"Private Interpretation"

[Adonia]

In another thread, a member made the suggestion that this thread be started after he made the statement: "this is what is called private interpretation by Peter himself". So let us look at this "private interpretation" concept and see who uses it.

Is it us Catholics (or other Orthodox believing Christians) who believe in Christian Orthodoxy i.e. a belief one Universal (Catholic) Christian Church (and the sacraments it taught) that existed from the very beginning of the newly forming Christian Church post the Apostles, or is it those Christians who have rejected the authority of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church and have gone their own way with their own interpretations and different types of worship which are so far removed from those early days?

Are we to look at the Scriptures as the sole authority ("Sola Scriptura") of the Christian faith, or shall we also look to the Church which was established to decide things? Who actually follows this, us Catholics or is it the other Christians?

What does the historical record tell us? It tells us that this "Sola Scriptura" idea never came about for some 1500 years, which was brought to the world by one man. And when that came, it all became about deciding for oneself what to believe and that initial schism quickly brought about other Christian sects who came up with their own ideas and worship practices. So who is really going the "private interpretation" route here, us Catholics or other Christian believers?

Our friend also said: " The faith once delivered to the saints is not how you, they, or I "see" it. It is how God defined it, demonstrated it, and is called the "faith of Jesus". So who says in what way that "God defined it, demonstrated it" is the correct way? Again, are you saying you have the correct interpretation of all of this?

To my mind it is how we each see it, (apart from having the basic faith in Christ) particularly in the way in which we worship, and I look to the Church for instruction on all of this, not just blundering my way through it as many seem to do.

 

[loDebar]

2Pe 1:18
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
2Pe 1:19¶
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21
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 differences are man made , not from God. Try the spirits to know who is according to God

 

[Alofa Atu]

In another thread, a member made the suggestion that this thread be started after he made the statement: "this is what is called private interpretation by Peter himself". So let us look at this "private interpretation" concept and see who uses it.

Truly.

Is it us Catholics (or other Orthodox believing Christians) who believe in Christian Orthodoxy

'Orthodoxy' (teaching) and also 'Orthopraxy' (practice) is usually self-defined terms by their groups. They self-define what 'orthodox', 'orthopraxis' is and then exclude all other outside of that definition, which is what Gal 4:17 refers to.

The words 'catholic' and 'orthodox' are not found in scripture, but 'christian' is, correct? Can we start there?

i.e. a belief one Universal (Catholic) Christian Church (and the sacraments it taught)

The 'catholic' (universal) church is in the Bible. It is found in Revelation 13 & 17 & 18; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Daniel 7, 8 ,11. I am not being mean here, I am simply re-stating in words, that scripture does say.

Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

G3650, "ολη", "[h]ole', meaning 'all' (universal), which is the second half of the combined word 'kath (G2596) - holos (G3650)' (a word not found in scripture as combined)

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

that existed from the very beginning of the newly forming Christian Church post the Apostles

This is the 'catholic' mythology, nowhere found in history or for that matter the scripture itself. However, the scripture does speak of the 'mystery of iniquity;' that was already working in Paul's day, and Paul mentioned specifically that there would be those who would arise from among the elders and claim that which is not theirs to claim and lord it over others.

or is it those Christians who have rejected the authority of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church and have gone their own way with their own interpretations and different types of worship which are so far removed from those early days?

The Bible speaks of the 'remnant' (Rev. 12), and would have all that which was found at the 'beginning', yet in order to test, we would have to know what was at the 'beginning', correct?

Are we to look at the Scriptures as the sole authority ("Sola Scriptura") of the Christian faith, or shall we also look to the Church which was established to decide things?

The scriptures teach that the church would have the scripture and the Holy Ghost as their principle. So it is not one or the other (a false dichotomy), but both, even as Isaiah 8:20 reveals.

The 'catholics' that I know usually define 'sola scriptura' in a self-serving way, and not at all according to how the scripture would define such a thing. For instance, God's second book, is creation itself (aka 'nature'), and 'sola scriptura' does not exclude this second book, but includes it. A second for instance, God also uses prophets, and these in conjunction with the written word already gone before, and therefore, also, are not exclusive from 'sola scriptura', since 'sola scriptura' would include the Bible's teachings on prophets, angels, etc.

So, perhaps you would, as a 'catholic' define 'sola scriptura, and then I can see whether I would at all agree with the definition laid down, for if we are using the same words, but differing definition, we would simply be talking past one another, and not at all to the issue itself.

Who actually follows this, us Catholics or is it the other Christians?

When you ask, "Who actually follows this ...", could you be specific? Follows what? in the previous question, you asked two things, not one.

What does the historical record tell us?

We are going to look at that also, starting with the 'beginning' I would hope, and not jump 300 + years from that point.

It tells us that this "Sola Scriptura" idea never came about for some 1500 years

Simply not true. The phrase itself as 'sola scriptura' was coined, then, true, but not the idea, which already existed. Same with 'dinosaur' (coined mid 1800 AD), but 'dragons' already existed and do exist even now.

, which was brought to the world by one man.

I pray you are not going to lay the 'blame' upon brother Luther.

And when that came, it all became about deciding for oneself what to believe and that initial schism quickly brought about other Christian sects who came up with their own ideas and worship practices.

I have read a lot of history, and that is not what actually happened.

So who is really going the "private interpretation" route here, us Catholics or other Christian believers?

First, we would have to know what the foundational standard of rule is to determine truth from error, wouldn't we? If we do not have the measuring rod, then any measurement we give would be rubber, elastic, useless.

So, what then shall be the standard of measurement by which we measure what is, and is not 'private interpretation'?

Our friend also said: " The faith once delivered to the saints is not how you, they, or I "see" it. It is how God defined it, demonstrated it, and is called the "faith of Jesus".

That is what I said, truly, and I stand by the statement, even so now,

So who says in what way that "God defined it, demonstrated it" is the correct way?

If God (who is truth itself) does not define or demonstrate the standard, then we would have no set standard. Since God is eternal, by being very God, then truth, also, is eternal, unchanging. It is what Paul would call 'self-evident'., yet we can look at this too.

Again, are you saying you have the correct interpretation of all of this?

That question negates what I just had stated. I will say it again, please read carefully:

"The faith once delivered to the saints is not how you, they or I "see" it. It is how God defined it, demonstrated it, and is called "the faith of Jesus" (Rev 14:12)"

Therefore, I just stated, in the clearest English, that "I" do not 'give the correct interpretation of all this". I stated, "God defined it, demonstrated it".

If I define it, I would claim to be God. I do not so claim.

To my mind

Which just shows the issue at hand. You left the standard God set, and went to "[your] mind". You became the definer and standard, which is exactly what I said we are not to do, by saying, "... not how you, they or I "see" it. ..."

... it is how we each see it

No, that is the 'private interpretation' I was speaking of.

, (apart from having the basic faith in Christ) particularly in the way in which we worship, and I look to the Church for instruction on all of this, not just blundering my way through it as many seem to do.

Has the 'catholic' church ever 'blundered'? If you do not think so, I would like to point to specific historical examples when we further continue our discussion.

Our conversation is not over whether the church has anything to say, as it most certainly does (1 Tim 3:15; Mat 16:19, 18:18, etc), but on what authority it can or should say.

 

[Adonia]

'Orthodoxy' (teaching) and also 'Orthopraxy' (practice) is usually self-defined terms by their groups. They self-define what 'orthodox', 'orthopraxis' is and then exclude all other outside of that definition, which is what Gal 4:17 refers to.

The words 'catholic' and 'orthodox' are not found in scripture, but 'christian' is, correct? Can we start there?

And what did the newly emerging Christian Church look like and teach? It taught a belief in the seven sacraments, a theology that came about by the Early Fathers of the Christian Church. To a man they believed in this and through the many councils and synods that were held they came up with this stuff. That is Christian orthodoxy my friend, not the ideas that came about some 1500 years down the line, propagated by those who rebelled against it.

The 'catholic' (universal) church is in the Bible. It is found in Revelation 13 & 17 & 18; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Daniel 7, 8 ,11. I am not being mean here, I am simply re-stating in words, that scripture does say.

First you said the words "catholic" and "orthodox" does not exist in the Scriptures, but then right here you argue against your previous claim. So was there or was there not a "universal" Christian church? The historical record says there was, right up to the first great schism that occurred between the East and West in the 11th century.

This is the 'catholic' mythology, nowhere found in history or for that matter the scripture itself. However, the scripture does speak of the 'mystery of iniquity;' that was already working in Paul's day, and Paul mentioned specifically that there would be those who would arise from among the elders and claim that which is not theirs to claim and lord it over others.

This is established historical fact! There was but one Universal (Catholic) Christian Church that taught and believed in the 7 sacraments and all that they entailed. Even in the 11th century when the great schism occurred, our Eastern Orthodox brothers continued believing and teaching the 7 sacraments. You are simply wrong here.

So, perhaps you would, as a 'catholic' define 'sola scriptura, and then I can see whether I would at all agree with the definition laid down, for if we are using the same words, but differing definition, we would simply be talking past one another, and not at all to the issue itself.

Before the Scriptures were even put together as we now know them there were the traditions of the Christian Church that were handed down to succeeding generations. It is the teaching authority of the new Christian Church which came first, and then the Scriptures which are indeed authoritative. One has authority (the Church) and the other is authoritative (the Scriptures). As the meeting between the eunuch and Phillip tells us, the Scriptures need to be explained to those who are ignorant of what they actually say, and that is the purpose of the Church which exists here on earth.

When you ask, "Who actually follows this ...", could you be specific? Follows what? in the previous question, you asked two things, not one.

Who is guilty of private interpretation is what the question is related to. Is it us Catholics or Eastern Orthodox who rely on the whole 2000 years existence of the Church for the correct interpretation or is it non-orthodox Christians who interpret the Scriptures by themselves? I would say it is the latter who believe in this private interpretation of the scriptures idea.

Simply not true. The phrase itself as 'sola scriptura' was coined, then, true, but not the idea, which already existed. Same with 'dinosaur' (coined mid 1800 AD), but 'dragons' already existed and do exist even now.

Oh come on, until Martin Luther (and those that eventually even disagreed with him) the idea of the Scriptures Alone was never bandied about. There was always the Church to which most believers relied upon for the truth

I pray you are not going to lay the 'blame' upon brother Luther.

The history of Christianity is what it is, I cannot lie about Martin Luther's prominent part in it. Luther, then Calvin, then Zwingli - name your man there were plenty who came about after Luther.

If I define it, I would claim to be God. I do not so claim.

But men continually try to define it with their particular interpretation - that is the reality. For example, as regards communion Jesus said: "This IS my body" and "This is my blood"? So how do you look at this? It seems pretty clear to me that God meant to convey the truth of it being His body and blood, yet many Christians do not believe this truth. How can that be?

Has the 'catholic' church ever 'blundered'? If you do not think so, I would like to point to specific historical examples when we further continue our discussion.

The Catholic Church is made up of mortal men, so in some instances it has blundered. The Church is in good company with the likes of St. Peter who denied Jesus Christ three times and St. Paul who went after the Christians of his day before his conversion and repentance.

Our conversation is not over whether the church has anything to say, as it most certainly does (1 Tim 3:15; Mat 16:19, 18:18, etc), but on what authority it can or should say.

It speaks with the authority given to it by Jesus Christ , God Incarnate Himself.

 

[Logos1560]

And what did the newly emerging Christian Church look like and teach? It taught a belief in the seven sacraments, a theology that came about by the Early Fathers of the Christian Church. To a man they believed in this and through the many councils and synods that were held they came up with this stuff.

You do not actually demonstrate that the church in A. D. 100 taught a belief in the seven sacraments.

Are you saying that you can provide written statements from every individual member of the church in that day where they state in their own words the beliefs that you try to impose on them?

Can you provide clear statements from all the apostles where they supposedly taught the seven sacraments?

 

[Walter]

Since evangelicals see the Bible as their ultimate authority, one would simply turn there to find answers. The problem, they might say, would be with someone else's faulty interpretation and subsequently SO MANY denominations. The reason for that is because scripture is sometimes hard to understand.
As Scripture says, "And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them, there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."
2 Peter 3:15‭-‬16
One could only distort scripture to their own destruction if the disagreement is over the main things. With that in mind, the Bible may not be as clear as some evangelicals think it is.

 

[Alofa Atu]

And what did the newly emerging Christian Church look like and teach?

Good question. Where shall we look for that answer? We should start there.

It taught a belief in the seven sacraments

Unfortunately, you jumped the gun here, as they say, and went right past the 'beginning' into what you wanted to prove. I am not interested in that. I am only interested in what can be shown to have been there, from the 'beginning' at present, and until this is established, the rest is not really relevant, yet.

a theology that came about by the Early Fathers of the Christian Church.

What you call the 'ECF', I would be very cautious about, since, the Bible warns us about calling men 'father': Matthew 23:9. Also, I have read quite a bit of so-called 'ECF', and there are serious issues there, to which we may discuss as needful. You did exactly what you should not do, and moved past the Apostles, and jumped right to 'ECF'.

To a man they believed in this

Not hardly. We can get into this a bit later.

and through the many councils and synods

Which we were warned of.

that were held they came up with this stuff.

"[C]ame up with this stuff', exactly. They ('ECF') "had to come up with" a lot that is not found at 'the beginning', to which we have yet to consider carefully. I am not interested in all the added and subtracted items of councils, synods, etc yet, for we need to discuss and consider that which was at 'the beginning'.

That is Christian orthodoxy

No, it is 'catholic' mythology, Adonia. We can look in a bit. First things first please.

my friend, not the ideas that came about some 1500 years down the line, propagated by those who rebelled against it.

You are all over the place, and all over time without substantiating anything. Can we please focus on 'the beginning'? and then get to the "reformation", Luther and others after all of that?

First you said the words "catholic" and "orthodox" does not exist in the Scriptures

Correct, I said that. it is a true statement, yes or no, please?

, but then right here you argue against your previous claim.

Not at all. please read more carefully Adonia. I stated that the "words" 'catholic' and 'orthodox' were not in the scriptures. This is a true statement, yes or no Adonia, please. I want to see if you are honest about these things, or look the other way. I did not argue against what I said. I simply provided that the "words" were not there as given (sic). I then showed that the catholic church is mentioned in scripture. I never stated that the "word" 'catholic' was in scripture. It would be the same as saying the "word" 'dinosaur' is not in the scripture (KJB or Masoretic, koine Greek texts), but the "word" 'dragon' (KJB) and the idea of them is present (tanniym, draco, etc).

I would ask you to read me more carefully, and consider my specific use of words, terms and definitions.

So was there or was there not a "universal" Christian church?

The Bible does speak of a universal church, but does not use the word 'catholic' specifically, though it uses pieces of the word, as found in those places cited previously.

The historical record says there was

Actually no, again, as that is the 'catholic' mythology. You will find such a term in the pseudo (or rather forged) letters of Ignatius, to which just skipped past 'the beginning' again. We can come back to 'him' in a bit and the forgeries thereof.

The people of God in the NT were called those of 'the way' (John 14:4-6; Acts 9:4, 18:25-26, 22:4, 24:14; 2 Pet 2:2), and also first called "christians" at Antioch (Acts 11:26, 2628; 1 Pet 4:16). Nowhere, does anyone of the NT, use the words, or speak of 'catholic' or 'orthodox'.

right up to the first great schism that occurred between the East and West in the 11th century.

I am not interested in what happened to the 'catholic' church in mid 11th cent (circa 1058), as that is not our discussion. Our discussion is about 'private interpretation', and we need to determine how to identify that.

This is established historical fact!

I am not negating that a split between east and west 'catholicism' occurred. I am only interested in the topic 'private interpretation'.

There was but one Universal (Catholic) Christian Church that taught and believed in the 7 sacraments and all that they entailed. Even in the 11th century when the great schism occurred, our Eastern Orthodox brothers continued believing and teaching the 7 sacraments. You are simply wrong here.

You keep jumping past all the history that was before AD 100. Can we look to that first, please? You ought to have a record of it, right in your NT.

Before the Scriptures were even put together

Hold here a moment if you please. The OT was already finalized long before Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth as a man. Even the NT texts were already known in the NT itself. Peter shows that all of Paul's epistles were "scripture", and Luke cites Jesus in Acts, citing Luke, among other things. So before jumping ahead again, to some council 300 years later, we need to go back and consider what was already in place well before any of that.

as we now know them there were the traditions of the Christian Church that were handed down to succeeding generations.

Jesus over and over warned against the traditions of men, as did Paul and others. most of the uses in the scripture about 'tradition' are in the negative sense, with only a handful of positive uses, and these we may discuss as needful, but, we need first to consider the topic, 'private interpretation' first, yes or no?

Error handed down, is still error. Age does not ever sanctify error. Majority vote does not ever sanctify error.

It is the teaching authority of the new Christian Church

No, you are swapping terms as if they are synonymous when they are not so. 'Catholic' is not equative to "christian". They are two very differing terms, with differing histories. If you could please be more careful with your terms, though I know you would like them to be the same, they are not the same.

which came first

The word of God existed before men even existed, yes or no?

, and then the Scriptures which are indeed authoritative.

Paul referred to the "scriptures" as already in existence, when speaking to Timothy. So which came first, the scripture or the church according to Paul?

Jesus referred to the scripture (Mark 12:10), as in existence before 'the church' existed.

One has authority (the Church) and the other is authoritative (the Scriptures).

I do not negate that both God's word and people co-exist. I cited Isaiah 8:20 as proof of it. Yet, notice the order there, "law", then "testimony", not the other way round.

 

[Alofa Atu]

As the meeting between the eunuch and Phillip tells us, the Scriptures need to be explained to those who are ignorant of what they actually say, and that is the purpose of the Church which exists here on earth.

You just proved my point. The scriptures existed before, and were already being read by the Ethipoian Eunuch. I do not negate that God uses men of His body to explain the scriptures, but please notice, who it was that gave the direction - the Holy Ghost (was the one in charge), and to what the Holy Ghost placed as the foundation, or standard of truth, not Philip, but "the scriptures". Philip didn't make up something out of thin air, he had to "read" Isaiah, and show what God stated therein. God defined it, and the Holy Ghost was present to confirm that was what God said, in the word (scripture). Philip was bound to agree with what scripture said (Acts 8:35), what God said, not what he (Philip thought it said, or wanted it to say), for he knew that he could not 'add', nor 'take away from', neither 'go beyond the word of the Lord'. Also, in choosing that as the example is perfect when speaking of how one is to be baptized, as the text is perfectly clear (Acts 8:37).

Who is guilty of private interpretation is what the question is related to.

Ok, then ought we to be discussing that?

Is it us Catholics or Eastern Orthodox who rely on the whole 2000 years

Again, the 'catholic' mythology is again assumed as true by yourself. It is not so true historically, and we can look at this later as needful. You also continue to swap 'catholic; and 'christian' as if they were interchangable. They are not.

existence of the Church for the correct interpretation or is it non-orthodox Christians who interpret the Scriptures by themselves?

Again, as I have stated, both positions are error. Read Genesis 40:8. Who interprets, man or God?

I would say it is the latter who believe in this private interpretation of the scriptures idea.

No, as you again, bypass the third point I made twice now.

Oh come on, until Martin Luther (and those that eventually even disagreed with him) the idea of the Scriptures Alone was never bandied about. There was always the Church to which most believers relied upon for the truth

Martin Luther (one-time 'catholic'), as I was, came to understand by the study of the scripture, that the 'catholic church' is the anti-christ system, and the head thereof (humanly speaking) is the 'man of sin'. He was not alone in that, and was not his 'private interpretation'. The whole of the reformation understood what God said therein. Only those who refused to acknowledge what God said, remained in that system (which is soon to perish miserably, and is even now filling with every devil). You ought to read the book, 'eaters of children' in all that it documents.

The history of Christianity is what it is

I agree, but that history is not 'catholic' history. The two are separate roads. Which we can discuss later.

I cannot lie about Martin Luther's prominent part in it.

I never said you lied about Martin Luther's part, but you have misunderstood that part.

Luther, then Calvin, then Zwingli - name your man there were plenty who came about after Luther.

And plenty who came before him, Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome, Vaudois, Passsagini, Albigensi, Paulician, Insabbati, Sabbatini, etc, etc.

But men continually try to define it with their particular interpretation - that is the reality.

I did not say that men did not so 'privately interpret' scripture, and that was why we were warned of doing it. I stated that there is one interpretation, God's.

For example, as regards communion Jesus said: "This IS my body" and "This is my blood"?

Before looking at this, we need to define the foundation upon which to test, yes or no? Otherwise what is the point in looking?

So how do you look at this?

I understand it as God defined it. Not how I want it to be defined. Not how you would define it. Not how another defines it. I will refrain from further going into this, until we have the definition and standard.

It seems pretty clear to me

You just did it again, and left the 'interpretation' that God gave, and now rely upon "[you] ('me')". To 'you', is the very definition of 'private interpretation'. Any interpretation apart from how God defined, demonstrated it, is 'private interpretation', no matter whether you do it, or I, or another than God.

God speaks the word, and God gets to define what God said, for God alone knows perfectly what God meant when God spake.

It would be like unto me giving a sentence:

The dog under the bonnet, moved and leapt into the boot, but before so doing tore up the napkin.

Now that sentence can only mean one thing truly, and that is how I define it, and not another. Yet, if that sentence is read by multiple people in multiple countries, it could begin to take on other meanings never intended by myself. Read it is England it means something interesting, and in Australia, another. Yet, which, if any, are correct? only that which is understood as I gave and meant it, defined it.

Thus with God.

that God meant to convey the truth of it being His body and blood, yet many Christians do not believe this truth.

I am not going to enter into this discussion, until, 'private interpretation' is defined, and that we have the foundation rule by which to test. It is easy for me to get into that conversation, and easy to demonstrate what God said, not how I would want it to say, but in what God actually said.

How can that be?

The OP discussion will answer this.

The Catholic Church is made up of mortal men

Sure is, and yet you do not really believe that, as they teach 'immortal soul/spirit' theology. However, I will give you a text to think on (Hebrews 7:23).

, so in some instances it has blundered.

Ok, fair enough. I might ask you to give at least 3 major (not minor) examples.

The Church

Which "Church" do you refer to? The 'Catholic Church', for I know that Romanism, does teach that other congregations outside of 'her', are 'not churches' in the 'proper sense'.

is in good company with the likes of St. Peter who denied Jesus Christ three times and St. Paul who went after the Christians of his day before his conversion and repentance.

Close, as I believe, it is more in descendancy of Judas, that 'son pf perdition'. Again, not to be mean, just stating what scripture reveals, and we can discuss that also.

It speaks with the authority given to it by Jesus Christ , God Incarnate Himself.

Again, I have not denied that the church of Christ Jesus has 'authority'. I am speaking about what is the foundation of that authority, and what is the boundary of it.

 

[Adonia]

You just proved my point. The scriptures existed before, and were already being read by the Ethipoian Eunuch.

Of course the "Scriptures" were in existence, the OLD TESTAMENT Scriptures, the "New" ones hadn't been written yet.

Ok, then ought we to be discussing that?

I already did. We (Catholics) don't do it, other Christians of other faith traditions do. We look to the Church for the correct interpretation with it's centuries of existence and it's many theologians weighing in.

Again, the 'catholic' mythology is again assumed as true by yourself. It is not so true historically, and we can look at this later as needful. You also continue to swap 'catholic; and 'christian' as if they were interchangable. They are not.

I disagree. We have the historical record on our side concerning the newly emerging Christian Church. It was the Universal Church with it's Bishops who held synods and councils to decide things - those 'Early Church Fathers" whom history confirms. There was us, then the first great schism in the 11th century, then a couple hundred more years until Luther turns the Christian world asunder.

He was not alone in that, and was not his 'private interpretation'.

Good grief, it sure was. And then a few short years on and other "protestors" were disagreeing with even him!

What you call the 'ECF', I would be very cautious about, since, the Bible warns us about calling men 'father':

The biblical evangelists use the word "Father" in describing themselves and at other times for heavens sake. (Romans 4:16) (1 Cor 4:15). See, you get it wrong again.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Of course the "Scriptures" were in existence, the OLD TESTAMENT Scriptures, the "New" ones hadn't been written yet.

Thank you for so saying, for a moment there I thought you were going to say that the 'catholic' church put the scriptures together, which would not even be true of the NT texts.

I already did.

Already did what?

We (Catholics) don't do it

Don't do what?

, other Christians of other faith traditions do.

Do what?

We look to the Church for the correct interpretation

That just disproved what you said earlier, about "We (Catholics) don't do it.", and then you turn around and say, "We look to the [Catholic] Church for the correct interpretation.", even though I just showed you, by the example you gave of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, that is not what is to be done. Philip didn't 'interpret', the scripture (God therein) interpreted, while Philip read it under guidance of the Holy Ghost and preached the word.

The scripture says:

Gen 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

with it's centuries of existence and it's many theologians weighing in.

I have read through many of those 'centuries' of 'theologians' all not only contradicting themselves, councils, and councils contradicting themselves, even to the level of 'popes' contradicting one another, and contradicting the plain statements of scripture itself. Many examples may be cited. Why do you jump past the 'beginning' and move to 'centuries'? Why are you refusing to look at the 'beginning'?

Question, what is the earliest texts that we have on what the church of Jesus taught and practiced. Please name these documents.

I disagree.

Of course you do, but provided only yourself as the basis for disagreement and what you think the 'historical record' shows, without providing any of it, nor starting from the 'beginning', and jump 'centuries'.

We have the historical record on our side concerning the newly emerging Christian Church.

No, what you have is forged documents (specific examples may be given), that came after the close of NT canon, all of which you were warned about (2 Thes 2:2; 2 Cor 2:17; 1 Tim 6:20-21; Acts 20:28-30, 1 Tim 4:1-5, etc).

It was the Universal Church with it's Bishops who held synods and councils to decide things

I agree, it was indeed 'the Universal Church with it's Bishops ..." that did those things all in contradiction to what was written in scripture.

- those 'Early Church Fathers" whom history confirms.

Again, that is the 'catholic' mythology, bypassing what is written therein, and the evidence of forgery, contradiction, and making it up (you said so, saying, "[C]ame up with this stuff'") as they go. This also may be documented for you.

As a for instance on changing states of mind and contradiction, the many so-called 'ECF' believed in a 4,000 - 6,000 year old earth (depending on their timeframe of writing), and so did Augustine for some time, but later changed his mind.

There are now not just two opposing views in 'catholic' theology, but several, and even Thomas Aquinas (the so-called 'sainted' 'Doctor' (also warned against) argues vehemently against Augustine.

That is just one small example of the myriad, and such could be given at the highest levels of councils and 'popes'.

There was us

Actually, no. We may begin with the NT texts themselves, which I am still waiting to happen.

You may also read the book, "The Two Republics" by A.T. Jones. Documented history and including many of your so-called 'ECF' therein. You can read it here (I have so read it and many other things). Link

What 'catholicism' is today, is not even what existed in the 4th cent.

You can also read "Ecclesiastical Empire" by the same author - Link

then the first great schism in the 11th century

You are simply regurgitating that same 'catholic mythology', a revision of actual history (see cited sources above).

There was a great schism long before that. It is recorded here:

2Th_2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

then a couple hundred more years until Luther turns the Christian world asunder.

Always the focus upon Luther. Luther only continued what existed before him (for instance Huss (Goose) even had a prophecy of Luther (Swan), and many existed long before Huss, already named.

Good grief, it sure was.

Opinion.

And then a few short years on and other "protestors" were disagreeing with even him!

Sure, Luther was coming out of error, as many were (Zwingli, Calvin, etc), and even Andreas Carlstadt. It took some time for them to figure out where they were in the wrong, and some who followed them, never sought any light further beyond their powerful persons.

However, if you know history, then you will know that Luther, and the others who were coming out of that system of sin, ended up meeting with those who already were in existence in the mountains, in the valleys long hidden by time and location. These too were already mentioned. These are they which were identified in Rev. 12.

The biblical evangelists use the word "Father" in describing themselves and at other times for heavens sake. (Romans 4:16) (1 Cor 4:15)

Romans 4:16 has nothing to do with the term 'father' as Rome uses it. How you have attempted to say it is similar is disingenuous to say the least. Romans 4:16, in context, says:

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Rom 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

Adonia. Look at that text, that passage. Tell me that Romans 4:16-18 is the same use of the word 'father' as Rome uses it for their priests, bishops, cardinals, and 'popes'.

Now, look at 1 Corinthians 4:15, in its context:

1Co 4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

1Co 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

1Co 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

Did you catch what Paul specifically said? Tell me Adonia, how does what Paul said, relate to how Rome uses the word 'father' and the 'many' of them. I will await your answer.

See, you get it wrong again.

I do desire you not pretend that I have never read those scriptures (taken from their context and misapplied for selfish purposes by Rome), and be so lifted up in arrogancy, as it is unbecoming. Do not assume please. I understand those verses, in their context, and they say nothing of the use that Rome uses for the word 'father' (or 'pope').

We were warned of such in scripture itself, of those who among the elders would seek such (Acts 20:28-30; 2 Thes 2:4; which is citing Daniel 11).

Rome has never explained Jesus words when he said:

Mat_23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

and only resort to the same two texts as you have just done.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Adonia, a question: Are you a Catholic christian?

 

[utilyan]

Acts 9:31

ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης = Catholic Church


Call no man Father.

First lets see Consistency

Matthew 23
8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

That means you can't call anyoen TEACHER-RABBI. Also You can't call or be called MR. OR MRS. Both abbreviations for MASTER. You also cannot be called DOCTOR DR. This is Latin for TEACHER.



Acts 7

2And he said, “Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran

1 Timothy 2

7Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.


2 timothy 1

11Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.


1 corinthians 12

28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


Would be nice to hear the basis for accepting any canon of scripture. Where did you get the most authentic canon of scripture and where did THEY get if from?

 

[utilyan]

“Tail-foremost arguments”
What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.

– The Catholic Church and Conversion (1926).


The point here is where do you even start? Who handed you a bible is your first authority.

Accepting a King James for example is accepting the authority and authenticity declared by the Anglican FATHERS who put it together.

And they in turn must accept the manuscripts which in all likelihood are physically held by Catholics and Orthodox.

Why would it be reasonable to accept the table of contents of people we would presume heretical?

Lets take a good look at where you started. Perhaps name a single official Christian from 100 to 1000 ad.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Acts 9:31

ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης = Catholic Church...

I do beg your pardon, utilyan, but this conversation is between myself and Adonia, and I have yet to get to a foundation with Adonia, and therefore, please refrain, if you are able, from interruption. It would be appreciated. If you are going to continue to interrupt, I will have to bypass everything from here on out.

You have misrepresented the koine Greek, as all Roman Catholicism does to attempt to substantiate its claims.

Yet, Acts 9:31 does not say 'catholic church' in koine Greek, and you know it, and even Rome's own (several) translations of the text bear this out:

Jerome's Latin:

Act 9:31 ecclesia quidem per totam Iudaeam et Galilaeam et Samariam habebat pacem et aedificabatur ambulans in timore Domini et consolatione Sancti Spiritus replebatur

Jesuit, Douay Rheims:

Act 9:31 Now, the church had peace throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria: and was edified, walking in the fear of the Lord: and was filled with the consolation of the Holy Ghost.

Therefore, if you please, take the fallacious error you have presented and go ask repentance of God for misrepresenting His word as you have done in an attempt to support Romanism's mythology.

The word “catholic” [Greek, “καθολικος”, Greek Tr. “Katholikos”] is not found in scripture [KJB], nor even directly in the koine Greek manuscripts, but is rather a derivation of two koine Greek words:

[1] [G2596] “καθ” [from “κατα”, a 'preposition'], “kath”, meaning “through” and

[2] [G3650] “ολης” [an 'adjective' [in this instance, though can be used as noun or adverb]], “holos”, meaning “whole, all, entire”.

Please also note the plural "churches" (not singular). εκκλησιαιG1577 N-NPF

Therefore, both, when combined together, meaning the “throughout all” [Acts 9:31 KJB], the whole, entire, or 'universal'. It is a later adaptation in the (forged; pseudo) writings of Ignatius ca. AD 110, and also by Cyril of Jerusalem, Ireneaus speaking about Polycarp, and used from the 2nd Century onward by a certain class of persons calling themselves by this name, and is ultimately made more and more prominent, especially in the reign of the Emperor Constantine, in the years of the 4 Emperors [and even afterward], and the various political-religious factions all vying for clout for their self-perceived doctrines. I will recommend you read The Two Republics, by A. T. Jones (as already given).

There are attempts [please note this word] by the apologists of “Catholicism” to 'find' this word “καθολικος” in the scripture:

[01]

Acts 9:31 KJB - Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Act 9:31 KJB + - ThenG3767 (G3303) hadG2192 theG3588 churchesG1577 restG1515 throughoutG2596 allG3650 JudaeaG2449 andG2532 GalileeG1056 andG2532 Samaria,G4540 and were edified;G3618 andG2532 walkingG4198 in theG3588 fearG5401 of theG3588 Lord,G2962 andG2532 in theG3588 comfortG3874 of theG3588 HolyG40 Ghost,G4151 were multiplied.G4129

Acts 9:31 GNT TR - αι μεν ουν εκκλησιαι καθ ολης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχον ειρηνην οικοδομουμεναι και πορευομεναι τω φοβω του κυριου και τη παρακλησει του αγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο

Act 9:31 GNT TR + - αιG3588 T-NPF μενG3303 PRT ουνG3767 CONJ εκκλησιαιG1577 N-NPF καθG2596 PREP οληςG3650 A-GSF τηςG3588 T-GSF ιουδαιαςG2449 N-GSF καιG2532 CONJ γαλιλαιαςG1056 N-GSF καιG2532 CONJ σαμαρειαςG4540 N-GSF ειχονG2192 V-IAI-3P ειρηνηνG1515 N-ASF οικοδομουμεναιG3618 V-PPP-NPF καιG2532 CONJ πορευομεναιG4198 V-PNP-NPF τωG3588 T-DSM φοβωG5401 N-DSM τουG3588 T-GSM κυριουG2962 N-GSM καιG2532 CONJ τηG3588 T-DSF παρακλησειG3874 N-DSF τουG3588 T-GSN αγιουG40 A-GSN πνευματοςG4151 N-GSN επληθυνοντοG4129 V-IPI-3P

*This is the only known instance in the Greek TR texts, where these two words are side by side, yet are clearly two distinct words, not directly speaking of the “church” [“εκκλησιαι”, “ekklesiai”] itself as “καθολικος”, but rather references the locality adjectively [“throughout all”] in which the “church” had “rest” [from persecution].

[02]

Romans 16:23 KJB - Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.

Romans 16:23 KJB + - GaiusG1050 mineG3450 host,G3581 andG2532 of theG3588 wholeG3650 church,G1577 salutethG782 you.G5209 ErastusG2037 theG3588 chamberlainG3623 of theG3588 cityG4172 salutethG782 you,G5209 andG2532 QuartusG2890 a brother.G80

Romans 16:23 GNT TR - ασπαζεται υμας γαιος ο ξενος μου και της εκκλησιας ολης ασπαζεται υμας εραστος ο οικονομος της πολεως και κουαρτος ο αδελφος

Romans 16:23 GNT TR + - ασπαζεταιG782 V-PNI-3S υμαςG4771 P-2AP γαιοςG1050 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM ξενοςG3581 A-NSM μουG1473 P-1GS καιG2532 CONJ τηςG3588 T-GSF εκκλησιαςG1577 N-GSF οληςG3650 A-GSF ασπαζεταιG782 V-PNI-3S υμαςG4771 P-2AP εραστοςG2037 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM οικονομοςG3623 N-NSM τηςG3588 T-GSF πολεωςG4172 N-GSF καιG2532 CONJ κουαρτοςG2890 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM αδελφοςG80 N-NSM

*In this instance, the koine Greek word [G2596] “καθ”, is not used at all in combination “ολης”. The word “ολης” is simply being used [as in many other places, 112 KJB [G3650]] as an adjective [“A-GSF”, Adjective – Genative, Singular, Feminine], to describe the amount [of persons thereof, locally] of the church who is [are] doing the greeting [“Tertius”, vs 22], with Paul and Gaius [Paul's “host”]. It is just simply including everyone in the church in the greeting, even after having listed a bunch of names to be greeted [vss. 1-16]. It does not designate the church as “καθολικος”.

[03]

1 Corinthians 14:23 KJB - If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

1 Corinthians 14:23 KJB + - IfG1437 thereforeG3767 theG3588 wholeG3650 churchG1577 be come togetherG4905 intoG1909 one place,G846 andG2532 allG3956 speakG2980 with tongues,G1100 andG1161 there come inG1525 those that are unlearned,G2399 orG2228 unbelievers,G571 will they notG3756 sayG2046 thatG3754 ye are mad?G3105

1 Corinthians 14:23 GNT TR - εαν ουν συνελθη η εκκλησια ολη επι το αυτο και παντες γλωσσαις λαλωσιν εισελθωσιν δε ιδιωται η απιστοι ουκ ερουσιν οτι μαινεσθε

1 Corinthians 14:23 GN TR + - εανG1437 COND ουνG3767 CONJ συνελθηG4905 V-2AAS-3S ηG3588 T-NSF εκκλησιαG1577 N-NSF οληG3650 A-NSF επιG1909 PREP τοG3588 T-ASN αυτοG846 P-ASN καιG2532 CONJ παντεςG3956 A-NPM γλωσσαιςG1100 N-DPF λαλωσινG2980 V-PAS-3P εισελθωσινG1525 V-2AAS-3P δεG1161 CONJ ιδιωταιG2399 N-NPM ηG2228 PRT απιστοιG571 A-NPM ουκG3756 PRT-N ερουσινG2046 V-FAI-3P οτιG3754 CONJ μαινεσθεG3105 V-PNI-2P

*In this instance, the koine Greek word [G2596] “καθ”, is not used at all in combination “ολης”. The word “ολης” is simply being used [as in many other places, 112 KJB [G3650]] as an adjective [“A-GSF”, Adjective – Nominative, Singular, Feminine], to describe the amount [of persons thereof, locally] of the church if [a possibility] they came together as one group. It does not designate the church as “καθολικος”.

Each attempt to 'find' this word, “καθολικος”, in scripture [KJB] yields no [0] results. The words “καθ” [used 378 times in the GNT TR, G2596] and/or “ολης” [used 112 times in the GNT TR, G3650] are used throughout the scripture, in various ways, most of which are never in connection with the word “εκκλησια” whatsoever.

 

[Alofa Atu]

... Call no man Father.

First lets see Consistency

Matthew 23
8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

That means you can't call anyoen TEACHER-RABBI. Also You can't call or be called MR. OR MRS. Both abbreviations for MASTER. You also cannot be called DOCTOR DR. This is Latin for TEACHER.

Here again, utilyan, have misrepresented the koine Greek text and its meanings and you know it. "rabbi" (G4461) is not the word "didaskalos" (G1320) is it utilyan?, and Roman Catholics own translations bear this out:

Mat 23:7 et salutationes in foro et vocari ab hominibus rabbi
Mat 23:7 And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi.

1Ti 2:7 in quo positus sum ego praedicator et apostolus veritatem dico non mentior doctor gentium in fide et veritate
1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher and an apostle (I say the truth, I lie not), a doctor of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

1Co 12:28 et quosdam quidem posuit Deus in ecclesia primum apostolos secundo prophetas tertio doctores deinde virtutes exin gratias curationum opitulationes gubernationes genera linguarum
1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

Why do you try to uphold the 'myth', by what you are doing? I would like to see 'consistency' from 'catholics' on this. They deny their own translations and attempt to make differing words, with differing meanings, mean the same thing just to justify themselves. That's pretty selfish.

Acts 7

2And he said, “Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran ...

Let's look at Acts 7:2:

Act 7:2 ο δε εφη ανδρες αδελφοι και πατερες ακουσατε ο θεος της δοξης ωφθη τω πατρι ημων αβρααμ οντι εν τη μεσοποταμια πριν η κατοικησαι αυτον εν χαρραν

Act 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,

The word "father" is used twice. Once plural (fathers), and the other singular (Abraham). How is how Stephen used this word, in both instances, in any way the same use in how Roman Catholicism uses it for its priest-class system?

Stephen is speaking of nationality, of race'; speaking to Jews descended from Abraham.

That was not the use in which Jesus referred in Matthew 23:9:

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

This you know, but attempt to deceive your own self. Why? What is the context of Matthew 23 utilyan? Do not answer here, go and answer it for your ownself.

Would be nice to hear the basis for accepting any canon of scripture.

Isaiah 8:20 is a nice place to start, but there is a better place even than that.

Where did you get the most authentic canon of scripture and where did THEY get if from?

Jews:

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

I will recommend to you the following - How Many Books Are In The Old Testament?

If you need me to give you the long version I can, but again, please note, that this thread is about 'private interpretation', not canon, and my conversation was with Adonia, not yourself. You have the whole forum to begin what you will.

I will also tell you that the "Canon" of Romanism is not the canon as found in early councils, etc.

As for the 'apocrypha ('catholic deuterocanon'), they were never accepted as Canon in the OT, not even by Jesus' day, nor Josephus' day.

"The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church. They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen, in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome, Rufinus, and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books recognized by the Council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose canons were received by the Catholic Church; so that, as Bishop Burnet well observes, "we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter." To this decisive evidence against the canonical authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century, when, as Jerome informs us, they were read "for example of life and instruction of manners, but were not applied to establish any doctrine;" and contemporary writers state that although they were not approved as canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine relates that when the book of Wisdom was publicly read in the church, it was given to the readers or inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read it in a lower place than those books which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner. To conclude: Notwithstanding the veneration in which these books were held by the Western Church, it is evident that the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament; until the last Council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all (excepting the prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the prophets." - An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. by Thomas Hartwell Horne, B.D. of Saint John's College, Cambridge; rector of the United Parishes of Saint Edmund the King and Martyr and Saint Nicholas Acons, Lombard Street; Prebendary of Saint Paul's; New Edition, from the Eighth London Edition, Corrected and Enlarged. Illustrated with numerous maps and fac-similies of Bilical Manuscripts. Volume I. Philadelphia: Published by J. Whetham & Son, 144 Chestnut Street. Stereotyped by L. Johnson. 1841.; page 426 (left column) - An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures

You are out of your league utilyan. Please refrain.

 

[Alofa Atu]

...Would be nice to hear the basis for accepting any canon of scripture. Where did you get the most authentic canon of scripture and where did THEY get if from?

In the last days of Peter (circa AD 65-68, as per: II Pet. 1:14), he said (II Pet. 3:16) that the epistles of St. Paul were already acknowledged as scripture (Paul’s epistles (14 letters, Romans to Hebrews; ie, Rom., I & II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., I & II Thes., I & II Tim., Tit., Phile., Heb.)), along with the “other scriptures” (OT):

Was Peter correct in what he said, was it inspired of the Holy Ghost right then?

We can also consider the OT itself, in that Jesus, spoke of that which is written in the “law of Moses”, “Prophets” and “Psalms”, as per: Luk. 24:44-45, even identifying the A to Z prophets (Matt. 23:35; Luk. 11:50-51, Abel (Genesis) to Zacharias (II Chron., the last OT book in Jewish numeration).

St. Paul has spoken to Timothy about the “holy scriptures” (II Tim. 3:16) that Timothy had “known” from infancy or childhood. How could St. Paul have said this to Timothy, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, if the OT (“holy scriptures”) weren’t already known unto Timothy, and which those were among all the writings of the east, inside and outside of Judaism?

Likewise, how could Jesus have said to the Pharisees and religious rulers to “Search the scriptures” (Jhn. 5:39), if they had no idea what he was talking about, or what constituted the OT scriptures?

The angel Gabriel, had spoken to Daniel, in his own day, and spake to Daniel of the “scripture of truth” (Dan. 10:21), which would have included all materials up to the time of Daniel, and Daniel (and thus the Holy Ghost, since Daniel is inspired) had already accepted Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2) and Ezekiel (a contemporary prophet in Babylon at the time), though yet some books had yet to be written, such as Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, and so on, including the NT material to come some 600 years later.

I think most Protestants and Catholics, or etc, have a misunderstanding of “Sola Scriptura.” Sola Scriptura includes the text of Isa. 8:20, which speaks to the (order of progression) “the law” (spoken by God, and also written) and the living “testimony” (of prophets, later to also be written), and it also includes things like the ‘book’ of Creation.

It is the same with the ‘inspiration’ and ‘preservation’ of God’s Holy word. At least these two, not only one or the other.

For instance (shown from the KJB and DR; Douay Rheims Online, 'DR' from here on), there was already the "church in the wilderness", which was with Moses, children of Israel:

Act. 7:38 KJB This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Act. 7:38 DR This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sina, and with our fathers; who received the words of life to give unto us.

Additionally, Paul wrote that the "oracles of God" were committed unto the Jews, and Peter also mentions this:

Rom. 3:1 KJB What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Rom. 3:2 KJB Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Rom. 3:1 DR What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?

Rom. 3:2 DR Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them.

Heb. 5:12 KJB For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Heb. 5:12 DR For whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God: and you are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

1 Pet. 4:11 KJB If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Pet. 4:11 DR If any man speak, let him speak, as the words of God. If any man minister, let him do it, as of the power, which God administereth: that in all things God may be honoured through Jesus Christ: to whom is glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen.

Now the DR here (1 Pet. 4:11), inserting a comma changes the meaning, from the text itself as from saying (KJB) that when men speak they are to speak what the scriptures say, and the Jesuit (DR) makes it to mean that whatever a man speaks, that is "the words of God", thus eliminating the foundation from the text itself, to men (in what they say).

The entire OT texts were already 'canon' in the days of Jesus, none of which included any of the apocrypha (aka 'catholic deuterocanon'). Jesus Himself identified the texts:

Luk. 24:44 KJB 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.

Luk. 24:45 KJB Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

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

Luk. 24:45 DR Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

 

[Alofa Atu]

...Would be nice to hear the basis for accepting any canon of scripture. Where did you get the most authentic canon of scripture and where did THEY get if from?

Jesus identified the beginning and the ending of the OT among the children of Israel:

Mat. 23:35 KJB 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.

Mat. 23:35 DR That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

Luk. 11:50 KJB That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

Luk. 11:50 DR That the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation,

Luk. 11:51 KJB From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Luk. 11:51 DR From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, who was slain between the altar and the temple: Yea I say to you, It shall be required of this generation.

This is an important statement by Jesus since, it gives two 'book ends' on the prophets, "Abel" unto "Zacharias", which was the "A" to "Z" of the OT, since according to the children of Israel's reckoning, Chronicles was the last bookof the Tanakh (OT) [Torah (Gen. to Deut.), Prophets (Jos. to Mal.), Writings (Psa. to 2 Chron.)]:

2 Chron. 24:20 KJB And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.

2 Chron. 24:20 DR The spirit of God then came upon Zacharias the son of Joiada the priest, and he stood in the sight of the people, and said to them: Thus saith the Lord God: Why transgress you the commandment of the Lord which will not be for your good, and have forsaken the Lord, to make him forsake you?

2 Chron. 24:21 KJB And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.

2 Chron. 24:21 DR And they gathered themselves together against him, and stoned him at the king's commandment in the court of the house of the Lord.

2 Chron. 24:22 KJB Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it.

2 Chron. 24:22 DR And king Joas did not remember the kindness that Joiada his father had done to him, but killed his son. And when he died, he said: The Lord see, and require it.

I would recommend a helpful webpage with further detail - How Many Books Are In The Old Testament?

Peter also already knew (well before AD 90, sometime circa AD 65-68, since the epistles mention Peter's nearing death (2 Pet. 1:14) what the 'scriptures' were in regards to Paul's epistles (14 letters, Romans to Hebrews; ie, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews):

2 Pet. 3:16 KJB As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2 Pet. 3:16 DR As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

The Holy Scriptures are inspired of God, and are therefore, not 'catholic', but rather is God's word, the "word of God" (Jhn. 10:35):

2 Tim. 3:15 KJB And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Tim. 3:15 DR And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Tim. 3:16 KJB All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim. 3:16 DR All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

2 Tim. 3:17 KJB That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Tim. 3:17 DR That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

2 Pet. 1:21 KJB 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.

2 Pet. 1:21 DR For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

The "scriptures" were already well known in Jesus' day in regards the OT, as per:

Dan. 10:21; Mat. 21:42. 22:29, 26:54,56; Mar. 12:10,24, 14:49, 15:28; Luk. 4:21, 24:27,32,45; Jhn. 2:22, 5:39, 7:38,42, 10:35, 13:18, 17:12, 19:24,28,36,37, 20:9; Act. 1:16, 8:32,35, 17:2,11, 18:24,28; Rom. 1:2, 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2, 15:4, 16:26; 1 Cor. 15:3,4; Gal. 3:8,22, 4:30; 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Tim. 3:15,16; Jam. 2:8,23, 4:5; 1 Pet. 2:6; 2 Pet. 1:20, 3:16

In fact, how could Jesus say to the Jews, "Search the scriptures" that prophesied of Christ Jesus, if the Jews had no idea what "the scriptures" were, to search, and every man had their own idea as to what constituted them?

Jhn. 5:39 KJB Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Jhn. 5:39 DR Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me.

In fact, none of the apocrypha ('catholic deuterocanon'), are cited by any of the Apostles in the NT as fulfilling prophecy (some might attempt to point to Jud. citing so-called 'Enoch' (pseudopigrahpon), but that is another matter, and it doesn't either, as both are referring to Gen. and Deut.).

The angel Gabriel, in the days of Daniel was able to explain to Daniel, the prophecies given him from the very texts which existed before 'Daniel' was written (basically Gen. to Jer. (maybe some Eze.) and others hadn't yet been written by then, such as Ezr., Neh., Est., etc. and some of the 'minor prophets'):

Dan. 10:21 KJB But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Dan. 10:21 DR But I will tell thee what is set down in the scripture of truth: and none is my helper in all these things, but Michael your prince.

 

[Alofa Atu]

...Would be nice to hear the basis for accepting any canon of scripture. Where did you get the most authentic canon of scripture and where did THEY get if from?

Even the so-called Canon of Laodicea Canon LX does not give the 'Catholic' Canon.

"... Canon LX.

These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon ..." - Link

 

[Alofa Atu]

... The point here is where do you even start?

The Ten Commandments, written with the finger of God.

Who handed you a bible is your first authority.

God so did, even at Mt. Sinai, and all words are to be tested by those "Ten" words. God is the foundation utilyan, not man.

Accepting a King James for example is accepting the authority and authenticity declared by the Anglican FATHERS who put it together.

Misrepresentation of history. It was not merely 'Anglican, but also 'Puritan' (even on the committee itself) and many others (scholars, musicians, so-called 'lay-persons', grammarians, etc) by the rules of the translation committee itself:

Rule 11:

“... 11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgment of such a Place.”

Rule 12:

"... 12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of the clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before the king’s letter to the archbishop. ..."

I do desire that you and others would cease from historic revisionism. King James himself sat down with the puritans (Genevans, etc) and Anglicans (and their varied persons), and met with his own learned men.

 

[Alofa Atu]

I now await Adonia's reply and do not expect to further dialogue with utilyan here.