A question for Non-denominationals

[1beleevr]

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.

The fact remains that pride runs rampant in all of Christendom; and no one is above it! I have seen it all over this forum, on both sides! Pride is a killer, and is instrumental in dividing the Body of Christ!

 

[CWBetts]

The fact remains that pride runs rampant in all of Christendom; and no one is above it! I have seen it all over this forum, on both sides! Pride is a killer, and is instrumental in dividing the Body of Christ!

The whole reason that Protestantism even exists is because of pride. Protestantism exists because the Reformers wanted to bring about change themselves instead of through the proper method. Actually, the abuses that initially got Luther in an uproar were resoved at Trent, but pride would not allow the rebels to return to the Church.

 

[1beleevr]

The whole reason that Protestantism even exists is because of pride. Protestantism exists because the Reformers wanted to bring about change themselves instead of through the proper method. Actually, the abuses that initially got Luther in an uproar were resoved at Trent, but pride would not allow the rebels to return to the Church.

Pride is why you claim that the surest way to Heaven is through the catholic church! Pride is why the abusive priests were redirected to other parishes and not gotten rid of! Pride is why the church is paying millions of dollars to countless victims of these priests! So, it seems like pride is a disease that touches all churches!

 

[CWBetts]

Pride is why you claim that the surest way to Heaven is through the catholic church! Pride is why the abusive priests were redirected to other parishes and not gotten rid of! Pride is why the church is paying millions of dollars to countless victims of these priests! So, it seems like pride is a disease that touches all churches!

I say that the surest way to heaven out of submission to authority, not out of pride in being right. If yyou look at the statistics compiled by insurance agencies. Clerical abuse is not a CAtholic problem, it is a people problem. The same thing happens in Protestant churches, bur because they are less visible, they are ignored by the anti-Catholic press.

 

[Jon_Hus]

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.

Not that I care or anything but my ancestors arrived in Virginia 25 years before yours arrived in MD. They were trying to get away from your ancestors in the old world.

But the bigger question is why should I even waste the time and effort trying to communicate with someone who states personal opinion as fact. Back up your claims buckeroo.

 

[1beleevr]

I say that the surest way to heaven out of submission to authority, not out of pride in being right. If yyou look at the statistics compiled by insurance agencies. Clerical abuse is not a CAtholic problem, it is a people problem. The same thing happens in Protestant churches, bur because they are less visible, they are ignored by the anti-Catholic press.

You are correct about papal sexual abuse is a people issue; but when you are a high profile organization, you are more vulnerable to scrutiny! What makes it worse is when those in authority try to deny it, or deflect attention, it works to attract attention. God wishes that no man should perish, means to me, that God’s gift of grace and salvation is available to all, not just catholics! I do not believe that there will be a caste system in Heaven! We will all be saints, worshipping our God! Hey, I know this is off topic, but a friend o mine that I do street ministry with, a former catholic, told me something recently, which made me wonder, is he pulling my chain or what? He said, that the numbers on the pope’s miter add up to:666 Is that crazy or what?

 

[Nicea325]

You are correct about papal sexual abuse is a people issue; but when you are a high profile organization, you are more vulnerable to scrutiny! What makes it worse is when those in authority try to deny it, or deflect attention, it works to attract attention. God wishes that no man should perish, means to me, that God’s gift of grace and salvation is available to all, not just catholics! I do not believe that there will be a caste system in Heaven! We will all be saints, worshipping our God! Hey, I know this is off topic, but a friend o mine that I do street ministry with, a former catholic, told me something recently, which made me wonder, is he pulling my chain or what? He said, that the numbers on the pope’s miter add up to:666 Is that crazy or what?

Your friends are full of it and you can tell them I said it! First of all,if they are using the Seven Day Adventist charge about the Pope with the dreaded number of the beast, 666, as recounted in Revelations 13:18 and 15:2. They use as so-called ‘proof’ a document called, the “Donation of Constantine”, written between 750 and 800 A.D.Nonetheless, the “Donation of Constantine” is not a genuine historical Catholic document. It is widely known as a forgery. There is no official Catholic document to “prove” this charge by, and only by, Seventh Day Adventists.

In this ‘document’, the Pope is referred to as the “Vicar of the Son of GOD”, which is “Vicarius Filii Dei” in Latin. If you take the letters of this title in Roman Numeral form, they add up to 666. The title “Vicar of the Son of GOD” was never a title of the Pope. It is a Seventh Day Adventists twisting of “Vicar of Christ”, which is one of the Pope’s true titles. The book of Revelation was written in Greek, not Latin, so why do Latin numerals have anything to do with Greek?

 

[Eutychus123]

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…

I think that Samaritans, even to the modern day, only use the Torah.

 

[CWBetts]

You are correct about papal sexual abuse is a people issue; but when you are a high profile organization, you are more vulnerable to scrutiny! What makes it worse is when those in authority try to deny it, or deflect attention, it works to attract attention. God wishes that no man should perish, means to me, that God’s gift of grace and salvation is available to all, not just catholics! I do not believe that there will be a caste system in Heaven! We will all be saints, worshipping our God! Hey, I know this is off topic, but a friend o mine that I do street ministry with, a former catholic, told me something recently, which made me wonder, is he pulling my chain or what? He said, that the numbers on the pope’s miter add up to:666 Is that crazy or what?

I guess you will believe anyithing…provided it is anti-Catholic.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I think that Samaritans, even to the modern day, only use the Torah.

Yes, that is true. All 400 of them or whatever. However, lets us remember, for the sake of clarity, Samaritans are not Jews! So, what a small group of non-Jews believed about the canon is just rather…an interesting distraction in my estimation.

 

[benedictus2]

Pride is why you claim that the surest way to Heaven is through the catholic church!

Well not really. CWBetts is able to say it because that is how Christ WILLED it. Christ established a Church to be the way through which the grace of salvation will be bestowed. He did not write a book. That is something that is so very easy to comprehend which you seem determined not to understand.

I think that is the sin of against the Holy Spirit that Christ speaks of. You know deep in your being that we speak the truth, but through wilfull rejection of this truth that the Holy Spirit is leading you to you are in effect rejecting His guidance.

Pride is why the abusive priests were redirected to other parishes and not gotten rid of! Pride is why the church is paying millions of dollars to countless victims of these priests! So, it seems like pride is a disease that touches all churches!

No. This happened because of misguided notions of the nature of the problem. Also, this is not a problem for the Church alone. It is rampant even in Protestant circles.

Pride is when one says I/Me/Myself am the sole determiner of my life and morality which as a matter of course is how Protestants determine these things.

 

[dcastlen50]

Pride is why you claim that the surest way to Heaven is through the catholic church! Pride is why the abusive priests were redirected to other parishes and not gotten rid of! Pride is why the church is paying millions of dollars to countless victims of these priests! So, it seems like pride is a disease that touches all churches!

1beleevr, is it possible that the atrocities done by The Faith have been over-blown. Not that they should not have been exposed; but that there is not a prevalency of abuse within Mother Church. I can not go around and take a census to determine if this is a valid accusation nor do I have the funds. I do have experience as a returning Catholic - wonderful holy fulfilled reliogious and:

1. I am in HR Risk Management. At a two week conderence I attended sitting behind me was a Risk Manager in the Church business. I was a Baptist at the time. I mentioned to my new friend that it must be hell working with the Catholics. He told me they had just as much if not more problems. I know a person very high up in the Methodist church that said the same.
2. Please Read Sam Miller, a Jew’s view of us Catholics in “The Orates Frates” the June 24th, 2008 article by Jane Mary Evans.
3. And I know you are aware that Paul on his way back to Jerusalem in Ephesus told his young bishops there would be wolfs in the church.

Dominus vobiscum

 

[ChadS]

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.

Sure, scripture is scripture the minute it is penned, but how do we as humans know it is really scipture? The Bible just didn’t fall from the sky bound between two covers as a complete set. The New Testament writers certainly weren’t the only ones writing things at that time either so it’s not like we could say only things this old are scripture. Also, many early Christians wrote letters that in style and form aren’t much different than the ones Paul wrote. How did we ever determine they weren’t scripture? Even some of the writings we call Gnostic at first might not easily be discernible from true scripture. How did we ever determine they weren’t scripture?

As far as I’ve been able to tell Protestants can’t come up with a way to determine what is and isn’t scripture and one that was actually used by early Christians. In all their attempts to rule out or ignore the Church’s role in discerning scripture they come up with pseudo-academic processes that were never discussed by early Christians or when they stand on their own they fail miserably in discerning what is or isn’t scripture.

The fact is that without the Catholic Church’s authority in such matters and being led by the Holy Spirit the average Christian would just flounder in a sea of uncertainty about what is and isn’t scripture.

ChadS

 

[benedictus2]

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.

You were doing so well then you got that last one wrong.

The answer is a big resounding YEEESSSSSS, the Catholic Church determined the contents of the Bible because it is the Catholic Church who determined the canon of Scriptures.

That was set before time began.

Care to provide proof for that?

And we must not forget the Bible existed prior to the Catholic Church. [/qutoe]
Wrong again. If this is a right minus wrong test you’d be down to negative 2 .
The Catholic Church came before the Bible. Not before the OT but before the Bible the combined OT and NT.

It is also helpful to remember that we have different Bibles. Your church set your canon. Not mine.

Nope, for 1500 years there was only one canon. Then came one prideful man by the name of Martin Luther who thought to himself he knew better than everyone else and decided to come up with his own canon.

Just think about this, what ever your denomination is, it most like came 1500 years after Christ established His church. Most probably your Church started just a few decades ago.

 

[Eutychus123]

Yes, that is true. All 400 of them or whatever. However, lets us remember, for the sake of clarity, Samaritans are not Jews! So, what a small group of non-Jews believed about the canon is just rather…an interesting distraction in my estimation.

Yes, Samaritans are not Jews.

Distraction? This post started out discussing why ND’s don’t consider themselves Protestants.

We all seem to have veered off the orignal topic, but I find this discussion on the canon very interesting.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
It is also helpful to remember that we have different Bibles. Your church set your canon. Not mine.

How much pride can one person display? YOUR church? Not mine? So entire different church gave you an entire separate canon? Name the church? And no,you can forget the rheotric that the Jews gave us a FIXED canon prior to Christ,you do not have any conclusive proof and never will.

 

[ChadS]

And no,you can forget the rheotric that the Jews gave us a FIXED canon prior to Christ,you do not have any conclusive proof and never will.

I was thinking about this over lunch and it occurred to me there are several theological propositions that us as Christians disagree with the Jews on.

1. The divinity of Christ
2. The interpretation of several parts of the Old Testament and their meaning.
3. Whether the New Testament is scripture or not.

Yet, setting aside all other arguments about whether the Jews had a fixed canon or not, many in the Protestant community will vehemently argue we should accept the OT as given to us by the Jews because that’s what the Jews believed to be canonical. There are many areas of significant disagreement between Jews and Christians yet we should accept their judgment on this and not on say whether Christ was truly God.

I’m not trying to argue that the OT is not scripture, but in the case of the Deuterocanonical books I would be willing to argue that only a few Jews recognized their scriptural authority. The majority of Jews did not, but when the Catholic Church came along the Holy Spirit helped them discern their true authority. The OT canon to Catholics isn’t dependent upon some type of Jewish verification. The Protestant position depends upon them accepting the judgment of the Jewish people on something vitally important to our faith – a judgment that comes from a group we have significant theological differences with.

I think I’d much rather trust in the judgment of the Church than people that believe Christ’s divinity isn’t true.

ChadS

 

[Rightlydivide]

How much pride can one person display? YOUR church? Not mine? So entire different church gave you an entire separate canon? Name the church? And no,you can forget the rheotric that the Jews gave us a FIXED canon prior to Christ,you do not have any conclusive proof and never will.

You need to cut out the personal character attacks. My threads are issues and doctrinally oriented.
Yes, your church set your canon. It differs from the Eastern Orthodox canon. You did not set their canon. Your canon differs from the Oriental Orthodox canon. You did not set their canon. And you certainly did not set our canon. The Jews used a fixed canon prior to Christ and the evidence clearly indicates that. You have never been able to provide any evidence to back up your claim of a fluid canon. I provided early Christian writers, Josephus and even Deuterocanonical sources.
Your canon is too big. The Samaritans is too small. Ours is just right.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes, Samaritans are not Jews.

Distraction? This post started out discussing why ND’s don’t consider themselves Protestants.

We all seem to have veered off the orignal topic, but I find this discussion on the canon very interesting.

We are not Protestants because we are not protesting your church and we do not originate from the Protestant Reformation. We do not have the same beliefs as they do. Our beliefs originate from scripture alone. It is true that we share certain characteristics of the Radical Reformation but I cannot be sure exactly the differences. We certainly do not have any direct lineage to any group for all practical purposes. I did read Meno Simmons once and thought he had it mostly right though.
I may have been harsh saying it was a distraction. That word has a bad connotation and I will be more careful.

 

[Nicea325]

You need to cut out the personal character attacks. My threads are issues and doctrinally oriented.
Yes, your church set your canon. It differs from the Eastern Orthodox canon. You did not set their canon. Your canon differs from the Oriental Orthodox canon. You did not set their canon. And you certainly did not set our canon. The Jews used a fixed canon prior to Christ and the evidence clearly indicates that. You have never been able to provide any evidence to back up your claim of a fluid canon. I provided early Christian writers, Josephus and even Deuterocanonical sources.
Your canon is too big. The Samaritans is too small. Ours is just right.

Oh brother! Once again, Josephus NEVER says the Jews already or recently FIXED the canon…NO WHERE does he even hint it. You are the only one INSISTING the Jews had a FIXED canon prior to Jesus. Nothing you have provided…NOTHING is considered PROOF the Jews had a FIXED canon. A set of books does not equate ito a FIXED canon,which you apparently cannot distinguish.You simply read into the text and want it to say what you want to say,sorry that is not how resources are interpretated and evaluated.

I beg your pardon? I gave ample sources by many people who clearly indicate there is NOTHING conclusive supporting your claim.

Ours is the just right? And yet you still can provide a single shred of historical evidence when,who and where the Jewish canon was FIXED?.

BTW: Yours is not right because the Jewish OT order is different.Likewise,if the OT was fixed,then why did James use apocryphal references? Hhmmmmmmm? Fixed-eh?