“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

[Nicea325]

Oh no you do not. There is no proof when you guys added those to the LXX. Go look that one up. Nice try asserting something that has never been proven.
Your canon was invented around the year 400 AD. The church did support the Jewish canon early on. Thats just a fact. Your church supports your **post Ante-Nicene **canon, that is true. Oh those facts Elvisman. You assert what has never been proven. I think you know that.

Speaking of nice try! Your words:

Quote:
The Ante-Nicene and a few from a later date will reflect the support for the **Jewish canon **up until around the year 400…

ONE MORE TIME: Give me the date,location and who FIXED the OT canon prior to Jesus?

Either produce sources supporting your claim or admit you are have no credence at all. And spare me the same sources I have read my entire life.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Oh no you do not. There is no proof when you guys added those to the LXX. Go look that one up. Nice try asserting something that has never been proven.
Your canon was invented around the year 400 AD. The church did support the Jewish canon early on. Thats just a fact. Your church supports your **post Ante-Nicene **canon, that is true. Oh those facts Elvisman. You assert what has never been proven. I think you know that.

*“Your canon was **invented ***around the year 400 AD.”

Catholic Encyclopedia - On-Line (New Advent)
Search - “Cannon”
“The word canon as applied to the Scriptures has long had a special and consecrated meaning. In its fullest comprehension it signifies the authoritative list or closed number of the writings composed under Divine inspiration, and destined for the well-being of the Church, using the latter word in the wide sense of the theocratic society which began with God’s revelation of Himself to the people of Israel, and which finds its ripe development and completion in the Catholic organism. The whole Biblical Canon therefore consists of the canons of the Old and New Testaments.”
Here

That’s like saying… “The Catholic Church invented the Bible in 400 AD”, or , that the Catholic Church “invented” Christianity.

I find it interesting that you have listed, as your religion, a - " Small church that follows the Bible" considering that the Bible is a Catholic book… A book that you apparently believe was “invented” by the Catholic Church in 400 AD.

Keep in mind that the Bible didn’t invent Christianity either… The Bible document’s parts of Christian history and document’s early Christianity.

Your comments here, are especially odd, considering that there existed, no Protestant denomination until fifteen hundred years after Jesus and a thousand years after the formation of the Bible. So, I guess the next logical question for you would be, “How would you know”? Your comment here makes no sense.

Moreover, I was looking for the post where you sourced your information for this comment and couldn’t find it…can you please source your information…

Thank you.

 

[Nicea325]

"Your canon was invented around the year 400 AD."

That’s like saying… “the Catholic Church invented the Bible in 400 AD”.
I find it interesting that you list, as you religion, a - " Small church that follows the Bible" considering that the Bible is a Catholic book… A book that you apparently believe was “invented” by the Catholic Church in 400 AD.
This is especially odd, considering that there existed, no Protestant denomination until fifteen hundred years after Jesus and a thousand years after the formation of the Bible. So, I guess the next logical question for you would be, “How would you know”? Your comment here makes no sense.
Moreover, I was looking for the post where you sourced your information for this comment and couldn’t find it…can you please source your information…Thank you.

You see Jimmy it is very easy. That is what happens when people choose to open up their own church due to their own PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. All one has to do is read history and look at the scores of churches founded by human founders. The end results? Thousands upon thousands of different churches. Chaos and mass confusion. It is called HUMAN PRIDE.

God is not a God of confusion and is NOT responsible for the chaos of non-Catholic churches.

 

[Nicea325]

Oh, so a bishop is not official. Or well, official enough. Listen Elvisman, you guys can stick to your canon. No one else in Christianity happens to agree with you including the other “apostolic” churches but hey thats okay.
You know, you could reply a lot faster if you would not spend as much time working on presentation…just saying…I am okay with just black. I will not be insulted.

Rightlydivide, no offense but you really need to stop. Your lack of understanding Catholicism is at times rather sad. Catholicism is not about one bishop. No one else in Christianity happens to agree with our canon? LOL! No offense,but that is rather ignorant and laughable. Do you want me to POST what both my NIV and NKJ Study Bibles state about the LXX and the early church?

On the contrary,YOU and all the “johnny-come-lately” churches want to stick to Jewish canon settled AFTER Jesus,by all means have it.

Other apostolic churches? Name the so-called the Apostolic churches to verify they truly are Apostolic?

 

[1beleevr]

No. You did not. The OT canon of Christ was the OT canon we currently use. The early church until around the year 400 AD used the same canon as we do-for the most part. There were a few exceptions to be sure. However, the very earliest lists match our canon.

You know what’s cool? Jesus made this promise to us too! Yippee, Hallelujah!

 

[elvisman]

Oh, so a bishop is not official. Or well, official enough. Listen Elvisman, you guys can stick to your canon. No one else in Christianity happens to agree with you including the other “apostolic” churches but hey thats okay.
You know, you could reply a lot faster if you would not spend as much time working on presentation…just saying…I am okay with just black. I will not be insulted.

**Ahhhh . . . another color-phobe. **
Well, it’s usually about the time they realize they’ve LOST the debate that the comments about color come out. You are completely ignorant about the Catholic Church, its teachings and its history.

A Bishop cannot declare the canon of Scripture or any other teaching regarding faith or morals oon his own and hold it binding to the Church.
That’s the problem with Protestantism. Too many conflicting "truths" leads to too many splintered "churches" . . .

 

[elvisman]

Yes Philadelphia was doing well. But lets not drop the biggies. Corinth. Rome. Man Paul just complimented those churches and never admonished them for problems…oh wait…HE DID.
Listen you guys love Matthew but you forget to read the rest of the book to find out how bad things were getting. Same old story. Like Noah’s Ark, only a handful in the end. Thats what happened several hundreds of years later too. Same old story but God never allows His Truth to be completely supressed. That is also the same OLD but good story.
Is this a good time to bring out the early church father from around 125 AD who says the same thing I am saying?

Sure, we love Matthew. We also love Paul, Jude, Peter, John and the rest of the authors of the NT. They, too were - and still ARE Catholics. No matter how much you try to squelch the truth of God, Jesus guaranteed that his Church would prevail - even against the gates of hell.

You keep blathering on about a fixed canon of the OT centuries before the Church declared it’s canon but you fail to give us any proof. Please - I BEG of you - prove me wrong with some official Jewish documents regarding a fixed canon prior to Jesus.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Salvation Assurance?

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 24:13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

Rom 8:16 For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God.

Rom 8:17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

Php 2:12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

1Co 9:27 But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

1Co 10:12 Wherefore, he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall.

Gal 5:4 You are made void of Christ, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from grace.

2Ti 2:11 A faithful saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall live also with him.

2Ti 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us.

2Ti 2:13 If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he cannot deny himself.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

Heb 6:5 Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come,

Heb 6:6 And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God and making him a mockery.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins:

Heb 10:27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries.
Thank you for all the work Prodigal Son1.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You see Jimmy it is very easy. That is what happens when people choose to open up their own church due to their own PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. All one has to do is read history and look at the scores of churches founded by human founders. The end results? Thousands upon thousands of different churches. Chaos and mass confusion. It is called HUMAN PRIDE.

God is not a God of confusion and is NOT responsible for the chaos of non-Catholic churches.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Ahhhh . . . another color-phobe.
**Well, it’s usually about the time they realize they’ve LOST **the debate that the comments about color come out. You are completely ignorant about the Catholic Church, its teachings and its history.

**A Bishop cannot **declare the canon of Scripture or any other teaching regarding faith or morals oon his own and hold it binding to the Church.
That’s the problem with Protestantism. Too many conflicting "truths" leads to too many splintered "churches" . . .

**

Ahhhh . . . another

color-phobe.
**Well, it’s usually about the time they realize they’ve LOST **the debate
**
**another color-phobe **:extrahappy:

 

[Jimmy_B]

“Once Saved Always Saved” or “OSAS” is an errant belief that many Protestant Christians hold to and there are many different “Protestant” definitions of what “OSAS” actually means.

Which leads us to the second errant Protestant belief, which allows for the “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

These two beliefs came from man’s ego and and his own intellect and not from God. They are both anti-biblical and anti-Christian, they are nonsensical and they do not work in the real world. They are both a contradiction.

Many more beliefs that are false have arose from these first two false beliefs (OSAS and Personal interpretation) and they have cause much division and many, million individual cases, where people actually belong to the “religion of their own intellect and ego” and not to any Church that Jesus Christ founded and that God intended for all men.

I am a Roman Catholic, so obviously I disagree with these two fabricated, man-made errors; “OSAS” and “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”.

What are your thoughts?

---

 

[Padrej]

No. The author of Hebrews alluded to one of these books but not as scripture. There may be a few other references but Catholic scholars know that no direct quotes exist. I am sure you are aware that several quotes of Jesus line up with the LXX, MT, and then not to either one. I am sure you do Elvisman.
No you are entitled to have your canon as only accepted by your church. I do not begrudge you, or the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox having different canons…unable to decide. If you had followed the teachings of the original church, which clearly was the Jewish canon, it would simplify things.
You also know that someone thinking something was right for a long time means nothing as well. The story of scripture is a very small group of people being right and everyone else being wrong. Broad is the path that leads to destruction and narrow is the path that leads to everlasting life. I will stick to the narrow path.

Funny when Luther translated his German Bible he included the Deuterocanonicals in there. The reason they were in a separate section is due to the Septuagint places them separately as they were in Greek not Hebrew. Now that we have the dead sea scrolls these same texts were found to have also been written in Hebrew. Funny that most Protestants like to shove that fact under the carpet as it messes up their theology of what is part of the canon and what is not. I might also add that the 1611 King James had these books included, it was not until the American Bible society came along in the 1800’s that they were finally removed because of printing costs.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Funny when Luther translated his German Bible he included the Deuterocanonicals in there. The reason they were in a separate section is due to the Septuagint places them separately as they were in Greek not Hebrew. Now that we have the dead sea scrolls these same texts were found to have also been written in Hebrew. Funny that most Protestants like to shove that fact under the carpet as it messes up their theology of what is part of the canon and what is not. I might also add that the 1611 King James had these books included, it was not until the American Bible society came along in the 1800’s that they were finally removed because of printing costs.

Bishop/Padre JB
How many of the Deuterocanonical books were found in the DSS? 3
What does the following underlined sentence mean? You will need to elaborate before I correct it possibly.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ahhhh . . another color phobe.
Well, it’s usually about the time they realize they’ve LOST the debate that the comments about color come out. You are completely ignorant about the Catholic Church, its teachings and its history.

**A Bishop cannot **declare the canon of Scripture or any other teaching regarding faith or morals oon his own and hold it binding to the Church.
That’s the problem with Protestantism. Too many conflicting "truths" leads to too many splintered "churches" . . .

Elvis…this is scary…I have always ribbed you about your choice of colors. You do remember that…right? Or did you get confused again…like thinking that Judith was written before Isaiah?
No, actually, I am teaching you some things it appears. Which I do not mind doing because I am a very patient person

 

[Rightlydivide]

=Jimmy B;6835409
another color-phobe

Where have you been? I am the original in this matter. Not another…

 

[Padrej]

Bishop/Padre JB
How many of the Deuterocanonical books were found in the DSS? 3
What does the following underlined sentence mean? You will need to elaborate before I correct it possibly.

The Septuagint places the Deuterocanonicals in a separate section with the footnote that they were not found in Hebrew but were in Greek and circulating amongst the Greek speaking Jews. For YEARS it was thought that these book were not inspired because they appeared only in Greek. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, these same books were found to be written in Hebrew. So obviously the Hebrews of Jesus’ day did have them and were referring to them. To give you an example in John’s gospel it mentions Jesus walking in Solomon’s portico during the “winter festival.” What is that festival but Hanukkah which commemorates the restoration of the temple during the Maccabean period. IF as some Protestants say they (the book of Maccabees particularly) were NEVER used why do you have Jesus in the temple during that period with a specific mention of the festival?

the only two books that Luther left out were 1&2 Esdras.

 

[FrJohnB]

The Septuagint places the Deuterocanonicals in a separate section with the footnote that they were not found in Hebrew but were in Greek and circulating amongst the Greek speaking Jews. For YEARS it was thought that these book were not inspired because they appeared only in Greek. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, these same books were found to be written in Hebrew. So obviously the Hebrews of Jesus’ day did have them and were referring to them. To give you an example in John’s gospel it mentions Jesus walking in Solomon’s portico during the “winter festival.” What is that festival but Hanukkah which commemorates the restoration of the temple during the Maccabean period. IF as some Protestants say they (the book of Maccabees particularly) were NEVER used why do you have Jesus in the temple during that period with a specific mention of the festival?

the only two books that Luther left out were 1&2 Esdras.

Padre
It may not be worth even debating with Rightlydivide on this as It is clear from one of his posts that he felt the the Catholic church has extra beliefs that are not in the Bible because he has a Protestant Bible that does not contain all the books. If he had gone to seminary like we have he would know what you speak about. Let him think he is on the “straight and narrow” as he claims. Maybe he needs to read the passage of scripture that “pride goes before the fall.”

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Septuagint places the Deuterocanonicals in a separate section with the footnote that they were not found in Hebrew but were in Greek and circulating amongst the Greek speaking Jews. For YEARS it was thought that these book were not inspired because they appeared only in Greek. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, these same books were found to be written in Hebrew. So obviously the Hebrews of Jesus’ day did have them and were referring to them. To give you an example in John’s gospel it mentions Jesus walking in Solomon’s portico during the “winter festival.” What is that festival but Hanukkah which commemorates the restoration of the temple during the Maccabean period. IF as some Protestants say they (the book of Maccabees particularly) were NEVER used why do you have Jesus in the temple during that period with a specific mention of the festival?

the only two books that Luther left out were 1&2 Esdras.

Bishop/Padre JB
And future guests if they show up
You think that…John only knew about this festival or what it celebrates from a book? Do you only know about Halloween or the 4th of July from a book? That may not be your intention. Of course Maccabees has some accurate history. That is one of the reasons we enjoy having them around to read but certainly not canonical. The reference part is tricky. We acknowledge a few references, nothing unusal about noncanonical writings being referenced here and there. None are attributed to as scripture like the other references from canonical OT books.

How many of the Deuterocanonical books were found in Hebrew? Thanks, you do not seem to be clear on that for me.

 

[Rightlydivide]

He did show up! Welcome Father JB!
Is Rev JB coming too?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Padre
It may not be worth even debating with Rightlydivide on this as It is clear from one of his posts that he felt the the Catholic church has extra beliefs that are not in the Bible because he has a Protestant Bible that does not contain all the books. If he had gone to seminary like we have he would know what you speak about. Let him think he is on the “straight and narrow” as he claims. Maybe he needs to read the passage of scripture that “pride goes before the fall.”

What seminary did you attend if you do not mind me asking?
Thank you.