It's not in the Bible, Okay? Part II

[Brian_Culliton]

Hmm, ok.

The canon of the Bible, that is, which books to be included in the Bible, is it not doctrine?

Did it come from the apostles?

It is not possible for the canon of Scripture to have come from the apostles. The books I listed, however, are a different story. Those books I did not mention, that are part of the canon, can and should be scrutinized. For example, I do not know who wrote 2 Peter or when, but I do know the method used to include it in the canon and I agree with the conclusions. Is it an inspired work? If I were a betting man I wouldn’t chance it. There is little historical evidence to support its inclusion, yet it harmonizes well with the undisputed books.

So if I accept a disputed book it is because I have examined it for myself, not because somebody decided for me that it is Scripture. My faith is built upon the Gospel message not the canon of Scripture. I am satisfied that the books I mentioned came from the apostles because they can be traced back to the earliest ecclesiastical writers. In fact, Pollycarp referred to particular New Testament passages as Scripture, Clement called Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians “inspired” and Irenaeus stated that the base and pillar of the church is the Gospel of Christ. If the canon of Scripture is supported by what we know comes from the apostles then I accept the doctrine for that reason. I also scrutinize every other doctrine the same way. For the record, most of your sacred traditions do not pass the test.

 

[ChadS]

I see you swam the Tiber in 2004. Welcome home!

Thank you, it’s good to be back home. As I converted and discovered more and more about the faith and learned about the Bible from a Catholic perspective I remember thinking: “Why wasn’t I told this before?”

ChadS

 

[qui_est_ce]

So if I accept a disputed book it is because I have examined it for myself, not because somebody decided for me that it is Scripture. My faith is built upon the Gospel message not the canon of Scripture. I am satisfied that the books I mentioned came from the apostles because they can be traced back to the earliest ecclesiastical writers.

Are you a Bible scholar? Do you know Koine, Aramaic, ancient Hebrew?

In fact, Pollycarp referred to particular New Testament passages as Scripture, Clement called Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians “inspired” and Irenaeus stated that the base and pillar of the church is the Gospel of Christ.

Do you think Polycarp and Clement are inspired? If not, why not? Your statement that Clement said the “base and pillar of the church is the Gospel of Christ.” That seems to contradict [BIBLEDRB]1 timothy 3:15

[/BIBLEDRB]

If the canon of Scripture is supported by what we know comes from the apostles then I accept the doctrine for that reason.

How do you know it comes from the Apostles?

I also scrutinize every other doctrine the same way. For the record, most of your sacred traditions do not pass the test.

So you make yourself the sole arbiter of Biblical interpretation. What about Scripture Scholars who disagree with your interpretation?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

There has to be an authority which would accurately tell us which of the above, if any, is teaching ‘correctly’ on Scripture and which is not.

Why, and what makes you think the Catholic Church is that authority? Just because you put your trust in your magisterium does not mean they are correct. They are just another denomination as far as I am concerned.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why, and what makes you think the Catholic Church is that authority? Just because you put your trust in your magisterium does not mean they are correct. They are just another denomination as far as I am concerned.

The Bible tells us that that God would send his advocate to be with his Church until the end of time and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against her.
[BIBLEDRB]matthew 16:18-19[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]matthew 18:16-18[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]matthew 28:20[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[nuntym]

It is not possible for the canon of Scripture to have come from the apostles. The books I listed, however, are a different story. Those books I did not mention, that are part of the canon, can and should be scrutinized. For example, I do not know who wrote 2 Peter or when, but I do know the method used to include it in the canon and I agree with the conclusions. ** Is it an inspired work? If I were a betting man I wouldn’t chance it. There is little historical evidence to support its inclusion, yet it harmonizes well with the undisputed books.

So if I accept a disputed book it is because I have examined it for myself, not because somebody decided for me that it is Scripture. My faith is built upon the Gospel message not the canon of Scripture. I am satisfied that the books I mentioned came from the apostles because they can be traced back to the earliest ecclesiastical writers.** In fact, Pollycarp referred to particular New Testament passages as Scripture, Clement called Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians “inspired” and Irenaeus stated that the base and pillar of the church is the Gospel of Christ. If the canon of Scripture is supported by what we know comes from the apostles then I accept the doctrine for that reason. I also scrutinize every other doctrine the same way. For the record, most of your sacred traditions do not pass the test.

Wow, you are a walking Catholic Church!

Good luck doing what the Catholic Church has been doing for the past two thousand years.

Oh, btw, how do you know that the Gospel message you have got from Scripture is the correct one?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Wow, you are a walking Catholic Church!

Good luck doing what the Catholic Church has been doing for the past two thousand years.

Oh, btw, how do you know that the Gospel message you have got from Scripture is the correct one?

That’s my problem. It looks like Brian is setting himself up as the sole arbiter of truth. It even says in the Bible not to do this.

[BIBLEDRB]2 peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[nuntym]

Why, and what makes you think the Catholic Church is that authority? Just because you put your trust in your magisterium does not mean they are correct. They are just another denomination as far as I am concerned.

Study history, Brian, and you just might be surprised

And oh, be sure to include G.K. Chesterton or Hilaire Belloc’s writings on history

 

[Brian_Culliton]

I would be interested in how you would answer this question (especially you, nuntym, since you want me to study history I can assume you have):

The earliest Christian writer to mention 2 Peter was Origen who characterized it as “doubtful.” That means 2 Peter was known by some during his time, but no ecclesiastical writer before him ever mentions it, even though 1 Peter was quoted numerous times. And in the fourth century Eusebius listed 2 Peter as disputed but recognized by the majority.

So if no record of its existence can be found prior to the early third century, and the third century theologian, Origen, considered it doubtful, and it was still disputed 100 years later, why do you believe it is the inerrant work of Peter?

 

[nuntym]

I would be interested in how you would answer this question (especially you, nuntym, since you want me to study history I can assume you have):

The earliest Christian writer to mention 2 Peter was Origen who characterized it as “doubtful.” That means 2 Peter was known by some during his time, but no ecclesiastical writer before him ever mentions it, even though 1 Peter was quoted numerous times. And in the fourth century Eusebius listed 2 Peter as disputed but recognized by the majority.

So if no record of its existence can be found prior to the early third century, and the third century theologian, Origen, considered it doubtful, and it was still disputed 100 years later, why do you believe it is the inerrant work of Peter?

I do not…that is, until new evidence comes to light on the contrary.

Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), “Epistles of Saint Peter”:

In the present state of the controversy over the authenticity [of the second epistle of St. Peter] it may be affirmed that it is solidly probable, though it is difficult to prove with certainty.

I believe most Bible scholars have already accredited this book as pseudonymous. I however still ascribe to the analysis of the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

Here is another view on this issue: bible.org/article/2-peter-peter%E2%80%99s

 

[adriancombe]

Take Padre Pio, for example. Now, really, was he actually able to levitate and bilocate and much, much more?

Theology is one thing, faith is required. When you start in on Padre Pio, you are going in the opposite direction. Everything that is said about his miracles is absolutely true…everything far more attested and measured than what you read in the paper or see on the news. To talk about it in terms of belief is a mischaracterization. If you spent the rest of your life doing nothing else, you would not be able to interview all the persons whose souls he read, whom he appeared to and worked miracles for.

 

[Roy5]

adraincombe

If you can believe the various stories of Padre Pio, fine. I'm just pointing out that to millions of thinking and observing Christians, Catholics as well as Protestants, such stories appear to be in sharp conflict with elementary science and ordinary common sense. Catholicism is seriously weakened when it canonizes such persons. It's true that God could perform such miracles, but most of those attributed to Padre Pio seem to be way over the top. I suspect that this sort of thing has contributed heavily to the fact that 10% of the American people - 30 million - are former Catholics. Frankly, I need a reasonable religion that doesn't fight with my sense of reality, a faith that I find believable.

God bless the whole world - no exceptions. And on this Thanksgiving Day, let us unite in giving thanks.

 

[qui_est_ce]

adraincombe

If you can believe the various stories of Padre Pio, fine. I'm just pointing out that to millions of thinking and observing Christians, Catholics as well as Protestants, such stories appear to be in sharp conflict with elementary science and ordinary common sense. Catholicism is seriously weakened when it canonizes such persons. It's true that God could perform such miracles, but most of those attributed to Padre Pio seem to be way over the top. I suspect that this sort of thing has contributed heavily to the fact that 10% of the American people - 30 million - are former Catholics. Frankly, I need a reasonable religion that doesn't fight with my sense of reality, a faith that I find believable.

God bless the whole world - no exceptions. And on this Thanksgiving Day, let us unite in giving thanks.

Roy-
Do you think the miracles performed by the Prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles were “way over the top?” Do you understand infinity and the eternal? Our puny little minds will never understand the infinite while we are still in our finite minds and bodies. This is where faith steps in.

 

[adriancombe]

adraincombe

If you can believe the various stories of Padre Pio, fine. I'm just pointing out that to millions of thinking and observing Christians, Catholics as well as Protestants, such stories appear to be in sharp conflict with elementary science and ordinary common sense. Catholicism is seriously weakened when it canonizes such persons. It's true that God could perform such miracles, but most of those attributed to Padre Pio seem to be way over the top. I suspect that this sort of thing has contributed heavily to the fact that 10% of the American people - 30 million - are former Catholics. Frankly, I need a reasonable religion that doesn't fight with my sense of reality, a faith that I find believable.

God bless the whole world - no exceptions. And on this Thanks

giving Day, let us unite in giving thanks.

Reiterating…
Faith is required for many things. Padre Pio’s miracles are well documented. To suggest that the problems with the Church have to do with endorsing Padre Pio…wow. How do you even get there?! It takes more ‘faith’ not to accept the witness of history than to believe in it! The problem today is too little faith.

 

[Ignatius]

We must remember that what we now have as the New Testament Scripture existed only as Sacred Oral Tradition for a couple of generations, passed on by word of mouth by The Catholic Church before the first began to be written around A.D. 50 or so. It is generally acknowledged that the earliest is the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians aroabout 50 A.D as well. Not only that, but the matter of the list of which books and letters are New Testament Scripture never was declared as Scripture and is not contained in the Bible itself, but a matter of Sacred Tradition. So, without Sacred Tradition, we wouldn’t even have the Canon of which books are to be included in the New Testament as God breathed Holy Scripture.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Reiterating…
Faith is required for many things. Padre Pio’s miracles are well documented. To suggest that the problems with the Church have to do with endorsing Padre Pio…wow. How do you even get there?! It takes more ‘faith’ not to accept the witness of history than to believe in it! The problem today is too little faith.

See how it goes? When you can’t answer change the subject!

Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the sole rule of faith? Where in the Bible does it say which books belong in it?

 

[ncgolf]

If you can believe the various stories of Padre Pio, fine. I’m just pointing out that to millions of thinking and observing Christians, Catholics as well as Protestants, such stories appear to be in sharp conflict with elementary science and ordinary common sense.

So people who believe in Padre Pio’s miracles are not thinkers? Is that not what something truly miraculous is … something beyond what normal, elemental science says is possible or even what a carnal, rational mind says is possible. Read John 6 and you can see what rational people thought of some of Jesus’s words … and that was God talking.

Catholicism is seriously weakened when it canonizes such persons.

Why would this be so?

It’s true that God could perform such miracles, but most of those attributed to Padre Pio seem to be way over the top.

Give me a miracle that isn’t?

I suspect that this sort of thing has contributed heavily to the fact that 10% of the American people - 30 million - are former Catholics.

People are former Catholics for a myriad of reasons … most of which have to do with what the Church teaches on morals … I suspect.

Frankly, I need a reasonable religion that doesn’t fight with my sense of reality, a faith that I find believable.

Wow … someone says they are God, is crucified and 3 days later He is up and walking around … and that doesn’t fight with a sense of reality?

I wonder if God can make a rock bigger than he can lift?

 

[twinc]

See how it goes? When you can’t answer change the subject!

Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the sole rule of faith? Where in the Bible does it say which books belong in it?

according to some Jn.21:25 and 20:31 and 2Timothy 3:15-17 - twinc

 

[qui_est_ce]

"qui est ce:

Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the sole rule of faith? Where in the Bible does it say which books belong in it?

according to someand [BIBLEDRB]John 20:31[/BIBLEDRB] and [BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 3:15-17 [/BIBLEDRB]- twinc

Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the **sole **rule of faith? Where in the Bible does it say which books belong in it?