They also had the letter of Clement (AD 80) which was considered part of the Bible by the Christians at Corinth. So, since the first century Corinthians considered Clement’s letter part of the Bible, should we then consider Clement’s letter part of the Bible?
First of all are you referring to the Apocrypha? The 7 books which were removed during the reformation? If so, those books, as well as other writings were in Scripture for 16 centuries before the reformers removed them. They are from the Old Testament. If you’d just read those books you’d learn who is correct and who is incorrect. Jesus teaches people married form one body, not to be separated by man, an everlasting covenant, this goes against most of the Old Testament, like Dt. But look to Tobit, it’s there. The Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s Prayer, Wisdom & Sirach.
Great, read those books, you’ll hear Gods Word. Then ask yourself frankly, why the Protestants removed these beautiful books which Jesus taught from.
We’re talking OT, Not NT, our New Testaments are the same.
After His death and resurrection, Jesus taught the Apostles ALL of the Scripture which pertained to Him. That is in Scripture. But where is this teaching? It was never written. It has remained oral Tradition for 2,000 years.
How could they have had Paul’s letters if there was no printing press? There were WAY more churches than just the ones in Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Jerusalem, etc.
Hmmmm… I don’t think so.
Hmm… that seems to be an exaggeration on Pope Peter’s part, but hey, I’ll admit error when I’m guilty of it. Thanks for the reference.
The rest of Scripture refers to the Old Testament, not the New Testament. They always had “Scripture” just not the New Testament.
They did have Pals writtings but they also had writtings of others like Clement and Irinaeus and Ignatious and Justin. They were all thought of on the same level.
Satin is alot smarter than you or me. He can make something look like it is good but when it is actually done it has negative consequeces. I am not saying that God does not speak to you but you must be able to discern between the real thing and an imitation.
nothing good comes out of the devil so you can tell that way
I agree…
I doubt it, since he is a great deceiver and since our mind and intellect is darkened by Original Sin and our fallen nature, that “nothing good” will look “good” to us, even though it’s not (e.g. Contraception, abortion, etc)
what do you mean?
Exactly that: Satan is a great deceiver, he can make you believe something is good, when it is really not good. “nothing good comes from Satan” I agree, but I wouldn’t trust myself so much as to test it with my own wisdom, because I could’ve been deceived to think differently… I rely on the eternal teachings of the Church.
By this logic a blind man with no hands cannot be Protestant. Your problem is is that you misunderstand what is meant by oral traditions. If Catholic individuals do not take the time to learn about the Protestant faith before that attack it then they cannot be angry when a Protestant states that a Catholic believes in works salvation.
It seems if Peter didn’t imply Paul’s letter were Scripture, he would have wrote … “as they do also the Scriptures.” He didn’t. Instead he wrote … “as they do also the REST (loipoy) of Scripture.” When he used the word “REST”, it seems to indicate that what he was referring to previously [Paul’s letters], ARE part of Scripture.
Nevertheless, the point was that prior to the synodal canons at the end of the 4th century, there were many who asserted Paul’s letter’s, among other writings, were Scripture. It wasn’t that there was no New Testament writings until the end of the 4th century. It was just that there was no STANDARD New Testament until the end of the 4th century. The synodal canons and Jerome’s Vulgate gave the Church a STANDARD Bible, although some still continued to disagree as to which books were inspired by God. It was at Trent that the canon of Scripture was made definitive (believe it or anathema) for the universal Church.