second question for our non-catholic brethern

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kliska said:
I don’t blindly trust what another human or group of humans tells me, I will check it out on my own.
Click to expand...
This means that you would have had to have researched the other 400 ancient Christian texts, applied this obfuscatory “text crit” to all of them, and then decided on your own, without “blind trust”, to reject them from the canon.

And what “text crit” does one apply to 3 John and Hebrews that makes them theopneustos?

I can’t imagine what you’ve applied that would make you say, “Yes! Inspired!”
 
PRmerger said:
This means that you would have had to have researched the other 400 ancient Christian texts, applied this obfuscatory “text crit” to all of them, and then decided on your own, without “blind trust”, to reject them from the canon.

And what “text crit” does one apply to 3 John and Hebrews that makes them theopneustos?

I can’t imagine what you’ve applied that would make you say, “Yes! Inspired!”
Click to expand...
You don’t have to imagine it, you can research it.

To the thread in general; I don’t know where the idea came from that I’m bowing out of this particular discussion. It feels as if the thread is rapidly spiraling out of control, doesn’t it, everyone is cross posting and getting lost. However, I will respond, right now I just don’t know when as the Christmas season proper is finally here! Yay! Hopefully I’ll be back on sometime tonight, but the Christmas presents won’t wrap themselves.

Grace and Peace to my brothers and sisters in Christ.
 
Porknpie said:
No mystery is correct Kliska when one does look at history.

Council of Rome, 382ad, 73 books
Synod of Hippo, 393ad, 73 books
Synod of Carthage I, 397ad, 73 books
Synod of Carthage II, 418ad, 73 books
Council of Florence, 1438ad, 73 books
Council of Trent, 1548ad, 73 books

So should one believe the Synod of Hippo or someone 1,100 years later as to what is scripture? Here’s what the synod said:

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.” Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).
Click to expand...
The codex vaticanus or her earliest complete bible, dating around 350 AD, has what 66 books ?
 
PRmerger said:
Book, chapter and verse for this, please: the Ark is Emanuel.
Click to expand...
Pure interpolation .Hopefully you don’t need quotes to show ark was His presence before Israel. The ark went before them .The Ark was the source of His presence in the holy of holies etc etc etc.
 
pocohombre said:
Pure interpolation .Hopefully you don’t need quotes to show ark was His presence before Israel. The ark went before them .The Ark was the source of His presence in the holy of holies etc etc etc.
Click to expand...
What did the Ark hold?
 
jmcrae said:
The Church was established by Christ to spread the Gospel in truth and according to His traditions, including His Sacraments. He said, Go forth and baptize; not go forth and write. 😉
Click to expand...
Right. Truth is in her writings also. As early father wrote , “Meditate how to save a soul by the Word…it is well that he who is learned of the judgements of the lord,as many as have been written, should walk in them.” Barnabus(19,21)
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
What did the Ark hold?
Click to expand...
Why do you have trouble with the ark and His presence ? You think it was in a bowl of manna ? Or a rod , or clay tablets with ten commandments, part of His written word ? Anyways, I am not dogamtic on this, just seems that the ark came to represent his presence, and of course partly cause what it contained. I would not say it was only the contents, definitely not. "He that filleth heaven and earth, the infinite Jehovah, deigned to make that place His special dwelling-place, so that He is addressed as, “Thou that dwellest between the cherubims.” by Spurgeon
 
pocohombre said:
Pure interpolation .Hopefully you don’t need quotes to show ark was His presence before Israel. The ark went before them .The Ark was the source of His presence in the holy of holies etc etc etc.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine why any Catholic would have a problem with that.
 
pocohombre said:
Why do you have trouble with the ark and His presence ? You think it was in a bowl of manna ? Or a rod , or clay tablets with ten commandments, part of His written word ? Anyways, I am not dogamtic on this, just seems that the ark came to represent his presence, and of course partly cause what it contained. I would not say it was only the contents, definitely not. "He that filleth heaven and earth, the infinite Jehovah, deigned to make that place His special dwelling-place, so that He is addressed as, “Thou that dwellest between the cherubims.” by Spurgeon
Click to expand...
Trouble? Who said anything about trouble?

Can’t a Catholic ask a question? Where am I asking dogmatic things?

All I asked was: What did the Ark hold?

And I get this answer? Really?

Farewell…
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Better yet:

Have you seen a Catholic have a problem with that?
Click to expand...
Perhaps some of our protestant friends have a problem with speaking to reasonable-minded Catholics. Or, at least, aren’t so comfortable with it. 😊
 
why is it so important to non-catholics that Mary the Mother of God was born into sin and subsequently led a sinful life?
 
pocohombre said:
Why do you have trouble with the ark and His presence ? You think it was in a bowl of manna ? Or a rod , or clay tablets with ten commandments, part of His written word ? Anyways, I am not dogamtic on this, just seems that the ark came to represent his presence, and of course partly cause what it contained.
Click to expand...
Just as Elizabeth, through Mary’s presence, recognized the presence of the Messiah.

We refer to the contents sometimes by the vessel as well, as when Jesus, St. Paul, and any Catholic Priest refer to “the cup” when actually discussing the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity present in the Eucharist.
 
pocohombre said:
The codex vaticanus or her earliest complete bible, dating around 350 AD, has what 66 books ?
Click to expand...
The codex vaticanus is missing both books of the bible and many, many verses. In no way is it complete. No Church council declared it to be inspired and inerrant. It is however a wonderful resource.

Vatican Link here
 
eddie_too said:
why is it so important to non-catholics that Mary the Mother of God was born into sin and subsequently led a sinful life?
Click to expand...
I don’t know about all, various groups for sure. I have a hard time placing this extraordinary supernatural birth into the above grammatical phrase and thinking; was born into sin and subsequently led a sinful life? Doesn’t seem we are talking about the same event.
 
those who deny the RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception are saying they believe that Mary suffered from a fallen nature and consequently led a sinful life.

my puzzlement is as to why people might reject the doctrine of the IC and instead cling to the belief that the Mother of God possessed a fallen human nature and subsequently led a sinful life.

those who reject the IC have no logic or historical facts and only misinterpreted scripture to sustain their belief in Mary’s sinfulness.

so, why do they so avidly cling to the belief that Mary was not immaculately conceived?

where does this idea come from and how is it supported?
 
eddie_too said:
so, why do they so avidly cling to the belief that Mary was not immaculately conceived?
Click to expand...
It’s obvious, isn’t it?
They want to show that the Catholic Church is wrong, and therefore not divinely led.
Problem is, if they prove this, they prove too much, since this would prove that Jesus was unable to keep His promises, and thus Christianity is a fraud.
 
Peter_J said:
Perhaps some of our protestant friends have a problem with speaking to reasonable-minded Catholics. Or, at least, aren’t so comfortable with it. 😊
Click to expand...
Sadly - that’s a 2-way street, my friend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top