Hello justasking4,
Because they were written after the Babylonian Captivity, and record the events that took place during and shortly after that period of time, so it was considered a “second revelation” of God to them through the inspired writings of their learned men.
Why would i want to be?Jimmy B;3416400]Hello justasking4,
Aren’t you Catholic Yet?
Truth corresponds to reality. It corresponds to the facts.
I don’t know the who as much as why.Who decided to remove these books from the Bible and where did they derive their authority from to do so, were they “Infallible”?
God Bless You!
Hi justasking4Why would i want to be?
Truth corresponds to reality. It corresponds to the facts.
I don’t know the who as much as why.
,A mighty fine summary statement.
A mighty fine summary statement
A might fine summary statement
Great summary statements, all. However the one who saves didn’t speak in just summary statements. He put requirements and details on the soul, leading up to summary statements. Summary statements don’t trump the requirements and details expected of the soul leading up to great summary statements.
BTW, I noticed in your bio you are an ex-catholic. Why did you divide from the Church?
That’s very good. So you are basically your own Pope.
Would you consider Pope Benedict XVI to have greater knowledge than you? Does the Church Jesus founded teach contradicting truths?
What do you mean? These books are in the Old Testament.
I don’t know. I suspect he a very bright and intelligent man.
Yes.
Yes. Why were these 7 books designated as being part of the “second canon"?
I think your answer is very telling.
For the life of me, I do not know what you are talking about.
Because they came “second” - during and after the Captivity, instead of before it.
I agree. This practiced is evidenced in Macabees. Since Jesus and the Apostles used the deuterocanonicals in their Teachings, the Church considers that, if they are good enough for Jesus, they are good enough for us.
The NT is clear that the saints are alive in heaven, that we should pray one for another, that all believers are members of the One Body, that we all need one another, that we should pray for members of the Body, and that even death cannot separate us from the Love of God, by which we are bound in communion to one another.
This is false, ja4. The vast majority of the quotes used by the writers of the NT are from the Septuagint, which contained these books. This is the collection used by Jesus and His Apostles.
Yes, in Scripture, salvation is referred to as something that has occured, is in process, and will happen in the future. This is the Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. What you are to make of this passage is that it is not wise to build doctrine on single passages. Doctrine needs to be built upon the whole, that means all the scriptures and Teachings need to be taken together, before one can formulate a clear understanding. Jesus never taught any truth based on a single bible verse. This is a fundamentalist innovation that has only been happening in the last 150 years. It is the fruit of people having separated the scriptures from the sacred Tradition which produced them.
Not entirely, since some of these things you list are disciplines and not doctrines. However, you are right, the doctrines of the church, even if they are developed much later, cannot contradict any Teaching that came before. This is the case with all the doctrines you have listed here.This also applies to the marian doctrines, purgatory, infallible pope, celibate leadership, treasury of merit, praying to dead saints, eating meat on Fridays during lent is a sin, etc.
What possible reason of man is more important than the Revelation of God?!?!
He is referring to both, ja4. The pronouncements of the canonical books dating back to the third century have always been the same. It was stated again at Trent because the Reformers were trying relegate some of the books to secondary status.
These books were produced during the intertestamental period, that is why they were not part of the ancient Hebrew canon.
And whose standard do you use to determine that?
Yes, they were. They were included in the canons that the councils approved.
Because most of the Traditional Jews accepted either only the five books of Moses as authoritative, or the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets. These books, produced after the last of the OT prophets and before the NT, were a “second” canon, or collection of sacred works.
And whose standard determines what is “good”. Do you place your own intellect above the Revelation of God, as it appears? When Paul wrote this, he instructed the believers to use the Sacred Tradition as a standard - a standard you have rejected!
Well, I guess that is better than nothing.
They were not “put” into it. They were written late, after the older canon had been ratified.
Well, ja4, your apprehension of “facts” pales in comparison to the Revelation of God. Your insistence that God’s Revelation adhere to your ability to comprehend it is a gross limitation that you are placing upon knowing God. There are some truths about God that we just have to accept are mysteries, because they are beyond our human comprehension.
You say these books were removed because they contain many errors. Yet, they were included in the canon that was ratified by the Church to be inspired-inerrant. You have conceded that “sometime the Catholic Church got it right”, and that the identification of the NT canon was one of these times. However, the OT books that were declared as canonical at the same time, you reject? Do you see how this does not make any sense? You did not answer the question about where the the Reformers got the authority to reclassify these books.
Because they were written after the deportation. They did not go into exile with Israel, but were composed afterward.
I dare you to read his book, “Jesus of Nazarath.”
It’s hard for me to believe that Jesus set up His Church to teach contradicting truths as you suggest. It seems to me His Church would teach just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2). The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
I agree that Jesus Himself did not intend the church to contradict truth but your church and some protestant churches have. Take your celibate leadership. That is a direct contradiction of what the scriptures so clearly lay out what the requirements of leadership must be i.e. being a married man.
St. Paul was not a married man; yet, he was a leader in the Church. Was he breaking his own rules?
)jmcrae
St. Paul was not a married man; yet, he was a leader in the Church. Was he breaking his own rules?
We don’t know if he was married or not. Lets assume he was not married for argument sake. This still would not change his requirements for church leadership for being a bishop for example. He never uses his marital status as an example for being a church leader. He does however make it requirement for a bishop was that he was to be married.(Or are you, perhaps, misinterpreting the intent of the rule?
Would you say that it is possible for a single man to be a pastor of a Church?
It may be possible but is it biblical? I think there were good reasons why Paul wanted married men with children to be pastors. He makes that case that how well a man—father manages his own home will be a good indicator how well he will manage the church. He makes this clear in I Timothy 3:4-5 where he writes–
You underestimate Jesus and His Church. Thank goodness you are wrong and I pray that you will see that someday.
So you believe that a bishop must be married *and *have children? It doesn’t say *if *he has children does it?
Where do you see this in this verse?
Of course it requires marriage. Here is the verses;
i’m not trying to make my case from these verses but from chapter 3.
Not only must he be married but he must be one who manages his “own household” well. His “own household” involves his own children. We see this verses 4-5: