A question for Non-denominationals

[benedictus2]

I don’t think one can narrow it down to one religion, cult, sect, denomination, being more prideful than another! I have encontered Christians from numerous denominations(including catholics) who were extremely prideful, bordering on arrogance! Pride is a destructive human trait, which when choked on, rather than swallowed, can bring much grief to that person, and those arounf him/her! The middle letter in pride is ‘I’. For many of us, it is all about us, to heck with everyone else! What if Jesus had thought that way? Where would we be today? I have found that one of the best antidotes for pride, is humility:thumbsup: Must we defend ourselves against claims of pride, or is it possible that the person claiming we are prideful is simply transferring his own prideful feelings on us?

It is true that everyone has pride. The pride we speak of when it comes to religion is this I/Me/Myself am magisterium and pope all in one that you see in the ever splintering protestant denomination.

Catholics are not immune to it. I see it so often in the cafeteria variant. And there are many.

It takes a lot of humility to bow to the Magisterium. And one is not asked to bow to a humanly inspired magisterium. So that it will not grate so much, Christ made a provision - that He will send His Holy Spirit. And He also said to them, whoever hears you, hears Me.

It is understable that the spiritual progeny of Luther and Calvin would go down this road since they practically made a doctrine out of pride.

You can only submit in humility to Christ’s appointed teachers when you are ready to dethrone Pope 1Believer.

 

[Eutychus123]

We as humans can only speculate what “journey”, the thief took after dying! But, we do know that the Maker promised him, he would be in paradise, someday!

I think he said “Today”.

 

[CWBetts]

I think he said “Today”.

Yes, he did say “Today”! Which fits perfectly with Catholic doctrine. There is the idea of “Baptism of Desire,” wherein if one dies before being baptized, but had every intention of doing so, is still conferred those graces. And before purgatory is brought up, understand that the sacrament of baptism cleanses ups of original sin, personal sin, and the temporal punishment die sin. In other words, if one is baptized immediately before death, or expresses this desire (as the thief on the cross), then the temporal punishment due his sins are gone, and there is no need for further cleansing in purgatory.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Did Jesus write a book or did He build a Church?

Don’t you think that if all Jesus wanted was for us to follow a book He would have spent His time on earth writing one?

Do you have any idea how the Bible came to be?

Dear seminary student CWBetts,

Are you asking a question(s) or making a statement(s)?

 

[Nicea325]

Did Jesus write a book or did He build a Church?

Don’t you think that if all Jesus wanted was for us to follow a book He would have spent His time on earth writing one?

Do you have any idea how the Bible came to be?

Exactly! If Jesus had left a book-alone faith,then I am wondering why He never bothers to tell the12 to start writing everything down? Moreover,if we are to follow the written word alone,then some of the Apostles failed because many of them did not write anything down. Where does scripture teach the church was founded from the Bible?

Jesus founded His Church and scripture in a sense is a ‘recording’ of those events and His teachings,not a replacement.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Did Jesus write a book or did He build a Church?

Don’t you think that if all Jesus wanted was for us to follow a book He would have spent His time on earth writing one?

Do you have any idea how the Bible came to be?

I am sure they were doing what he wanted. Not all of them may have had the skills to write like Matthew, John, and Peter did. No, I think it turned out the way he wanted by having his Apostles write it down.

 

[Saul_DelTarso]

You should take your own advice and learn both sides of the equation. Here is a question to ponder, what was the main reason the puritans left the old country for the new? And you say the country was then settled, that would put the puritan invasion into catholic north america in the late 19th century, after the civil war. You also link the puritans with government oppression, since when did the US Congress outlaw the catholic church?

So, from your august and exhaustive learning, you have it that there were no Catholics in America until after the Civil war, and that no Catholics, Quakers, or Jews were persecuted by Puritans? Laughable at best, and completely in error. My own Catholic ancestors arrived here from Holland in Maryland in 1639. I think you should check your facts. Your educators have failed you. There is much more to the question than you are aware of.

 

[Nicea325]

I am sure they were doing what he wanted. Not all of them may have had the skills to write like Matthew, John, and Peter did. No, I think it turned out the way he wanted by having his Apostles write it down.

Okay,but Jesus still founded His Church,not a book later to be called the Bible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Okay,but Jesus still founded His Church,not a book later to be called the Bible.

Without the Bible, you would have no first hand knowledge about what He taught.

 

[CWBetts]

Without the Bible, you would have no first hand knowledge about what He taught.

Without the Catholic Church, there is no Bible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Without the Catholic Church, there is no Bible.

Depends on what you mean by that. Scripture is scripture the minute it is penned. Catholics and Fundamentalists agree on that. Did the Catholic Church translate and copy the Bible throughout history? Yes. Did the Catholic Church determine the contents of the Bible? No. That was set before time began. And we must not forget the Bible existed prior to the Catholic Church. The Hebrew scriptures were inspired and used in some cases for over a thousand years. So its all about the context of what you mean.
It is also helpful to remember that we have different Bibles. Your church set your canon. Not mine.

 

[CWBetts]

Depends on what you mean by that. Scripture is scripture the minute it is penned. Catholics and Fundamentalists agree on that. Did the Catholic Church translate and copy the Bible throughout history? Yes. Did the Catholic Church determine the contents of the Bible? No. That was set before time began. And we must not forget the Bible existed prior to the Catholic Church. The Hebrew scriptures were inspired and used in some cases for over a thousand years. So its all about the context of what you mean.
It is also helpful to remember that we have different Bibles. Your church set your canon. Not mine.

The Catholic Church is the only body throughout history that has the authority to establish the Canon. PERIOD. You do not have that authority, I don’t have that authority, and neither did the reformers that decided to edit parts of it out. The Church and ONLY the Church. There were Hebrew Scriptures that predated the Church, wans what was considered Scripture varied, depending on which sect you asked. The Sadducee Canon only included the Pentateuch. The Pharisees Canon was similar to the Protestant Old Testament. The Jews of the Diaspora and the Essenes used the Septuagint (LXX), which is the Canon that was affirmed by the Catholic Church starting in the 4th century. The Catholic Church set the Christian Canon in AD 392. It was reaffirmed 1424 (Florence) and again at Trent (1546). Trent was the only council after the Protestant editors decided to remove Scripture. In a manner of speaking, the Canon was set before the foundation of the world, but it was revealed through the Catholic Church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Catholic Church is the only body throughout history that has the authority to establish the Canon. PERIOD. You do not have that authority, I don’t have that authority, and neither did the reformers that decided to edit parts of it out. The Church and ONLY the Church. There were Hebrew Scriptures that predated the Church, wans what was considered Scripture varied, depending on which sect you asked. The Sadducee Canon only included the Pentateuch. The Pharisees Canon was similar to the Protestant Old Testament. The Jews of the Diaspora and the Essenes used the Septuagint (LXX), which is the Canon that was affirmed by the Catholic Church starting in the 4th century. The Catholic Church set the Christian Canon in AD 392. It was reaffirmed 1424 (Florence) and again at Trent (1546). Trent was the only council after the Protestant editors decided to remove Scripture. In a manner of speaking, the Canon was set before the foundation of the world, but it was revealed through the Catholic Church.

The Sadducee canon and Pharisee canon theory is a myth. Well of course you will not believe me. There is no real evidence of such existing. Its a theory. A theory held by those who also hold other theories like the Apostle John did not write John but a community did. Oh those scholars have lots of theories.
Now I do not expect you to believe me. But on the slight chance you will dig into it, let me know what primary evidence you find supporting it.
Is there writings from ANY Jew or historian from around say 400 BC to 200 AD suggesting this? No. Its a theory based upon existing presuppositions.
The Catholic Church did not set the canon in 392. If they did, why for example did parts of Christianity continue to have different canons.
Take Revelation for example. Did all of Christianity support Revelation…say some parts of the Eastern Church?
Like I said, you do not have to believe me, I mean why should you?
Doesn’t matter to me. You follow the canon your church set. Does the Eastern Orthodox follow your canon? No.
Oriental Orthodox? No
Protestants? No.
So when you say your church set the canon, how is it that none of the other three major groups have your canon?
Think about it…

 

[Nicea325]

Without the Bible, you would have no first hand knowledge about what He taught.

False premise! The first Christians had no Bible in hand to read,let alone have the ability to read.The people were taught orally first!

 

[1beleevr]

Your bald denial does nothing to refute the assertions raised in my previous post.

Your statements, which I was addressing, would be worrying even to your average ‘Sola Scriptura’ non-denominational Protestant pastor.

What is your understanding of heresy, if you are so sure you have expressed nothing of the sort?

To be fair, were I incorrigibly heterodox and ignorant of orthodoxy, no doubt I would declare myself incapable of heresy: with such conviction that only simple-mindedness can sustain.

As soon as you prove without a shadow of a doubt, that I was bordering on heresy, rather than disagreeing with your position, then I will explain my side!

 

[Nicea325]

The Sadducee canon and Pharisee canon theory is a myth. Well of course you will not believe me. There is no real evidence of such existing. Its a theory. A theory held by those who also hold other theories like the Apostle John did not write John but a community did. Oh those scholars have lots of theories.
Now I do not expect you to believe me. But on the slight chance you will dig into it, let me know what primary evidence you find supporting it.
Is there writings from ANY Jew or historian from around say 400 BC to 200 AD suggesting this? No. Its a theory based upon existing presuppositions.
The Catholic Church did not set the canon in 392. If they did, why for example did parts of Christianity continue to have different canons.
Take Revelation for example. Did all of Christianity support Revelation…say some parts of the Eastern Church?
Like I said, you do not have to believe me, I mean why should you?
Doesn’t matter to me. You follow the canon your church set. Does the Eastern Orthodox follow your canon? No.
Oriental Orthodox? No
Protestants? No.
So when you say your church set the canon, how is it that none of the other three major groups have your canon?
Think about it…

Sadducee canon and Pharisee canon theory is a myth.

Oh much like the belief by some who believe the Jews already had a fixed canon prior to Jesus?

BTW:

You choose not reply to me,that is your issue,but I can reply to whoever I choose,including you!

 

[CWBetts]

The Sadducee canon and Pharisee canon theory is a myth. Well of course you will not believe me. There is no real evidence of such existing. Its a theory. A theory held by those who also hold other theories like the Apostle John did not write John but a community did. Oh those scholars have lots of theories.
Now I do not expect you to believe me. But on the slight chance you will dig into it, let me know what primary evidence you find supporting it.
Is there writings from ANY Jew or historian from around say 400 BC to 200 AD suggesting this? No. Its a theory based upon existing presuppositions.
The Catholic Church did not set the canon in 392. If they did, why for example did parts of Christianity continue to have different canons.
Take Revelation for example. Did all of Christianity support Revelation…say some parts of the Eastern Church?
Like I said, you do not have to believe me, I mean why should you?
Doesn’t matter to me. You follow the canon your church set. Does the Eastern Orthodox follow your canon? No.
Oriental Orthodox? No
Protestants? No.
So when you say your church set the canon, how is it that none of the other three major groups have your canon?
Think about it…

There is a very simple reason why they do not: They left the Church. Why? Pride. They wanted to go their own way instead of following the Church established bu Christ. Your cry of “its a myth” does not hold water. I know scholars (for mer Protestant pastors actually) who have forgotten more about the Scriptures than either you or I know. I will take their word over yours any day.

 

[1beleevr]

Don’t expect a reasoned response. You are dealing with someone who’s standard MO is the one-liner.

You should know!

 

[1beleevr]

The Gospel tells us clearly that only the Twelve were with Christ at the Last Supper, and He had intentionally planned it to be so.
In the original Greek, the phrase ‘do this in remembrance’ has the special sense of offering sacrifice, something that only a special Levite/priest could do (remember what happened when Korah told Moses that all the Israelites had the right to act as priests?).
How is it that right from the time of the Apostles, for 1800 years, all Christians believed that the Eucharist was not for ‘everyone’ to celebrate?

For the relevant Scripture and Tradition, follow this link:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

Well, D-U-H! Everyone knows that the twelve were there with Christ at the Last Supper! But, why do we celebrate communion; if His promise were not for us?

 

[Rightlydivide]

There is a very simple reason why they do not: They left the Church. Why? Pride. They wanted to go their own way instead of following the Church established bu Christ. Your cry of “its a myth” does not hold water. I know scholars (for mer Protestant pastors actually) who have forgotten more about the Scriptures than either you or I know. I will take their word over yours any day.

Its not really a Catholic/Protestant disagreement. Tell you what. While Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, disagree in our conclusions about the Palestinian canon being set, he does address this in an evenhanded manner
google the phrase
Palestinian/Alexandrian canon theory