If Protestantism Is True

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abrigham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you.
Are you Roman Catholic or an atheist or agnostic ? I will not reply to your post until you make it clear on which of those 3 you are.
How did I attack the Scripture? I asked how you came to believe them as the Word of God?By SS?

Or was it more likely…in bible class…someone handed you a bible and said this is the word of God? And you believed right there and there?
yet he was asking me to to prove that Scripture is God’s Word. It seemed very odd that any professing believer would ever question on if Scripture is God’s Word in the manner of which he did to me.
Maybe you should calm down…and re-read what I asked? This is after all, a Catholic forum…and you will be asked hard and blunt questions.

You should have easily provided the chapter and verse, correct?
My basic disagreement with the RCC is that of so called sacred tradition as being equal with Scripture.
If it is Apostolic, why should you have a problem with Sacred Tradition? You believe in the canon of the Bible, for after all, it is a produce of Sacred Tradition…how can Scripture be supreme from that which produced the Canon?
I just merely reject unwritten oral doctrinal traditions which are contradicted or denied by Scripture. I affirm tradition so long as it is confirmed by Scripture. 🙂
Which goes back to the main point of my questioning…who/where is that authority that will say when tradition contradicts Scripture?

Why should I believe that person who declares such?

Or the issue is interpretation?

Or it is what is described here…a pick and choose approach…He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…**If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. **

For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

Is what is described above reasonably describes your method or not?
[/QUOTE]
 
Like I said, whatever reasoning that Catholic church has for the Scripture being the word of God, I accept.
Ah, then, so you’re not a Scripture alone advocate?

And you acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church.

And that there exists in the Church, at least as it pertains to the canon of Scripture, the charism of infallibility?
 
The question being posed is not to “cast doubt on Scripture”, Chafer.
Yes it is. Your question is that of which is asked by atheist and agnostics to christians. enough said on that.
The question being posed is to get you to understand that when you accept Scripture as inspired, what you are doing is acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church.
My belief has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism nor do I accept the authority of Roman Catholic Church as you do. Please dont project your own conceptions on me. I do not equate the Catholic Church as limited to the Roman See. I reject your presupositions right from the start of things.
For it was the Catholic Church that discerned for you, from over 400 early Christian writings, what was* theopneustos *and what was not.
Intresting since the Roman See was uncertain of the Old Testament Canon until the council of Trent in 1546ad. That is when the RCC OT Canon was infallibly and dogmatically proclaim and settle the issue for the Roman See. Too bad it does not line up with many church father such as Jerome and others as far as the Old Testament is concerned. You may probably be unaware that the local councils of Hippo and Cartage affirmed Old Testament books that were rejected by the council of Trent. Another intresting thing is Eastern Orthodox have an even larger Old Testament Canon than Roman Catholicism yet each claims to have apostolic tradition on their side.
That’s the ONLY way you know that Hebrews is inspired but that the Shepherd of Hermas isn’t.
That is incorrect.
Because of the authority of the Catholic Church. 🤷
An empty claim that can never be proven . The chuch is a mere wittness to Scripture . It does not claim to have authority over it. Very bad conception of Scripture that you have. I also reject your use of the words Catholic Church. Those word were used of the church as a whole and never limited to the Roman See. I have the creeds and the church fathers on this issue.
 
Like I said, whatever reasoning that Catholic church has for the Scripture being the word of God, I accept.

But it could be logical to acknowledge the authority of the early Catholic church while doubting later Catholic church based on it’s subsequent behavior.

And even among both-lungs of the Catholic church, there’s no firm agreement on what books are in the bible - the East having more and different.
The problem with this is behavior vs authority. Well, even Jesus acknowledge the seat of Moses while advising against the occupant behavior. We must remember also, the early Church was not a romantic-golden age without clash between the Church and Empire. But what was authorized, we accept them.

I understand that Eastern Churches have more bible.
The differing canons the Apostolic Churches have, if need to be resolved, will be determined by the those having the authority of apostolic succession, and perhaps within an ecumenical council. Of course, assuming there is no more rift between these Churches for that to happen. And for the participants, this will become a dogmatic pronouncement, with authority.

But the problem in consideration is regarding sola-scriptura consistency: How is sola-scriptura self sufficient to infallibly know which books are indeed Scriptures (and the public revelation is definitely ended).
 
Paul did refer to Scripture as making the man of God complete or sufficient ( base on NT Greek word used there ) for his task of doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction for righteousness.

That is what Paul wrote in 2 Tim. 3:16-18. It likewise teaches that Scripture is given by inspiration of God which places this is a special class from all other things that are oral or written. We have no claimed prophets of God or apostles today thus we presently have no so called inspired unwritten oral tradition. The facts are this : 1 ) Scripture is sufficient for the man of God for his task. 2 ) The nature and quality of Scripture makes it supreme. It is inspired by God and is in a class by itself.

Same as above.
Well…you said this…I just merely reject unwritten oral doctrinal traditions which are contradicted or denied by Scripture. I affirm tradition so long as it is confirmed by Scripture.

Let me point out something with your citation of 2Tim3:16.
We Catholics actually read this passage with verse 14…which reads…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

V14 speaks of oral instruction…thereby confiming what Paul said…hold to written and oral traditions.

So let me ask you…do we catholics then contradict the Bible by including v14?

And how do you then explain your point 1 above with the inclusion of v14 included?

Oh…and besides…the term “man of God”…when taken in context and the meaning and language of those times…does not mean any person…but a man called to the ministry.
 
Hi Pablope—In my post which you quoted, I was simply speaking to Ben; and he has already graciously replied to my post.

?
Sorry…the posts may have crossed…typical on here in the forum.
How do you mean for your user name to be pronounced in readers’ minds—Pablo PE or pab-lope
:rotfl: I see the confusion…:D…Pablo PE but you could also say as you see it…😉
 
If you would have looked on the upper right corner…you would have not needed to ask the question…😃
Maybe in name only. But your arguments are those followed by atheist and agnostics . Enough said.
How did I attack the Scripture? I asked how you came to believe them as the Word of God?By SS?
I said you attacked Scripture itself. I made no mention of attacking Sola Scripture which is another issue altogether.
Or was it more likely…in bible class…someone handed you a bible and said this is the word of God? And you believed right there and there?
Nope. I wrote what I wrote and no where stated that. I have no need to repeat it again since evidently you dont want to take it at fact value and reject it anyway. As I said before enough said. Your own statements are that of an atheist or agnostic .
Maybe you should calm down…and re-read what I asked? This is after all, a Catholic forum…and you will be asked hard and blunt questions.
I am calm. No proper Roman Catholic would ever question the inspiration of Scripture. I have no problem with this being a Catholic forum. I merely consider you an unorthodox Roman Catholic based on your attack towards Scripture.
You should have easily provided the chapter and verse, correct?
Why since you may not believe that Scripture is inspired after all ?
If it is Apostolic, why should you have a problem with Sacred Tradition? You believe in the canon of the Bible, for after all, it is a produce of Sacred Tradition…how can Scripture be supreme from that which produced the Canon?
Nothing but empty claims made without the true facts of history.
Which goes back to the main point of my questioning…who/where is that authority that will say when tradition contradicts Scripture?
Scripture itself. We are to search the Scripture to see if these things were so. This requires private judgement. But we also have the help of bishops in the church though it is fallible. It is not me and my bible out in the words all alone . It is the job of the RCC to prove it’s distinctive doctrines are apostolic and not merely claim it. The RCC cant prove that it’s distinctive doctrines are actual apostolic traditions which Paul taught in 2 Thes 2:15.
Why should I believe that person who declares such?
Based on Scripture. Though you have a low view of it.
Or the issue is interpretation?
Interpretation is the product of proper exegesis.
Or it is what is described here…a pick and choose approach…He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…**If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. **
For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.
Is what is described above reasonably describes your method or not?
No. But it sure looks like those very statements can be said towards yourself in regards to Roman Catholicism. I will use a case point as an example. Do you accept the Old Testament Canon listing of Saint Jerome or that of the Council of Trent ? Your answer will expose your double standard arguments. 🙂
 
Well…you said this…I just merely reject unwritten oral doctrinal traditions which are contradicted or denied by Scripture. I affirm tradition so long as it is confirmed by Scripture.

Let me point out something with your citation of 2Tim3:16.
We Catholics actually read this passage with verse 14…which reads…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

V14 speaks of oral instruction…thereby confiming what Paul said…hold to written and oral traditions.

So let me ask you…do we catholics then contradict the Bible by including v14?

And how do you then explain your point 1 above with the inclusion of v14 included?

Oh…and besides…the term “man of God”…when taken in context and the meaning and language of those times…does not mean any person…but a man called to the ministry.
There is no offical Roman Catholic exposition of 2 Tim 3:14-18. You are giving me your own private interpretation and not the offical position of the RCC on that verse. You practice that which you deny towards Protestants. The main point is we have no present day inspired oral traditions that has been passed on as claimed. Verse 14 does not state the claimed oral traditons are distinct in context from that which in The Holy Scripture. Thus you do not deal with the proper issue on that point. Paul taught oral traditions in 2 Thes 2:15 but it was the same in content as his writings as far as doctrines are concerned. Paul’s oral teachings were binding whereas that of Roman Catholicism is not since they cant trace it’s distinctive doctrinal oral traditions as being taught by Paul in 2 Thes 2:15.
 
So are you saying that just because something says it’s true, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true, correct?

I believe, just like you, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, because the Catholic Church discerned for me, and for you, what belonged in the Bible. That’s the ONLY way you know what is inspired, Yendis.
We both know those books are in correct. They came after the Bible and are historically false.
 
Ah, then, so you’re not a Scripture alone advocate?

And you acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church.

And that there exists in the Church, at least as it pertains to the canon of Scripture, the charism of infallibility?
I will see that the RCC departed from Jesus on the OT Canon and from several church fathers.

The Old Testament consisted of a threefold division which is known as the Law of Moses, the prophets and the writings. It was written by chosen men of God whom were prophets by office or had the prophetic gift or was a prophet by Office and had the prophetic gift

Here is a listing of the Old Testament Canon of the Jewish people.

DIVISION of the Old Testament Books. : The thirty-nine books of the OT were anciently divided by the Hebrews into three distinct classes: ( 1 ) The law ( Torah ) , which consisted of the five books of Moses- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These are the oldest of the biblical books, Mosaic in origin but incorporating much earlier material. ( 2 ) The Prophets ( Nevi’im ) , Which embraced the four earlier Prophets, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings and the four later prophets, Isaiah, Jermiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve- Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. These were believed to have been written by those who had the prophetic office as well as the prophetic gift. ( 3 ) The Writings ( Kenthuvim ) , which consisted of ( a ) poetical books- Psalms, Proverbs, Job; ( b ) the Rolls- Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; and ( c ) prophetical-historical books- Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The Heb. books number twenty-four and are identical in content with the thirty-nine of the English order, the difference being made up by the division of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books respectively instead of one, and by counting the twelves minor prophets individually instead of as one. ( THE NEW UNGER’S BIBLE DICTIONARY, 169-170 )

Proper arguments againist the Apocrypha as not being part of the Old Testament Canon is based on :

1 ) It was not included within the threefold division of the Hebrew Canon which consist of the law of Moses, the prophets and the Writings. The Lord Jesus affirmed this threefold division of the OT Canon of Jews in Israel.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

2 ) The Apocrypha was not written by one who was a prophet by office or had the prophetic gift or both.

3 ) Though the Apocrypha was read they were never viewed as inspired Scripture by the Jews.

4 ) Roman Catholicism did not dogmatically and infallibly define it’s Old Testament Canon until the year 1546 at the Council of Trent. The Apocrypha generally speaking were not viewed by the church fathers as being part of the OT Canon. They were viewed as books read for edification and not for the establishment of doctrine. The general catholic position of the OT Canon is reflected by Saint Jerome prior to the Council of Trent. Many Roman Catholic apologist contend their OT Canon was followed prior to Trent. Here is a refutation.

Catholic scholar Cajetan said " Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest ( that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees ) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage " ( Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. )
 
Preface to the Books of the Kings. Circa A.D. 391.

This preface, also known as the Prologus Galeatus, “Helmeted Preface,” was written by Jerome about the year 391. In it he maintains that, for the Old Testament, only the Hebrew books traditionally regarded as Holy Scripture by the Jews are canonical, and the extra books of the Septuagint “are not in the canon.”

St. Jerome’s Prologue to the Books of the Kings 2

That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testified also by the Syrian and Chaldaaen languages, which for the most part correspond to the Hebrew; for they have twenty-two elementary sounds which are pronounced the same way, but are differently written. The Samaritans also write the Pentateuch of Moses with just the same number of letters, differing only in the shape and points of the letters. And it is certain that Esdras, the scribe and teacher of the law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the restoration of the temple by Zerubbabel, invented other letters which we now use, for up to that time the Samaritan and Hebrew characters were the same. In the book of Numbers, moreover, where we have the census of the Levites and priests [Num. 3:39], the same total is presented mystically. And we find the four-lettered name of the Lord [tetragrammaton] in certain Greek books written to this day in the ancient characters. The thirty-seventh Psalm, moreover, the one hundred and eleventh, the one hundred and twelfth, the one hundred and nineteenth, and the one hundred and forty-fifth, although they are written in different metres, are all composed [as acrostics] according to an alphabet of the same number of letters. The Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his Prayer, the Proverbs of Solomon also, towards the end, from the place where we read “Who will find a steadfast woman?” are instances of the same number of letters forming the division into sections. Furthermore, five are double letters, viz., Caph, Mem, Nun, Phe, Sade, for at the beginning and in the middle of words they are written one way, and at the end another way. Whence it happens that, by most people, five of the books are reckoned as double, viz., Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Jeremiah with Kinoth, i.e., his Lamentations. As, then, there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all we say, and the human voice is comprehended within their limits, so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast.

The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is, ‘Law.’

The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, which among them is called Joshua ben Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah; the sixth, Jeremiah; the seventh, Ezekiel; and the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among them Thare Asra.

To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job; the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms. The third is Solomon, in three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth; Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth; and the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim. The sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more descriptively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. The eighth is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.

And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Law; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the ancient Law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb and offer their crowns with lowered visage, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and will be.”

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted * introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.

Although these things are thus, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are intended to disparage the ancients *. For the service of the tabernacle of God each one offers what he can; some gold and silver and precious stones, others linen and blue and purple and scarlet; we shall do well if we offer skins and goats’ hair [cf. Exod.25:3-5]. And yet the Apostle pronounces our more contemptible things more necessary than others [1 Cor. 12:22]. Accordingly, the beauty of the tabernacle as a whole and in its several kinds (and the ornaments of the church present and future) was covered with skins and goat-hair cloths, and the heat of the sun and the injurious rain were warded off by those things which are of less account. First read, then, my Samuel and Kings; mine, I say, mine. For whatever by diligent translation and by anxious emendation we have learnt and made our own, is ours. And when you understand something of which you were before ignorant, reckon me a translator if you are grateful, or a paraphraser if ungrateful, although I am not in the least conscious of having deviated from the Hebrew original. At all events, if you are incredulous, read the Greek and Latin manuscripts and compare them with these poor efforts of mine, and wherever you see they disagree, ask some Hebrew in whom you can have more faith, and if he confirm our view, I suppose you will not think him a soothsayer and suppose that he and I have, in rendering the same passage, divined alike.

But I ask you also, handmaidens of Christ, 3 who anoint the head of your reclining Lord with the most precious myrrh of faith, who by no means seek the Saviour in the tomb, for whom Christ has long since ascended to the Father—I beg you to confront with the shields of your prayers the dogs who bark and rage against me with rabid mouths, and who go about the city, and think themselves learned if they disparage others. Knowing my lowliness, I will always remember what we are told: “I said, I will take heed to my ways that I offend not in my tongue. I have set a guard upon my mouth while the sinner standeth against me. I became dumb, and was humbled, and kept silence from good words.” [Psalm 38:2-3]

Link :
bible-researcher.co*…

ccel.org/ccel/schaf…*
 
Yes it is. Your question is that of which is asked by atheist and agnostics to christians. enough said on that.

My belief has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism nor do I accept the authority of Roman Catholic Church as you do. Please dont project your own conceptions on me. I do not equate the Catholic Church as limited to the Roman See. I reject your presupositions right from the start of things.

Intresting since the Roman See was uncertain of the Old Testament Canon until the council of Trent in 1546ad. That is when the RCC OT Canon was infallibly and dogmatically proclaim and settle the issue for the Roman See. Too bad it does not line up with many church father such as Jerome and others as far as the Old Testament is concerned. You may probably be unaware that the local councils of Hippo and Cartage affirmed Old Testament books that were rejected by the council of Trent. Another intresting thing is Eastern Orthodox have an even larger Old Testament Canon than Roman Catholicism yet each claims to have apostolic tradition on their side.

That is incorrect.

An empty claim that can never be proven . The chuch is a mere wittness to Scripture . It does not claim to have authority over it. Very bad conception of Scripture that you have. I also reject your use of the words Catholic Church. Those word were used of the church as a whole and never limited to the Roman See. I have the creeds and the church fathers on this issue.
I thought I was along in the world for a moment. 👍
 
Athanasius OT Canon listing contradicts that of Councils of Hippo, Cartage , Rome and Trent. Athanasius on the Canon

Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373) was the most prominent theologian of the fourth century, and he served as bishop of Alexandria. His list of canonical books was published as part of his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367. After the list he declares, “these are the wells of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the sayings in these. Let no one add to these. Let nothing be taken away.”

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

bible-researcher.co

Epiphanius (about A.D. 385). Epiphanius was bishop of Salamis (isle of Cyprus) from 367 to 402. His list of canonical books is given in his major treatise against heresies, the Panarion (Πανάριον “Medicine Chest”), also known by its Latin name Adversus Haereses (“Against Heresies”).

By the time of the captives’ return from Babylon these Jews had acquired the following books and prophets, and the following books of the prophets: 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kings. 15. The Second Book of Kings. 16. The Third Book of Kings. 17. The Fourth Book of Kings. 1 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 2 27. Esther. These are the twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted as twenty-two, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which (Jews) reckon as five are double. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere. And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha. All these sacred books taught (them) Judaism and Law’s observances till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

bible-researcher.co
 
I thought I was along in the world for a moment. 👍
My conception of the catholic church is that it includes all Christians in the world. 🙂 It would apply to the RCC, Eastern Orthodox and Protestantism. I view the Roman See as just one branch of the Catholic Church though I consider it to be doctrinally in error.
 
Yes it is. Your question is that of which is asked by atheist and agnostics to christians. enough said on that.

My belief has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism nor do I accept the authority of Roman Catholic Church as you do. Please dont project your own conceptions on me. I do not equate the Catholic Church as limited to the Roman See. I reject your presupositions right from the start of things.

Intresting since the Roman See was uncertain of the Old Testament Canon until the council of Trent in 1546ad. That is when the RCC OT Canon was infallibly and dogmatically proclaim and settle the issue for the Roman See. Too bad it does not line up with many church father such as Jerome and others as far as the Old Testament is concerned. You may probably be unaware that the local councils of Hippo and Cartage affirmed Old Testament books that were rejected by the council of Trent. Another intresting thing is Eastern Orthodox have an even larger Old Testament Canon than Roman Catholicism yet each claims to have apostolic tradition on their side.

That is incorrect.

An empty claim that can never be proven . The chuch is a mere wittness to Scripture . It does not claim to have authority over it. Very bad conception of Scripture that you have. I also reject your use of the words Catholic Church. Those word were used of the church as a whole and never limited to the Roman See. I have the creeds and the church fathers on this issue.
My conception of the catholic church is that it includes all Christians in the world. 🙂 It would apply to the RCC, Eastern Orthodox and Protestantism. I view the Roman See as just one branch of the Catholic Church though I consider it to be doctrinally in error.
I somewhat agree. However, As a former Roman Catholic, I know how much in error it really is…

🙂
 
Maybe in name only. But your arguments are those followed by atheist and agnostics . Enough said.
I said you attacked Scripture itself. I made no mention of attacking Sola Scripture which is another issue altogether.
First of all…are you forgetting Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate…which was the catholic bible canon from AD 390 or so onward.

Jerome also was the secretary of Pope Damasus…and he obeyed the Pope…and produced the Vulgate based on the declaration of Pope Damasus in the Rome Council of AD382.

Besides…where is Jerome’s authority to decide what is canon or not?

The Council of Trent merely affirmed the decisions made in the prior councils. And lastly…I accept what the Church, acting through the Pope, decides.

So where is the double standard?

And so…based on this qoute then…If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it…For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.
So, how does it not apply in your Protestant rejection of the DC books?

How does it not apply to you…in your rejection of catholic distinctives, (whatever they are-care to provide one)?
[/QUOTE]
 
Or you do not like being asked blunt questions?
where did I attack scripture?
How do you know what I believe about Scripture?
Maybe you should start a thread on this…and see what are the true facts of history.
Well…how does Scripture exercise authority? How does Scripture say which contradicts and which does not? It does not have voice of its own, does it?
So, let me see if I understand this…you would include private judegement…so then you are the one deciding which contradicts and which does not…based on your interpretation of the Bible…so then, where does your authority to judge what contradicts and what does not come from?
Okay…if they are fallible…how can you then tell when a teaching of them is in error? And when is a teaching not in error?
The RCC has proven it…you just do not want to accept its claims…correct?
:confused: How based on Scripture? Can you give an example?
The individual, the pastor or the Church?
No. But it sure looks like those very statements can be said towards yourself in regards to Roman Catholicism.
Actually…no…for we catholics do not pick and choose which to agree with or not…we take the whole.
First of all…are you forgetting Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate…which was the catholic bible canon from AD 390 or so onward.
Jerome also was the secretary of Pope Damasus…and he obeyed the Pope…and produced the Vulgate based on the declaration of Pope Damasus in the Rome Council of AD382.
Besides…where is Jerome’s authority to decide what is canon or not?
The Council of Trent merely affirmed the decisions made in the prior councils. And lastly…I accept what the Church, acting through the Pope, decides.
So where is the double standard?
And so…based on this qoute then…If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it…For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.
So, how does it not apply in your Protestant rejection of the DC books?
How does it not apply to you…in your rejection of catholic distinctives, (whatever they are-care to provide one)?
I already provided quotes from Jerome and several chruch fathers and including the actual theologian who questioned Martin Luther on the issue of the Old Testament Canon. You did not deal with any of what I posted on that at all. You ignored it or played it off as it does not exist. Jerome speaks for Jerome and I have him as having a different OT Canon listing than that of Trent. You basically picked and choosing the very thing you had accused me of doing. Thanks for proving my point. You did not properly deal with my position at all. 🙂
 
QUOTE=Chafer DTS;9402489]There is no offical Roman Catholic exposition of 2 Tim 3:14-18. You are giving me your own private interpretation and not the offical position of the RCC on that verse.
Private interpretation? It is not private interpration…is plain reading of the verse…again here it is…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,

So…do you think it refers to oral teaching or not?
You practice that which you deny towards Protestants.
How? Where did I deny that?
The main point is we have no present day inspired oral traditions that has been passed on as claimed.
Actually, you do…you just do not acknowledge it…it is the teachings of Luther, calvin et al…and the teachings of your pastor/church…passed on to them to you.
Thus you do not deal with the proper issue on that point. Paul taught oral traditions in 2 Thes 2:15 but it was the same in content as his writings as far as doctrines are concerned. Paul’s oral teachings were binding whereas that of Roman Catholicism is not since they cant trace it’s distinctive doctrinal oral traditions as being taught by Paul in 2 Thes 2:15.
Actually…you evaded the question and did not answer it…which I will repost…

So let me ask you…do we catholics then contradict the Bible by including v14?

And how do you then explain your point 1 above with the inclusion of v14 included?

How about answering the questions above? using your private judgement?
 
I answered your questions. I ignored any questions that would basically misrepresents or misunderstand my position or assume your own conclusion of something that I reject. As far as double standars on private judgement. You provided me your own interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-18 yet you claim to reject Sola Scripture. 🤷 You gave me your own mere opinion of that passage and not the offical interpretation of the RCC on it. Enough said.
 
I answered your questions. I ignored any questions would basically misrepresents or misunderstand my position or assume your own conclusion of something that I reject. As far as double standars on private judgement. You provided me your own interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-18 yet you claim to reject Sola Scripture. 🤷 You gave me your own mere opinion of that passage and not the offical interpretation of the RCC on it. Enough said.
But if the official meaning is wrong, then why would he give you that one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top