-"A classic example to illustrate the resilience of religion and its evolutionary nature occurred in the Catholic Church. In the 15 thcentury, most of the Roman Catholic Church still believed that the sun revolved around the earth."
-Quote
My response:
To clarify, this was the prevalent view of the Scientists of the time. It wasn't like the Church believed in a geocentric view and was oppressing a group of valiant non-believing scientist that held a heliocentric view. This is not true. The church funded and was at the forefront of science during this era. For example during these times the Jesuits were known for their highly respected Scientist in Rome.
-"Those who thought otherwise were severely reprimanded, or put in jail, or tortured, or, worst yet,executed."
-Quote
My Response:
This is false. Though the geocentric view was the reigning viewpoint at that time amongst scientist both views existed and you were not reprimanded for holding it. In fact it was freely discussed and studied within the church during Galileo's time and the time preceding him.
"-"At this time, devout Christians felt that their sacredbook, the Bible, indicated that the earth was the center of theuniverse. If astronomers, like Galileo and Copernicus, showedevidence to the contrary it would mean that the Bible was wrong. And,if the Bible were wrong, it would mean that God was wrong. And if Godwas wrong…well, he was no longer God. Such a thought was impossiblein light of the Church's strident orthodoxy. Hence, to question theBible's astronomical version of cosmology was akin to questioningGod's Supreme Authority and Knowledge."
-Quote
My Response:
Again this is a false assumption, and this was not the official teaching of the Church. It is true that it was held by Church clergy and members that this may contradict their particular interpretations of the scripture but in no way would it or did it disprove God or threaten to disprove the Church's understanding. The church issued a disciplinary ruling regarding a scientist who was supporting an unproven theory and demanding that the entire church bend to his understanding of scripture in order to fit his interpretation. There was simply no way, or no reason the church should have bent to Galileo. At the time, there wasn't even the ability to prove his theory correct. It's actually a good thing that the church didn't rush to embrace his view because it ultimately turned out that his ideas weren't even entirely accurate. He believed the sun was the center of the Universe itself. Current science has proven that Galileo and the opposition were both partially right and wrong. Galileo may have been correct regarding the mobility of the earth but was wrong in the immobility of the sun. His opposition was correct in holding to the mobility of the sun but wrong about the earth. If the Catholic Church just rushed in and accepted Galileo's views. (and there were many in the Catholic church who supported his views) The church would have embraced what current Science has ultimately disproved.
That would have been the real blunder.
"It is little wonder,therefore, that the scientist Bruno burned at the stake. Better for afalse believer to die than to have millions of faithful have theirbelief in God shattered."
-Quote
My Response:
He died as a heretic and this had nothing to do with his scientific views Regarding Copernican thought. By the way Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic cleric, and his views were not suppressed by the church in fact he delayed publication of a book regarding his Heliocentric view, not for fear of the church, as it was freely discussed in the church but fear of his scientific colleagues at the time.
-"Five centuries later, however, Pope John-Paul II essentially apologized for the Church's blunder and itsmaltreatment of intellectual pioneers (this same pope acknowledgedthe irrefutable evidence of evolution)."
-Quote
My Response:
The Pope wasn't admitting that the Church was wrong in its official teachings. He was apologizing for the bad treatment of people inhistory by members of the Church. In no way is this the church conceding and or admitting that the church was a separate and opposing force of science. Also In no way did the pope acknowledge and state that the theory of Evolution was "irrefutable" The theory of Evolution is still exactly that. A theory. And it is still debated. The church rejects Darwinian Evolution which outright rejects God, but allows for either Creationism or Theological Evolution. (which is God induced Evolution so to speak).
-"Above is the question of evolution disproving the Bible and ofhistory. Galileo proved that the world was round, not flat and he waskilled for going against the Church."
-Quote
My Response:
The fathers of the Church taught that the Earth was a Sphere 1000 years before Galileo. That's not even counting every other Catholic before Galileo that held that point of view. The Church did not kill Galileo. Nor, was he silenced because of his heliocentric view. He wasn't the only one with that view at that time. It was the way hewent about it as I stated earlier.
-"The Spanish Inquisition and theCrusades are more instances in which historians can be critical ofthe Roman Catholic Church and its abuse of power."
-Quote
My Response:
This is a blanket statement, that requires further clarification to understand what point you are trying to make here. If you areassuming that the crusades and the inquisition were random powertrips by the Catholic Church than this is an inaccurate understanding of history. Though I cannot say more without knowing what specifically you are talking about here.
-"I pondered this question one-day in sixth grade class. Why were there no dinosaurs in the Bible? We know for a fact that dinosaurs existbut there is nothing in the Bible about them. This is because the early writers of the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs, they had not been discovered in their lifetime, but later. You can't write about what you don't know. It is said that God inspired the early writers of the Bible. You can believe this or not…"
–Quote
My Response:
I've often pondered this myself. I've always speculated where the dinosaurs fit into all of this and if all the theories regarding them are correct or far fetched ideas masquerading as true science. Admittedly, I haven't looked into dinosaurs thoroughly enough to draw some sort of Conclusion, though I watched Jurassic park 1,2, and 3. =P
-"A reader can take the stories literally or not or they can just be read and reserve judgement on whether they believe everything they read or hear."
-Quote
My Response:
This goes for everything we read and hear. We must Investigate thoroughly before making a judgment. Many of the things that were written here were inaccurate about the Catholic church and it all goes back to my other post titled "When Fundamentalism drowns out Reality" Facts are important.
Fundamentalism isn't just a Bible Christian yelling out bible verses and quotes from Chick Publications in order to prove the existence of God and their truth as irrefutable fact. Fundamentalism is just as alive and well in a Secular Atheist quoting Darwinism Evolution theories and quotes from the book " The God delusion" as irrefutable facts.
They are both extreme faith
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Response: All worth it/Read it for yourself
"In World Religions we are called to read the original texts of our own religion even though it usually is unnecessary or not called for. In Catholicism it is not required to read the Bible, but theydo go over it every Sunday a little piece at a time."
Quote
-de_evilgryphon
In Catholicism it is very much required to read the bible. The Catechism of the Catholic church states in Paragraphs 131-133
131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigour, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure andlasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scriptureought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."
132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
The Church emphasizes that the Scriptures be read and understood in full context especially in light of the Ancient Sacred Tradition and teachings of the Church in order to get a full, complete comprehensible and concise understanding of the Text. If you divorce yourself from the historical interpretation of the scriptures you will most definitely lose the understanding of what certain verses are trying to say. This isn't just for faith reasons, but for a very important historical understanding as well. You will not gain a true understanding of Christianity reading the "bible alone" using an "easy to read" English translation with your modern mind interpreting everything. Though I recommend doing it as part of understanding, you are most likely "not going to walk away a Bible expert."
For example, the point I brought up in Class while professor Lane was explaining Jesus' Reference of "The son of Man" as a humbling and human title. If you read that text with naked eyes you can and will probably gather that's all it may have been. The reality is you would completely miss the fact that the title "The son of Man" is a very special title in reference to King David of the Old Testament and the Jews understood that title as something far from just being a "regular man of sorts". This is crucial in understanding the gospels. This information alone can skew your understanding of the Scriptures. (and it has for many newer Christian Denominations) Another example is when professor Lane quoted the "My God why have you forsaken me" (Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34) at first glance you may read only that this was the man Jesus proclaiming that he has been forsaken by God and that even he probably lost faith in his whole mission at this point. However that exact line in its correct context is the exact opposite. It is in fact known as a "Todah" a Hebrew word meaning "Thank offering" or "Thanksgiving" , (Fun Fact: TheGreek "Eucharist" means the same thing). Far from being an act of loss of faith from Jesus, this line was understood to be a powerful expression of confidence in God's sovereignty and mercy.
Scott Hahn, an ex-Presbyterian minister now Author, Theologian and Catholic apologist writes in his book "The Lambs Supper"
"Perhaps the classic example of the todah is Psalm 22, which begins with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' Jesus Himself quoted this as He hung dying upon the cross. His listeners would have recognized the reference, and they would have known that this song, which begins with a cry of dereliction, ends on a triumphant note of salvation. Citing this todah, Jesus demonstrated his own confident hope for deliverance" (pg. 33)
And as far as the understanding that every Sunday the Catholic church "goes over the bible a little piece at a time" in no way should that be understood as the Catholic is lacking in scriptural teachings and or readings. In fact it can be easily shown that one single Catholic Mass is "Soaked and drenched" in biblical verses and language. The readings, hymns, responses, are recognizable from verses all over the bible, New and Old testaments. Another interesting fact is that if you attend Mass every Sunday for 3 years,you will have been read pretty much the entire bible cover to cover. And that's only based on the Readings, not the actual language and songs through out the Mass. Many people, even Catholics are unaware that the Liturgy of the Mass is based on the Book of Revelation and is in fact essential to understanding the meaning of the book of Revelation. Most people think it's a weird and crazy "End of the world book" that needs to be demythologized. But for the earliest Christians, the Liturgy of the Mass was based on the Book of Revelation. (otherwise known as Apocalypse or "Unveiling")
Not to long ago in a debate between apologists from the Catholic Church and the non-denominational church of Calvary Chapel, the members from Calvary chapel made the claim that the "Traditions ofthe Catholic Mass weren't begun until 1394 A.D". This claim is certainly strange, foreign and unsupportable. Especially considering the fact that the Mass was essential for early Christians inunderstanding the book of Revelation which was written as early as 68A.D!
Also I would like to add in personal experience, that recently I was attending a "Christian denomination" of sorts that would fellowship literally from 9 a.m to 9 p.m. on Saturdays. They had Three separate 1 hour services throughout the course of the day. Due, to their deeply rooted anti-Catholic views and misunderstandings, they constantly boasted that they studied the bible more in one of their services than the Catholics did at any Mass. However it was noted by me that contrary to what they believed a single Catholic Mass in fact had more biblical references and language than all 3 of their daily services combined. I will close by stating that though nothing I have stated here can solely prove that the Catholic Church is the true religion. What I have stated helps to show that the Catholic Church does require the study and understanding of Scriptures and is deeply rooted in them in worship and teachings. This post Plus my other post I wrote titled "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger" helps to show theUnique historical relationship the Catholic church has with the Bible that no other Christian denomination has. This is important to know if we are to understand Christianity to its fullest.
Quote
-de_evilgryphon
In Catholicism it is very much required to read the bible. The Catechism of the Catholic church states in Paragraphs 131-133
131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigour, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure andlasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scriptureought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."
132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
The Church emphasizes that the Scriptures be read and understood in full context especially in light of the Ancient Sacred Tradition and teachings of the Church in order to get a full, complete comprehensible and concise understanding of the Text. If you divorce yourself from the historical interpretation of the scriptures you will most definitely lose the understanding of what certain verses are trying to say. This isn't just for faith reasons, but for a very important historical understanding as well. You will not gain a true understanding of Christianity reading the "bible alone" using an "easy to read" English translation with your modern mind interpreting everything. Though I recommend doing it as part of understanding, you are most likely "not going to walk away a Bible expert."
For example, the point I brought up in Class while professor Lane was explaining Jesus' Reference of "The son of Man" as a humbling and human title. If you read that text with naked eyes you can and will probably gather that's all it may have been. The reality is you would completely miss the fact that the title "The son of Man" is a very special title in reference to King David of the Old Testament and the Jews understood that title as something far from just being a "regular man of sorts". This is crucial in understanding the gospels. This information alone can skew your understanding of the Scriptures. (and it has for many newer Christian Denominations) Another example is when professor Lane quoted the "My God why have you forsaken me" (Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34) at first glance you may read only that this was the man Jesus proclaiming that he has been forsaken by God and that even he probably lost faith in his whole mission at this point. However that exact line in its correct context is the exact opposite. It is in fact known as a "Todah" a Hebrew word meaning "Thank offering" or "Thanksgiving" , (Fun Fact: TheGreek "Eucharist" means the same thing). Far from being an act of loss of faith from Jesus, this line was understood to be a powerful expression of confidence in God's sovereignty and mercy.
Scott Hahn, an ex-Presbyterian minister now Author, Theologian and Catholic apologist writes in his book "The Lambs Supper"
"Perhaps the classic example of the todah is Psalm 22, which begins with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' Jesus Himself quoted this as He hung dying upon the cross. His listeners would have recognized the reference, and they would have known that this song, which begins with a cry of dereliction, ends on a triumphant note of salvation. Citing this todah, Jesus demonstrated his own confident hope for deliverance" (pg. 33)
And as far as the understanding that every Sunday the Catholic church "goes over the bible a little piece at a time" in no way should that be understood as the Catholic is lacking in scriptural teachings and or readings. In fact it can be easily shown that one single Catholic Mass is "Soaked and drenched" in biblical verses and language. The readings, hymns, responses, are recognizable from verses all over the bible, New and Old testaments. Another interesting fact is that if you attend Mass every Sunday for 3 years,you will have been read pretty much the entire bible cover to cover. And that's only based on the Readings, not the actual language and songs through out the Mass. Many people, even Catholics are unaware that the Liturgy of the Mass is based on the Book of Revelation and is in fact essential to understanding the meaning of the book of Revelation. Most people think it's a weird and crazy "End of the world book" that needs to be demythologized. But for the earliest Christians, the Liturgy of the Mass was based on the Book of Revelation. (otherwise known as Apocalypse or "Unveiling")
Not to long ago in a debate between apologists from the Catholic Church and the non-denominational church of Calvary Chapel, the members from Calvary chapel made the claim that the "Traditions ofthe Catholic Mass weren't begun until 1394 A.D". This claim is certainly strange, foreign and unsupportable. Especially considering the fact that the Mass was essential for early Christians inunderstanding the book of Revelation which was written as early as 68A.D!
Also I would like to add in personal experience, that recently I was attending a "Christian denomination" of sorts that would fellowship literally from 9 a.m to 9 p.m. on Saturdays. They had Three separate 1 hour services throughout the course of the day. Due, to their deeply rooted anti-Catholic views and misunderstandings, they constantly boasted that they studied the bible more in one of their services than the Catholics did at any Mass. However it was noted by me that contrary to what they believed a single Catholic Mass in fact had more biblical references and language than all 3 of their daily services combined. I will close by stating that though nothing I have stated here can solely prove that the Catholic Church is the true religion. What I have stated helps to show that the Catholic Church does require the study and understanding of Scriptures and is deeply rooted in them in worship and teachings. This post Plus my other post I wrote titled "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger" helps to show theUnique historical relationship the Catholic church has with the Bible that no other Christian denomination has. This is important to know if we are to understand Christianity to its fullest.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Why Catholic Bibles are bigger
Ok, I'm going to try and simplify this as much as I can while maintaining all the key facts. In no way does what I write here givean exhaustive report of what I'm going to talk about, but it willgive something solid for you to investigate further if you are interested. In another post I did earlier I had mentioned a time when I was in class and one of my professors (not professor Lane) statedthat Catholics added 7 books to the bible not found in Protestant(non-Catholic Christian) Bibles after the Reformation in the 1500's.I knew this wasn't historically accurate but I never got to share mypoint in that class as I was quickly silenced. But here I will share and try to condense it down as much as possible.
Since the very beginning of Christianity the Christians used two Canons, the Greek and Hebrew Canons. The Greek Canon known as the Septuagint contained 46 books. The seven books in the Old Testamentare referred to by Catholics as "Deuterocanonicals". Protestants refer to them as the "Apocrypha." The seven books in Catholic bibles that Protestants don't have are "Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2Maccabees, Baruch, Judith, Tobit. Catholics still use the same Old Testament canon that has always been used in Christianity. We know factually that the apostles; the early church fathers and all early Christians used the Septuagint until the 1500s. There are roughly 350 quotationsof the Old Testament to be found in the New Testament, and of these 300 are quoted directly from the Greek Septuagint, including Old Testament citations attributed to Jesus. This brings us back to what professor lane explained in our class a couple weeks back. Remember that famous prophecy about Jesus and the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Hebrew Bible does not say "virgin"but "young woman" while the Septuagint does say "virgin" Here is an example of the Septuagint clearly being quoted in the New Testament Greek.
And so begins the story of why Catholics have 7 more books in the Old Testament than Protestants. The Hebrew Canon which contains 39 books was believed to have been drafted by Jewish rabbi's in or around 100 a.d (long after Jesus died) possibly in reaction to the ChristianChurch. One of the main reasons for the Jews omitting the "Apocrypha"books were that they could not find any original translations in Hebrew of the disputed books. Hence, the possibility that this was in reaction to the Christian church because of the fact that the NewTestament was being written in Greek. In 4th century councils the Church affirmed the 46-book canon as the inspired Word of God, Not the 39 Hebrew Canon. Christians accepted and used the Greek Septuagint Canon. They did not accept the 39 book Hebrew canon thatthe Non-Christian Jews that didn't even believe in Jesus created muchlater.
Protestant bibles which only have 39 books in their Old Testament came about in the 1500's when Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant reformation took out the 7 books of the bible. Basicallyhis own reasoning and judgment were enough for doing so, take for example the following statement regarding Luther's feelings on the issue
"I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice" -Martin Luther
It is noteworthy to see here that Martin Luther who also wanted to throw out more books of the bible Esther and even New Testament books such as James and Revelation passes his own personal judgment on a undisputed canonical book along with "2 Maccabees"
Aside from that, they appealed to the same reasoning of the Jews that there were no original Hebrew counterparts for the writings. The interesting fact is that for hundreds of years the Christians had already believed and used the 46 book canon. The writings of the early church fathers and other early Christian writings refer to the46 book canon. And on top of that supporting information anyone familiar with the findings of the Dead sea scrolls found at Qumran are aware of the fatal blow to the argument against the Disputed books because guess what was found?
Yes, that's right. They found Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books!
So ultimately the 39 book Canon that Protestants use (King james, NIV etc..etc.) is the result of a decision made by
1. Non-Christian Jewsthat did not believe in Jesus, who persecuted the early Christians and who threw out the books long after his death. Logically what authority do Jews that don't believe in Christianity have over Christians to change the Canon of the Old testament by taking outbooks Used by Christian writers, Jesus, the apostles and early church fathers?
2. A Man in the 1500's, Martin Luther who even wanted to throw out more books of the bible (who also added the word "Alone"to his German translation which is not found in the original Greek,in an attempt to give more credibility to his new doctrine, Salvation by Faith alone "Sola Fide" unheard of in Christianity for 1500 yearsbut that's a different issue worth noting though as this is another foundation of Protestantism which began from this man just like thecanon of the bible missing books)
Lets take a look at what history says happened regarding the Canon ofthe bible in the Church prior to Martin Luther's time of the 1500's.The Canon of the Bible had already been affirmed in "Rome in A.D.382, the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393, the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397, by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D., by the Sixth Council of Carthage in A.D. 419, the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (A.D.787), " You can also add Florence 1442, and Trent 1546 (though Trentpost dates Martin Luther's reformation).
That information plus the Dead Sea scrolls paints us a solid picture of why the Catholic and Non-Catholic bibles differ. We see that the grounds that there were no Hebrew writings for the disputed books ultimately proved this reasoning unsupportable. And it takes no faith, or no Conspiracy theory to prove this point. The finding of the Dead Sea scrolls were basically history reaching its hand farinto the present time and slapping the face of unreasonable and untrue claims that there were no Hebrew writtings of those books. It was in fact the Catholic church, its Catholic Councils, its Catholic bishops, Popes and early church fathers that canonized the Bible that all Christians, Catholics or not would believe in as the Inspired word of God for all the ages to come.
So in the future if you ever hear your professors or anyone say that "Catholics added 7 books to the bible" ask them to show you how? When? where? Who did it and why?
And as a Catholic if you are ever in a position where anon-Catholic Christian is quoting bible verses against you and the Catholic church left and right Proclaiming proudly that they don't need the Church and "The bible is their only foundation!".
Say to them "That is fine but at least understand this. Your Foundation which you claim is that bible, came from the Catholic church… and no, That is not my personal subjective belief that is not my faith. That is just History my friend.
That is just factual History…"
As i said earlier it takes no faith or no conspiracy theory to prove that point. The straight hard facts and evidence already do it. But don't just take my word for it. I will end here with the founding Father of Protestantism to prove the point further. Lets see what the Father of "The bible alone" and "Faith alone" have to say on the subject of Catholics and the bible
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]-that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it" -Martin Luther.
To which Catholics respond…
"Amen…"
Since the very beginning of Christianity the Christians used two Canons, the Greek and Hebrew Canons. The Greek Canon known as the Septuagint contained 46 books. The seven books in the Old Testamentare referred to by Catholics as "Deuterocanonicals". Protestants refer to them as the "Apocrypha." The seven books in Catholic bibles that Protestants don't have are "Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2Maccabees, Baruch, Judith, Tobit. Catholics still use the same Old Testament canon that has always been used in Christianity. We know factually that the apostles; the early church fathers and all early Christians used the Septuagint until the 1500s. There are roughly 350 quotationsof the Old Testament to be found in the New Testament, and of these 300 are quoted directly from the Greek Septuagint, including Old Testament citations attributed to Jesus. This brings us back to what professor lane explained in our class a couple weeks back. Remember that famous prophecy about Jesus and the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Hebrew Bible does not say "virgin"but "young woman" while the Septuagint does say "virgin" Here is an example of the Septuagint clearly being quoted in the New Testament Greek.
And so begins the story of why Catholics have 7 more books in the Old Testament than Protestants. The Hebrew Canon which contains 39 books was believed to have been drafted by Jewish rabbi's in or around 100 a.d (long after Jesus died) possibly in reaction to the ChristianChurch. One of the main reasons for the Jews omitting the "Apocrypha"books were that they could not find any original translations in Hebrew of the disputed books. Hence, the possibility that this was in reaction to the Christian church because of the fact that the NewTestament was being written in Greek. In 4th century councils the Church affirmed the 46-book canon as the inspired Word of God, Not the 39 Hebrew Canon. Christians accepted and used the Greek Septuagint Canon. They did not accept the 39 book Hebrew canon thatthe Non-Christian Jews that didn't even believe in Jesus created muchlater.
Protestant bibles which only have 39 books in their Old Testament came about in the 1500's when Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant reformation took out the 7 books of the bible. Basicallyhis own reasoning and judgment were enough for doing so, take for example the following statement regarding Luther's feelings on the issue
"I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice" -Martin Luther
It is noteworthy to see here that Martin Luther who also wanted to throw out more books of the bible Esther and even New Testament books such as James and Revelation passes his own personal judgment on a undisputed canonical book along with "2 Maccabees"
Aside from that, they appealed to the same reasoning of the Jews that there were no original Hebrew counterparts for the writings. The interesting fact is that for hundreds of years the Christians had already believed and used the 46 book canon. The writings of the early church fathers and other early Christian writings refer to the46 book canon. And on top of that supporting information anyone familiar with the findings of the Dead sea scrolls found at Qumran are aware of the fatal blow to the argument against the Disputed books because guess what was found?
Yes, that's right. They found Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books!
So ultimately the 39 book Canon that Protestants use (King james, NIV etc..etc.) is the result of a decision made by
1. Non-Christian Jewsthat did not believe in Jesus, who persecuted the early Christians and who threw out the books long after his death. Logically what authority do Jews that don't believe in Christianity have over Christians to change the Canon of the Old testament by taking outbooks Used by Christian writers, Jesus, the apostles and early church fathers?
2. A Man in the 1500's, Martin Luther who even wanted to throw out more books of the bible (who also added the word "Alone"to his German translation which is not found in the original Greek,in an attempt to give more credibility to his new doctrine, Salvation by Faith alone "Sola Fide" unheard of in Christianity for 1500 yearsbut that's a different issue worth noting though as this is another foundation of Protestantism which began from this man just like thecanon of the bible missing books)
Lets take a look at what history says happened regarding the Canon ofthe bible in the Church prior to Martin Luther's time of the 1500's.The Canon of the Bible had already been affirmed in "Rome in A.D.382, the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393, the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397, by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D., by the Sixth Council of Carthage in A.D. 419, the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (A.D.787), " You can also add Florence 1442, and Trent 1546 (though Trentpost dates Martin Luther's reformation).
That information plus the Dead Sea scrolls paints us a solid picture of why the Catholic and Non-Catholic bibles differ. We see that the grounds that there were no Hebrew writings for the disputed books ultimately proved this reasoning unsupportable. And it takes no faith, or no Conspiracy theory to prove this point. The finding of the Dead Sea scrolls were basically history reaching its hand farinto the present time and slapping the face of unreasonable and untrue claims that there were no Hebrew writtings of those books. It was in fact the Catholic church, its Catholic Councils, its Catholic bishops, Popes and early church fathers that canonized the Bible that all Christians, Catholics or not would believe in as the Inspired word of God for all the ages to come.
So in the future if you ever hear your professors or anyone say that "Catholics added 7 books to the bible" ask them to show you how? When? where? Who did it and why?
And as a Catholic if you are ever in a position where anon-Catholic Christian is quoting bible verses against you and the Catholic church left and right Proclaiming proudly that they don't need the Church and "The bible is their only foundation!".
Say to them "That is fine but at least understand this. Your Foundation which you claim is that bible, came from the Catholic church… and no, That is not my personal subjective belief that is not my faith. That is just History my friend.
That is just factual History…"
As i said earlier it takes no faith or no conspiracy theory to prove that point. The straight hard facts and evidence already do it. But don't just take my word for it. I will end here with the founding Father of Protestantism to prove the point further. Lets see what the Father of "The bible alone" and "Faith alone" have to say on the subject of Catholics and the bible
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]-that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it" -Martin Luther.
To which Catholics respond…
"Amen…"
Response: When Fundamentalism drowns out reality…
"You make a good point about Catholism and its historical substance. The organization of the church that spread in the Roman Empirebefore 325 AD does point a few rituals that were practiced before 325 AD, such as Baptism and the Eucharist. It wasn't until Aruis of Alexandria created an controversy among Christians that compelled the Roman Emperor to deal with the growing problem, hence forth Catholic "universal"."
-Quote Ironicmyopia
Yes, that was definitely a major heresy that afflicted the church. It took a long time to stamp out Arianism which is the first heresy that completely denied the divinity of Jesus. Also, Its not that a "few"rituals were practiced before 325 A.D it can be shown that "all" Catholic Doctrinal practices were in effect prior to 325 a.d. though not necessarily in the form we see them in exactly today. (By doctrinal im talking about the Doctrines not disciplinary practices such as Celibacy for certain clergy) Through the writings of the early church fathers we see the constant living tradition regarding the church as "Catholic" the teachings regarding the Eucharist, TheMass as a Sacrifice, Confession, Baptism, the Church Hiearchy, Confirmation and so on.
The Term Catholic wasnt coined or developed after the Arian Heresy which began in 318 A.d. (Arius a priest began teaching that Jesus wasnot God) The Church had been known as Catholic long before that time. A Protestant early church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes "As regards `Catholic,' its original meaning was 'universal'or 'general" (now my words) Which is part of the understanding that these church fathers viewed the Church as a visible organization separate from Heretics, Gnostics and any other dissidents to the apostolic faith. J.N.D Kelly also confirms this in his writings though the actual material to quote is not in my possession at themoment. The important point being that even honest protestant scholars must acknowledge this historical information.
The following are but a few examples of early church writings regarding "Catholic" the Mass, the Eucharist. This in and of itself doesn't Prove there is a God, it doesn't Prove that Christianity is the Truth, but it does help prove that the early church was none other than Catholic…
Ignatius of Antioch
Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2[A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Didache
"Assemble on the Lord's day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice maybe a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, `Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord,and my name is the wonder of nations' [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14[A.D. 70]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the fleshand the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
-Quote Ironicmyopia
Yes, that was definitely a major heresy that afflicted the church. It took a long time to stamp out Arianism which is the first heresy that completely denied the divinity of Jesus. Also, Its not that a "few"rituals were practiced before 325 A.D it can be shown that "all" Catholic Doctrinal practices were in effect prior to 325 a.d. though not necessarily in the form we see them in exactly today. (By doctrinal im talking about the Doctrines not disciplinary practices such as Celibacy for certain clergy) Through the writings of the early church fathers we see the constant living tradition regarding the church as "Catholic" the teachings regarding the Eucharist, TheMass as a Sacrifice, Confession, Baptism, the Church Hiearchy, Confirmation and so on.
The Term Catholic wasnt coined or developed after the Arian Heresy which began in 318 A.d. (Arius a priest began teaching that Jesus wasnot God) The Church had been known as Catholic long before that time. A Protestant early church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes "As regards `Catholic,' its original meaning was 'universal'or 'general" (now my words) Which is part of the understanding that these church fathers viewed the Church as a visible organization separate from Heretics, Gnostics and any other dissidents to the apostolic faith. J.N.D Kelly also confirms this in his writings though the actual material to quote is not in my possession at themoment. The important point being that even honest protestant scholars must acknowledge this historical information.
The following are but a few examples of early church writings regarding "Catholic" the Mass, the Eucharist. This in and of itself doesn't Prove there is a God, it doesn't Prove that Christianity is the Truth, but it does help prove that the early church was none other than Catholic…
Ignatius of Antioch
Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2[A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Didache
"Assemble on the Lord's day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice maybe a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, `Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord,and my name is the wonder of nations' [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14[A.D. 70]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the fleshand the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Mary Magdalene, Isaiah, the gospels: a Catholic perspective…
Never forget that professor lane is continually reminding us to not "accept what he is saying as "truth" For example those of you inclass last Thursday who were shaken up by finding out that "virgin"was not in the Hebrew manuscripts. And those of you who were shaken about the gospels. I bet it sounded to you as if there was an unreasonably long period between Jesus and the writings of the gospel. Or that Mary magdalene may not be who you were taught she was. Everything is not as obscure as you think and there is always multiple sides to every story. This rings true especially for a Catholic. In no way do i intend to share a deep and thorough response in any of these categories, im just going to throw some things out there as "food for thought"
The gospels
Catholics have something called "Sacred Tradition" Included in this tradition is Oral tradition which has preserved the core meaning ofthe gospels. For example you may have understood by the professors statement that Paul, who wrote 50% of the new testament ( a man who never even seen Jesus) can possibly be responsible for the bulk of Christian beliefs. Well, We know as Catholics through sacred tradition that the Apostles and those that studied under them known as the "Early church" fathers preserved and consistently taught the same things that we find in the Gospels. For example some of the Gospel writers such as John, taught early church fathers such as Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. So there isn't this huge vast gaping hole of information that you may have probably thought there was.The core of information is preserved for a Catholic.
Oral tradition was vital in Jewish culture and it has been passed on in the Catholic Church. For example the Olivet discourse in which Jesus forewarns the destruction of the Jewish temple (manyRapturists and Dispensationalist mistakenly interpret this to be ateaching of the End of the world) was passed on correctly in Scripture. How do we know this? We know this because Christianity Exists! If his followers didn't understand and believe Jesus they would have been killed during the siege of Jerusalem, which is also when the temple was destroyed. If you believed Jesus was the Messiah, and if you believed what Jesus said then you showed your Faith withyour Feet. You left Jerusalem and hid, and by doing so, you saved your life, as it was a massacre for many who remained during the siege between 68-70 a.d.
Mary Magdalene,
The cause of confusion over the identity of Mary Magdalene in the Gospels is rooted in two main factors. One being there is more than one "Mary" in the gospels and Two there are many unnamed women in the gospels. So to make a long story short, In the Catholic faith the church is well aware of this fact. Since the beginning Mary has been revered as "Apostle of apostles" The identity of the unnamed women in the gospels was believed to have possibly been her by different people since the beginning of the church. There has been arguments presented that she was demeaned specifically in the Homily of Pope Gregory I known as "Homily 33" in which he stated "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark and what did these seven devils signify, if not the vices?" Further reading of this homily shows no evidence of Mary Magdalene being demeaned rather revered and an example of a repentant sinner rising as "Apostle toapostles" an inspiration and an example for people to reflect on their own sinful ways. (remember the apostles were hiding while she went to the tomb)
The Bottom line. We don't know exactly if she was any of the unamed women. She could have been. the Catholic Church knows this and always has been aware of the possibilities. A faithful Catholic need not have their faith shaken by this. Remember investigate to get the full perspective. (in no way have I presented it here)
Lets move on to Isaiah.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV)
It is well known that the Greek Septuagint translated the words "young woman" as Virgin but this in no way takes away from the messianic prophecy. How so? In short you could say they were synonyms in the Jewish culture. Remember professor lanes explanation of the "Camel walking through and Eye of a needle" We are quick to imagine a Camel walking through an actual sewing needle because its what we are familiar with now. Professor lane gave two alternate examples. The frizzy thread and the Camels that were walking through the thin walkway known as "the needle". You can apply this same understanding as well to Isaiah and the differing translations.Culturally for us now it would be strange for me to refer to your little sister ages 12-14 as a "Virgin" but technically, and(hopefully should would be)it would be true to assume that. So it wouldn't be wrong for me to refer to her as such. Even more can be said for the Jewish culture at that time. A young woman was basically the Same as a "Virgin" This doesn't prove that the Prophecy of the Messiah is true. It just shows that the term translated as young woman and Virgin doesn't really debunk anything. (by the way this is a very small and informal argument, books have been written regarding this topic I do not intend to write one here.)
However I'm still going to take Professor Lanes "Messiah prophecy"debunking a bit farther. Many christians are also surprised to find out that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was already fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah! Don't believe me? You only need to read a bit further in order to know for certain that it was.
"Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." Isaiah 8:3-4 (NIV)
Without going into further detail about it. (and I can) this prophecy was fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah. However, from a Catholic perspective we know that "An event can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment, and when it is, we need to consider the entire historical context of the events to receive a full and complete understanding."
Further arguments can be made from Isaiah 9:7
"Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this."
Many question, "Where is this kingdom? There isn't one so Jesus couldn't have possibly fulfilled this prophecy!."
The fact that Isaiah 7:14 is rendered "young woman", "Virgin"or "young maiden" shouldn't make a Catholic flinch for the reasons I stated earlier. And as for the "kingdom" by being a Catholic you wake up in that Kingdom everyday in the Catholic church.
Remember to investigate your faith. Fire every single skeptical missile you have at it and if its real it will stand. Investigate all the information so that you will know for certain as much as you can about any given topic or something stated as fact. In the end we dont truly know and we will never in our lifetime unlock the secret of the universe. It always comes to faith at some point. But theres nothing wrong with testing as many facts as you can against that faith. After all if there is "God" he just might meet us somewhere in this earthly life during our investigation.
Investigate! Don't just Kneel and drink professor Lanes "Kool aid"! =P
The gospels
Catholics have something called "Sacred Tradition" Included in this tradition is Oral tradition which has preserved the core meaning ofthe gospels. For example you may have understood by the professors statement that Paul, who wrote 50% of the new testament ( a man who never even seen Jesus) can possibly be responsible for the bulk of Christian beliefs. Well, We know as Catholics through sacred tradition that the Apostles and those that studied under them known as the "Early church" fathers preserved and consistently taught the same things that we find in the Gospels. For example some of the Gospel writers such as John, taught early church fathers such as Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. So there isn't this huge vast gaping hole of information that you may have probably thought there was.The core of information is preserved for a Catholic.
Oral tradition was vital in Jewish culture and it has been passed on in the Catholic Church. For example the Olivet discourse in which Jesus forewarns the destruction of the Jewish temple (manyRapturists and Dispensationalist mistakenly interpret this to be ateaching of the End of the world) was passed on correctly in Scripture. How do we know this? We know this because Christianity Exists! If his followers didn't understand and believe Jesus they would have been killed during the siege of Jerusalem, which is also when the temple was destroyed. If you believed Jesus was the Messiah, and if you believed what Jesus said then you showed your Faith withyour Feet. You left Jerusalem and hid, and by doing so, you saved your life, as it was a massacre for many who remained during the siege between 68-70 a.d.
Mary Magdalene,
The cause of confusion over the identity of Mary Magdalene in the Gospels is rooted in two main factors. One being there is more than one "Mary" in the gospels and Two there are many unnamed women in the gospels. So to make a long story short, In the Catholic faith the church is well aware of this fact. Since the beginning Mary has been revered as "Apostle of apostles" The identity of the unnamed women in the gospels was believed to have possibly been her by different people since the beginning of the church. There has been arguments presented that she was demeaned specifically in the Homily of Pope Gregory I known as "Homily 33" in which he stated "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark and what did these seven devils signify, if not the vices?" Further reading of this homily shows no evidence of Mary Magdalene being demeaned rather revered and an example of a repentant sinner rising as "Apostle toapostles" an inspiration and an example for people to reflect on their own sinful ways. (remember the apostles were hiding while she went to the tomb)
The Bottom line. We don't know exactly if she was any of the unamed women. She could have been. the Catholic Church knows this and always has been aware of the possibilities. A faithful Catholic need not have their faith shaken by this. Remember investigate to get the full perspective. (in no way have I presented it here)
Lets move on to Isaiah.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV)
It is well known that the Greek Septuagint translated the words "young woman" as Virgin but this in no way takes away from the messianic prophecy. How so? In short you could say they were synonyms in the Jewish culture. Remember professor lanes explanation of the "Camel walking through and Eye of a needle" We are quick to imagine a Camel walking through an actual sewing needle because its what we are familiar with now. Professor lane gave two alternate examples. The frizzy thread and the Camels that were walking through the thin walkway known as "the needle". You can apply this same understanding as well to Isaiah and the differing translations.Culturally for us now it would be strange for me to refer to your little sister ages 12-14 as a "Virgin" but technically, and(hopefully should would be)it would be true to assume that. So it wouldn't be wrong for me to refer to her as such. Even more can be said for the Jewish culture at that time. A young woman was basically the Same as a "Virgin" This doesn't prove that the Prophecy of the Messiah is true. It just shows that the term translated as young woman and Virgin doesn't really debunk anything. (by the way this is a very small and informal argument, books have been written regarding this topic I do not intend to write one here.)
However I'm still going to take Professor Lanes "Messiah prophecy"debunking a bit farther. Many christians are also surprised to find out that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was already fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah! Don't believe me? You only need to read a bit further in order to know for certain that it was.
"Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." Isaiah 8:3-4 (NIV)
Without going into further detail about it. (and I can) this prophecy was fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah. However, from a Catholic perspective we know that "An event can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment, and when it is, we need to consider the entire historical context of the events to receive a full and complete understanding."
Further arguments can be made from Isaiah 9:7
"Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this."
Many question, "Where is this kingdom? There isn't one so Jesus couldn't have possibly fulfilled this prophecy!."
The fact that Isaiah 7:14 is rendered "young woman", "Virgin"or "young maiden" shouldn't make a Catholic flinch for the reasons I stated earlier. And as for the "kingdom" by being a Catholic you wake up in that Kingdom everyday in the Catholic church.
Remember to investigate your faith. Fire every single skeptical missile you have at it and if its real it will stand. Investigate all the information so that you will know for certain as much as you can about any given topic or something stated as fact. In the end we dont truly know and we will never in our lifetime unlock the secret of the universe. It always comes to faith at some point. But theres nothing wrong with testing as many facts as you can against that faith. After all if there is "God" he just might meet us somewhere in this earthly life during our investigation.
Investigate! Don't just Kneel and drink professor Lanes "Kool aid"! =P
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Jainism Extremism and some other ism’s
I was thinking more about extremist ideas as they relate tofundamentalism in religion. It seems that all extremism andfundamentalism really do is defeat the religion it is representing atits Core. Its root. For example, Jainism in its extremefundamentalist form does the exact opposite of what it sets out to bein the first place. "Compassion for all life, human and non-human" isa central belief in Jainism yet when it is practiced in its extremeform it becomes self-defeating. In order to preserve the "living"down to the smallest organism in such an extreme manner you causemore damage than you try to prevent. For example, avoiding lightsfrom video cameras, or even avoiding eating mostly all types of foodyou end up destroying the most important living thing. Your "humanself" You destroy a central doctrine by taking it to the extreme. Soit becomes a double edged sword so to speak. It dies at the root,never really having a chance to grow. We see this same repeating ideawhen anyone takes a Religion in an extreme fundamentalist approach.
Professor Lane spoke in an earlier class about "licking Jesus" whenhis communion instructor informed him that "Jesus didn't want to bechewed." Now the Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith but bydoing that, professor lanes teacher completely undermined, ignoredand stripped the Eucharist of its true meaning by bringing upsomething that is pretty much irrelevant to the true meaning of theEucharist to a Catholic. So because this person went about it in anextreme way he destroyed it at the root. Didn't allow it to grow.
Another example would be Islam "The religion of Peace" at what point does that equate with suicide bombings and killing others in order to force your peaceful religion on to others? And again with "Biblealone Christian fundamentalists" It is designed to take Christianity back to its supposed true fundamentals using the idea of "SolaScriptura" (Latin for Bible alone) yet at the very heart of thatdoctrine we know it is self defeating as Professor lane explained in class last Thursday. There wasn't even a Clear and universal New Testament until the 4th Century! Not only is that a glaring inconsistency but we also know that the Bible itself nowhere says that the "bible alone" should be the sole rule of authority forChristians. This idea was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Again because of the extremism of the people thatdecided to take Protestant Christianity too far they ultimatelydefeat it at its core.
I realize I have made some blanket statements here, but basically mypoint is that when you take a religion to its extreme fundamentals, you basically kill it at its root. You black out what is probably supposed to be its shining point by either taking it too far or misrepresenting it.
It can even be argued that by taking a religion to its fundamental root, you possibly can even make it clear that it just doesn't work,therefore can't be true. That's another possibility and a subject foran entirely new Post.
Thoughts?
Professor Lane spoke in an earlier class about "licking Jesus" whenhis communion instructor informed him that "Jesus didn't want to bechewed." Now the Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith but bydoing that, professor lanes teacher completely undermined, ignoredand stripped the Eucharist of its true meaning by bringing upsomething that is pretty much irrelevant to the true meaning of theEucharist to a Catholic. So because this person went about it in anextreme way he destroyed it at the root. Didn't allow it to grow.
Another example would be Islam "The religion of Peace" at what point does that equate with suicide bombings and killing others in order to force your peaceful religion on to others? And again with "Biblealone Christian fundamentalists" It is designed to take Christianity back to its supposed true fundamentals using the idea of "SolaScriptura" (Latin for Bible alone) yet at the very heart of thatdoctrine we know it is self defeating as Professor lane explained in class last Thursday. There wasn't even a Clear and universal New Testament until the 4th Century! Not only is that a glaring inconsistency but we also know that the Bible itself nowhere says that the "bible alone" should be the sole rule of authority forChristians. This idea was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Again because of the extremism of the people thatdecided to take Protestant Christianity too far they ultimatelydefeat it at its core.
I realize I have made some blanket statements here, but basically mypoint is that when you take a religion to its extreme fundamentals, you basically kill it at its root. You black out what is probably supposed to be its shining point by either taking it too far or misrepresenting it.
It can even be argued that by taking a religion to its fundamental root, you possibly can even make it clear that it just doesn't work,therefore can't be true. That's another possibility and a subject foran entirely new Post.
Thoughts?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
When Fundamentalism drowns out Reality…
"The Church of Rome denies the finished work of Christ but believes in the continuing sacrifice that produces such things as sacraments and praying for the dead, burning candles, and so forth. All of these were borrowed from mystery Babylon, the mother of all pagan customs and idolatry, none of which is taught in the New Testament."
-Tim LaHaye
I like the point that the Professor brought up in class when we were learning about Hinduism. He brought up the point of judging and jumping to conclusions about other faiths we don't understand. He made the comparison between the many Hindu gods and the Catholic saints. It is so easy to condemn something we truly don't understand.It is so easy to mock something on the grounds that it is foreign to us. Over the years while studying I have wondered "why is it that we give in so easily to what we read and hear without truly verifying itfor ourselves?". It is so easy for us to misunderstand something about religion and look no further. What makes it worse is that not only do we put forth no effort to verify from multiple sources the truth of the subject but it also seems we make the mistake of then turning around and proclaiming what little we know about a religion as "undisputed doctrine"! A fine example of this is the first quote I opened up this topic with. Tim LaHaye co-author of the "Left Behind"Book series is a well-respected minister, author and judging by the 50 million plus copies this book series has sold, he has a lot of people that are willing to listen to what he says.
This creates a problem though. This is what creates the many misunderstandings and misconceptions of faith. Here we have a well-respected author with a huge audience yet every line he has writtenin that quote is filled with blunders and inaccuracies about theCatholic Faith. No I'm not arguing from a perspective of faith and Idon't have any interest in trying to sling bible passages out there to try and defend the Catholic faith in this particular writing. In fact these points can be proven purely historically that the statements he is making are inaccurate. It can be proven historically that praying for the dead is an older Christian practice than the Canon of the Bible! It can be proven historically and factually that the sacraments of the Catholic faith have no link to paganism and are completely independent of paganism. The sacraments are no more pagan than the symbol of the cross is. We know historically that the symbol of the cross pre-dates Christianity but we also would be foolish toclaim that the cross is derived from paganism. This problem has arisen partially because of what we also talked about inclass. "Fundamentalism". Tim LaHaye is a "Christian" fundamentalist. As a Catholic I deal with this type of fundamentalism constantly. Let me share another experience with you about Christian Fundamentalism
I was in a World religions class a few years back that I did notcomplete and the Professor stated in one of his lessons that "The Catholic Church added 7 books to the bible" and that was why the Canon of the Catholic church consisted of 73 books and not 66 as allprotestant Canons do. Now, again, without having to rely on faith toprove my point I knew that this was historically impossible and that there were no grounds for this claim unless one had an obscure view of history. How was it that this idea that spawned from "Fundamentalism" found its way into the very classroom of a Secular school? Another thing that struck me as odd is that this teacher was the exact opposite of Professor Lane in that he refused to take any religious topic to the controversial level. Still, the point remained. "Fundamentalism" had found its way into the Classroom out of this teacher's mouth. I raised my hand curious where he learned this information. Had the "fundamentalist" voice been so loud that it actually drowned out reality? His explanation and answer wasthat he was unclear and didn't remember the exact details but wouldlook into it. I shared what I knew regarding the Canonization of the Bible which reached as far back as the synod of Rome in 382 a.d andthen the later councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 a.d.which listed all the books that Catholics still have in the bible.The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther removed them during thereformation in the 1500's. (There's much more detail regarding this Idon't intend to cover here) Unfortunately for the classroom, the professor brushed off my knowledge quickly changed the subject and ofcourse the class was left with the Professors "Undisputed Doctrine"to fill their minds. Christian Fundamentalism has even taken it so far as to deny that the Catholic Church had anything to do with the bible at all. Not even Martin Luther, a founding father ofProtestantism would agree with such a "deviation from history" that fundamentalism brings about. Again it doesn't take faith to prove this point as it can be understood clearly from the text of this next historical quote from one of the founding fathers of Protestantism.
"We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
-Martin Luther
The list goes on. We find these radical ideas in every faith if one takes a Fundamentalist approach. As a Catholic I have dealt with many Bible Christian Fundamentalists whose view of the Catholic faith is so misunderstood that it isn't even Catholicism anymore that they are disagreeing with, rather a mixture of false information projected to be Catholicism. An Archbishop by the name of Fulton J. Sheen put this reality in perspective when he said
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church-which is, of course, quite a different thing."
-Arch Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
So where do we draw the line? What are we supposed to do to protect ourselves from the Ocean of Misconceptions? I say we take ProfessorLanes advice and search for ourselves. Don't buy his or anyone's "information" without checking into it yourself. This includes what I have written here. I have quoted three different people and have given no citations to where I got these quotes from. I could be completely making this information up. Its been done manytimes in the books, magazines and the posters we read. Its done in lectures, on T.V and in Music. Don't buy it that easily.
Will we ever find the Truth? Who knows, but it doesn't hurt to try and get as close to it as we possibly can. We owe it to ourselves totest our faith, to test our knowledge and to search for the answers. Did Christians really believe Jesus was really God? Is the Book ofMormon really American history? Was Muhammad a true prophet of God? If we are going to be a member of any of these faiths we owe it to ourselves to investigate their claims. We must increase our Knowledge and understanding of different religions because without knowledge we will simply be lead to the Ocean of Misconceptions and forced to walk the Plank…
..and I don't want to Jump in that ocean without some blow up orange "floaties" on my arms
None of us should…
-Tim LaHaye
I like the point that the Professor brought up in class when we were learning about Hinduism. He brought up the point of judging and jumping to conclusions about other faiths we don't understand. He made the comparison between the many Hindu gods and the Catholic saints. It is so easy to condemn something we truly don't understand.It is so easy to mock something on the grounds that it is foreign to us. Over the years while studying I have wondered "why is it that we give in so easily to what we read and hear without truly verifying itfor ourselves?". It is so easy for us to misunderstand something about religion and look no further. What makes it worse is that not only do we put forth no effort to verify from multiple sources the truth of the subject but it also seems we make the mistake of then turning around and proclaiming what little we know about a religion as "undisputed doctrine"! A fine example of this is the first quote I opened up this topic with. Tim LaHaye co-author of the "Left Behind"Book series is a well-respected minister, author and judging by the 50 million plus copies this book series has sold, he has a lot of people that are willing to listen to what he says.
This creates a problem though. This is what creates the many misunderstandings and misconceptions of faith. Here we have a well-respected author with a huge audience yet every line he has writtenin that quote is filled with blunders and inaccuracies about theCatholic Faith. No I'm not arguing from a perspective of faith and Idon't have any interest in trying to sling bible passages out there to try and defend the Catholic faith in this particular writing. In fact these points can be proven purely historically that the statements he is making are inaccurate. It can be proven historically that praying for the dead is an older Christian practice than the Canon of the Bible! It can be proven historically and factually that the sacraments of the Catholic faith have no link to paganism and are completely independent of paganism. The sacraments are no more pagan than the symbol of the cross is. We know historically that the symbol of the cross pre-dates Christianity but we also would be foolish toclaim that the cross is derived from paganism. This problem has arisen partially because of what we also talked about inclass. "Fundamentalism". Tim LaHaye is a "Christian" fundamentalist. As a Catholic I deal with this type of fundamentalism constantly. Let me share another experience with you about Christian Fundamentalism
I was in a World religions class a few years back that I did notcomplete and the Professor stated in one of his lessons that "The Catholic Church added 7 books to the bible" and that was why the Canon of the Catholic church consisted of 73 books and not 66 as allprotestant Canons do. Now, again, without having to rely on faith toprove my point I knew that this was historically impossible and that there were no grounds for this claim unless one had an obscure view of history. How was it that this idea that spawned from "Fundamentalism" found its way into the very classroom of a Secular school? Another thing that struck me as odd is that this teacher was the exact opposite of Professor Lane in that he refused to take any religious topic to the controversial level. Still, the point remained. "Fundamentalism" had found its way into the Classroom out of this teacher's mouth. I raised my hand curious where he learned this information. Had the "fundamentalist" voice been so loud that it actually drowned out reality? His explanation and answer wasthat he was unclear and didn't remember the exact details but wouldlook into it. I shared what I knew regarding the Canonization of the Bible which reached as far back as the synod of Rome in 382 a.d andthen the later councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 a.d.which listed all the books that Catholics still have in the bible.The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther removed them during thereformation in the 1500's. (There's much more detail regarding this Idon't intend to cover here) Unfortunately for the classroom, the professor brushed off my knowledge quickly changed the subject and ofcourse the class was left with the Professors "Undisputed Doctrine"to fill their minds. Christian Fundamentalism has even taken it so far as to deny that the Catholic Church had anything to do with the bible at all. Not even Martin Luther, a founding father ofProtestantism would agree with such a "deviation from history" that fundamentalism brings about. Again it doesn't take faith to prove this point as it can be understood clearly from the text of this next historical quote from one of the founding fathers of Protestantism.
"We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
-Martin Luther
The list goes on. We find these radical ideas in every faith if one takes a Fundamentalist approach. As a Catholic I have dealt with many Bible Christian Fundamentalists whose view of the Catholic faith is so misunderstood that it isn't even Catholicism anymore that they are disagreeing with, rather a mixture of false information projected to be Catholicism. An Archbishop by the name of Fulton J. Sheen put this reality in perspective when he said
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church-which is, of course, quite a different thing."
-Arch Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
So where do we draw the line? What are we supposed to do to protect ourselves from the Ocean of Misconceptions? I say we take ProfessorLanes advice and search for ourselves. Don't buy his or anyone's "information" without checking into it yourself. This includes what I have written here. I have quoted three different people and have given no citations to where I got these quotes from. I could be completely making this information up. Its been done manytimes in the books, magazines and the posters we read. Its done in lectures, on T.V and in Music. Don't buy it that easily.
Will we ever find the Truth? Who knows, but it doesn't hurt to try and get as close to it as we possibly can. We owe it to ourselves totest our faith, to test our knowledge and to search for the answers. Did Christians really believe Jesus was really God? Is the Book ofMormon really American history? Was Muhammad a true prophet of God? If we are going to be a member of any of these faiths we owe it to ourselves to investigate their claims. We must increase our Knowledge and understanding of different religions because without knowledge we will simply be lead to the Ocean of Misconceptions and forced to walk the Plank…
..and I don't want to Jump in that ocean without some blow up orange "floaties" on my arms
None of us should…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)