Bishopite:
There was no fixed canon in Jesus’ time. Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Old Testament Septuagint but their was not a “fixed” canon in Jesus’ day. There was the Alexandrian canon which included the dueterocanonicals, there was a Pharisial canon (which ironically included all of the Protestant 66 books) a Saducee canon (which included the pentateuch the first five books of the Bible as they didn’t affirm the resurection) and there was a Qumron canon which scholars don’t precisely know what was in it. So there were at least four canons within Jesus’ day and again there was NO fixed canon in Jesus time. Didn’t you know that the Saducees and Pharsees disagreed to what was the OT canon?
On this thread, I am watching you systematically dismantle your post to me on that other thread concerning your “human reason,” and the “reasonableness of the Catholic position.”
Your thinking is so Westernized, that you cannot accept something unless it is been “officially” defined, and named.
The fact that the apostles, and the Lord referred to OT writings in the NT is irrefutable; add to that, the fact that the apostles, and the Lord clearly expected the Jews to recognize the writings to which they referred, and that the Jews
did recognize the writings to which they were being referred, and one arrives at the conclusion that a collection of writings existed that all of them knew—that would be a canon, whether or not you know its specific name.
That’s common sense; common sense that, it seems to me, your “human reason” has smothered in you—you can’t see the forest for the trees.
That was your position concerning Athanasius’ list: it’s not a canon until it’s recognized by a council as being a canon. :whacky: —Westernized.
Bishopite:
Great, we finally agree on at least two issues.
Your “human reason” has once again failed you.
Knowing my position as well as you claim to know my position, your “human reason,” if operating properly, should have reasonably concluded that my saying the writings of the reformers, ECFs, infallible teaching magisterium,
are scripture was a typographical error; but your “human reason” missed that accurate conclusion.
Bishopite:
Oh, I thought you said you gave me a personal dispensation for not having to give you the list. Boy I was wrong.
I know the list doesn’t exist.
You have a 2,000 year old “infallible teaching magisterium” which claims the ability to infallibly interpret both scripture, and oral tradition, and which cannot supply its members with a comprehensive, up-to-date list of oral tradition; and that “infallible teacher” has infallibly defined, what, 8 verses of scripture in the past 2,000 years?
Bishopite:
Or you can read this link which shows a plethora of examples from scripture where oral Tradition is used…
Thanks for the link, but you misrepresent its contents.
Why is it you continually refer to ex-protestant pastors to explain your beliefs, instead of referring to the teachings of your “infallible teaching magisterium?”
It seems to me that ex-protestant pastors have a better understanding of your faith than either you, or your infallible teachers do.
And you ask me what I mean by “modern, neo-Catholicism.”
