E
Eden
Guest
1 Peter 1:18 - Peter says you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your “fathers.”
www.scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html
- Status
www.scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html
E
Eden
Guest
Can you show me the Jesus Prayer in the Bible? I only see the “Our Father”.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I could, for one, provide many quotations to show that the ECF regarded the Deuterocanon as Scripture, for instance, one of my favorites, due to the explicity:
“”[H]aving heard the Scripture which says, ‘Fasting with prayer is a good thing’[Tobit 12:8]." Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 6:12 (A.D. 202)."
So if this individual wishes to base the determination of the canon on the study of these ancient books and the ECF, the fact that the deuterocanon is disregarded would seem to show an a priori concusion on his behalf.
Where the issue really lies though, is this. First, a quote from C.S. Lewis:
So it all comes down to where we are looking at the evidence. Are we looking at the evidence for the Bible, or are we looking at the evidence for Christianity? In essence, Catholics start on a higher level of certainty in terms of what they look for evidence for. Their evidence is about Christianity. Was Jesus here? Was He God? Did He start a Church? Protestants start on a lower level in terms of epistomological certainty. They start with, is the Bible true?
In other words, this Protestant is using his history to show which books belong in the Bible. This assumes that any books belong in the Bible at all. Catholics use history to show that Christianity is true. Once we know that Christianity is true, we then know that books belong in the Bible. If God is real, and Christ lived and left the Apostles, then there is a religion for a Holy book to be written about.
Is God true because the Bible is true, or is the Bible true because God is true? Clearly it is the latter, and all Christians agree on this point. In fact, it is simple philosophy that if God is real and if the Bible is true, than this point must be correct. A lesser thing cannot cause a greater thing.
The Protestant is using evidence - history - to show what belongs in the Bible. We Catholics use evidence - history - to show that Christ lived and left the Apostles. However, as I said above, unless a person first shows that there is a Christian religion, then there is no reason to believe that any Holy Book exists at all. Unless one believes that Christianity is true, the Bible has as much weight as a cookbook.
We believe there are Scriptures, and that they are inspired by God. The thing is, why? This is where skeptics are able to make some headway in arguements with Protestants. Why, they ask, do you believe the Scriptures are true, because they tell you so? By that criteria, the Koran is true, and so is my previous post about milkshakes. Any claim to authority requires some sort of outside verification. A man can’t simply claim to be president, he needs to have someone besides himself back him up on it.
continued…
“”[H]aving heard the Scripture which says, ‘Fasting with prayer is a good thing’[Tobit 12:8]." Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 6:12 (A.D. 202)."
So if this individual wishes to base the determination of the canon on the study of these ancient books and the ECF, the fact that the deuterocanon is disregarded would seem to show an a priori concusion on his behalf.
Where the issue really lies though, is this. First, a quote from C.S. Lewis:
The point being, that no matter what we believe, we are going to have to make a leap of faith somewhere along the line, even if it is simply to believe an historian.
So it all comes down to where we are looking at the evidence. Are we looking at the evidence for the Bible, or are we looking at the evidence for Christianity? In essence, Catholics start on a higher level of certainty in terms of what they look for evidence for. Their evidence is about Christianity. Was Jesus here? Was He God? Did He start a Church? Protestants start on a lower level in terms of epistomological certainty. They start with, is the Bible true?
In other words, this Protestant is using his history to show which books belong in the Bible. This assumes that any books belong in the Bible at all. Catholics use history to show that Christianity is true. Once we know that Christianity is true, we then know that books belong in the Bible. If God is real, and Christ lived and left the Apostles, then there is a religion for a Holy book to be written about.
Is God true because the Bible is true, or is the Bible true because God is true? Clearly it is the latter, and all Christians agree on this point. In fact, it is simple philosophy that if God is real and if the Bible is true, than this point must be correct. A lesser thing cannot cause a greater thing.
The Protestant is using evidence - history - to show what belongs in the Bible. We Catholics use evidence - history - to show that Christ lived and left the Apostles. However, as I said above, unless a person first shows that there is a Christian religion, then there is no reason to believe that any Holy Book exists at all. Unless one believes that Christianity is true, the Bible has as much weight as a cookbook.
We believe there are Scriptures, and that they are inspired by God. The thing is, why? This is where skeptics are able to make some headway in arguements with Protestants. Why, they ask, do you believe the Scriptures are true, because they tell you so? By that criteria, the Koran is true, and so is my previous post about milkshakes. Any claim to authority requires some sort of outside verification. A man can’t simply claim to be president, he needs to have someone besides himself back him up on it.
continued…
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
…continued from previous
Yes, this claim can be made about the Church and her authority. However, this is why I say that Catholics are starting on a ground of higher epistomological certainty. We each need evidence to defend Christianity against skeptics. We each need evidence to show ourselves that our beliefs are true.
God exists
______Christianity is true
___________The Bible is true
The Bible is true because Christianity is true, which in turn is true because God exists. It gets deeper than that, obviously. I am not, however, refering to things from the standpoint of our epistomological knowledge, but rather, from the standpoint of the objective truth. Objectively, the Bible can only be true because Christianity is true. Objectively, Christianity can only be true because God exists. Now epistomologically, there are obviously deeper steps. Christianity is not true JUST because God exists, but rather because He exists and there are certain truths about Him. However, I am not going this deep. I am looking at this on a very basic level.
Both Catholics and Protestants discuss God, and His existence, of course. And both also discuss Christianity. However, this is where the disconnect begins. Christians believe God came and revealed Himself. Now, Catholics believe that He started a visible Church, and gave it authority. Through that authority, Catholics believe, His truths, such as that there ought to be a Bible, and what canon belongs in the Bible, are taught. Protestants believe He did not leave a visible Church with authority. They believe that the only authority He left is in the Bible.
This is where the problem is. We can both, as Catholics and Protestants, argue for the existence of God, Christ, and Christianity. We can both do it successfully. We both believe that all authority ultimately lies in God. However, we as Catholics can argue, from historical evidence, that God gave His Church authority. We can then argue that this authority was used to teach the canon of Scripture. Protestants can only argue that the Christianity is true, and that the Bible is true. They cannot show a connection between the two. Whereas Catholics’ historical proof of the Bible starts at Christ and directly links to the Bible, Protestants evidence comes from Christ but leaves a gap to the Bible. They can argue that Christ lived. So can Catholics. They can argue which books were historicall accepted. Good, so can Catholics. However, they can show no historical evidence of any authority to authentically determine the canon. Catholics can. There is a gap.
This is the problem with his arguement. We are all going to have to rely on faith somewhere. We can both put faith ultimately in the same source - God. We can both gather historical evidence for this, starting at the same place: Christ. However, when Catholics use evidence to show Christ lived and had authority, they can show why this authority ought to apply to their Church. When Protestants use evidence to show Christ lived and had authority, they cannot show why this authority ought to apply to the Bible, especially the New Testament, since there is no historical evidence that any of the New Testament books were inspired.
In short, Catholics say and argue from history that the Bible is inspired because the Church said it was and that the Church was given authoity by God. Protestants say that the Bible is inspired because it declares itself to be, and that it must be because God exists. There is a gap here.
To fit it into the analogy the Protestant used, the Catholic would be like a man that said that the Expert existed, and that his collection of this Expert is authentic because the Expert appointed people to determine what was really his work. The Protestant would be like a person who was only be able to say that the Expert did indeed exist, and that many people who lived at the same time thought he had written certain books, so he regards them as authentic.
Yes, this claim can be made about the Church and her authority. However, this is why I say that Catholics are starting on a ground of higher epistomological certainty. We each need evidence to defend Christianity against skeptics. We each need evidence to show ourselves that our beliefs are true.
God exists
______Christianity is true
___________The Bible is true
The Bible is true because Christianity is true, which in turn is true because God exists. It gets deeper than that, obviously. I am not, however, refering to things from the standpoint of our epistomological knowledge, but rather, from the standpoint of the objective truth. Objectively, the Bible can only be true because Christianity is true. Objectively, Christianity can only be true because God exists. Now epistomologically, there are obviously deeper steps. Christianity is not true JUST because God exists, but rather because He exists and there are certain truths about Him. However, I am not going this deep. I am looking at this on a very basic level.
Both Catholics and Protestants discuss God, and His existence, of course. And both also discuss Christianity. However, this is where the disconnect begins. Christians believe God came and revealed Himself. Now, Catholics believe that He started a visible Church, and gave it authority. Through that authority, Catholics believe, His truths, such as that there ought to be a Bible, and what canon belongs in the Bible, are taught. Protestants believe He did not leave a visible Church with authority. They believe that the only authority He left is in the Bible.
This is where the problem is. We can both, as Catholics and Protestants, argue for the existence of God, Christ, and Christianity. We can both do it successfully. We both believe that all authority ultimately lies in God. However, we as Catholics can argue, from historical evidence, that God gave His Church authority. We can then argue that this authority was used to teach the canon of Scripture. Protestants can only argue that the Christianity is true, and that the Bible is true. They cannot show a connection between the two. Whereas Catholics’ historical proof of the Bible starts at Christ and directly links to the Bible, Protestants evidence comes from Christ but leaves a gap to the Bible. They can argue that Christ lived. So can Catholics. They can argue which books were historicall accepted. Good, so can Catholics. However, they can show no historical evidence of any authority to authentically determine the canon. Catholics can. There is a gap.
This is the problem with his arguement. We are all going to have to rely on faith somewhere. We can both put faith ultimately in the same source - God. We can both gather historical evidence for this, starting at the same place: Christ. However, when Catholics use evidence to show Christ lived and had authority, they can show why this authority ought to apply to their Church. When Protestants use evidence to show Christ lived and had authority, they cannot show why this authority ought to apply to the Bible, especially the New Testament, since there is no historical evidence that any of the New Testament books were inspired.
In short, Catholics say and argue from history that the Bible is inspired because the Church said it was and that the Church was given authoity by God. Protestants say that the Bible is inspired because it declares itself to be, and that it must be because God exists. There is a gap here.
To fit it into the analogy the Protestant used, the Catholic would be like a man that said that the Expert existed, and that his collection of this Expert is authentic because the Expert appointed people to determine what was really his work. The Protestant would be like a person who was only be able to say that the Expert did indeed exist, and that many people who lived at the same time thought he had written certain books, so he regards them as authentic.
N
NPS
Guest
The person has a false respect for history and only allows as much as it is necessary for him to make his point. Saying you rely on history is not the same as actually relying on history.
He is trying to dress prettily the age-old argument “The bible is self-evident”. The big problem is that there were over 50 gospels and almost a couple hundred “Acts” and “Letters”. It wasn’t self evident. It takes a church to figure it out.
(Cont.)
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
How do Protestants know which Canon to use?
If the question is just too hard for Protestants to answer, perhaps they can simplify their approach by narrowing it simply to the Book of Daniel. The Protestant Book of Daniel is shorter than the Catholic & Orthodox book of Daniel. Why? Because the Protestants removed chapters and versus from the Bible that Luther received.
According to Protestant Bible scholar Bruce Metzger’s *New Oxford Annotated Bible with apocrypha, ALL *extant Greek manuscripts follow the longer recension of the Book of Daniel accepted by Catholics & Orthodoxy. It is clear that St. Jerome accepted this longer recension of Daniel. It was included in his Latin Vulgate as well as the Old Latin versions. Furthermore, is was included in other manuscripts of various ancient languages (eg. Syriac, Coptic). This is admited to by Protestant scholars. Thus…
Every Christian Church in history–up to Protestantism–used the Catholic/Orthodox Book of Daniel, which is the LONGER LXX & Theodotion recension. Origen’s Daniel was the longer recension. Jerome’s Daniel was the longer recension.
The Protestant author’s, including James White, fail to address this historical anomaly. They instead prefer to gloss over the question by claiming “we use the scholarship of Jerome and Origen.” That claim is false, the facts say otherwise. They reject the Book of Daniel that EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH used until the Reformation, including Jerome and Origen. Why?
If the question is just too hard for Protestants to answer, perhaps they can simplify their approach by narrowing it simply to the Book of Daniel. The Protestant Book of Daniel is shorter than the Catholic & Orthodox book of Daniel. Why? Because the Protestants removed chapters and versus from the Bible that Luther received.
According to Protestant Bible scholar Bruce Metzger’s *New Oxford Annotated Bible with apocrypha, ALL *extant Greek manuscripts follow the longer recension of the Book of Daniel accepted by Catholics & Orthodoxy. It is clear that St. Jerome accepted this longer recension of Daniel. It was included in his Latin Vulgate as well as the Old Latin versions. Furthermore, is was included in other manuscripts of various ancient languages (eg. Syriac, Coptic). This is admited to by Protestant scholars. Thus…
Every Christian Church in history–up to Protestantism–used the Catholic/Orthodox Book of Daniel, which is the LONGER LXX & Theodotion recension. Origen’s Daniel was the longer recension. Jerome’s Daniel was the longer recension.
The Protestant author’s, including James White, fail to address this historical anomaly. They instead prefer to gloss over the question by claiming “we use the scholarship of Jerome and Origen.” That claim is false, the facts say otherwise. They reject the Book of Daniel that EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH used until the Reformation, including Jerome and Origen. Why?
N
NPS
Guest
To clumsily expand the Protestant’s “Professor” argument:
Instead of the professor writing an exact number of books, the professor WROTE NO BOOKS. He only taught. He hand picked a commitee of teaching assistants. Then he said “I want you to make an organization to pass down my teachings.”
Over the years the original group of hand-picked teaching assistants spread out all over the world and occassionally wrote letters and recollections about the professor. Groups of people who followed the professor’s teaching sprang up all over. Some were so enamored of the professors ideas that they made up their own letters and recollections. Some were jealous of the professor’s ideas and created false letters and recollections.
The professor, however had great insight to what might happen and commissioned his original teaching assistants to teach others for the express purpose of handing down and preserving the Professor’s teachings. This teaching by the original assistants was done orally. Only occassionaly did the teaching assistants write anything down.
The teaching assistants picked four from their group and had the four write down a summary of the Professor’s life and SOME of his teaching. They even expressly write in the summary that not all of the Professor’s teaching is included in the summary. THERE IS NO INTENTION by the teaching assistants to make a one volume complete biography and summary of the Professor’s life and teachings. The Professor, in fact, NEVER TOLD THEM TO DO SUCH A THING. What he did tell them to do, though is make an organization and make sure all he taught them is handed down specifically from direct teacher to direct teacher so nothing gets messed up.
After many, many years the original teaching assistants have all passed away. However, what they have done is to directly pick their successors and have handed down their knowledge and authority to teach about the Professor and his work. In fact every time one of the original teaching assistants dies, everyone on the committee gets together and picks someone to replace that person. They have done this since the beginning and even (unfortunately) had to pick one successor while the Professor was still around.
Many students from all over the world want to get in on this teaching, but they want to be sure that what they are taught is what the Professor and the original teaching assistants taught is the same thing. So the committee of teaching assistants takes a look at all the written documents purported to come from the Professor’s committee of assistants. Remember–the Professor wrote nothing down.
They get it all together. Oh boy! There are now 250-300 pieces of material that have supposedly come from the teaching assistants!
Obviously the committee starts going through it all. Who else can be trusted with this huge job but people who have been directly taught by original committee members?
Some pieces are obvious. “Yep, I remember this one” or “This letter fits exactly what we’ve been taught” etc.
and “This letter seems right, but look closer and you’ll see that the Professor’s teachings on ____________ are skewed. That doesn’t make sense. He never taught that”
and “This one is complete bull. Some people are obviously trying to undermine our efforts. Throw it in the fire.” etc etc etc.
The committee decides on what stays and what goes and puts it all into one volume, despite the professor never having told them to do so. But since they are directly linked to the original committee and have been taught what the professor taught, no one else on earth could be expected to have any authority whatsoever in deciding which written material should be included in the one volume.
(cont.)
Instead of the professor writing an exact number of books, the professor WROTE NO BOOKS. He only taught. He hand picked a commitee of teaching assistants. Then he said “I want you to make an organization to pass down my teachings.”
Over the years the original group of hand-picked teaching assistants spread out all over the world and occassionally wrote letters and recollections about the professor. Groups of people who followed the professor’s teaching sprang up all over. Some were so enamored of the professors ideas that they made up their own letters and recollections. Some were jealous of the professor’s ideas and created false letters and recollections.
The professor, however had great insight to what might happen and commissioned his original teaching assistants to teach others for the express purpose of handing down and preserving the Professor’s teachings. This teaching by the original assistants was done orally. Only occassionaly did the teaching assistants write anything down.
The teaching assistants picked four from their group and had the four write down a summary of the Professor’s life and SOME of his teaching. They even expressly write in the summary that not all of the Professor’s teaching is included in the summary. THERE IS NO INTENTION by the teaching assistants to make a one volume complete biography and summary of the Professor’s life and teachings. The Professor, in fact, NEVER TOLD THEM TO DO SUCH A THING. What he did tell them to do, though is make an organization and make sure all he taught them is handed down specifically from direct teacher to direct teacher so nothing gets messed up.
After many, many years the original teaching assistants have all passed away. However, what they have done is to directly pick their successors and have handed down their knowledge and authority to teach about the Professor and his work. In fact every time one of the original teaching assistants dies, everyone on the committee gets together and picks someone to replace that person. They have done this since the beginning and even (unfortunately) had to pick one successor while the Professor was still around.
Many students from all over the world want to get in on this teaching, but they want to be sure that what they are taught is what the Professor and the original teaching assistants taught is the same thing. So the committee of teaching assistants takes a look at all the written documents purported to come from the Professor’s committee of assistants. Remember–the Professor wrote nothing down.
They get it all together. Oh boy! There are now 250-300 pieces of material that have supposedly come from the teaching assistants!
Obviously the committee starts going through it all. Who else can be trusted with this huge job but people who have been directly taught by original committee members?
Some pieces are obvious. “Yep, I remember this one” or “This letter fits exactly what we’ve been taught” etc.
and “This letter seems right, but look closer and you’ll see that the Professor’s teachings on ____________ are skewed. That doesn’t make sense. He never taught that”
and “This one is complete bull. Some people are obviously trying to undermine our efforts. Throw it in the fire.” etc etc etc.
The committee decides on what stays and what goes and puts it all into one volume, despite the professor never having told them to do so. But since they are directly linked to the original committee and have been taught what the professor taught, no one else on earth could be expected to have any authority whatsoever in deciding which written material should be included in the one volume.
(cont.)
N
NPS
Guest
Fast forward 2000 years later. The organization that the Professor founded has grown to huge numbers around the world. They still use the exact volume of written opinions and teachings that have been used for 2000 years. Then along come some people who say they are the ones who really follow what the professor taught. That they really know which written material should be in the one-volume description of the Professor’s work!
So they take the volume and say “This part out” “This part in.” “This part out” and cut down the original volume, leaving out things that don’t sit well with them.
Then they say to the group who has painstakingly preserved this book and the teaching down through the centuries—“You guys have no right to this book!” and “It’s our book, not yours!!”
When the people who have followed the original teaching assistants protest such arrogance the newcomers laugh and say “Where do you think this book came from you idiots?!? It came from the PROFESSOR!!! He wanted us to have it!!!”
The “originals” then say “Do you have any idea how we got that book in the first place? Do you know how much we loved that book and that we kept it safe and free from harm for 2000 years? Do you have any inkling how many people have died for that volume which you now happily cut away at and claim ownership of ?!?” The newcomers sneer “You’ve always hated this book! Don’t deny it”.
So they take the volume and say “This part out” “This part in.” “This part out” and cut down the original volume, leaving out things that don’t sit well with them.
Then they say to the group who has painstakingly preserved this book and the teaching down through the centuries—“You guys have no right to this book!” and “It’s our book, not yours!!”
When the people who have followed the original teaching assistants protest such arrogance the newcomers laugh and say “Where do you think this book came from you idiots?!? It came from the PROFESSOR!!! He wanted us to have it!!!”
The “originals” then say “Do you have any idea how we got that book in the first place? Do you know how much we loved that book and that we kept it safe and free from harm for 2000 years? Do you have any inkling how many people have died for that volume which you now happily cut away at and claim ownership of ?!?” The newcomers sneer “You’ve always hated this book! Don’t deny it”.
S
singerlady
Guest
Luke 18:13
A
Angainor
Guest
Was Luther sucessful in this?
Why or why not?
E
Eden
Guest
singerlady said:
Luke 18:13 is “God be merciful to me, a sinner.”
The Jesus Prayer for those who say they are “born again” is:
Dear Jesus,
I am a sinner. I realize that I cannot be the kind of person you want me to be on my own. I am willing to turn from my sin and give myself to You. Please forgive me and come into my heart and direct my life. Help me in this new walk. Thank you, Jesus. Amen
I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where Jesus teaches us to do this in order to be saved.
P
Philthy
Guest
Returnee's buddy:
Returnee:
Returnee's buddy:
The same with Scripture. We know that what comes forth from God’s divine inspiration is the supreme authority! We never go against it. This is Sola Scriptura. It does not answer the question of whether or not we got the list of inspired books. It does answer the question of what supreme authority should a Christian depend. Surely, the supreme authority that any Christian must follow is no other than what God spoke and revealed to man. In other words, what God inspired.
No kidding. Unfortunately, we have no way of determining what the inspired writings of God are: his argument seems to be in denial of the most fundamental elements of the discussion. In addition, he has made a claim about “writings” and believing them apart from first determining that they even exist! Complete nonsense.
Returnee's buddy:
Now we move to the issue of the canon. Going back to the illustration, we ask ourselves this what-if scenario. What if no one cared and took the time to study and list the books the man wrote? Does that mean that we have no canon? No.
OH I disagree. There is a difference between a canon EXISTING and our HAVING it. The canon EXISTS but we do not HAVE it.
This is a big problem and he has not made one inch of progress.
Returnee's buddy:
Whether or not someone knew about the canon, the canon exists. The canon is not dependent on anyone’s declaration or discovery!
No, it isnt but our KNOWLEDGE of it IS dependent on someone declaring it. Big difference.
Returnee's buddy:
The canon exists because the man wrote books. It exists whether or not some group of people gather together and declare the list of books the man wrote. In the same way, it is not true that the ECF or councils established the canon or made the canon of Scripture.
Mincing words: they REVEALED it.
It is not true that the canon is defined by their authority. Simply because the canon will exist whether or not anyone took the the time to discover it.
Simple? What is plainly obvious is that he hasn’t moved one inch closer to knowing a single book written by “the expert” despite the fact that the collection “exists” and is “inspired”.
con’d
OK, lets keep our eyes peeled for the difference between “believing the ultimate authority of Scripture” and “discovering what Scripture is”. It is a false dichotomy he has identified. Catholics have no problem recognizing the two as separate. They are separate but have as their origin the same Source.
First problem in the analysis: although we don’t doubt that the writings inspire by “the expert” are the ultimate teaching we still don’t which ones actually written by “the expert”. Not only that, we have no idea whether 1, 5, 10 , 50 or 500 books were written by “the expert”. His hypothetical 10 books is totally incompatible with the reality of the challenges that faced the early Church.
Returnee's buddy:
The same with Scripture. We know that what comes forth from God’s divine inspiration is the supreme authority! We never go against it. This is Sola Scriptura. It does not answer the question of whether or not we got the list of inspired books. It does answer the question of what supreme authority should a Christian depend. Surely, the supreme authority that any Christian must follow is no other than what God spoke and revealed to man. In other words, what God inspired.
No kidding. Unfortunately, we have no way of determining what the inspired writings of God are: his argument seems to be in denial of the most fundamental elements of the discussion. In addition, he has made a claim about “writings” and believing them apart from first determining that they even exist! Complete nonsense.
Returnee's buddy:
Now we move to the issue of the canon. Going back to the illustration, we ask ourselves this what-if scenario. What if no one cared and took the time to study and list the books the man wrote? Does that mean that we have no canon? No.
OH I disagree. There is a difference between a canon EXISTING and our HAVING it. The canon EXISTS but we do not HAVE it.
This is a big problem and he has not made one inch of progress.
Returnee's buddy:
Whether or not someone knew about the canon, the canon exists. The canon is not dependent on anyone’s declaration or discovery!
No, it isnt but our KNOWLEDGE of it IS dependent on someone declaring it. Big difference.
Returnee's buddy:
The canon exists because the man wrote books. It exists whether or not some group of people gather together and declare the list of books the man wrote. In the same way, it is not true that the ECF or councils established the canon or made the canon of Scripture.
Mincing words: they REVEALED it.
It is not true that the canon is defined by their authority. Simply because the canon will exist whether or not anyone took the the time to discover it.
Simple? What is plainly obvious is that he hasn’t moved one inch closer to knowing a single book written by “the expert” despite the fact that the collection “exists” and is “inspired”.
con’d
P
Philthy
Guest
Returnee's buddy:
Returnee's buddy:
Returnee's buddy:
Returnee's buddy:
Oh sure its the result of Scripture despite the facts that:
Returnee's buddy:
Us? Fully evidence? Facts? He seems to believe that the canon determined by the Catholic Church obviated these resources - it didnt, it used them and was guided in using them by the holy Spirit.
Returnee's buddy:
Oh we are pretty sure because Jesus Christ promised to found his earthly Church on Peter and our Church is founded on Peter. And because he promised the gift of the holy Spirit to guide the Apostles into all Truth and they saw fit under that inspiration to appoint successors and we have the writings of those successors who were Catholic both in name and beliefs.
con’d
No, I dont - I see illogical reasoning and lack of recognition of the very heart of the issue.
Returnee's buddy:
Oh really? And where and when, exactly, did this “principle” come from? Remember, we have come to this “principle” APART from Scripture. That is a violation of sola scriptura no matter how you dress it up.
Returnee's buddy:
How exactly did we decide to pledge allegiance to Scripture ALONE prior to determining what Scripture is? This is complete nonsense.
Returnee's buddy:
Studying history and how we got the canon is not a violation at all of Sola Scriptura! In fact, it is the reinforcement of that commitment and principle. Studying and recovering the canon is not at all contradictory to Sola Scriptura. In fact, it is the result of Sola Scriptura.
Oh sure its the result of Scripture despite the facts that:
- we havent read one word of Scripture yet and that
- Scripture nowhere actually tells us that there will be more “Scripture” to look to
- Scripture no where says to “search history for Scripture”
- Scripture tells us to subject ourselves to oral tradition(1Thess 2:15)
- Scripture tells us to be subject to “the Presbyters” 1Pet 5:5-6)
- Scripture tells us that the Church is the foundation of truth
Well this is a start: he acknowledges that he doesnt actually know that what he calls the Bible is actually Scripture. We knew that from the start, and that is the product of his theology:Sola Scriptura! And we are supposed to buy into this???
Returnee's buddy:
to fully evidence our knowledge of the canon based on facts not based on our assumed authority and conferring to ourselves infallibility./QUOTE]
Us? Fully evidence? Facts? He seems to believe that the canon determined by the Catholic Church obviated these resources - it didnt, it used them and was guided in using them by the holy Spirit.
Returnee's buddy:
But friend, I hope you notice the flaw of your argument. Please consider and ask yourself: How sure am I that my magisterium is infallible in recognizing the canon?
Oh we are pretty sure because Jesus Christ promised to found his earthly Church on Peter and our Church is founded on Peter. And because he promised the gift of the holy Spirit to guide the Apostles into all Truth and they saw fit under that inspiration to appoint successors and we have the writings of those successors who were Catholic both in name and beliefs.
con’d
P
Philthy
Guest
Returnee's buddy:
Returnee's buddy:
Returnee's buddy:
Simply? First we come to the conclusion of their infallibility based on “faith, reason, Scripture, tradition and history” and from there we accept their authenticity as the “pillar and foundation of Truth” to proclaim the Truth - even if that Truth is not immediately recognized as such by our intellects. That is not “simply” believing what they say.
Returnee's buddy:
Phil
I dont see it - I hear you claiming it without support.
Returnee's buddy:
Still waiting for validation of Sola Scriptura and this wont do. I never said I had infallible knowledge of the magisterium’s infallibility - it is a belief which is supported by faith, reason, Scripture, tradition and history. Sola Scriptura remains unreasonable, unScriptural, untraditional and ahistorical.
Returnee's buddy:
because you believe they are infallible.
Simply? First we come to the conclusion of their infallibility based on “faith, reason, Scripture, tradition and history” and from there we accept their authenticity as the “pillar and foundation of Truth” to proclaim the Truth - even if that Truth is not immediately recognized as such by our intellects. That is not “simply” believing what they say.
Returnee's buddy:
And he ends with more questions. What happened to justifying the validity of Sola Scriptura through “the differentiation between believing the ultimate authority of Scripture and discovering what Scripture is.” That was supposed to be “important to grasp because often times, the criticism against Sola Scriptura and the Canon are mixed although in reality they are separate.” He never arrived at valid reason for the premise that Scripture apart from the Church is the final authority in matters of faith and morals, which is the heart of Sola Scriptura - decent try though.
Phil
B
BrianH
Guest
The Gospel of Peter was read and appreciated by Christians in the second century and quoted by Justin Martyr.
The “Muratiorian Fragment” (named after L.A. Muratori who published the list, copied from a 7th century codex) provides a list of accepted books in Rome from c.180-200 which includes the Jewish Old Testament plus the Wisdom of Solomon. The New Testament consists of our 27 book less Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter. The canonical Apocalypse of John is placed alongside the non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter. The fragment attests to the very favorable and perhaps canonical standing of the Shepherd of Hermas at Rome, though concludes that it may be read but not to given to the people. The fragment alleges that the Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrines are forged.
Ireneus quoted Hermes as scripture, as did Origen and Cyprian.
The provincial Council of Laodicea (363) excluded Revelation, as did Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) and Gregory of Nazianzen.
Origen (185-254) listed only the Letter of Jeremiah from the deuterocanonical books in his OT catalog, though his writings cite the deuterocanonical books of the OT as Scripture and he defended the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel in his letter of Julius Africanus. He lists two categories of NT books: undisputed (four gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation) and disputed in the Church though he himself accepted them as Scripture (Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, Didache Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews). Origen was the first known Christian writer to mention 2 Peter.
Cyprian (3rd century) included all our 27 NT books except except Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, and Jude. He also recognized Shepherd of Hermas and considered Didache an authentic apostolic work as well.
Lucian of Samosata, a founders of the Antioch exegetical school excluded Apocalypse, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude.
The “Mommsen’s Canon,” a 10th-century manuscript from a West African original c.360 contains a lists with our 27 NT books excluding Hebrews, James, and Jude.
Theodore of Mopsuestia rejected all the Catholic Epistles.
Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (314-339) provided three lists: universally acknowledged (four gospels, Acts, 14 Pauline epistles including Hebrews, 1 John, 1 Peter and Revelation), disputed of a superior sort (James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John) and disputed of an inferior sort (Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, and Didache). He personally rejected the now-canonical Revelation.
Amphilochius of Iconium (4th C) gave a list of our 27 books, but stated that Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation were all spurious.
John Chrysostom (Bishop of Constantinople 397-407) excluded 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.
Tertullian considered the book of Enoch inspired, as does the Abyssian Church to the present day (along with Jubilees, Mysteries of Heaven and Earth, Combat of Adam and Eve, and Ascension of Isaias).
Until the fifth century, the Syriac Church NT canon included only 4 gospels or Diatessaron, Acts and 14 Paul’s epistles (with Hebrews), plus 3 Corinthians. In the early fifth century, James, 1 Peter and 1 John were accepted. In 508, part of the Syriac Church accepted the entire 27-book canon.
St. Hippolytus (d. 236) comments on the Susanna chapter, often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Machabees.
In 367, a list drawn up by Athanasius (Bishop of Alexandria) matches our 27 New Testament books for the first time, but his opinion was just one of many. Moreover, he included Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah from the deuterocanonical books but omitted Esther. He also listed as books appointed for reading to catechumens for edification and instruction: Wisdom of Solomon, the Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobias, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas; all others are apocrypha and heretical (Festal Epistle). Gregory of Nazianzus (c 330 - 390) followed this OT list of Athanasius.
The local Council of Laodicea (c. 363) included Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah from the deuterocanonical books but included Esther and excluded Revelation from the accepted NT books.
Cyril (Bishop of Jerusalem, 348-386) follows Origen’s OT list but included Baruch as well and excluded Revelation from the NT.
Gregory of Nazianzen also excluded Revelation from the NT.
St. Augustine used the deuterocanonical books throughout his writings with no differentiation of authenticity and in “De Doctrin‚ Christian‚” lists the Tridentine Old Testament.
The Synod of Toledo (633) states that many still contested the authority of John’s Apocalypse, and found it necessary to order the book to be read in the churches under pain of excommunication.
stu.lmu.edu/wbeutel/write/canon.htm
The “Muratiorian Fragment” (named after L.A. Muratori who published the list, copied from a 7th century codex) provides a list of accepted books in Rome from c.180-200 which includes the Jewish Old Testament plus the Wisdom of Solomon. The New Testament consists of our 27 book less Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter. The canonical Apocalypse of John is placed alongside the non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter. The fragment attests to the very favorable and perhaps canonical standing of the Shepherd of Hermas at Rome, though concludes that it may be read but not to given to the people. The fragment alleges that the Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrines are forged.
Ireneus quoted Hermes as scripture, as did Origen and Cyprian.
The provincial Council of Laodicea (363) excluded Revelation, as did Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) and Gregory of Nazianzen.
Origen (185-254) listed only the Letter of Jeremiah from the deuterocanonical books in his OT catalog, though his writings cite the deuterocanonical books of the OT as Scripture and he defended the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel in his letter of Julius Africanus. He lists two categories of NT books: undisputed (four gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation) and disputed in the Church though he himself accepted them as Scripture (Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, Didache Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews). Origen was the first known Christian writer to mention 2 Peter.
Cyprian (3rd century) included all our 27 NT books except except Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, and Jude. He also recognized Shepherd of Hermas and considered Didache an authentic apostolic work as well.
Lucian of Samosata, a founders of the Antioch exegetical school excluded Apocalypse, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude.
The “Mommsen’s Canon,” a 10th-century manuscript from a West African original c.360 contains a lists with our 27 NT books excluding Hebrews, James, and Jude.
Theodore of Mopsuestia rejected all the Catholic Epistles.
Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (314-339) provided three lists: universally acknowledged (four gospels, Acts, 14 Pauline epistles including Hebrews, 1 John, 1 Peter and Revelation), disputed of a superior sort (James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John) and disputed of an inferior sort (Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, and Didache). He personally rejected the now-canonical Revelation.
Amphilochius of Iconium (4th C) gave a list of our 27 books, but stated that Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation were all spurious.
John Chrysostom (Bishop of Constantinople 397-407) excluded 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.
Tertullian considered the book of Enoch inspired, as does the Abyssian Church to the present day (along with Jubilees, Mysteries of Heaven and Earth, Combat of Adam and Eve, and Ascension of Isaias).
Until the fifth century, the Syriac Church NT canon included only 4 gospels or Diatessaron, Acts and 14 Paul’s epistles (with Hebrews), plus 3 Corinthians. In the early fifth century, James, 1 Peter and 1 John were accepted. In 508, part of the Syriac Church accepted the entire 27-book canon.
St. Hippolytus (d. 236) comments on the Susanna chapter, often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Machabees.
In 367, a list drawn up by Athanasius (Bishop of Alexandria) matches our 27 New Testament books for the first time, but his opinion was just one of many. Moreover, he included Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah from the deuterocanonical books but omitted Esther. He also listed as books appointed for reading to catechumens for edification and instruction: Wisdom of Solomon, the Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobias, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas; all others are apocrypha and heretical (Festal Epistle). Gregory of Nazianzus (c 330 - 390) followed this OT list of Athanasius.
The local Council of Laodicea (c. 363) included Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah from the deuterocanonical books but included Esther and excluded Revelation from the accepted NT books.
Cyril (Bishop of Jerusalem, 348-386) follows Origen’s OT list but included Baruch as well and excluded Revelation from the NT.
Gregory of Nazianzen also excluded Revelation from the NT.
St. Augustine used the deuterocanonical books throughout his writings with no differentiation of authenticity and in “De Doctrin‚ Christian‚” lists the Tridentine Old Testament.
The Synod of Toledo (633) states that many still contested the authority of John’s Apocalypse, and found it necessary to order the book to be read in the churches under pain of excommunication.
stu.lmu.edu/wbeutel/write/canon.htm
E
Eden
Guest
BrianH, your link was very useful for supporting the Catholic position on this. Had you intended that? You are usually representing the Protestant point of view, so I wasn’t certain.
Here are some excerpts from the same article you quote above:
“The fact that Christians did not consider the canon a significant issue until the 16th century is strong evidence that any form of Christianity which requires as an essential point that there exists a clearly-defined canon must be a different form of Christianity than existed at any time between in the first sixteen centuries of Christian history. Further, we do not have strong traditions of apostolic authorship for all the New Testament writings from the early second century on. On the contrary, Revelation was barely admitted and was widely disputed for centuries. The epistle of Hebrews just a little less so, along with James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 & 3 John. Most modern Christians will agree that Hebrews and Revelation are important to Christianity. Also the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermes, Didache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews were widely accepted as authoritative, and read in church. Hard evidence of the confused state of the the canon in the early Church is found in the following easily-verifiable facts.”
“Thus, as late as the fourth century, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were still widely debated, and on the basis of early church testimony alone, without the authoritative decision of a subsequent church council, we should even now doubt the apostolic authority of at least Revelation, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation, and should be slow to dismiss at least the Shepherd of Hermes and the Gospel of the Hebrews (9 books). We cannot have probable confidence about the traditional New Testament canon without belief in divine guidance through a visible organ such as an infallible Church. John Wenham, a Protestant theologian who gave special attention to the canon, noting this difficulty, appeals to the guidance of Providence to insure the soundness of their decisions, but does not explain why he then rejects this Providence in other matters of Catholic doctrine before and after the local council of Hippo.”
Here are some excerpts from the same article you quote above:
“The fact that Christians did not consider the canon a significant issue until the 16th century is strong evidence that any form of Christianity which requires as an essential point that there exists a clearly-defined canon must be a different form of Christianity than existed at any time between in the first sixteen centuries of Christian history. Further, we do not have strong traditions of apostolic authorship for all the New Testament writings from the early second century on. On the contrary, Revelation was barely admitted and was widely disputed for centuries. The epistle of Hebrews just a little less so, along with James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 & 3 John. Most modern Christians will agree that Hebrews and Revelation are important to Christianity. Also the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermes, Didache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews were widely accepted as authoritative, and read in church. Hard evidence of the confused state of the the canon in the early Church is found in the following easily-verifiable facts.”
“Thus, as late as the fourth century, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were still widely debated, and on the basis of early church testimony alone, without the authoritative decision of a subsequent church council, we should even now doubt the apostolic authority of at least Revelation, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation, and should be slow to dismiss at least the Shepherd of Hermes and the Gospel of the Hebrews (9 books). We cannot have probable confidence about the traditional New Testament canon without belief in divine guidance through a visible organ such as an infallible Church. John Wenham, a Protestant theologian who gave special attention to the canon, noting this difficulty, appeals to the guidance of Providence to insure the soundness of their decisions, but does not explain why he then rejects this Providence in other matters of Catholic doctrine before and after the local council of Hippo.”
E
Eden
Guest
“Finally, the canon of the Old Testament was, and still is, controversial. From Christ’s infallible teachings on the Old Testament, we can regard the Old Testament as inspired and infallible, but what exactly did this Old Testament include which Jesus declared authoritative? First, there is the dispute over the Catholic deuterocanonical books (Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Letter of Jeremiah, and several additional chapters of Daniel and Esther), included in the Catholic Old Testament but not in the Protestant Old Testament. The Catholic canon of the Old Testament was also not settled by ecumenical council until 1546, but there was an Old Testament canon promulgated along with the New Testament canon cited above by the local councils of Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. This canon included the deuterocanonical books, making it suspicious when Protestants appeal to these local councils as evidence for the canon of the New Testament but ignore the Old Testament canon promulgated together with that New Testament canon by these very same councils. Besides these, there is also the question of the “Antilegomena,” Old Testament books which were still of controversial authority even in the second century: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Proverbs, and Ezekiel (cf. Archer, Survey of Old Testament Introduction). It should be noted that Ethiopian Jews, against the general Jewish canon from the Council of Jamnia, AD 90, accept all the Septuagint books (except Ecclesiasticus) to this day (Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 2, page 174). For the purposes of this discussion it need only be noted that between the deuterocanonical books and the Antilegomena, there are 25 books of considerable disputability from the Old Testament.”
“It can be argued that these 42 disputed books are not essential to Christianity. However, this seems fairly dubious for several reasons. First, Revelation tells us far more about our heavenly home than any other book, and Hebrews is very valuable for its teaching on the priesthood of Christ. 2 Maccabees 12:46 teaches purgatory fairly clearly. Other deuterocanonical verses support Catholic justification (Tobit 12:9, 14:10,11; Ecclus 3:30; 1 Macc 2:52) (Wenham 152), intercession of saints (2 Macc 15:12-16), and the power of good works to atone for sin (Sir 3:3,15,17). Second, the claim that everything important is not in these books seems a rather subjective claim: the most important according to whom and according to whose authoritative opinion? Third, in principle, what kind of a canon is it that contains 66 books, and 42 uncertain ones (64% uncertainty)?** This suggests rather that the canon was not an important question for Christians and for God for the first 15 centuries of Christianity. The boundary of the canon remains to this day too ambiguous to assert (even probably) without an external, visible infallible organ, and to make such an assertion independent of this organ seems to fly in the face of the implication of historical fact that Christians were not too concerned about the canon for 15 centuries because they looked to another authority besides scripture alone**.”
“It can be argued that these 42 disputed books are not essential to Christianity. However, this seems fairly dubious for several reasons. First, Revelation tells us far more about our heavenly home than any other book, and Hebrews is very valuable for its teaching on the priesthood of Christ. 2 Maccabees 12:46 teaches purgatory fairly clearly. Other deuterocanonical verses support Catholic justification (Tobit 12:9, 14:10,11; Ecclus 3:30; 1 Macc 2:52) (Wenham 152), intercession of saints (2 Macc 15:12-16), and the power of good works to atone for sin (Sir 3:3,15,17). Second, the claim that everything important is not in these books seems a rather subjective claim: the most important according to whom and according to whose authoritative opinion? Third, in principle, what kind of a canon is it that contains 66 books, and 42 uncertain ones (64% uncertainty)?** This suggests rather that the canon was not an important question for Christians and for God for the first 15 centuries of Christianity. The boundary of the canon remains to this day too ambiguous to assert (even probably) without an external, visible infallible organ, and to make such an assertion independent of this organ seems to fly in the face of the implication of historical fact that Christians were not too concerned about the canon for 15 centuries because they looked to another authority besides scripture alone**.”
B
BrianH
Guest
No the stuff you highlighted was just spin. I gave the facts that showed that Sacred Tradition was very wishy washy. Thankfully God in his providence gave us the scriptures in spite of the early church not being able to make up its mind due to relying on human reason. God is not the author of confusion. Catholicism was confused.
BH
BH
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Now that’s the BrianH we’ve all come to know and love!!! Thank you for restoring our faith in you!
The confusion regarding the Canon only proves that God can work through fallible men to gain His Will. I mean, he could have used another Moses technique and let Jesus come down from the mountain with a New Testament! He sure used Moses to pre-figure so much more of Jesus’ life.
Notworthy
The confusion regarding the Canon only proves that God can work through fallible men to gain His Will. I mean, he could have used another Moses technique and let Jesus come down from the mountain with a New Testament! He sure used Moses to pre-figure so much more of Jesus’ life.
Notworthy
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
This sentence of yours is correct. So, knowing that God is not the author of confusion, we can conclude that He is not the author of Sola Scriptura Protestantism (which is also known as confusion).
- Status