Oliver,
Thanks for this discussion. Could you post some of the argument contained in the PDF correspondence. Just acknowledge the section and identify your comments.

I enclosed here a paragraph from my commentary on the book of Job.

"It is essential that all orthodox Biblical revelation is consistent with its most intrinsic Torah principle, “there is no god beside Yahweh ”. This truth is also upheld by Jesus in Mark 12: 29 . The titles we use for “God” in our culture are not as significant as the understanding of the exclusive character the name represents. Wether we call God, Almighty God, El Shaddai as the ancient Hebrew patriarchs, Yahweh as the Israelites, Eloahh as the Edomites, Elahh as the Babylonian monotheists, Allah as the Arabic monotheistic tribes, or Lord; providing our understanding embodies the true character and faithfully represents the person of this unique and only almighty God. That His power, and revelation to man is consistent with a true representation. Christ our Lord revealed to us the true expressed character of our God, as the loving Father who can forgive the repentant sinner and has begotten us of His Spirit. Though the name we use is not significant, it is imperative we recognise the demonstration of His powerful presence and revelation in the Earth."

Oly....interesting questions.

On the surface it might seem obvious that:

If I reject Sola Ecclesia and claim Sola Scriptura as the foundation for the Churches doctrines..... that the Council of not only Nicea but many others also, contradict that state of affairs as it was 'The Church' which decided which scriptures to include and which to reject?

As I said.."on the surface".

The councils were more about recognizing and establishing that which was already in practice and accepted, than developing doctrines of their own.

That disputes will arise is no surprise... that it takes a gathering of Godly Believers to resolve them is also understandable.

I suggest though, that the councils used Scripture as their reference point, not their ecclesiastical authority of the day.
That Christ was both God and man was already accepted. Only when this existing belief was challenged by heretics did it become neccessary to codify this as a specific belief.

This isn't the place for a long blurb about Church history, but it is there I believe for the serious enquirer to ferret out.
blessings.

Dear Oly,

Barbara Thiering in her book,
"Jesus The Man..." gives an
interesting explanation of
"Hierarchy," (Appendix III)p.332.

On page 340, Thiering gives an account
of the titles, "Lord," and "God,"
and "Yahweh/God gave."...

It may be of interest to you to check
this out, if you haven't already done so.

Also, Abram Leon Sachar, in his book,
"A History of the Jews," (5th edition),
gives many concepts of "Yahweh."
Perhaps you could get hold of this book
from your local library?

Oliver, I just want to back up a moment to your opinion that: "British monarchs have usurped as dynastic the title, Defender of the Faith, which was awarded to the Catholic (and he died one) Henry VIII, for his "personal" theistic scholarship. Calling QE II Defender of the Faith is a bit like saying the grandchildren on Olympians have gold medals too."

This was an issue, remember, that was flung about a lot both at Henry's death and at the time of the Interregnum and encompasses the entire question of the rights and duties of English royalty, let alone the more important one of dynastic succession. Only by siding with those who interpret this title as meaning Defender of the Catholic Faith could poor little Lady Jane be considered the "rightful" hier.

I was startled at the subjectiveness of your opinion which is the strictly Catholic viewpoint. If supportive of the Catholic viewpoint historicly, why not from the contemporary POV of the issue of this thread?

(Curious - not combatative)

Philo,

My source is correspondence between the Vatican and an Australian Archbishop. It might not be proper to name the folks involved. Under the Papal emblem, the letterhead reads, "Congregato de Cultu Divino Et Dispina Sacramentorum".

Hope all is well you.

p.s. I am not Archbishop, it is merely a cc to me.

Romany,

Thanks for your comment. I will come back to you again soon: I am an academic in the middle of marking.

However, in the short-term, I agree with you, that my comments did take a strong Catholic slant, but not because I was promoting Catholicism, rather, because Defender of The Faith was a Catholic Award/Acknowledgement by a Catholic Pope, to a Catholic King. I guess the difference between Church of England is, the former was externally conferred, presumably to one person, for scholarship; while the latter, is a transmution of the former, is self-adopted and is dynastic. The former is perhaps my like the Templeton Prize and the latter an hereditary title.

Kind regards,

O,