Many Protestants argue "How can this man give us his flesh to eat."

[whitenight21]

Why doesn’t someone here give me a good explanation as to how the RCC turned “GAVE THANKS” into (Edited) a consecration that only an ordained “priest” can do?

Maybe you havev not noticed at all the last 99 posts that have given you straight proof “from Holy Scripture” that the Host consecrated at the Holy Mass is the TRUE and REAL CHRIST!!!

(Edited)

Its not magic, Christ is not a wizard or magician, priests are not magicians either.
Christ is GOD and as GOD he is capable of all things, and if you are limiting GOD to what HE is capable of then i am really questioning your beliefs. (what are your beliefs?)

You are calling Christ the Catholic Church and all the Church Fathers since the Apostolic times LIARS. You are implying that what they have been martyred for, what they have devoted their entire lives to, is nothing but a simple misinterpretation of the words of Christ, in other words a LIE.

Worse is that you are calling Christ a liar.
Which of course makes absolutely no sense, because how can the truth lie?

There is no darkness in Pure love!

 

[brkn1]

Maybe you havev not noticed at all the last 99 posts that have given you straight proof “from Holy Scripture” that the Host consecrated at the Holy Mass is the TRUE and REAL CHRIST!!!

(Edited)

Its not magic, Christ is not a wizard or magician, priests are not magicians either.
Christ is GOD and as GOD he is capable of all things, and if you are limiting GOD to what HE is capable of then i am really questioning your beliefs. (what are your beliefs?)

You are calling Christ the Catholic Church and all the Church Fathers since the Apostolic times LIARS. You are implying that what they have been martyred for, what they have devoted their entire lives to, is nothing but a simple misinterpretation of the words of Christ, in other words a LIE.

Worse is that you are calling Christ a liar.
Which of course makes absolutely no sense, because how can the truth lie?

There is no darkness in Pure love!

Jesus qualified what He meant by: “This is…” when He commanded: “This do in remembrance of Me.”.

It was called the “breaking of bread” in Apostolic times.
They did not call it the “eating of Jesus”.
They understood what “in remembrance” meant.

 

[brkn1]

You get this from your interpretation of the Bible…again, aren’t you a man? You seem to be telling us in your words that your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation. Is this not putting yourself equal to or even superior to God’s word?

You have avoided to address several issues that I have presented and repeatedly asked for your thoughts. Instead you use an ad hominem worded post to insult Catholicism instead of using scriptures such as you have restricted us to when responding to you.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

Maybe you should clearly restate each issue so that I can get past any of what seemed to be a vagueness in your points.
I will try to respond with what I’m sure will be a “satisfactory” answer.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Maybe you should clearly restate each issue so that I can get past any of what seemed to be a vagueness in your points.
I will try to respond with what I’m sure will be a “satisfactory” answer.

You have maintained that all you need is your interpretation of the Bible, yet you can reject all other interpretations of the Bible including the early Church fathers. You did not respond to my post which I have quoted below.

So, it’s your faith that let’s you know the Bible is the inspired word of God. It’s faith for all of us, but not faith in the Bible alone since the Bible cannot establish it’s own authority.

Men put the canon together. These men have to have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Their decisions, on which Books were inspired and what books aren’t, had to themselves have been inspired. If we trust the Bible to be God’s Word, we have to trust those who made the final decisions to be infallible. If they were not infallible, then the Bible may not be infallible. Those men were Church Fathers, such as Augustine. They were Fathers who met in official Church Councils and HAD to have been guided by the Holy Spirit; HAD to have had the grace of infallibility, if we believe the outcome (the Bible) to be infallible. In other words, the Church presupposes the Bible and the Bible presupposes the Church.

These men had the authority to put together the canon. If those men, 300 plus years after the death of the Apostles, had no authority from God, then how can the Bible have any authority? How can those who had the authority to decide which Books are inspired possibly not have the authority to interpret them?

In another section of this thread you said;

There are several verses in Scripture that explain how anyone who is born of the Spirit can understand God’s Word.
(John 16:13) “Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come.”
Jesus was speaking to the disciples here, not just the Apostles. That means all of Jesus’ disciples are included in the Holy Spirit’s role of making the Bible understood. Anyone born of the Spirit can be Jesus’ disciple.

I then posted the following quote that you did not respond too. I’d be very interested in seeing your thoughts on this.

Your interpretation of John 16:13 is an example of being read out of context. You say he was talking to his diciples and not just the apostles. Aren’t these the same diciples who have already abandoned Christ because they could not bear his words, to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

In John 16:13 is Jesus telling the apostles what the Holy Spirit will teach them, at Pentacost and not that they will understand scriptures that had not yet been written.

In reference to 1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.

You said;

(1 Corinthians 1:10) supports what I have been saying about all the carnal Christians trying to use their own “wisdom” to decide how to approach God.Some were claiming that they followed this or that preacher etc. The same thing happens today with people saying that the “wisdom” of the Pope or the Magisterium or Luther or Calvin is necessary for proper understanding or interpretation of what God demands of us as Christians.

Please explain how your own “wisdom” of how to approach the Bible is correct over all others.

Also, please tell me why 1 Corinthians 1:10 was limited to the people of those times, but in John 16:13 he was talking to people up until today?

Last, you did not respond to my post where I stated;

What did the Lord mean when he said, This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me? Apparently, he meant for us to do this often, wouldn’t you agree?

1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

If you find these statements “vague” please let me know. I will be glad to articulate it more so you can find it easier to understand. I’m sure the others here would be glad to help me explain these positions as well.

I am hoping and praying that you can respond and maintain a respect for my faith as I have not once disrepected yours.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Maybe you should clearly restate each issue so that I can get past any of what seemed to be a vagueness in your points.
I will try to respond with what I’m sure will be a “satisfactory” answer.

In this response, you have again avoided the questions you quoted when replying to my post.

I only mention this as I’m trying to believe (in the interest of a theological debate) your statement that you will try to respond.

You said;

Originally Posted by brkn1
You put man’s word as equal to or even superior to God’s Word.

I replied to your accusation with the following quote;

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
You get this from your interpretation of the Bible…again, aren’t you a man? You seem to be telling us in your words that your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation. Is this not putting yourself equal to or even superior to God’s word?

You have avoided to address several issues that I have presented and repeatedly asked for your thoughts. Instead you use an ad hominem worded post to insult Catholicism instead of using scriptures such as you have restricted us to when responding to you.

Please respond, as I’m not the only one to point out that through your rejections of all “man’s” interpretations, that you yourself are a man and we’d sincerely like to understand how you can reject all “man’s” interpretations and expect us to believe your interpretation. To reject all others interpretations based on your own personal interpretation seems that you place your interpretation as the only correct interpretation of scriptures. Is this not putting yourself equal to or even superior to God’s word?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

 

[valient_Lucy]

You have maintained that all you need is your interpretation of the Bible, yet you can reject all other interpretations of the Bible including the early Church fathers.

“We care so much what the Holy Spirit says to us, yet we pay no attention to what He says to others.”

Charles Spurgeon (I think)

 

[Ziv18]

God’s gift of intelligence has little to do with understanding Scripture. It seems that man’s reliance on his own wisdom is what prevents many from understanding God’s Word. Look at the Pharisees with all their knowledge and intelligence. They saw and admitted to the miracles of Jesus, but still could not believe that Jesus was the Christ. It truly is not that difficult for a true believer and seeker of God to understand the important parts of the Bible. The simple gospel of Jesus Christ can be understood by a child. Jesus meant it about us needing to come as a child to God.

What of the people in the dark ages who could not read the bible due to being illiterate or no bible to read from (No printing press) who then do these people rely on and get interpretation from?

 

[Randb]

If Christ said ," do this in rememberance of me"
How come some only do it every once in a while? Once or twice a month or even once every couple of months? Don’t you really WANT to ‘remember’ Christ the way He said??
or is’ remember’ just symbolic too?

 

[Ronald_E]

If Christ said ," do this in rememberance of me"
How come some only do it every once in a while? Once or twice a month or even once every couple of months? Don’t you really WANT to ‘remember’ Christ the way He said??
or is’ remember’ just symbolic too?

Randb, I would like to follow-up on your very important point which is the word of Christ “…do this in remembrance of me.”
What does He mean to remember? I presume that it is easy for a Christian and a non-Christian in the modern world to remember Christ. In the Last Supper He is telling His apostles to perform an action with the bread and wine that He states will become His body and blood when He is remembered in this context.
The context is the ritual He created with His Word. Then it follows that to remember is to remember that He is the source of all creation through His Word. His Word creates the Eucharist since He told us He will be with us until the end of time.
This is remembrance.

 

[brkn1]

Hello again brkn1,

It still leaves us to question your interpretation. How do you know your interpretation supercedes all other interpretations? It sounds as if your saying God reveals His truth to you over everyone else. Here is a scripture, I’d be interested in hearing your interpretation of, 1 Corinthians 1:10.

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Your interpretation of John 16:13 is an example of being read out of context. You say he was talking to his diciples and not just the apostles. Aren’t these the same diciples who have already abandoned Christ because they could not bear his words, to eat His flesh and drink His blood?

In John 16:13 is Jesus telling the apostles what the Holy Spirit will teach them, at Pentacost and not that they will understand scriptures that had not yet been written.

How can this verse be true if everyone is doing their own interpretations and yet dividing themselves among many denominations? Catholics take comfort in our unity in the Holy Spirit guided Church and our same interpretation of the inspired word, inspired by the same Holy Spirit.

Prodigal Son1

You seem to be arguing that (John 16:13) can only apply to the Apostles, since all the other disciples have already abandoned Jesus. This does not hold up when you go further on in chapter 16 to verse 17: “Then said (some) of His disciples among themselves…”
Later in verse 29: “His (disciples) said unto Him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.”
The Apostles were not the only ones promised the comfort and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
All who are born from above are given the gift of being able to understand God’s Truth by the Holy Spirit.
It is not my wisdom, as you like to say, that I use to understand Scripture. The “wisest” group of men in the world could carefully read the Bible or be orally told the Gospel of Jesus Christ a million times and still have no true saving understanding of the meaning of the Gospel or the Bible. The Holy Spirit’s necessary indwelling is what can give the simplest true believer an understanding of God’s Truth. It does not come out of man’s wisdom to do so. The Holy Spirit’s Wisdom is the only way a believer can understand all truth.

The schisms you point to in (1 Cor. 1:10) are not a good biblical argument if you go through the entire Bible.
Unity in a large group should be suspect, since it is always a remnant that God tends to save. Jesus said that few would “find” the correct Way, when speaking about Himself. The history of God’s chosen people in the OT proves that most end up in apostacy and turn away from the True and Living God.
The only sure way to be certain that what others tell us is true, comes from making sure that everything lines up with Scripture. The Holy Spirit will confirm all truth without the need of a Bible, but the Holy Spirit will also give a true believer a sense when something said is not right. The sheep hear His “voice”.
You point to the “fathers” being a source of truth, but I choose the Bible and I find that I do not have to make any earthly assumptions according to the traditions and wisdom of men.
I accept the Apostolic writers of Scripture, but I do not necessarily trust any of those later writers, who put forth what can not be clearly supported in those Scriptures, both OT & NT. The arguments about “How can I be sure?” are wasted on me. You can go along with all the necessary assumptions of believing the later “fathers”, but I will stick with the only dependable source and rule of understanding God’s Will, which is the Bible. Whether the HS is guiding me, or not, is between God and myself.
I prefer to stick more with the original subject of this thread. This discussion is too much of a sidetrack, although I see why you and others seem to prefer that method of discussing the subject.

 

[brkn1]

What of the people in the dark ages who could not read the bible due to being illiterate or no bible to read from (No printing press) who then do these people rely on and get interpretation from?

The simple Gospel of Jesus Christ being preached by anyone can be sufficient for the salvation of any person, if the Holy Spirit chooses to draw that person into the Beloved in Christ. All the rituals and reading the Bible etc. will be useless, if God is not in it. Jesus will always find His sheep, even if they are illiterate, etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You seem to be arguing that (John 16:13) can only apply to the Apostles, since all the other disciples have already abandoned Jesus. This does not hold up when you go further on in chapter 16 to verse 17: “Then said (some) of His disciples among themselves…”
Later in verse 29: “His (disciples) said unto Him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.”
The Apostles were not the only ones promised the comfort and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
All who are born from above are given the gift of being able to understand God’s Truth by the Holy Spirit.
It is not my wisdom, as you like to say, that I use to understand Scripture. The “wisest” group of men in the world could carefully read the Bible or be orally told the Gospel of Jesus Christ a million times and still have no true saving understanding of the meaning of the Gospel or the Bible. The Holy Spirit’s necessary indwelling is what can give the simplest true believer an understanding of God’s Truth. It does not come out of man’s wisdom to do so. The Holy Spirit’s Wisdom is the only way a believer can understand all truth.

As you begin by making an argument for disciples verses apostles in John 16:13, whether it applies to disciples or apostles, it was instructions on what they could expect at Pentacost. It does not pertain to all disciples to understand the written word as the written word was not composed until possibly 50AD at the very earliest.

The schisms you point to in (1 Cor. 1:10) are not a good biblical argument if you go through the entire Bible.
Unity in a large group should be suspect, since it is always a remnant that God tends to save. Jesus said that few would “find” the correct Way, when speaking about Himself. The history of God’s chosen people in the OT proves that most end up in apostacy and turn away from the True and Living God.
The only sure way to be certain that what others tell us is true, comes from making sure that everything lines up with Scripture. The Holy Spirit will confirm all truth without the need of a Bible, but the Holy Spirit will also give a true believer a sense when something said is not right. The sheep hear His “voice”.

Again, I think you’re wrong about unity. The Lord clearly stated one fold, one shepard. I think this applies to the 1 Corinthians 1:10 in a much clearer endorsement that what you’ve stated above.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

You point to the “fathers” being a source of truth, but I choose the Bible and I find that I do not have to make any earthly assumptions according to the traditions and wisdom of men.
I accept the Apostolic writers of Scripture, but I do not necessarily trust any of those later writers, who put forth what can not be clearly supported in those Scriptures, both OT & NT.

As I said, the Bible was not written fully as it is now. It is a collection of letters, or books if you will, that make up the one book. We explained the early Church fathers put those books together. We did not say those early Church fathers wrote anything in the Bible, but through their interpretation of scriptures decided which letters or books belonged to make the one whole Bible. Of course they are not going to line up or be mentioned in letters and books that were written prior to the canon of the Bible. You are still either avoiding or not understanding the question here. How do you think the canon of the Bible was decided?

The arguments about “How can I be sure?” are wasted on me. You can go along with all the necessary assumptions of believing the later “fathers”, but I will stick with the only dependable source and rule of understanding God’s Will, which is the Bible. Whether the HS is guiding me, or not, is between God and myself.

At least you admit you are willing to accept your interpretation whether the Holy Spirit is guiding you or not, as I’ve bolded above.
So every denomination or person that has a different interpretation of the Bible and says they are guided by the Holy Spirit is correct, no matter that those interpretations do not match? I’m sorry but that sounds like confusion to me and God is not a God of confusion.

I prefer to stick more with the original subject of this thread. This discussion is too much of a sidetrack, although I see why you and others seem to prefer that method of discussing the subject.

We were only addressing your assertion of your interpretation being right over everyone else here, but now you’ve admitted that your interpretation is yours whether guided by the Holy Spirit or not. Being this is the case, is it safe to say, your interpretation of receiving the body and blood is possibly not guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[anthony022071]

Christ’s flesh profitted everything when He died on Calvary to redeem us and the world.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I prefer to stick more with the original subject of this thread. This discussion is too much of a sidetrack, although I see why you and others seem to prefer that method of discussing the subject.

With your long post, which I have previously addressed, you failed to answer the only question I put forth specifically addressing the original subject. Since you accused us of sidetracking a discussion, I wanted to bring that back to your attention for your thoughts.

What did the Lord mean when he said, This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me? Apparently, he meant for us to do this often, wouldn’t you agree?

1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

To me it sounds as if the Lord is saying, This you should do as often as you drink for the commemoration of Him.

If as you say this was not to be taken literally, why does it sound as if the Lord expects us to do this often?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

 

[anthony022071]

All who are born from above are given the gift of being able to understand God’s Truth by the Holy Spirit.
It is not my wisdom, as you like to say, that I use to understand Scripture. The “wisest” group of men in the world could carefully read the Bible or be orally told the Gospel of Jesus Christ a million times and still have no true saving understanding of the meaning of the Gospel or the Bible. The Holy Spirit’s necessary indwelling is what can give the simplest true believer an understanding of God’s Truth. It does not come out of man’s wisdom to do so. The Holy Spirit’s Wisdom is the only way a believer can understand all truth.

 

[Ziv18]

The simple Gospel of Jesus Christ being preached by anyone can be sufficient for the salvation of any person, if the Holy Spirit chooses to draw that person into the Beloved in Christ. All the rituals and reading the Bible etc. will be useless, if God is not in it. Jesus will always find His sheep, even if they are illiterate, etc.

But what about the person reading to them and their interpretation of what they are reading to the illiterate. Doesn’t that interpretation affect the illiterate?

 

[brkn1]

With your long post, which I have previously addressed, you failed to answer the only question I put forth specifically addressing the original subject. Since you accused us of sidetracking a discussion, I wanted to bring that back to your attention for your thoughts.

To me it sounds as if the Lord is saying, This you should do as often as you drink for the commemoration of Him.

If as you say this was not to be taken literally, why does it sound as if the Lord expects us to do this often?

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

I never said that the breaking of bread in commemoration of Jesus’ Sacrifice was not to be observed. There is a spiritual blessing in doing so often.
My primary disagreement with you and others here has to do with whether the elements of the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus.

You insist that Jesus was literally overriding the law that He came to fulfill.
(Leviticus 7: 26-27) states:
26 “Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.”
27 “Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.”

Those who understood Jesus’ words in a literal sense were mistaken in their understanding, as Jesus pointed out later about His words being spirit. The disciples who left because of their literal misunderstanding were correct about the law of not drinking literal blood. They were incorrect about taking Jesus’ words literally, which would violate the law. Such a violation should have made them consider that Jesus was not speaking literally, but spiritually.

We see in (John 13:18) that Jesus came to fulfill scripture, not change or violate it. This verse also explains why Jesus did not attempt to correct those who left Him because of their misunderstanding: “I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen:…” This is not only speaking about Judas, but also all those who are not given God’s Spirit to understand the truth about spiritually eating of Jesus.
Jesus describes the communion as having “eateth bread with me”, not as literally “having eaten of me”. There is a big difference in meaning between the two ideas. Jesus would have stated it differently otherwise.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Those who understood Jesus’ words in a literal sense were mistaken in their understanding, as Jesus pointed out later about His words being spirit. The disciples who left because of their literal misunderstanding were correct about the law of not drinking literal blood. They were incorrect about taking Jesus’ words literally, which would violate the law. Such a violation should have made them consider that Jesus was not speaking literally, but spiritually.

Yet, rather than “save” those who misunderstood, he let them walk away? How come everytime he spoke metaphorically, in parables, he explained himself so there would be no misinterpretation? Instead, this time he continued with, John 6:
53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

To me he was clearing things up by restating what they could not bare to hear

The law not to drink blood was from pagan sacrifices where they would kill a bull for example and drink it’s blood to receive it’s strength. Drinking the blood of a false God was prohibited. To drink the blood of our Lord, the real God, as he asks, gives spiritual strength instead.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

brkn1,

Below, I have added verses to endorse the Catholic interpretation of the body and blood of Christ, we receive through communion. I am quoting from the King James Version as I assume this is the version you use.

(KJV)1 Corinthians 10:16 -17
[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
[17] For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

(KJV)1 Corinthians 11:26 - 30

[26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
[27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Please explain, particularly, 27 - 29 of chapter 11. Why does this metaphoric language continue through the apostle? Why does he address eating the bread and drinking the cup, unworthily? Why does he state that doing so makes one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? He repeats himself in verse 28 and 29.

Below are the same verses from the Douay-Rheims Bible.

(DRB)1 Corinthians 10:16 - 17

16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

(DRB)1 Corinthians 11:26 - 29

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

brkn1,

(First, I apologize if the OP objects to the following presentation. I wish to include it as it seems the authority of the Bible has come into question because of personal interpretations.)

Since you haven’t addressed my earlier post referencing the early Church fathers and the canon of the Bible, I wish to explain our position.

The first canon took place in the year 360AD. This was the first decision as to what letters/books were the inspired word of God.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

You can read this directly from the source by visiting this link.

The main point I am trying to demostrate to you is the fact that the list of letters/books in the Bible were not decided until over 3 centuries after the death of Christ, and well after the death of all the original apostles. This also, demostrates the authority of the early Church fathers to make this decision. The very Bible that you read was compiled under the authority of the early Church fathers. This means they had through their interpretations, they decided on which books would be in the Bible.

With this knowledge, why would you reject specific writings from those early Church fathers or from early Church fathers from a much earlier time? Some of the early Church fathers who lived with and learned from apostles.

So far we have provided documentation, through research which was other than our own personal interpretations, and a response would be very much appreciated.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Prodigal Son1