W
William Putnam
Guest
For all reading this thread:
This was an on-going discussion in private messages I was having with aLoneVoice concerning my analysis of the “Bread of Life†discourse in John, Chapter 6. We had gone through a few cycles, when I determined that this should be in the main forum for all to see and to comment on, as they see fit.
Anyway, for reference sakes, here is the link that we got to discussing:
http://bellsouthpwp2.net/p/u/putnam_w/John%206.htm
Again, others are invited to participate, either to what I post or what aLoneVoice may post. Be advised, however, that I will abandon this thread if it ends-up going around and around in circles and becomes non-productive, as often happens.
So I begin by post the following……………………………………………………………………………..
The local churches also circulated the written word, not to mention the oral tradition. It is argued from our current frame of reference that oral tradition was not realible. This is just not true. It is an arguement made from the bias of having the ability to have a written word. The oral tradition was highly accurate because it was the only method that they had.[/quote:93764]
Yes, the local churches did circulate these written documents, but never were any one local church with the complete set of writings that we now have as the New Testament. What do you mean by “realible� What did they have before ink and quill touched papyrus in the writing of any book that is now a part of the New Testament? Only what they knew by heart, infused in their hearts and minds, as given to them ORALLY, by Christ.
That “oral tradition†is what we call the Sacred Tradition of the Church. It did not go ‘poof’ and go away after the Bible was finally declared a closed canon by the…the…the…(gasp!)…the…CHRUCH!
But you do admit to something here. that the oral tradition was “highly accurate†in their day. Did it go away when the Bible was finally a closed canon?
[quote[]quote:93764][So I ask you, what did the Church go on in that period of time when it had no New Testament (the source of Christ's "Good News," the Gospel Message)?
Answer, the Sacred Tradition of the Church! What is that? It was what was originally infused into the hearts and minds by Christ when He walked with them, not one whit of a command to write anything down! Of course, we believe that the Holy Spirit encouraged and inspired the apostles to indeed, write what was to become the New Testament. but in the meanwhile, what did the Church go on for doctrine and Faith? [/quote:93764]
I have no idea what you are referring to. The early believers had the Old Testament to reference, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There is no mention in Scripture to a "sacred tradition" or that the early church relied on "tradition".[/quote]
Ah, the Old Testament! Wonderful record of the now fulfilled and closed covenant, replaced by the new covenant of Jesus Christ! Within the OT, we will find a foreshadowing of the Messiah to come, and a hint of His gospel message to be, but the OT is not the gospel message! The New Testament is the written record of the gospel message, not the Old Testament!
First, one should be able to rely on Scripture alone to prove doctrine.[/quote:93764]
Who told you this? Do you find anywhere n scripture is the sole source for faith and morals?
And you would know the difference?
Are they not a witness of how the Church acted and taught, demonstrating exactly how the Church was in those very early times? I quote them as am embarrassment for my non-Catholic friends to demonstrate how remarkably faithful to the teaching doctrines of the Catholic Church today! That is what convinced me of the truth of the Catholic Church - the testimony of the early church fathers.
Is it possible that the church that existed from Pentecost to about AD 1000 - is just the Church and NOT the Roman Catholic denomination?[/quote:93764]
What other “denominations†can you find between Pentecost and A.D. 1000? I find only one Church, a Church with a record in writings, artifacts, architecture and other evidence that no other church can demonstrate. Can yours?
Now, there are what we call “Rites†within the Church. We have, of course, the Roman/Latin/Western Rite which you call “Roman Catholic,†but that is not the only Rite. We have the Eastern Rites, which use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chisostom (which is the same Rite used by the schismatic Orthodox Church that broke away about A.D. 1000) as well as other Rites. But they are not “denominations,†as is usually defined. You see, all of the Rites that are “in union with the Holy See†in Rome are a part of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church. That means the Eastern Rite (not the Orthodox but those “in union with Romeâ€Â) are all a part of this Church. In other words, the Roman/Latin/Western Rite is a subset of the whole Church. All of these Rites are in obedience to the Holy See and to the pope in Rome.
Why Rome? Well, if Peter had gone and stayed in Antioch, there would be the Holy See today, not Rome! Likewise if he had gone to and stayed in Constantnople, or New York, Boston, London, you name the city and there would be the Holy See, and therefore the successor bishop there would be the pope! But since4 Peter went to and was martyred in Rome, there is the Holy See, as Peter was the first pope!
William, I really do not know how better to explain this. I am speaking about the difference of exegisis and eisegesis. [/quote:93764]
…Which is totally non sequitur.
Exegesis is the precise and scholarly study an interpretation of scripture whereas eisegesis is a reference to a much lesser degree of a critical analysis of scripture, mostly colored by the bias of the interpreter. (There definitions are not precise and off the top of my head.) Neither of these two words have a thing to do with my statement above. But I do propose you make a long hard study of the Bible and demonstrate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura therein.
I am not demanding anything - rather what I am saying is that there ARE doctrinal issues that ARE repeated throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God. [/quote:93764]
Some are, such as the Last Supper sequence, and some are isolated, as we see in John 6. I note again that this chapter deals heavily on the astounding requirement that Christ makes to we must “eat His flesh and drink His blood†that we would be “raised-up on the last day.†My link, which I will repeat above to start off this thread, details how we Catholics come to this conclusion of what Christ was teaching here, and where we see the Jews leaving Him, taking with them some of his own disciples.
To say that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit is not 'conjecture'. Either the Bible is the inspired Word of God or it is nothing more than the latest Stephen King novel. [/quote:93764]
Did the Holy Spirit, as a dove, alight upon your shoulders and whisper this into your ear? “) I’m not trying to be funny, as that is a profound question I always give for those that simply “feel it in their bones†that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. And please don’t misunderstand me, as I certainly believe this as well, but not because of a personal feeling within me that this is true. Because I think it is true does not make it true, my friend.
And after you contemplate this for a while, I will give you an excellent paper, written by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers, how we can determine the inspirational qualities of the Holy Scriptures.
That is fine - if you would like to take it to the debate forum, be my quest. You may start the first post.[/quote:93764]
I will with this posting…
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
This was an on-going discussion in private messages I was having with aLoneVoice concerning my analysis of the “Bread of Life†discourse in John, Chapter 6. We had gone through a few cycles, when I determined that this should be in the main forum for all to see and to comment on, as they see fit.
Anyway, for reference sakes, here is the link that we got to discussing:
http://bellsouthpwp2.net/p/u/putnam_w/John%206.htm
Again, others are invited to participate, either to what I post or what aLoneVoice may post. Be advised, however, that I will abandon this thread if it ends-up going around and around in circles and becomes non-productive, as often happens.
So I begin by post the following……………………………………………………………………………..
[quote:93764]William Putnam last said: "OK, but you must realize that the Church (the only Church around for the first 1,000 years of church history) went without a New Testament for nearly 500 years after Pentecost! (The Old Testament is a given here, of course.) One church may have the gospel of Matthew, another of Mark - Still another, Luke and some of the epistles. In other words, it was not for several hundred years before there was one complete, canonized New Testament until and finally they were collected, defined and declared "canon" by three Church synods of Carthage, Hippo and others in the 4th century, all with Bishops and with the approval of the Bishop of Rome, the pope!
The local churches also circulated the written word, not to mention the oral tradition. It is argued from our current frame of reference that oral tradition was not realible. This is just not true. It is an arguement made from the bias of having the ability to have a written word. The oral tradition was highly accurate because it was the only method that they had.[/quote:93764]
Yes, the local churches did circulate these written documents, but never were any one local church with the complete set of writings that we now have as the New Testament. What do you mean by “realible� What did they have before ink and quill touched papyrus in the writing of any book that is now a part of the New Testament? Only what they knew by heart, infused in their hearts and minds, as given to them ORALLY, by Christ.
That “oral tradition†is what we call the Sacred Tradition of the Church. It did not go ‘poof’ and go away after the Bible was finally declared a closed canon by the…the…the…(gasp!)…the…CHRUCH!
But you do admit to something here. that the oral tradition was “highly accurate†in their day. Did it go away when the Bible was finally a closed canon?
[quote[]quote:93764][So I ask you, what did the Church go on in that period of time when it had no New Testament (the source of Christ's "Good News," the Gospel Message)?
Answer, the Sacred Tradition of the Church! What is that? It was what was originally infused into the hearts and minds by Christ when He walked with them, not one whit of a command to write anything down! Of course, we believe that the Holy Spirit encouraged and inspired the apostles to indeed, write what was to become the New Testament. but in the meanwhile, what did the Church go on for doctrine and Faith? [/quote:93764]
I have no idea what you are referring to. The early believers had the Old Testament to reference, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There is no mention in Scripture to a "sacred tradition" or that the early church relied on "tradition".[/quote]
Ah, the Old Testament! Wonderful record of the now fulfilled and closed covenant, replaced by the new covenant of Jesus Christ! Within the OT, we will find a foreshadowing of the Messiah to come, and a hint of His gospel message to be, but the OT is not the gospel message! The New Testament is the written record of the gospel message, not the Old Testament!
[quote:93764]But saying that, you restrictd me to scripture only. OK, but I may want to quote the early church fathers a time or two, and while their writings are not scripture, what they had to say, existing close to the end of the apostolic erea, must be important to see where the Church was going in those very early times.
First, one should be able to rely on Scripture alone to prove doctrine.[/quote:93764]
Who told you this? Do you find anywhere n scripture is the sole source for faith and morals?
However, if you need to rely on the words of the early church fathers that is fine - provided that they are Scripturally sound and based.
And you would know the difference?
Are they not a witness of how the Church acted and taught, demonstrating exactly how the Church was in those very early times? I quote them as am embarrassment for my non-Catholic friends to demonstrate how remarkably faithful to the teaching doctrines of the Catholic Church today! That is what convinced me of the truth of the Catholic Church - the testimony of the early church fathers.
[quote:93764]When I say "Catholic Faith," I am implying the original Faith as was given by Christ to the apostles. Why can I say that? Because my Church is the only one who can trace her history back to Christ! Luther cannot do it, and neither can Menno Simons or any of the 16th century so called Reformers who bolted from thet Catholic Church. In other words, when you go back far enough in history, all denominations funnel back to an original Christian Faith. And since only the Catholic Church is found standing alone, from about A.D. 1000 to Pentecost, then the Catholic Faith IS the original Christian Faith as established by Christ. .
Is it possible that the church that existed from Pentecost to about AD 1000 - is just the Church and NOT the Roman Catholic denomination?[/quote:93764]
What other “denominations†can you find between Pentecost and A.D. 1000? I find only one Church, a Church with a record in writings, artifacts, architecture and other evidence that no other church can demonstrate. Can yours?
Now, there are what we call “Rites†within the Church. We have, of course, the Roman/Latin/Western Rite which you call “Roman Catholic,†but that is not the only Rite. We have the Eastern Rites, which use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chisostom (which is the same Rite used by the schismatic Orthodox Church that broke away about A.D. 1000) as well as other Rites. But they are not “denominations,†as is usually defined. You see, all of the Rites that are “in union with the Holy See†in Rome are a part of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church. That means the Eastern Rite (not the Orthodox but those “in union with Romeâ€Â) are all a part of this Church. In other words, the Roman/Latin/Western Rite is a subset of the whole Church. All of these Rites are in obedience to the Holy See and to the pope in Rome.
Why Rome? Well, if Peter had gone and stayed in Antioch, there would be the Holy See today, not Rome! Likewise if he had gone to and stayed in Constantnople, or New York, Boston, London, you name the city and there would be the Holy See, and therefore the successor bishop there would be the pope! But since4 Peter went to and was martyred in Rome, there is the Holy See, as Peter was the first pope!
[quote:93764]Is that not Sola Scriptura, the idea that only the Scriptures is to be the sole source for doctrine and belief. The Bible and Holy Scriptures are one and the same thing, and your explanation makes no sense. Putting it another way, the Bible is the book that contains the Holy Scriptures! Does that make you feel better new?
William, I really do not know how better to explain this. I am speaking about the difference of exegisis and eisegesis. [/quote:93764]
…Which is totally non sequitur.
Exegesis is the precise and scholarly study an interpretation of scripture whereas eisegesis is a reference to a much lesser degree of a critical analysis of scripture, mostly colored by the bias of the interpreter. (There definitions are not precise and off the top of my head.) Neither of these two words have a thing to do with my statement above. But I do propose you make a long hard study of the Bible and demonstrate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura therein.
[quote:93764]Of course they are, and they were spread by word and mouth for approximately 30 years before ink touched papyrus in the writing of the New Testament! In those days, writing was a very tedious business, and to have a bible so expanded as you seem to demand would be going a bit too far.
I am not demanding anything - rather what I am saying is that there ARE doctrinal issues that ARE repeated throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God. [/quote:93764]
Some are, such as the Last Supper sequence, and some are isolated, as we see in John 6. I note again that this chapter deals heavily on the astounding requirement that Christ makes to we must “eat His flesh and drink His blood†that we would be “raised-up on the last day.†My link, which I will repeat above to start off this thread, details how we Catholics come to this conclusion of what Christ was teaching here, and where we see the Jews leaving Him, taking with them some of his own disciples.
[quote:93764]Of course that is pure conjecture, one way or the other. As for the Scriptures being "inspired by the Holy Spirit," how do you really know that? Who told you? You realize that the Muslems also believe that the Q'ran is also divinely inspired. Does that make the Q.ran divinely inspired by it's own circular reasoning?
To say that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit is not 'conjecture'. Either the Bible is the inspired Word of God or it is nothing more than the latest Stephen King novel. [/quote:93764]
Did the Holy Spirit, as a dove, alight upon your shoulders and whisper this into your ear? “) I’m not trying to be funny, as that is a profound question I always give for those that simply “feel it in their bones†that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. And please don’t misunderstand me, as I certainly believe this as well, but not because of a personal feeling within me that this is true. Because I think it is true does not make it true, my friend.
And after you contemplate this for a while, I will give you an excellent paper, written by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers, how we can determine the inspirational qualities of the Holy Scriptures.
[quote:93764]Oh, another thing. I really would like to discuss this in the forum, not by private mail. You see, I want the lurkers to read and determine for themselves who is right in this discussion. So I won't go too long in this discussion without a return to the forum.
I must again say that ultimately, if we go in circles, nothing is accomplished, and I will cease anyway when that happens. I wsish to have productive discussions that gets somewhere.
That is fine - if you would like to take it to the debate forum, be my quest. You may start the first post.[/quote:93764]
I will with this posting…
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)