I found a neat site explaining how the Bible was put together:

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/gallitzin.htm

What do you think Forum?

Another site that explains it as well:

http://fisheaters.com/septuagint.html

And all the Books of Holy Writ:

http://fisheaters.com/booksofbible.html

From fisheaters.com---Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 "extra" books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68




After all the debate between the Septuagint and the Massoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown a much older version that BOTH share in common - to some degree. As for the 7 "extra" books, the earliest editions of the King James Bible included them. More Bible editions are including the 7 "extra" books. Both the Septuagint-Massoretic Text and the 7 "extra" book debates are becoming obsolete polemics between Christian denominations.

Eddie

What is a "Christian denomination"?

Alexandr

I would disagree that Septuagint vs. Masoretic text debates are obsolete. To the extent they are obsolete, it is very unfortunate.

It is vital to recognize the canonical character of the Septuagint, and that is inspired in its own right.

You do not have critical prophesies to support orthodox Christology with out the Septuagint.

What is a Christian denomination? Look at the root word in denomination................ demon. Does that help Brother Alexandr?

Hah! That's very naughty! On a serious note, perhaps denomination can be likened to species? There are different species of Christians, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. Each species is organized into a communion with other members of the species. Some species have apostolic succession and the substance of the apostolic faith (RC and Orthodox), whereas others have enough of the apostolic faith to fit into the genus of Christian, though they have not kept all of it.

Joe

Alexandr:

The concept of a "denomination" is a Protestant concept. According to Protestant teaching there is no "visible" Church, the Church is an "invisible" collection of all the groups who call themselves Christian. This idea, of course, excludes Catholics and Orthodox Christians who maintain doctrines like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the preisthood. etc.

It's a way of trying to make sense out of the idea that the Reformation could have so many interpretations when one of its basic tenants is that Scripture is self-evident in its meaning and that the Church to 1517 was somehow corrupted after the death of the Apostles. So by looking at the "plain sense" of Scripture, anyone could see how the Church should be structured. We know that doesn't work, so the many interpretations are now "denominations" of the Church: other ways of "naming" it.

BOB

Alexandr:

Here is a snippet of an article about Protestants and the idea of an "invisible" Church. I understand that this is totally alien to the Orthodox Christian since it is not part of the history of the Orthodox Church and the Reformation fight was between Western Christians.
________________________________________________________________
Against the Reformers
< prev article | next article >
St Alphonsus Mary De Liguori (1696-1787)
Bishop and Doctor of the Church
St. Francis Jerome, when he visited the parents of St. Alphonsus shortly after his birth, made this prophecy: "This child will be blessed with length of days; he shall not see death before his ninetieth year; he will be a bishop and will do great things for Jesus Christ." This prophecy certainly came true. One of the most accomplished of all the saints is Alphonsus Liguori. He was a lawyer in both civil and Church law before he dedicated his whole life to serving God. He was founder of a religious order, author of more than a hundred books, originator of modern moral theology, renowned preacher and confessor, bishop, musical composer and painter. For all of his 91 years on earth, he was also a man of prayer and deep personal holiness.

"A church which is not one in its doctrine and faith can never be the True Church ... Hence, because truth must be one, of all the different churches ... only one can be the true one ... and out of that Church there is no salvation. Now, in order to determine which is this one true Church ... it is necessary to examine which is the Church first founded by Jesus Christ, for, when this is ascertained, it must be confessed that this one alone is the true Church which, having once been the true Church must always have been the true Church and must forever be the true Church. For to this first Church has been made the promise of the Savior that the gates of Hell would never be able to overturn it (Matthew 16:18) ... In the entire history of religion, we find that the Roman Catholic Church alone was the first Church, and that the other false and heretical churches afterwards departed and separated from her. This is the Church which was propagated by the Apostles and afterwards governed by pastors whom the Apostles themselves appointed to rule over her ... This character can be found only in the Roman Church, whose pastors descend securely by an uninterrupted and legitimate succession from the Apostles of the world (Matthew 28:20)

"The innovators themselves do not deny that the Roman Church was the first which Jesus Christ founded ... however, they say ... that it was the true Church until the fifth century, or until ... it fell away, because it had been corrupted by the Catholics ... But how could that Church fall which St. Paul calls the "pillar and ground of truth" (I Timothy 3:15)? ... No. The Church has not failed ... The truth is ... that all the false churches which have separated from the Roman Church have fallen away and erred ... To convince all heretical sects of their error, there is no way more certain and safe than to show that our Catholic Church has been the first one founded by Jesus Christ; for, this being established, it is proved beyond all doubt that ours is the only true Church and that all the others which have left it and separated are certainly in error ... But, pressed by this argument, the innovators have invented an answer: they say that the visible Church has failed, but not the invisible Church ... But these doctrines are diametrically opposed to the Gospel.

"The innovators have been challenged several times to produce a text of Sacred Scripture which would prove the existence of the invisible church they invented, and we are unable to obtain any such text from them. How could they adduce such a text when, addressing His Apostles whom He left as the propagators of His Church, Jesus said: "You cannot be hidden" (Matthew 5:14)? ... Thus He has declared that the Church cannot help but be visible to everyone ... The Church has been at all times, and will forever be, necessarily visible, so that each person may always be able to learn from his pastor the true doctrine regarding the dogmas of faith ... to receive the Sacraments, to be directed in the way of salvation, and to be enlightened and corrected should he ever fall into error. For, were the Church in any time hidden and invisible, to whom would men have recourse in order to learn what they are to believe and to do? ... It was necessary that the Church and her pastors be obvious and visible, principally in order that there might be an infallible judge ... to resolve all doubts, and to whose decision everyone should necessarily submit. Otherwise, there would be no sure rule of faith by which Christians could know the true dogmas of faith and the true precepts of morality, and among the faithful there would be endless disputes and controversies ... "And Christ gave some apostles, and others pastors and doctors, that henceforth we be no more children tossed to-and-fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:11-14)

For full text:

http://www.drbo.org/againstreformers.htm

Another interesting item is the letter sent to a Protestant minister who had attacked him, by our own Father Demetrius Gallitzin, the first priest to receive all his training in the United States. Father Gallitzin is from my own area and his cause for canonization is being actively pursued here.

http://www.demetriusgallitzin.org/Defenc...%20Minister.htm

Your brother,

BOB

Hello brothers and sisters! sorry about the wrong word being used - denomination. I feel that i once again derailed the topic with wrong terminology on these forums. i was going to say that "Santa" is another way of saying "Satan" but that would get me kicked off the forum for good. Anyhoo, "Santa" really means "Saint" So i was just joking for fun.

But the topic is about the origin of the Bible. I find it strange that the one thing Jews and Christians don't know is the origins of their own sacred Scripture.

I was doing searches on religion databases for scholarly articles and seen so much stuides in source criticism. To me it seem that most of the articles are guesses not rock solid answers.

has anyone ever seen the Q-document?

I once met bishop John Spong when he was giving his talks on the Bible. OK - you all probably think he's a wacko. But hold your horses. Even wackos raise questions better than the standard scholarly ones. One might not haveto like or agree with the answers (he is entitled to his own conclusions) but Spong makes a good point. The Gospels at least are synagogue texts/sermons arranged according to the feasts of the Jewish year. Is there anything wrong with that? In fact the Gospels like Matthew run the full course of the Jewish year for every Sabbath. Why not? Is this a bad way to write a Gospel? Eventually the Christ sermons which were based on the Torah, replaced the acutal Torah readings. That is one theory from Spong.

I found a website on the byzantine lectionary and see how you all read all for Gospels in one year by spreading out the reading over the weekdays too. This makes it possible to read all of them but then you all only get to hear 1/7 of them in church on Sunday. When these things happen one can understand how difficult it is to see the origins of the Scriptures.

of course there is always the theory thta the Bible fell from heaven.

Eddie

People are allowed to attend the Divine Liturgy every time it is celebrated. So everyone has the ability to attend and hear the Gospel.

There are enough resources for anyone who wishes to read the Bible at anytime s/he wants.

I read the Bible (all 73 books!) in 9 months by reading 5 Chapters per day. I'm currently on my second go 'round.

From what I've read, the Byzantine Codices are actually direct translations from the Koine.

Dr. ERic. I wasn't implying that you or anyone was NOT allowed to hear the Gospel. I was pointing out the fact that since the byzcath lectionary spreads its readings of all four Gospels across weekdays, only 1/7 of the Gospels are read on Sundays. I was just stating a fact not accusing any partciluar church of withholding the Word of God. according to Spong, each individual Gospel was used in its community and read continuously across the entire year (except for Mark whose Gospel only covered 6.5 months since it focused on Jewish feast days and Matthew remedied that by adding material to cover all Sabbaths). Spong believes that the Q-source (mostly teaching material that Mark did not include in his Gospel) was added to fill the void. Matthew was a scribe and saw to it that there were 'Christ' sermons to follow the themes and feasts and Sabbaths of the Jewish year. There is no Q-document no matter how much scholars study and discuss it. There are no copies as evidence that a Q-source document was an independent sourc ethtat Matthew and Luke used to expand their Gospel to cover a year. Matthew took Jesus teachings and put them in some order. Luke mentions in the first verses in his Gospel that he intends to put the account of Jesus in proper order. What order? Biographical order? If so then it is missing a lot of bio-graphical material (like almost 30 years!). it would seem more like liturgical order (feasts and Sabbaths of the Jewish year).

Fast forward. The Church accepts four Gospels and is now faced with the task of determining how to read them over the course of the year. So the church decides to read ALL of them in one year but must include readings during the weekdays in order to do it. John's Gospel does not follow the Jewish festive and Sabbath themes; his is very different. Many argue and debate on who is right when John disagrees with Matthew, Mark and Luke. John's Gospel is very different and theological; so it gets read from Easter or Pascha to Pentecost (both derived from the Jewish Pascha and Pentecost). Matthew is read after John and not Mark since Mark is an embarrassment and is tucked away in the Byzcath lectionary (out of most Sunday readings). Luke follows next. Then this is solidified as the Byzantine lectionary. By then the Old Testament readings have long disappeared and the reason why there is no Old Testament lectionary similar to the Gospels. THE GOSPELS ARE THE NEW TORAH!!! THE CHRIST LECTIONS MODELED AFTER THE JEWISH YEAR AND FEASTS IS KEPT AND THE TORAH READINGS ARE DROPPED.

Eddie

St. Mark's Gospel is an embarrassment?

To you?

Not me. Not Fathers Anthony, Serge, John, or Bohdan here on Byzcath.

Your theory doesn't make any sense.

I think you need to go and read Eusebius and his histories of the Church.

Not an embarrassment in any sense you might be thinking. andI certainly am not embarrassed by his Gospel. Please read my post again. I was telling about Bishop Spong. Many bible scholars, including Catholic ones, refer to this. The story goes that Peter instructed Mark in the writing of this Gospel. Even Luke writes how he had to set the order straight. If Mark's Gospel was good enough then why did Matthew and Luke need to expand it so much? It was missing a lot. Compare Mark's Resurrection narrative to Matthew or Luke's. Mark's traditional ending was later expanded to fill the void instead of having the women just run away (Mark 16:9-20). Mark is also very harsh on Jesus and the scribes. Jesus is considered a nut case in his own hood. The scribes are made out to be wretched creatures. Matthew fixes that by dulling Mark's harsh criticism. Embarrassment is a critical literary observation. I, like you and other Christians, accept Mark's Gospel. However, the byzcath lectionary, i notice, tucks him away. yes Mark is read like the other three Gospels. John's Gospel is given prominence in the new Christian cycle of readings between Pascha and pentecost. Matthew comes next.

Eddie

Some quotes on what Bible scholars mean by embarrassment---

"Mark created one of the great conundrums for later Christian theologians when he wrote that Jesus, though greater than John, was baptized by John. Later gospel narrators demonstrate some embarrassment over this: Matthew re-wrote Mark's episode with John protesting that Jesus should baptize him; Luke re-wrote it in such a way that John is imprisoned before Jesus is said to have been baptized."

The author of Mark retains some traditions that were an embarrassment to followers of Jesus that later gospels expunged.
"Mark 1:41 refers to the anger of Jesus; Matthew and Luke omit the reference, and scribes quickly changed 'moved with anger' into 'moved with compassion' in many copies of Mark. Similarly, the claim of the opponents of Jesus that he was mad (Mark 3:21) was omitted by both Matthew and Luke. The reference on the lips of Jesus to his ignorance of the time when the end would come (Mark 13:32) is not included by Luke." [Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 157]

"The criterion of embarrassment (so Schillebeeckx) or "contradiction" (so Meyer) focuses on actions or sayings of Jesus that would have embarrassed or created difficulty for the early Church."(p168). [Meier (1987) defines it thus, a definition echoed by Brown (1994):]

Once again, I refer you to Eusebius' histories.

St. Mark was the companion of St. Peter and wrote from his point of view for a Roman audience.

St. Matthew wrote for the Hebrew Christians, notice how St. Peter shines in his Gospel compared to St. Mark's.

St. Luke wrote for Greek speaking Gentile converts and as a Physician tried to go about the process very methodically.

St. John wrote his Gospel last to fill in the rest of the story so to speak.

Also, the tradition is that the order of the Bible is, in fact the order in which they were written. There have been fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel which date from the late 30s/
_____________________________________________________________________
At least there is a cycle in which all the Gospels are read and expounded.

In protestantism there is only the whim of the pastor.

And... I have no use for Spong.

Dr. Eric,

If Mark was written first then why is Matthew's Gospel first in the Bible? The New Testament writings after the Acts get shorter and shorter. DOes this mean that the epistle writers had less and less to say? And why would the Gospels come first in the New Testament before the writings of Paul when Paul wrote his letters several decades before Mark? Wouldn't John's Gospel be placed last in the order of books in the New Testament?

This topic is not about protestantism or the whim's of any pastor.

The topic is about the origins of the Bible. I only suggested one theory - in addition to many others. No one knows for sure.

As for Spong, I do not agree with his ultimate conclusions. I often wonder what actually he DOES believe in. I am interested in what aspects of his theory do you not agree with.

The theory Spong mentions is an interesting one. he does make a good point ,one that Catholics and Orthodox should consider. The origins of the Gospels have the liturgy or worshippingcommunity as its mother. (I use the term mother only because it is Mother's Day). Whether you agree with Spong's conclusions or not is independent of the point he does make about the liturgical basis of Scripture. This basis would dammage the many scholarly theories about source criticism or other mere literary theories. Why would Mark or the other Gospel writers write something foreign to the worshipping community?

Mark's Gospel was an embarrassment because it painted a stark picture of the Apostles. his writing was too close to being a reality Gospel. Peter is a bumbling fool. Matthew has to improve on this. What do you think about the points I made in my previous posts? Do you have any ideas why the later Gospel authors had to expand and improve on Mark? Why did Mark end his Gospel (traditional ending) with the women running away in fear? Was this not a good enough ending for a Gospel?

Yes you byzcaths and Orthodox still follow a continuous reading cyle of the Gospels in one year but only proclaim 1/7 of them on the Lord's day. and it never changes. How do the other 6/7ths of the Gospel lections get heard in your church if mass isn't done every day during the week? Do yo have another worship service to read the remaining Gospel lections? Do people show up for these?

I know several Protestant church communities that DO follow a lectionary cycle. If it was only pastoral whims then Catholics and Orthodox would have no joint study groups or research on the subject. I am sure some noncath and nondox Christian churches have no lection cycle.

On a side issue, one of my catholic associates mentioned how they DO hear th eGospel readings every week but rarely hear a sermon expounding on them. how can this be? What do the cath priests talk about if not expounding on the Gospel lections? can this be considered a whim problem too? I guess all Christian communities can improve on expounding on the Gospels, catholics or protestants included.

Eddie

Can you tell me where these late 30s fragments of Matthew's Gospel are kept? Every fragment and manuscript is well documented. I am interested in how Matthew wrote his Gospel so early. Many believe he wrote his Gospel after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. That would be post-70 or so not late 30s. Please share what you know about these extremely early fragments. This is very interesting if not startling.

Eddie

They only believe that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in the 70s because the predictions by Our Lord that came true were too correct and therefore must have been written after the destruction of the Temple.

"The most probable scenario is that Matthew was there, an eyewitness who made shorthand notes of what Jesus said."

Most probable scenario is that this scenario is another theory. Be careful of Thiede and of others who announces his or her discoveries to the media around Christmas and Easter.


http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/210Thiede.html#Gasping%20in%20Astonishment


"We agree with Thiede when he wrote ‘Caution is always the best approach in the dating of manuscripts’. [97] In this article an attempt has been made both to hear and to critically investigate his claims regarding the date of P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64. Although we recognise the service that he has performed in facilitating a reexamination of methodological presuppositions, our verdict on his claims is a negative one. The very early manuscripts to which Thiede appealed for close parallels to P64 turned out to be not as close as the somewhat later ones which he had overlooked. Although there is no absolutely definite evidence by which P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P 64 can be dated with certainty, the available evidence points to a date around AD 200. To be on the safe side I would suggest plus or minus fifty years as the possible range." http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm

1) The main conclusion, in relation to Thiede's article, is that a first-century dating is definitively ruled out by the association of the hand of P64 with the biblical majuscule style.
2) Roberts' first edition and revised edition were evidently hurried and left room for improvements (palaeographical, codicological, text-critical).
3) Thiede shows up some (not all) of the faults in the earlier
editions, but also continues or introduces some errors.
4) In relation to the question of dating, Thiede makes two main
errors of method:
(i) He makes comparisons based on individual letter forms, without
assessing the overall style of the hands in which the letters occur.
(ii) He does not draw relevant evidence into consideration, in
particular:
(a) the association of the hand of P64 with the biblical majuscule
style;
(b) the evidence of P4.
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1995-09/10441.html

His redating on paleographical grounds is seriously flawed in four ways.
First, he does not indicate how four great paleographers could all concur on a lowered redating of the Matthew fragments to a date ca. 200 and still be in error.
Second, he compares letters in these fragments from Egypt [Luxor is purchase place, hand compares with {P}4, from Philo codex binding] with material from Herculaneum in Italy (that may be from ca. 40 b.c.e. on provenance grounds, with a terminus ad quem of 79 c.e.) and from Qumran in The Land, and from elsewhere in the wilderness of the Dead Sea (NaHal Hever).
Third, he compares individual letters without an appreciation of the characteristics of their formation or the hands of which they are a part. Fourth, his assembly of mss for comparisons is not a coherent set, and was apparently chosen primarily as a group of mss which *could* be dated in the first century c.e., regardless of their other features. Thiede did not recognize that a two-column codex such as {P} 64 --Magdalen Gr. 17 -- has no similarly-constructed examples with which to be compared. He does not recognize the need to provide some explanation for the appearance of a two-column codex at least a century earlier than all other examples of two-column codices. See Turner, op. cit.
Finally, Thiede (1995) and Roberts (1953) both transcribed the fragments as thought they contained <i>nomina sacra</>, and as though the use of <i>nomina sacra</> was not restricted to <gr>KURIOS, KURIE</>, or <gr>QEOS, QEOU</>, but rather extended to abbreviations of <gr>IHSOUS</>.However, and I must state this emphatically, there is no visible support" http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede.txt.final.reply

Scholars reviewing Thiede also presented some excellent reasons for thinking the Magdalen Papyrus is from 200 or later – namely, you can tell that the fragment was part of a double-columned codex, something that doesn’t appear till mid second century (and it’s interesting that Thiede completely ignores this);
http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2004/qa-aug-04.htm

it makes a great deal of difference whether they are mid-first century or late first century—as Thiede now claims—
http://www.bib-arch.org/deadseascrolls/bswbDSSSubPage.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=11&Issue=6&ArticleID=8

Well. When Thiede himself begins to reject his own theory one has to wonder what it was all about.

While the manuscript is alleged to be a recent discovery (not by Thiede, however), it actually has been known in academic circles for almost a century.
http://www.kjvonly.org/jamesp/jdprice_magdalen.htm

Let me ask a question here. How many 'recent discoveries' have become sensationalized in the media when such discoveries have been around for a long time? I can think of the Judas Gospel, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Next year, some discoverer will probably publish a Gospel by Lucifer himself!

Eddie

Only? How about styles of writing?

For instance, if you discovered a letter written by your great-great grandfather on A4 paper using laser printing, would you question the discoverer? I think the argument that Matthew wrote after the 70s is based more on textual clues and writing content.

Let's say you discover another letter in an old tin that your other great-great grandfather wrote. It is written on faded paper that looks like the kind made way back when. however, your great grandad mentions events, institutions, and technology that is ONLY known after 1995. Now what? Do you conclude that he is psychic? or do you reach for your favorite adult beverage?

Eddie

I am trained in archaeology, from years back, and there is a very useful rule that says absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is good to qualify these kinds of assertions with "To date...." That means that the fragments in question certainly could be the first to disprove the rule. The science of history and the history of science are full of just such displacements. Nobody likes these moments particularly, because they do disturb the comfy "static" quo, but they happen.




I just sat and read the article and you have clearly badly misread the text. Thiede has not contradicted himself at all.

The author of the article, as well, leaves room for the possible reception of these texts and their dating.

Mary

Elijahmaria. FIrst I would like to say I like your Hebrew name. Is this a popular byzcath name?

Let me address your comments please.
1. I don't know what you mean by a 'widely variant writing style"
2. I am not Evangelical.
3. I am familiar with Catholic biblical studies; having sat at a number of conferences with them.
4. I am not trying to "instruct the ignorant Catholic" You "folks" (to use your term)have a rich history and customs. I see more infighting between byzcaths and orthodox than shouting from the rooftops. you folks have many possible answers to the problems inherint in reformed biblical studies, especially the Evangelicals.
5. Many Catholic and Orthodo teachers don't accept the primacy of Matthew's Gospel. Matthew has a very advanced Trinitarian formula for a doxology to be early (Mt 28:20). If the world was going to end - and this waS a reality problem in the early church, why would Matthew be concerned about making disciples of all nations? The late Raymond E. Brown disagrees with you. More than likely, Matthew was written after 70 AD.
6. The order of the Gospel writings is NOT a belief or dogma of any church thta I know of. Most of this i will admit is simply theoretical. Making conclusions based on parallel contents or ommissions is not hard facts; they are just good guesses. Show me in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that it is necessary to believe that Matthew's Gospel was written first. Your article is from a Catholic Encyclopedia and you fail to mention which one; maybe 1914 edition? I have studied at a couple Catholic universities in order to take additional Bible studies. Believe me; no one knows as to the origins. They are good guesses, scholarly opinions, and sometimes media attention getters.
7. I am willing to admit, and i do often, that what i say is theoretical; what you quote is to be taken as Gospel (sorry for the pun; i just had to).
8. I just want to learn. I ask a lot of questions. That is my method of learning. I believe that I have been accused more of being anti-Catholic by Catholics when i do no such thing. but I had to endure theconstant reminder of my kind (evengelicals) when I am not an Evangelical. I ask that you cease from considering me as such and lumping me into that pot. i consider it uncharitable and not worthy of dialogue. In fact, it is very unChristian.
9. I come to your forums seeking an alternative to others. I once got kicked off one Evangelical forum because i asked tough questions about the Septuagint. More time was spent calling me all sorts of names and saying i was the Devil and a Catholic in disguise! on this forum I am an Evangelical ( i think this might mean that anyone having a love of Scripture) and on another a Catholic. I think the name calling has to stop and the topic at hand be considered.
10. We will always agree to disagree (a popular saying for some). But scholars, Catholic and nonCatholic, have alway disagreed with the origins of the Gospels. many bible scholars outside the church discount ANYTHING a Catholic scholar has to say only because he or she actually believes in the Gospels as being something more than mere moral or mythical literature. Scholars fear Catholic believers. I've seen it in various colleges and conventions. i once attended a convention on bible studies and discussed some issues with several Evangelicals. They love me; they agreed with me; they nodded their heads for what I was telling them about the Bible. Then I told them i was Catholic (for fun) and their faces were distraught; they walked away from me. Hee, hee. The topic was about John's Gospel where Jesus told his disciples to eat his body to have life in them; the words he chose was not symbolic; they too grew distraught and walked away from him.

Eddie

So that others don't get confused, I had withdrawn my comments while you were writing your own in response.

Mary

Elijamaria,

I am sure you are a good Christian woman who can spend hours having fun discussing things theological and biblical. Please keep posting; you keep me alert.

Eddie

I rarely go beyond what I have learned at the knee of my Church.

I find heady speculation to be a dead bore unless it has direct and positive bearing on the foundation of what the Church teaches and what I believe in faith. That is quite enough to keep me busy.

Mary

Elijamaria, I agree with you. Really; I do.

But the topic of this thread got me thinking. Spong made some observations about the intertwinning between Scriptrue and worship that even some Catholic scholars tend to ignore. yes spong's radical conclusions are faulty (my personal belief) but his questions are exciting. I threw out his "theory" for fun in order to keep from going into textual criticism and source theories. Imagine- the wild idea thatthe Bible came from the need for worship! Isn't this radical!?

Edde

No. It is Catholic. It is Orthodox.

Mary

Latin rite daily masses around here are full of people. Noon masses especially. People go to mass on their lunch hour. Also the readings in the Latin rite are arranged in a three year cycle A,B,C so that each day is different, in the main, for three years and then the cycle repeats itself.

Eastern Catholics and Orthodox do not always have access to daily liturgies but they very often pray some form of the hours daily and the readings for the day are available to them in that way.

Also check out the site:

http://www.dynamispublications.org/

These are top-shelf evangelical tools. I get one in my mailbox daily. There are thousands of subscribers and those who receive the print versions.

You really ought to be more aware of the people that you are speaking to and about, rather than presuming that you know.

Mary

That's why i have you to answer my questions. you don't mind explaining, do you?

How do byzcaths and orthodox hear the Word of God in church during the weekdays when they are at work or school?

A forum is a place to ask questions and discuss topics. You might think I "presume" (I don't) but you seem to "assume" that everyone thta posts here must know everything first. Is my knowledge of the Eastern Churches a prerequisite for posting here? What ever happened to shareing your faith with those who want to know? I have it hard to imagine that Catholics and Orthodox are typically people who chide people away from their churches because their guests come without knowledge. For you, I will make sure I know everything there is to know about your church (and then some) before I step foot into your church - presumptions and assumptions aside.

I really hope catholic and orthodox Christians don't treat all there guests like this. If so I would certainly notcome back to your church. i would think itis inhospitable and uncharitable. it is no wonder why Jesus welcomed the children, however ignorant they were of the Torah like the learned Scribes and Pharisees.

Eddie

I was referring to the radicalness of the idea within scholarly opinion which really doesn't believe in anything.

Have a nice day.

Eddie

Anyone who reads your posts can see what you do and the way that you do it. Right now we are at the phase called intimidation-by-guilt. Forget it.

When people seriously want to know something they ask. They come humbly and ask. They don't declare and then say 'oh...I was jest askin'!" when somebody objects to the implications, the outright assertion or the inuendo.

Go try to shame somebody else Mr. Hash. I've spent too many years bringing people into the Church. I have learned the difference between genuine interest and sly accusation. Nobody has time for those kinds of intricacies.

Weren't you the one who just told me that you know so much that you can be mistakenly thought to belong to any number of Christian churches...including the Catholic Church? And now you tell me 'ohohoh...I don't know.'

Now if you wish to speak substantivey to us here. Fine. Otherwise I have nothing more to say to you.

I beg the forgiveness of the memebers of the Forum if I have caused any distress.

Mary

May God bless you Elijamaria (Mary).
Eddie

Thank you, Mr. Hash, may His mercy be abundant in your life as well.

Mary

Mary,

Dr. Eric asked what the forum thought. I gave my two cents. Whether my replies have been considered humble enough is of no bearing on my replies. Dr. Eric's initial post was open-ended. What do you think? This can be answered in many ways. I only attempted to answer it with my own thoughts. The topic is about "How we got the Bible" Is there a right answer, Mary? If someone asked if they liked pizza with sausage and pepperoni on it and I answered "no" - would that be an acceptable answer?

I respect your faith Mary. I never asked you to walk away from it. I don't buy the accusations from Chick publicatios either. So you won't hear them from me.

This is the world of ideas. People share their ideas from different walks of life. You have your ideas; I have mine. Together we can discuss them openly and freely. Take a good look at the forums here. Many posters comment about everything written, said, done, believed and questioned under the sun. Debate happens. There is even a forum just for the Revised liturgy! If what I write is taken to hurt your or cause you to loose faith in Christ Jesus, please do refer to those points in my writing where I insulted Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

if I ask how does one hear the WOrd of God in its entirety (the Gospels here) when only 1/7 of the lections are publicaly proclaimed on the Lord's Day - it is a valid question. It is also a question that Catholic theologians discuss too. Is it ok for Catholic theologians to discuss them openly but not ok for others? i sat in classes with John P. Meier and had talks with otehr Catholic scripture scholars on the circuit discussing - and yes, debating - openly. Discussions were good. People no longer live in tiny hamlets where they can attend daily worship a few doors down before sunrise and then go to the fields to work. This is also not 18th century Rus' where the only literate people are the priests. The fact that you and I can discuss things openly on a public forum on the Internet is a far cry from days gone bye. SO my question is valid. Given this contemporary situation how DOES one hear the Word of God proclaimed in church? The romcaths have opted for a three-year cycle for their Sunday readings. the byzcaths have not. The romcaths have Old Testament readings on Sundays. the byzcaths do not. THere are real differences, real problems, and some real solutions. If an Evangelical member only proclaimed 1/7 of the Gospel lections each week, I would ask them the very same questions.

Once again, may God bless you Elijamaria (Mary). You are woman of faith and one to be admired for it. If I only had such humble faith as great as yours.

Peace,
Eddie H.

PS: My reference to me declaring that I was Catholic was to see what my Evangelical friends would say and do. Itwasn't what I said that bothered them but who they thought I was.