Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[CopticChristian]

Please help refute this…Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

Simple enough…

1. Did Jesus tell his disciples, “Guys write down everything I say and follow them exactly to the letter.”?

NOPE

1. Did St. Paul tell everyone, “Remember all those letter I wrote to you? Put them in a book and follow them exactly to the letter.”?

NOPE

1. Before the Bible was put together, where there any Christians? Before the Bible was put together, where the Apostles Christians? Before the Bible was put together, where the Martyrs Christians?

YES

1. Before the Bible was put together, was there a Christian Church?

YES

Thus the Bible alone was not then and is not now “all that is sufficient” for Christianity.

…

Now here’s an interesting question.

1. Did Jesus institute the Eucharist?

YES

1. Did the Apostles celebrate the Eucharist?

YES

1. Did the Early Church celebrate the Eucharist?

YES

1. Did the Apostles and the Early Church believe that the Eucharist was truly the body and blood of Christ?

YES

Is the Eucharist sufficient for the Christian Faith?

…Think about it.

Wang,

I thought about it and I am with you. I was almost convinced by christlovesus7. You posted just in time.

 

[onthisrock]

So, I came across this thread. I figured it must be some protestant telling Catholics…who compiled their Bibles, what the bible says, and means etc… I was right! Protestants protest and protest, and when they are done protesting, another new denomination is formed…how sad that what they seem to quote the most are Paul’s letters which are all explicitly warning all of these groups of individuals to NOT stray…to say UNITED. they are ALL automatically by being protestant going against Paul’s directions. Furthermore…If the CC is SO blasphemous, why don’t they compile their own inspired works…afterall, hasn’t God given them full self revelation capabilities when it comes to holy matters? why use the "sinful, whores of Babylon’s book? surely if they are “smart enough” to create well over 34,000 denominations…could they use something other than the book that was made Canon by the very Church they are fighting against? It seems to me to be the equivalent of going to war, and everyone shooting themselves in the foot. so the Church was OK up until the 4Th century? How is that? ALL of the original Apostles were dead by then. the people who studied under them, had protégé’s of their own…who was the one who screwed it all up? Could someone tell me which Apostolic successor really did it in for us wretched Catholics? What bothers me the most? These protestants aren’t trying to “save your soul” by letting you "in on " the truth…they want to somehow be RIGHT! and that my friends…being RIGHT using God Himself as the rouse is Blaphemy…plain and simple. I see how you have all done a wonderful job holding to the faith and interpreting the book that your faith compiled. You have all gone so deep you would think no one could misunderstand it…but no…people who hate Catholics so much, but put their primary source of information about Christ’s life…the Bible in such high esteem are…well…insane. all we can do is pray for them when they get to the point of circular thinking and babbling. Paul predicted these people, and here they are. They are not going to listen…and if the people at their own church don’t listen…they will go online, get ordained for a nominal fee, and start their own church. It’s viral now, but started with Luther…funny enough…HE started with the first catechism…not us…so maybe they need to look to their king protester, and do a little research. Or look into King James…how the KJV came to be…and who is he buried between? (hint…NOT his wife) Plus the original KJV of 1611 had the Apocrypha. we did NOT add to the Bible…they have taken away as the Septuagint was created some 300 years B.C.!!! I wouldn’t say give up, but nothing holy is coming from trying to point truths of our Bible to someone who doesn’t believe it, but somehow lives by it’s every literal word…how much more confused could someone be??

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Isn’t it sad how sola scriptura proponents are so adamant about not being under the direction of any other person?

Their biggest proposal is that they can interpret the Bible in whatever way they see fit. That the Bible is personal and not universal?

I don’t remember reading about Jesus passing out pamphlets of the OT to people and telling them to go read it and you will each individually will receive your own truth.

I do remember Him choosing other people to go and spread the Gospel. There were sure scrolls at the time, there were sure Scriptures at the time. He didn’t make thousands of copies of the Scriptures. He chose 12 men, of those 11 remained, and the 11 under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as promised to THEM chose others.

Which one of us can claim a direct lineage to the Apostles line?
What Churches can claim a direct lineage to their teaching? Ultimately to Christ’s teachings?

…

That’s what I thought.

Isn’t it amazing that the Father is drawing us to His Son?

And here we are discarding that Grace and looking for things that fit our personal mold…

Are we not called to be servants of Christ?

I claim to be a Christian, and still I want to make my own religion… based on what?

Instead of treasuring the Bible as the gift it is, I rather use it as a weapon of war?

Come on now…

In Him.

With all those scarecrows in your yard, your fields must be the safest on the planet from crows!

 

[Farsight001]

the Catholic Church does not
profess the simple Ten Commandments, eliminating the second commandment to have no idols before God and to create no
graven images.*

Proselytizing is against the rules here, so you can say goodbye to your account, but while it’s still around, lets address a few things. First, this is a bold faced lie, as anyone willing to check a Catholic version of scripture can confirm. Check, for example, the Douay Reihms version of the bible on biblegateway: biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=DRA
Certainly nothing missing there.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that there are more than
the 66 canonical books of the Bible, adding what they call the Apocrypha*.*

Nothing was added. Historically, the bible has had at least 73 books for the first 1500 years of Christianity. 7 books were not added by the Church. They were removed by everyone else. The Church is also loathe to call them the apocrypha anyway as the correct definition of apocrypha is any and all volume/book not included in the bible, of which there are hundreds. The proper term is the deuterocanon.

“Purgatory is the place of suffering a
Catholic enters after death when he may need to make additional reparation for his sins. There he pays for the temporal
punishment of sins not previously atoned for by acts of penance* or canceled by indulgences*

Not what purgatory is at all.

The Catholic Church also adds tradition and papal infallibility* to the teachings of the Bible, thereby placing both above the
inerrancy of the Bible.

It is certainly not added to the bible. Can you buy a Catholic bible and find within the pages mention of papal infallibility and Church tradition? Nope? Then it’s not added to the bible. Having something in addition to the bible is not the same thing as actually adding something to the bible.

(following is excerpted from Roman Catholicism: Scripture vs. Tradition* by Mike Gendron):

Thar’s your problem right thar. Mike Gendron doesn’t know his *** from a hole in the ground when it comes to Catholicism.

Roman Catholic Church teaches that “by His death and resurrection, Jesus Christ has ‘opened’ heaven to us” (1026 -references
are from 1994 Catholic catechism). Each person attains his own salvation by grace and good works (1477).

Paragraph 1477 says “This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission in the unity of the Mystical Body.” Nothing in there about attaining our own salvation by our works. Whoever you’re quoting from is lying to you again.

RCC teaches that Mary is the sinless co-Redeemer.* “Without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person
and work of her son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with Him…being obedient, she became the cause
of salvation for herself and for the whole human race”* (494)

Again, this is not what paragraph 494 says. That is, at least, lie #3 from your sources.

RCC teaches that Mary "did not lay aside her saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.* She is Advocate…and Mediatrix” (969)

Once again, not what 969 actually says. Lie #4.

 

[Protoman2050]

So, I came across this thread. I figured it must be some protestant telling Catholics…who compiled their Bibles, what the bible says, and means etc… I was right! Protestants protest and protest, and when they are done protesting, another new denomination is formed…how sad that what they seem to quote the most are Paul’s letters which are all explicitly warning all of these groups of individuals to NOT stray…to say UNITED. they are ALL automatically by being protestant going against Paul’s directions. Furthermore…If the CC is SO blasphemous, why don’t they compile their own inspired works…afterall, hasn’t God given them full self revelation capabilities when it comes to holy matters? why use the "sinful, whores of Babylon’s book? surely if they are “smart enough” to create well over 34,000 denominations…could they use something other than the book that was made Canon by the very Church they are fighting against? It seems to me to be the equivalent of going to war, and everyone shooting themselves in the foot. so the Church was OK up until the 4Th century? How is that? ALL of the original Apostles were dead by then. the people who studied under them, had protégé’s of their own…who was the one who screwed it all up? Could someone tell me which Apostolic successor really did it in for us wretched Catholics? What bothers me the most? These protestants aren’t trying to “save your soul” by letting you "in on " the truth…they want to somehow be RIGHT! and that my friends…being RIGHT using God Himself as the rouse is Blaphemy…plain and simple. I see how you have all done a wonderful job holding to the faith and interpreting the book that your faith compiled. You have all gone so deep you would think no one could misunderstand it…but no…people who hate Catholics so much, but put their primary source of information about Christ’s life…the Bible in such high esteem are…well…insane. all we can do is pray for them when they get to the point of circular thinking and babbling. Paul predicted these people, and here they are. They are not going to listen…and if the people at their own church don’t listen…they will go online, get ordained for a nominal fee, and start their own church. It’s viral now, but started with Luther…funny enough…HE started with the first catechism…not us…so maybe they need to look to their king protester, and do a little research. Or look into King James…how the KJV came to be…and who is he buried between? (hint…NOT his wife) Plus the original KJV of 1611 had the Apocrypha. we did NOT add to the Bible…they have taken away as the Septuagint was created some 300 years B.C.!!! I wouldn’t say give up, but nothing holy is coming from trying to point truths of our Bible to someone who doesn’t believe it, but somehow lives by it’s every literal word…how much more confused could someone be??

Exactly.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

So, I came across this thread. I figured it must be some protestant telling Catholics…who compiled their Bibles, what the bible says, and means etc… I was right! Protestants protest and protest, and when they are done protesting, another new denomination is formed…how sad that what they seem to quote the most are Paul’s letters which are all explicitly warning all of these groups of individuals to NOT stray…to say UNITED. they are ALL automatically by being protestant going against Paul’s directions. Furthermore…If the CC is SO blasphemous, why don’t they compile their own inspired works…afterall, hasn’t God given them full self revelation capabilities when it comes to holy matters? why use the "sinful, whores of Babylon’s book? surely if they are “smart enough” to create well over 34,000 denominations…could they use something other than the book that was made Canon by the very Church they are fighting against? It seems to me to be the equivalent of going to war, and everyone shooting themselves in the foot. so the Church was OK up until the 4Th century? How is that? ALL of the original Apostles were dead by then. the people who studied under them, had protégé’s of their own…who was the one who screwed it all up? Could someone tell me which Apostolic successor really did it in for us wretched Catholics? What bothers me the most? These protestants aren’t trying to “save your soul” by letting you "in on " the truth…they want to somehow be RIGHT! and that my friends…being RIGHT using God Himself as the rouse is Blaphemy…plain and simple. I see how you have all done a wonderful job holding to the faith and interpreting the book that your faith compiled. You have all gone so deep you would think no one could misunderstand it…but no…people who hate Catholics so much, but put their primary source of information about Christ’s life…the Bible in such high esteem are…well…insane. all we can do is pray for them when they get to the point of circular thinking and babbling. Paul predicted these people, and here they are. They are not going to listen…and if the people at their own church don’t listen…they will go online, get ordained for a nominal fee, and start their own church. It’s viral now, but started with Luther…funny enough…HE started with the first catechism…not us…so maybe they need to look to their king protester, and do a little research. Or look into King James…how the KJV came to be…and who is he buried between? (hint…NOT his wife) Plus the original KJV of 1611 had the Apocrypha. we did NOT add to the Bible…they have taken away as the Septuagint was created some 300 years B.C.!!! I wouldn’t say give up, but nothing holy is coming from trying to point truths of our Bible to someone who doesn’t believe it, but somehow lives by it’s every literal word…how much more confused could someone be??

This most certainly makes me want to convert to Catholicism.

 

[Farsight001]

Bible: “He has put all things under Christ’s feet and made Him, thus exalted, head of the Church”* (Eph 1: 22,23).

RCC teaches that the Pope, “by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire church has full, supreme and
universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (882).* He exercises infallibility
when “he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (891)

There is no contradiction between the scripture verses and catechism quotes provided.

RCC teaches that sins are expiated in purgatory through a “cleansing fire” and that we “must strive to accept this temporal
punishment of sin as a grace” (1030,31; 1472-75).

Again, not what those verses actually say. “expiated” and any other form of that word are found nowhere in those paragraphs.

RCC denies that Jesus’ work on the cross is finished.* “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single
sacrifice…the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an
unbloody manner in the Eucharist”(1367).* “Every time this mystery is celebrated the work of our redemption is carried on”
(1405). The sacrifice “is offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead” (1414). Over and over again in Roman
Catholicism, Jesus dies on the cross as the eternal victim.

Did you even read the Catechism quote this time? It says that the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are ONE SINGLE SACRIFICE. So when they do you claim that it is a repeated sacrifice or that it is a denial of Jesus’ work on the cross? It is the opposite! It is one sacrifice which we witness to and proclaim every week at mass.

Bible: “There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be
saved” (Acts 4:12).

RCC denies this by claiming the Catholic Church “is necessary for salvation” (846).

There is no contradiction here.

Are you beginning to get a grasp on your truly transparent ignorance of what Catholicism actually is and actually believes? And on to what extent you have been maliciously deceived and lied to by your sources?

 

[onemangang]

I regard Scripture as the ultimate authority on the revelation of Christ, and that which the Church possessed, “grounded”, and conveyed.

Is this how you define Sola Scriptura? I have heard many different people define Sola Scriptura in many different ways. It seems to be at the whim of the one defining it, much like Scripture for many that hold to Sola Scriptura!

Based upon what?

The Church simply is.

If we did not have Scriptures written down the Church would still BE!

If Christ appointed **a Church **to preserve and communicate His revelation, that Church must be infallible, being that She was conferred by God Himself.

This is merely a possibility, but since I am not God and do not posses God’s middle knowledge. One could posit that, If there were no N.T scriptures today, Christ would still be proclaimed and made present through The Church since, that was the reality of the situation in 1st century Christianity

Christ has infallibly revealed Himself to man, the mode that He chose is a visible social order. Christ intentionally chose a visible social order, rather than a text to mediate His infallible authority to the world. Ergo the Social Order He conferred is an infallible one, and has infallibly written, compiled, and discerned Holy Writ, to be profitable for teaching, correction and reproof.

It seems like you have a few witnesses here, If I am of fault in my reasoning, where must I be taken?

And you still must have an objective reason for your belief in Scripture.

Yes, my objective reasoning for believing the Scriptures, is believing God has revealed Himself to men through the Person of Jesus Christ, and Christ established a Social order, one with a continuity tracing all the way back to Christ Himself.

Now this is question begging. If Sola Scriptura is true, then what it teaches was “established” before the establishment of the Church (Gal 3:8, Rom 9:17). (Before you respond to this, I’d advise you to make sure you be ready to modify your understanding of Sola Scrptura, because I think that’s what you’ll need to do)

The whole premise of your argument I do not accept “If Sola Scriptura is true” It isn’t
I don’t understand your question here, I’m sorry! I will dialog, if you can present what you are trying to tell me differently I suppose?

If you are trying to prove Sola Scriptura by Referencing a few passages of Scripture in regards to Predestination,OK, I posit the Church

1 Corinthians 2:7 It is of the mysterious wisdom of God that we talk, the wisdom that was hidden, which God predestined to be for our glory before the ages began.

Ephesians 3:10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities* in the heavens 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Oh yes, it is. Whether or not you’re circular is not determined by whether or not I believe it, because you still must have the same reason for your belief if you believe it’s adequately justified regardless of whereever I’m at…unless it’s you that will give credence to Relativism.

My reasoning for belief in Christ is not circular, as I stated above my objective reasoning for believing the Scriptures are not the Scriptures, I believe God has revealed Himself to men through the Person of Jesus Christ, and Christ established a Social order, one with a continuity tracing all the way back to Christ Himself. Scripture is a proof that bears witness of the Social Order Christ established (the Church), and Church is the medium in which Christ has revealed Himself to man!

Besides, I say I believe Christ revealed himself in accordance with a different epistemology anyway.

Clearly
Mine just happens to be coherent, and defendable!

But you still must have a reason for believing Scripture, don’t you? I already know it’s not what I would consider to be adequate.

Sorry for your presupposition!
I have provided you with a logical and consistent view, I invite you to do the same

And more specifically, I’m challenging you to objectively tell me upon what basis do we conclude that Scripture is infallible without presupposing Scripture.

Well, you would have to believe that God has indeed revealed Himself to Men, for starters!
As I said earlier in my post. One could posit that, If there were no N.T scriptures, Christ would still be proclaimed and made present through The Church since, that was the reality of the situation in 1st century Christianity.

It’s the question begging Catholic that tends to say we don’t know what constitutes Scripture. Sola Scriptura precludes that we don’t know or that no one knows. You’ve not really shown that the fact that people disagree on what constitutes Scripture indicates that we can’t build a case on Sola Scriptura. .

Old Testament
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Job
Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
The Song of Songs
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus / Sirach
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

New Testament
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts of Apostles
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

I’m not denying the Church. I’m denying that the Church is infallible.

Not Me

 

[onthisrock]

This most certainly makes me want to convert to Catholicism.

Well, realizing that this is what protestants do, made me convert…so you’re on the right track!

 

[Tietjen]

Please tell me that you took a breath during your response.

 

[Gospel_Man]

Apostolic Tradition found in the Church Christ established.

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” (2 Thess 2:15)

Actually, that is exactly what he said.

Sometimes I wonder how many times this has to be explained. “Peter” means “Rock”. Christ changed Simon’s name to “Peter” or “Rock” which is very significant. But lets take your postion for a moment and see just how much sense Christ would have made. Lets change the names for a moment just for argument’s sake. Instead of Peter, let’s use “Gospel Man”, since you suppose that one has nothing to do with the other.

“You are Gospel Man, and upon this Rock I will build my Church”. Why would Jesus say such a thing? Why bring up Peter at all if he was not referring to Peter as the Rock? Why didn’t he just say "Upon this Rock I will build my Church? Because it would not have made any sense. It would beg the question: Which rock? The question was answered in the statement. Peter was the Rock. Simon did not know he was “Peter”, the “Rock” until Christ told him so. The authority of Christ, the true Rock, was being given to Simon who was now Peter, the Rock. He was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven along with the power to bind and loose; to forgive sins. And what was bound on earth was bound in heaven and what was loosed on earth was loosed in heaven. That, my friend, is extraordinary authority.

Just one more thing. You have no more authority to interpret Sacred Scripture than the kid down the block. Why should one believe your interpretation over the interpretation of the Church? The Church is the only authentic interpreter. This discussion is evidence of the necessity of that authentic interpreter which Christ promised would be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. He didn’t make that promise to you.

1. Where do you find Church tradition in the Bible??.

2)The Apostles traditions, As in 2 Thess 2: 15, Is the word of God,
And where do we find the word of God???.. In the Bible. Or people teaching the Biblical truths.

3)The Greek meaning for, Peter, Is,
[Petros,A small stone or rock that is easily moved or shaken]… Didn’t he prove it??
And Jesus built His Church on.
The Rock, [Petra, a solid foundation].
NOTE, Jesus never said Upon YOU Peter I will build My Church…did He??.

The whole Church was given the keys.

4)I have the authoiry of the Bible and the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Biblical and Greek truths.

 

[mwok]

2)The Apostles traditions, As in 2 Thess 2: 15, Is the word of God,
And where do we find the word of God???.. In the Bible. Or people teaching the Biblical truths.

We also find the Word of God in the Person of Jesus Christ

3)The Greek meaning for, Peter, Is,
[Petros,A small stone or rock that is easily moved or shaken]… Didn’t he prove it??
And Jesus built His Church on.
The Rock, [Petra, a solid foundation].
NOTE, Jesus never said Upon YOU Peter I will build My Church…did He??.

But in Aramaic, Peter is Kepha with no distinction in size.

The whole Church was given the keys.

4)I have the authoiry of the Bible and the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Biblical and Greek truths.

Really? I thought the keys were given to the Apostles. Are you an Apostle?

 

[rinnie]

1. Where do you find Church tradition in the Bible??.

2)The Apostles traditions, As in 2 Thess 2: 15, Is the word of God,
And where do we find the word of God???.. In the Bible. Or people teaching the Biblical truths.

3)The Greek meaning for, Peter, Is,
[Petros,A small stone or rock that is easily moved or shaken]… Didn’t he prove it??
And Jesus built His Church on.
The Rock, [Petra, a solid foundation].
NOTE, Jesus never said Upon YOU Peter I will build My Church…did He??.

The whole Church was given the keys.

4)I have the authoiry of the Bible and the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Biblical and Greek truths.

Yes Peter did prove he was shaken, and Christ did say upon this ROCK which translates to Peter I will build my Church. It is the name Peter or Rock in Latin.

Where was the whole church given the keys to the kingdom?

Why Did PETER decide that Judas should be replaced?
Why did Peter speak at Pentecost and convert many?
Why did PETER open the door for the Gentiles to convert?
Why did the Judaizers come to PETER to complain?
Why did Saul go to find PETER before his conversion?

Just a few things showing the authority of Peter.

Why was Peter told to feed the sheep, shepherd the flock? Why was Peter the one who God spoke to first when he filled him with the Holy Spirit and told him who he was?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

With all those scarecrows in your yard, your fields must be the safest on the planet from crows!

Oddly enough now I have Mellencamp’s Rain on the Scarecrow song stuck in my head… probably for the rest of the day…

 

[JustaServant]

In light of all this, I will attempt to show in succeeding posts, that many of the traditions of both the Catholic and Protestant churches are heretical and blasphemous. I will use only the written word of God to do this, and i would expect anyone who disagrees with me to show me my error by using an “it is written” and not a tradition of your church that cannot be sustained by the word of God.

Let you in on a little secret oh wise one:
Not everything was ‘on paper’.
In the ancient world putting things on paper was timely and sometimes expensive to do. It was a society far more steeped in oral tradition, and that included pagan societies as well. They had great auditory skills in those days. Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper. it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown until the last few 200 years.
I would suggest you study history before you try to label yourself an expert.

 

[toosan1967]

Hi, Everyone!
You know, I often wonder how many SS Christians might be guilty of murdering their children. For, somewhere in Scripture, I know there is a requirement to stone to death any child who sasses a parent. There are some really ludicrous requirements under the old Hebrew law that are barbarous at best. Yes. I know that we are not under the Old Law, Thanks Be To God!: but I think that the New Covenant also has a requirement that the New law be considered “in spirit” rather than solely by the letter. So anyone who becomes too attached to the written Word without considering deeply not only the spiritual aspects of the written Word, but also the culture out of which it came, the needs of the audience for which a particular Gospel was written, and a multitude of other considerations, is bound to be condemned to legalism. I am grateful that so many people of faith (even those motivated by doubt) have spent their lives studying Scripture in such depth that they have left us a legacy of Tradition that we may turn to for our own edification and understanding. May God Bless Us All.

 

[CopticChristian]

Let you in on a little secret oh wise one:
Not everything was ‘on paper’.
In the ancient world putting things on paper was timely and sometimes expensive to do. It was a society far more steeped in oral tradition, and that included pagan societies as well. They had great auditory skills in those days. Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper. it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown until the last few 200 years.
I would suggest you study history before you try to label yourself an expert.

Just,

You are right on. I love Paul…In Romans he says…

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

What you say is true. You can according to Paul look in the world and see what can be known of God. The world outside this forum supports your view and that creates more credibility to the reality of what you say…This can be found here.

Journal Of Oral Traditon

journal.oraltradition.org/issues/25i

Accompanying video explaining just what you are saying…

journal.oraltradition.org/issues/25i/hearon

These are just academics without a religion to promote…just promoting the truth. To suprress the truth brings wrath.

 

[SteveVH]

Say what one will about Carthage and Hippo, they were not general councils. So, for Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Trent set the canon. Luther wrote his concerns about the D-C’s prior to Trent.

There have always been differing canons. As for Lutherans, the confessions don’t set a canon, but we view caution those books that have been historically disputed. That doesn’t mean we reject them.

Jon

Trent confirmed, officially, what had always been used, since Carthage, as a direct result of the so-called reformer’s removal of the DC’s. But you didn’t answer my question. Who removed them and by what authority? By the way, I’m not trying to be snippy here. I think authority is all important. Regardless of whether or not Carthage and Hippo were general councils, they were where the canon was established. If you are saying that Luther and company would not have tossed the DC’s had they been officially proclaimed by a general council then why did they not include them immediately following Trent?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Trent confirmed, officially, what had always been used, since Carthage, as a direct result of the so-called reformer’s removal of the DC’s. But you didn’t answer my question. Who removed them and by what authority? By the way, I’m not trying to be snippy here. I think authority is all important. Regardless of whether or not Carthage and Hippo were general councils, they were where the canon was established. If you are saying that Luther and company would not have tossed the DC’s had they been officially proclaimed by a general council then why did they not include them immediately following Trent?

Steve, I mean this with all respect, since I can tell from having read a few of your posts on various subjects around here that you are a learned individual…but how many times does it have to be said that Luther didn’t toss them out, but translated and included them in Die Bibel before anyone acknowledges the fact of the matter? They are still in that translation!

 

[SteveVH]

The etermal God in the Holy Spirit upon the basis of the eternal word of God determined what would constitute the New Testament.The Church had that revealed unto her.

Yes it did. So you are admitting that the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in making this determination, right? And this determination was made on the basis of the truth the Church had received from the Apostles and which it held in its Tradition, all of which was given to the Church by Christ. Scripture is that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing; nothing more. Therefore Sacred Tradition holds as high a place as does Sacred Scripture because they both eminate from the same source; the eternal God.