F
Fredricks
Guest
I am not interested in CONVERTING you.I’m sorry to hear that. The reciprocal is definitely not true. We care very much about you.
I am not interested in CONVERTING you.I’m sorry to hear that. The reciprocal is definitely not true. We care very much about you.
But they are in schism. Protestantism has not died out. Does that make it true? What were you hoping to prove by this response?The different branches of Orthodoxy I mentioned have not died out.
Finally, some other posters have asked what I believe to be a very fair and reasonable question. How do you, as a Protestant, know what canon to use?
I am only going to answer Awfuls questions on the foundation thread for now. I find the fact that anyone can still be interested in this topic when the basketball game of the CENTURY, or last century as well, is about to be played in less than 3 hours!God bless!
I would suggest that your wavering brethren read the history of Christianity, including the Didache and the writings of the early Church Fathers. There have been quite a few conversions from Protestantism to the Church after sincere efforts to discover what the early Church believed.You know, it is around this time that wonder if you guys have actually read the history of Christianity.
Anyway, 10 against one, cannot answer them all. I think I will go to the library and wait for Awful on Foundations. I am only going to talk to him for awhile because he is insistent and seems reasonable.
To the wavering Protestants for whom Fredericks has shown much concern, how do you know that all of the books in your Bible are inspired?I am not interested in CONVERTING you.
We have all the time in the world, so don’t let that be a deterrant. We honestly wish to know how it is that you get your canon, and we look forward to your answer.to be serious, it is a good question, worthy of an answer that takes quite awhile to answer and perhaps Awful will ask that one. You guys take, one second to answer it, church authority, it takes us awhile longer. Surely you can understand that.
Good luck with the GED Fredricks.Did you find an example of a factual error you could cite?
I thought the things I did post to be common knowledge but if you see some error(s), I am sure you will point them. They could be there, I, as everyone else, understand that Wikipedia is open to errors. I always appreciate scholars and their learned insight into this issue.
I will now continue to study for my GED, I think I have a real shot this time!
I think in this case GED stands for Greatly Edited Documents.Good luck with the GED Fredricks.
Thanks. I was hoping for a more indepth discussion of the canon of Scripture. It appears Fredericks’ thesis is that we poor Catholics don’t know much about history, and that’s why we cling to the most ancient Bible canon in Christian history.Too bad Fred saw fit to leave us for a basketball game - justdave answered his question to a tee and Fred didn’t even bother to acknowledge it!
Sorry 'bout that Dave. It was a great answer!
Code:**For the first hundred years,** at least, of it’s history the Church’s Scriptures, in the precise sense of the word, consisted **exclusively of the Old Testament.** The books comprising what later become known as the New Testament were of course, already in existence; practically all of them had been written well before the first century ended, and they were familiar to and used by second century writers. **They had not yet been elevated, however, to the special status of canonical Scriptures….**
It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the … books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism.… It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha, or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hand of Christians was … the Greek translation known as the Septuagint…. most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew….
In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas, and from 2 (4) Esdras and Ecclessiasticus in the latter. Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary. Towards the close of the second century, when as a result of controversy with the Jews it became known that [the Jews] were united in repudiating the deutero-canonical books, hesitations began to creep in….
For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense…. The same inclusive attitude … was authoritatively displayed at the Synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperious, Bishop of Toulouse, in 405.
So, now that I have been alerted that all this has been for me I’ll start a thread on whether or not the Church was one before the Great Schism.there was a certain poster who liked to claim the church was one prior to 1054. My posts were geared towards that person.
The best policy then would be to refrain from contributing any information about which you do not wish feedback.As far as the basketball comment, critizicing a man for watching basketball goes beyond the scope of charitable conversation, especially when the team is going to the Sweet Sixteen.
Here is a better question, sinse you infer it by your presentation. Show us historically and patricically that the protestant church fathers preserved canon and gave it to the world.We have heard people on here contend that the Catholic church was the only CHURCH prior to 1054.
They sure seemed to disagree a lot. Why would Catholics contend that the “Church” was one until Protestants divided them?
Why did certain parts of this “Church” have a different canon?
If the “Church” had authority and Sacred Tradition on its side, why all the problems?
"[Diatessaron: c. 173, a one-volume harmony of the four Gospels, translated and compiled by Tatian the Assyrian into Syriac. In Syriac speaking churches, it effectively served as the only New Testament scripture until Paul’s Letters were added during the 3rd century. Some believe that Acts was also used in Syrian churches alongside the Diatessaron [citation needed], however, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 4.29.5 states Tatian rejected Paul’s Letters and Acts. In the 4th century, the Doctrine of Addai lists a 17 book NT canon using the Diatessaron and Acts and 15 Pauline Epistles (including 3rd Corinthians). The Diatessaron was eventually replaced in the 5th century by the Peshitta, which contains a translation of all the books of the 27-book NT except for 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation and is the Bible of the Syriac Orthodox Church where some members believe it is the original New Testament, see Aramaic primacy.
Orthodox Synod in Trullo: in 692, rejected by Pope Constantine, approved Gregory Theologus’ 22 book OT and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation) and the Canons of the Apostles of the Apostolic Constitutions of which Canon #85 [18] is a list of the 27-book OT plus Judith, Sirach, 1-3Maccabees, Didache, 1-2Clement, and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation), and the Apostolic Constitutions which themselves were rejected because they were said to contain heretical interpolations.
Nicephorus: the Patriarch of Jerusalem, 806-815, in a Stichometria [19] appended to the end of his Chronography rejected Esther, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Enoch, Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Clement, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews, 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, Revelation, Apocalypse of Peter."
Wikipedia article on the Canon
This undermines Sola Scriptura moreso than Sacred Tradition!People sure are being selective.
Why did different parts of the “Church” use different books prior to and after 1054. Why could they not agree? What does this say about Sacred Tradition?
Maybe someone needs to be reminded of what you posted earlier, Eden. EVEN MARTIN LUTHER ADMITTED THIS! How can you people continue to deny it?!As a Protestant, I think you will find it interesting that Martin Luther acknowledged the Catholic Church as the custodian of sacred Scripture when he wrote, “We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”
That did get buried way back at post #7, didn’t it? Too bad it’s too long to fit in my sig line.We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? - Martin Luther