/ Re: Questions for "Bible Christians" / 2 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /

> romanist wrote: Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should
> be based exclusively on a book?
.
 Jesus gave no such instructions. His teachings on faith, however (even his emphasis on the importance of faith in the Heavenly Father), suggests that the Christian religion was, is, and always shall be firmly based on faith in the Son of Man (as the scriptures testify). Indeed, this is the faith-essence of the good news that Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again.
.
> <snip> Where in the Bible is God's Word restricted only to what is written down?
.
 Well, I'm going out on a limb here; but I'm guessing maybe nowhere? Look, there are basically two essential elements about this matter that Christians should always bear in mind. (1) The Judeo-Christian traditions begin with the Powerful Words & Mighty Actions of the Living God ('I AM'); who Jesus later calls the Heavenly Father (or 'abba' - his Pappy). So the LORD GOD gave these sacred words to the prophet (or 'The Prophet') Moses in the form of the ten commandments for his people; and later the Five Books of Moses, also called the Torah (ie. the revelation or teaching of God). Lest there be any lingering doubts: the Torah remains an authoritative book for all post-modern True Believers.
.
 (2) The Word and/or Wisdom of God is also identified directly with Jesus Christ (whom the Evangelist who wrote the document that was later entitled 'The Gospel According to John' called the LOGOS of God). Now John's good news strikes faithful Hebrews as blasphemy because it seems to suggest a serious contradiction to number one above; and in many ways they are right (ie. an over-emphasis on John's Prologue can give it an authority that over-shadows even that of Torah). On the other hand, the evangelist's insights into who Jesus was and remains come directly out of the long and dynamic history and traditions of the Jewish peoples; and has deep roots in the Torah, in the prophetic traditions, and in the various other sacred writings (ie. these are the three major parts of Tanakh: the Hebrew Scriptures).
.
 Therefore the whole library of sacred literature that is the Bible clearly testifies that God's Living Word is always shocking and unexpected, always challenging and relevant, always unique and amazing; and always alive with the power of Spirit & Truth! God's Word comes to us in many forms; even in the unseen and unacknowledged acts of providence and grace that occasionally sneak and creep into our lives. God's Word is his commandments to his People (on how to live, AND on how NOT to live). God's Word is the fiery lump of blazing hot coal that the Lord places in the mouths of his chosen prophets; all of them from Moses to Amos to Jonah to JB&JC to Paul & Silvanus to Jakob the Slave to John Henry Newman to etc. God's Word is also the Truth & Wisdom that countless sages and philosophers and artists and writers and saints through the ages have spoken of, and searched for, and even laid down their lives for.
.
 O ye Blind & Arrogant People! O ye Ungrateful & Ignorant Sons & Daughters! You fight and argue and insult and even seek to entrap the Lord's minuscule one. You talk and talk and talk so much that you never even bother to open your hearts to the Truth of the Holy Word; even though it be all around you!
.
> r: How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke,
> John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?
.
 Modern biblical scholarship (such as it is) provides *SOME* answers. Thus while there are also those who still dispute this, it is fairly clear that the earliest gospel is the Gospel According to Mark (which comes more or less directly from Peter and Mark). In the same way, Lk-Acts was written by a scholar-historian (later) named Lukas. Only the date of the two-part history is uncertain. We don't know who exactly wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, or the others (or when), but much can be learned about the people involved just by carefully studying the books in question. Progress in all these matters is an ongoing result of the never-ending enterprise called biblical studies. As for myself, I do not think it always matters much who wrote this or that book. It is far more important that the True Believer knows what the books are about, and to hear and receive the message that they have to give.
.
> On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that
> we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?
.
  Paul was not one of the Twelve; yet it was his occasional letters that (when collected) formed the backbone of the NT, and the initial impetus for the gospels and other NT writings. Thus Mark and Peter wrote their collaborative gospel in large measure as a response to Paul's epistles; which by the Fall of Jerusalem were already having a profound effect on the early Greek churches. So it was the early assemblies of believers who accepted and used these letters from Paulos. They recognized their authority as being self-evident because these first 'Hearers of the Word' had in their hands the original papyrus manuscripts (eg. 10"x12" sheets) that came straight from the hands of Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, whom they knew and loved (please read 1&2Thessalonians for the low-down on all this).
.
 The same principle also applies (more or less) to most of the rest of the canonical literature (and some of the non-canonical books as well). So the Reader should always bear in mind that before Constantine there was no such thing as 'a canon' as such. For the most part, a closed canon was unnecessary, and people had a far more open and generous attitude toward sacred writings in general. Indeed, it is because of this spiritual generosity that there are slight variations in the canons of the different churches. All this does not indicate confusion (as some foolish people suppose); but rather, clearly demonstrates that Scripture is a living and dynamic spiritual reality (ie. not at all 'carved in stone').
.
> Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?
.
 Of course there is no such list in the Bible. The Bible is simply a library of sacred books. A record of the ongoing testimony of God's Revelation to Humankind. There are many books outside the Bible that would be right at home among the biblical books. There is no 'eternally valid' reason why the canon must be closed and forever 'fixed' as such. Indeed, there are parts of 'The Brothers Karamazov' that should be included in The Book; and there are many other worthy things of a like nature. We could collect them and call these 'miscellaneous books' The New Testament with Post-Modern Apocrypha ...  :)
.
> r: How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New
> Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?
.
 Now here is a question that is ridiculous in the extreme! Not only are the underlying assumptions riddled with errors and falsehoods, but the sole intent of this statement is to ensnare and entrap those who place their Faith directly in the Bible (ie. without reference to episcopal visions, understandings and interpretations, etc). Those who - in other words - make the scriptures their 'pope' ... LOL ...
.
 Anyway, observe the last clause: "even when they make no claim to be inspired". Now consider this: although most of the documents do not explicitly make such claims, the titles that were NOT a part of the original manuscripts (but were added by later copiers and editors) certainly do. Thus we have 'Paul to the Hebrews', even though Paul certainly didn't write that outrageously unPauline theological meditation! In the same way, we have letters supposedly from Peter and Timothy and James and Jude and etc. All of which were accepted as genuine and inspired precisely because the early church thought they all came directly from the hands of the Twelve Apostles themselves (or some other such rubbish); which, if you give it a moment's thought, is obviously absurd, not to mention incredibly unrealistic! Indeed, one of the major benefits of biblical scholarship is that we now know that aside from the genuine Pauline epistles and Mark, all the remaining documents date after the fall of Jerusalem, and many of those after 100CE.
.
 And do all these errors and false judgments destroy the authority of the NT? Not in the least. And does this post-apostolic nature of the bulk of the NT writings make it unreliable, unhistorical, unbelievable? ... Certainly NOT! It was ALL the early believing Greek churches that created, edited, collected, entitled, arranged, and prayed these sacred writings, these testimonies and witnesses to our Lord Jesus Christ. The Greek New Testament is now and forevermore their gift to us by the grace & providence of God ... Amen.
.
> Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?
.
 This too is another false 'trick' question. It is well known that the Bible rarely makes explicit references to itself; so of course there is no such outrageous claim. Moreover, such a statement is unnecessary since the sole authority for Christians in all matters of faith and morals is Jesus himself; or, to put it another way, 'the mind of Christ'. ... Ah yes; da mind, da Mind! Who's got dat slippery ol' Mind?
.
> <snip> If the books of the New Testament are "self­authenticating" through the ministry of the
> Holy Spirit to each individual then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books
> were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?
.
 Well Gee Whiz! I would like to say: 'Because the majority is an Ass with a capital 'A'; but I will refrain from doing so. ... Please note the word 'confusion' in the above statement: "confusion". "There was CONFUSION in the early church". HA! Was there ever a time when there wasn't confusion in the church about something or other? There was great confusion leading to bloodshed about whether or not Jesus was 'similar to' or 'the same as' God. There was great confusion leading to bloodshed about whether or not icons were a valid part of the Faith. There was great confusion leading to bloodshed about whether or not Jerusalem, the Holy City, belongs to Jews, Christians, or Muslims. There was great confusion leading to bloodshed about whether or not the Bible could or should be placed into the hands of 'just anybody' or the unworthy (ie. the poor). And today there is great confusion leading to bloodshed about whether or not women can be priests. ... Sheesh! It just never stops; does it?
.
> If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted,
.
 Now this is something that textman would NEVER-EVER say or suggest or imply or even dream about! On the contrary: the scriptures are NOT 'easily interpreted'! It requires much effort and determination, much pouring forth of blood, sweat, and tears, and also much groaning and gnashing of teeth! ... No one understood this particular point better than Luther. ... In any case, and regardless of the cost, it is something that each and every Christian is called upon to do. Even the magisterium agrees with this. They know, as I do, that the only way to be a Christian is to seek out the Will of the Lord in the Word of the Lord. ... Do you think there is no need (or time for) this ... odious necessity? You say: 'Hell's Bell's man! That's what we have priests for in the first place. So that they can be Christians *for* us! They are the experts in priestcraft. They are the experts in Scripture. If they tell us we are fine, then we are fine. Period!' ... Sure you are. If you think God appreciates your lack of faith and disbelief in everything, and will go easy on you because you are not priests or religious pro's ... THINK AGAIN!!! The Lord cares not for those hypocrites and madmen.
.
 It is His willful and wayward People that gives him grief!
.
> and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly,
.
 Not every Christian is led by the Holy Spirit! And not always rightly. Not even by those who think that the Spirit is their personal private possession; now and forevermore, amen, thx very much indeed.
.
> then why are there over 23,000 Protestant denominations, and millions
> of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?
.
 "Wut's that ol sod? 'Protestants' you say? Here in Merry ol England? By Jove!" ... LOL ... Hey; guess what? Every Reader (whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican, atheist, agnostic, or whatever) encounters the sacred text in a unique and personal way. What any individual gets from the text depends very much on this relationship between the Text and the Reader of the Text. Thus the Reader always approaches the Text from a very particular point of view; complete with a very particular set of assumptions about the World and the Text and Time, and also various dispositions, affections, memories, etc etc. All of this means that we can never predict the outcome of what will happen when text and reader collide. Always there is room for both profound misunderstanding and profound spiritual transformation. So the Bible is like a powerful and magical gem. Mostly it just lies there inert and unmoving, locking up its secrets far far away, and seeming for all the world to be a very dead dead thing. But on very rare occasions it bestirs itself, and blazes forth with a blinding brilliance that tears down all the illusions and unreality that make up the bulk of our post-modern civilization. ... Would you force the Bible to spew forth its magic for your amusement? Better to try changing lead to gold. Would you force the Bible to conform with your enlightened and progressive vision of 'How the Cosmos REALLY Works'? Then you will never understand the Word; for you close your mind and heart to the truth long before you ever open the cover.
.
> Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible,
.
 Since Each & Every Reader is a limited and fallible mortal creature, s/he must admit that her/his interpretation is logically, rationally, and necessarily ALSO limited and fallible. ... And that includes Councils & Popes too!!!
.
> how can any Protestant
.
 how can any individual Reader ... whether episcopal or congregational, independent or free, Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist, clergy or lay, heretic or saint, ... (Shall I go on? Or do you begin to see what I'm getting at here?)
.
> in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?
.
 It is not the business of any Christian to bind anyone to any particular belief. People have rational minds fully equipped with a functional conscience ... well, most people anyway. So it is up to the Individual to decide whether or not Jesus is your Lord & Master. And it is up to the same Individual to decide whether or not to obey the Lord, and just how far s/he is willing to go in the footsteps of the One Teacher ...
.
> Protestants usually claim that they all agree "on the important things." Who is able to decide
> authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?
.
 My dear Romanist! You have got to be kidding! ... LOL ... Let me tell you something that is sure to shock many readers; though it is not a new idea by any means. If - by some benevolent miracle - all trace of twenty centuries of Christianity should be expunged from the history books, and every copy (and every memory) of the Bible was banished to Hades, and all that remained of all that stuff was one old and weather-beaten RSV copy of the Gospel of Mark, with all the authentic letters of Paul ... even that would be more than enough to authoritatively determine for all Christians ... ?(does not compute)? ... what is important and essential to the Faith, AND what is not. Nuff Said!
.
> How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire,
.
 "overthrow the Roman Empire", you say? ... LOL ... Who 'overthrew' whom, I wonder? Say there Romanist ol pal; in your many literary wanderings, did you ever hear tell of a certain book by Edward Gibbon (of the baboon species) called 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'? There are many interesting passages on Christianity in this once indexed and forbidden book. Not that I agree with all that he says, but even so, maybe you ought to read them just the same. They will - at the very least - provide you with an insight into the Empire that is radically different from your own!
.
> survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong
> in the canon of Scripture?
.
 Yeah, gee; what an awesome mystery, eh? Can't you just picture all these poor pathetic canon-deprived Christians rushing about and bumping into each other, and frantically asking everybody they see: 'Where's the canon? Who's got the canon? O why can't they find that oh-so-elusive canon?' ... The prophet saith: Good Grief!
.
> Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New
> Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians?
.
 The apostles, the prophets, and the teachers. Not all of them of course; but only those who are chosen by the Spirit of the Lord to 'feed my people'.
.
> If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?
.
 Sure thing, Romanist! Just send me your list of additions (sorry, no deleting allowed around here!), and I'll see if they measure up to my Prophet Version of the Holy Bible including Post-Modern Apocrypha. btw: We do have standards to maintain you know; you can't just insert any old thing ...
.
> Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the
> first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that
> those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but
> abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?
.
 Oh, I imagine that, like most people, they are just being stubbornly loyal to their Protestant traditions. Human beings are conservative creatures of many customs and habits, and do not mix well with change. Thus conservative Catholics think it the very epitome of loyalty to reject any idea that is new or unsettling or appears to be at odds with one's perception of orthodoxy. The bright side is that many scholars of all denominations and faiths are well beyond the 'mine is better than yours' stage, and have learned the value of collaborative efforts. So rather than denouncing the abundant varieties of Protestantism, scholars are looking to see what can be learned from all this. Only the narrow-minded 'orthodoxy on the brain' types are unable to move beyond the Reformation mentality, affections, sentiments, and theologies. The World is now fast moving into the post-modern computer age. Any theology or individual Christian that is unable or unwilling to get out of the 16th century and into the 21st century is sure to get nowhere fast!
.
> Why do Protestants follow post­apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament
> canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ? >  <snip>   Romanist
.
 There's far too much propaganda type rhetoric here. I would delete the term 'post-apostolic' and the entire last clause; and then we have a good question. The answer depends, I think, on a deep and profound bias against any and all things that are Greek and greek-ish. Now this long-lived anti-Greek bias survives unto this very day, and is still highly popular among all Christians of all denominations. Thus Jesus knew and spoke Aramaic, oh yes; but he could not possibly have read the LXX! No, of course not; because that would mean that Jesus was fluent in the main language of the day. Oh, and we certainly can't have that ... can we? No indeed. So let us by all means keep the faith 'pure' by keeping Jesus as Hebrew as possible. ... Oh yes, now there's a great idea there (very heavy on the sarcasm). What a pity that the NT was written in Greek instead of in Aramaic like it should have been! "Shhhh ... better nobody tell God that he blew it bigtime by having the earliest manuscripts done in Greek. At least we still have our beloved Aramaic Matthew." ... Sure you do. And if we ask Q to join us, we can all take a merry ride around the Cosmos in the starship 'Fantasy Bound'.

/ Subject > Re: Answers to Romish Questions / Ng: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 2 July 1998 /

> romanist writes: Here are some of the questions you didn't answer. Care to try again? <questions snipped>
.
 textman say: Dear Romanist, thx, but no thx. I think I've had quite enough of your half-baked questions. Come up with some more interesting queries, however, and I just may be tempted to respond. You just never know what textman will respond to ... or when. HA!
.
>>> Romanist once wrote: Where did Jesus give instructions that the
>>> Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
.
>> textman replies: Jesus gave no such instructions. His teachings on faith, however (even his emphasis
>> on the importance of faith in the Heavenly Father), suggests that the Christian religion was, is, and
>> always shall be firmly based on faith in the Son of Man (as the scriptures testify). Indeed, this is the
>> faith-essence of the good news that Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again.
.
> romanist: You are correct. 2
.
>>> Where in the Bible is God's Word restricted only to what is written down?
.
>> tx: Well, I'm going out on a limb here; but I'm guessing maybe nowhere? Look, there are basically two
>> essential elements about this matter that Christians should always bear in mind. (1) The Judeo-Christian
>> traditions begin with the Powerful Words & Mighty Actions of the Living God ('I AM'); who Jesus later calls
>> the Heavenly Father (or 'abba' -> his Pappy). So the LORD GOD gave these sacred words to the prophet
>> (or 'The Prophet') Moses in the form of the ten commandments for his people; and later the Five Books of
>> Moses, also called the Torah (ie. the revelation or teaching of God). Lest there be any lingering doubts:
>> the Torah remains an authoritative book for all post-modern True Believers. (2) The Word and/or Wisdom
>> of God is also identified directly with Jesus Christ (whom the Evangelist who wrote the document that
>> was later entitled 'The Gospel According to John' called the LOGOS of God). <snip rest of answer>
.
> Good answer. The Word of God is more than just the Bible. 3 <snip>  -- Romanist
.
>>> Romanist wrote: On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that
>>> we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?
.
>> tx: Paul was not one of the Twelve; yet it was his occasional letters that (when collected) formed the
>> backbone of the NT, and the initial impetus for the gospels and other NT writings. Thus Mark and Peter
>> wrote their collaborative gospel in large measure as a response to Paul's epistles; which by the Fall
>> of Jerusalem were already having a profound effect on the early Greek churches. So it was the early
>> assemblies of believers who accepted and used these letters from Paulos. They recognized their
>> authority as being self-evident because these first Hearers of the Word had in their hands the original
>> papyrus manuscripts (eg. 10"x12" sheets) that came straight from the hands of Paul, Silvanus and
>> Timothy, whom they knew and loved (please read 1&2Thessalonians for the low-down on all this) ...
.
> R: Sorry, but the councils made up of the bishops from all the churches decided which books belong in
> the Bible, based on their apostolic authority.
.
 Dear Romanist, would you please kindly demonstrate the truth of your claim with a little something in the way of evidence. I mean, surely you don't expect me to take your word for it? And even if you do, I would like to see some evidence regardless. Please show some consideration for our Readers who may not be aware of where you get your 'facts'.
.
>>> Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?
.
>> tx: Of course there is no such list in the Bible. The Bible is simply a library of sacred books. A record of
>> the ongoing testimony of God's Revelation to Humankind. There are many books outside the Bible that
>> would be right at home among the biblical books. There is no 'eternally valid' reason why the canon
>> must be closed and forever 'fixed' as such. Indeed, there are parts of 'The Brothers Karamazov' that
>> should be included in The Book; and there are many other worthy things of a like nature. We could
>> collect them and call these 'miscellaneous books' The New Testament with Post-Modern Apocrypha ... :)
.
> So the Bible can be added to?
.
 Yes Romanist, it can.
.
>>> R: How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament
>>> are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?
.
>> tx: Now here is a question that is ridiculous in the extreme! Not only are the underlying assumptions
>> riddled with errors and falsehoods, but the sole intent of this statement is to ensnare and entrap
>> those who place their Faith directly in the Bible <snip> It was ALL the early believing Greek churches
>> that created, edited, collected, entitled, arranged, and prayed these sacred writings, these testimonies
>> and witnesses to our Lord Jesus Christ. The Greek New Testament is now and forevermore their gift to
>> us by the grace & providence of God. Amen.
.
> Correct.  The Bible was given to us by the Church.  -- Romanist
.
 Incorrect. That's not what I said. I said that the Bible was given to us (ie. ALL the churches) from God by way of the early Greek churches who wrote, received, edited, and used them (50-150CE). It came down to the People of God of today from the People of God of yesterday. It was not generously given to us by way of the bishops. On the contrary, the bishops were very much against the idea of putting the sacred word into the hands of the laity. They were most incensed at Luther for doing just that. "Just look at all the trouble you've caused!" Yes, the sacred words belong in the hands of the sacred superior spiritual persons. This was and remains the priestly view and tradition; even in the Catholic Church (despite the contrary urgings of Vatican Council Two).
.
>>> Romanist wrote: Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters
>>> of faith and morals?
.
>> textman answered: This too is another false 'trick' question. It is well known that the Bible rarely
>> makes explicit references to itself; so of course there is no such outrageous claim. Moreover, such
>> a statement is unnecessary since the sole authority for Christians in all matters of faith and morals
>> is Jesus himself; or, to put it another way, 'the mind of Christ'. ... Ah yes; da mind, da Mind! Who's
>> got dat slippery ol' Mind?
.
> You’re right, the Bible makes no such claim.
.
 And on what authority does the pope claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals? Is it on the authority of Bible verses wrongly understood and deliberately misinterpreted?
.
>>> R: If the books of the New Testament are "self­authenticating" through the ministry of the Holy Spirit
>>> to each individual then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired,
>>> with some books being rejected by the majority?
.
>> Well Gee Whiz! I would like to say: 'Because the majority is an Ass with a capital 'A'; but I will refrain
>> from doing so. ... Please note the word 'confusion' in the above statement: "confusion". "There was
>> CONFUSION in the early church". HA! Was there ever a time when there wasn't confusion in the church
>> about something or other? And today there is great confusion leading to bloodshed about whether or
>> not women can be priests. ... Sheesh! It just never stops; does it?
.
> R: Unfortunately, it never stops. The enemy is always creating confusion
> within the Church. But Jesus promised that the enemy will not prevail.
.
 He only meant that in the long run the Kingdom of Heaven will overcome all obstacles and be established all over the World. Of course, we are a long long way from that happy moment in cosmic time. In the meantime, the church does not, and cannot, run solely on a blind and naive faith that someday all will be well. Right now is the moment at hand. Today is the day that ought to concern us all. Today the Enemy has taken the Canadian Church for his own. ... Will wishing, hoping, and praying make the church good and whole and faithful once more? No. Will ignoring the Evil One banish her from the church? No. And will denying her vile existence nullify her tremendous influence over the People of God? Alas, no. For it is confusion, ignorance, and darkness that serve the purposes of the Destroyer of Souls; and so enslaves the People of God to the satanic will.
.
>>> If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted,
.
>> tx: Now this is something that textman would NEVER-EVER say or suggest or imply or even dream about!
>>  <snip remainder>
.
> R: Correct. The Bible is not so easily understood. 2 Peter 3:15-16 <snipped> BTW, please
> don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t believe priests are suppose to "be Christians for us."
> We are responsible for our own spiritual life.
.
 Yes we are. I coundn't agree more. But if Catholics are so responsible for their own spiritual lives, why is it that so many are so ignorant of the Faith? So ignorant of Scripture & Tradition? Do they not place their trust and spiritual destiny in the hands of the clergy? Do they not believe the priests when they say that eating plastic wafers and drinking cheap wine will grant eternal life to the recipient? Do they not believe that God is satisfied with but one hour per week of their precious time? Do they not think that studying the Bible is best left to priests and Bible scholars? That they themselves do not need to 'inquire within'? ... I say it is the lukewarm faith of the People that has created this crises of madness and immorality in the Church of Canada. Yes, the People are responsible for their spiritual destiny; but they choose not to take that responsibility, for they can't be bothered with such rubbish!
.
>>> and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly,
.
>> tx: Not every Christian is led by the Holy Spirit! And not always rightly. Not even by those who think
>> that the Spirit is their personal private possession; now and forevermore, amen, thx very much indeed.
.
> R: But that’s what the protestants say.
.
 What's that you say there? 'The protestants say that the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to right interpretation'? I don't think so, Romanist. Do you have any sort of evidence to back up this claim? Any official statement to this effect by the Lutherans or Anglicans or Free Churches? I'd be very interested to see any such document.
.
>>> then why are there over 23,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants,
>>> all interpreting the Bible differently?
.
>> "Wut's that ol sod? 'Protestants' you say? Here in Merry ol England? By Jove!" ... LOL ... Hey; guess
>> what? Every Reader (whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican, atheist, agnostic, or whatever)
>> encounters the sacred text in a unique and personal way. What any individual gets from the text
>> depends very much on this relationship between the Text and the Reader of the Text. Thus the Reader
>> always approaches the Text from a very particular point of view; complete with a very particular set of
>> assumptions about the World and the Text and Time, and also various dispositions, affections, memories,
>> etc etc. All of this means that we can never predict the outcome of what will happen when text and
>> reader collide.  <snip>
.
> R: You are correct when you say readers bring their own "set of assumptions" or traditions
> when reading the Bible. That is the problem. They don’t use the correct traditions.
.
 The correct traditions being, of course, your own. ... Don't you think it even remotely possible that a Christian can rightly understand scripture despite the grevious handicap of not having his lips constantly pressed against the papal backside?
.
>>> R: Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible,
.
>> tx: Since Each & Every Reader is a limited and fallible mortal creature, s/he must admit that her/his
>> interpretation is logically, rationally, and necessarily ALSO limited and fallible. ... And that includes
>> Councils & Popes too!!!
.
> Don’t be too quick to dismiss the Councils. From them we get our understanding
> of the Trinity and the two natures of Jesus.
.
 Yeah, gee. We'd be just lost to pieces if we had not those wonderous episcopal fantasies. Did the Son of Man teach the Trinity? No; he taught the love of and for the Heavenly Father. Did Jesus teach his divine and human natures? No; he taught the way of humility and passive resistence and non-violence and love for God and neighbor. These are the essential elements of the religion Jesus practiced. The very ones he constantly urged upon his apostles. But the People of God and the arrogance of the bishops were not satisfied with that; and so, in their corruption, they added new and strange doctrines spun in the fevers of their own minds, and then claimed them to be handed down from the apostles! Oh yeah, I sure buy that one.
.
>>> how can any Protestant
.
>> how can any individual Reader ... whether episcopal or congregational, independent or free,
>> Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist, clergy or lay, heretic or saint, ... (Shall I go on? Or do you begin
>> to see what I'm getting at here?)
.
> R: But Protestants are the ones who cling to "The Bible Only" theory.
.
 Seems to me that Protestant-bashing Catholics are far more interested in clinging to the notion of 'sola scriptura' than the Protestants are.
.
>>> in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?
.
>> It is not the business of any Christian to bind anyone to any particular belief. People have rational
>> minds fully equipped with a functional conscience ... well, most people anyway. So it is up to the
>> Individual to decide whether or not Jesus is your Lord & Master. And it is up to the same Individual
>> to decide whether or not to obey the Lord, and just how far s/he is willing to go in the footsteps
>> of the One Teacher ...
.
> R: True. They have no business doing it, but it happens all the time.
.
 Sure it does. Do not the priests themselves also do likewise?
.
>>> Protestants usually claim that they all agree "on the important things." Who is able to decide
>>> authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?
.
>> My dear Romanist! You have got to be kidding! ... LOL ... Let me tell you something that is sure to
>> shock many readers; though it is not a new idea by any means. If - by some benevolent miracle -
>> all trace of twenty centuries of Christianity should be expunged from the history books, and every
>> copy (and every memory) of the Bible was banished to Hades, and all that remained of all that stuff
>> was one old and weather-beaten RSV copy of the Gospel of Mark, with all the authentic letters of
>> Paul ... even that would be more than enough to authoritatively determine for all Christians ...
>> ?(does not compute)? ... what is important and essential to the Faith, AND what is not. Nuff Said!
.
> Heck, even if the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Mark were gone,
> the Church would continue on. BTW, you forgot Apostolic Tradition.
.
 How can I forget Apostolic Tradition when all you loyal Romish are so eager to constantly remind me of it?
.
>>> How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost
>>> 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?
.
>> Yeah, gee; what an awesome mystery, eh? Can't you just picture all these poor pathetic canon-
>> deprived Christians rushing about and bumping into each other, and frantically asking everybody
>> they see: 'Where's the canon? Who's got the canon? O why can't they find that oh-so-elusive
>> canon?' ... The prophet saith: Good Grief!
.
> Because their faith was not based on a book.
.
 That's right. Their faith was based on the knowledge that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior. In the same way, their knowledge about Christ came from the sacred scriptures that were read out to them in the assemblies. Moreover, this faith did not require complex theologies about trinities, or complex philosophies about various natures and essences and how they fit together in this or that creature. Was their faith therefore incomplete or insufficient? I suggest you think twice before answering this.
.
>>> R: Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New
>>> Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians?
.
>> tx: The apostles, the prophets, and the teachers. Not all of them of course; but only those
>> who are chosen by the Spirit of the Lord to 'feed my people'.
.
> Right, the apostles and their successors.
.
 If you mean the pope and his Romish bishops, then you are wrong. If you mean the ordained leaders of the ecumenical councils, along with the Emperor himself, then OK; for it was these latter that settled the controversies of the day. The pope in those early days was nothing compared to the powerful influence of the Emperors.
.
>>> If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?
.
>> Sure thing, Romanist! Just send me your list of additions (sorry, no deleting allowed around here!),
>> and I'll see if they measure up to my Prophet Version of the Holy Bible including Post-Modern
>> Apocrypha. btw: We do have standards to maintain you know; you can't just insert any old thing ...
.
> But what are the standards?
.
 Don't play cute with me now, Romanist ol pal. You led me to believe that you had something to contribute to the Bible. If you do; then tell me what it is, and we'll take it from there. If you don't; then what the hell are we arguing about? Standards? Give me a break. Have you even read 'The Brothers Karamazov'? First you read it. Then you talk to me about standards. OK?
.
>>> <snip> Why do Protestants follow post­apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old
>>> Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
.
>> <snip rant> And if we ask Q to join us, we can all take a merry ride around the Cosmos
>> in the starship 'Fantasy Bound'.
.
> Nice rant.  But you didn’t answer the question.  -- Romanist
.
 Excuse me, but I thought I did. Let me put it another way then: The answer is that they follow the Hebrew canon because they believe it to be more "authentic" than the LXX. Why? Because the former is 'Jewish' (and thus good), while the later is 'Greek' (and thus bad). This is your answer. Do you care to dispute it now?

/ Re: Answers to Romish Questions / 4 July 1998 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> romanist wrote: <much snippage> Actually, it was the Church who determined the apostolic origin
> of the books in the Bible. -- Romanist
.
  Dear Romanist, actually it was the bishops who served the church who mistakenly and erroneously assumed that all the books in the NT were written by the first Christian generation. In other words, the church claims that it is impossible for any NT document to have been written after the close of the first century. The church is wrong. If you think that faith or orthodoxy demands that we believe such unhistorical and unrealistic rubbish, then you are wrong. If anyone believes that because the Epistle of 2Peter was written in mid-2C that it is thereby worthless as a witness to Christ, then they are also wrong! The Bible does not require stupid beliefs based on irrational faith in order to have authority over the hearts and minds of Christians. It is the Word of God, and that is quite enough for me!

/ Subject: Re: Answers to Romish Questions / 5 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman says: The Bible does not require stupid beliefs based on irrational faith in order to have
>> authority over the hearts and minds of Christians.
.
> Substitute the word "I" for "Bible". This is what textman really means. This isn't about the Bible;
> it's about textman's self-imposed authority.  -- BAM
.
  Dear BAM, any 'authority' that I may or may not have over the hearts and minds of Christians is given to me by them. I do not 'impose' my views on anyone. Rather I offer my theology, commentary, and criticisms up for all to weigh and compare for themselves, and so decide for themselves whether or not the things I say are credible or not. Most of those who say 'not' are not even paying close attention. Many of these still seem to think that I'm some sort of 'prostest-ant' (as one critic puts it). Those who refuse to even try to hear what I'm saying will, of course, be unable to distinguish what I am actually saying from what they think I'm saying!

/ Re: Answers to Romish Questions / 6 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman say: Those who refuse to even try to hear what I'm saying will, of course, be unable to
>> distinguish what I am actually saying from what they think I'm saying!
.
> BAM1106016 wrote: Because you profess nothing but unbelief. You know what Catholics believe; we tell
> you. But no one has the slightest idea what *you* believe - only what you *don't* believe.  --  BAM
.
 Dear BAM, I am somewhat puzzled by your confusion. What I believe is clearly set forth in my many and various articles to this and other newsgroups. ... However, in order to accommodate all those who may share your unknowing, I will now forward a short list of the things that I believe and the things I believe in:
.
1. I believe in God the Heavenly Father, the First Source & Center, the God of Jesus Christ.
2. I believe in his Son, Jesus Christ, the Son of Man; who is also our Lord & Savior.
3. I believe in Revelation & Providence. I believe that the Bible is holy and sacred, and is, in fact,
the very Word of God; the very Voice of our Lord ... despite its imperfections and errors.
4. I believe that the Christian Faith has many forms and varieties, but not all churches are created equal.
Some do good, some do not.
5. I believe the Roman Catholic Church has the potential to be a good and loyal servant of the Lord
... If only the bishops could put their monumental arrogance behind them.
6. I believe that the Church of Canada (interdenominational) is a sick and corrupt institution that serves only Satan; chiefly because she hates and despises men, masculinity, masculine virtues and characteristics, and especially male hetero-sexuality.
7. I believe that the Church of Canada lies to the People of God about what the liberal intellectual elite are doing to the Church. I believe they deliberately deceive the People in order to keep them ignorant; because they know that the People do not approve their collective radical-feminist madness!
.
  Dear BAM, if you require explanations or elaborations, or would like a longer and more detailed list, please let me know.

/ Re: Answers to Romish Questions / Ng: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 7 July 1998 /

> rick borgman wrote: What does Torah say about disability? In Leviticus the Lord tells Moses to tell Aaron
> not to allow pwd to serve in the church, or even use disabled sacrifices. The Lord is responsible for our
> creation so why create pwd just to give the non disabled someone to shun, to be repulsed?
.
textman say: Dear Rick, the Lord is not responsible for creating people with disabilities, anymore than the Lord is responsible for the mother being an alcoholic, and drinking while pregnant, and then giving birth to babies that will never have a chance of being a normal human being. People with diseases and many genetic flaws have sex, and pass these negative features on to their children. Does the Lord force these people to make babies that should not be? No, he doesn't. The human race is responsible for the current condition of the human race ... Why? Because they refuse to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions. Check it out pal. Is this not precisely what is wrong with the World today?
.
> rb: I asked other Christians and was advise pwd are not in the image of Jesus. They also pointed out pwd
> were a sign of sin which may explain the order to not let them near. How does a child of 2 sin enough to be
> given polio? How can an innocent be unclean just by catching polio?
.
  Yes, this was a common misconception in Jesus' day; and remains so today. But we can see where such ideas came from. If close relatives beget, they tend to beget physically inferior and/or unhealthy babies ... which is a bad thing, and therefore a 'sign of sin'. Hence sex between siblings is a sin. Right? All this is fine. It is only when we extend the same logic to cover things like polio that we run into trouble. Think about it.
.
>> /                  ANSWERS TO ROMISH QUESTIONS
>> / Re: Questions for "Bible Christians" / 22Jun-98 / Ng: a.r.c.r-c/
.
>>> romanist@hotmail.com wrote: Where did Jesus give instructions
>>> that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
.
>> tx: Jesus gave no such instructions. His teachings on faith, however (even his emphasis on the
>> importance of faith in the Heavenly Father), suggests that the Christian religion was, is, and always
>> shall be firmly based on faith in the Son of Man (as the scriptures testify). Indeed, this is the faith-
>> essence of the good news that Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again.
.
> rb: And little children we still be unclean to the clean of the faithful right?
.
  Wrong. The physical attributes of any individual do not usually indicate the presence or absence of sin, or the presence or absence of cleanliness and/or uncleanliness. The Lord teaches us that clean and unclean come from within; from within the heart of each of us. Right?
.
>>> r: <snip> Where in the Bible is God's Word restricted only to what is written down?
.
>> tx: Well, I'm going out on a limb here; but I'm guessing maybe nowhere? Look, there are basically two
>> essential elements about this matter that Christians should always bear in mind. (1) The Judeo-Christian
>> traditions begin with the Powerful Words & Mighty Actions of the Living God ('I AM'); who Jesus later calls
>> the Heavenly Father (or 'abba' -> his Pappy). So the LORD GOD gave these sacred words to the prophet
>> (or 'The Prophet') Moses in the form of the ten commandments for his people; and later the Five Books of
>> Moses, also called the Torah (ie. the revelation or teaching of God). Lest there be any lingering doubts:
>> the Torah remains an authoritative book for all post-modern True Believers.  <snip>
.
> rb: Can a disabled person serve in the church today? I'm personally aware of a priest's sister
> wanting to join an order and was refused because she had MS.
.
  The church has rejected people for far far less reason than that. Believe me! Once upon a time, speaking the wrong language could get you nothing but a quick death. See how far we have come since then?
.
>> O ye Blind & Arrogant People! O ye Ungrateful & Ignorant Sons & Daughters! You fight and argue
>> and insult and even seek to entrap the Lord's minuscule one. You talk and talk and talk so much
>> that you never even bother to open your hearts to the Truth of the Holy Word; even though it be
>> all around you!  <snip>
.
> Well pwd do understand discrimination and loathing for sure.
.
  Oh I can believe it, Rick. In fact, I can easily identify with it. Disabilities come in all shapes and varieties. The material ones are hard to take, to be sure. But so are the others. 4X: Would you believe that textman is utterly, totally, and grossly socially inept? Yes, it's true. And it makes textman a very easy target for enlightened and progressive Christian-types. Talk about "discrimination and loathing". If you're not popular (in some circles) you might as well be dead. This is so even in the highest circles of the Church!
.
> The Bible tells of pwd being healed, shunned, but how did they live? Some quickly say their parents took
> care of them which makes sense but parents die then what? History on many levels just seem to ignore
> the disabled but yet they were certainly around, Jesus always found one to heal.
.
  That's right. There were and are many pwd. Jesus loved them most because they were rejected most. He loved them best, because they most needed an authentic love that saw beyond the flesh. History tends to ignore pwd because people don't want to be reminded of just how frail and fragile the flesh really is. It upsets their unrealistic illusions of personal immortality.
.
>> <snip>
.
> Is there any indication any of the 12 having any blemish?
.
  No. But I'm sure not all of them were the handsome godlings portrayed in legend and art. In the same way, I'm sure Jesus was not a particularly outstanding man as far as looks and strength goes. About average, I would say. The kind of man who could easily be over-looked in a crowd. Physically, he was the kind of man that our Christian goddesses would laughingly ignore and ridicule. ... His heart though! Ah, that was an entirely different matter. It was his larger than life heart that set him apart from other men. That, and the look of fire in his eyes ...

textman
*