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

[joe370]

Regarding Jamnia, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. You are right and I am wrong brother. Your thoughts on the Septuagint which includes those 7 so called apocrypha books and predates Jesus Christ?

Please, the names of these churches spanning the centuries from the 4th century to the schism, that were not part of the Catholic Church? I’d like to know what they taught, doctrinally speaking, and learn a little about them. Thanks friend…

The idea that there was just one church until the 11th century is a common Catholic apologetic construct of history, which to me is so skewed that it is deceptive. (Still waiting on your sources for the Council of Jamnia by the way…) By the 4th century there were probably more Christians living outside of the Roman Empire than there were inside the Roman Empire. To ignore these churches or simply dismiss the majority of early Christianity as “schismatic” is a pretty selective reading of history.

Because the churches have never agreed agree on a biblical canon and it was never a point causing schism, the very idea of “correct books” doesn’t mesh with the facts at hand.

 

[Javl]

The idea that there was just one church until the 11th century is a common Catholic apologetic construct of history, which to me is so skewed that it is deceptive. (Still waiting on your sources for the Council of Jamnia by the way…) By the 4th century there were probably more Christians living outside of the Roman Empire than there were inside the Roman Empire. To ignore these churches or simply dismiss the majority of early Christianity as “schismatic” is a pretty selective reading of history.

Because the churches have never agreed agree on a biblical canon and it was never a point causing schism, the very idea of “correct books” doesn’t mesh with the facts at hand.

Did you ever stop to think that there was really only one Catholic Church? Many of the other “Churches” extant were, during those years, Gnostic and/or heretical. That was the time of much speculation about Christ and His return resulting in many believing the fantastic theories and “theologies” that were developed and presented.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[joe370]

[Rightlydivide;7446168]Yes, the Jews did get the Old Testament right. Do you have any reason to believe they did not. Does Paul write about or any New Testament author indicate that the Jews had the wrong canon? Are there some indications from this period of time, lets say 100 BC to 100 AD that the Jews had the canon wrong?

You provide the proof that they always rejected those 7 catholic and eastern OT books and I will admit that I was wrong; it won’t be the first time I was wrong, and it won’t be the last?

I am not sure where you are getting your history from. You have been on this forum long enough to have read threads on Jamnia.
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
I will also point out that this same passage you quoted does not have a source. What is your source Joe?

As I have stated already to Dave, I was wrong; there is no scholarly consensus regarding Jamnia; I have no problem admiting that I am wrong when I am wrong.

You know the contents of the LXX from the first 3 centuries how exactly? A list from a historian. Doesn’t exist. A copy? No, that does not exist either. Your argument however is based upon a faulty presupposition.

You have faith in the Masoretic and I have faith in the Septuagint. In your opinion, did the apostles quote from the Septuagint or the Masoretic text?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Did you ever stop to think that there was really only one Catholic Church? Many of the other “Churches” extant were, during those years, Gnostic and/or heretical. That was the time of much speculation about Christ and His return resulting in many believing the fantastic theories and “theologies” that were developed and presented.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Yes, I used to accept this construction of history (one unified church until 1056) until I learned Syriac and started doing some of my own research. Actually, the question of canon is what makes this topic quite interesting. If there HAD been only one Catholic church in the fourth century, one would expect their biblical canons to be universally the same. They’re not.

We’re not talking about Gnostics or Arians here.

 

[roveau]

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?

There are many ancient copies of the Scriptures and many copies of the earliest to the latest translations preserved in libraries and none have been found to be altered in any substantial way. Some errors have crept in accidentally but these have all been recognized by Catholics and Protestants and are clearly noted in footnotes in all the major translations.

If the Catholic church was out to alter the Scriptures they would have inserted bits about Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and so on … but they didn’t.

 

[joe370]

There are many ancient copies of the Scriptures and many copies of the earliest to the latest translations preserved in libraries and none have been found to be altered in any substantial way. Some errors have crept in accidentally but these have all been recognized by Catholics and Protestants and are clearly noted in footnotes in all the major translations.

If the Catholic church was out to alter the Scriptures they would have inserted bits about Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and so on … but they didn’t.

Exactly. It seems reasonable that we can trust that the CC is right about the canon of scripture as well as other things such as the Immaculate Conception and purgatory. When the CC becomes suspect is when non-Catholics insist that they got it right, without doubt, about the canon of scripture but got it wrong about other things. How can a non-Catholic be so certain that the CC didn’t add to or subtract from scripture, if in fact they believe that the CC added other man-made doctrines such as the IC or Purgatory?

 

[joe370]

Yes, I used to accept this construction of history (one unified church until 1056) until I learned Syriac and started doing some of my own research. Actually, the question of canon is what makes this topic quite interesting. If there HAD been only one Catholic church in the fourth century, one would expect their biblical canons to be universally the same. They’re not.

We’re not talking about Gnostics or Arians here.

And no one church in the 4th century had the authority, by Jesus, to settle the matter - right or wrong? I am still hoping you will provide me with the names of those other churches spanning the centuries from the 4th to the east west schism?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Regarding Jamnia, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. You are right and I am wrong brother. Your thoughts on the Septuagint which includes those 7 so called apocrypha books and predates Jesus Christ?

Please, the names of these churches spanning the centuries from the 4th century to the schism, that were not part of the Catholic Church? I’d like to know what they taught, doctrinally speaking, and learn a little about them. Thanks friend…

As for my thoughts on the Septuagint, the Septuagint also contains texts that are rejected by the Roman Catholic Church, so if you want to use the Septuagint as a normative basis for an authentic OT canon, then you would also need to explain why the Roman Catholic church removed Psalm 151, 3rd Maccabees, 1 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh from the biblical canon.

As for the ancient churches and what they believed, I’d refer you back to the Wikipedia chart and then on to the individual entries for the individual churches. IMO the so-called “Jacobite” church should also be on this chart but was not included.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

And no one church in the 4th century had the authority, by Jesus, to settle the matter - right or wrong? I am still hoping you will provide me with the names of those other churches spanning the centuries from the 4th to the east west schism?

See above. It seems obvious, at least to me, that no one church had the authority to settle the matter, or the canons of all the ancient churches would have been uniform.

The east/west schism (so-called “Great Schism”) only involves the Latinate and Byzantine churches.

 

[joe370]

See above. It seems obvious, at least to me, that no one church had the authority to settle the matter, or the canons of all the ancient churches would have been uniform.

The east/west schism (so-called “Great Schism”) only involves the Latinate and Byzantine churches.

Well, people have free will (just as they did back then) - and the right to reject that one church established by Jesus, doctrinally speaking, and start their own churches, disseminating doctrines that seem more befitting to their doctrinal beliefs. Does that undermine the doctrinal trustworthiness of the church started by God?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well, people have free will (just as they did back then) - and the right to reject that one church established by Jesus, doctrinally speaking, and start their own churches, disseminating doctrines that seem more befitting to their doctrinal beliefs. Does that undermine the doctrinal trustworthiness of the church started by God?

From just my own perspective, it doesn’t seem like the Holy Spirit would be divinely guiding one minority corner of Christianity while leaving the vast majority of the church in the dark. This claim would also deny that the Byzantine church, which the Roman church has always regarding as having authentic sacraments, etc., has been similarly guided by the Holy Spirit, since their canon is different as well.

 

[joe370]

As for my thoughts on the Septuagint, the Septuagint also contains texts that are rejected by the Roman Catholic Church, so if you want to use the Septuagint as a normative basis for an authentic OT canon, then you would also need to explain why the Roman Catholic church removed Psalm 151, 3rd Maccabees, 1 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh from the biblical canon.

As for the ancient churches and what they believed, I’d refer you back to the Wikipedia chart and then on to the individual entries for the individual churches. IMO the so-called “Jacobite” church should also be on this chart but was not included.

Well, as far as, why they removed those books, I don’t know. If the CC is the church of Matthew 16, John 14 and 16, I know that the CC did the right thing though.

Monophysitism was the cause that resulted in the creation of the Jacobite, Coptic, and Armenian Churches. I think I will stick with the CC. I am not much into Monophysitism. Perhaps you could provide me with the rest of those churches, if you don’t mind; if you do, no big deal.

 

[joe370]

From just my own perspective, it doesn’t seem like the Holy Spirit would be divinely guiding one minority corner of Christianity while leaving the vast majority of the church in the dark. This claim would also deny that the Byzantine church, which the Roman church has always regarding as having authentic sacraments, etc., has been similarly guided by the Holy Spirit, since their canon is different as well.

Just as it doesn’t seem likely that Jesus would exclude so many people from knowing about him for so long. It took a long time for Christianity to spread to the 4 corners of the world. I guess the holy spirit either guided Jesus’ established church to all truth, and then stopped at some point in history, or, He continues to guide Jesus’ established church to all truth. I choose to believe the latter.

I do see your point though, and it is a good one.

 

[joe370]

Well Dave, my fingers are cramping up so I think I’ll call it a night. I enjoyed our dialogue brother. Talk to you later. Have a good night.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well, as far as, why they removed those books, I don’t know. If the CC is the church of Matthew 16, John 14 and 16, I know that the CC did the right thing though.

Monophysitism was the cause that resulted in the creation of the Jacobite, Coptic, and Armenian Churches. I think I will stick with the CC. I am not much into Monophysitism. Perhaps you could provide me with the rest of those churches, if you don’t mind; if you do, no big deal.

Yes, we would absolutely disagree that the church of Matthew 16, etc. is the equivalent of the modern Roman Catholic Church. For me, this approach ignores too much of church history and assumes one minority group has all the the truth and everyone else in the church was somehow left out by the Holy Spirit. The church has always had a pretty wide diversity of belief. Please do not take offense, but from my perspective it seems that you first assume that the Roman Catholic Church (or whatever sources you are using) is/are correct on everything and then look for evidence to support your presupposition, rather than objectively following good evidence to wherever it may lead. I guess I would simply encourage you to keep reading good, unbiased resources. I know that at least for now we will just have to disagree, but I will have hope for the future!

The churches you mention already existed prior to monophysitism (which is also a pretty complicated subject if you do some in-depth research). It is usually most closely associated with the Coptic Church. Although the Armenian church has been accused of monophysitism by Roman Catholics, if you ask an Armenian Orthodox, they would deny that this is the case.

Actually, the Jacobite church is usually accused of Nestorianism (also pretty complicated), which is sort of the polar opposite of monphysitism. So the other Churches (that I know of off the top of my head) would be Ethiopic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox and Indian Orthodox. There are probably more that I’m leaving out.

 

[joe370]

Yes, we would absolutely disagree that the church of Matthew 16, etc. is the equivalent of the modern Roman Catholic Church. For me, this approach ignores too much of church history and assumes one minority group has all the the truth and everyone else in the church was somehow left out by the Holy Spirit. The church has always had a pretty wide diversity of belief. Please do not take offense, but from my perspective it seems that you first assume that the Roman Catholic Church (or whatever sources you are using) is/are correct on everything and then look for evidence to support your presupposition, rather than objectively following good evidence to wherever it may lead. I guess I would simply encourage you to keep reading good, unbiased resources. I know that at least for now we will just have to disagree, but I will have hope for the future!

No offense taken brother. Is the church of Matthew 16, John 14:16 and John 16:13 comprised of all churches, regardless of denomination, even future churches that will be established?

I never suggested that everyone else in all of the other churches were somehow left out by the Holy Spirit, but I do not think the holy spirit is responsible for the conflicting doctrinal beliefs. It’s hard for me to believe that the HS is guiding the CC to all truth, the Lutheran church to all truth, the Baptist church to all truth, the Ethiopic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox and Indian Orthodox to all truth, etc etc. Your thoughts on that friend?

Regarding my perspective, actually, quite the opposite. As a former non-Catholic, I knew that my church was not founded by Jesus; it was founded by Martin Luther. I had no presuppositions. I looked objectively into the historical facts and good evidence, and decided that the only churches in the world today, that can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age, were the EOC’s and the CC. Perhaps you could lend some advice and steer me, in what you believe is the right direction, regarding church affiliation, and I will let you know what I think? Where do you hang your hat every Sunday?

The churches you mention already existed prior to monophysitism (which is also a pretty complicated subject if you do some in-depth research). It is usually most closely associated with the Coptic Church. Although the Armenian church has been accused of monophysitism by Roman Catholics, if you ask an Armenian Orthodox, they would deny that this is the case.

I don’t think the Jacobite church existed prior to that; perhaps you could provide some proof, at which point I will concede?

Actually, the Jacobite church is usually accused of Nestorianism (also pretty complicated), which is sort of the polar opposite of monphysitism. So the other Churches (that I know of off the top of my head) would be Ethiopic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox and Indian Orthodox. There are probably more that I’m leaving out.

Like I said: Eastern orthodox churches or the Catholic church. So, which one of the preceding churches do you attend or would attend, and why?

Can truth, doctrinally speaking, be found; if so then where?

Are all the churches in the world today, regardless of denomination, being guided by the holy spirit, doctrinally speaking? If not, then where can the fullness of truth be found, for you? just attempting to see things through your eyes.

God said:

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.

Is there a way to know where to go, to find, just God’s eternal words (Old Testament) - as opposed to additions or subtractions to it or from it? Let’s assume you are right and the CC is not where one can go to find just God’s eternal words that will never pass away (Old Testament)?

Perhaps doctrinal truth is irrelevant and it simply does not matter which church one belongs. Your thoughts?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

No offense taken brother. Is the church of Matthew 16, John 14:16 and John 16:13 comprised of all churches, regardless of denomination, even future churches that will be established?

The Body of Christ is composed of those who are “in Christ” via baptism. See Romans 6.

It’s hard for me to believe that the HS is guiding the CC to all truth, the Lutheran church to all truth, the Baptist church to all truth, the Ethiopic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox and Indian Orthodox to all truth, etc etc. Your thoughts on that friend?

The Holy Spirit leads, but we, as human beings, follow only imperfectly. My suggestion would be to give some more thought to your interpretation of “being lead into all truth.” We are being lead–but we haven’t arrived.

Regarding my perspective, actually, quite the opposite. As a former non-Catholic, I knew that my church was not founded by Jesus; it was founded by Martin Luther. I had no presuppositions. I looked objectively into the historical facts and good evidence…Where do you hang your hat every Sunday?

I think most Lutherans would say that they are a reform movement of the Catholic Church (and not “founded” by Martin Luther), but I’m not Lutheran, so I will let them speak for themselves. I think all churches trace their lineage back to the apostolic age in one way or another or they wouldn’t be Christian. I think all churches have probably made errors in one form or another in passing on the faith–which is why the Holy Spirit has allowed so much diversity since the beginning of the Church–this thread about the canon being a perfect case in point.

I would be curious as to which sources you looked at and how you determined they were objective. There’s a lot of apologetical works (BOTH Protestant and Catholic) that contain a lot of false information. Actually, that’s what lead me to this website. I was listening to Catholic Answers Live one day on the radio and couldn’t believe my ears–or the fact that the listeners seemed to be buying what was being said.

I attend a non-sectarian congregation affiliated with our local university. We follow the Western tradition of worship utilizing Common Worship.

I don’t think the Jacobite church existed prior to that; perhaps you could provide some proof, at which point I will concede?

The word “Jacobite” is actually more of a Western pejorative, although the name was eventually adopted by some. (The history is also very complicated.) The churches of Mesopotamia generally claim the Apostle Thomas as their founder. Of course the Roman Catholic church portrays them as having “split off” and founded their own church. Naturally, they wouldn’t have the same perspective.

Are all the churches in the world today, regardless of denomination, being guided by the holy spirit, doctrinally speaking?

Guided, yes. Following? Only imperfectly. As Paul said (1Cor 13), we only see things “dimly”–we are not God; no one has a perfect understanding of God or some sort of special, esoteric monopoly on the truth. (That’s gnosticsm.) In historical Christianity, humans do not reach some sort of personal full enlightenment or Nirvana or Haqiqa–that would be Buddhism or Islam. (Not even the Pope.) I think in the next world we will gain full knowledge commensurate with our nature as humans–but we still won’t be God. The Holy Spirit leads, but we follow only imperfectly, primarily because of sin–and the unmitigated arrogance of trying to put an infinite God into our finite doctrinal boxes using the limitations of human language.

God said:

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.

Is there a way to know where to go, to find, just God’s eternal words (Old Testament) - as opposed to additions or subtractions to it or from it? Let’s assume you are right and the CC is not where one can go to find just God’s eternal words that will never pass away (Old Testament)?

I think we can get a sense of God’s word–but more so through the revelation of Jesus Christ than through the Bible alone. I would very strongly encourage you to study the Bible in-depth–this post has barely scratched the surface on one problem. There are many others. As ONE brief example, the text of Jeremiah is 25% longer in the Septuagint than it is in the Roman Catholic Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scroll community (closest in time and geography to Jesus) was apparently using the longer text. Who has the “correct” text of Jeremiah? The Greek Orthodox? Or the Roman Catholics? First Samuel has a whole paragraph describing a man by the name of Nahash of Ammon that is omitted in the Septuagint and the Roman Catholic Bible, but is included in the Dead Sea Scrolls text and is known to Josephus. Who has the “correct” text of 1 Samuel? These issues go well, well beyond the simple “spelling errors” or “word order” that I see touted often here at CAF. Such study has helped me realize that we need to be very careful and humble when trying to make absolute claims. We only see things “dimly”

Perhaps doctrinal truth is irrelevant and it simply does not matter which church one belongs. Your thoughts?

Certainly doctrinal truth is not irrelevant, but we have to exercise a GREAT deal of humility about what we claim to be the “facts” concerning an infinite God. Otherwise we violate the first commandment and make our own human constructions of theology into an idol. So in some sense, we have to do the best we can and God will judge.

 

[Javl]

Yes, I used to accept this construction of history (one unified church until 1056) until I learned Syriac and started doing some of my own research. Actually, the question of canon is what makes this topic quite interesting. If there HAD been only one Catholic church in the fourth century, one would expect their biblical canons to be universally the same. They’re not.

There was essentially only one Catholic Church back then although various beliefs were held by it. This, then, is the reason and purpose for Synods and Councils. For if none were convened there then wouldn’t be any Catholic Church. Synods and Councils, Ecumenical or not, are convened for the express purpose of unifying not only beliefs ( defining, explaining, expandimg ) but also the direction, organization, and standardization, especially of prayers and Liturgy in and for all the Catholic Churches.

We’re not talking about Gnostics or Arians here.

Agreed, also all non-Catholic Churches.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[joe370]

[Dave Noonan;7448263]The Body of Christ is composed of those who are “in Christ” via baptism. See Romans 6.

I see Romans all of the time. Absolutely, although the Body is horribly fractured. I guess God was not powerful enough to maintain unity in his one undivided church?

The Holy Spirit leads, but we, as human beings, follow only imperfectly. My suggestion would be to give some more thought to your interpretation of “being lead into all truth.” We are being lead–but we haven’t arrived.

Of course we haven’t arrived. Each of us will when we die though. Not sure what that has to do with John 16:13. Everyone of course will possess all truth, once we are with Jesus, in heaven, but that is not what Jesus is talking about in John 16. Jesus sent the holy spirit to the imperfect fallible apostles and said that the HS would guide them to all truth, and I believe that He did and that they passed all truth on, to the next generation, and since the HS is forever guiding Jesus’ church, truth remains intact, in His church. I still believe that all truth can found in Jesus’ church, but that’s just me. Jesus was not talking to you or me or any other baptized Christian in John 14:16 and John 16:13. Jesus was talking to His fledgling church leaders, the apostles only. Thanks for the suggestion, but I have read that book a hundred times. Plus, I defer to Jesus’ church, in the end, just as Paul suggests in Hebrews 13:17; I am sure you do too, regarding the church to which you belong.

I believe your position is: the holy spirit, on Pentecost, was sent to each and every imperfect Christian and since each and every baptized Christian is imperfect they can only be guided to truth, imperfectly. All truth can only be acquired once each and every baptized Christian is perfectly united to Jesus, in heaven. Okeydoke…

I think all churches trace their lineage back to the apostolic age in one way or another or they wouldn’t be Christian. I think all churches have probably made errors in one form or another in passing on the faith–which is why the Holy Spirit has allowed so much diversity since the beginning of the Church–this thread about the canon being a perfect case in point.

Yes, all protestant churches can trace their lineage back to the apostolic age, through the Catholic Church, and yes, all churches have made errors in one form or another in passing on the faith, with the exception of the church of Matthew 16, doctrinally speaking - only!!! That church is full of fallible, imperfect leaders being infallibly and perfectly guided by the Holy Spirit. I am not here to debate that with you; that is what I believe, and yes, the HS allows diversity when people break away from the church founded by Jesus, being perfectly and infallibly guided by Him, as can be witnessed in the world today.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Dave Noonan…

I would be curious as to which sources you looked at and how you determined they were objective.

Me too, regarding your sources? Abridged version: I started with protestant sources of course, because I was a protestant; seemed reasonable at the time, but division ensued, right from the word go. Then, I moved on to the early church fathers, just as my former Lutheran pastor suggested. Employed logic and reasoning when reading both scripture and the works of the ECF’s. I then determined that every protestant church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. Realized I could provide the name of the man that founded each and every PC, and his name was not Jesus. Attempted to locate the name of the man or men that founded the CC, other than Jesus, but could not. Looked for the one reformed protestant church and could not find it or any scriptural basis for a reformed church. Considered the eastern orthodox church’s for they can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age, without going through the catholic church. In the end, after exhaustive research, soul searching and prayer, I chose the CC, in spite of the many bad things that have occurred in the CC, in every century. God didn’t promise that His church would be comprised of all good people; quite the opposite. He promised to safeguard doctrinal truth, and that He would be with His church forever.

There’s a lot of apologetical works (BOTH Protestant and Catholic) that contain a lot of false information.

That is why Jesus left us with His church and sent the HS to guide His church from within and without.

Actually, that’s what lead me to this website. I was listening to Catholic Answers Live one day on the radio and couldn’t believe my ears–or the fact that the listeners seemed to be buying what was being said.

So you are here to set the record straight for catholics? Show them the err of their ways perhaps, or to learn about the catholic faith???

I attend a non-sectarian congregation affiliated with our local university. We follow the Western tradition of worship utilizing Common Worship.

Cool! Worship is an awesome thing.

The word “Jacobite” is actually more of a Western pejorative, although the name was eventually adopted by some. (The history is also very complicated.) The churches of Mesopotamia generally claim the Apostle Thomas as their founder. Of course the Roman Catholic church portrays them as having “split off” and founded their own church. Naturally, they wouldn’t have the same perspective.

If I were to choose an Eastern orthodox church it would not be a break away, which is what that church is.

Guided, yes. Following? Only imperfectly.

Covered this earlier.

As Paul said (1Cor 13), we only see things “dimly”–we are not God; no one has a perfect understanding of God or some sort of special, esoteric monopoly on the truth. (That’s gnosticsm.)

So you believe that the CC is gnostic, because that church believes that the holy spirit is guiding the CC, doctrinally speaking, to all truth? We should all thank the CC for rallying against gnosticism so long ago, and quashing it. The church born on Pentecost is the church of Matthew 16, John 13 and John 14, and everyone must find that church on their own, in this world of so many insular and divided churches.