P
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
J
jas84173
Guest
Because Luke and Acts are some of the most reliable accounts we have. Hebrews made it into the Bible, but barely. No-one even knows who wrote it, it isn’t even an epistle. Very strange book actually. Most scholars believe it was written by a Jewish Christian following the sac of Rome but most likely not until 90, possibly even the early second century. I can’t stand the book, honestly. Our New Testament is pretty flawed in my opinion. I think there’s more genuine books not in it and pseudonymous books included. Just saying I don’t trust Hebrews, I have the right too. Many early Christians didn’t. So find me a more authentic book to cite to make a point. I’d actually have more respect if you cited the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas over the Epistle to the Hebrews.
P
pulsence
Guest
What!
Why not throw out Revelation, some of the other Pauline letters, and the letters of John while you’re at it. Just because we don’t know with certitude who wrote a particular writing of scripture means nothing concerning it being inspired. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit the early Church discerned which writing were inspired or not. It’s not that a writing was written by an apostle that makes it part of scripture, but instead that some particular writing was inspired by the Holy Spirit, Who then guided us to include it into the canon of the Bible that makes it part of scripture.
S
steve_b
Guest
You sound like Luther
He knows better now :coolinoff:
Re: Hebrews, newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm
j:
You have the freedom, not the right to be wrong. Being wrong is never a right.
j:
Those are good books but they are not over Hebrews.
J
jas84173
Guest
It makes every difference in the world. Why is the Apocalypse of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, 1 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas not in the New Testament? Especially Barnabas, he actually travelled with Paul during his ministry and the letter is authentic. I find that a better source than Hebrews which is literally just a random book , claiming to be by Paul yet it is so known that it isn’t by Paul that it isn’t even considered a Pauline epistle now, thus making its credibility very questionable. Everyone always says the HolySpirit guided the Church to create what was inspired by God yet no-one says the Spirit guided the Church to allow Popes to buy their ways into the Pontiff or hire prostitutes and all. The Church isn’t always right and we acknowledge that. I am not Luther, I want a larger New Testament, not smaller. Our Old Testament is about three quarters of the Bible. I want more writings pertaining to early Christianity. And there are a wealth of books not considered scripture which were regarded as such by early church fathers.What!
Why not throw out Revelation, some of the other Pauline letters, and the letters of John while you’re at it. Just because we don’t know with certitude who wrote a particular writing of scripture means nothing concerning it being inspired. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit the early Church discerned which writing were inspired or not. It’s not that a writing was written by an apostle that makes it part of scripture, but instead that some particular writing was inspired by the Holy Spirit, Who then guided us to include it into the canon of the Bible that makes it part of scripture.
S
steve_b
Guest
You are like Luther. He refused to be led by the Church, and he did the same thing with his bible that you want to do with your bible.
P
PJM
Guest
WHICH was appropriate at THAT time and place; BUT NOT so today.
The Church that Christ founded was NEVER intended to remain stagnant. Hence the power, authority and commands of Mt 16:15-19 and 20:18-20
P
pulsence
Guest
But if the Church got something as fundamental as the canon of the bible wrong and so long ago, then it’s game over man. Your examples of the failing of some popes have nothing to do with how the Church makes divinely guided statements like the canon of the bible. You bring up failures of particular men, I bring of failure of the entire Church if we have the scripture wrong. We absolutely say the Church is infallible on universally binding matters regarding faith and morals. The council of Trent spoke authoritatively in the four session defining the canon and saying that
No one is saying extra biblical writings like the Didache shouldn’t be read. They can contain great spiritual fruit, myself I read as much early church writings as I can. But we can not change the canon of scripture, nor can we say that the Church erred in compiling the canon.
I highly recommend praying over this, asking the Holy Spirit for guidance and humility. Finally you should talk to a priest.
P
poche
Guest
He was in the army during the Civil War. Sometimes the army would take place him in situations where it was impossible to go to mass. Sometimes the soldiers may have to choose between defending the nation and going to mass.This ONLY true if and when We DON"T intentionally cause the “impossibility”
Attacking during Sunday when everyone was in church was a part of the Japanese strategy. That was how they beat the Russians and that was when the Pearl harbor attack happened. Volunteering for the defense of ones nation is a noble and honorable cause.
I would hate for the hospital to close down because most of the employees were going to mass, I would hate to have a 911 emergency and not get an answer because all of the operators were at mass.
- Status