Continuing with Joyce Greer and Ayden Trevaskis

"My Apologies" Claims to Defend Infallible Scripture As Somehow Accessible Without Infallible Church · Continuing with Joyce Greer and Ayden Trevaskis

Ayden Trevaskis

@aydentrevaskis8390

@joycegreer9391 I was referring to OT books, and if you look at what we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls, they contain books from the Catholic OT, namely Judit, Tobit, and Sirach. You're completely mistaken regarding the septuagint, as most sources and scholars date it between the third and 1 centuries BC, so it was about 100 years before Christ, which is further evidenced by the fact that the NT writers quote it when they quote scripture. And do you have any sources for your claims, because you are utterly wrong, the septuagint is only the OT in greek, so it makes no sense for it to quote the Gospels. It seems you are sorely misinformed on the matter. Maybe you were referring to the latin vulgate, which Jerome translated in the 400s, but even this includes the deuterocanon. The scrolls in the temple were likely the septuagint, or copies of the Hebrew texts as found in the Dead Sea scrolls, so Jesus could have read from scrolls that contained the deuterocanon, and we don't have evidence one way or the other, as he also fails to quote about 1/3 of the books from the protestant OT too.

Yes, God entrusted his word(that being both scripture and tradition, as I noted earlier) to the Jews, but that bears no relevance to what I'm saying. In fact, it only strengthens the matter, as it seems the pharisees were entrusted with traditions, so it was encouraged and practiced in Jewish circles. However, as Jesus said, they were abusing it and making it a tradition of man, making it void. They used what was set apart for God to avoid paying for their family. The only valid canon is the canon of the Jews? Which one, the sadducees 5 book canon? Maybe the Pharisees canon, which excluded Esther, and had debates over a large number of books? Was it possibly the canon of the Essenes? That canon had a bunch of books that protestant wouldn't consider scripture, so how do you choose between the 3+ major canons that were present I the first century? I know how I do, I look at what the early Christians believed, as well as the NT, and see that it includes references to the deuterocanon, and includes them. Also, the Jews lost their authority over the canon when they crucified Christ, making all of their judgements of the canon null and void after 33 AD, which is why we have to look to what the early Christians had to say, and thats best recorded in their works and councils, and they all affirm the deuterocanon.

I believe Catholicism because I believe the scriptures are inspired. I was protestant for quite a while before I converted.

No, in the first few centuries of the church, the word Catholic referred to a specific Church, and this isn't even up for debate. Many of the church fathers wrote against heretics, and something they repeated time and time again was that if one wants to find the true church, they must only ask where the Catholic Church is, as there was only one of those. If it truly meant universal, then someone could point to a gnostic church, or an arian church, or a marcionite church, but nobody ever did, as that was who these people were speaking against. That claim fails for another reason though, as it commits the linguistic fallacy. Muslim technically means one who loves God, therefore, Jesus was a muslim. That uses the same logic, yet you wouldn't accept that, as muslim has a different connotation, as did the word Catholic in the first few centuries. And where does the NT define Gospel, and what does it say? That was my point in saying that, as the definition doesn't exclude that much.

The canon was pretty unanimously agreed upon by the major figures up until the 16th century. I already cited the synod of hippo, the first and second councils of Carthage, and the council of Florence. The first 3 happened in about 400, with the last of those being held in the 1400s, and reaffirming the same canon.

So God reveals his word to those who are his? Then is Augustine not one of Gods? or maybe Calvin and Luther, as they had differing canons. You're still faced with the same problem: if you have a bunch of seemingly saved men, and they have conflicts on the canon, yet the canon is revealed by the Holy Spirit, you are saying the Holy Spirit causes confusion, which is blasphemy. My objection still stands. Also, why can't he refer it in a council? He did so in Acts 15, with the Jerusalem council, so why not ever again infallibly inspire a council? Where is your historical basis for the canon?

I agree, men are fallible, but those inspired by God, such as at the councils and when writing scripture, are not. Hence, I can say the same about God inspiring men at councils to make an infallible declaration on the canon. Also, the deuterocanon was not disproved a long time ago. I brought up a bunch of councils, the reference in Hebrews, Jesus observing holidays only found in those books, many allusions to them in the NT, the septuagint and the Dead Sea scrolls as evidence that the deuterocanon were regarded as scripture at the time of Jesus, and you have yet to refute any of that.

@joycegreer9391 I already responded to your first 2 paragraphs in my other comment, now for the rest. Clement had perfect protestant theology? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAAA you're hilarious. Read 1 Clement 30, where he explicitly says:

"Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words."

BEING JUSTIFIED BY OUR WORKS, NOT OUR WORDS. lollololol, that was probably the funniest thing I heard today. Also, point to figures in the church that had protestant theology, especially in the early church, as I can show that they did not. Joe Heschemeyer also did work on this too. There were not many controversies over the canon. I mentioned 4 councils in my previous message, where the same canon was affirmed. You'd assume, if it was largely contested, that at least in one of those councils, you'd see a hullabaloo about it, but you dont. Also, watch the James white vs Gary Michuta debate on the deuterocanon, where Gary shows that Jerome was the only prominent church father to deny the deuterocanon. Funnily enough though, he recognized his own feelings and interpretation were beneath the authority of the church, and included them in his translation. There was not as much controversy over the canon as you'd like to say there is. Again, pick any catholic doctrine, and I can substantiate it from scripture. We didnt redefine our doctrine at the reformation, and Clement proves that, with his perfect Catholic theology.

The Dead Sea scrolls offer a lot of help in determining the OT canon, as they had books separated by what they were written on, and the OT books that they did have, and the deuterocanonical books, were all written on special parchment reserved for canonical books only. So yeah, it does offer insight into the canon lol. Now actually respond to the rest

Joyce Greer

@joycegreer9391

@hglundahl No, of course not. I get that fact from reality. Of course it is common sense to anyone who has some intelligence and awareness!

It's actually dependent on the individual. How often do people not accurately hear something that was just spoken? How many people accurately remember everything they learned in some class? Even if you have studied something for a long time, if you don't use that knowledge, how well will you remember it? What you hear, what you learn, is also filtered through your own beliefs and biases. attention and thoughts. We see from church father writings some who were very faithful to what they learned, but others who went off even into heresies.

"support it has in things already written down"----See? written. Then it is not oral tradition. It has evidence, in WRITING.

Haydock is apparently believing Moses received oral transmission from Adam?? What Moses wrote obviously came from God, not oral transmission from any human. Otherwise, it wouldn't be God-breathed/Word of God. There are MANY things in scripture that no human could possibly know. You write like everything is human, like you don't believe in God or His ability.

How do YOU know what Paul said? because you READ it. Giving names to a couple pagan Egyptian priests is not Jewish oral law...lol. How would you know if women covering their head was Jewish oral law? Also, what Paul wrote was infallible Word of God by the Holy Spirit anyway.

I don't know if Polycarp and Papias were faithfully accurate or not. I know church father writings are not infallible, not scripture, not Word of God. NO HUMAN IS INFALLIBLE EVER!!!! ONLY God is infallible. Humans can be right or wrong in what they believe, what they interpret, facts they know; but that is NOT being infallible!!!

You obviously do not understand the meaning of infallible. I sure don't know what you consider tradition either. Anything Catholicism creates and believes I suppose.

YOU don't make sense for a penny. EVERYONE reflects their own understanding and beliefs. You sure do.

Joyce Greer

@aydentrevaskis8390 The Pharisees were entrusted with traditions? That would just be a personal assumption. The Pharisees were teachers of The Law. The Law was Scripture, not tradition. Jesus condemned their manmade traditions.

"the Jews lost their authority over the canon when they crucified Christ, making all of their judgements of the canon null and void after 33 AD"---No, that is false. Don't know where you are getting that from.

"in the first few centuries of the church, the word Catholic referred to a specific Church, and this isn't even up for debate"---Also false. It is definitely up for debate.

The earliest churches were called The Church of God in whatever city. These churches were all separate, independent of each other. The earliest believers (Acts) called themselves "The Way" while others called them "Nazarenes". The name Christian was applied later, and meant to be an insult.

All these early churches had a plurality of leaders. Most did not have a head bishop until the 2nd century. Rome didn't have a head bishop until around 140 AD. Ignatius writes to several churches addressing a bishop where there is a head bishop. He only addresses the Church in Rome, no bishop. Originally, catholic meant universal as the Gospel is universal. It was not the name of a church, same as orthodox was not the name of a church.

No, that is not the meaning of Muslim. Islam literally means submission, and Muslim is someone who follows Islam. I don't know what your point is anyway. Lots of religions claim a god or gods and would probably say they love them.

Definition of the Gospel, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." The definition excludes a whole lot.

God reveals in His own time. The faithful wait on the Lord. No canon was revealed overnight.

No, councils are not infallibly inspired. No, men are never infallible; only God is infallible. The Apostles didn't claim infallible at the Jerusalem council. They debated the issue, they referred to Scripture, James made a judgment. They sent letter to the Gentiles stating, "it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us".

Councils discuss issues and come to some decision. A later council might change a decision from a previous council. Obviously councils are not infallible...lol.

"the deuterocanon were regarded as scripture at the time of Jesus"---No, it definitely was not. Festivals can be historical, not just religious. We certainly attend plenty of festivals that are not religious...lol. Hannukah celebrates an important historical event. Those books were considered to be of historical importance, just not Scripture.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@joycegreer9391 "Of course it is common sense to anyone who has some intelligence and awareness!"

But not to those of us who have some more of it.

"How often do people not accurately hear something that was just spoken? How many people accurately remember everything they learned in some class?"

Well, those who are less good at accurate hearing are not the ones chosen to carry on an oral tradition.

The ones who forget part of what they learned in some class, but not all, will not all forget the same thing, and will support each other to recall the things forgotten when needed.

"Even if you have studied something for a long time, if you don't use that knowledge, how well will you remember it?"

Those chosen to carry on tradition, i e to become the next generation of bishops for instance, will have been using their knowledge all the time.

The Liturgy of the Mass is not detailed in the New Testament, you don't teach liturgy until you have learned it for years and while continuing to celebrate it. Both Mass and Hours and Sacraments, that is.

"We see from church father writings some who were very faithful to what they learned, but others who went off even into heresies."

Church Fathers? Tertullian the Montantist is not one, he's an ecclesiastic writer.

If you say CF were heretics, you deny the indefectibility of the Church, promised by Jesus in Matthew 28:20!

"Then it is not oral tradition. It has evidence, in WRITING."

I spoke of an item not yet written down as to the support it has in other items already written down.

But you have a point that "oral tradition" for most important things beyond the Bible (including canon of the Bible, but that came as late as 382) did not remain purely oral for long. The difference is, for the Bible, the text itself is inspired, for the writing down of a tradition, outside Bible and liturgy, each statement in writing per se is not inspired, it's only the tradition the statements reflect that is.

"Haydock is apparently believing Moses received oral transmission from Adam??"

Yes, his last comment on Genesis 3 reads:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

"What Moses wrote obviously came from God, not oral transmission from any human. Otherwise, it wouldn't be God-breathed/Word of God."

Congratulations! You just proved that St. Luke was not writing a God-breathed text in His Gospel!

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; 2 According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: 3 It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

Luke in chapter 1 refers to oral tradition. Mind you, in his case it would have been directly one step of transmission, from eye-witness x, y and z to St. Luke ... or his text could be read as involving also what he got from testimony t of a person who had died but whose testomony survives through intermediate i.

In the case of Genesis, intermediates are necessary.

You have also proven two things in St. Paul are not God-breathed, since he had the names of Jannes and Mambres and the rule of women covering their head, from Jewish tradition.

As I don't have this kind of prejudice against tradition or against oral transmission, you haven't proven it to me, though.

"There are MANY things in scripture that no human could possibly know."

According to tradition, the creation days were given to Moses as a vision on Sinai. But the fall is obviously after creation, when Adam and Eve definitely could know what they had done.

"You write like everything is human, like you don't believe in God or His ability."

I do believe that the parts that are strictly known through revelation only are from God, because of the parts where God authentifies them with real miracles known to human witnesses.

John 19:35 And he that saw it, hath given testimony, and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe.

"How do YOU know what Paul said? because you READ it."

Indeed, but how do I know it was St. Paul who said it, and not Paul Revere or Paul William Walker IV, because of tradition.

"Giving names to a couple pagan Egyptian priests is not Jewish oral law...lol. How would you know if women covering their head was Jewish oral law?"

Because I happen to know a thing or two of Jewish "oral law" or as it is usually called outside Judaism "Jewish tradition" ...

"Also, what Paul wrote was infallible Word of God by the Holy Spirit anyway."

But somehow Moses still needs to be protected from the horrible taint of receiving Genesis 3 by tradition?

"NO HUMAN IS INFALLIBLE EVER!!!!"

Was Moses infallible when writing the Pentateteuch or Paul when writing his Epistles or Luke when writing his Gospel?

If yes, you have just contradicted yourself. If no, you have just said that human fallibility is stronger than God protecting a human instrument to protect a task.

Remember, all I ask for either hagiographers or the collective of Church Fathers or the bishops in union or whatever is a passive infallibility coming from them being instruments that God protects for a task.

"I sure don't know what you consider tradition either."

Fasting in Fridays is Apostolic tradition. Being content with abstinence from meat (or meat, dairy and eggs) but allowing desired quantities on Fridays not during Lent, that is not Apostolic Tradition, that is a Catholic ruling which is about the Apostolic tradition, but does not constitute it.

@joycegreer9391 "The Law was Scripture, not tradition. Jesus condemned their manmade traditions."

But not their traditions from Moses.

They differ like Apostolic tradition about Fridays differs from recent rulings about Fridays (some versions of Novus Ordo reduce it to the point of making it pointless).

Joyce Greer

@hglundahl What is this tradition from Moses? Moses received the Law from God.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@joycegreer9391 He also spent 40 days and nights on Sinai while getting the ten commandments.

Since the creation days are mentioned in one of the commandments, it is not just likely, but also a Jewish tradition, confirmed as probable by Catholic writers, that this was the occasion when he received the opening chapter of Genesis. However, for the rest of Genesis, he could rely on accounts from participants.