Thursday, August 21, 2008

Row, row, row your boat...

JJ SAID:

“Christianity is not Judaism. Christians are not subject to follow the Law. Jews are. That one is a fulfilment of the other does not alter the fact that the OT scriptures do not teach one to do he same things as the NT.”

In your desperation, you multiply irrelevant distinctions. This is all irrelevant to my statement that Christians were never without a Bible. And Messianic prophecies were central to the Apostolic kerygma.

“If it's not the rule of faith during the apostolic age, the the apostles didn't teach it.”

i) The Apostles *embody* sola Scriptura. They are agents of inscripturation.

ii) The fact that sola Scriptura is inapplicable to apostles and prophets doesn’t mean it’s inapplicable to you and me. The fact that a wellspring is its own source of water doesn’t mean that I don’t need to get my water from the wellspring.

“As I pointed out before, they didn't practice sola scriptura in the OT...... The sacrificial calendar depends on Ex 12:2. Is it referring to Egyptian months (where the Jews were living at the time) or Chaldean months (from where their patriarch Abraham originated)? Give an answer without oral tradition.....”

According to the Mosaic law, they used an agricultural calendar (Exod 23:16; 34:22; Lev 26:6,23-25).

“After King Solomon had the Temple built, he sanctified the interior of the courtyard by personally offering sacrifices [1 Kings 8:64]. How could Solomon offer these sacrifices in the Temple when every indication in the Torah is that only priests may offer sacrifices? From where did Solomon know that a non-priestly king can offer a sacrifice to sanctify the Temple if not from an oral law?.....”

According to the Mosaic law, even laymen could offer sacrifice (Exod 24:5).

“Elijah offered a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel [1 Kings 18:3-38]. However, the Torah forbids bringing sacrifices outside of the Temple [Deut. 12:13-14]. From where did Elijah receive permission to violate this prohibition unless he knew from an oral law that in his case it was permitted.”

i) Deut 12:13-14 doesn’t mention the “Temple,” which didn’t exist at that time, or for several centuries thereafter.

ii) You’re such a legalist. One doesn’t need an “oral law” to “violate” a Mosaic prohibition in an emergency. Did David have an oral legal exemption which permitted him to eat the showbread (1 Sam 21:1-6)? No.

Elijah could hardly invite Baal worshippers into the Temple. The contest would have to take place out of doors.

iii) You also equivocate over “tradition.” In Catholicism, Sacred Tradition is not synonymous with oral tradition.

I’m not going to keep correcting you on these underhanded equivocations.

“No one apostle wrote down the whole of revelation. No apostle shows evidence of being aware of the whole NT. Not even close. So no apostle could know if all revelation was written. Thus no apostle could have advocated sola scriptura.”

Non-sequitur. An apostle could teach it in principle.

“Most of the apostles wrote nothing. If their imperative was to write scripture, most of them botched it.”

Red herring. Sola Scriptura doesn’t imply that every apostle or prophet wrote down everything he ever said.

You aren’t even trying to honestly represent the opposing position. I’m not going to waste time on a dishonest opponent.

“A fancy sounding distinction that adds nothing to your case. The limitations of the individual effectively form part of the criteria, because individuals all start from different knowledge and suppositions. That protestants won't admit the significant place these internal criteria effect the outcome behind the scenes, doesn't mean they don't exist. Protestants judge by the criteria of their own world view, even though they won't admit it.”

If you want to deploy that argument, then that’s also an argument against the authority of popes, church fathers, church councils, doctors of the church, &c. A pope is an individual. A church father is an individual. A council is a collection of individuals.

Adding individuals together (tradition, church councils) doesn’t eliminate the individual basis of the net total.

“Right. So do you grant Christianity an epistemologically superior position to those following the Koran or Vedas? If so, it must be surely because of the objective nature of Christian revelation in comparison to the other claims.”

Christianity is superior because it is true and they are false.

“Therefore, the objective nature of what the Church says is canon trumps what STEVE says is canon.”

That wouldn’t be based on the “objectivity” of the church, but the alleged “infallibility” of the church. Where’s your argument?

“If you don't grant Christianity a superior position, you level the church to the ground, as I said.”

Since I don’t equate Christianity with your ecclesiolatry, your conclusion doesn’t obtain.

“St Basil, on the Spirit.”

So you’re quoting an individual church father to disprove individualism. Impressive logic.

“Why do you need a rule of faith FOR THE CHURCH? Why not just a rule of faith for individuals? The answer is obvious.”

I realize you lack a disciplined mind, but you actually need to present an argument for your claim that a rule of faith must maintain unity.

“You confuse disagreement with disunity. The bishops define who is in unity and communion. The unity is manifest in the shared Eucharist.”

i) The definition of Catholic unity is far more expansive and demanding than your minimalistic version:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm

ii) Even Pope Benedict XVI admits that your rule of faith generates disunity. “Chaos.”

iii) Your hairsplitting distinction between “disagreement” and “disunity” is false to your own prooftext. Does Paul, in 1 Cor 1:10ff, draw that distinction? No.

“Wrong, because the catholic understanding is an objective reality.”

i) You seem to think that offering your exposition of Catholic theology is a sufficient response. It isn’t. It begs the question. Once again, I’m not going to waste time on someone who merely asserts his position ad nauseum.

ii) Even if, ex hypothesi, there is an objective reality which supplies the object of Catholic understanding, that objective reality must be individually and subjectively discerned. You keep running in circles, like a gerbil on an exercise wheel.

“Objectivity is no index of truth.”

How do you think that admission is supposed to help your case? You’ve been pinning your hopes on the “objectivity” of the church. So, according to you, the church could be both objective and mistaken.

“I know of no other criteria that would result in a religion short of a direct revelation from God. If I have to start at square one from "I think therefore I am", it would take me decades and I'd probably end up in a religion of one.”

i) Even if that were true, it doesn’t’ change the fact that making catholicity the goal is a subjective value-judgment.

ii) Christianity is a revealed religion. Grounded in a public revelation. If that’s insufficient for your purposes, then you’re not a Christian.

“They must have been unified since there was only one temple. Otherwise we'd be talking about 5027th temple protestant Judaism.”

You simply make things up in your armchair fashion. There were many different Jewish “sects” and schools of thought in 2nd Judaism.

“What is passed down over the centuries is what was found workable and true.”

There’s no logical connection between the premise and the conclusion. Something is true because it’s handed down over the centuries? Do you apply that reasoning to the Hadith?

“You're in no position 2000 years later to distinguish which is which.”

i) Actually I am, just as 1C Jews were in a position to challenge Pharisaic traditions.

ii) You yourself are very selective about what traditions you honor. You only honor Catholic traditions.

“You can't communicate with God directly to find out what he inspired.”

i) If you’re going to use that argument, then it cuts both ways. I can’t communicate with the church fathers directly.

ii) If you think there’s no direct evidence for the inspiration of the Bible, then there’s no direct evidence for the inspiration of the Magisterium. All you’ve done is to push the issue back a step (assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is a real issue).

“It's only divisive for sorting the wheat from the chaff.”

As in sifting Evangelical wheat from Catholic chaff.

“And the chaff are not part of the unity anyway.”

A truism, since that’s a result of the winnowing process.

“Unity may not be the only function, but it is clearly _a_ function since scripture lists that as a goal for the church.”

You’re confusing imperatives with indicatives. If it’s merely a “goal,” then it’s an ideal rather than a reality. In that case, unity doesn’t define the actual church.

The very fact that writers like Paul enjoin church members to be of one mind is set in the context of ecclesiastical disunity. Or do you think Pauline churches were false churches?

“Nonsense. I don't ask permission from the Magisterium before buying a bible.”

Now you’re dissembling. That was never the issue. A Catholic cannot interpret the Bible contrary to the Magisterium.

“I could say the same of the Magisterium. That of course is the point of issue.”

Now you’re backing down from your earlier mischaracterization of what I said, although you act as if this is what you said all along.

“Have you told us what a rule of faith is supposed to accomplish so we can take a look at it?”

Notice JJ’s methodology. He begins with his outcome-based criterion, then uses that criterion to select for his rule of faith.

Of course, in that event, the rule of faith is not, itself, the criterion—but is subject to his outcome-based criterion.

For me, by contrast, God’s word is the criterion.

“One would think one of the points would be an objective source of truth.”

I’m less concerned with the subjective/objective duality than I am with the true/false duality.

“But since you've admitted the necessity of subjective internal light, and commentaries some of which may be heretical and reprobational, your definition of "perspicuous" ends up meaning "I don't know if I'm being saved or reprobated by what I think this means. That's Orwellian 'Perspicuity'.”

i) I haven’t admitted that. I merely pointed out that Bryan Cross was attacking a straw man version of perspicuity.

ii) Even reprobates can write useful commentaries. For example, there are learned liberals who, because they reject the authority of Scripture, allow the Bible to speak for itself. Since they don’t feel the need to agree with Scripture, they don’t have a problem construing Scripture to mean something at odds with their personal beliefs. They don’t feel threatened by that hiatus.

“In the same way that if I met the apostle Paul, and told you what he said, it would be an improvement over you privately interpreting Genesis on your own. Despite my fallibility in conveying it to you.”

No, that wouldn’t necessarily be an improvement. If you garbled what he told you, then that would be worse than if I tried to interpret Genesis without your erroneous gloss.

“If you could interview 100 people who could relate to you what Paul said, you'd be in a better position still.”

Of course, that hypothetical doesn’t correspond to the church of Rome.

“The more you care to take in from the Spirit led church, the better you would be, even though individual parts could be fallible.”

Not unless I had a way of distinguishing inspired statements from errant, uninspired statements.

“And if the 100 people compare notes and agree that the truth is around the centre of their collective memory, the fallibility of the trees does not hurt the sufficiency of the forest in establishing truth.”

I don’t deny that collective fallible testimony can be useful, but your hypothetical fails to illustrate the distinctive Catholic claim to a Magisterium which can, under certain conditions, speak infallibly.

“And the objectivity of 100 people comparing notes is far in excess of 1 person with their bible under a tree, or even 1 person under a tree with a possibly reprobational commentary.”

Now you’re comparing the incomparable. There’s a difference between the transmission of information (e.g. testimonial evidence) and the interpretation of the testimony.

“We don't know that he was a fully fledged convert. There were a lot of hangers on to the outskirts of Judaism. He may have been a convert.”

i) Why should we even care about your “private” interpretation of Acts? You’re using a Protestant methodology to defend Catholic methodology. If your private interpretations are sufficient to prove the necessity of the Magisterium, then you prove the superfluity of the Magisterium in the act of proving the necessity of the Magisterium. Quite a conundrum, I’d say.

ii) We’re waiting for you to supply us with the Magisterial interpretation of Acts 8.

“Classic example of how you treat your own interpretation as functionally infallible.”

It’s not just *my* interpretation. As Joseph Fitzmyer explains, in the standard Catholic commentary on Acts, “this implies that he was a Jew or at least a proselyte coming from the diaspora” (412).

Pity you can’t even keep up with Catholic Bible scholarship.

“But fallible oral communication that was informed by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.”

You have the cart before the horse. Oral tradition precedes Sacred Tradition.

“He didn't have the gospels or Romans because they didn't exist. So at least one Ethiopian went home informed by a non-sola scriptura hermeneutic.”

Once again, you’re changing the subject. Could he or could he not learn who Jesus was by reading the gospels or Romans or Hebrews?

“Church office is not dynastic by blood, but by succession. Very similar.”

Succession by election is quite dissimilar to succession by genealogy. In the latter case, the only qualification is your bloodline.

“You're confusing qualification with facts and authority. Just because I'm " irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach" doesn't make me an elder.”

A diversionary tactic on your part. Did I say qualifications for church office automatically make one a church officer? No.

The point is that if these are qualifications for church office, and various popes (to take one example) don’t measure up, then that would disqualify them from holding church office. That would make them antipopes.

“Just because I'm from the tribe of Levi, of the right age and gender, didn't give me the right to overthrow the Levitical priesthood and temple and start a new cult.”

i) Another diversionary tactic. You keep trotting out this comparison, which is irrelevant to my point. It does nothing to overturn my point.

ii) Moreover, you’re repeating yourself despite the fact that I already addressed your irrelevant comparison.

I’m not going to waste time on an opponent who raises an objection, then when I address his objection, reiterates the same objection as though nothing was said by way of response.

“What I said stands. It took a special intervention by the messiah to overthrow the authority structure.”

i) Once again, you’re merely positing an analogy between the Levitical priesthood and the Catholic church. You haven’t begun to argue for that analogy. Don’t waste my time with these tedious fallacies.

ii) BTW, the Messiah didn't have to "overthrow" the priesthood. The priesthood always had an expiration date.

“You're trying to split the hair between true and infallibly true.”

No, you were the one who introduced the condition of infallible truth when you fault (Protestant) interpretations of Scripture unless they are “necessarily true.”

What is merely true could be false. What is necessarily true is not only true, but couldn’t be false. That’s the definition of infallibility. Try to keep track of your own sorry argument.

“If I relate to you what Paul said, it is true, but not infallible, because I related it to you.”

That’s a complete non-sequitur. The fact that you relate something to me doesn’t make it true.

Perhaps, in your bugling way, you’re trying to say that what you relate to me could be true even though you are not infallible.

Granted. But Catholic polemical theology isn’t satisfied with that condition. It’s not enough that it be true. Some suitable authority must vouch for its truthfulness.

“But it is authoritative.”

Not unless you’re an authority-figure (e.g. the Magisterium). Try to remember your own argument.

“Otherwise Paul left his churches en route, at least the ones prior to his writing spree, without an authority. Which would be unworkable.”

You’re confusing knowledge with church discipline. Church discipline is an authoritarian exercise.

But any member of Pauline church who heard him speak, who heard the same thing the elders heard, would have just as much right to his interpretation as theirs. Their memory is no better than his.

“Do we need it? Since you've already admitted the necessity of commentaries, but you can't be sure if they are reprobational, then clearly we need something. I'd prefer something guaranteed to be correct than that which may or may not be reprobational. But we both agree we need something.”

i) You don’t have anything guaranteed to be correct. All you have is your fideistic claim.

ii) In fact, the Magisterium is far more likely to be wrong. If an institution imagines itself to be inspired, when it is not, then it will rely on its nonexistent inspiration rather than sound hermeneutical methods, to interpret the Bible.

“And again, back to your presupposition that the canon should be widely known because of the purpose God has for his word.”

I never said that.

“The same supposition says that interpretation should be widely known.”

Even if that were analogous, which is not the case, your parallel turns on a premise which I reject (see above).

“But your world view says for a thousand years it was not known, even though you accept the decision about the canon from those whose interpretation you reject.”

That’s such a dumb statement. I don’t accept the Catholic canon. I accept the Protestant canon. My OT canon corresponds to the Jewish canon, not the Catholic canon.

“Any list of books can be defended. But individuals will all have their own cut of probabilities of what to include. Thus the need for some kind of authority, whether it be Trent or tradition.”

Individuals will all have their own cut of probabilities as to which councils or traditions to include.

This is typical of you. You pose a problem—as you see it. You then propose a solution which only pushes the problem back a step.

“By casting out both you cast away your hermeneutical foundation.”

One can sift tradition as a historical source. And external attestation is not the only line of evidence for the canon.

“The Catholic Church is objectively the one the apostles founded.”

You never miss a chance to beg the question. Given your devotion to circular reasoning, you should convert to Islam. You missed your true vocation as a swirling Dervish.

And not only do you beg the question against the Protestant, you also beg the question against the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.

“1) You assume apriori that 1Tim and 2Tim are inspired.__2) You assume Paul isn't quoting some other now lost writing. __3) You assume Paul wrote it.”

Notice how JJ is moving the goal post. He demanded a reference. When I complied with his demand, he makes another demand.

i) Now you’re resorting to the tactics of the liberal German source critics, who reject extant documentary sources in favor of nonexistent, unverifiable sources.

ii) I don’t need to reinvent the wheel on the inspiration and authorship of Scripture. This is well-trodden ground in conservative Evangelical literature.

“You've just shown your epistemological foundation is viciously regressive. What you regard as inspired cannot have the objective foundation as the historical fact that the apostles founded the Catholic Church.”

i) Both claims involve historical evidence.

ii) The Bible has the additional advantage of internal evidence.

iii) You’re appeal to the Magisterium is viciously circular since you need the Magisterium to validate your traditions and prooftexts for the Magisterium.

iv) All you ever do is to profess your fideistic belief in the Catholic church. You don’t furnish any probative evidence to support your claim, or address the counterevidence.

v) Foundationalism is a questionable epistemology.

“That's like saying I can't interpret Genesis apart from Paul. The obvious silliness of the accusation is apparent to all.”

Once again you keep rehashing the same stale arguments and illustrations even though we specifically responded to these the first time, the second time, the third time...

“You need to prove whether apostolic authorship makes something inspired, irrespective of what I believe.”

As if Evangelical scholars had never done that before.

“Irrelevant. Unless you can produce every non-extant ancient document to do an exhaustive search in, then you're making a supposition.”

i) It’s not irrelevant for you to discharge your own burden of proof.

ii) Unless you can produce every non-extant ancient document to prove to us that the Catholic church didn’t suppress evidence which would expose its fraudulent claims, then you're making a supposition.

“Before Trent we had the Tradition and customs of the Catholic Church. Same as the Jews had.”

So, when push comes to shove, you fall back on fallible tradition and fallible customs.

“If I asked you to prove the OT canon, you'd start talking about what such and such a Jew had to say. That's an appeal to tradition. That's an appeal that assumes a recognisable body of Jews existed who held a unified tradition, and that the person quoted was a member of said group. In short, you'd be forced to fall back to a tradition-based canon.”

i) You assume you know how we go about defending the canon. You clearly don’t have a clue as to how we actually do it.

ii) You continue to play your bait-and-switch game on “tradition.” You try to pole-vault from “tradition” to “Sacred Tradition.”

“Document a widely known historical fact?”

If that’s a widely known fact, then why is that fact unknown to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican Communion, Lutherans, Baptists, &c.? How do you define “wide”? In millimeters?

“There's 2000 years of witnesses and continuity.”

You say it but you don’t show it.

“Where would one even begin?”

That’s your problem.

“The Holy Church.” God is pointed out, and His temple. “For the temple of God is holy,” says the Apostle, “which (temple) are ye.” This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church" - Augustine, on the Creed.”

i) Quoting a Latin Father begs the question.

ii) Moreover, you can’t quote a 5C church father as a witness to the 21C Catholic church. Augustine wasn’t vouching for the 21C Catholic church. He knew absolutely nothing about the 21C Catholic church. And if he had known, he might disown it.

Before you can apply his statement to the 21C Catholic church, you have to already assume that your church is the one true church—in which case you’re using your church to prove his statement, rather than using his statement to prove your church.

You’ve demonstrated, in a short time, that you don’t debate in good faith. I’d advise you go away until you cultivate a modicum of intellectual honesty. I not going to keep playing “Row, row, row your boat” with you. The round gets to be monotonous in a hurry.

7 comments:

  1. ii) BTW, the Messiah didn't have to "overthrow" the priesthood. The priesthood always had an expiration date.

    Not only that, JJ would do well to actually read the Bible here.

    Jesus did not "otherthrow" the priesthood, for the priesthood was already subservient to Him. It's already subservient, through Him, to every Christian believer. There was no need to overthrow that which served Him and therefore us.

    1. Jesus is a High Priest of a different order, that of Melchizedek.
    2. Abraham payed tribute to Melchizedek, acknowledging Melchizedek's authority over him.
    3. Therefore, Levi, Aaron, etc. did the same.
    4. Believers are united with Christ.
    5. All believers are priests. Christ is the high priest.
    6. Ergo:

    a. Priesthood of all believers.
    b. Levitical priesthood is inferior and subservient to both Christ and believers.

    So, even on JJ's own logic, Christians have EVERY right to start a new "temple" for we ARE the new temple. We have the right to throw off the yoke of a class called "priests," in Catholicism if, as he says, they are similar to those of Rome, for on that logic, they are inferior to every believer, given what the Bible says.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've never seen a Roman Catholic make a convincing case that Augustine should be considered Roman Catholic. He held a high view of the Roman church, but he believed in a non-papal form of church government, and many of the other doctrines of Roman Catholicism are absent from his writings or contradicted by them. Even when he agreed with Roman Catholicism, he sometimes did so in a manner that's problematic for Catholicism. See, for example, my discussion of Augustine in the article on Purgatory here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "This is all irrelevant to my statement that Christians were never without a Bible."

    Yes they had a bible which taught things contrary to Christianity. Like the necessity for following the law. I'm yet to hear how it helps you to point to the existence of a body of scriptures teaching contrary to your religion.

    "The fact that sola Scriptura is inapplicable to apostles and prophets doesn’t mean it’s inapplicable to you and me."

    If the apostles keenly wrote down all their teachings, then they could at least follow sola scriptura other than during the actual process of enscripturation. However they didn't do that. And more problematic for you, they didn't teach others to do it, since they didn't write first, and teach from it second. They taught, and then some decades later, wrote some of it down.

    "According to the Mosaic law, they used an agricultural calendar (Exod 23:16; 34:22; Lev 26:6,23-25"

    1) That doesn't tell you what "this month" is in Ex 12.

    2) Harvest times do not tell you what "this month" is.

    3) Harvest times are not month based.

    4) Are they solar or lunar months? (Many people think they are lunar months).

    "According to the Mosaic law, even laymen could offer sacrifice (Exod 24:5)."

    The priesthood is not instituted until Exodus 28, and after this time every biblical indication is that sacrifices are the exclusive job of the priests. I'm sure if you'd been living at the time you'd be the first to object if every man and his dog was doing the sacrifices.

    "You’re such a legalist. One doesn’t need an “oral law” to “violate” a Mosaic prohibition in an emergency. Did David have an oral legal exemption which permitted him to eat the showbread (1 Sam 21:1-6)? No. "

    It was an emergency when Uzzah stopped the ark tipping over, but that excuse didn't work for him.

    Your idea of what an emergency is, is entirely arbitrary.

    "You also equivocate over “tradition.” In Catholicism, Sacred Tradition is not synonymous with oral tradition."

    Since I never used in the previous paragraph either of those terms, I did no equivocation.

    "Non-sequitur. An apostle could teach it in principle."

    They could hardly teach it in principle when they were simultaneously promulgating unwritten dogma.

    "Sola Scriptura doesn’t imply that every apostle or prophet wrote down everything he ever said."

    If they were teaching important things without them being written, then they were contradicting sola scriptura. Since most apostles were writing nothing, they were very clearly teaching without scriptural backing. You can't teach sola scriptura in principle, and then fail to provide the tools to make it work.

    "You aren’t even trying to honestly represent the opposing position. I’m not going to waste time on a dishonest opponent."

    No, you're not honest, because you're not acknowledging that the apostles taught for decades without scriptural backing, and you can't teach a sola scripture principle when your disciples have no scriptures to support the teachings.

    "If you want to deploy that argument, then that’s also an argument against the authority of popes, church fathers, church councils, doctors of the church, &c. A pope is an individual. A church father is an individual. A council is a collection of individuals."

    Except that you've forgotten that this wasn't an argument against authorities, it was an argument against the claim that you can't define what scripture is and what it means, and yet be subject to it. I'll take this as a concession that this favourite one liner has been refuted.

    "Christianity is superior because it is true and they are false."

    Neatly avoiding the actual question of whether it is epistemologically superior. Rolling the dice for the right lotto numbers is better than rolling for the wrong ones, but I don't claim epistemological superiority in my dice rolling if I luck out.

    You've clearly shown an unwillingness to address the real issues.

    "That wouldn’t be based on the “objectivity” of the church, but the alleged “infallibility” of the church. Where’s your argument?"

    It is far more objectively defensible that the Church is in a unique position to promulgate a correct canon, than that STEVE and every man and his dog are. (Especially since there is so much disagreement).

    "So you’re quoting an individual church father to disprove individualism. Impressive logic."

    As soon as I quoted one church father, I'm no longer acting as an individual.

    “Why do you need a rule of faith FOR THE CHURCH? Why not just a rule of faith for individuals? The answer is obvious.”

    I realize you lack a disciplined mind, but you actually need to present an argument for your claim that a rule of faith must maintain unity."

    Still waiting for an answer for why you need a rule of faith for the church, and not merely a rule of faith. Your unwillingness to answer demonstrates the two-faced nature of your position.

    "The definition of Catholic unity is far more expansive and demanding than your minimalistic version:"

    The unity of the internal life of the church, and the objective unity of the visible church are complementary but distinct notions.

    "Even Pope Benedict XVI admits that your rule of faith generates disunity. “Chaos.”"

    What Pope Benedict is talking about, and the formal notion of ecclesiastical unity are not the same thing. Neither is the political unity that Emperor Constantine wanted the same. And what chaos there was wasn't caused by "your rule of faith", whatever it is you are referring to. The council merely made distinctions clear that people were previously ignoring. It threw a light on what had been ignored.

    genembridges:
    "esus did not "otherthrow" the priesthood, for the priesthood was already subservient to Him."

    The word "overthrow" says nothing about that one way or the other.

    "So, even on JJ's own logic, Christians have EVERY right to start a new "temple" for we ARE the new temple."

    Whom form ONE body of Christ as a GROUP. You can't create Christ a new body, and his body is uniquely the temple (Jn 2:19).

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Even if, ex hypothesi, there is an objective reality which supplies the object of Catholic understanding, that objective reality must be individually and subjectively discerned. You keep running in circles, like a gerbil on an exercise wheel."

    1) I said that what is Catholic is objective. Whether it is based on what is objective introduces an entirely different argument. Try to keep up with the actual line of argument.

    2) irrelevant to the context of what I said. Being Catholic reduces the extent of my subjectiveness. I don't have to decide if the bible teaches infant baptism, because that Catholicism teaches it is less subjective.

    "How do you think that admission is supposed to help your case? You’ve been pinning your hopes on the “objectivity” of the church. So, according to you, the church could be both objective and mistaken."

    Objectivity is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion. Try to avoid the most obvious logical errors please?

    "i) Even if that were true, it doesn’t’ change the fact that making catholicity the goal is a subjective value-judgement."

    1) It's not entirely subjective since agreement is a scriptural command.

    2) You made the same judgement when you chose not to start from "I think therefore I am".

    "ii) Christianity is a revealed religion. Grounded in a public revelation. If that’s insufficient for your purposes, then you’re not a Christian."

    Exactly, revelation trumps supposition. Which is why an identifiable source of canon trumps making up your own canon.

    "You simply make things up in your armchair fashion. There were many different Jewish “sects” and schools of thought in 2nd Judaism. "

    All of which would have to worship at the one temple to be truly Jews. While there were differences of opinion, there were boundaries.

    "There’s no logical connection between the premise and the conclusion. Something is true because it’s handed down over the centuries? Do you apply that reasoning to the Hadith?"

    Try and read more carefully. What was handed down was workable AND true. If there was a book which was true, but they didn't find how to make it work, you would not possess it today. The only reason you possess books is because the church figured out how to apply it. Otherwise they would have thrown it out.

    "i) Actually I am, just as 1C Jews were in a position to challenge Pharisaic traditions."

    Pharisaic traditions of men, yes. They were in a poor position to challenge the Pharisaic traditions on the canon for example.

    "ii) You yourself are very selective about what traditions you honor. You only honor Catholic traditions."

    Right, because the others are traditions of men.

    "i) If you’re going to use that argument, then it cuts both ways. I can’t communicate with the church fathers directly."

    Right, but I don't have to make such black and white statements about the fathers as to be inspired or not inspired. They are witnesses to the Catholic tradition, which subsists throughout time right up to today. One church father more or less doesn't matter.

    "ii) If you think there’s no direct evidence for the inspiration of the Bible, then there’s no direct evidence for the inspiration of the Magisterium. All you’ve done is to push the issue back a step (assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is a real issue)."

    Even someone unsure on an historical basis about the authorship of 1 Timothy, can say confidently that the Catholic church is an organisation existing continuously since the apostles until now. There may never have existed a witness for the former fact, but the latter fact has thousands of witnesses in history.

    If the question is inspiration, then the Christian position has always been that the link to Christ forms the basis for inspiration. The Church is objectively linked to Christ, therefore it is inspired. You can't deny this supposition entirely and be left with even the remains of a canon, since Christ wrote no scripture directly.

    "You’re confusing imperatives with indicatives. If it’s merely a “goal,” then it’s an ideal rather than a reality. In that case, unity doesn’t define the actual church."

    The protestant argument is that scripture is "sufficient for every good work" (2 Tim 3). If unity is a goal, it is a good work. Empirically, sola scriptura is not leading to unity, even between protestants who like each other. So clearly addition of the "sola" to the scriptura has made the scriptura non-functional.

    "The very fact that writers like Paul enjoin church members to be of one mind is set in the context of ecclesiastical disunity. Or do you think Pauline churches were false churches? "

    Without working towards the unity of mind, they'd be in danger of becoming formally disunified, which would make them false churches.

    "Now you’re dissembling. That was never the issue. A Catholic cannot interpret the Bible contrary to the Magisterium."

    A Protestant cannot interpret contrary to Paul. The point is?

    "Notice JJ’s methodology. He begins with his outcome-based criterion, then uses that criterion to select for his rule of faith."

    1) Protestant arguments about the canon are always outcome based - to justify their current list. We need Mark to be inspired as an outcome, therefore we will assume that if he knew Peter that is sufficient basis for inspiration.

    2) We've yet to be told where the bible mentions rules of faith for the church. The protestant sola scriptura definition is outcome based. That's why nobody thought of it for 1500 years. Luther needed a way out, he needed a particular outcome.

    "I’m less concerned with the subjective/objective duality than I am with the true/false duality. "

    Great, but true/false minus the objectivity is called Las Vegas.

    "i) I haven’t admitted that. I merely pointed out that Bryan Cross was attacking a straw man version of perspicuity."

    No, you don't want to actually admit enough to get pinned down, when it comes right down to it.

    "ii) Even reprobates can write useful commentaries."

    Which is a side issue, the real issue being that you can't be sure if the bits you believe are the reprobational bits, leading to Orwellian perspicuity.

    "No, that wouldn’t necessarily be an improvement. If you garbled what he told you, then that would be worse than if I tried to interpret Genesis without your erroneous gloss."

    1) Even something garbled is useful if you recognise its limitations. A detective can make use of a garbled message.

    2) Even scripture is garbled to some degree by the work of scribes.

    3) By looking at multiple garbled messages one can construct the original message.

    "Of course, that hypothetical doesn’t correspond to the church of Rome."

    So you claim, but I'll take that as a concession of the principle being valid. That means the epistemological superior position stands, even if you disagree about the facts.

    "Not unless I had a way of distinguishing inspired statements from errant, uninspired statements."

    Just like the agreement of interviewing 1000 people, or agreement of the manuscripts is a "way to distinguish", so the catholicity of the belief is a way to distinguish what was taught everywhere by the apostles.

    "I don’t deny that collective fallible testimony can be useful, but your hypothetical fails to illustrate the distinctive Catholic claim to a Magisterium which can, under certain conditions, speak infallibly."

    That's because you've forgotten what I was responding to. The question posed was: "How is fallible authority an improvement over sola scriptura or private judgment? "

    "Now you’re comparing the incomparable. There’s a difference between the transmission of information (e.g. testimonial evidence) and the interpretation of the testimony."

    But Catholics believe that the interpretation is part of the testimony. We pass down not only the facts, but also what it means.

    "i) Why should we even care about your “private” interpretation of Acts? You’re using a Protestant methodology to defend Catholic methodology. If your private interpretations are sufficient to prove the necessity of the Magisterium, then you prove the superfluity of the Magisterium in the act of proving the necessity of the Magisterium. Quite a conundrum, I’d say."

    1) I'm willing to submit my interpretation to the Fathers, the historical church and the Magisterium, should anyone care to dispute it and bring some further facts to the table. That's called humility. Will you guarantee the same?

    2) I'm the one saying I DON'T KNOW whether he was a convert. You are the one claiming he needs to be a convert for your interpretation to fly. You need the verse to mean something that it doesn't on its face mean. I don't.

    "Once again, you’re changing the subject. Could he or could he not learn who Jesus was by reading the gospels or Romans or Hebrews?"

    Why should I answer a hypothetical? The Ethiopian was sent on his way in the knowledge that scripture was not enough. Let's take the story in context shall we?

    "Succession by election is quite dissimilar to succession by genealogy. In the latter case, the only qualification is your bloodline."

    There were many more criteria to Levitical succession besides bloodline. Age, sex, purity, and so forth.

    "The point is that if these are qualifications for church office, and various popes (to take one example) don’t measure up, then that would disqualify them from holding church office. That would make them antipopes."

    You’re confusing imperatives with indicatives. Are you going to ignore your pastor because he doesn't quite measure up to your standard of measures? If his children aren't quite self-controlled enough?

    "Once again, you’re merely positing an analogy between the Levitical priesthood and the Catholic church. You haven’t begun to argue for that analogy. Don’t waste my time with these tedious fallacies."

    The analogy is so obvious as to need no defence. God set up an authority structure for his OT people AND for his NT people. The freedoms individuals would have to disregard the OT authorities is very relevant for here and now. If you want to claim it is all different, the onus is on you to claim something changed. Historical/grammatical remember? The apostles were Jews coming from the Jewish mindset.

    "BTW, the Messiah didn't have to "overthrow" the priesthood. The priesthood always had an expiration date."

    There is no expiration for the Church apart from the 2nd coming.

    "No, you were the one who introduced the condition of infallible truth when you fault (Protestant) interpretations of Scripture unless they are “necessarily true.”"

    I wouldn't fault a protestant interpretation if it was almost certainly true. The problem is protestant interpretations which are highly debatable.

    "Perhaps, in your bugling way, you’re trying to say that what you relate to me could be true even though you are not infallible.
    Granted. But Catholic polemical theology isn’t satisfied with that condition. It’s not enough that it be true. Some suitable authority must vouch for its truthfulness."

    Yes someone must vouch, otherwise it is Las Vegas.

    "“Otherwise Paul left his churches en route, at least the ones prior to his writing spree, without an authority. Which would be unworkable.”

    You’re confusing knowledge with church discipline. Church discipline is an authoritarian exercise. "

    No, I'm talking about dogma. Paul didn't just leave a group of people with discipline but no beliefs.

    "But any member of Pauline church who heard him speak, who heard the same thing the elders heard, would have just as much right to his interpretation as theirs. Their memory is no better than his."

    That's great, but the church didn't hang out the "No Vacancy" sign as soon as Paul moved to the next city.

    "i) You don’t have anything guaranteed to be correct. All you have is your fideistic claim."

    Sure I have things guaranteed to be correct.

    "ii) In fact, the Magisterium is far more likely to be wrong. If an institution imagines itself to be inspired, when it is not, then it will rely on its nonexistent inspiration rather than sound hermeneutical methods, to interpret the Bible."

    1) Assuming that it is not, which is the point at issue.

    2) The institution is made up of members who don't claim to be inspired as individuals (papal infallibility aside). So individuals are not affected by the power trip of infallibility.

    3) You're assuming that the correct interpretation can't be part of the oral tradition. A genuine oral tradition about infant baptism trumps biblical interpretation. You're trading truth for objectivity.

    "And again, back to your presupposition that the canon should be widely known because of the purpose God has for his word.”

    I never said that."

    Lots of protestants have. If you don't want to say it, your canon could be not merely wrong, but utterly wrong.

    "That’s such a dumb statement. I don’t accept the Catholic canon. I accept the Protestant canon."

    You at least accept the Catholic NT canon. Not the Ethiopian, Syriac or Marcion canons.

    "Individuals will all have their own cut of probabilities as to which councils or traditions to include.

    This is typical of you. You pose a problem—as you see it. You then propose a solution which only pushes the problem back a step."

    Uh, we have a Magisterium. It's not just about what individuals want to count as councils or traditions.

    "Notice how JJ is moving the goal post. He demanded a reference. When I complied with his demand, he makes another demand."

    As I have a right to, when the foundation of your rule of faith is an individual's interpretation of history. There can be no end to the questions when that is the sand on which you built your house.

    "i) Now you’re resorting to the tactics of the liberal German source critics, who reject extant documentary sources in favor of nonexistent, unverifiable sources"

    Doubts about the authorship of various books go back to the early church. They are not limited to Germans.

    "ii) The Bible has the additional advantage of internal evidence."

    Or disadvantage, given the issues surrounding various books.

    "iii) You’re appeal to the Magisterium is viciously circular since you need the Magisterium to validate your traditions and prooftexts for the Magisterium. "

    No I don't. Again, this is like saying you need Paul to validate everything you say about Genesis.

    "iv) All you ever do is to profess your fideistic belief in the Catholic church. You don’t furnish any probative evidence to support your claim, or address the counterevidence. "

    I'm addressing whatever supposed counterevidence is raised here. The historical continuity of the Catholic church from the apostles is well known. I think the onus is on you to raise something specific as an objection.

    "Once again you keep rehashing the same stale arguments and illustrations even though we specifically responded to these the first time, the second time, the third time... "

    Your response was to point to the inspiration of Paul as equivilent to Genesis. Then I pointed out that is the point of dispute that the Magisterium is inspired. Or in other words, your defense was to assume what you want to prove.

    "“You need to prove whether apostolic authorship makes something inspired, irrespective of what I believe.”

    As if Evangelical scholars had never done that before."

    Since scripture never touches on the subject, that would be a neat trick for sola scriptura.

    "ii) Unless you can produce every non-extant ancient document to prove to us that the Catholic church didn’t suppress evidence which would expose its fraudulent claims, then you're making a supposition."

    One obscure document could refute your supposition. To refute Catholic claims need a rewrite of history. A much tougher and more unlikely standard.

    "So, when push comes to shove, you fall back on fallible tradition and fallible customs."

    Let's hear the protestant OT canon argument that never mentions what the Jews say.

    ") You assume you know how we go about defending the canon. You clearly don’t have a clue as to how we actually do it. "

    I know you've quoted Jews speaking of their traditions, so consider yourself refuted.

    "You continue to play your bait-and-switch game on “tradition.” You try to pole-vault from “tradition” to “Sacred Tradition.”

    How so, we aren't told.

    "If that’s a widely known fact, then why is that fact unknown to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican Communion, Lutherans, Baptists, &c.?"

    It's not unknown to them. They know that the apostles founded the church of Rome, just like historians do.

    "That’s your problem."

    It's only a problem when conversing with someone who wants to deny the sky is blue, and other obvious facts.

    "ii) Moreover, you can’t quote a 5C church father as a witness to the 21C Catholic church. Augustine wasn’t vouching for the 21C Catholic church. He knew absolutely nothing about the 21C Catholic church. And if he had known, he might disown it."

    What he might or might not do is beside the point. I notice you didn't object that the 5C church was the church founded by the apostles. And the documentation of continuity only expands over the centuries.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I've never seen a Roman Catholic make a convincing case that Augustine should be considered Roman Catholic. He held a high view of the Roman church, but he believed in a non-papal form of church government, and many of the other doctrines of Roman Catholicism are absent from his writings or contradicted by them. Even when he agreed with Roman Catholicism, he sometimes did so in a manner that's problematic for Catholicism."

    Maybe that's why the Reformers loved St. Augustine!

    Out of curiosity what was Augustine's perspectives on Sola Fide (not using those exact words of course) or on Monergism? Also, what was Augustine's views on Holy Communion?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Truth Unites... and Divides wrote:

    "Out of curiosity what was Augustine's perspectives on Sola Fide (not using those exact words of course) or on Monergism? Also, what was Augustine's views on Holy Communion?"

    He was inconsistent on some issues, sometimes by his own admission, his extant writings are vast (some never or only recently translated into English), and scholars disagree in some of their conclusions about his beliefs. My understanding is that he held to a form of justification through works, and he became more monergistic later in life. I've discussed his view of the eucharist here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Does the Koran say Torah and Gospel corrupted?



    Some people have said that the Koran says that the Torah and Gospel are corrupted and its no longer a book of guidance. They say "Islam" says so. Some Muslims even have said that anyone who still follows these scriptures is no longer a believer but a disbeliever and will go to hell. Indeed some Sunni/Shia scholars claim that any follower of islam who does not believe that the Jews and Christians are infidels is an infidel himself! However when asked to provide their evidence from the Koran they are mute and confused. This is because what they say and the Koran are complete opposites. Lets look at the Koran and what it say:

    Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 47)

    But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them?- Therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) people of faith. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 43)

    Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? - And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For God is not unmindful of what ye do. (Surah 2, Baqara, verse 85)

    Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord...." (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 68)

    If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 69)

    Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth. (Surah 7, A'raf, verse 159)

    2.41 And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.

    2.89 And when there comes to them a Book from God, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognized, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith.

    2.91 When it is said to them, “Believe in what God Hath sent down, “they say, “We believe in what was sent down to us:” yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say: “Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?”

    Here the Koran clearly states the Koran confirms what is with them, meaning the Jews and Christians. Clearly this is not stating scriptures ofthe past but what they have possession of. As I did my research about this subject some time ago I was looking for where this evidence of the tampering and corruption is mentioned. How can God say the previous scriptures are corupted then order them to follow them. It even attacks those who refuse to follow it and says its a confimation of the scriptures they have with them.

    Whats more the Koran seems to indicate its a confirmation of the previous scriptures.

    To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; Surah 5 Verse 48

    It even uses the previous scripture as evidence for the validity of the Koran:

    And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that) was before thee... (Surah 10, Jonah, verse 94)

    Muslims who follow Sunni/Shia Islam say these verses are concerning the originals. But these scriptures have not changed since the days of the prophet. In fact they are the way are today long before the prophet. So what scriptures was the Koran talking about. They then point to this verse as evidence.

    2.79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

    This is then used to support the tampering of the scriptures. However upon close examination, I see they failed to look at the verse before it and after it.

    2.78 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

    So the Koran is saying those poeple were making things up but never said the Book itself has been tampered since those people never knew the book. It was confusing at first but then the next verse explained it:

    2.80 And they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:" Say: "Have ye taken a promise from God, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of God what ye do not know?"

    This is not in the Torah but its refering to the Talmud. The supposed "oral" traditions the Rabbis say was passed down to them.

    The Rabbinic tradition arose from the Pharisaic tradition after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. In general, it moved away from traditional Judaism's emphasis on an earthly future for Israel toward the concept of reward in the life to come.[4] Gehinom (Gehenna), according to rabbinic literature, is a place or state where the wicked are temporarily punished after death. “Gehenna” is sometimes translated as "hell", but the Christian view of hell differs from the Jewish view of Gehenna. Most sinners are said to suffer in Gehenna no longer than twelve months.Those who are too wicked to reach paradise are sometimes said to be punished forever.[5] Other accounts reject the idea that a merciful God would punish anyone forever,[6] in which case those too wicked for purification are destroyed (see annihilationism)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

    Also in the Talmud:

    Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

    3.75. Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding, because, they say, "there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans)." but they tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it.

    Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

    4.156 Quran
    That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

    The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord's pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

    Also:

    The Schindler's List Quote

    The Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives.

    The book on Hebrew censorship, written by Jews themselves (Hesronot Ha-shas), notes that some Talmud texts use the universalist phrase:

    "Whoever destroys the life of a single human being...it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being ...it is as if he had preserved an entire world."

    However, Hesronot Ha-shas points out that these are not the authentic words of the original Talmud.

    In other words, the preceding universalist rendering is not the authentic text of the Talmud and thus, for example, this universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his famous movie, Schindler's List attributed to the Talmud (and which became the motto of the movie on posters and in advertisements), is a hoax and constitutes propaganda intended to give a humanistic gloss to a Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist hate literature.

    In the authentic, original Talmud text it states that "whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, it is as if he had preserved an entire world" (emphasis supplied). The authentic Talmud text sanctions only the saving of Jewish lives.

    The Koran tells us about this and condemns this:

    5.32 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land

    "According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.

    "The more popular accounts--which were nevertheless taken quite seriously--such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists...

    The koran tells us:

    4.157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

    The Talmud then say:

    Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.

    Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come.

    Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

    The koran responds by:

    And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. 2.111-113

    “Non-Jewish property belongs to the Jew who uses it first” - (Babba Bathra 54b)

    “If two Jews have deceived a Non-Jew, they have to split the profit” - (Choschen Ham 183,7)

    “Every Jew is allowed to use lies and perjury to bring a Non-Jew to ruin” - (Babha Kama 113a)

    “The Jew is allowed to practice usury on the Non-Jew” - (Talmud IV/2/70b)

    The koran then says:

    4.160. For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from God's Way;-
    4.161. That they took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men's substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.

    Note: The Torah forbids the Jews from the devouring of Usury ("neshek").See the Old Testament Ex. 22: 25;
    Le. 25: 36-37; De. 23:19-20; Ne. 5: 7/10; Ps. 15: 5; Pr. 28:8

    The Koran then says:

    4.162. But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee: And (especially) those who establish regular prayer and practise regular charity and believe in God and in the Last Day: To them shall We soon give a great reward.

    http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

    As for the Gospel

    Jesus is reported to have said “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” and “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” (John 14:9-10); but in the same passage he shortly goes on to add: “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20) Again, while Jesus does proclaim “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), he also prays for his followers, “that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” (John 17:21) Whatever the nature of the “oneness” Jesus is claiming exists between God and himself, it is apparently something that is supposed to hold between God and all Christians – in which case it can hardly be the relation of numerical identity.

    Likewise, in the two New Testament passages where Jesus is said to have regarded himself as “equal with God” – John 5:18 and Philippians 2:6 – the Greek word translated “equal” is isos, which means “on the same level” or “of the same rank,” never “identical.” The claim that Jesus was God did not become Christian orthodoxy until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The orthodox reading of these passages seems natural today only because they are read through the lens of what “everybody knows” about Jesus’ claims to divinity; few would find incarnationism in the texts unless they first brought it there.

    An objector may point to the opening lines of the Gospel of John, which apparently identify the “Logos” with God (John 1:1) and the “Logos made flesh” with Jesus (John 1:14). Of course these lines were not spoken by Jesus, and so do not show that Jesus himself claimed to be God; but in any case, what exactly are they saying? The relation between God and the Logos seems to fall short of strict identity; the Greek, literally translated, says something like “the Logos was with the God, and God is what the Logos was” – an awkward construction clearly trying to express a subtler relation than identity. The term “Logos” is borrowed from Greek philosophy, where it means a thing’s abstract rational nature; the Logos that is “with” God and is what God is, is not God but God’s nature. To say that Jesus is the Logos made flesh, then, is simply to say that he is a physical embodiment of God’s nature. This hardly makes him identical with God, since all human beings are supposed to be created from God’s spirit (Genesis 2:7) and in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27).

    Indeed the New Testament authors clearly understand Jesus as offering everyone the opportunity to be sons (and daughters) of God and to partake of God’s nature:


    “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

    “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ... And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.” (Romans 8:14-17)

    “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him.” (1 John 3:2)
    As the New Testament authors understand Jesus’ message, being the “Son of God” is evidently not a status that Jesus claims for himself alone, but one that is open to all Christians;

    http://praxeology.net/unblog02-04.htm

    Clearly this has no basis in the Gospel, the Koran reiterates this:

    People of the Book, do not go beyond the bounds in your religion, and say nought as to God but the Truth. The messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the messenger of God, and his word that he committed to Mary, and a spirit originating from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not 'Three'. Refrain, better is for you. God is only one God. Glory be to him-that He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the Heavens and in the Earth; God suffices for a guardian. (4.171)

    "And they say, The All-Merciful has taken unto Himself a son. You have indeed advanced something hideous. As if the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder and its mountain to fall down in the utter ruin for that they have attributed to the All-merciful a son; and behaves not the All-merciful to take a son. None there in the heavens and earth but comes to the All-Merciful as a servant" (Maryam 19:88-93)

    There is nothing, absolutely nothing about corruption or tampering of previous scriptures. The Koran states that the Talmud is NOT the word of God and says the Christian priests are NOT following the Gospel but indeed they hide and conceal and take things out of context and following vain desires:

    "They (i.e. Jews and Christians) changed words from their contexts and forgot a good part of the message given to them, and you will continue to find them -except a few among them- bent on new deceits…" (5:13)

    There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, 'That is from God,' but it is not from God: It is they who tell a lie against God and (well) they know it! (3,78)

    The Koran is here to support and confirm the previous scriptures. A reminder to many not to abandon the scriptures and follow men. The scriptures must be read as a WHOLE and not in isolation.

    Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? - And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For God is not unmindful of what ye do. ( 2,85)

    ReplyDelete