that is your answer based on your faith…it isn’t my answer.
Correct I have faith hat Jesus established a visible Church, gave Peter the keys, gave apostles authority, and the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church infallibly!
It goes back to how does a Protestant know which book is the right, between Samuel and Daniel, when the two vary? They don’t! With a fallible collection of infallible books, discerned fallibly, there is no telling which one is correct! After all the fallible men could have been wrong in their selection.
Maybe not…if 1st century Christian equivalent to the Qumran site was found and it split 1 Corinthians into two separate letters with a little extra content, then I think many Protestants would be prepared to consider a NT with 1st, 2nd and 3rd Corinthians.
Proving my point! Would all protestants accept the new find? Lets not stop at Corinthians since you bring it up. Lets say there were many additions to many books, would all protestants accept all? Or would it look more like this: Some accept additions of Romans, Timothy, and Corinthians, while others accept only the addition’s to Jude. If there were additions to six books there could be up to 720 different Protestant bibles. How long would that disintegration into subjectivity take 10 years? 50 years? 200 years?
Just using the digits from 1 to 6, the answer would be 6
54
32*1 = 720, because you have 6 choices for the units digit, and then 5 choices left for the tens, and then 4 choices left for the hundreds and so on.
I have no idea as to what your reasoning would be behind this claim. Sirach, Tobit, Letter of Jeremiah and Psalm 151 were found at Qumran…but then again, so were Jubilees and Enoch. So if the presence of 3 books from the apocrypha means that the entire apocrypha is scripture, then what becomes scripture on the strength of the presence of Jubilees and Enoch? ….and Esther isn’t at Qumran, so what does that mean?
My reasoning is that many books were rejected by the JEWS because they were written in Greek. One of the criteria was that the books be written in Hebrew to make the grade, so to speak. Since the books of Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees, were found in Hebrew, it should be reconsidered for canon, being that the criteria has been met.
Why stop there, if the findings at Qumran had Jubilees and Enoch, but left out Esther why do the protestants not reconsider the canon, unless they accept the Jewish compiling well after 70 A.D?
It’s a fair question to ask if the Protestant canon is closed, but completely out of the question for Catholics being that our Canon has been closed by AUTHORITY! Would there be a council or synod called to declare a new Protestant canon? How would it be determined? By seeing if it lines up with other Scripture, that has already been discerned and compiled by the Catholic Church? I’ll tell you what. If there were 6 or so additions found in existing scripture. I would buy stock in Zondervan, because it would disintegrate into 720 different canons real fast!
well following this logic, if the resurrection was always a belief beginning with the apostles, then there would be no need to write about it.
that is just a little too convenient an excuse to explain the absence of various Catholic teachings in the written record of the church of the first few centuries. That absence is treated as an absolute license to project any teaching back through the period of silence to the beginning.
NO, it’s not the same logic. I was giving you an example but, if the belief was not known explicitly in the writings, the Holy Spirit could declare that through a council. In Acts 15 you have a question arise about circumcision, something God required his people to enter into Covenant. How could they (The Apostles) overturn God’s immutable decree, declared in the Holy Scriptures? Who has given such AUTHORITY to men to change God’s Immutable decree such as circumcision. Jesus never said “do not circumcise the gentiles” Just look at Genesis 17: 9] Then
God said to Abraham, "As for you,
you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. [10]
This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. [11] You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. [12] For the generations to come
every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner–those who are not your offspring. [13] Whether born in your household or bought with your money,** they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant**. [14]
Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
By who’s Authority was circumcision, deemed no longer necessary?
Questions by Jews inside the Church were claiming gentiles needed circumcision! The question needed to be resolved, so its brought to
scripture?
No the bulwark and pillar of Truth,** the Church!**
Peter stood up and declares that God is doing something new. Peter standing up was big in that time, it shows that he had a position of authority!
**James expresses the feeling of the meeting, in the same Spirit as Peter **
The Church speaks Her deputation: the message to Gentile Christians
**People received the message with joy. **
I’m sure the Sola Scriptura crowd back would have said " No Peter, James, Paul and the rest of you who are accepting this Tradition of men, I rebuke thee in the name of the Lord, scripture says in Genesis 17:9 …"
