R
rcwitness
Guest
This is a strange school of thought, but not without some thought provoking points!
Here is a site with such a conclusion.
justgivemethetruth.com/false_apostle.htm
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Here is a site with such a conclusion.
justgivemethetruth.com/false_apostle.htm
P
PRmerger
Guest
It will be interesting to see how non-Catholic Christians refute the arguments presented by these folks.This is a strange school of thought, but not without some thought provoking points!
Here is a site with such a conclusion.
justgivemethetruth.com/false_apostle.htm
R
rcwitness
Guest
Well to be fair to a genuine non-Catholic Christian (though Im not suggesting a genuine faith will reject the Catholic faith, rather those who accept much of the Catholic faith) I think Peter’s epistles Confirm Paul and his letters.It will be interesting to see how non-Catholic Christians refute the arguments presented by these folks.
But how do we know that Peter’s epistles are genuinely from him? Mere Scripture supporting Scripture won’t address your point. These anti-Paul preachers have to discredit Luke as genuine and Peter’s letters alike.
But in a way, you are asking for someone to address each point of the claims which these anti-Paul folks make.
I do find some of the points very interesting, because Paul does have a peculiar way of seemingly contradicting other Biblical things!I’ve thought before how it would be an interesting thread to address the many “contradictions” from Paul and discern their context and unity with the rest of Church Teaching.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Egg-zactly.Well to be fair to a genuine non-Catholic Christian (though Im not suggesting a genuine faith will reject the Catholic faith, rather those who accept much of the Catholic faith) I think Peter’s epistles Confirm Paul and his letters.
But how do we know that Peter’s epistles are genuinely from him? Mere Scripture supporting Scripture won’t address your point. These anti-Paul preachers have to discredit Luke as genuine and Peter’s letters alike.
So saying that Peter’s letters confirm Paul’s as theopneustos is easily refuted.
Indeed. I am surprised that more Protestants are not offended by Colossians 1:24:I do find some of the points very interesting, because Paul does have a peculiar way of seemingly contradicting other Biblical things!I’ve thought before how it would be an interesting thread to address the many “contradictions” from Paul and discern their context and unity with the rest of Church Teaching.
“in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”.
How dare Paul say that anything is lacking in Christ’s afflictions!
J
jericho777
Guest
This person has raised a question for me.They couldn’t tell you where Scripture is in the Mass. They don’t know that they have to fast 1 hour before receiving communion and be in a state of grace to received.
One thing I’m having a hard time understanding is the paradox of scripture in the Mass. It wasn’t until 360 years after the death of Jesus there was even scripture. No valid Old Testament or New Testament. How could there be a valid the Mass that is full of scripture if there was no scripture? How did they even know what they were using was actually the word of God? If the Old Testament was not valid how could they even test the truth claims of Jesus?
C
Contarini
Guest
Your premises are weird. Of course there was Scripture.This person has raised a question for me.
One thing I’m having a hard time understanding is the paradox of scripture in the Mass. It wasn’t until 360 years after the death of Jesus there was even scripture. No valid Old Testament or New Testament. How could there be a valid the Mass that is full of scripture if there was no scripture? How did they even know what they were using was actually the word of God? If the Old Testament was not valid how could they even test the truth claims of Jesus?
What do you mean, “no valid OT”?
The NT refers to Scripture all the time.
That’s why the common Catholic apologetics move of saying “there was no Bible for 300 years” is nonsense–and as your example shows, it’s seriously misleading and confusing to people.
Edwin
R
rcwitness
Guest
Scripture did not suddenly appear 360 yrs after Jesus’ death! It had been used long before this, as it was written long before this.This person has raised a question for me.
One thing I’m having a hard time understanding is the paradox of scripture in the Mass. It wasn’t until 360 years after the death of Jesus there was even scripture. No valid Old Testament or New Testament. How could there be a valid the Mass that is full of scripture if there was no scripture? How did they even know what they were using was actually the word of God? If the Old Testament was not valid how could they even test the truth claims of Jesus?
Scripture came after the Mass. Scripture was always read in celebrating the Mass, and the Mass developed structure as the Church was established. Scriptures were then adopted into the first Masses as they were written and given to specific communities.
Remember, Jesus held one of the first Masses with the Disciples on the road to Emmaus! He explained the Scriptures to them, with divine interpretation, but it was His Eucharist which opened their eyes!
As my signature records from Acts, the first Masses were devotions to the Teachings of the Apostles, the breaking of bread (Eucharist/Lord’s supper) and the prayers.
R
rcwitness
Guest
The context of “there was no Bible for 300 yrs” is that there was no definite, universally accepted index of Sacred Scripture (which Sola Scriptura relies on!). After the age of the Apostles, there slowly became a wide collection of books used by the Churches. As doctrine and various teachings began to assert themselves, their became more of a need for the Church to use her authority and put the Sacred writings into one collection.That’s why the common Catholic apologetics move of saying “there was no Bible for 300 years” is nonsense–and as your example shows, it’s seriously misleading and confusing to people.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Not really, no. There are at least two ways in which Sola Scriptura proponents can get around this argument:The context of “there was no Bible for 300 yrs” is that there was no definite, universally accepted index of Sacred Scripture (which Sola Scriptura relies on!).
- They can say, “early Christians were not bound to accept the authority of any books not yet canonized, but once they were canonized they were bound to accept them.” Or they can say
- “Sola Scriptura only became the proper approach to questions of authority once the canon of Scripture was settled.”
I believe in the primacy of Scripture within the Tradition. That may be the same thing as what some moderate defenders of sola scriptura mean by the term, but the term itself isn’t one I would ever apply to my own view.
Basically yes, although we find Christians exalting the authority of Scripture (NT as well as OT) very early on (2 Peter, for instance).After the age of the Apostles, there slowly became a wide collection of books used by the Churches. As doctrine and various teachings began to assert themselves, their became more of a need for the Church to use her authority and put the Sacred writings into one collection.
Edwin
J
jericho777
Guest
Not trying to be weird. Just understand the paradox presented here. We are told time and time again here there was no scripture until the Catholic Church canonized it in 397AD. So I was wondering by that logic how could there even have been a valid Mass using “scripture”? How did they know they were actually using the word of God and not some imposter text?Your premises are weird. Of course there was Scripture.
What do you mean, “no valid OT”?
The NT refers to Scripture all the time.
That’s why the common Catholic apologetics move of saying “there was no Bible for 300 years” is nonsense–and as your example shows, it’s seriously misleading and confusing to people.
Edwin
Did not the Church also set the Old Testament canon in 397 AD too? If so there was no reliable OT until that time making it impossible to verify Christ’s true identity.
J
jericho777
Guest
Yes but you are missing the point. There was no scripture until 397AD because it was not canonized yet. People had no clear knowledge between the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of John. How did they know one was from God or the devil?Scripture did not suddenly appear 360 yrs after Jesus’ death! It had been used long before this, as it was written long before this.
Scripture came after the Mass. Scripture was always read in celebrating the Mass, and the Mass developed structure as the Church was established. Scriptures were then adopted into the first Masses as they were written and given to specific communities.
Remember, Jesus held one of the first Masses with the Disciples on the road to Emmaus! He explained the Scriptures to them, with divine interpretation, but it was His Eucharist which opened their eyes!
As my signature records from Acts, the first Masses were devotions to the Teachings of the Apostles, the breaking of bread (Eucharist/Lord’s supper) and the prayers.
Why then did we have to wait till 397 to know what the OT scriptures were? We are not given a list of what Jesus told them actually was scripture.
How did scripture actually appear in the mass if there was no canonized scripture?
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, I’m sure you are told this time and time again. Propagandists like to repeat the same tired old talking points, even when they have been refuted over and over.Not trying to be weird. Just understand the paradox presented here. We are told time and time again here there was no scripture until the Catholic Church canonized it in 397AD.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
But historically, that just isn’t true.Yes but you are missing the point. There was no scripture until 397AD because it was not canonized yet. People had no clear knowledge between the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of John.
Irenaeus was quite clear on the difference in the late second century.
Jesus spoke of the “Law and the Prophets,” though maybe the “Prophets” category wasn’t fully settled yet (Daniel, for instance, is included as a prophet in the NT, though the book didn’t make it into that category in the final rabbinic canon). Jesus also referred to a number of books as Scripture. So do the NT writers–including 2 Peter’s reference to Paul’s letters as Scripture.Why then did we have to wait till 397 to know what the OT scriptures were? We are not given a list of what Jesus told them actually was scripture.
I’m bewildered by why you are accepting implicitly so patently absurd a claim, and than building on such a shaky foundation.
As for the Mass–actually I’ve been told that we have early lectionaries, from the early 2nd century, that do predate a clear Christian canon (I would argue that by about 200 there was a pretty firm consensus on the canon, with a few remaining disputes). So arguably it was the other way round: Christians came to believe certain books to be Scripture because they were used in the liturgy. (That may be why the OT as a whole was open to question by Marcion–the lectionaries, apparently, use little of the OT except the Psalms.)
Edwin
P
PRmerger
Guest
That’s because the Mass came before Scripture, jericho.This person has raised a question for me.
One thing I’m having a hard time understanding is the paradox of scripture in the Mass. It wasn’t until 360 years after the death of Jesus there was even scripture. No valid Old Testament or New Testament. How could there be a valid the Mass that is full of scripture if there was no scripture? How did they even know what they were using was actually the word of God? If the Old Testament was not valid how could they even test the truth claims of Jesus?
And that’s because Sacred Tradition came before Sacred Scripture
So when the elder presided and said, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”, he was going by Sacred Tradition. That which was handed down to him by the apostles.
Scripture came later, with the Church declaring 2 Corinthians 13:13 to be inspired.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, that is of course what is meant.The context of “there was no Bible for 300 yrs” is that there was no definite, universally accepted index of Sacred Scripture (which Sola Scriptura relies on!).
And almost everyone who reads that understands that this is what is meant.
We all know that there were manuscripts that were thought to be theopneustos, but there was no Bible–no codex, no book which contained all of the scrolls–for 300 years.
P
PRmerger
Guest
How did they know? They knew the same way we know today, jericho:Yes but you are missing the point. There was no scripture until 397AD because it was not canonized yet. People had no clear knowledge between the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of John. How did they know one was from God or the devil?
they deferrred to the authority of the Church.
J
jericho777
Guest
You are still confusing me. There was no scripture till 397AD. That seems like you are trying to have it both ways with scripture. If it was that easy to say something is scripture why wait till 397AD? There in lies the paradox.
P
PRmerger
Guest
There was no codex until the 4th century, jericho.You are still confusing me. There was no scripture till 397AD. That seems like you are trying to have it both ways with scripture. If it was that easy to say something is scripture why wait till 397AD? There in lies the paradox.
And it wasn’t easy to say “something is Scripture”. No one went around declaring for himself “this is inspired, and this isn’t!”
Everyone deferred to the authority of the Catholic Church.
Just like you do today.
At least on the matter of what belongs in the NT.
J
jericho777
Guest
That’s my point. There was no scripture prior the council in 397. So how could the Mass contain scripture that did not exist? Who was declaring something to be scripture prior to that time? The OT was not set until that time either. Any proclamation of such would be an error and presumptuous.There was no codex until the 4th century, jericho.
And it wasn’t easy to say “something is Scripture”. No one went around declaring for himself “this is inspired, and this isn’t!”
Everyone deferred to the authority of the Catholic Church.
Just like you do today.
At least on the matter of what belongs in the NT.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The Mass had a script, so to speak, which was handed down by the Apostles.That’s my point. There was no scripture prior the council in 397. So how could the Mass contain scripture that did not exist?
That is Sacred Tradition.
Later, some of this Tradition was written down.
That is Sacred Scripture.
So when the congregation said, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you” they were echoing…Sacred Tradition.
Which was later written down.
As was already stated: it was the Church. Bishops. Elders in the ancient Christian community.Who was declaring something to be scripture prior to that time?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.