Im enterested in how they did this when scripture itself says “Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
James in Acts 15:16-17 quotes the Old Testament in giving his reply. The Apostles had the authority because it was a time of revelation just as Moses was given the revelation of the Law, which was then written.
Wasteful speculation.
No.
the church.
“The” canon “they” used?
Apparent persistent uncertainty.
No you gather without the Eucharist many other Christians do as well. I said there would be no Mass without the Eucharist. Not no Christian fellowship. I gather with the teens every Sunday night without Mass without the Eucharist. That constitutes Christian fellowship dosnt it?
Sure.
Wrong. Both Protestant and Catholic scholars tell us that no New Testament book was written before 40 or 50 AD. You are assuming the Church didn’t exist until St. Paul wrote to the Church in Thessalonia. This is absurd. It’s like saying a person can’t exist until they learn to write. :whacky:
This is historical revisionism. The early Christians paid more attention to authentic Apostolic Teaching (that you reject) than to scripture that very few could read. Nowhere in scripture is the Gospel message the property of individual believers, but only given to those qualified to teach: the ordained.
This blatant lie is typical anti-Catholic propaganda. (that you accept) Trent DID NOT define the canon, Trent REAFFIRMED the existing canon in reference to previous councils because Protestants and some Catholic bishops had brought the canon into question. The dispute was declared settled and the canon CLOSED for man-made deletions and alterations.
The Jews had that too, but that didn’t make them Christians. Christians were people who had bishops and priests ordained in succession from the Apostles, who could give them the Sacraments. The Christian Bible came much later.
It seems you do not yet understand the scope of what qualifies as inspired Scripture.
What I said cannot be refuted as it is fact. Again, this also is basic.
Again, you have yet to understand even basic facts.
What passage in the Bible can we read that the “apostles had the authority…”?
In what way did God give us the Bible? Please elaborate.
This is funny. Just because the words “definition”, “definitively” and “definitive” are found in the decrees, the hasty conclusion is that the Council indeed DEFINED the canons.“The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”
“The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent”
(New Advent, newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon.
That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent."
(New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p. 390, Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat)
“…an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent” (Cardinal Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions, p. 38)
"The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, H.J. Schroeder (English translator of Trent), (Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17).
All anti-Catholics, huh?
…
You are too hostile to see where we agree. I have posted 4 times that scripture was inspired when it was written. You rest your opinion on myths about when scripture was identified as inspired. You deny the basics.
It is not fact at all, and your position has been refuted repeatedly. The facts is some books were hotly disputed, and for many years. If you cannot accept Protestant references that testify against your own myths, you must be another anti-Protestant non-denominationalist with your primary authority reduced to your opinion.
This is a joke. You read decrees the same way a Muslem reads the Qu’ran; the same way a literalist reads the Bible. No wonder you are so confused with your own admitted hasty conclusion. You make it sound as if Trent INVENTED the canon. You don’t seem to see historical context in anything, including scripture, let alone definitive decrees. It wasn’t necessary for the Pope, after the Council of Hippo to be so definitive as the Council of Trent, because the Church wasn’t challenged in the same way, and the Church had developed the manner in which infallibility was applied. Nobody was ripping out entire books and adding words to the bible in 393 AD, the way it was being done in the 16th century. You confuse definitive with invention, take entire councils out of historical context, and refuse to see the facts of the development of Sacred Scripture.
You are not talking to me, right? Basically, we have the same stand that the Council of Trent never invented the canon.
Right, stewart. I’m sorry for misplacing and misunderstanding your quote, but the answer still applies to Atemi’s unsubstantiated hostilities. Anti-Catholics will do anything to justify their adulteration of the Bible. The canon of scripture was universally accepted in the 4rth century, reaffirmed at the Council of Florence, and no explicit definitive infallible declaration was necessary until Trent because rebels were not hacking it up.