B
Benedict16
Guest
Do you not understand the point of my thread? It is simply that
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GAVE YOU YOUR BIBLE. PERIOD.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GAVE YOU YOUR BIBLE. PERIOD.
- Status
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
If you are speaking of the OT you are clearly wrong as I have adequately illustrated.
Even at Trent we have Catholic bishops/divines voting against including the deutero’s in the canon.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
You also said the canon was “settled” at Carthage, which it wasn’t…unless your idea of settled means that folks were free to reject the council of Carthage’s canon.
B
Benedict16
Guest
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
In fairness to you, your thread was supposed to be discussing the NT, not the OT.
B
Benedict16
Guest
Where do you see the OT referenced to?
2
2ndGen
Guest
Your line reminded me of him…Was I suppose to be watching a Yoda dance?if so, I laughed my *** off!
2
2ndGen
Guest
Ben, let’s give him a chance to answer me (again)…
PW…“The name of The Church that God chose to reveal His Word to?”
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
I don’t…I may have accidently hijacked your thread.
B
Benedict16
Guest
Without the Roman Catholic church you would not have got your Bibles, and that the decrees of Carthage, 397 and 419 A.D., when ALL Christianity was Roman Catholic—reaffirmed by the Council of Florence, 1442, under pope Eugenius IV, AND the Council of Trent, 1546—these decrees of the Roman church, and these only are the means and the channel and the authority which almighty God has used to hand down to us His written Word. WHO CAN DENY IT? The church existed before the Bible; she made the Bible; she selected its books, and she preserved it. She handed it down; through her we know that is the Word of God, and what the Word of man; and hence to try at this time of day, as many do, to overthrow the church by means of this very Bible, and to put it above the church, and to revile her for destroying it and corrupting it—what is this but to strike the mother that reared them; to curse the hand that fed them; to turn against their best friend and benefactor; and to repay with ingratitude and slander the very guide and protector who has led them to drink of the water out of the Saviour’s fountains???
B
Benedict16
Guest
I forgive you.I don’t…I may have accidently hijacked your thread.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
You gotta admit, I did a pretty good job of it and had no clue until I re-read one of your posts.I forgive you.
B
Benedict16
Guest
No matter what, we are all still brothers and sisters of Christ.
(I just thank Him for choosing the Roman church). hee hee
(I just thank Him for choosing the Roman church). hee hee
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
After I became a Christian, unfortunately one of the first things I did was to read the popular scholars you are referencing. It almost destroyed my faith in the Bible until I looked at their presuppositions, their underlying beliefs. Let me assure you, the scholars you mention have nothing we do not have.
Let me explain, they have the same Bible and the same historical references. Where they differ is their underlying presuppositions. Their beliefs about the Bible. I know full well what the scholars think. The majority of scholars also deny the Virgin birth, the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, and his supernatural miracles.
When I have time, if you wish to start a thread talking about their proof for the Bible not being written by who it says it was, I will participate but anyone who must do this, must prove the Bible is inaccurate. They must use history and the Bible to prove this is not the case. I sense in this post an underlying thead of doubt about the power of God to perfectly perserve his word. If the books of the Bible that give a name, are not written by who they say they are, that is an awfully inept God. A God not even capable of perserving his word. A God who rewards liars. Lying to act like they are men they say they are not.
I look forward to anyone posting an argument saying the Bible was not written by who it says it was. I personally, with every ounce of my being contend those are lies straight from the pits of hell, those lies almost drove me away and back away from the only peace I have ever known in the arms of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Bring your proof on or quit quoting liars and the scholars who deny the power of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2
2ndGen
Guest
M
Milliardo
Guest
That is his notion, which is perfectly within his rights to say so. However, once the Church itself decides on the matter, whatever else may say regardless wouldn’t mean much. As St. John of the Cross wrote, “Should I misunderstand or be mistaken on some point, whether I deduce it from Scripture or not, I will not be intending to deviate from the true meaning of Sacred Scripture or from the doctrine of our Holy Mother the Catholic Church. Should there be some mistake, I submit entirely to the Church.” Once the Church has spoken, the matter is closed. Thus, when Carthage submitted the canon to the Patriarchs and bishops for review, and they found nothing there that they object to, the matter is closed. Whether other people would find objections is beside the point, even if those objections would come from a bishop or even the Pope himself.
It has a lot of bearing, I am sorry to say. Incidentally, you yourself keep on bringing up the views of certain clergy and such, but are they necessarily the view of the Church itself? Since we say that the Church is made up of the body of Christ; that is, the whole worshiping community that makes up the Church, and not just certain individuals, then your objection over what I said seems strange given that you yourself keep on giving out views made by certain clergy, but do not reflect the view of the Church as a whole.
No one here is saying that Hippo and Carthage were Ecumenical Councils; has anyone said to that effect? The point is really simple: Carthage sent the canon to the other Patriarchs and bishops for approval; there was no dissent to that effect, and so shows that the Church as a whole agreed with the canon passed on by Carthage. Seeing that this canon has met approval by the entire Church, then it was adopted as the canon to be used. Again, with but a few objections which did not merit any great concern as to call for a revision of the canon, this was the only canon known in the Catholic Church. The Orthodox have additional books to that effect, but neither they did see fit to delete any of the books that went into the canon made by Carthage. Thus, we can clearly see that the entire Church before Protestantism agreed fully to the canon laid down by Carthage, and to which Trent upheld that same canon that Carthage gave.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Again, whether many found the canon to be objectionable is not the point; the point is, did the Church itself see any need to revise the canon, even if many supposedly found it objectionable? That there weren’t any moves to do so, even before Trent, would have already told you something. We come back to that thing–if there was any serious need to revise the canon, then it would’ve been done a long time before Trent.
Why shouldn’t there be a vote? Since the canon itself was in question, the Church had to determine whether it needs to still be accepted or revised; it so happens that many found it to still be acceptable. Again, the case is closed–the Church did not find it necessary to revise the canon.
I am not talking about the canon made at Carthage; I’m talking about the objections raised over the canon as worthy of study and reflection, which the Pope did see to be the case. Yet, even then, the Pope still saw no need to have the canon revised. Again, we go back to that, something which you seem to not yet realize.
If there’s a need, then it should be done; as it is, if you have been reading all along, the Pope has not seen any need to do so. Thus–what do you think then? You said it yourself–why would the Pope ask for a revision if it wasn’t binding or official? In your question you already gave the answer.
Again, read: it was reaffirmed over the objections of the Protestants.
- Status