is this true?

[Randy_Carson]

There was never a canon issue among the Jews concerning the Old Testament. So can you tell me again when exactly did the Jews “elected to redefine a canon that was pragmatically closed by Jesus”?

In Jesus’ own day, there was a lot of dispute over the canon of the OT. The Pharisees had one set of scriptures, the Sadducees another, the Essenes a third…and so on.

But perhaps you are referring to the Council of Jamnia (or Jabneh) which was held in 90 AD.

Since the Jews no longer had any say in the matter of the scriptures (God’s authority having passed to the Christian Church), it shouldn’t really matter to us today what this council decided after the train had already left the station.

Unfortunately, Luther tried to take advantage of the fact that Jamnia removed Maccabees from the OT because he wanted to eliminate the teaching on purgatory found therein.

You can learn more about this here:

The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[AAC08]

AAC08 don’t be absurd. If I call you “Bert” and your name is “Fred” then are you going to respond to those who call a name you are not? Are you going to permit others to define your name?

But (for example) you call yourself “Jesus” but do not give further explanation, and this confuses people. Thus, it is only right that we call you “Jesus a.k.a. CentralFLJames” to distinguish you from Jesus our Lord and Savior. If we hadn’t, people would have thought that you are the Messiah, and that is pure blasphemy!

We Catholics DO NOT call ourselves Roman Catholic. And I dare you to show us in our Dogma and Catechism where we call ourselves “Roman Catholic”. This denomination does not exist.

Of course you Roman Catholics wouldn’t call yourselves Roman Catholics for the sake of perpetuating the illusion that you people are the original Catholic Church spoken of by Ignatius of Antioch.

What you and other ignorant people call “Roman Catholic” is an invention of Protestantism. “We” are simply “Catholic” and always have been. It is the Protestant reformers and their followers who attempted to declare by fiat that there was a new branch called “Roman Catholic” that came into existence either AFTER them (as your silly graphic depicts) or after the east-west schism.

Ironically, what you and other people call “Protestant” is an invention of Roman Catholicism. I wonder who drew first blood? We, too, can also claim to be ‘Catholic’, so long as it refers to the Early Christians as mentioned by Ignatius of Antioch. Your point? Nil.

The Protestant rebels and heretics you are following as your savior and your secular popes are the ones who invented the name “Roman Catholic” to try to disparage us as “Romanist” since we are loyal to the Chair of Peter - Christ’s only authorized Vicar. Go back and read up on history since you seem to be rather ignorant of it. Further dialog is useless until you can respect how we see ourselves and call us by the name we go by.

As far as Church history is concerned, Peter was NOT a bishop of Rome, nor was he ever called a “Pope” by the people of his time, nor was he ever mentioned to have been Christ’s “Vicar” to begin with. Sure, you can call me ignorant of history, but I’m the one with the solid historical evidence to back my claims up. You try telling Christ to stop calling the Pharisees and teachers of the law “fools”, “hypocrites”, “blind guides”, etc. and respect how they see themselves and call them by the name they went by.

No Catholic who is loyal to Christs Vicar seated in Rome and who knows the original revisionist history will call himself Roman Catholic. What we have is a cultural revisionism where society invents survey forms and censuses etc. that have the term “Roman Catholic” on them (based on their own revisionist biases of history) but lack another category called “Catholic”. Catholics simply pick the closest term to accommodate their ignorance since we know who we are and they are clueless.

No Christian who actually knows the original history will bear any allegiance to “Christ’s Vicar”.

So be careful or I am going to petition the government to strike the word “Protestant” from all its census forms and replace it with the term “American Secular Protestant anti-Catholics”". What does that mean to you and are you going to let other’s define you?

James

American? Do I sound like Bush to you? I’m NOT from the U.S.A. This is where you mess up: you always make assumptions before obtaining any evidence to back your assumptions. I assume that’s how you became a Roman Catholic in the first place?

 

[Church_Militant]

Of course you Roman Catholics wouldn’t call yourselves Roman Catholics for the sake of perpetuating the illusion that you people are the original Catholic Church spoken of by Ignatius of Antioch.

This is a good one. Have you actually read what St. Ignatius wrote? Apparently not, because in that same letter to the church in Smyrna where he speaks of the Catholic Church by name (See chapter 8), is also where he has the following to say about those who reject the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (which he also calls by that name in both chapters 7 & 8!)

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

So, if you want to believe what the early church did and what the New Testament teaches then you cannot continue to allege that we departed from them in doctrine because it is manifestly shown that it is not we but the modern post reformation step children who have indeed departed from them by their preaching of a symbolic Lord’s Supper and the denial and rejection of the sacraments. I believe there is a very carnal reason that they did this.

Ironically, what you and other people call “Protestant” is an invention of Roman Catholicism. I wonder who drew first blood? We, too, can also claim to be ‘Catholic’, so long as it refers to the Early Christians as mentioned by Ignatius of Antioch. Your point? Nil.

No…I’m afraid that you can’t, as shown in my direct quotes of him above.

Who cares where the nomenclature came from. We are not “the Roman church” in the sense that so many a-Cs use the term, and history supports the fact that we existed as the body of believers long before Constantine and the Edit of Tolerance stopped the persecutions for 48 years. (The Emperor Julian began them again at that time)

As far as Church history is concerned, Peter was NOT a bishop of Rome, nor was he ever called a “Pope” by the people of his time, nor was he ever mentioned to have been Christ’s “Vicar” to begin with.

Really? Prove it! His bones are there to this day.

“Pope” means father, and even as St. Paul called himself the spiritual father of those he evangelized you cannot reasonably assert that St. Peter was not similarly known.

Not Christ’s vicar? Really? Then why did the Good Shepherd say to Cephas before the Ascension, “15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.” (John 21) Peter was no mere hireling, and he indeed gave his life for the sheep there in Rome, even as Jesus said that the good shepherd would.

Since this commission was given to Peter alone, and not the other apostles, then certainly Our Lord did indeed commission him (both here and in Matthew 16:18) to be His representative on earth for His church. Whether you want to accept that or not has little bearing on that fact.

Sure, you can call me ignorant of history, but I’m the one with the solid historical evidence to back my claims up.

No… I’m afraid that you are still either ignorant of history or grossly deceived by other sources whom you have misplaced your trust in.
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

You try telling Christ to stop calling the Pharisees and teachers of the law “fools”, “hypocrites”, “blind guides”, etc. and respect how they see themselves and call them by the name they went by.

No…here again, this is you grossly misrepresenting what has been said to you. Moreover, as was once said in a political debate many years ago, “I know” Jesus “sir, and you are not” Jesus. To equate yourself as Christ is about tantamount to arrogance and blasphemy, especially when the New Testament very clearly tells us how to go about sharing our faith in 1st Peter 3:“15 But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you. 16 But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.”

No Catholic who is loyal to Christs Vicar seated in Rome and who knows the original revisionist history will call himself Roman Catholic. What we have is a cultural revisionism where society invents survey forms and censuses etc. that have the term “Roman Catholic” on them (based on their own revisionist biases of history) but lack another category called “Catholic”. Catholics simply pick the closest term to accommodate their ignorance since we know who we are and they are clueless.

This is completely unsubstantiated rhetoric and propaganda. None of which you can or will even attempt to prove because there is no such proof.

No Christian who actually knows the original history will bear any allegiance to “Christ’s Vicar”.

In your opinion. But then we’ve seen the level of your documentation and scholarship so far, haven’t we?:dts:

American? Do I sound like Bush to you? I’m NOT from the U.S.A. This is where you mess up: you always make assumptions before obtaining any evidence to back your assumptions. I assume that’s how you became a Roman Catholic in the first place?

Who cares…to be honest, I’m kinda glad that you don’t live next door to me.:sad_bye:

 

[notsmart]

Our receptivity or imagination?

angelic.org/originalsite/whydenominationsexist.html

The First Century Church was walking in a tremendous dimension of God’s truth and power. However, this was lost to us, almost completely, by the time the Dark Ages were upon us. Thus, in Acts 3:20-21 we see that it is God’s heart to restore it all to His Church. Thus, over the last several centuries, God had begun a restoration of revelation of His Truth. What we know today, and our intimate relationship with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and how we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us born-again believers are things that the prophets of old had so longed for. We are very privileged!

Understand that restoration often takes place across a long period of time. How much God can restore and reveal to us depends on the degree of our receptivity.

OP- name a pure and sin free “church”

 

[CentralFLJames]

But (for example) you call yourself “Jesus” but do not give further explanation, and this confuses people. Thus, it is only right that we call you “Jesus a.k.a. CentralFLJames” to distinguish you from Jesus our Lord and Savior. If we hadn’t, people would have thought that you are the Messiah, and that is pure blasphemy!

As far as Church history is concerned, Peter was NOT a bishop of Rome, nor was he ever called a “Pope” by the people of his time, nor was he ever mentioned to have been Christ’s “Vicar” to begin with. Sure, you can call me ignorant of history, but I’m the one with the solid historical evidence to back my claims up. You try telling Christ to stop calling the Pharisees and teachers of the law “fools”, “hypocrites”, “blind guides”, etc. and respect how they see themselves and call them by the name they went by.

I am going to kill two birds with a single stone here. The above two quotes of yours prove beyond all shadow of doubt that you speak not from just raw ignorance but also from shear hypocrisy. You in the first instance mock me by constructing a false vignette to give the false impression that I called myself Jesus. But I didn’t - you did. Then in the second instance you try to claim Christ like justification to sling ad homenium insults at me and axiomatically prove yourself to be a hypocrite by shooting yourself in the foot. Thank God David was not that incompetent when he went up against Goliath, knocked him out with “the small rock” (another prefigurement of Peter?) then decapitated him with his own sword. Do you have any idea how completly silly you look from the other side of the looking glass?

You also slander St. Peter when you make emotionally charged assertions intended to divorce Peter from His Church when those personal assertions are completely without substance and are in fact contradictory to all known evidence. We know from early Church writings and from the forensic evidence that Peter was in fact the Bishop of Rome. If you have a bone to pick with that then I suggest you go take it up with Peter who’s clearly marked coffin was discovered buried in Rome and now rests under the altar of the Vatican.

I put myself in your shoes and I have to feel sorry for you. You are just now starting to question the validity of everything you have ever been taught and must be having an identity crisis. Your Protestant traditions and teachings just do not hold water and now you know that you have put your faith in the false teachings of plausible liars - Luther and the Reformers rather than Jesus Christ and His Apostles and Bishops. Protestants utterly lack all apostolic succession and authority - not even the Anglicans have one. These “Protestantized” their originally Catholic Holy Order rites and then lost their apostolic succession when the original Catholic Bishops all died out. Any wonder that England is now fighting for its life to avoid becoming Muslim and Anglican clergy are abandoning a sinking ship and are converting to Catholicism ?

American? Do I sound like Bush to you? I’m NOT from the U.S.A. This is where you mess up: you always make assumptions before obtaining any evidence to back your assumptions. I assume that’s how you became a Roman Catholic in the first place?

I will respond to just this one last quote of yours rather than the others. The other absurdities Church Militant has already with his usual efficiency mercifully decapitated with a single stroke to put them out of their misery. Speaking of headless ideas, you Protestants under current secular laws are free to form your own “religious clubs” and various ecclesial communities but you eventually need to see that if it were not for your informal membership in the Catholic Church you would be completely headless. I bet you didn’t know you subjugated yourself both to Christ and His Catholic Church when you got baptised in a so called “Protestant” font did you?

As for calling you American, in the absence of any profile information (why is that?) I gave you the benefit of the doubt to extend the greatest courtesy. The redneck comments were highly suggestive of American culture. I need to remind myself that some elected to stay back in Europe while the more needy came to America as Protestants escaping the tyranny of other Protestants who were the heads of the European Protestant Churches (the secular kings).

James

 

[Soutane]

But (for example) you call yourself “Jesus” but do not give further explanation, and this confuses people. Thus, it is only right that we call you “Jesus a.k.a. CentralFLJames” to distinguish you from Jesus our Lord and Savior. If we hadn’t, people would have thought that you are the Messiah, and that is pure blasphemy!

Of course you Roman Catholics wouldn’t call yourselves Roman Catholics for the sake of perpetuating the illusion that you people are the original Catholic Church spoken of by Ignatius of Antioch.

Ironically, what you and other people call “Protestant” is an invention of Roman Catholicism. I wonder who drew first blood? We, too, can also claim to be ‘Catholic’, so long as it refers to the Early Christians as mentioned by Ignatius of Antioch. Your point? Nil.

As far as Church history is concerned, Peter was NOT a bishop of Rome, nor was he ever called a “Pope” by the people of his time, nor was he ever mentioned to have been Christ’s “Vicar” to begin with. Sure, you can call me ignorant of history, but I’m the one with the solid historical evidence to back my claims up. You try telling Christ to stop calling the Pharisees and teachers of the law “fools”, “hypocrites”, “blind guides”, etc. and respect how they see themselves and call them by the name they went by.

No Catholic who is loyal to Christs Vicar seated in Rome and who knows the original revisionist history will call himself Roman Catholic. What we have is a cultural revisionism where society invents survey forms and censuses etc. that have the term “Roman Catholic” on them (based on their own revisionist biases of history) but lack another category called “Catholic”. Catholics simply pick the closest term to accommodate their ignorance since we know who we are and they are clueless.

"No Christian who actually knows the original history will bear any allegiance to “Christ’s Vicar”.

“American? Do I sound like Bush to you? I’m NOT from the U.S.A. This is where you mess up: you always make assumptions before obtaining any evidence to back your assumptions. I assume that’s how you became a Roman Catholic in the first place?”

Are you ill?You seem consumed by hatred.I wouldn’t speak to a dog the way you speak to others here.