H
Hisalone
Guest
If you chose to still believe a fantasy then that is your choice, but the truth is not nonsense.
- Status
G
greggy53
Guest
Aw comon, you can say you disagree with my evidence but it certainly isn’t fantasy. The Pope “declared” at the council of Rome which books formed the Old and New Testaments in 382AD. The Church has never reversed that decision. I have posted his list in this thread. It’s verifiable written evidence.
B
bjryman
Guest
The word Catholic as a title to the church came much later in time than the bible. Catholic actually means universal, and in that definition has always included all Christian Religions in reality.
There are different groups within the universal catholic church all of which believe, I assume, that they have got it “right” in terms of the rubics, teachings, traditions etc. passed down from Jesus through the original apostles and great disciples like Paul.
One must remember that “labels” for various religious actions, people, places etc. came to us over many years, with much debate. As an example, on of the earliest labels for the local head of a Christian church was “Bishop”, yet that tradition was not maintained in all branches of the universal church after the reformation.
The bible was assembled by scholars, religious elders, and others from a wide variety of writings. It is fairly well recognized that the apostles themselves probably did not write anything…scribes and the apostles successors captured the word of mouth tradition passed down from the apostles. Paul, the converted Jew, was a unique exception … very well educated in Greek and Latin and very articulate. His writings are generally attributed to being completed by him (couple of exceptions may have been written by his followers). In his writings you can discern a link to the gospels written later.
The bottom line to this thread really is one of lineage…the main church, descended from the original apostles and whose leaders were ordained by the laying on of hands of the chain of bishops, is what comprises the one, original church. That is why the modern world sees this topic in terms of Catholic versus other parts of the catholic (small “c” for “universal”) as a point of debate.
There is no right or wrong here, no reason for angst…it just is this chain of events historically. Can’t change who the first ones were, no matter how we might try.
G
greggy53
Guest
Can any one monitoring this thread tell us when or why the Apocrypha was removed from Protestant Bibles? Perhaps it’s still published by certain denominations? I know my 1876 King James version (Family Bible) has the 15 books of the Apocrypha in it. The reasons for it’s removal might be an interesting anecdote.
J
josie_L
Guest
I believe you are refering to the Didache.No, actually not true, what so ever.
There is a document, I forget the author, that was written in 90 ad. When your “Christians” were there. The document explained all that went on in ancient masses, it exactly corresponds with the mass today, including the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Explain how that got there, almost 2000 years ago, cause I know I don’t have a time machine (dang that would be useful)
S
SemperReformada
Guest
I don’t think the dc’s were considered canonical by any of the reformers but they were included in some bibles such as the kjv along with those books considered to be canonical. I don’t know for a fact but I heard that it was sometime in the early 19th century when the dc’s were finally removed from protestant bibles.
G
greggy53
Guest
Well my 1876 edition of the KJV has the Apocrypha, so they were still in including it in the latter half of the 19th century.
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
Countless other theologians?
Stephen168
New member
That has basically been my question. I think SemperReformada is trying to made a distinction without a difference.
The Old Testament Canon which came out of the Synod at Rome was based on the Septuagint. The Synod at Rome also declared a canon for the New Testament.
SemperReformada declares ad nauseam,” we don’t know the canon of the Septuagint in Jesus’ time.” And in many different ways I’ve tried to get the answer to; So What?
The OP and I want to know from a Protestant view: which Church made the Canon of the Bible?
It seems most Protestants who have posted on this thread have thrown rocks at the Catholic claim but have taking NO time to defend or even make their own claim.
H
Hisalone
Guest
We have stated our claims and why believe what we do. Have you been listening?
As for which church gave us the NT that is an easy one. We believe it was the Christian Church. The pre schimatic East/West Christian church, the pre Reformation Christian Church the pre “you must submit to us” to the Coptics Chrsitian Church, the pre Immaculately Concieved Christian Church, pre Papal infallibility Christian Church, pre Deposit of Faith Christian Church.
The early church we belive was Christian not Catholic as you guys would say.
Stephen168
New member
I don’t think you have. Why do you believe:
Who? How? When?
It was Christian and Catholic.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Why do I believe the NT?
The gospels and letters of the apostles. Those that are not spurious.
Should they be included? Yes
That leaves a couple of books.
How about the scribe for the apostles on that wrote their words?
Sure
This was all done by Christians in the early days. You claim them to be Catholic I say catholic. This is at the root of your question. As for NT cannon I dont think the wheel has to be reinvented. As for the doctrine of papal infallibility I think it does.
Also as Calvin said If we believe the books are inspired then only those books which transmit or convey that God breath should be included.
The early church was Christian and catholic.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I thought you took the Bible alone. Not Bible + Calvin
Stephen168
New member
Who? How? When?
Who (more specifically)? How? When? was the New Testament ( ‘wheel’) invented the first time?
G
greggy53
Guest
I can’t tell you the number of Protestants that I have spoken to over the years who did not know the origins of the scriptures. They have been taught that the early Church was of course was Christian, and the scriptures were handed down from generation to generation. They have not been taught that these early Christians were Catholic. Why would they be? The vast majority of evangelical Christians believe that at the very least the Catholic Church is apostate, and at the worst satanic. When confronted with the historical fact that the scriptures were assembled into the cannon by the Catholic Church in the 4th century they look astonished and reply with utter disbelief. When asked what evidence they have they to support their contention they quickly change the subject, or end the discussion all together.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Many modern Protestants point to the following four “Criteria for Canonicity” to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament:
Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based upon the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.
The basic factor for recognizing a book’s canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity. The term apostolic as used for the test of canonicity does not necessarily mean apostolic authorship or derivation, but rather apostolic authority. According to these Protestants, apostolic authority is never detached from the authority of the Lord.[citation needed] See Apostolic succession.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Although the books of the NT were not officially defined until the fourth century, it is clear that, despite the vastly inferior means of dissemination at that time, there was already a general concensus concerning the majority of these books by the end of the second century. All of those included are generally accepted as originating within the community of first-generation Christians. This contrasts with those documents omitted from the NT, which mostly date from the second-century, or else are of doubtful authenticity.
life.liegeman.org/historymaker/ntdocs5.html
Makes sense to me.
Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based upon the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.
The basic factor for recognizing a book’s canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity. The term apostolic as used for the test of canonicity does not necessarily mean apostolic authorship or derivation, but rather apostolic authority. According to these Protestants, apostolic authority is never detached from the authority of the Lord.[citation needed] See Apostolic succession.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Although the books of the NT were not officially defined until the fourth century, it is clear that, despite the vastly inferior means of dissemination at that time, there was already a general concensus concerning the majority of these books by the end of the second century. All of those included are generally accepted as originating within the community of first-generation Christians. This contrasts with those documents omitted from the NT, which mostly date from the second-century, or else are of doubtful authenticity.
life.liegeman.org/historymaker/ntdocs5.html
Makes sense to me.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
We Catholics (and the Catholic councils that defined the canon) use the same criteria. But we all agree on the canon of the NT. What was your point?
G
greggy53
Guest
If you follow Hisalone’s link to Wikipedia.org and read the article about the Biblical Cannon you will find a section entitled “Earliest Christian Communities”, and the early Christian writers it references were Catholic Saints. One of them Clement of Rome was a Pope. So, the defining criteria for what is scripture and what isn’t was established by Catholics. The earliest Christian writers the article talks about were Catholic. There was only one Christian Church in the 1st century, and it was Catholic.
C
ccolley2
Guest
Document or retract!
CC
H
Hisalone
Guest
Many ask why I accept the NT cannon.
- Status