Catholics, Christains, Sunni, Shia, Muslims, PLEASE READ!

[MartinJordan]

I rest my case.

MJ

 

[tgGodsway]

Before I read any further, no, it was not the Roman Catholic church who cannonized the New Testament. The Apostolic Church probably in the 1st century collected and approved the N.T. there is new evidence on that. Great stuff.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Before I read any further, no, it was not the Roman Catholic church who cannonized the New Testament. The Apostolic Church probably in the 1st century collected and approved the N.T. there is new evidence on that. Great stuff.

I am interested in what you found out!

 

[rcwitness]

Before I read any further, no, it was not the Roman Catholic church who cannonized the New Testament. The Apostolic Church probably in the 1st century collected and approved the N.T. there is new evidence on that. Great stuff.

Yes, evidence needed indeed!

St Irenaeus was responsible for Confirming many early Apostolic beliefs, including the 4 Gospels, the primacy of the Roman See, the role of Mary as the New Eve, the doctrines of the Episcopate, Scripture, and Tradition.

The first complete, and correct, New Testament was listed by St. Athanasius. That didn’t appear until 367!!! Popes St Julius and St Damasus supported Athanasius.

The whole Bible Canon was fixed at Councils at Hippo and then Carthage. These were Church Bishops in Communion with Rome.

Do you have evidence of an earlier NT Canon?

 

[pablope]

I agree. but how should i know that the Ebionites, the Nazareens, the Gnostics and other Christians groups who also lived in the second century after Jesus were Heresies and not the Catholic Christians?

When the bishops of the Church, gathered together in council, following the model in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, and decided on the truth and what is heresy…where these bishops acting on their own, do you think?

Or were they being guided by the Holy Spirit in deciding what is heresy and what is not?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

OneBlanketBoss;14811897 Okay first and foremost, you have to admit that if you are Catholic or not, it was the Catholic Church that canonized the books that eventually would have become the Bible we have today for the most part.

Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Apostolic faith was well under way before the letters (scripture) of the apostles began to be copied and circulated among the many house Church’s in different areas of the Roman Empire.

My issue with this is, Jesus is supposed to be God Almighty in the Flesh who came down to earth to save human beings from their sins, and he also came with Authority and taught the church that he supposedly established to teach what he preached, am I correct?

Only one misunderstanding. Jesus is not supposed to be God Almighty in the flesh. The Essence of God is hidden in the Incarnate Word of God made flesh. No man can see God and live. Jesus is the Son of the Father, who send’s His Word, who became flesh and mad his dwelling among us. The Word of God did not become flesh inorder save human beings. Jesus came to save our humanity and all of creation from eternal damnation.

Few issues I have concerning history I have that deals with this matter. We know that by now we do not have one singular document that we can trace back to the any original disciples of Jesus.

Wrong. We have Sacred Tradition Apostolic practice which has withstood the test of time since the passion, death, resurrection of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus never writes. As the infant Church blossomed, Letters from the apostles, which record’s the apostolic eye witnessed account and practiced faith in Jesus Christ. We can trace back our Sacred Tradition back to Jesus, through both the Jewish religion and the Christian Apostolic successors, who lived and walked in the presence of the Apostles who witnessed all that Jesus said and did which all the books in the world could not contain them.

The original written Letter’s of the apostles were copied and distributed throughout the Roman Empire into Asian minor. Not to mention, when the persecuted Catholic faithful were caught practicing their apostolic sacred Traditions recorded in the apostolic letters were found. The Ceasars confiscated all and burned them as well as executed the Catholic Martrys including the apostles.

History records since the first post apostolic times, when the apostolic successors to the original apostles of Jesus, writing about the content in the same gospel books we have today. Albeit, we do not possess the originals today, but the Apostolic practices since the resurrection of Jesus has survived as well as the divine revelation message of Jesus Christ. We await, archeologist, who may stumble across an original in what used to be Christian lands is now conquered by Muslims.

When the apostolic faithful were under persecution for the first 400 years under pagan Roman law. The Sacred Traditional teachings of Jesus Christ were handed down verbally before anything was written. Let us not forget when the apostles taught from scripture, they used the same Septuagint (Old testament) we possess today.

Are you going to argue from a far that Jesus did not teach from the Old testament Septuagint? Both Old and New Testament were taught orally and handed down by sacred Tradition which survived persecution, death, fires and the gates of hell. Look to Sacred Apostolic Tradition, and there you will find your gospel being preached verbally and practiced in faith, when 99 percent of the population could not read for centuries.

History tells us that, yes the teachings that Jesus is God, that the Eucharist is a fundamental doctrine, that Jesus was crucified were spread by word of mouth by some Christians BEFORE the Gospels were written.

What you neglected in your history research, was that during the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Got recorded by the secular powers who did the crucifixion, witnessed by the Jews who made a record of Jesus Christ and His followers. Here you missed two eye witnessed accounts from the Jews, and the Roman Empire who give testimony of Jesus Christ Crucifixion. Never mind the miracle of the resurrection spreading throughout Palestine and the Jews converting (being baptized in the Trinity) to Christianity by the droves.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

However this does not make the bible that we have today to be the original teachings of Jesus. Why? Because other teachings regarding the life and teachings of Jesus were also spread among different christian groups around the same time. For example, the Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ. Could you come with any convincing argument why I should believe what the Catholic Christians believed in instead what the Ebionites or even what the Gnostic believed in. It is well known that all three christian groups existed at the time of the second century after Jesus. Now, knowing that we do not have any document that we can trace back to the original teachings of Christ, why should I follow the Bible we have NOW by any means?

There were self claimed Jewish Christian heretics, trying to force their interpretation of the Mosaic law and customs who were excommunicated from the apostles during the time of the original apostles. Even Jesus when he walked the earth learned of Jews denouncing satan in the name of Jesus, long before the Ebonites and Gnostics gained any following.

Your Ebonites come along later, with diverse sects who did not agree with one another. These Jewish sects came and went, because their teachings proved never to be divinely revealed. The only Christian teachings which survived these turmoil times, is the same Christian faith practiced today in the Catholic Sacred Apostolic Tradition, supported by Sacred Scripture. The Sacred Apostolic Tradition proves to be divinely inspired, because She has withstood the test of time, when many other secular powers, and heresies have come and gone. This is the proof in the pudding, you should be looking into, not Opinions of men who view a history that is never theirs. Ask the Jews and the Catholic Church of their history, because they were present when divine revelation came to them.

Now let us move three hundred centuries after, and we have a organized Church that decided which book has been divinely inspired by the Almighty God of the Universe… If God can not even preserve proper documents that can we can trace the original teachings from his Divine Son, why should I believe in a Church that gave themselves authority to decide what is divinely inspired and what isn’t?

The reason we have the correct divinely inspired books of the bible today canonized by the Catholic Church. Because the Catholic Church proved these books from Sacred Tradition and the direct line of apostolic successors to the original Apostles of Jesus Christ. The Church threw out many books which had apostles names attached to them. God does not need to preserve a “proper document” to prove His divine revelation. God has hearts and minds of his faithful to hand down His divine revelation. What person needs a document to prove divine revelation. I rather accept divine revelation by God and by those who would give their life rather than deny Jesus Christ Crucified,when such a denial comes from the anti-Christ.

The Church did not give themselves authority. Jesus gave the Church divine revelation and the power to bind and loose on earth any and all evil which tries to infect God’s divine revelation revealed from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to include the Old Testament.

I hope in you reading this helps you in your discernment between you and God.

Peace be with you

 

[SalamKhan]

I am interested in what you found out!

If I were to assume, it would probably be the early Church Fathers, so it’s really nothing new:
ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml

Click on each one of them, and you’ll find that only a few of them actually explicitly affirm the authenticity and authorship of certain books of the New Testament. Not exactly hard evidence, it’s also worth noting that Origen, a Church Father, acknowledged that there was indeed scriptural corruption happening.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If I were to assume, it would probably be the early Church Fathers, so it’s really nothing new:
ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml

Click on each one of them, and you’ll find that only a few of them actually explicitly affirm the authenticity and authorship of certain books of the New Testament. Not exactly hard evidence, it’s also worth noting that Origen, a Church Father, acknowledged that there was indeed scriptural corruption happening.

Again - all Church fathers. Not independent loosey-goosey pastors, and certainly not lone wolves. And all Christians today in the Western traditions, accept those Books the Catholic Church acknowledged to be Scripture. Not their own versions, not additional texts.

 

[LtTony]

If I were to assume, it would probably be the early Church Fathers, so it’s really nothing new:
ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml

Click on each one of them, and you’ll find that only a few of them actually explicitly affirm the authenticity and authorship of certain books of the New Testament. Not exactly hard evidence, it’s also worth noting that Origen, a Church Father, acknowledged that there was indeed scriptural corruption happening.

Care to elaborate?

 

[SalamKhan]

Care to elaborate?

From what I recall, Celsus accused Christians of corrupting their scriptures, and Origen didn’t even deny it, but instead said that Celsus shouldn’t blame Christianity for the actions of Christians.

 

[LtTony]

Source?

 

[rcwitness]

If I were to assume, it would probably be the early Church Fathers, so it’s really nothing new:
ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml

Click on each one of them, and you’ll find that only a few of them actually explicitly affirm the authenticity and authorship of certain books of the New Testament. Not exactly hard evidence, it’s also worth noting that Origen, a Church Father, acknowledged that there was indeed scriptural corruption happening.

Origin was indeed an early Church Father and theologian. And he contributed to the development of the Canon of Scripture. Yet, he did not represent the correct Bible that represents true Sacred Scripture.

From Wiki, on the Biblical Canon:
[/INDENT] Origen’s canon included all of the books in the current New Testament canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John.[31][/INDENT]

He also included the Shepherd of Hermaswhich was later rejected. The religious scholarBruce Metzger described Origen’s efforts, saying “The process of canonization represented by Origen proceeded by way of selection, moving from many candidates for inclusion to fewer.”[32] This was one of the first major attempts at the compilation of certain books and letters as authoritative and inspired teaching for the Early Church at the time, although it is unclear whether Origen intended for his list to be authoritative itself.[/INDENT]
What Canon is authoritative, what makes it so, and how do we know? There isn’t much dispute over the 27 NT books among the Christian Churches. The earliest known correctly documented list of these was from the great Bishop St Athanasius. However, his judgment regarding the Old Testament was ultimately not representing the final Church declaration.

From his Easter letter of 367:
iptures of the Old Testament. He then proceeds:

Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the fourGospelsaccording to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them theActs of the Apostlesand the seven so-calledcatholic epistlesof the apostles – namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there arefourteen epistlesof the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further theRevelation of John

These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them…

But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-calledTeaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and theShepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.It’s interesting how closely he places those writings to Scripture, yet not as equal. The Church eventually declared them equal with Scripture (save the Didache and Shepherd).

 

[eddie_too]

let us cut to the chase. oneblanketboss is making the old, old, old argument that we cannot rely on anything we know and believe because it does not meet his/her requirements for reasonable authenticity.

since oneblanketboss has already determined this is her/his position. there is nothing any of us can do to convince him/her otherwise; and it is a waste of our time trying to convince him/her.

any educated roman catholic can identify the multitude of errors and misinformation being put forth by oneblanketboss in his/her comments. faith necessarily precedes knowledge, wisdom and understanding. ergo the errors being propagated by oneblanketboss.

while i have neither the time and inclination to point out the errors being put forth, anyone who does is doing the less educated catholics and those who are struggling with their faith a service in pointing them out. i do suggest however that we not waste our time arguing with the OP.

oneblanketboss seems to be here solely to put forth an anti-catholic/christian agenda.

Peace Brothers!

 

[grannymh]

Catholics are Christian dude

Not necessarily. There are some modern differences. For example. Catholics are not necessarily a Notable Progressive Christian.

 

[rcwitness]

Not necessarily. There are some modern differences. For example. Catholics are not necessarily a Notable Progressive Christian.

He didn’t say “Notable Progressive Christian”… whatever that is, he said “Christian”. And Catholics are necessarily Christians.

 

[rcwitness]

Before I read any further, no, it was not the Roman Catholic church who cannonized the New Testament. The Apostolic Church probably in the 1st century collected and approved the N.T. there is new evidence on that. Great stuff.

Are you coming back to share about this? What is this “new evidence”?

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Apostolic faith was well under way before the letters (scripture) of the apostles began to be copied and circulated among the many house Church’s in different areas of the Roman Empire.

Can you provide proof that Apostolic tradition started with the apostles themselves? Any documents outside the bible?

Only one misunderstanding. Jesus is not supposed to be God Almighty in the flesh. The Essence of God is hidden in the Incarnate Word of God made flesh. No man can see God and live. Jesus is the Son of the Father, who send’s His Word, who became flesh and mad his dwelling among us. The Word of God did not become flesh inorder save human beings. Jesus came to save our humanity and all of creation from eternal damnation.

In all Honesty, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Wrong. We have Sacred Tradition Apostolic practice which has withstood the test of time since the passion, death, resurrection of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus never writes. As the infant Church blossomed, Letters from the apostles, which record’s the apostolic eye witnessed account and practiced faith in Jesus Christ. We can trace back our Sacred Tradition back to Jesus, through both the Jewish religion and the Christian Apostolic successors, who lived and walked in the presence of the Apostles who witnessed all that Jesus said and did which all the books in the world could not contain them.

No you can not. You only have sacred tradition back to Catholic and Orthodox Church fathers. Not the apostles themselves.

The original written Letter’s of the apostles were copied and distributed throughout the Roman Empire into Asian minor. Not to mention, when the persecuted Catholic faithful were caught practicing their apostolic sacred Traditions recorded in the apostolic letters were found. The Ceasars confiscated all and burned them as well as executed the Catholic Martrys including the apostles.

History records since the first post apostolic times, when the apostolic successors to the original apostles of Jesus, writing about the content in the same gospel books we have today. Albeit, we do not possess the originals today, but the Apostolic practices since the resurrection of Jesus has survived as well as the divine revelation message of Jesus Christ. We await, archeologist, who may stumble across an original in what used to be Christian lands is now conquered by Muslims.

What original Letters of The Apostles are you referring to? According to my research there is not one single document that can be traced to anybody that knew Jesus personally. If I am mistaken please give me the source.

When the apostolic faithful were under persecution for the first 400 years under pagan Roman law. The Sacred Traditional teachings of Jesus Christ were handed down verbally before anything was written. Let us not forget when the apostles taught from scripture, they used the same Septuagint (Old testament) we possess today.

I understand, however the Gospels were also verbally handed down before it was compiled and considered as divine scripture. Other books that were not included in the cannon were also spread within non catholic groups. My question is; where are the teachings of Peter, James, John, the MOTHER OF JESUS, ect.?

Are you going to argue from a far that Jesus did not teach from the Old testament Septuagint? Both Old and New Testament were taught orally and handed down by sacred Tradition which survived persecution, death, fires and the gates of hell. Look to Sacred Apostolic Tradition, and there you will find your gospel being preached verbally and practiced in faith, when 99 percent of the population could not read for centuries.

Alright.

What you neglected in your history research, was that during the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Got recorded by the secular powers who did the crucifixion, witnessed by the Jews who made a record of Jesus Christ and His followers. Here you missed two eye witnessed accounts from the Jews, and the Roman Empire who give testimony of Jesus Christ Crucifixion. Never mind the miracle of the resurrection spreading throughout Palestine and the Jews converting (being baptized in the Trinity) to Christianity by the droves.

I believe the Crucifixion was indeed a historical event. I just don’t believe in the Catholic group that firmly states “we have the apostolic tradition” yet can not prove it.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

There were self claimed Jewish Christian heretics, trying to force their interpretation of the Mosaic law and customs who were excommunicated from the apostles during the time of the original apostles. Even Jesus when he walked the earth learned of Jews denouncing satan in the name of Jesus, long before the Ebonites and Gnostics gained any following.

Jesus also never claimed to be God in the earliest of the manuscripts before the Catholics gained any following.

Your Ebonites come along later, with diverse sects who did not agree with one another. These Jewish sects came and went, because their teachings proved never to be divinely revealed. The only Christian teachings which survived these turmoil times, is the same Christian faith practiced today in the Catholic Sacred Apostolic Tradition, supported by Sacred Scripture. The Sacred Apostolic Tradition proves to be divinely inspired, because She has withstood the test of time, when many other secular powers, and heresies have come and gone. This is the proof in the pudding, you should be looking into, not Opinions of men who view a history that is never theirs. Ask the Jews and the Catholic Church of their history, because they were present when divine revelation came to them.

The Catholic tradition is supported by ONLY Sacred scripture. No such think as Apostolic Tradition when we don’t even know how Peter ruled as the first pope.

The reason we have the correct divinely inspired books of the bible today canonized by the Catholic Church. Because the Catholic Church proved these books from Sacred Tradition and the direct line of apostolic successors to the original Apostles of Jesus Christ. The Church threw out many books which had apostles names attached to them. God does not need to preserve a “proper document” to prove His divine revelation. God has hearts and minds of his faithful to hand down His divine revelation. What person needs a document to prove divine revelation. I rather accept divine revelation by God and by those who would give their life rather than deny Jesus Christ Crucified,when such a denial comes from the anti-Christ.

So you are saying there is proof for the Gospels to be backed up by apostolic tradition however we don’t have any documents to prove that these apostolic tradition can be traced to the apostles, so you rely on those who gave their life for the Catholic Church as if no other saints and members from a different branch of religion did not do the same. I fail to understand.

The Church did not give themselves authority. Jesus gave the Church divine revelation and the power to bind and loose on earth any and all evil which tries to infect God’s divine revelation revealed from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to include the Old Testament.

The book that the Catholic Church put together says God gave the Catholic Church Authority? So I guess this goes for Islam as well. It was not Mohammad who taught the Quran, rather Mohammad said Allah told him he has the Authority to teach his companions the word of the Deity who created the whole Universe?

I hope in you reading this helps you in your discernment between you and God.

God is Love.

Peace be with you

Salaam with you as well.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

let us cut to the chase. oneblanketboss is making the old, old, old argument that we cannot rely on anything we know and believe because it does not meet his/her requirements for reasonable authenticity.

You are right. Because I am looking for proper evidence.

since oneblanketboss has already determined this is her/his position. there is nothing any of us can do to convince him/her otherwise; and it is a waste of our time trying to convince him/her.

I am convinced the Catholic Church consists of many universal truths. Not the fullness and the only truth as guidance for whole humanity.

any educated roman catholic can identify the multitude of errors and misinformation being put forth by oneblanketboss in his/her comments. faith necessarily precedes knowledge, wisdom and understanding. ergo the errors being propagated by oneblanketboss.

As you see I already am engaging with highly educated Catholics, however none can provide that the Only Catholic Church has the legit apostolic traditions. that is all what I am saying.

while i have neither the time and inclination to point out the errors being put forth, anyone who does is doing the less educated catholics and those who are struggling with their faith a service in pointing them out. i do suggest however that we not waste our time arguing with the OP.

Why are you wasting your time to even suggest that? If Catholics are not interested in putting effort to search for the truth, they are not forced to.

oneblanketboss seems to be here solely to put forth an anti-catholic/christian agenda.

Not even.