Whats wrong with this statement?

My point exacty. Jesus doesn't teach cannibalism; neither reincarnation. (neither transubstantiation, for that matter).

 

DHK,

You and I interperate the scriptures differently. You waste your own time in telling me it is not there when I read it with my own eyes.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Either tell me where you read the word "transubstantiation" in the Bible (your belief), or post for me the verse where you think that is taught, but when taken literally, as you say it is, is actually cannibalism. Is that your true belief--cannibalism?
DHK

 

DHK, yes people have raised that objection. I guess in the most strict use of the word, it would be cannibalism.

Here is my supporting verse: John 6:44-71 It is quite long to type, and I do not want to take up too much bandwidth, but that is where Catholics get the idea. As for transubstantiation, all that is is a philosophical answer as to how exactly Christ comes down into the host. It is not a necessary belief within the RCC so long as you believe that Christ is actually within the host. This is why Orthodox are welcome at RCC communion, and vice versa. I hope this helps.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

He held up bread before them with an oustretched arm, and gave each one of them a piece.
He then said to them to eat the bread. "This is my body."
1. He was standing right before them. Was Christ telling a lie, when he gave them that bread, and telling them it was his body?

2. Did he not give them bread, but his actual flesh, and they eat his flesh instead (cannibalism)?

3. Or, when he offered them bread, as he did (according to the above verse), then said: "eat it, this is my body," was he using a symbolic picture of Himself being the bread of life. Who is on you one dollar bill? Is it George Washington? (I'm a Canadian, so I don't know for sure). It's George Washington, right?
No, wrong. It is an image of George washington. George Washington is dead and in the grave, and has been for some time. All you have is a symbolic picture. All that Jesus was showing was a symbolic picture. You point to that dollar bill and say this is George Washington when it is not. Jesus said: "this is my body" when it is not; it was symbolic in the same way that the picture was symbolic of the president. Christ used symbolism all through his parables. And he used symbolism here. If he didn't use symbolism, the only logical conclusion to come to would be cannibalism, which is totally unacceptable.
DHK

 

Duh, I thought the Jews determined the OT canon. Wow. I didnt know the Roman Catholic Church determined the OT canon. You mean the Jesus didnt have a canon of Scripture from which to quote?

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

There you have it. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm asking you which OT canon - the one with the Apocrypha or the one without? And, as to whether or not the Jews or the Church determined it, that's rather more complex than you seek to make out:-

The OT canon used by Jesus contained the Apocrypha, and that was the canon used by the NT churches, the Early Church Fathers and that confirmed at Carthage. The Received Text (TR) also contains the Apocrypha, which is why the original 1611 version of the KJV/ AEV contains it too. The 'full' (ie: including Apocrypha) OT therefore did OK for the Church from Pentecost through to the Reformation. What changed?

Basically, the removal of the Apocrypha was down to Luther, and on his 'authority' alone. Certain passages in the Apocrypha didn't fit in well with the new brand of theology he was trying to work out; the same could be said for the NT - he wanted to drop James (because of the reference to faith plus works which we have been debating here) and Revelation (because he didn't really understand it and didn't like apocalyptic Scripture generally), but was talked out of it. He was desperate to drop the Apocrypha, however, but needed a valid excuse to do so. So he made a highly odd appeal - to the Council of Jamnia (Javneh).

Now, this Council was not a Church Council. It was a Jewish Council which met in 81 AD. Its purpose was to redefine Judaism in the light of two major events: the destruction of the Temple and the rise of the Church. It was the second event that concerned them re the OT canon. They wanted to decisively break with Christianity and out some clear theological water between themselves and the Church(before then you could reasonably easily be a Jewish convert to Christianity and still turn up at the synagogue on Saturdays to worship but the Council wanted to put a stop to that). So, they decided that, since the Apocrypha had not been originally written in Hebrew (unlike the rest of the OT with the exception of some Aramaic parts of Daniel) and because the Christians were using it as part of their Scriptures (note the italics), it should be dropped from their canon.

So, Luther's appeal is odd on two counts: first, he was a notorious anti-Semite appealing to a Jewish Council and, secondly, he was appealing to a decision re the canon made against the Early Church. Consequently, Protestants have relied on this decision, made by one man on his own authority over and against the use of the Apocrypha by the first 1500 years of Church history including Jesus Himself, all the apostles and NT churches by means of an appeal to an avowedly anti-Christian Jewish council.

So, I ask again, which OT canon are you referring to as being Scriptural and on what authority?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[surface]
Very good post and excellent point--by what authority do Protestants define their OT canon?

Indeed, the OT canon, particularly among Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion (and among the Essenes in Palestine), did include those "extra" books of the LXX commonly known as the "Apocrypha" or Deuterocanonicals. In fact, Ethiopian Jews to this day include those books in their canon. The earliest Church Fathers quoted these books as Scripture without distinction. It wasn't until the early 3rd century (and perhaps late 2nd) that some in the eastern Mediterranean began to question the canonicity of these books. This is mainly because of contact that had with post-Jamnia Jews. Though questioned by a few prominent fathers (and some of these still used them as Scripture though making a distinction) over the next few centuries, these books were still widely considered to be inspired and were used as such in most all the churches.

As Matt pointed out, Luther not only wanted to demote these Deuterocanonical OT books, but he also wanted to do the same with James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. After all, these NT books (along with 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John) were widely disputed in various quarters for the first couple of centuries as well. (These could be fairly called the NT Deuterocanonicals.) It wasn't until 367 AD in the Festal Letter of Athanasius that we find the first list of the 27 books that exactly matches our NT (though a few years before that at the Council of Laodicaea they listed 26--all the current NT books minus Revelation).

The bottom line is that the Bible didn't just drop out of the sky. It also didn't come with a divine table of contents. The canonization process took 3-4 centuries as it took the Church this long to recognize and close the Canon. Therefore, an individual can't honestly claim that he accepts x number of books in the Bible, because of the Holy Spirit's guidance, since many claim this and have differing numbers for "x", and the Holy Spirit doesn't lead to contradiction. The Church--as a whole--survived without a sharply defined canon for about four centuries because she was guided by the Spirit, and the same Spirit led the Church--as a whole--to finally close the canon at the turn of the 4th/5th century. Therefore, by what authority does anyone accept the particular Bible (however many books) he holds in his hand?
[/submerging]

 

DHK,

I have already told you, I am not going to run in circles concerning Biblical interpretation. We read things differently, and I am going down that path. What I have maintained is that I read the Bible, and I see support for my belief regarding this issue. If you do not, then fine, but most CHristians throughout history have, so I do not think you can just pass it off with a short paragraph as to how you read it. If you read it differently, then there is not much we can do on the subject, but when you say I find no evidence in scripture, I have just showed you that, yes, I can.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

p.s. my 100th post!!

 

Thomas,

Great points, also, over about a 100 year span the book of James and Revelation and 1 Peter were replaced with the Sheperd of Hermes, and the Didache. Almost 100 years! Entire generations of Christians lived out their lives believing that these books were inspired...and I think that God would not have lied to them. Also, if James and the others were out, were they simply uninspired for 100 years? Or did God allow that his word would not be adequately reached for 100 years? Of course not! I loved the post Thomas!

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Thanks for the kind words.

Also, thanks for reminding me of The Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas (both excellent writings, BTW!). They, along with Barnabas and 1 Clement, were indeed considered by many in parts of the Church to be Scripture for a time. (But I don't think the Sola Scriptura advocates want to know that!)

 

No we don't read things differently. We read the same Bible, the same verse, the same words. There is only one interpretation--God's interpretation. Scripture intreprets itself. "The Scriptures are of no private interpretation," as the Catholic Church maintain they have.
If you haven't found God's interpretation then you better look until you find it. God doesn't contradict himself, but you do.
DHK

 

DHK,

If you want to parse words, then we must first establish that God does not interperate scripture. He dictates it. But I do believe I have found the correct interpretation with the aid of the Holy Spirits dictation. God does not contradict himself you are right on that. But I, too, am not contradicting myself, so we are ok.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Catholic Church has their own private interpretation of Scripture.
Example: John 3:5 means baptism, no questins asked. That is what you must believe. But that is not what the verse means. You are between a rock and a hard place. You must believe what the Catholic Church teaches concerning this verse (which is heresy), and do not have the soul liberty to follow the Holy Spirit's leading to believe the truth concerning what the Scripture actually beleive's. You must toe the line, and believe the heresy even if it is against your conscience to do so.

Any one who is born again would never teach that this verse means baptism.
DHK

 

So, why does your OT contain 39 books instead of 22? Are you happy with that number or worried, and why? The "Law of Moses, Prophets and the Psalms" excludes vast chunks of the OT, in particular the historical books: Genesis, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles etc; are you similarly happy that you haven't ripped those books out of your Bible as, according to you, the Lord never referred to them with approval? No, the OT the Lord had included the Apocrypha since, until Jamnia, it was part of the Jewish Scriptures. The Jewish quotes you cite are all post-Jamnia.

I am a former Catholic, with Catholic relatives who I have no doubt are born again. I cannot really get on with all the Blessed Virgin Mary, the angels and saints stuff, and I have reservations about the whole sacramental soteriology system (although that may be more the product of my misunderstanding of the same). But by the same token I recognise that there is a lot of truth in Catholicism, as there is in the Baptist churches - no denomination can claim a monopoly on truth. Yes, Catholicism has its weaknesses and dodgy doctrines, but by the same token, so do Baptists: Baptist Bride, Landmarkism/ Successionism, KJVOism, etc; plus the great weakness - which is also paradoxically a great strength, but then most weaknesses are over-played strengths - that there is no single 'correct' or agreed interpretation of Scripture; finally, I do think that in rejecting sacramental soteriology we have thrown a bit of the baby out with the bathwater and we do miss out on these methods of communication of God's grace and presence.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The difference between the 22 and 39 books is not the Apocrypha. It is the way books were grouped. Some books now divided were actually considered as one (e.g. Minor prophets --12=1; Ezra-Nehemiah -- 2=1; etc.). Gleason Archer addresses this in his OT introduction. That will give a good basic introduction to the topic.

 

This is the Hebrew arrangement of the Old Testament:

TORAH
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

NEBI'IM (prophets)
Joshua
Judges (and Ruth)
Samuel
Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah (and Lamentations)
Ezekiel
The Twelve

KETHUB'IM (psalms or writings)
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth (if not with Judges)
Lamentations (if not with Jeremiah)
Ecclesiastes
Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles
(22-24 books)

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus referred to these three divisions in this verse, the psalms actually referring to the "writings" or the poetical books in general.

Our Bibles have five divisions:
The Books of Moses: the Pentateuch
The Historical Books: Joshua - Esther
The Poetical Books: Job - Ecclesiastes
The Major Prophets: Isaiah - Daniel
The Minor Prophets: Hosea - Malachi
(39 books in all)
DHK

 

Actually, you can find the Apocrypha in some Protestant Bibles. It was even inserted in some of the earlier editions of the KJV. But it is almost always in the middle, that is, right between the Old and New Testaments, and is placed there for reading purposes only. It is not part of the inspired canon. I have a concordance and a Bible dictionary in my Bible as well. They also are used simply as reference, for my benefit. In no way are they inspired. Neither was the Apocrypha. It was just for reference.
DHK