second question for our non-catholic brethern

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK:D

BUT it’s included in the Original Canon of the Bible right?
The first canon was Genesis through Deuteronomy.
The second was more or less the 46 books we know of as our Old Testament.
This is what St. Paul was referring to as “the scriptures.”
Next was the four gospels plus some letters of Paul.
Last was the current canon.

We know it’s all inspired because Pope Innocent I declared it by an infallible proclamation.
 
Catholic hand to Catholic hand - that’s how they were preserved.
It’s like the Pharisees claiming that Adam, Abraham, Moses, Elijah etc., were all really Pharisees, even more, that the Sadducees and Essenes owe their existence
to them, and of course that the Torah is a Phariseeical book.
 
GOD [Christ] DID Personally

PLEASE READ: 2nd. Tim 3:16
John 17:18-20
Mt. 16:18-19
Mt. 28:18-20:)

God Bless you and THANKS for asking
Patrick
Yes, more in line with Vat II-God gave us the bible. It is His Word, to the world. That is a more universal, less divisive approach/focus.
 
Originally Posted by jmcrae
Catholic hand to Catholic hand - that’s how they were preserved.
Oddly enough, comments like the one you quote seem at times to be what keeps the conversation (and to some extent the whole internet) going, since they are the surest way of getting a response.
 
It’s like the Pharisees claiming that Adam, Abraham, Moses, Elijah etc., were all really Pharisees, even more, that the Sadducees and Essenes owe their existence
to them, and of course that the Torah is a Phariseeical book.
This may not be particularly helpful, but I did one time hear a Baptist claim that John the Baptist was a Baptist.
 
The first canon was Genesis through Deuteronomy.
The second was more or less the 46 books we know of as our Old Testament.
This is what St. Paul was referring to as “the scriptures.”
Next was the four gospels plus some letters of Paul.
Last was the current canon.

We know it’s all inspired because Pope Innocent I declared it by an infallible proclamation.
Actually I think he only did NT and Trent did OT. I would think it was an concilar decision, and a consensus, even a tradition from all the churches/bishops, that began to develop from the first writing.
 
This may not be particularly helpful, but I did one time hear a Baptist claim that John the Baptist was a Baptist.
Probably forced to that extreme position to offset the other extreme, that baptists theology began in the 16th century.
 
Oddly enough, comments like the one you quote seem at times to be what keeps the conversation (and to some extent the whole internet) going, since they are the surest way of getting a response.
My post was not motivated for need of a response , rather for my “feminine” side to come out and tell you how I "feel’ when one says all things are of Peter (not of Paul), all things in the Body are Catholic.
 
OK:D

BUT it’s included in the Original Canon of the Bible right?

So what I shared does and MUST apply [no option here] its a Doctrine of our Faith and has been for about 1600/1700 years

God Bless you.

Consider this point:

Either the Bible IS the Inspired [does not mean dictated] Word of God or Christianity is a hoax and the bible is useless. [ALL of the bible] inferred.👍
Sorry, Patrick. I have no idea what point you are trying to make, esp. in response to my original post that the only way anyone knows what’s the inspired word of God is because they defer to the authority of the CC.

Are you in agreement with that, or are you trying to refute that, or are you saying something completely unrelated to my original point? :confused:

And, as always, please remember to keep all replies charitable. Thanks. 🙂
 
It’s like the Pharisees claiming that Adam, Abraham, Moses, Elijah etc., were all really Pharisees, even more, that the Sadducees and Essenes owe their existence
to them, and of course that the Torah is a Phariseeical book.
:nope: - bad straw man, poco.

It’s like the Jewish people saying they preserved the Old Testament, which they did - with God’s grace.

Did you know that the Old Testament at one time circulated in Hebrew/Aramiac and in Greek? And that there are distinct forms of the Old Testament - like the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, parts of the Cairo Genizah Text, scrolls from Qumran - to name some - and this are only for the Hebrew text.

The Torah refers to the 5 books of the Law (ascribed to Moses).

The Tanak - refers more fully to the Old Testament as it includes the Law (Torah)(T), the Prophets (Nevi’im)(N), and the Writings (Ketuvim)(K).

It was not easy to determined which books actually composed the Old Testament - but with God everything is possible :).

The New Testament was not easy either -

The Gospel of Peter was popular in some Churches until Serapion Patriarch of Antioch (~ 200AD) condemned it. The Gospel of Thomas was also roaming around and in use by some Churches.

The Didache, Clement I (To the Corinthians), and the Shepherd of Hermas were also in much use - and if you read them you can see why. Clement I is a great read and so is the Didache.

On the other hand other books that are now part of the New Testament were considered by some as antilegomena (spoken against) - 2 Peter, James, Hebrews, and Jude.

Even in the time of Jesus there was no clear and defined Jewish Canon.

So no, my friend. You are picking out of the hole here.

It was the Church who our Lord used to identify and preserve these texts we now know as the Bible. And you are missing, at the least 7, books ;).
 
It’s like the Jewish people saying they preserved the Old Testament, which they did - with God’s grace.
I would agree, just like I would say the Body of Christ,the Chruch,even the early Catholic church preserved NT. For the modern Catholic church to say it was her is like the Pharisses claiming preservation.It is interesting that at Jesus’s time there were 3 main branches (Phar,Sad ,Esse) in Judaism, ,as you have three main branches of christianity -CC, OC, PC,
Even in the time of Jesus there was no clear and defined Jewish Canon.
Disagree.There was a consensus as to which books were inspired, though they never had a council to proclaim it , until just after Jesus (70AD), where they “canonized” 39 books.
It was the Church who our Lord used to identify and preserve these texts we now know as the Bible. And you are missing, at the least 7, books ;).
The Hebrew Bible do not include those 7 either, and a few early fathers rejected them also.Philo and Josephus attest to there non-acceptance. Jerome thought they were non also but reluctantly included them in Vulgate.
 
=PRmerger;11477550]Sorry, Patrick. I have no idea what point you are trying to make, esp. in response to my original post that the only way anyone knows what’s the inspired word of God is because they defer to the authority of the CC.
Are you in agreement with that, or are you trying to refute that, or are you saying something completely unrelated to my original point? :confused:
And, as always, please remember to keep all replies charitable. Thanks. 🙂
I AGREE!🙂

And sorry, but I don’t see where I merit the need for charity comment:shrug: 🙂

God Bless,
Patrick
 
Yes a host of characters were bad. But were not the covenant(s) successful ? Christ did not come out of Budhism, Hinduism, Shinto ism and any other ism except Judaism, right ? God was always in control then right ? Not sure ,was it not 1260 days in Rev ? Anyways, somethings have dual fulfilments, that the beast is yet to come even again according to your view ? Do we have another 1260 years to go ?

. Who is the owner that has come and when ? Who is in charge and of what? Know almost zero about Bahai.
Poco,
. The “bad guys” always show up. Its almost like they “have to”, for the sake of the script. For every generation of souls there has to be a choice in who we identify ourselves with on the field, or on the stage. We start out as passive observers, but then we get drawn into this never ending drama, and it seems to repeat itself in every age. So long as we hold onto the edge of our seats, we can make it through the horror movie. So long as we hold fast to the Covenant of God, we’ll survive.

. From my perspective, there has been more than one theater. The same divine drama has occurred, at least in part, when Buddha entered the stage in the backdrop of the Hindu set, or the White Buffalo Calf Woman among the Lakota people. Its almost as though God is the One Great Puppeteer Spirit directing the Show, and there’s always another Show! 😉

. But you are right, my friend. God is “always” in charge. In the divine script, however, there are always temptations to “believe” the good guys or the bad guys, who take hold of the microphone and “command” an audience. " “I” want “your” attention, and your allegiance, and your devotion, and your money, and your soul… "

. and every thousand years or so there is a new reenactment of this ongoing drama, but with a few major Players to test the audience to see whose awake and who is asleep, right? Gotta find out whose naughty and nice, this time of year! 😉 And there’s always a New Year! And we all wanna be happy, and have our presents, and let everybody get theirs, too, right?

. But kids will be kids and some will want more than their share, and all the fighting and hollarin’ breaks out and before you know it, somebody declares a Holy War and all hell breaks loose! And thats why its important to have these conversations, cause we get tired, after while, of sending our boys off to Viet Nam, or Korea, or Afghanistan, or where ever the next front for GI Joe, and JIhad Jumih, and that little Jewish kid named Jacob from down the street…

. As for the 1260 days bit, it comes up in Daniel and Revelation, and “each day is appointed for a year” in the books of prophecy, according to Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:5,6. This has been studied much, and the interesting thing is that 1260 AH of the Muslim Calendar intersects with the 2300 days (years) of Daniel right smack dab in the springtime of 1844, which is what all the fuss was about in the Adventist movement, when the “Owner” of the Vineyard was supposed to come home.

. As for why Islam went haywire, almost from the start, well, it has to do with the Beast, don’t cha know, that pesky little band of Ummayyads who set up the Caliphate and declared Holy War on Jerusalem and everybody else in the neighborhood. And sure enough, Jerusalem was “trodden under foot by the Gentiles”, just as Jesus said it would be in Rev 11:2, for 42 months (of years), and 42 X 30 = 1260 again. Thats when the Edict of Toleration was signed by the on March 21, 1844 “exactly” 2300 years, to the day on which Ezra states He left Babylon in compliance with the decreed of Artaxerxes!

. It all ties in tighter than a suture, once ya get past the bleedin’, and God knows, there’s been plenty of that. The shame of it is that some folks are always thirsty for more blood, and entertainment is more important than obedience to the wishes of the Owner of the Vineyard, but He always knew that, which is why its mentioned in the stories, for those that have eyes to see…

.
 
I would agree, just like I would say the Body of Christ,the Chruch,even the early Catholic church preserved NT. For the modern Catholic church to say it was her is like the Pharisses claiming preservation.It is interesting that at Jesus’s time there were 3 main branches (Phar,Sad ,Esse) in Judaism, ,as you have three main branches of christianity -CC, OC, PC,
Can’t forget the 4th sect: the Zealots.

And your comparison to the Pharisees is really lacking as well. Since they arose during the Hasmonean dynasty during the inter-testamental period. If anything, you can compare us with the Levite Priesthood.
Disagree.There was a consensus as to which books were inspired, though they never had a council to proclaim it , until just after Jesus (70AD), where they “canonized” 39 books.
Of course you disagree, otherwise you’d have to yield to the Catholic Church…

Sources for the record of this un-counciled canon.
The Hebrew Bible do not include those 7 either, and a few early fathers rejected them also.Philo and Josephus attest to there non-acceptance. Jerome thought they were non also but reluctantly included them in Vulgate.
Which Hebrew Bible?
 
Excellent.

Then I have no idea how your post segues from mine.

My point: the ONLY way any Christian knows that Hebrews is the inspired Word of God is because he defers to the authority of the CC.

You are agreed, apparently, on this.

So what was your next comment arguing for? :confused:
And sorry, but I don’t see where I merit the need for charity comment:shrug: 🙂
God Bless,
Patrick
It’s always a good idea to keep that in mind when posting.
 
I would agree, just like I would say the Body of Christ,the Chruch,even the early Catholic church preserved NT.
Then you are NOT Sola Scriptura, poco. You get your “information” not from the Bible in this case, but rather from the CC.

And, unless you want to posit that the 27 book canon of the NT is in error, you agree then that the CC has been given the charism of infallibility. On multiple occasions. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

So…your above profession that you agree that you got the NT from the “early Catholic church” affirms 2 things, which are huge:

-you are NOT Sola Scriptura, but rather defer to the decisions of a church
-you believe that this church had the ability to declare something without error, which means you believe she was gifted with infallibility (at least on this one issue.)

:extrahappy::dancing::clapping:
 
Then you are NOT Sola Scriptura, poco. You get your “information” not from the Bible in this case, but rather from the CC.

And, unless you want to posit that the 27 book canon of the NT is in error, you agree then that the CC has been given the charism of infallibility. On multiple occasions. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

So…your above profession that you agree that you got the NT from the “early Catholic church” affirms 2 things, which are huge:

-you are NOT Sola Scriptura, but rather defer to the decisions of a church
-you believe that this church had the ability to declare something without error, which means you believe she was gifted with infallibility (at least on this one issue.)

:extrahappy::dancing::clapping:
Two things you don’t understand: sola scriptura, and infallibility.

(1) Sola scriptura says that Scripture is the ultimate authority. Not the only authority. E.g., a sola scriptura Christian can legitimately make inferences from history, tradition, logic, etc., about the Christian faith, as long as they accord with (i.e. do not contradict) Scripture. Scripture is the *final *court, the last word.

(2) There is a difference between being infallible and being right! Of course we think that the early church got the 27 book canon of the NT right! But that doesn’t mean we think that they were incapable of being wrong! I am frequently right about x, y or z; that doesn’t mean that it is logically or metaphysically impossible for me to be wrong about x, y or z.
 
Two things you don’t understand: sola scriptura, and infallibility.

(1) Sola scriptura says that Scripture is the ultimate authority.
If it’s the ultimate authority, then can you quote me where it says that Hebrews is to be included in the canon of the NT? Book, chapter and verse, please.
 
(2) There is a difference between being infallible and being right! Of course we think that the early church got the 27 book canon of the NT right! But that doesn’t mean we think that they were incapable of being wrong! I am frequently right about x, y or z; that doesn’t mean that it is logically or metaphysically impossible for me to be wrong about x, y or z.
The charism of infallibility is a negative charism, Novocastrian. The HS prevents the Church from erring in declaring what is true that which is false, and declaring false that which is true.

So, if you believe that the 27 book canon of the NT is without error, then, by necessity, you believe that the Church was exercising the charism of infallibility when she discerned this canon.
 
If it’s the ultimate authority, then can you quote me where it says that Hebrews is to be included in the canon of the NT? Book, chapter and verse, please.
You’re still not understanding. The Church has proper authority to delineate the canon. You’d only need Scripture as an ultimate authority if the Church were to try to introduce the wrong books into the canon. Which sections of the Church did, and the response was to reject them as being incompatible with the rest of Scripture. It’s not about chapter and verse. It’s about the coherence of salvation-history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top