Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[PRmerger]

And please make sure that it includes this church, as well as counts you, as you are a denomination unto yourself.

And your source should count this CAF member as a denomination unto himself, for he says he belongs to none:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10091071&postcount=312

as well as this poster:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2877897&postcount=254

and this person:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4851190&postcount=61

and this member:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4762375&postcount=51

 

[Kliska]

And what did you use to determine that it was theopneustos?

And are you saying you did this for the other 26 books in the NT?

Did I study the decision, the ECF’s, Biblical Scholars, etc… behind the compilation of the NT? Yes. There are a lot of good books on the subject, FF Bruce wrote several, though some of his stuff is a bit dry. You can also study Luther to get his view on the inclusions/exclusions, as well as some RC’s such as Cardinal Cajetan. There are good 'net sources available now too, including Catholic sources. Do you realize how much of an organic process the choosing and determining of these books were? And the fact that even the RCC teaches it was recognition of God’s written word. Only a couple were disputed.

Have I studied all the exclusions? No way. I have studied and read of the ones that were tossed out after debate, as it is interesting.

The early church did a good job recognizing the correct letters and writings. There is a reason that the NT is so widely accepted. Every Christian should study the process, and I think there are also several Catholic sources on the subject, I can’t remember which of my books are from a Catholic perspective, Kreeft maybe? Regardless, we should, to be good at apologetics, be able to articulate why we believe the Bible is accurate, part of that for me was studying the process of canonization.

Ok.

I rescind that statistic.

What is the correct number?

Please cite your source.

I’ve never asserted a number, nor a source. As far as I can gather, no one really knows. I do think it is odd how I’ve seen some calculated, they wind up with multiple hundreds of Catholic “denominations” too, meaning however they are figuring is obviously incorrect.

 

[Anne88]

Answer

In the first passage you listed, Acts 7:59-60, Stephen, before “falling asleep” in death, cries out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” That this doesn’t support “soul sleep” is clear from Jesus’ similar remark on the cross (Lk 23:46), which didn’t preclude his telling the Good Thief who died with him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Lk 23:43).

If, as the Adventists believe, human beings don’t possess an immaterial spirit which continues after the death of the body, then Stephen’s outcry (as well as Christ’s) is meaningless–there would be no spirit of Stephen for the Lord to receive.

The Bible doesn’t teach the concept of “soul sleep.” Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man, for example, demonstrates that after death both the righteous and the unrighteous are aware of their fates (Lk 16:19-31).

The apostle Paul also teaches conscious existence after death. He speaks of his desire to depart this life and to go on to be with Christ (Phil 1:23). In 2 Corinthians 12:3-4, Paul tells of his being caught up to paradise and of his uncertainty whether this occurred “in the body or out of the body”–certainly an odd way of speaking if he didn’t believe in an immaterial soul or if he believed in “soul sleep.”

Where Jesus says to the thief, “Today, you will be with me in paradise” - Jesus, didn’t even go to heaven when He died (John 20:17) here he tells Mary Magdelene that she cannot touch Him because He has not yet ascended to His Father… So are you telling me that Jesus lied to the thief? Or was Jesus promising the thief, that Today, when it looks like I’m defeated; Today, when it seems impossible that I am the Son of God; Today, as I’m dying on a cross; Today, when all seems hopeless and lost; Today, I promise you, that you will be saved, that you will

be in heaven with me when I wake you up at the resurrection.

spirit/breath of God + dust = Living soul (human being)
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Ecc_12:7 then the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.
A living soul needs two things, the breath of God and dust - if one of those things are missing it is not a living soul. so the breath returns to God who gave it… breath, the power of life from God… not actually a entity in itself.

Yes, Paul knew that when he died it would be like a sleep… when you are asleep you do not mark the passing of time. So for all those who sleep in the dust of the earth, they won’t know how much time has passed since they died. So to die is to be with the Lord.

The parable of Lazarus is not a parable to teach about the state of the dead, but to teach about stewardship and using your time here on earth wisely and for the glory of God. It is not meant to be taken literally as can be seen by saying that Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom… so is heaven Abraham’s bosom - Abraham would have to be really big to fit all dead people on his chest.

Also Hebrews 11 talks about all the heroes of the faith, who died “not receiving the promise” What promise? the promise of eternal life. and v.40 says that God says these people should not be made perfect “without us”

Also… if people go to heaven (or hell/purgatory) when they die… what is the purpose of a resurrection at the 2nd coming of Christ?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

For the newbies here, I suggest you review CAF posting rules before posting, something you are supposed to do when you joined.
For the veterans, please debate charity and respect for the other poster.
This thread is not a problem yet. Just trying to avoid one.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve never asserted a number, nor a source. As far as I can gather, no one really knows. I do think it is odd how I’ve seen some calculated, they wind up with multiple hundreds of Catholic “denominations” too, meaning however they are figuring is obviously incorrect.

So then you don’t know.

And yet you oppose my designation of tens of thousands.

If you don’t have a number. And I have a number. And I have given you my rationale, I think that I’m good to go with my very, very conservative estimation of “tens of thousands”.

 

[batman1973]

So then you don’t know.

And yet you oppose my designation of tens of thousands.

If you don’t have a number. And I have a number. And I have given you my rationale, I think that I’m good to go with my very, very conservative estimation of “tens of thousands”.

Except the same source lists over 200 Catholic denominations. So, if your going to use that, include all of it, not just what suits you.

 

[PRmerger]

Did I study the decision, the ECF’s, Biblical Scholars, etc… behind the compilation of the NT?

You have said that you do not rely on anyone else to tell you what to believe.

And yet, I assert, you do rely on the CC, at least as it applies to the 27 book canon.

You keep saying that you don’t, and that you have studied this on your own.

As far as I can tell, you have only done this with Hebrews, and possibly with James.

What did you use to determine that they are indeed theopneustos?

And what about the other 25 books?

And if you haven’t studied the other over 400 texts, then aren’t you still deferring to the authority of the CC, which did indeed authoritatively rule them out as apocrypha?

 

[batman1973]

You have said that you do not rely on anyone else to tell you what to believe.

And yet, I assert, you do rely on the CC, at least as it applies to the 27 book canon.

You keep saying that you don’t, and that you have studied this on your own.

As far as I can tell, you have only done this with Hebrews, and possibly with James.

What did you use to determine that they are indeed theopneustos?

And what about the other 25 books?

And if you haven’t studied the other over 400 texts, then aren’t you still deferring to the authority of the CC, which did indeed authoritatively rule them out as apocrypha?

Where do you get this idea? Come up with something that says that the Roman Catholic Church put the entire bible together. Show us the magisterial documents. Otherwise, you’re making claims that are absurd.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Plus, there is no Biblical evidence that Mary nor the saint can hear prayers.

Just like there is no Biblical evidence as to what books are to be included in it?

 

[josie_L]

Where do you get this idea? Come up with something that says that the Roman Catholic Church put the entire bible together. Show us the magisterial documents. Otherwise, you’re making claims that are absurd.

Yes, the Catholic Church (this would include the Orthodox who were part of the Church at the time) put the Bible together and there are councils to prove that she did, i.e., the Council of Hippo of 393, the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419). She decided upon which books were considered divinely inspired and which were not.

 

[adrift]

Nope. Men are led by the Spirit on what is the Word of God. And I don’t believe the Catholic church is the cheif authority just because it claims it is. My beliefs come from scripture and not man-made traditions. If it is not based in the 66 books of the Bible, it is not a part of my core faith.

but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

 

[Kliska]

So then you don’t know.

Never claimed I did. It is up to the person asserting a claim in a positive sense to prove their claim, or else it is a fallacy; everyone knows, proof surrogate, etc… You claim to know, hence the burden is on you.

Except the same source lists over 200 Catholic denominations. So, if your going to use that, include all of it, not just what suits you.

As I keep saying. I’ve seen where the “30,000” some count originated, it is a bad source, and we can see that clearly when looking at what they designate as a Catholic denomination. Some of their names on the list are ludicrous.

You have said that you do not rely on anyone else to tell you what to believe.

My beliefs are my own, this is true.

And yet, I assert, you do rely on the CC, at least as it applies to the 27 book canon.

You are free to assert whatever you want, that doesn’t mean your right, and look! We are beating a dead horse again.

You keep saying that you don’t, and that you have studied this on your own.

As far as I can tell, you have only done this with Hebrews, and possibly with James.

And again, you call me a liar. I’ve studied the canon as it stands as well as some of the exclusions.

What did you use to determine that they are indeed theopneustos?

And what about the other 25 books?

And if you haven’t studied the other over 400 texts, then aren’t you still deferring to the authority of the CC, which did indeed authoritatively rule them out as apocrypha?

Your assertions are so odd, as though no other scholars or research has ever been done on the canon outside of the RCC. You do know as well that you can study why the magisterium picked which books to formally canonize. I know there has to be an article on a respected Catholic site, let me do a quick search.

From catholic resources;

Four Criteria for Canonicity (why certain books were eventually accepted into the NT Canon, while others were rejected):

1. Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
2. Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
3. Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

Here’s a bit on FF Bruce’s description of criteria: verticallivingministries.com/2012/07/20/f-f-bruce-on-the-formation-of-the-canon-of-scripture/

Apostolic authority, antiquity, orthodoxy, catholicity, traditional use, inspiration (of the book), etc…

Again, you can easily find resources to study. Read the Gospel of Thomas as a test and run through the criteria, and where it fits in all of them, and see what you think. You can do this with the other contenders as well as the ones that made it.

 

[batman1973]

Yes, the Catholic Church (this would include the Orthodox who were part of the Church at the time) put the Bible together and there are councils to prove that she did, i.e., the Council of Hippo of 393, the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419). She decided upon which books were considered divinely inspired and which were not.

I’d buy that story, except the Orthodox has a different canon.

 

[Porknpie]

No, you are confusing mediation with intercession. Christ is our only mediator and is the go-between us and God. We can ask others to pray for us. That is intercession.

But to my original point. My wife will pray to a saint or Mary for a specific need (intercession). My question to her is why? I go to the Lord for the same need. It’s kind of like going to your manager to effect some needed change in the workplace, or presenting you case directly to the CEO. I chose the latter… Dr., St Paul thought differently, asking others to pray for him. Romans 15 below.

30 I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, 31 that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints, 32 so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company. 33 The God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Plus, there is no Biblical evidence that Mary nor the saint can hear prayers.

 

[Kliska]

I’d buy that story, except the Orthodox has a different canon.

And even between some of the Orthodox churches I believe there are slight differences.

 

[drblank1]

Your question reminds me of the marriage at Cana. Jesus’ first miracle was at the request of His mother even though He said it was not His time. I can’t help believe that Jesus was telling us something about the influence of His mother.

I’m sorry but that is far reaching at its best. Sorry.

 

[PRmerger]

Never claimed I did. It is up to the person asserting a claim in a positive sense to prove their claim, or else it is a fallacy; everyone knows, proof surrogate, etc… You claim to know, hence the burden is on you.

And I gave you my rationale.

You say it is wrong, but don’t have any answer on your own.

If you have no idea, then the number I give, with my rationale, is better than your position.

[SIGN]I will consider any other statistic that any person who objects to my estimation offers, as long as you provide your source/rationale. If it’s valid, I will use your statistic.
[/SIGN]

As I keep saying. I’ve seen where the “30,000” some count originated, it is a bad source, and we can see that clearly when looking at what they designate as a Catholic denomination. Some of their names on the list are ludicrous.

I haven’t asserted 30,000. My tens of thousands is more in the area of the 80s to 90s. But that’s just me and my math.

 

[PRmerger]

And again, you call me a liar.

In order to be speaking truthfully, you would have had to study, on your own (and, as someone else asserted correctly, in its original languages) ALL 400 of the ancient Christian texts, as well as the 27 theopneustos books, and discerned, on your own, which ones are inspired.

I don’t think it takes a detective to figure that you have not done this.

What you have done, Kliska, is accept the word of someone else that these books are inspired and these other books are not inspired.

I am 100% certain that you do not reserve for yourself the right to declare, “I have studied the Epistles of Paul and have determined that they are NOT inspired.”

 

[PRmerger]

Your assertions are so odd, as though no other scholars or research has ever been done on the canon outside of the RCC.

If you utilize any of these scholarly works, then you have not done the discernment process on your own.

Rather, you defer to these experts.

But you also say that you don’t need anyone else to tell you what to believe.

So that means you have read all of the ancient manuscripts and concluded, on your own, what’s theopneustos.

Which is it?

You do know as well that you can study why the magisterium picked which books to formally canonize. I know there has to be an article on a respected Catholic site, let me do a quick search.

From catholic resources;

Four Criteria for Canonicity (why certain books were eventually accepted into the NT Canon, while others were rejected):

1. Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
2. Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
3. Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

Egg-zactly.

So when one accepts the 27 book canon of the NT, one is giving tacit approval to Sacred Tradition.

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying to you since Day 1.

 

[drblank1]

. Dr., St Paul thought differently, asking others to pray for him. Romans 15 below.

30 I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, 31 that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints, 32 so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company. 33 The God of peace be with you all. Amen.

:shrug:He was asking those who were still here on earth to pray for him. Also, the apostle called Christians here on earth saints.

I wouldn’t say no evidence although Catholics are not bible alone Christians as the bible itself has no evidence as saying we should be bible alone.

2 Tim 3:17 says that the scripture will “equip us for every good work”. It does not say that scripture will “equip us for MOST good works”. It does not say that scripture will “equip us PARTIALLY for good works”.

Revelation speaks to the Saints praying for us and one can reason that God allows them to hear our prayers and thus know what to be praying for.

Rev 8. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;

The apostles, many times when they wrote letters to the different churches, refered to the Christians on Earth as saints. The direct translation from the original text in Rev. 8 is “God’s people” or “people of God”.
PnP