MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[Ginger2]

…do you recall I asked you how you thought the Bible got to us - …

No, I must have missed that. I do have a life away from my PC you know. I have been trying to stay focused on the one topic, but then the accusations fly so heck, why not talk about the canon?
First century Christians knew which books were inspired of God. Your claim that no one knew which books were inspired until the 4th century is ridiculous!

Evidence that they knew from the beginning is contained in the Scriptures themselves where Peter calls Paul’s writings “scripture” and Paul claims divine inspiration. And Christians obviously agreed as they were diligently making copies and passing them around to all the churches!!!

1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1st John 5:13 states, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”
The oldest canon of the Jewish OT is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras):

It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta).

Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but names them only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.

Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian’s statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful." and “St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament …”

Furthermore, the apocryphal books admit that prophetic succession had already ended.
(I Macc. 9:27) 14:41). Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.
(1 Macc. 14:41)And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise,

This means the Apocrypha could not be written under the inspiration of God. Therefore the Protestant Bibles are correct and the RC DID NOT GIVE US THE BIBLE
“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon." - Jerome

If the pope proclaimed these 7 books divinely inspired, why did the pope allow Jerome to deny their inspiration?

The RC does not allow translators, publishers nor even scholars to write commentaries within the pages of the Bible that disagree with Catholic teaching. Yet, Jerome was allowed to write comments, not just on history or interpretation of the seven books, but outright deny their inspiration and append them apart from the universally accepted Scriptures.

I could go on, but I hate long posts…

 

[Ginger2]

…The issue before you is one of simple dates - the first book of the NT ws written about 60AD and the last was written about 100AD…

Wrong again.

Catholic claim is that the New Testament was oral Tradition and written down years later. But Paul wrote letters to the various churches before visiting them. Those letters were read before Paul spoke to the Christians at each church. Those letters are included in both Protestant and Catholic Bibles.

The written Word was given to the churches before the spoken testimony of the Apostles in many cases. There are some exceptions which would mostly themselves be eye witnesses to Jesus.

35 A.D. : Gospel of Matthew

40 to 41 A.D. : Book of James
42 A.D. : Gospel of Mark
42 A.D. : Gospel of John

Three of the 4 gospels were written before the Catholic Church claims Peter went to Rome.

50 A.D. : Book of 1Thessalonians
51 A.D. : Book of 2Thessalonians
53 A.D. (Spring) : Book of Galatians
56 A.D. (Late Winter) : Book of 1Corinthians
57 A.D. (Late Summer) : Book of 2Corinthians
57 A.D. (Winter) : Book of Romans
59 A.D. : Gospel of Luke

All of the above were written before Paul went to Rome. Paul mentions that he is witnessing to those who have not been witnessed to before and as I said earlier, Paul sent his epistles to them before he arrived.

BTW, all these dates are straight out of my Catholic Bible!

 

[elvisman]

Well then, show me the passage where it states Paul or any other Apostle taught things that were never wrote down by them.

They New Testament writings were written by the Apostles as they were preaching. Whether people heard it from their lips or read it in a letter makes no difference unless they were telling stories that they never wrote down - which seems to be what you are claiming.

So, show me the Scripture that clearly states something of value was left out of the Holy writings.

I’ve shown one that says nothing necessary, nothing that we need to know, is left out:

John 20: 30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But **these are written **that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Would you look at that!! Jesus did many things that are not written down, yet the things that are written down are enough to lead us to eternal life!!!

One non-explicit teaching from Scripture that has been handed down by Apostolic Tradition is the Baptism of infants. I have already listed several quotes from the Church Fathers on this thread that attest to this fact.

As for the writings of the apostles - let me ask you something, Ginger. If Barnabas was considered to be an Apostle (Acts 14:14) - why is it that his Epistles were not in the final Canon of Scripture?
They were considered by many in the Early Church to be inspired and were recited during mass in some parishes in the Early Church.

The simple fact is that the Church, with her God-given authority (Matt. 16:19, 18:15-18, John 20:21-23) and led by the Holy Spirit to ALL truth (John 16:12-15) did not declares his writings inspired or canonical.

**The Cible came from the Church - not the Church from the Bible. That is a fact that many Protestants simply cannot grasp because if they did - they would have to consider the frightening reality that they are outside the Church.

 

[elvisman]

Wrong again.

Catholic claim is that the New Testament was oral Tradition and written down years later. But Paul wrote letters to the various churches before visiting them. Those letters were read before Paul spoke to the Christians at each church. Those letters are included in both Protestant and Catholic Bibles.

The written Word was given to the churches before the spoken testimony of the Apostles in many cases. There are some exceptions which would mostly themselves be eye witnesses to Jesus.

35 A.D. : Gospel of Matthew

40 to 41 A.D. : Book of James
42 A.D. : Gospel of Mark
42 A.D. : Gospel of John

Three of the 4 gospels were written before the Catholic Church claims Peter went to Rome.

50 A.D. : Book of 1Thessalonians
51 A.D. : Book of 2Thessalonians
53 A.D. (Spring) : Book of Galatians
56 A.D. (Late Winter) : Book of 1Corinthians
57 A.D. (Late Summer) : Book of 2Corinthians
57 A.D. (Winter) : Book of Romans
59 A.D. : Gospel of Luke

All of the above were written before Paul went to Rome. Paul mentions that he is witnessing to those who have not been witnessed to before and as I said earlier, Paul sent his epistles to them before he arrived.

BTW, all these dates are straight out of my Catholic Bible!

Ginger - will you EVER stop misrepresenting the Church??
Your comments are BOGUS.

First of all - the Church doesn’t claim that the NT was Oral Tradition and later written down. That is a bald-face lie on your part.

Your second lie is that the Church claims that the Gospel of John was written in A.D. 42.
MY Catholic Bible - and the opinion of just about every single Biblical Scholar, Catholic and Protestant - is that is was written sometime near the last decade of the first century.

 

[Ginger2]

As for the writings of the apostles - let me ask you something, Ginger. If Barnabas was considered to be an Apostle (Acts 14:14) - why is it that his Epistles were not in the final Canon of Scripture?

Perhaps it is because Barnabas died in 61 A.D. and the Epistle wasn’t written until 130 A.D. or later.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger - will you EVER stop misrepresenting the Church??
Your comments are BOGUS.

First of all - the Church doesn’t claim that the NT was Oral Tradition and later written down. That is a bald-face lie on your part.

Then what do Catholics mean when they say the early church depended on oral tradition because there was no NT Bible?

Your second lie is that the Church claims that the Gospel of John was written in A.D. 42.
MY Catholic Bible - and the opinion of just about every single Biblical Scholar, Catholic and Protestant - is that is was written sometime near the last decade of the first century.

Those dates come straight out of my Catholic Bible. The St. Joseph Textbook Edition Confraternity Version. The copywrite page is missing

I do believe you are correct about John. I don’t remember using that gospl as an example and I copied and pasted this from my notes. I’ll check on it, but like I said, I don’t remember including John in the past and I’m sure it was not written at the same time as Matthew.

 

[1holycatholic]

How funny, as a Lutheran I see the precedent a little different. Just recently, a group of us didn’t really agree with the pastor, actually he really wasn’t doing a very good job. Rather than picking up and leaving, we got together, talked about it, and then fired him. Actually the story is a little longer than that, but this is the readers digest version

So please don’t lump all Protestants into your Baptist box, and don’t lump Lutherans or Episcopalians into that group. We have polity that allows us a great deal of freedom, but at the same time gives us a set of rules we need to play with in.

If the pastor leaves or the congregants leave the end result is the same.

 

[Riccardo]

I think its a real shame and sad that we all cant agree, but when flesh and blood are involved, i suppose its bound to happen.
The Lord came in the flesh, to save us.Thank You jesus!

There are many faults on all sides, we have churches that are too rich, we have had leaders on all sides that have been evil in their actions. Thats not God sent.

We are argue about baptism, we argue about who should be the head of the church, that has to be christ, for he is the head, we are the parts.

Perhaps we should talk on what unites us rather on what we cant agree on, we are supposed be on the same team.

We should all take note, that we worship God and not man/men. Paul tore his clothes when flesh and blood bowed before him, perhaps we should all take note on that one.

There is only one God, One Christ one spirit and when forget that for our own gain or glory, we have lost it all.

The pattern of church was laid out by Paul when he wrote to the churches. Elders, deacons etc, perhaps we should return to the bible and see where we are going wrong.

All i can to do is pray to God and ask for his mercy in the way i’m leading my life, and read the Holy words. 2 Timothy 3:16

PAX
Ric

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Having drifted off topic, thread closed.