes, the Reformationist canon is light by 7 books and parts of 2 others.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I’m not going to bother to point out the flaws in your attempt to use this quote to affirm RC teachings. I simply ask how the prove or affirm Papal Infallibility or Petrine Primacy, or even equality between the authority of Scripture and the church?

BTW, do you have any thoughts regarding the OP? How do you know you have a clue about what Scripture or your church means?

The RCC doesn't just use Scripture, or else they wouldn't keep the pope around.

1 Peter 4:7 Of all-things/pantwn <3956> yet The End Has-Neared/hggiken <1448> (5758); be sane then, and be sober into the prayers,

James 5:8 be ye patient!, also stand-fast the hearts of ye, that the Parousia <3952> of the Lord has-neared/hggiken <1448>(5758);

 

[Montalban]

Again, your taking words out of context. Here&#8217;s the hole of his statement in Letter 54 to Januarius:

Do you think Augustine is an authority on these matters?

 

[Montalban]

I think the Paul quote of Christ is in Acts (it is more blessed to give than to recieve). But this does not prove an oral tradition . . . it very well could have been a prophetic utterance.

It shows Paul quoting Jesus when there's no Gospel record of that. As Paul wasn't there when Jesus taught, he must have heard it from somewhere and then recorded it.

Even if it were 'prophetic' it's still something he learnt orally!

Regardless, even IF it WAS an oral tradition, NEVER do you have Paul speaking of what was handed down orally as having the same role as scripture.

Yes, he does. He commends the communities to keep to the lessons he gave orally and in Gospel.

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

&#8220;Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle&#8221; (II Thessalonians 2:15)

They are mentioned together.

By your logic we'd have to imagine Paul preaching to a crowd but his message being less of value than when he wrote it down as if the written lesson is worth more than the spoken one.

Oral traditions are not said to lead to salvation . . . nor are they theopneustos . . . traditions are ONLY said to be good for teaching . . . so they have AN authority . . . but NEVER are they given the same authority as Scripture . . . Paul argues from the Scriptures for the Christ . . . NOT THE TARGUMS.

No. You mistake what traditions he's talking about. I could equally apply that to the 'laws' which were also written down which he said we are not helped to salvation by.

He differentiates between traditions (see quotes above)

 

[Montalban]

Yet did not Clement distinguish between the level of authority of his writings and the NT doc's?

And did not Justin have some semi heretical views?

And even Peter was rebuked by Paul. What's your point?

We Orthodox do not follow any one man.

We're not Peterists, Paulists, Clementines, but Christians.

The checks-and-balances of Orthodoxy is to look at all our faith.

In Protestantism you get to believe that your own interpretations are as equally valid because everyone just has faith in the Holy Spirit - so whatever conclusion you come to must have been by the Holy Spirit guiding you there.

 

[Montalban]

The key to translating this verse is to recognize that Paul says whether by/or. He does not say to hold fast to the teachings you have been taught both by word and our epistle.

Are you saying that the teachings by word OR epitslte were different?

I don't think you have a point here!

 

[katherine2001]

So, obviously the Mesoteric Text was not the text used by the Early Church, Christ, or the Apostles. Why would people use this one rather than the text used by Christ and the Early Church? There are bibles with the Old Testament being translated from the Septuagint. Since we are told to "search the Scriptures" to make sure that what we are being taught is correct, how can you be sure when you don't have the entire Old Testament that the Early Church had at that time? Also, we are warned not to add to or take things out of the Scriptures. Well, 7 books were taken out of the Mesoteric Text that were in the Old Testament that the Early Church used.

 

[sunlover1]

And even Peter was rebuked by Paul. What's your point?

And what's yours Montalban?
Below you're dissing protestants
for believing what they read in the
Bible. What's the alternative method
that you insist is superior?

In Protestantism you get to believe that your own interpretations are as equally valid because everyone just has faith in the Holy Spirit - so whatever conclusion you come to must have been by the Holy Spirit guiding you there.

Equally valid as what?

thanks,
sunlover

 

[Hentenza]

In Protestantism you get to believe that your own interpretations are as equally valid because everyone just has faith in the Holy Spirit - so whatever conclusion you come to must have been by the Holy Spirit guiding you there.

LOL!!! As a Deacon in my church I can honestly tell you that your statement above is not true.

I think you have been listening to the amateur apologists on this site for too long.

 

[racer]

Do you think Augustine is an authority on these matters?

Authoritative as in knowledgeable, yes. Authoritative as in always right and never wrong, no. The word "authoritative" has many meanings:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority

Authority: 1 a (1): a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support (2): the source from which the citation is drawn b (1): a conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official decision of a court) (2): a decision taken as a precedent (3): testimony c: an individual cited or appealed to as an expert2 a: power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior b: freedom granted by one in authority : right3 a: persons in command; specifically : government b: a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e transit authority>4 a: grounds, warrant <had excellent authority for believing the claim> b: convincing force <lent authority to the performance>

 

[racer]

Are you saying that the teachings by word OR epitslte were different?

I don't think you have a point here!

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the teachings were all the same. Some people received instruction orally and some people read the instructions for themselves. Paul says regardless of how you have learned these things, hold fast to them.

IOWs, don't say, "Oh, that's just what he said, we don't have to believe it. Now, if I see it in writing, I'll believe what he said." Both modes of the delivering of teaching were equal athority. If you read it, believe it. If you hear it from a true teacher of the Gospel, believe it.

Tell me, Montalban, if all we have is mans spoken word and we can not trust ourselves to rightly discern what is written in scripture, how does the laity of the Church know whether he is being taught a false Gospel? I don't believe you have addressed the OP.

 

[racer]

In Protestantism you get to believe that your own interpretations are as equally valid because everyone just has faith in the Holy Spirit - so whatever conclusion you come to must have been by the Holy Spirit guiding you there.

I'm guessing you missed this post:

I've recently became acquainted with a former theological scholar dating from the late 19th and early 20th century. George Salmon. He says some things that come very close to the very arguments I have made myself. Only, he was much more articulate. From his lectures on the Infallibility of the Church:

http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/george_salmon.htm

Lecture 3.​

THE ARGUMENT IN A CIRCLE.​

. . . The craving for an infallible guide arises from men's consciousness of the weakness of their understanding. In temporal matters we are constrained to act on our own judgment. When we have important decisions to make we often feel ourselves in great doubt and perplexity, and some times the decision we ultimately make turns out to be wrong, and we have to pay the penalty in loss or other suffering. A loss, however, affecting only our temporal interests may be borne; but it seems intolerable to men that, when their eternal interests are at stake, any doubt or uncertainty should attend their decisions, and they look out for some guide who may be able to tell them, with infallible certainty, which is the right way. And yet it is easy to show that it is in the nature of things impossible to give men absolute security against error in any other way than by their being them selves made infallible; and I shall hereafter show you that when men profess faith in the Church's infallibility, they are, in real truth, professing faith in their own.

It is common with Roman Catholics to speak as if the use of private judgment and the infallibility of the Church were things opposed to each other. They are fond of contrasting the peace, and certainty, and assurance of him whose faith rests on the rock of an infallible Church, with the un certainty of him whose belief rests only on the shifting sands of his own fallible judgment. But it must be remembered that our belief must, in the end, rest on an act of our own judgment, and can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that may be able to give us. We may talk about the right of private judgment, or the duty of private judgment, but a more important thing to insist on is the necessity of private judgment. We have the choice whether we shall exercise our private judgment in one act or in a great many; but exercise it in one way or another we must. We may either apply our private judgment separately to the different questions in controversy—Purgatory, Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints, and soforth—and come to our own conclusion on each; or we may apply our private judgment to the question whether the Church of Rome is infallible, and, if we decide that it is, take all our religious opinions thenceforward on trust from her. But it is clear that our certainty that any of the things she teaches us is right cannot be greater than whatever certainty we have that our private judgment has decided the question rightly whether we ought to submit unreservedly to her teaching; and it will appear, before we have done, that this is at least as difficult a question as any in the controversy

 

[Montalban]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the teachings were all the same. Some people received instruction orally and some people read the instructions for themselves. Paul says regardless of how you have learned these things, hold fast to them.

I agree. They are the same. Oral teaching, written teaching.

IOWs, don't say, "Oh, that's just what he said, we don't have to believe it. Now, if I see it in writing, I'll believe what he said." Both modes of the delivering of teaching were equal athority. If you read it, believe it. If you hear it from a true teacher of the Gospel, believe it.

I agree. I've not said anything differently that we should adhere to both

Tell me, Montalban, if all we have is mans spoken word and we can not trust ourselves to rightly discern what is written in scripture, how does the laity of the Church know whether he is being taught a false Gospel? I don't believe you have addressed the OP.

We can rightly discern what is written in Scripture. I never said that we can't.

We must take Scripture in the context of tradition.

 

[Montalban]

I'm guessing you missed this post:
I've recently became acquainted with a former theological scholar dating from the late 19th and early 20th century. George Salmon. He says some things that come very close to the very arguments I have made myself. Only, he was much more articulate. From his lectures on the Infallibility of the Church:

To a degree I agree that everyone must make up their own mind. I choose to understand that my own opinion is limited and that the Holy Spirit's not just going to validate my opinion, no matter what I come to. I also judge that God wanted unity of faith and left in place guide-lines for keeping this - with teachers (the Apostles) who then taught others to teach

That's why Peter and others are called Shepherds.

Further, Jesus said that the Church he established would not fail.

 

[Rick Otto]

1Co 11:19 - For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Luke 1:1-4 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

[Trento]

I've recently became acquainted with a former theological scholar dating from the late 19th and early 20th century. George Salmon. He says some things that come very close to the very arguments I have made myself. Only, he was much more articulate. From his lectures on the Infallibility of the Church:

Lecture 3.​

THE ARGUMENT IN A CIRCLE.​

.
It is common with Roman Catholics to speak as if the use of private judgment and the infallibility of the Church were things opposed to each other. They are fond of contrasting the peace, and certainty, and assurance of him whose faith rests on the rock of an infallible Church, with the un certainty of him whose belief rests only on the shifting sands of his own fallible judgment. But it must be remembered that our belief must, in the end, rest on an act of our own judgment, and can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that may be able to give us. We may talk about the right of private judgment, or the duty of private judgment, but a more important thing to insist on is the necessity of private judgment. We have the choice whether we shall exercise our private judgment in one act or in a great many; but exercise it in one way or another we must. We may either apply our private judgment separately to the different questions in controversy—Purgatory, Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints, and soforth—and come to our own conclusion on each; or we may apply our private judgment to the question whether the Church of Rome is infallible, and, if we decide that it is, take all our religious opinions thenceforward on trust from her. But it is clear that our certainty that any of the things she teaches us is right cannot be greater than whatever certainty we have that our private judgment has decided the question rightly whether we ought to submit unreservedly to her teaching; and it will appear, before we have done, that this is at least as difficult a question as any in the controversy.

Now no one, so far as I know, has ever maintained that an act of faith, in one who has reached the age of reason, does not involve or imply an act of personal decision, and I as Roman Catholic have no inclination to contest this point. The Church teaches that an act of faith is a virtuous act, and no act can be virtuous unless it comes from the intelligence and will of the individual. We do not merely concede the point, we strongly maintain it. But it does not in the least follow that when I say "I believe the Church to be infallible" I am in effect saying "I believe myself to be infallible." On the contrary, I am saying, "God, in giving the Church as a reliable teacher of his truth, has of course made her recognizable precisely by fallible people like me. She is recognizable, and I recognize her."
Salmon has confused the notion of infallibility with that of certainty, and he appears to identify the notion of belief with that of certainty, so that (on his showing) any act of belief, whatever the object of the act, is a claim to personal infallibility -- a conclusion so paradoxical that it can hardly have been intended by him. Try to Distinguish these three notions, of belief or faith, of certainty, and of infallibility.

The craving for an infallible guide arises from men's consciousness of the weakness of their understanding. In temporal matters we are constrained to act on our own judgment. When we have important decisions to make we often feel ourselves in great doubt and perplexity, and some times the decision we ultimately make turns out to be wrong, and we have to pay the penalty in loss or other suffering. A loss, however, affecting only our temporal interests may be borne; but it seems intolerable to men that, when their eternal interests are at stake, any doubt or uncertainty should attend their decisions, and they look out for some guide who may be able to tell them, with infallible certainty, which is the right way. And yet it is easy to show that it is in the nature of things impossible to give men absolute security against error in any other way than by their being them selves made infallible; and I shall hereafter show you that when men profess faith in the Church's infallibility, they are, in real truth, professing faith in their own.

The Church was conscious, in the words of the New Testament, of being the "ground and pillar of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and it claimed to define this truth and so to exclude errors. A heretic, in the ancient and modern meaning of the word, is one who contradicts this truth or these definitions , and Catholic antiquity was unanimous in holding that heretics were in error. "The word infallible" is a sort of witch-word, arousing non-rational emotional antipathies in modern men. It may therefore be useful to point out that when the modern Chuch claims to be "infallible" she is only making the claim which the Church has always made -- that her teaching is true and that "heretical" teaching is, as such, erroneous." Quote Cardinal Newman
For New Testament times it is interesting to quote some words of Protestant Early Church Scholar Harnack with reference to the primitive Christian community, in which, despite an element of "spiritual anarchy," he notes "the prerogative of the Twelve and the authority of the Spirit-guided infallible community." It is in fact clear that the Church in New Testament times was a teaching, as well as a taught body, and that active membership required acceptance of the common doctrine".
If we turn once more to the New Testament, the answer is not far to seek. Jesus himself claimed to be a Teacher sent from God, and indeed the supreme Revealer of God to man: "No man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him"; "All authority in heaven and on earth has been bestowed upon me" (Matt 11:27; 28:18). This authority he conveyed to his Apostles: "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations....teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined upon you; and lo, I am with you all the days till the consummation of the age" (Matt 28:19-20). Hence the Apostles went out into the world with a message ("gospel," "preaching," "word") which they presented not as conveying their own ideas but as a message through Christ from God:

"When you received the word of the message of God from us, you received it not as a human word, but (as in truth it is) as the word of God." (1 Thess 2:13)
​

Exactly the same as the claim made for its teaching by the Catholic Church. But there is no reason why Christ should have conveyed his infallible teaching authority to his Church for a generation only. If the Church was to endure till Christ's second coming, and to represent him in all subsequent ages, it will follow that her teaching will be his teaching not only till the death of the last Apostle, but so long as she herself endures. She claims no "infallibility" other than that which, through the Apostles and the primitive Christian community, she derives from him, who is the "word" of God "made flesh" (John 1:14) and who said to his first followers: "He who receives [hears] you, receives [hears] me" (Matt 10:40; Luke 10:16).
The claim that Salmon trys to undermine in this chapter is a claim that has been part to Christianity from the beginning. And it should be observed that this argument, if valid against the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility, is valid also against any other alleged infallible authority. if "when men profess faith in the Church's infallibility, they are, in real truth, professing faith in their own," then they similarly profess faith in their own infallibility when they profess to believe in the infallibility of Christ. If we have to accept Salmon's argument as decisive, there is nothing for it but some kind of Modernism.

 

[Rick Otto]

I lean on forgiveability, not infallability.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Jesus probably used the Hebrew text (as He read from the Is scroll) and the LXX.



The Apocrypha were not canonized . . . and what was officialy recognized the Masoretic text did include.

You forget . . . even the JEWS did not consider the Apocrypha as inspired and on par with the 39 books of the OT.

Please list the books that were canonized and your source.

You forgot that they (the Jews who chose to modify their own canon) did not believe Christ either, and they decided that these books were not insipred 40 years after Christ because they did not like the way the LXX supported Jesus as being The Christ.


Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The largest differences in text of the books that are common to both the LXX and Masoretic texts are in the Psalms.

For instance Psalm 50 (51)

The LXX says "when thou art judged." (speaking of Christ and Pontius Pilate) The other texts speak as if God is doing the judging.

One points out Christ, the other does not.

Christ God is pointed out many times in the LXX.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I lean on forgiveability, not infallability.

Me too...

Forgive me...