If the Catholic Church made stuff up, as many non-Catholics claim....

[Rightlydivide]

So your proof that the CC did not alter doctrine found in the bible is based on the idea that scripture does not support your view on such matters that separate catholics and non-catholics? That’s a pretty good answer, but, the CC leaders, long before the bible was codified, supported doctrines such as purgatory and Mary’s sinlessness, and found scripture to be supportive of them as well.

I really do not agree that the textual variants in the different textual streams do not effect doctrine. I believe they do. However I recognize that is not what you are wanting to talk about.
To address what you just wrote above, I cannot neccessarily agree with your presupposition that the Bible was not “codified” prior to the development of these doctrines. However, that is also not the purpose of your thread so they way to elaborate on my answer is simple. So lets address any verse that purports to support these doctrines. It is possible to ascertain with a degree of probability if these passages either seem to break the flow of the passage or have a different writing style than the author. Outside of that, and looking at textual variants, is the only way I know of that scholars discuss possible interpolations.

 

[Esdra]

Non-Catholics, before the printing press was invented in the 15th century, scripture was copied by hand which could have been easily altered to fit the needs of those in a position of authority, which of course was the Catholic Church. If the CC made stuff up, eg purgatory, the Immaculate conception, as many claim, how do you know they didn’t alter scripture just as they supposedly made other things up? How do you know you have the authentic word of God, unaltered by the Catholic church?

Unlike the CC, most Protestants use the “original manuscripts” in Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) when revising or translating the Bible.
Luther used the original scriptures. The Evangelical Church in Germany uses the original scriptures (i.e. Qum’ran) for revising - and they were not copied by the CC. (As they mainly copied the Vulgate in the Middle-Ages).
Original Manuscript in the sense of in the original languages.
Especially nowadays, where a lot of ancient papyri and other old manuscripts were found, one can be sure that if you translate from these manuscripts, that it won’t contain any altered parts by the CC!

So, yes, a Protestant could say: using the Vulgate or Catholic Bibles like the German “Einheitsübersetzung”, or the American NAB, the CC may have altered the scripture.

But since Protestants use their own translations, based on ancient manuscripts, they are “rather save” from altered passages by the CC.

 

[Javl]

Unlike the CC, most Protestants use the “original manuscripts” in Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) when revising or translating the Bible.
Luther used the original scriptures. The Evangelical Church in Germany uses the original scriptures (i.e. Qum’ran) for revising - and they were not copied by the CC. (As they mainly copied the Vulgate in the Middle-Ages).
Original Manuscript in the sense of in the original languages.
Especially nowadays, where a lot of ancient papyri and other old manuscripts were found, one can be sure that if you translate from these manuscripts, that it won’t contain any altered parts by the CC!

So, yes, a Protestant could say: using the Vulgate or Catholic Bibles like the German “Einheitsübersetzung”, or the American NAB, the CC may have altered the scripture.

But since Protestants use their own translations, based on ancient manuscripts, they are “rather save” from altered passages by the CC.

I was under the impression that there were/are no “original manuscripts” in any language and that only copies are available, regardless of age. Even the Qumran scrolls are copies.

Also, can you prove that the Catholic Church altered the Bible and that the Protestants did not?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Esdra]

I was under the impression that there were/are no “original manuscripts” in any language and that only copies are available, regardless of age. Even the Qumran scrolls are copies.

Also, can you prove that the Catholic Church altered the Bible and that the Protestants did not?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I can’t and I also won’t, as I don’t believe the CC did!

My answer is only what would be if, nothing more!

 

[joe370]

Rightly, why trust that the CC infallibly safeguarded and codified sacred scripture, (and they did if you believe that your bible is the infallible word of God) - and then not trust the CC regarding other doctrines?

I really do not agree that the textual variants in the different textual streams do not effect doctrine. I believe they do. However I recognize that is not what you are wanting to talk about.
To address what you just wrote above, I cannot neccessarily agree with your presupposition that the Bible was not “codified” prior to the development of these doctrines. However, that is also not the purpose of your thread so they way to elaborate on my answer is simple. So lets address any verse that purports to support these doctrines. It is possible to ascertain with a degree of probability if these passages either seem to break the flow of the passage or have a different writing style than the author. Outside of that, and looking at textual variants, is the only way I know of that scholars discuss possible interpolations.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightly, why trust that the CC infallibly safeguarded and codified sacred scripture, (and they did if you believe that your bible is the infallible word of God) - and then not trust the CC regarding other doctrines?

I do not believe the Catholic Church codified my Bible. I believe that God revealed His scripture. Groups then recognize what He revealed. However different groups recognize different canons. The Orthodox recognize a different canon than you. The Oriental Orthodox recognize a different canon than the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic Church and us. As such, you recognize a canon that in our view has too many books.
So no, you did not codify our scripture.

 

[joe370]

I do not believe the Catholic Church codified my Bible. I believe that God revealed His scripture. Groups then recognize what He revealed. However different groups recognize different canons. The Orthodox recognize a different canon than you. The Oriental Orthodox recognize a different canon than the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic Church and us. As such, you recognize a canon that in our view has too many books.
So no, you did not codify our scripture.

Could you show me some proof that the catholic church was not the church that officially decided what would be included in the New Testament and what would not be included in the New Testament, and then provide me with the name of the church that did? That would be helpful.

As far as those groups go, they all possess the same NT - correct?

Was it a fallible decision on the part of the Catholic church, regarding the correct inclusion of books in the NT, and the correct exclusion of books from the NT?

NT books which are now included/accepted by Christians, but which were, for a time rejected by some CC leaders, necessitating the need for the CC to convoke as a council and officially define the canon of sacred scripture: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

NT books, now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the NT: Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Could you show me some proof that the catholic church was not the church that officially decided what would be included in the New Testament and what would not be included in the New Testament, and then provide me with the name of the church that did? That would be helpful.

As far as those groups go, they all possess the same NT - correct?

Was it a fallible decision on the part of the Catholic church, regarding the correct inclusion of books in the NT, and the correct exclusion of books from the NT?

NT books which are now included/accepted by Christians, but which were, for a time rejected by some CC leaders, necessitating the need for the CC to convoke as a council and officially define the canon of sacred scripture: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

NT books, now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the NT: Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.

The New Testament is recognized by the same groups. Prior to any local regional synods the same New Testament was recognized by almost all. There are some Christians that did not recognize Revelation and other books as inspired up until the 6th or 7th century. So this view that a particular local synod was in effect for all of Christianity is flawed. It is not supported by historical facts.
The earliest Christians did not have the same beliefs as the Catholic Church of today. They knew nothing about an Assumption of Mary, a later developing belief from around 300 years later. The still practice the Agape meal as scripture teaches. It was not a formal ceremony taken out of the context of a meal. They did not have the clear differences between bishop, elder, and presbyter.
The funny thing is that this is rather a mainstream view. The practices and doctrines of the Catholic Church of today developed over time.
But regardless of any of that is the incorrect belief that a group can make scripture scripture. They can only recognize it. That some groups have recognized the wrong canon is apparent by the fact that different groups have different canons. Rather self evident.
Most of your questions seem to have a flawed fundamental presupposition about what makes scripture scripture. As such, the questions themselves reflect that view.
Its interesting to note that the local regional synods in some cases appear to believe they were setting a canon. They did not. Only God can do that. But its rather typical of peoples tendency to overstate their own power and authority.
To this day, in my estimation the Catholic Church has the wrong canon and use the wrong text type.
I hate to overexplain but you ask the same questions over and over Joe! I hope this clears my view up even though you disagree with it.

 

[joe370]

Rightlydivide…

But regardless of any of that is the incorrect belief that a group can make scripture scripture. They can only recognize it.

Which church (comprised of fallible leaders) - in the world today, infallibly recognized the 27 books of the NT as being God’s infallible written word?

That some groups have recognized the wrong canon is apparent by the fact that different groups have different canons. Rather self evident.

So no way to know who has the right canon(old testament that is)???

Most of your questions seem to have a flawed fundamental presupposition about what makes scripture scripture.

Well, I am a flawed human being, and the holy spirit was not sent to me, and did not guide me to correctly codify sacred scripture, and that is why I defer to Jesus’ church, which is being guided by the HS.

Its interesting to note that the local regional synods in some cases appear to believe they were setting a canon. They did not. Only God can do that. But its rather typical of peoples tendency to overstate their own power and authority.

So God did this without using His established church on earth?

To this day, in my estimation the Catholic Church has the wrong canon and use the wrong text type.
I hate to overexplain but you ask the same questions over and over Joe! I hope this clears my view up even though you disagree with it.

I ask the same questions because I get the same answers, which make no sense to me. Who, in your opinion, has the right canon, which I believe, I have yet to ask you?

 

[stephe1987]

We have the manuscripts from well before the Reformation. Almost all the errors are to do with things like spelling or word order, or an extra or missing letter “n.” There have been a couple verses added over time, but that’s about it. The New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide…

Which church (comprised of fallible leaders) - in the world today, infallibly recognized the 27 books of the NT as being God’s infallible written word?

So no way to know who has the right canon(old testament that is)???

Well, I am a flawed human being, and the holy spirit was not sent to me, and did not guide me to correctly codify sacred scripture, and that is why I defer to Jesus’ church, which is being guided by the HS.

So God did this without using His established church on earth?

I ask the same questions because I get the same answers, which make no sense to me. Who, in your opinion, has the right canon, which I believe, I have yet to ask you?

Human beings are not infallible. A particular church is not infallible. A group of men are not infallible. Only God is infallible. Fortunately all Christians recognize the same New Testament. There is a way to know who has the correct Old Testament. The Jews had the correct Old Testament. Not the Samaritans or some minor group in Ethopia. Paul said it. Christ implied it. When Paul writes about the Holy Scriptures, there is absolutely nothing to indicate it was in flux or incomplete. So the Old Testament is 39 books. The Catholic Old Testament was never identified as being one that people used until around the 4th century. I have posted on that topic at length.
My answers do make sense. You just do not agree with them because like many Catholic apologists you find this argument, not based upon historical facts, that the Catholic Church codified the Bible to be persuasive. Why, I have no idea!
Protestants have the correct canon of the OT. All Christians have the correct NT canon that i am aware of anyway. I do not know of any Christians, although there could be a few that do not recognize the same NT.
As far as who is Christ’s church. In Acts 2:47, we learn that in order to be in the church one is saved.

 

[Javl]

The New Testament is recognized by the same groups. Prior to any local regional synods the same New Testament was recognized by almost all. There are some Christians that did not recognize Revelation and other books as inspired up until the 6th or 7th century. So this view that a particular local synod was in effect for all of Christianity is flawed. It is not supported by historical facts.
The earliest Christians did not have the same beliefs as the Catholic Church of today. They knew nothing about an Assumption of Mary, a later developing belief from around 300 years later. The still practice the Agape meal as scripture teaches. It was not a formal ceremony taken out of the context of a meal. They did not have the clear differences between bishop, elder, and presbyter.
The funny thing is that this is rather a mainstream view. The practices and doctrines of the Catholic Church of today developed over time.
But regardless of any of that is the incorrect belief that a group can make scripture scripture. They can only recognize it. That some groups have recognized the wrong canon is apparent by the fact that different groups have different canons. Rather self evident.
Most of your questions seem to have a flawed fundamental presupposition about what makes scripture scripture. As such, the questions themselves reflect that view.
Its interesting

to note that the local regional synods in some cases appear to believe they were setting a canon. They did not. Only God can do that. But its rather typical of peoples tendency to overstate their own power and authority.
To this day, in my estimation the Catholic Church has the wrong canon and use the wrong text type.
I hate to overexplain but you ask the same questions over and over Joe! I hope this clears my view up even though you disagree with it.

I would like to correct a misconception. The many beliefs that are held by the Catholic Church today are the same as the beliefs that the early Church ( Christians ) held. The so-called apparent difference is due to the defining of, or expanding of those beleifs by councils and synods to explain, simplify, and give reasons for those beliefs. As an example; the subjects of the Trinity, Mariology, Sacred Tradition, and Purgatory, to name a few.

There is actually no belief today that what not held by the early Church. To know and understand the background of all beliefs it is necessary to read the writings of all the Church Fathers and the background and history of the Church. Sporadic readings and picking and choosing results in not only misconceptions but also results in blaring error, myths, lies, and misunderstanding.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Human beings are not infallible. A particular church is not infallible. A group of men are not infallible. Only God is infallible. Fortunately all Christians recognize the same New Testament. There is a way to know who has the correct Old Testament. The Jews had the correct Old Testament. Not the Samaritans or some minor group in Ethopia. Paul said it. Christ implied it. When Paul writes about the Holy Scriptures, there is absolutely nothing to indicate it was in flux or incomplete. So the Old Testament is 39 books. The Catholic Old Testament was never identified as being one that people used until around the 4th century. I have posted on that topic at length.
My answers do make sense. You just do not agree with them because like many Catholic apologists you find this argument, not based upon historical facts, that the Catholic Church codified the Bible to be persuasive. Why, I have no idea!
Protestants have the correct canon of the OT. All Christians have the correct NT canon that i am aware of anyway. I do not know of any Christians, although there could be a few that do not recognize the same NT.
As far as who is Christ’s church. In Acts 2:47, we learn that in order to be in the church one is saved.

The Catholic Church is infallible in its pronouncements. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus, who is God. Since God is infallible, and His Words are infallible, and the Catholic Church disseminates His words, it must therefore be infallible. For why would God found a fallible Church if He is to be its Head? Why would God give His Church power and authority if it is not infallible? I am sure many try to come up with logical answers, but all who do are really contradicting God Himself.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[vera_dicere]

This is pretty much the argument that Bart Ehrman makes in his book Misquoting Jesus—that ultimately you can’t be sure that the original text wasn’t changed and, in fact, argues that certain manuscript difference are due to intentional theological “adjustments” rather than scribal errors.

What about the KJB? That’s got a few “adjustments”.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Javl;7445543]I would like to correct a misconception. The many beliefs that are held by the Catholic Church today are the same as the beliefs that the early Church ( Christians ) held. The so-called apparent difference is due to the defining of, or expanding of those beleifs by councils and synods to explain, simplify, and give reasons for those beliefs. As an example; the subjects of the Trinity, Mariology, Sacred Tradition, and Purgatory, to name a few.

There is actually no belief today that what not held by the early Church. To know and understand the background of all beliefs it is necessary to read the writings of all the Church Fathers and the background and history of the Church. Sporadic readings and picking and choosing results in not only misconceptions but also results in blaring error, myths, lies, and misunderstanding.

PAX DOMINI

I do not know if this is the direction that Joe wants this thread to go. However, the differences are not the results of development or clarification but represent a departure from the teachings of the Apostles. I agree that an indepth reading of the earliest church writings, although some are obviously heavily interpolated, will result in in understanding this. All is a rather big accomplishment! Anyone who has read them all is to be commended for their time and understanding of the ancient languages because some documents have not been translated yet.

 

[joe370]

Rightlydivide;7444114]Human beings are not infallible. A particular church is not infallible. A group of men are not infallible. Only God is infallible.

Why you keep telling me this I will never know. I already said that I agree with you.

Fortunately all Christians recognize the same New Testament. There is a way to know who has the correct Old Testament. The Jews had the correct Old Testament.

So, the those Jewish leaders, so many years ago, that rejected the NT got it right about the OT, and the CC which recognized what would be included in the NT and what would be excluded from the NT, including the OT, got it wrong? Okeydoke…

Not the Samaritans or some minor group in Ethopia. Paul said it. Christ implied it. When Paul writes about the Holy Scriptures, there is absolutely nothing to indicate it was in flux or incomplete.

Okay. Who wrote the book of Hebrews, by the way, and please prove it, from a sola scriptura standpoint? I want to know, with certainty, the author is in fact Paul or one of his disciples; how can I know this to be true?

So the Old Testament is 39 books.

Several decades after the beginning of Christianity, the Jews called a council to deal with the matter of scripture. In this council, called the “Council of Jamnia”, the Jewish Pharisees, who survived the devastating destruction of Jerusalem and of their temple in 70 A.D., decided to remove books that were helpful to Christians. They removed the seven books, using various reasons as their authorization, to do so. At the same time the Greek speaking Jews had been using the Septuagint for well over two centuries by this time. It was the Bible of the Greek speaking “Bereans” of Acts 17:10-15. By the actions of Protestant reformers in acceptance of the 39 book Old Testament, which was declared the whole of Scripture by the Jewish Pharisees at Jamnia, non-Catholics have made it tantamount to approval of the Pharisaic Jews who rejected Jesus and the New Testament. In doing so they have shown that they believed that the Jews had more authority in deciding the Canon of Scripture than did the Christian Church that Jesus Christ founded, which by the time of the Council of Jamnia, had existed for about 60 years. A rejection of the authority of Christ’s Church, then as well as now, is a rejection of Him.

If the seven books were not added to the Septuagint until the fourth century, by the CC, then how could the council of Jamnia have removed them in the first century?

 

[joe370]

Rightlydivide…

The Catholic Old Testament was never identified as being one that people used until around the 4th century. I have posted on that topic at length.

Historical fact: For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren’t. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren’t. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father’s writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A persons private opinion does not change the truth. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome’s position, or Augustine’s position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church via council. In concurrence with the opinion of Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, “The Decree of Damasus,” in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. Jerome acquiesced under obedience (Hebrews 13:17) - and began the translation, and completed it in 404 A.D… In 405, his new Latin Vulgate was published for the first time. The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Damasus I.

AD 393: Council of Hippo. “It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books.”

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Damasus I:

*AD 397: Council of Carthage III. “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.”
(canon 47 A.D. 397).
*

The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirmed the canons as defined in previous councils…

*CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: * Genesis * Exodus * Leviticus * Numbers * Deuteronomy * Joshua the Son of Nun * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel * Tobit * Judith * Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books).
The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book).
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”
[This is Canon xxxvj. of Hippo., 393. The last phrase allowing the reading of the “passions of the Martyrs” on their Anniversaries is omitted from the African code.]
*

The Council of Florence, also called Basel, 1431-1445, was yet another Council which confirmed the Canons of both testaments of the Bible. The Council of Trent 1546-1565, the longest lasting Council in Church history.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

The Catholic Council of Trent, AD 1546:, called to counter changes made by Martin Luther, again reaffirmed the canonicity of all 46 books of the Old Testament. Some non-catholics reformers who attended, tried to get the Church to accept the list of books which the Jewish rabbis had chosen at Jamnia. The Church refused and upheld her teaching from Damasus I, and the Council of Florence. As a result, non-Catholics have the same New Testament books as Catholics, but their Old Testament differs because it does not contain the books rejected by the rabbis at Jamnia, and much later, rejected by Martin Luther.For 1500 years all Christians accepted the same canon for the Old Testament.

My answers do make sense. You just do not agree with them because like many Catholic apologists you find this argument, not based upon historical facts, that the Catholic Church codified the Bible to be persuasive. Why, I have no idea!

Well, now you know. Provide me with the same proof that backs up your claims?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Septuagint is started in Alexandria BC and completed by the end of the first 1stAD.

So in effect the writtings from after Christs death become included during the process. There is no NT Scripture which is added after the 1st century AD? Right

And Paul though He would have wrote the original letters. Wouldn’t have been there to actually place the writting in text. How could he have been?

Correct?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Catholic Council of Trent, AD 1546:, called to counter changes made by Martin Luther, again reaffirmed the canonicity of all 46 books of the Old Testament. Some non-catholics reformers who attended, tried to get the Church to accept the list of books which the Jewish rabbis had chosen at Jamnia. The Church refused and upheld her teaching from Damasus I, and the Council of Florence. As a result, non-Catholics have the same New Testament books as Catholics, but their Old Testament differs because it does not contain the books rejected by the rabbis at Jamnia, and much later, rejected by Martin Luther.For 1500 years all Christians accepted the same canon for the Old Testament.

Well, now you know. Provide me with the same proof that backs up your claims?

The early “councils” that you cite were actually only synods–the non-Latinate churches (other than perhaps some spotty participation from the Byzantine Church) didn’t participate–which is why the biblical canons of these churches differ from the one used in the Latin church to this day–the biblical canon has never been addressed in an ecumenical council. In my opinion, what you have set out in the last two posts contains some pretty serious distortions of history and frankly, this is one of the BIG reasons that I find the claims of Roman Catholicism so very unconvincing–this tendency by its apologists to just sort of make stuff up (c.f. the OP) or read history so selectively as to present a picture that’s not very accurate.

Just as one example among many, I don’t know of any scholar who have actually studied the matter who’s convinced that there ever was a “Council of Jamnia.” As far as I know, it’s is a total 19th century fiction–so perhaps you could share the source of your information and which PRIMARY sources your sources cite. To describe this as a foregone historical fact and not also note that no one believes it actually occurred seems very deceptive to me. I’m not saying that you’re doing this intentionally, but you really need to look at LOT more critically at the sources behind your information–they are misleading you.