The new testament corrupted?

[Der Alte]

I have you the verse where she is compared to eve , "typology" new testament types greater then old testament types

and is also called the "fair ewe" ; fair female sheep,

You do not seem to know the difference between being compared to and being contrasted with. What is the problem with "fair ewe"? The followers of Jesus are compared to sheep by Jesus Himself. Still waiting for ECF evidence for "Mary as ever virgin and eve... the very core of all Mariology!" as you claimed.

 

[Der Alte]

Mary is Ever-virgin

“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,' and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;' who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,--that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232)

.

Where do you see "Mary is ever virgin?"

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

The canon of the New Testament was accepted ca. 393 AD. There was no "Catholic" church headed by a "Pope" in Rome until 1075 AD when Ferdinand bishop of Rome, took the name Gregory VII unilaterally usurped authority over the church by issuing 27 Dictatus Papae, Papal Dictates.

If your Baptist tradition in any way resembled the religious traditions between 393 and 1075 then your point would be quite a bit stronger. As it stands Baptists are rather a johnnie come lately species of Christianity.

 

[civilwarbuff]

If your Baptist tradition in any way resembled the religious traditions between 393 and 1075 then your point would be quite a bit stronger. As it stands Baptists are rather a johnnie come lately species of Christianity.

So, the basis of your argument rests on the fact that Protestantism wasn't there at the beginning? That is a rather weak argument.

 

[Der Alte]

If your Baptist tradition in any way resembled the religious traditions between 393 and 1075 then your point would be quite a bit stronger. As it stands Baptists are rather a johnnie come lately species of Christianity.

The title of this thread is "[Is]The new testament corrupted?", not my theology and your post does not address my post, which you quoted, in any way. Would you like to try again?

 

[civilwarbuff]

The title of this thread is "[Is]The new testament corrupted?", not my theology and your post does not address my post, which you quoted, in any way. Would you like to try again?

You are not expecting his argument to get any stronger, are you?.....

 

[Der Alte]

You are not expecting his argument to get any stronger, are you?.....

No, I'm using the old cowboy rodeo gambit, "Give them enough rope..."

 

[Wgw]

"Alpha" is from the Greek alphabet, not Hebrew, not Aramaic. That alone throws suspicion on the writing.

Indeed, although it is close enough to "Aleph." The work in question is quite obviously blasphemous fantasy however. If you haven't read it, I advise against it; of the Gnostic apocrypha, kt is the one that really cheesed me off the most.

 

[Lulav]

If I remember correctly, he kills after someone commits an injustice in His eyes, and then only when someone is being a hypocrite or an imposter. The intention is to humanize Christ while simultaneously portraying Him as outstandingly, almost appauligly, wise beyond His years.

The one part that always stands out to me is the part with His teacher. He is accusing the person teaching Him the alphabet of not understanding the deeper significance of the letters. He focuses on Alpha, our capital A, and gives an incredibly penetrating and insightful description of the two lines rising and coming together to form a single point, noting how they are like a family. | After many hours of contemplation on this, I realized that it is an illustration of the verse in scripture that says, "Draw near to God, and God will draw near to you."

Incredible.
How could it not be inspired?

VI. 1 Now a certain teacher, Zacchaeus by name, stood there and he heard in part when Jesus said these things to his father and he marvelled greatly that being a young child he spake such matters. 2 And after a few days he came near unto Joseph and said unto him: Thou hast a wise child, and he hath understanding. Come, deliver him to me that he may learn letters. And I will teach him with the letters all knowledge and that he salute all the elders and honour them as grandfathers and fathers, and love them of his own years. 3 And he told him all the letters from Alpha even to Omega clearly, with much questioning. But Jesus looked upon Zacchaeus the teacher and saith unto him: Thou that knowest not the Alpha according to its nature, how canst thou teach others the Beta? thou hypocrite, first, if thou knowest it, teach the Alpha, and then will we believe thee concerning the Beta. Then began he to confound the mouth of the teacher concerning the first letter, and he could not prevail to answer him. 4 And in the hearing of many the young child saith to Zacchaeus: Hear, O teacher, the ordinance of the first letter and pay heed to this, how that it hath [what follows is really unintelligible in this and in all the parallel texts: a literal version would run something like this: how that it hath lines, and a middle mark, which thou seest, common to both, going apart; coming together, raised up on high, dancing (a corrupt word), of three signs, like in kind (a corrupt word), balanced, equal in measure]: thou hast the rules of the Alpha.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

How do we know the list to the new testament is not just another catholic tradition? The reformers like martin didn't agree the new testament was all the word of God...So as protestant Christians how do you know the list is correct with out error; infallible extra apostolic list?

The same way the very writings (as well as men) of God upon which foundation the NT began were discerned and established and held as authoritative, this being essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation and recognized by lovers of Truth.

Even OT Scripture provides for this recognition of both men and writings of God being recognized as such, without the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. And even in dissent from the authoritative magisterium.

But under the Roman model for discerning what is God - in which one must depend upon and have faith in the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation to know for sure what is of God - the laity would be wrong in following men and writings whom the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation rejected.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

All of Christianity is Catholic Tradition. Some reject Christian teaching, but Jesus only started one Church and he gave it his authority. That's the Catholic Church.

Really? So the one true church is not the universal body of Christ which alone consists 100% of believers, but it is the church of Rome, which treats even proabortion, prosodomite pols as members in life and in death. And stands in such contrast to the NT church that it is basically invisible in the NT?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I'm sure that is what you have been taught by priests and teachers but that is not what history outside the RCC shows. Here are a few of the 27 Dictatus Papae, if all this authority existed since 33 AD there would have been no need for Gregory to issues dictates.

Gregory VII Dictatus Papae, The Dictates of the Pope

2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
…
8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11. That his is the only name in the world.
12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.

Cal State Univ Northridge

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/dict_pap.html

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Dictatus-papae

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407703233/dictatus-papae.html

West Oregon
http://www.wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Christopher-Perkins1.pdf

Encyclopedia Brittanica

Even more directly influential was Gregory’s centralization of the church. This initiative, clearly outlined in the Dictatus papae (“Dictates of the Pope”), a list of 27 short statements (included in his official letter collection), reflected his belief that the pope, as the successor of St. Peter, inherits a commission from Christ to rule over the church. Gregory also believed that the pope is sanctified by the merit of St. Peter and that Rome alone defines the true faith. Through canonical elections, Roman and local synods, the publication of canonical collections and polemical manifestos, his appointment of plenipotentiary legates (representatives with full power to negotiate), and his immediate control of diocesan bishops, Gregory spun a web in which every thread led to Rome. The scattered priests and distant bishops gradually became a distinct class, the clergy, with a law and a loyalty of their own. Although Gregory died a lonely exile, his principles of reform found reception all over Europe, and the new generation of bishops was Gregorian in sympathy and obedient in practice to papal commands in a way unknown to their predecessors.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507284/Roman-Catholicism/257678/Gregorian-Reform#toc257679​

See here by God's grace for more on this.​

 

[PeaceByJesus]

; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop and Martyr; Letter to the Smyrneans § 8)

Thus according to V2 evangelical churches are also the Catholic church since it affirms Christ is in such, though elitist Rome does not consider them worthy of the proper name "church." Then RCs become indignant when her elitists claims are refuted.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So how do you know you have an infallible new testament list since the list itself is extra biblical extra apostolic. ..?

Again, how could souls know of a truth that the writings of Isaiah were of God, or that John was a prophet indeed, if an infallible magisterium is essential to know that.

Meanwhile, as said, since even the OT attests to laity recognizing what is of God, and a body of writings as being Scripture, (Lk. 24:44,45) without an infallible magisterium, then it provides for a canon,

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So how do you know the "Catholic Church " has given you an infallible new testament list? Martin believe the bible was corrupted in the old testament and new testament letters .. like hebrews, james and Revelation. ..

This was answered above, and Luther had substantial Cath support in his doubts and disagreement expressed by his non-binding Bible, which actually included the apocrypha in a separate section, as per ancient tradition.

And Luther did not dissent from an infallible, indisputable canon, which saw scholarly doubts and disagreements down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first infallible, indisputable canon after the death of Luther in 1546, over 1400 years after the last book was penned.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

This canon was first enumerated by Athanasius

Who excluded the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria#New_Testament_canon)

Well, this is a valid argument against sola scriptura or nuda scriptura, in that the NT lacks a table of contents; the canon is a fourth century development. That said, there are good reasons for doubting the antiquity and apostolic authenticity of the various writings rejected by the canon, for example, the Gnostic apocrypha.

No, as expressed in my prior posts, lack of a table of contents does not invalidate SS, reasonably understood, as not only is it abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, but that even the OT materially provided both men and writings of God being recognized as being so, and for a body of writings, and thus for a canon, all without the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

But when you read the ECF they are too catholic, they can reproduce the new testament and they can reproduce catholic Mariology "eucharist" etc; so how can they prove the new testament as infallible?

They do not, but simply testify to writings being held as infallible as wholly inspired of God. But where do find the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, without trying to vainly extrapolate it as if it were necessary to provide and preserve Truth?

 

[Wgw]

Who excluded the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria#New_Testament_canon)

I was referring to the NT canon, not the OT.

No, as expressed in my prior posts, lack of a table of contents does not invalidate SS, reasonably understood, as not only is it abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, but that even the OT materially provided both men and writings of God being recognized as being so, and for a body of writings, and thus for a canon, all without the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

What you have done is essentially reduced canonicity to what amounts to an aesthetic opinion, based on your objections to the settled facts of ecclesiastical history. Facts which, by the way, need not in any sense pose a challenge to Protestantism; indeed all serious Protestant theologians are comfortable with the history of the NT canon. None of which depends on "magisterial infallibility," by the way, which is essentially an RC concept.

The ultimate danger with the approach you outline is that there is nothing to stop someone from reading, for example, the texts unearthed at Nag Hammadi, deciding they conform to the "transcendant supreme standard," and furthermore, potentially reevaluating or rejecting the canonicity of canonical NT scripture. Except of course, the force of tradition.

The contents of the NT, indeed the concept of a New Testament, are based on tradition, and no amount of rhetoric provides an escape from that. Indeed, Galatians 1:8 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 offer us compelling reasons to accept this tradition, uncritically.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Mary is the New Eve and Most Blessed Among Women

Most blessed due to being so graced could be allowed, but even being the New Eve is is mild compared to the extreme thinking "of men [mortals] above that which is written' (1Co. 4:6) that Caths do in their laudatory adulation/worship of the Mary of Catholicism (vs. the holy Spirit-filled Mary of Scripture), even to ascribing Divine attributes to her, all of which is excused as "hyperdulia."

One would have a hard time in the Bible as a devotee kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

For there is no unique word for worship in Scripture, but it is described by such things as making offerings and burning incense to someone else in the spiritual realm besides God, and religiously bowing before representations of such.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

After doing a little research the devotion to Mary (Theotokos) was approved in A.D. 431 by the council of Ephesus. Agreeably, the Catholic Church was started in the 1st Century by St. Peters making it the original church started by Christ.

You can call it catholic as in universal, but the entity claiming that name is the most manifest foundational and substantial deformation of the NT church.

My biggest contention is the Mariology Doctrine because none of the Apostles validated it or proposed Christotokos. If the Records have it correct, all apostles passed away between 1-100 A.D. therefore, the doctrine even if inspired by men of God, how comes none of the Apostles founded it?

Well, mortals tend to 'think of men [mortals] above that which is written," (1Co,. 4:6) and traditions often take upon a life of their own.
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

• As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."
• as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
• as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
• as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);
• as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, [FONT=Arial, sans-serif](the logic behind which can lead back to Eve); [/FONT]
• as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
• as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
• as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
• as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
• as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
• as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
• as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
• as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;
• as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
• as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
• as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
• as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
• and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” ​
• And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!​

The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God.