Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[Pfaffenhofen]

Pfaffenhofen,

If you want to bring Protestants back to the RCC, all you have to do is refute those parts of the bible which set out what the bible is. That is the real problem. Mumbling constantly about there are too many denominations accomplishes nothing. The Catholics have a whole different concept of what the bible is --- prove we are wrong on our concept of the bible, or you are just wasting everyone's time.

I will try to prove.
You sustain that the Bible is the sole background when the Bible was written by Tradition.
Mumbling constantly that Tradition did not write the Bible accomplishes nothing.
Jesus Christ DID NOT write the Gospels. The Apostles and the Apostles disciples did. Meaning-Tradition.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Now you are playing games with the word tradition. It has more than one meaning. However, "Holy Tradition" is a form of Catholic authority outside of the bible. That is what the Protestants rejected, that there can be an authority equal to or above the bible. Protestant doctrine is quite different than Catholic Holy Tradition --- but the word "traditional" can be used in other senses, and Catholics take advantage of the different meanings to set out Protestant positions dishonestly.

However, "Holy Tradition" is a form of Catholic authority outside of the bible.

Outside? You play games with words...
Outside? The Gospels contain all the tradition of the Early Disciples, what they said of what was said of Jesus Christ.
JESUS CHRIST DID NOT WRITE THE GOSPELS !!!!
The Gospels manifest what was the Tradition of the Apostles !!!
Or do you think that the gospels were written by Jesus Christ? Or that what is in the Gospels were the words of Jesus Christ "ipsis verbis"?....

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Pfaffenhofen,

If you want to bring Protestants back to the RCC, all you have to do is refute those parts of the bible which set out what the bible is. That is the real problem. Mumbling constantly about there are too many denominations accomplishes nothing. The Catholics have a whole different concept of what the bible is --- prove we are wrong on our concept of the bible, or you are just wasting everyone's time.

Again, of course I want all of us to be together in one Flock !!!!!!

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Pfaffenhofen,

If you want to bring Protestants back to the RCC, all you have to do is refute those parts of the bible which set out what the bible is. That is the real problem. Mumbling constantly about there are too many denominations accomplishes nothing. The Catholics have a whole different concept of what the bible is --- prove we are wrong on our concept of the bible, or you are just wasting everyone's time.

Your question stayed in my mind.
See the Construction of the Pentateuch (with the 4 sources, Yavist, eloist, Priestly and Deuteronomic)
Torah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jahwist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Priestly source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
JEDP: "Sources" in the Pentateuch
You see that he Pentateuch is a collection of Tradition.

Now the Gospels (see how Tradition shaped the Gospels):
THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL TRADITION
Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oral2.html
Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes i say this and someone thinks i am joking.
I can find more sources if needed.
GBY

 

[VolRaider]

Dont mix.
A Catholic President would do the same.
John Kennedy was for the help of Europe (which, by the way, I heartily thank), as His Father was not.
There was not Presbyterian fleet in D-Day.
I do not want to look ungrateful, but were not for Japan's Hawaii attack, would USA help Europe?
Let's finish this stupid discussion here, for I am grateful for the dead soldiers who gave their lives for the freedom of Europe. Those, the dead and wounded, are the heroes and let's not tarnish their memory.

Yes, the dead and wounded are heroes. Both Catholic, Protestant, etc. Working together to defeat a common enemy instead of bickering about stupid things like allegiance to the Pope, Tradition, etc. This discussion started because a predominantly Protestant nation's entry into the war was a turning point. It gave you the freedom to bash my church and others. So I'm glad you're grateful.

 

[VolRaider]

I keep hearing the Catholic folks talk about Holy Tradition on here. But the EOs and OOs talk of the same thing. How am I supposed to know who's right? If Tradition, in the sense that all three of these churches talk, is so important, then why the Great Schism and the Orthodox split before that?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Yes, the dead and wounded are heroes. Both Catholic, Protestant, etc. Working together to defeat a common enemy instead of bickering about stupid things like allegiance to the Pope, Tradition, etc. This discussion started because a predominantly Protestant nation's entry into the war was a turning point. It gave you the freedom to bash my church and others. So I'm glad you're grateful.

Sorry, I do not know what your point is.

Fine details: allegiance to the Pope and Tradition are not "stupid". Anyhow, I prefer allegiance to the Pope than to Queen Elisabeth II of England or to the future Head of the Church of England, the Husband of Camilla Parker-Bowles. I prefer. But I do not call the allegiance to the Queen of England "stupid". It is a question of respect.

Sorry, had not the USA entered the war in Europe, today we would not have Nazis as we do not have communism anymore.

I am not bashing your Church (that I start with a maiuscule not like you do). Nor i called your Church "stupid". You are thinking that I am doing what you do, but I dont. I have NO PLEASURE on bashing Protestant Churches. I feel they are my brothers and I am sad that we are not United in One Church under a Shepherd.

Are you, in this discussion, taking credit for what the dead and wounded suffer?

 

[MPaul]

I really do not time have to keep posting. However, let me say quickly, that quotations of something else in Scripture does not make what is quoted canon. The bible depends a great deal on other sources. There are quotations of Greek bibles in the NT. These come from many sources. Some of the quotations may be Septuagint. Because they are placed in the bible by an accredited apostle (a prophet with a message outside the church), they are inspired in the context they are quoted.

However, it is absurd to hold that because the NT, written in Greek, makes Greek quotations of the OT, a new criterion has been created for establishing what is Scripture, and everything in a translation is then confirmed as Scripture. This is nowhere set out in Scripture as a principle for identifying the bible, and it is a complete contradiction of the principles that are set out. The translators of the Septuagint, or the Vulgate, were not accredited prophets. However, reference to OT passages were made in the Greek NT by accredited apostles.

This is a very old worn out argument that was immediately dismissed by the Reformers. They upheld that a translation cannot be Scripture, except to the extent it is quoted in the NT.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

I really do not have to keep posting. However, let me say quickly, that quotations of something else in Scripture does not make what is quoted canon. The bible depends a great deal on other sources. There are quotations of Greek bibles in the NT. These come from many sources. Some of the quotations may be Septuagint. Because they are placed in the bible by an accredited apostle (a prophet with a message outside the church), they are inspired in the context they are quoted.

However, it is absurd to hold that because the NT, written in Greek, makes Greek quotations of the OT, a new criterion has been created for establishing what is Scripture, and everything in a translation is then confirmed as Scripture. This is nowhere set out in Scripture as a principle for identifying the bible, and it is a complete contradiction of the principles that are set out. The translators of the Septuagint, or the Vulgate, were not accredited prophets. However, reference to OT passages were made in the Greek NT by accredited apostles.

This is a very old worn out argument that was immediately dismissed by the Reformers. They upheld that a translation cannot be Scripture, except to the extent it is quoted in the NT.

I do not know whether this was an answer to me.
Sorry, I did not say nothing of the kind.

 

[MPaul]

I do not know whether this was an answer to me.
Sorry, I did not say nothing of the kind.

No, but someone made identical posts in this thread and the one on the canon, that because the NT quotes Greek bibles on the OT, then that quoting makes the translations canon.

I just do not have time to continue. I did see something quickly that you believe the Gospels are tradition because Jesus did not write them. First, inspired prophets or apostles at times used secretaries -- Baruch for Jeremiah, and Tertius for the apostle Paul. Second, the Gospels were written by accredited apostles, which meets the criteria of Scripture on who can write Scripture. (An apostle is a prophet but with a message outside the Jewish community)

Sorry, I do not have time for anything more.

 

[MPaul]

Mark 7:6,7,13
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men... Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

No, but someone made identical posts in this thread and the one on the canon, that because the NT quotes Greek bibles on the OT, then that quoting makes the translations canon.

I just do not have time to continue. I did see something quickly that you believe the Gospels are tradition because Jesus did not write them. First, inspired prophets or apostles at times used secretaries -- Baruch for Jeremiah, and Tertius for the apostle Paul. Second, the Gospels were written by accredited apostles, which meets the criteria of Scripture on who can write Scripture. (An apostle is a prophet but with a message outside the Jewish community)

Sorry, I do not have time for anything more.

You did not read what I put there which is more complex. Yes, reading quickly I said that Jesus Christ did not write the Gospels. But there is much more than that. Some Gospels were not written by Apostles and things are much more complex than that for those who study deeply the Bible. some of the sites have good reading.

No problem with your lack of time. I do not have time either.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Mark 7:6,7,13
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men... Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

surely...tradition....hypocrites...that is for those I know...I would prefeer it said frontally, but there are tastes for every style...

 

[Root of Jesse]

I really do not time have to keep posting. However, let me say quickly, that quotations of something else in Scripture does not make what is quoted canon. The bible depends a great deal on other sources. There are quotations of Greek bibles in the NT. These come from many sources. Some of the quotations may be Septuagint. Because they are placed in the bible by an accredited apostle (a prophet with a message outside the church), they are inspired in the context they are quoted.

However, it is absurd to hold that because the NT, written in Greek, makes Greek quotations of the OT, a new criterion has been created for establishing what is Scripture, and everything in a translation is then confirmed as Scripture. This is nowhere set out in Scripture as a principle for identifying the bible, and it is a complete contradiction of the principles that are set out. The translators of the Septuagint, or the Vulgate, were not accredited prophets. However, reference to OT passages were made in the Greek NT by accredited apostles.

This is a very old worn out argument that was immediately dismissed by the Reformers. They upheld that a translation cannot be Scripture, except to the extent it is quoted in the NT.

It is an old argument, but it's not worn out. It is exactly that this was the basis of Christianity. That you folks want to change it, I know that. But remember, "What was in the beginning is now, and ever shall be." Old doesn't make it wrong. In fact, the longer a doctrine has been believed, the more truth there is in it. But we already know that all Catholic doctrines are as old as the Apostles, and that's the reason we believe them.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, but someone made identical posts in this thread and the one on the canon, that because the NT quotes Greek bibles on the OT, then that quoting makes the translations canon.

I just do not have time to continue. I did see something quickly that you believe the Gospels are tradition because Jesus did not write them. First, inspired prophets or apostles at times used secretaries -- Baruch for Jeremiah, and Tertius for the apostle Paul. Second, the Gospels were written by accredited apostles, which meets the criteria of Scripture on who can write Scripture. (An apostle is a prophet but with a message outside the Jewish community)

Sorry, I do not have time for anything more.

But we're talking about the only known canon of the time-the LXX...there was no other canon until after Catholics declared one.

The Gospels are tradition. They were written well after the fact. That doesn't say they're not inspired. But the whole canon of scripture is Tradition.

 

[MPaul]

You did not read what I put there which is more complex. Yes, reading quickly I said that Jesus Christ did not write the Gospels. But there is much more than that. Some Gospels were not written by Apostles and things are much more complex than that for those who study deeply the Bible. some of the sites have good reading.

No problem with your lack of time. I do not have time either.

No, I read it. You're just not following me. And you are using "Tradition" in two senses, which is dishonest.

The theories on the JEDP sources of the OT and the oral tradition of the NT have been around for a very, very long time. They are theories by liberal scholars trying to discredit the inspiration of the bible. When people rely on them, they do exactly what Christ said in the verse I quoted from Mark 7 -- make the Word of God of no effect for the sake of tradition. The JEPD theories are totally rejected by Protestants. However, some Christian scholars uphold the oral tradition theory for the NT, but using an entirely different concept of "tradition" than the "Holy Tradition" of the RCC. These scholars are sucked into the theory, as it makes scholars an elite class of Christians. There is no real evidence of the oral tradition or the priority of Mark, which is how it all began, but it is all theory. There is nothing in the bible to uphold the theory. However, the bible relies on secular and outside sources constantly. That does not make these sources authority -- it is merely how an accredited prophets at times set things out. The important thing is not the source, but that the prophets were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and were verified as a spokesman for God.

When you argue for Holy Tradition, that is exactly what you do, you make the Word of God of no effect, you trash its true significance.

However, if all you want is unity, then please appeal to your local priest, bishop, and the Vatican, that they must give up Holy Tradition for the sake of unity. That will be a lot easier than trashing the bible with the Protestants. And you can also emphasize to your people as well, your argument that the truth is not important, only unity.

And however, it is obvious that you have not really studied the Protestant position on the canon and the bible. You cannot refute that position until you do so in depth. Otherwise, you just set things out that have already been responded to 100 years ago, or you set out the Protestant position invalidly. But it is not going to be easy to learn what is involved with the Protestant position, because it is a very long study to consider all the issues involved. I would say you should set aside a minimum of several months of study, if not years.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Question for MPaul: Do you believe the order of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; or do you subscribe to the idea that Mark is first? Whichever you believe, why? Who said so?

 

[MPaul]

But we're talking about the only known canon of the time-the LXX...there was no other canon until after Catholics declared one.

The Gospels are tradition. They were written well after the fact. That doesn't say they're not inspired. But the whole canon of scripture is Tradition.

This simply is not true. It is total misrepresentation. As I have posted in the two threads, wherein we have dealt with the issue, the books of the bible were recognized immediately for what they were. However, there were disputes on some books of the bible, especially since people were putting out false Scriptures. Eventually, this lead to the councils of the 4th century. The Apocrypha was only recognized in North Africa, based on a fable, and even that was not consistent with biblical criteria on biblical writings. Based on that criteria, the Jews in control of the temple are the evidence of what prophets were verified by the community of the people of God at the time. However, even though the Apocrypha was recognized by some Christians in North Africa, it was disputed what these books were even then, and the Apocrypha itself designated that inspiration had already ceased, as I have noted before.

Now, I really am trying to stop posting, as I've got too much going on now.

 

[MPaul]

Question for MPaul: Do you believe the order of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; or do you subscribe to the idea that Mark is first? Whichever you believe, why? Who said so?

No, I think the priority of Mark is a joke. Study where it came from -- ungodly liberals. It is total theory that means nothing, except it was set out to discredit the bible, and that, of course, has real significance to Catholics. But this is a very long and complex subject, and it takes a lot of time that I just do not have.

 

[athenken]

Question for MPaul: Do you believe the order of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; or do you subscribe to the idea that Mark is first? Whichever you believe, why? Who said so?

What does it matter who wrote their's first? They were accounts written down be four different men. Those who assembled the books of the bible could have assembled them in any kind of order they wanted to. The only thing that matters is what is written in them.