Why is there so much hate in fundamentalism toward Catholics and Orthodox

[Light of the East]

"DeaconDean" So do the scriptures. So, how does "tradition" bear into this?

You are not listening, sir. I explained to you, using the example of Arias, the heretic. Holy Tradition is simply what the Church has always believed, which means that out of hundreds of possible interpretations of the Scriptures, Holy Tradition shows us what is right.

Why do you believe the Trinity? Because the Scriptures say so? No! The Jehovah Witnesses can twist, torture, and mangle the Scriptures so as to make them say that Jesus is less than the Father and therefore a created being.

You believe because the Holy Tradition of the Church - i.e., the correct interpretation of the Scriptures - was established and taught all the way back before there was even a canon of Scripture. This is simply what Holy Tradition is.

Your correct. But...where does scriptures say that the "sacraments" are exactly as Catholicism or Orthodoxy teaches?

Well, that is an interesting question.

And that is worse than listening to some guy in robes and a crown telling us what this or that means and how to believe?

Well, the Orthodox do not listen to "some guy in robes and a crown" The proper understanding of Scripture and the Christian life is found by listening to THE CHURCH. That is what the councils are all about. The councils are the bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles, who have been promised the charism of God's Holy Spirit in a special manner to lead the Church into truth when meeting together.

Of course, Dean, I could retort with this: Why do you listen to some guy in a polyester suit and a bad haircut tell you that 2,000 years of Christian practice is wrong and believe that he is without error in his interpretation of the Bible?

And unless you can prove 100% that what the church teaches now is exactly, word-for-word what Peter passed down, then "tradition" is no better than the system you condemn.

Can you prove that it is not? And why "word for word?" That sounds like Fundamentalism to me, where rather than the Bible teaching principles, you have folks who say that the authors penned the Word of God like a secretary pens a letter from her boss - word for word dictation. That is not so, and many atheists have pointed out that if this were so, then there are massive contradictions in the Scriptures which make Christainity look foolish.

God Bless

And you also.

 

[DeaconDean]

Holy Tradition shows us what is right.

Not always as I have shown previously in the GT area.

Why do you believe the Trinity? Because the Scriptures say so? No!

Yes, because scriptures teach it. And, I'm not JW.

And that is worse than listening to some guy in robes and a crown telling us what this or that means and how to believe?

Well, the Orthodox do not listen to "some guy in robes and a crown" The proper understanding of Scripture and the Christian life is found by listening to THE CHURCH. That is what the councils are all about. The councils are the bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles, who have been promised the charism of God's Holy Spirit in a special manner to lead the Church into truth when meeting together.

Well, you can say what you want, but it is a fact that until the Great Schism, your church followed somebody.

Of course, Dean, I could retort with this: Why do you listen to some guy in a polyester suit and a bad haircut tell you that 2,000 years of Christian practice is wrong and believe that he is without error in his interpretation of the Bible?

Fact is, I don't. If it isn't taught in scripture, I must not accept it.

Can you prove that it is not? And why "word for word?" That sounds like Fundamentalism to me, where rather than the Bible teaching principles, you have folks who say that the authors penned the Word of God like a secretary pens a letter from her boss - word for word dictation.

That last sentence shows that you evidently believe what the rest of the world says without checking the facts.

Fact is, what the Apostles wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and they put in in their own words as to what was related to them by God.

And in doing research on Textual Criticism, which I have been doing for some 4 years now, I ran across this little tid-bit. When it come to "PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS", those of the ECF's, they didn't always get it right:

"This class of evidence is styled "the Evidence of Patristic Quotation." It has a certain value, but the value is limited or qualified by numerous considerations...The text of many of the Fathers is itself in an imperfect state. "It is a shame," says Dr. Nestle, "that the most important Fathers are not yet before us in proper editions." Dr. Sanday says: "The field of the patristic writings needs to be thoroughly overhauled. What makes this the more urgent is that where the text has not been critically tested, the quotations from the Bible are the first to suffer. The scribes were constantly in the habit of substituting the text with which they were themselves familiar for that which they found before them in the manuscript. So that what we have very frequently is, not the words of the Father as they were originally written, but simply the late Byzantine or Vulgate text current in the Middle Ages when the manuscript was copied.

The habits of the Fathers in quotation were very loose. Having no concordances or indices, or anything resembling the modern apparatus for facilitating reference, and often no manuscript, they were frequently compelled to rely upon memory for their citations. Quoting from memory explains what we so often find, — combinations of different passages, transpositions, and sense-renderings. Though a full summary of the whole gospel life could be composed from the quotations of Justin Martyr, his quotations are careless. He quotes the same passage differently on different occasions. Although he cites written documents, he often quotes from memory, and interweaves words which are given separately by the Synoptists. He condenses, combines, and transposes the language of the Lord as recorded in the Gospel records. Take, for example. Matt. 5:22, 39, 40, 41, and Luke 6:29. In Justin, 1 Apol. XVI, we read τῷ τυπτόντι σοῦ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ τὸν αἴροντα σοῦ τὸν χιτῶνα ἢ τὸ ἱμάτον μὴ κωλύσῃς. ̔́Ος δὲ ἂν ὀργισθῇ ἐνοχός ἐστιν εἰς τὸ πῦρ, παντὶ δὲ ἀγγαρεύοντί σε μίλιον ἀκολούθησον. Here we have several verses massed, apparently from two Evangelists. Luke is literally followed in the first nine words. The order of the Gospel is not observed, and the sense is changed in the words about the coat and the cloke.

Similarly Matt. 5:46 ; comp. Luke 6:27. Justin, 1 Apol. XV: εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τί καινὸν ποιεῖτε; καὶ γὰρ οἱ πόρνοι τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν. Here, instead of "What reward have ye?" Justin has "What new thing do ye do?" For "publicans" he gives "fornicators."

Again, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 4, 36, where Matt. 5:16 is given τὰ ἀγαθὰ ὑμιν ἔργα λαμψάτω, "Let your good works shine."

The Apostolic Fathers are of little value for patristic quotation, since they do not so much quote as blend the language of the New Testament with their own. Fragments of most of the canonical Epistles are embedded in their writings, and their diction is more or less coloured by that of the apostolic books,27 and different passages are combined.

But often, even when quotation is intended, the citation is inaccurate. To take a single instance, Clement of Rome was familiar with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and references to it occur frequently in his letter to the Corinthians; but in his citation of Heb. 1:3, 4, in Ch. 36, for δόξης "glory," we have μεγαλωσύνης "majesty"; for κρείττων "better," μείζων "greater"; and παρ ̓ αὐτοὺς "than they" is omitted.

Renderings where the sense is given without strict regard to the text are found frequently in Irenæus, who is usually careful in quotation. He changes the syntax, or uses different words intended as equivalents, as εὐχαρίστησεν for εὐλόγησεν in Luke 2:28; ἀκολουθεῖ μοι for ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου, in Luke 14:27; πεπλανημένον for ἀπολωλός in Luke 15:4. Similarly Origen, Cont. Cels. 8:43, gives the equivalent of Eph. 2:12 without exact quotation, τοὺς ξένους τῶν διαθηκῶν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἀλλοτρίους τῶν εὐαγγελίων.

It is quite possible that a Father may have shaped a passage to fit his view of a disputed point. Hence, passages which bear upon great doctrinal controversies must be examined to see whether they exhibit traces of intentional alteration in the interest of doctrinal bias. On the whole, there is little of this. The worst that can be charged, in the great majority of cases, is a tendency, where two readings exist, to prefer the one which makes for the writer's view. Some other cases may be set down to ignorance of the principles of textual criticism. Thus Tertullian castigates Marcion for substituting διαμερισμόν "division" for μάχαιραν "a sword," in Luke 12:51. "Marcion," he says, "must needs alter, as if a sword could do anything but divide." But Marcion was right, and Tertullian, quoting from memory, had in mind the parallel passage in Matt. 10:34.

Again, Tertullian stigmatises the Valentinians as adulterators for reading, in John 1:13, οἳ ἐγεννήθησαν, "which were born." The correct reading, he maintains, is ὃς̀ ἐγεννήθη, "where was born," and the reference is to Christ. But the reading of the Valentinians was correct, and Tertullian's reading was absurd, as the context shows.

Similarly, Ambrose charged the Arians with erasing from the text of John 3:6, the words, "because the Spirit is God and is born of God," in order to support their denial of the deity of the Holy Ghost. But Ambrose did not know that these words were a gloss which had been incorporated into the western text, and that therefore the Arians were right in omitting it.

It is therefore evident that the testimony of the Fathers to the New Testament text is to be received with great caution, and not without the support of the oldest manuscripts and the versions. Where these agree with patristic testimony, the conclusion is as nearly decisive as it is possible to reach. A striking instance of such agreement appears in the case of the reading in Matt. 19:17: τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; "Why dost thou ask me about the good?" as against τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; "Why callest thou me good?" "

A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, BALDWIN PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND LITERATURE IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY NEW YORK, NEW YORK, THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., Ltd., 1899, Chapter IV, PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS

So while many place a get deal of faith and reliability on the ECF"s, I do not.

The blend together scripture, they often quote wrongly, etc.

Some of the very things Fundamentalists, and indeed, Protestants are accused of quite frequently, they themselves are guilty of also.

So forgive me if I don't accept the validity of "tradition".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tom 1]

especially considering that most I've talked to have very little knowledge of what we actually believe...

I think some of it comes down to the adage ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’. I was part of a fundamentalist type church years ago that kind of transposed some basic ideas from the bible onto modern life, adopting some of the behaviours of the apostles. EDIT - not saying it was wrong as such, and there were some definite positives about that church, just not the whole picture - There’s some part of that mentality that then looks back and reinterprets everything from that standpoint, instead of actually finding out how early Christians thought and behaved it just becomes about do this/do that. People in that kind of church can be very suspicious of a more thorough and systematic approach to interpreting the bible, particularly if ‘outside sources’ like the early church fathers etc are also used. If that makes any sense.

 

[DeaconDean]

I think some of it comes down to the idea that ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’. I was part of a fundamentalist type church years ago that kind of transposed some basic ideas from the bible onto modern life, adopting some of the behaviours of the apostles. There’s some part of that mentality that then looks back and reinterprets everything from that standpoint, instead of actually finding out how early Christians thought and behaved it just becomes about do this/do that. People in that kind of church can be very suspicious of a more thorough and systematic approach to interpreting the bible, particularly if ‘outside sources’ like the early church fathers etc are also used. If that makes any sense.

Let's put it this way.

Gather 10 people around in a circle.

Tell the first person a "secret", and have them tell it to the next. Then have that person tell it to the next and so-on, and so-on.

When the "secret" makes it back to the last person, have them say out loud what they were told. Then have the first person say out loud what they were told. I guarantee the two won't match.

If the Apostles passed on what they learned to the next generation, and the Apostles were largely young in comparison, how do we know for a fact, that what Paul or Peter passed on, is the exact thing they said? You can't know that. That is the value of the ECF's right there, is how close to the Holy Scripture they are.

Here is another example.

It is tradition that the last student of the graduating class, upon receiving the diploma, drop their pants and show their "buttocks" i.e.: moon the audience. It's not taught in school, but it is a "tradition".

Just because its "tradition, does not make it right.

I know I can rely on the scripture. But I can't always rely on the word of men, even the ECF's because most people won't admit that the ECF's were just like me, a man who is subject to make a mistake now and again.

And I showed in my above post, that often, the ECF's quoted scripture wrongly. Accused others of the same, when they were the ones wrong.

Even up to 7 years after Christ died, was buried, resurrected, and ascended, Peter sinned. He wasn't perfect, so why should we expect the ECF's and others to be perfect?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tom 1]

Let's put it this way.

Gather 10 people around in a circle.

Tell the first person a "secret", and have them tell it to the next. Then have that person tell it to the next and so-on, and so-on.

When the "secret" makes it back to the last person, have them say out loud what they were told. Then have the first person say out loud what they were told. I guarantee the two won't match.

If the Apostles passed on what they learned to the next generation, and the Apostles were largely young in comparison, how do we know for a fact, that what Paul or Peter passed on, is the exact thing they said? You can't know that. That is the value of the ECF's right there, is how close to the Holy Scripture they are.

Here is another example.

It is tradition that the last student of the graduating class, upon receiving the diploma, drop their pants and show their "buttocks" i.e.: moon the audience. It's not taught in school, but it is a "tradition".

Just because its "tradition, does not make it right.

I know I can rely on the scripture. But I can't always rely on the word of men, even the ECF's because most people won't admit that the ECF's were just like me, a man who is subject to make a mistake now and again.

And I showed in my above post, that often, the ECF's quoted scripture wrongly. Accused others of the same, when they were the ones wrong.

Even up to 7 years after Christ died, was buried, resurrected, and ascended, Peter sinned. He wasn't perfect, so why should we expect the ECF's and others to be perfect?

God Bless

Till all are one.

I think the Chinese whispers argument is a bit weak, because there are a lot of writings that you can study and weigh up, and come to conclusions. There’s some uncertainty in it, none of the early church fathers claim as far as I know that their interpretations are inspired as such, but the same is true for a modern day evangelist reinterpreting the scriptures from a different perspective.

 

[DeaconDean]

Earlier, a member here said:

Why do you believe the Trinity? Because the Scriptures say so? No! The Jehovah Witnesses can twist, torture, and mangle the Scriptures so as to make them say that Jesus is less than the Father and therefore a created being.

You believe because the Holy Tradition of the Church - i.e., the correct interpretation of the Scriptures - was established and taught all the way back before there was even a canon of Scripture. This is simply what Holy Tradition is.

I know for a fact that the Comma Johanneum (1 Jn. 5:7-8) is highly questionable.

But even without those two verses, there is enough evidence to prove the doctrine of the "trinity" without the "Church Tradition".

A simple look at the baptism of Jesus proves this.

The creation account of Genesis 1 confirms this. And that comes from Hebrew scripture that pre-dates the church by a few millennia.

I don't believe the trinity because any "church" says so. I believe it because scripture teaches it!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I think the Chinese whispers argument is a bit weak, because there are a lot of writings that you can study and weigh up, and come to conclusions. There’s some uncertainty in it, none of the early church fathers claim as far as I know that their interpretations are inspired as such, but the same is true for a modern day evangelist reinterpreting the scriptures from a different perspective.

That is why everything is to be checked against the supreme "measuring stick", i.e.: the scriptures.

In fact, when any Christian, whether its the Catholics, or Orthodox, or Fundamentalists, when we say "canon" as in canon of scripture, whether you'll admit it or not, your saying the scriptures are the supreme "measuring stick" to which all else to be measured against.

"κανών"
Definition: (lit: a level, ruler), a rule, regulation, rule of conduct or doctrine, (b) a measured (defined) area, province.

kanṓn – properly, a rod (bar) used as a measuring standard, originally, a cane or reed used as a standard of measure; (figuratively) a rule; a standard or norm (see Gal 6:16).

2583 /kanṓn ("rule, standard") was used for a summary of orthodox Christian doctrine in the early Church (its "consensual theology") – called "the rule (kanōn) of truth" or "rule of faith" (regula fidei). This represented the core theological convictions prevailing in the local churches in the "post-apostolic era" (particularly from ad 100 on)."

Source

But I have never seen the word "kanon/canon" used of tradition.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tom 1]

That is why everything is to be checked against the supreme "measuring stick", i.e.: the scriptures.

In fact, when any Christian, whether its the Catholics, or Orthodox, or Fundamentalists, when we say "canon" as in canon of scripture, whether you'll admit it or not, your saying the scriptures are the supreme "measuring stick" to which all else to be measured against.

"κανών"
Definition: (lit: a level, ruler), a rule, regulation, rule of conduct or doctrine, (b) a measured (defined) area, province.

kanṓn – properly, a rod (bar) used as a measuring standard, originally, a cane or reed used as a standard of measure; (figuratively) a rule; a standard or norm (see Gal 6:16).

2583 /kanṓn ("rule, standard") was used for a summary of orthodox Christian doctrine in the early Church (its "consensual theology") – called "the rule (kanōn) of truth" or "rule of faith" (regula fidei). This represented the core theological convictions prevailing in the local churches in the "post-apostolic era" (particularly from ad 100 on)."

Source

But I have never seen the word "kanon/canon" used of tradition.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Yes, I don’t disagree with that. But everyone interprets the scriptures, everyone who reads them. Some passages are straightforward and obvious, some aren’t. Some appear to be straightforward until you dig into the historical context, and so on.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yes, I don’t disagree with that. But everyone interprets the scriptures, everyone who reads them. Some passages are straightforward and obvious, some aren’t. Some appear to be straightforward until you dig into the historical context, and so on.

If by "historical context" you mean the origins in the original language, then I agree. (I took Greek in seminary)

If by "historical context" you mean from the perspective of the church, then I disagree. (I took "The History of Christianity" in seminary)

Now before we get into a full blown argument, if you heed "historical theology based upon Sacred Tradition" then God Bless You.

I believe "Sacred Tradition" is only as valid as far as it is scriptural.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tom 1]

If by "historical context" you mean the origins in the original language, then I agree. (I took Greek in seminary)

If by "historical context" you mean from the perspective of the church, then I disagree. (I took "The History of Christianity" in seminary)

Now before we get into a full blown argument, if you heed "historical theology based upon Sacred Tradition" then God Bless You.

I believe "Sacred Tradition" is only as valid as far as it is scriptural.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Argument? Argument about what?

Is there any church that doesn’t have traditions or customs, that aren’t strictly ‘biblical’?

 

[DeaconDean]

Is there any church that doesn’t have traditions or customs, that aren’t strictly ‘biblical’?

That is a loaded question.

One that I'm not going to get dragged into.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[lismore]

Is there any church that doesn’t have traditions or customs, that aren’t strictly ‘biblical’?

Greetings. I would refer you to this quotation:

Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down (Mark 7:13)

I believe tradition can be a trap, putting too much weight on tradition can be a danger. God Bless

 

[Benaiahian Monk]

Hate is against the scriptures.
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1 John 4:20
Many fundamentalists are rigid stonch even.
Weakness is unacceptable , in the beginning of our country in my home town during the revolutionary war the Catholic Church was busted to ruins . The documents say “ there were no bricks unbroken”.Because the church the priest etc were British and they were spying for Britain . Also during WW2 they did like manner. So the history has a lot to do with it. And the shying away from the Bible has a lot to do with it also. Only the kings and pope could read it because they were only ones that could read Aromaic etc

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Now as for the rest of your rather smarmy response, which also shows that you do not understand the apostolic faith

That's a bit harsh! My post was not intended as smarmy. In fact it is just an opinion that says nothing about whether I agree with it or not. If anything it is a bit simplistic.

I wonder if you should be asking the Master Carpenter to whittle down that chip on your shoulder to a more manageable size.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

especially considering that most I've talked to have very little knowledge of what we actually believe...

I've not come across much hate, though I have come across a lot of disagreement.

 

[Light of the East]

That's a bit harsh! My post was not intended as smarmy. In fact it is just an opinion that says nothing about whether I agree with it or not. If anything it is a bit simplistic.

I wonder if you should be asking the Master Carpenter to whittle down that chip on your shoulder to a more manageable size.

I suppose......

however, having been a Fundamentalist for 13 years and then a Calvinist for 12, and realizing that all that time I was

A. lied to

B. kept in the dark

C. manipulated

D. taught things that the Scriptures don't say

and because of this, I was deceived into believing things that are simply not true about the history of Christianity and the Catholic faith in general.....

yeah....you could say I have a bit of animus against that which is not of the Apostolic faith.

You could say that.

The hatred against the Catholic faith has very little to do with the things you mentioned. Anyone who does an honest research into the history of the Catholic faith will find out that Protestantism in any and all forms simply did not exist in the first 16 centuries of Christianity, yet the way Christianity is taught, you would think that Jesus ascended and the next thing that happened was Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Yeah, it's my fault for not proof-texting the men who told me a pack of lies regarding the Catholic faith, but it is also their fault (and they will answer for that) for passing on the lies they learned, the distortions of the Bible, and a false Christian narrative, such as you find in Jack Chick tracts.

And finally.....I'm intense. Whatever I do, I do with intensity and purpose. Anyone who knows me knows this and will say that about me. That includes disliking Christian leaders who present themselves as experts on the Christian faith and who are leading people astray. Truth is important, therefore, those who promote falsehood and utter nonsense (such as attacking the Sacraments, Dispensationalism, The "Rapture of the Church" and other such Protestant frivolities) don't get an easy pass from me. If they are leaders, they are held to a higher standard than the average pew slug like me, who trusts in them and are being led astray.

 

[Light of the East]

That's a bit harsh! My post was not intended as smarmy. In fact it is just an opinion that says nothing about whether I agree with it or not. If anything it is a bit simplistic.

I wonder if you should be asking the Master Carpenter to whittle down that chip on your shoulder to a more manageable size.

Well, you just haven't met the haters yet!!!

Go over to the SDA channel and browse. You will find plenty of animus there.

 

[Tom 1]

@DawnStar ,

Right, but have you considered, that most alcoholic beverages taste horrible?

The reason why most people drink then is to get that buzz. It is certainly not for the taste!

And if you even get a buzz, I would equate that to drunkenness.

Of course, if I drink wine mixt with water (as in Isaiah 1:22), I probably won't even get a buzz. So yes there are those who drink wine for religious reasons (i.e.communion) who don't necessarily get a buzz.

Some people can have a glass of wine with dinner and it doesn't affect them spiritually. In 1 Corinthians we find the words, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Paul later adds, All things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

So test yourself. If you are prone to drinking, see if you can go without it for six months. If you can't, you are of the type that cannot have a glass of wine with dinner and be unaffected spiritually. It is something that has power over you.

This is a pretty narrow view. Like a lot of people, probably the majority of adults in the Western world, I enjoy the taste of wine, beer and other alcoholic drinks. They certainly don’t taste bad to me. Where did you pull 6 months from? Is that intended to serve as some kind of guide? I regularly go weeks without drinking any wine, and then drink a glass or 2 if I feel like it. In what way do you think that this affects me spiritually? Do you feel the same way about coffee, tea and other caffeinated drinks?

 

[Light of the East]

Let's put it this way.

Gather 10 people around in a circle.

Tell the first person a "secret", and have them tell it to the next. Then have that person tell it to the next and so-on, and so-on.

When the "secret" makes it back to the last person, have them say out loud what they were told. Then have the first person say out loud what they were told. I guarantee the two won't match.

If the Apostles passed on what they learned to the next generation, and the Apostles were largely young in comparison, how do we know for a fact, that what Paul or Peter passed on, is the exact thing they said? You can't know that. That is the value of the ECF's right there, is how close to the Holy Scripture they are.

Here is another example.

It is tradition that the last student of the graduating class, upon receiving the diploma, drop their pants and show their "buttocks" i.e.: moon the audience. It's not taught in school, but it is a "tradition".

Just because its "tradition, does not make it right.

I know I can rely on the scripture. But I can't always rely on the word of men, even the ECF's because most people won't admit that the ECF's were just like me, a man who is subject to make a mistake now and again.

And I showed in my above post, that often, the ECF's quoted scripture wrongly. Accused others of the same, when they were the ones wrong.

Even up to 7 years after Christ died, was buried, resurrected, and ascended, Peter sinned. He wasn't perfect, so why should we expect the ECF's and others to be perfect?

God Bless

Till all are one.

The so-called "Telephone Game" (the 10 people in a circle) is nothing at all like making a disciple. Not even close.

I will give you a better analogy. In martial arts, the disciple learns from the master. He goes over the same moves over and over and over and over. There is a saying in martial arts: "I am not afraid of the thousands of moves you have practiced one time. I am afraid of the one move you have practiced a thousand times."

That is what it means to be a disciple. It is not (and never has been) telling something to a disciple one time and letting it rest. The disciple learns over and over and over and over. Then he is quizzed by the master, and the master sees that either the student has gotten it down perfectly or he has not.

The same thing with the dogma of the Church.......long before there was a canon of Scripture available. Yet you honestly think that the Apostles told the next generation one time about Jesus and moved on to the next town????

Preposterous!!!

You may be seminary educated, but you have no concepts of anything in the historic Christian faith other than the distortions which your seminary taught you, distortions which support your point of view. Like one convert to the Catholic faith said once (a former Methodist minister) "In four years of seminary, I did not hear a single verse or quote from any Early Father of the Church."

That, Dean, is not education....that is brainwashing to make a good little Methodist out of the man. Education involves truth. I am finding out more and more that truth is a very rare commodity, even in the Roman Catholic Church, which has had the audacity to change the very words of the Greek to fit some of their pet doctrines.

I am quite frustrated in dealing with you. You are most likely a very good man and mean well, yet you will not open your eyes to the possibility that your position is weak, such as the idea you keep promoting of "sola scriptura" and your reliance upon Scripture alone. You either fail to see or do not wish to see that this position is untenable, simply from the fact that there are literally hundreds of different churches and doctrines out there which all conflict with each other and yet all claim they are right and that they are right because they follow the Bible alone.

This is also impossible. If the Bible alone were that clear, there wouldn't be those hundreds of different teachings, would there? And unless you can prove to me that you have the imprimatur of divine guidance given to you above and beyond all other people, what you present is just your opinion and translation of the Scriptures, which does not correspond with 2,000 years of other Christians which began with the Apostles.

 

[DeaconDean]

The so-called "Telephone Game" (the 10 people in a circle) is nothing at all like making a disciple. Not even close.

I will give you a better analogy. In martial arts, the disciple learns from the master. He goes over the same moves over and over and over and over. There is a saying in martial arts: "I am not afraid of the thousands of moves you have practiced one time. I am afraid of the one move you have practiced a thousand times."

That is what it means to be a disciple. It is not (and never has been) telling something to a disciple one time and letting it rest. The disciple learns over and over and over and over. Then he is quizzed by the master, and the master sees that either the student has gotten it down perfectly or he has not.

Yet, that same thing happened.

""This class of evidence is styled "the Evidence of Patristic Quotation." It has a certain value, but the value is limited or qualified by numerous considerations...The text of many of the Fathers is itself in an imperfect state. "It is a shame," says Dr. Nestle, "that the most important Fathers are not yet before us in proper editions." Dr. Sanday says: "The field of the patristic writings needs to be thoroughly overhauled. What makes this the more urgent is that where the text has not been critically tested, the quotations from the Bible are the first to suffer. The scribes were constantly in the habit of substituting the text with which they were themselves familiar for that which they found before them in the manuscript. So that what we have very frequently is, not the words of the Father as they were originally written, but simply the late Byzantine or Vulgate text current in the Middle Ages when the manuscript was copied.

The habits of the Fathers in quotation were very loose. Having no concordances or indices, or anything resembling the modern apparatus for facilitating reference, and often no manuscript, they were frequently compelled to rely upon memory for their citations. Quoting from memory explains what we so often find, — combinations of different passages, transpositions, and sense-renderings. Though a full summary of the whole gospel life could be composed from the quotations of Justin Martyr, his quotations are careless. He quotes the same passage differently on different occasions. Although he cites written documents, he often quotes from memory, and interweaves words which are given separately by the Synoptists. He condenses, combines, and transposes the language of the Lord as recorded in the Gospel records. Take, for example. Matt. 5:22, 39, 40, 41, and Luke 6:29. In Justin, 1 Apol. XVI, we read τῷ τυπτόντι σοῦ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ τὸν αἴροντα σοῦ τὸν χιτῶνα ἢ τὸ ἱμάτον μὴ κωλύσῃς. ̔́Ος δὲ ἂν ὀργισθῇ ἐνοχός ἐστιν εἰς τὸ πῦρ, παντὶ δὲ ἀγγαρεύοντί σε μίλιον ἀκολούθησον. Here we have several verses massed, apparently from two Evangelists. Luke is literally followed in the first nine words. The order of the Gospel is not observed, and the sense is changed in the words about the coat and the cloke.

Similarly Matt. 5:46 ; comp. Luke 6:27. Justin, 1 Apol. XV: εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τί καινὸν ποιεῖτε; καὶ γὰρ οἱ πόρνοι τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν. Here, instead of "What reward have ye?" Justin has "What new thing do ye do?" For "publicans" he gives "fornicators."

Again, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 4, 36, where Matt. 5:16 is given τὰ ἀγαθὰ ὑμιν ἔργα λαμψάτω, "Let your good works shine."

The Apostolic Fathers are of little value for patristic quotation, since they do not so much quote as blend the language of the New Testament with their own. Fragments of most of the canonical Epistles are embedded in their writings, and their diction is more or less coloured by that of the apostolic books,27 and different passages are combined.

But often, even when quotation is intended, the citation is inaccurate. To take a single instance, Clement of Rome was familiar with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and references to it occur frequently in his letter to the Corinthians; but in his citation of Heb. 1:3, 4, in Ch. 36, for δόξης "glory," we have μεγαλωσύνης "majesty"; for κρείττων "better," μείζων "greater"; and παρ ̓ αὐτοὺς "than they" is omitted.

Renderings where the sense is given without strict regard to the text are found frequently in Irenæus, who is usually careful in quotation. He changes the syntax, or uses different words intended as equivalents, as εὐχαρίστησεν for εὐλόγησεν in Luke 2:28; ἀκολουθεῖ μοι for ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου, in Luke 14:27; πεπλανημένον for ἀπολωλός in Luke 15:4. Similarly Origen, Cont. Cels. 8:43, gives the equivalent of Eph. 2:12 without exact quotation, τοὺς ξένους τῶν διαθηκῶν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἀλλοτρίους τῶν εὐαγγελίων.

It is quite possible that a Father may have shaped a passage to fit his view of a disputed point. Hence, passages which bear upon great doctrinal controversies must be examined to see whether they exhibit traces of intentional alteration in the interest of doctrinal bias. On the whole, there is little of this. The worst that can be charged, in the great majority of cases, is a tendency, where two readings exist, to prefer the one which makes for the writer's view. Some other cases may be set down to ignorance of the principles of textual criticism. Thus Tertullian castigates Marcion for substituting διαμερισμόν "division" for μάχαιραν "a sword," in Luke 12:51. "Marcion," he says, "must needs alter, as if a sword could do anything but divide." But Marcion was right, and Tertullian, quoting from memory, had in mind the parallel passage in Matt. 10:34.

Again, Tertullian stigmatises the Valentinians as adulterators for reading, in John 1:13, οἳ ἐγεννήθησαν, "which were born." The correct reading, he maintains, is ὃς̀ ἐγεννήθη, "where was born," and the reference is to Christ. But the reading of the Valentinians was correct, and Tertullian's reading was absurd, as the context shows.

Similarly, Ambrose charged the Arians with erasing from the text of John 3:6, the words, "because the Spirit is God and is born of God," in order to support their denial of the deity of the Holy Ghost. But Ambrose did not know that these words were a gloss which had been incorporated into the western text, and that therefore the Arians were right in omitting it.

It is therefore evident that the testimony of the Fathers to the New Testament text is to be received with great caution, and not without the support of the oldest manuscripts and the versions. Where these agree with patristic testimony, the conclusion is as nearly decisive as it is possible to reach. A striking instance of such agreement appears in the case of the reading in Matt. 19:17: τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; "Why dost thou ask me about the good?" as against τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; "Why callest thou me good?" "

A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, BALDWIN PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND LITERATURE IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY NEW YORK, NEW YORK, THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., Ltd., 1899, Chapter IV, PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS"

See my above post.

The same thing with the dogma of the Church.......long before there was a canon of Scripture available. Yet you honestly think that the Apostles told the next generation one time about Jesus and moved on to the next town????

Preposterous!!!

That's funny.

You may be seminary educated, but you have no concepts of anything in the historic Christian faith other than the distortions which your seminary taught you, distortions which support your point of view. Like one convert to the Catholic faith said once (a former Methodist minister) "In four years of seminary, I did not hear a single verse or quote from any Early Father of the Church."

That is another good one. Hahahahahaha.

There are quite a few things that Catholicism and Orthodoxy practices that are not in the scriptures.

That, Dean, is not education....that is brainwashing to make a good little Methodist out of the man. Education involves truth. I am finding out more and more that truth is a very rare commodity, even in the Roman Catholic Church, which has had the audacity to change the very words of the Greek to fit some of their pet doctrines.

That is another good one.

I have studied history. But it also seems that in my area, the Fundamentalist, if anything don't match your worldview or theology, it must be rejected.

I am quite frustrated in dealing with you. You are most likely a very good man and mean well, yet you will not open your eyes to the possibility that your position is weak, such as the idea you keep promoting of "sola scriptura" and your reliance upon Scripture alone.

I don't see it as weak. And you'll not convince me otherwise.

You either fail to see or do not wish to see that this position is untenable, simply from the fact that there are literally hundreds of different churches and doctrines out there which all conflict with each other and yet all claim they are right and that they are right because they follow the Bible alone.

But I don't follow "literally hundreds of different churches and doctrines".

This is also impossible. If the Bible alone were that clear, there wouldn't be those hundreds of different teachings, would there? And unless you can prove to me that you have the imprimatur of divine guidance given to you above and beyond all other people, what you present is just your opinion and translation of the Scriptures, which does not correspond with 2,000 years of other Christians which began with the Apostles.

And even amongst yourselves, Catholics and Orthodoxy, you fight and disagree.

This thread was not started to defend "sola scriptura". Or whether or not the ECF's are the single best teachers. Or even how wrong Fundamentalists are.

I've been a Baptist for 43 years. In all that time, the Holy Spirit has never convicted me that Baptists were wrong. Or led me to leave the Baptist faith. The Holy Spirit has, on the other hand, led me to God, led me to the scriptures, and blessed me all my life.

I've seen your type come and go in this area for 12 years now. SO it does not come as a shock that you would say "brainwashing". If there is any "brainwashing",...

Never mind, I'm not gonna say it.

God Bless

Till all are one.