SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[VociMike]

Okay, other than presenting a “lack of proof” as evidence, do you have anything else…slightly more concrete?

You mean more concrete than that the entire Church, both east and west, has always claimed that the Assumption (your example) is true?

I will leave it to you, rather, to explain the fantastic Protestant claim, which is that a heresy (and not just one, but many!) can and did overtake the Church in the distant past, without a single shred of official Church opposition. No dispute in the first century. No dispute or objection in the 2nd century. Or the 3rd, or the 4th, ect, etc.

Such a claim is the theological equivalent of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. And we all know that was science fiction.

 

[Newbie2]

Wow!

I will answer them all, given enough time, but I didn’t expect the entire forum to hit me all at once.

As I have stated on this forum before,I believe this is the best way to learn—else I would simply keep reading…But seriously, how often do we get to really discuss religion in person—hence the forums.???

Well, there ya go. Catholicism is full of surprises when you take the time…

Kudos if you intent is to learn; my apologies if my previous post seemed harsh.

 

[Jlcastagna]

I would like to add … Uh nothing except the ball is in your court Old Scholar.

 

[guanophore]

Wow!

So far I can count 21 different posters responding to my questions.

Isn’t this a bit disingenuous, since you plagarized them?

It 's fine with me if they are also your questions, but it is appropriate to cite your sources.

That’s great, but I need time just to read them all, much less answer them. I will answer them all, given enough time, but I didn’t expect the entire forum to hit me all at once. I still have posts on other threads to answer as I had to take a 10 day trip out of state away from my computer, but I will eventually answer them all.

You sound surprised. Did you REALLY not expect answers?

My mission is to learn and perhaps give a little information some may not know.

I certainly hope this is true. You made a bad start, identifying yourself with justasking4, who has made it clear his motives are to the contrary.

 

[guanophore]

Okay, please show me any first or second century writer who wrote of the assumption.

Ah,but now you are changing the criteria! You are saying that, if there are no extant writings, then the doctrine is not valid. By that criteria, the whole NT has to be thrown out!

 

[Old_Scholar]

Church Militant

I’ll begin with your questions about the canonization of the New Testament.

We first must discuss the Old Testament. It was canonized by the Jews as it was their book. Documentation for that comes from the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. He names them, although in the Jewish manner, as 22 books. However breaking them down as they are today, they are the original 39 books, since we separate the songs and prophets. Josephus says the books are divided into three divisions, the same three divisions as the Massoretic text. Nothing has been added to this canonized Old Testament, including the apocryphal books. They were never a part of the Old Testament.

Nothing has been added to these books since the reign of Artaxerxes, since the time of Malichi. Artaxerxes reigned from 464 – 424 B.C.

Furthermore, we know of the canonized Old Testament because Jesus quoted from it extensively. He said the Scriptures, at that time, were complete. Read John 5:39 and Luke 24:44. Jesus testified to the authority of the Old Testament, the Law, the Writings and the Prophets; the threefold division.

The New Testament does not speak of a completed canon of Scripture, but it does testify to writings already considered to be the Word of God. Peter recognized the writings of Paul as Scripture. He cited Paul’s letters as Scripture.

When Paul wrote to Timothy, he quoted a passage from Luke as Scripture. 1 Timothy 5:18, and Luke 10:7.

The earliest list, of the New Testament was drawn up by Marcion. He did not claim his list to be authoritative but it did demonstrate that the idea of a New Testament canon was accepted at that time.

It is well to note that nothing accepted as canon in the New Testament was written after 90 A.D., after John died. What we call the Bible today was already in circulation very early in the history of the church. By the end of the second century all but seven books were recognized as apostolic. They were: Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation. Although most churches had already accepted them, it was in the fourth century when all the churches, at that time, recognized the 27 books as canon.

The significance is that all the churches had the 27 books and taught from them. It was the heretical books that were being discussed so much and eventually eliminated from consideration for canonization because they were not accurate, inspired or even historically true.

The Damasine Council of Rome in 332 A.D. recognized all 27 books as did the third Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. The question of the canon was closed in the Western Churches. By the year 500 A.D., all Greek speaking churches had accepted the 27 books in our New Testament.

Some still say the church gave us the Bible. I believe God decided which books should be in the canon. He made the final determination. It was His guidance that made the churches accept the books.

To say the church gave us the New Testament is like saying Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity and Benjamin Franklin gave us electricity. God gave us gravity by the force of His creation and likewise with electricity and everything else we have. God inspired the books of the New Testament and to say God did not give them to us is simply not true. The church only recognized them they gave us nothing.
If one looks at this objectively, it is unequivocally apparent that the church did not become authoritative for the church by including them in a formal canon. On the contrary, the church included them in her canon because the church already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their worth and apostolic authority, directly or indirectly.

When the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. they did not impose anything new upon the Christian communities but simply codified what was the general practice of the churches.

To claim that the church gave us the Bible is simply pathetic.

Let’s look at how the Catholics accepted the canon. Jerome’s canon included Lamentations, but Augustine’s did not. Jerome omitted Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, First and Second Maccabees, but Augustine included them all.

Roman Catholics accept the canon of Augustine, including Lamentations.

Jerome included all the books of the New Testament in his canon but admitted that Philemon, Hebrews, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude and Revelation were of doubtful authority.

Jerome did not include any of the apocryphal books at all in his translation, but after pressured by Augustine, he finally admitted them but said they were deutero-canonical, not sufficient for teaching, training, etc. but useful for historical and reading purposes. Strange but that’s exactly wha Martin Luther said and what the King James Bible said.

 

[guanophore]

The other poster seems to believe that all your church’s various teachings can be traced back to time of the apostles which it clearly can’t. The assumption is but one example.

If you can somehow provide “proof” of this, post it. If you can’t, which you apparently can’t judging by your post, please admit that your church has no way of tracing this belief (assumption) back to the early church.

Since you do not accept the Divine Deposit of Faith and the Sacred Traditions as “proofs” then I don’t think it will be possible to satisfy your criteria. That does not make it any less valid. Just the same as the NT is considered inspired, in spite of the fact that we don’t have the original manuscripts.

I’ve read a lot of Catholic links that end up not proving anything. Can you post what you consider your main point to be?

This I can well believe, since, by your criteria, we could not even prove that Jesus existed, or that Christianity exists!

 

[cascherman]

Wow!

So far I can count 21 different posters responding to my questions. That’s great, but I need time just to read them all, much less answer them. I will answer them all, given enough time, but I didn’t expect the entire forum to hit me all at once. I still have posts on other threads to answer as I had to take a 10 day trip out of state away from my computer, but I will eventually answer them all.

I do not sit at my computer all day—I actually have a life, so if you are patient, I will certainly respond. I am very anxious to read each and every one of the replies. However, I do not want to respond to any who are not honestly giving me their opinion but are simply trying to trash me. My mission is to learn and perhaps give a little information some may not know.

As I have stated on this forum before,I believe this is the best way to learn—else I would simply keep reading…But seriously, how often do we get to really discuss religion in person—hence the forums.???

We answer these questions over and over. Just because justasking4 doesn’t get an answer he/she likes doesn’t mean it’s not a suitable answer.

Firstly, as for the ‘unanswerable’ questions regarding the deutero-canon, Hebrews, and James see post #4 for a canon list by Pope Damasus more than 1000 years before your quote gives us credit for. It includes the Deuterocanon and both Hebrews and James. The Church does not infallibly define an item unless it is being challenged, in which case it was being challenged by the reformers, so it was defined.

Secondly, as for what the Orthodox Church claims we cannot be responsible for. They have split off from the Roman Catholic Church and claim many of the things that all protestants claim (i.e. being the Church that Christ established)

I think you’ll find you will indeed get answers to these questions.

 

[Old_Scholar]

This question has been asked AND ANSWERED millions of times.

Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean Catholics do not or cannot answer your questions. Your rejection of the Truth doesn’t make it the facts any less true.

I would like to hear your answer…

 

[Old_Scholar]

You’ll have to take that up with an Orthodox apologist, however, the article that I linked above covers the discussion of the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache which I have to presume you are referring to.

As I said before, and Catholics (and even n-C scholars) will readily remind you, the discussions that your refer to predate the final decision of the Canon, so they do not by any means indict infallibility. Gee…couldn’t possibly have been that we didn’t have the speed of communication that we have today could it? Do you suppose that they just bopped down to the Rome Kinko’s and faxed their copies off to Carthage and Hippo and Constantinople as we might today? Or did they just take them in hand an jump a jet at the Roma International Airport and set down an hour or so later in Carthage? I think not. Travel and communication were still very slow at that time and so one has to allow for that as well as whatever period of time they took to study, pray, and discuss all this.

Sadly, you cannot offer a single authoritative evidence for the inspired canon that you hold dear today, (no doubt an errant 66 book one) that has anywhere near the authority or scholarship that the Catholic & Orthodox Churches can. Faced with that deficiency. I would strongly advise that you abandon said 66 book Bible for an accurate and authoritative 73 book one like that the ECF decided on.This is a gross historical inaccuracy. The DCs had been part of the canon of scripture from the time when the rest of the Canon was accepted.Trent merely affirmed what had always been held.(Link to source)
(Cont’d)

Your own list is not the same…proves my point.

 

[Old_Scholar]

If Trent added the deuterocanonicals to the Bible, as the OP claims, then how is it possible that Martin Luther removed them from the Bible about 20 years before the council? If they weren’t in the Bible before Trent, then how could he have taken them out?

In Christ,
Rand

deu·ter·o·ca·non·i·cal (dōō’tə-rō’kə-nŏn’ĭ-kəl, dyōō’-) Pronunciation Key
adj. Bible
Of, relating to, or being a second canon, especially that consisting of sections of the Old and New Testaments not included in the original Roman Catholic canon but accepted by theologians in 1548 at the Council of Trent.

These books were not considered canonical but were approved only for reading and historical purposes. They contain many errors and were written by “God only knows who.”

They have not ever and are not now considered Scripture.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Are they? I don’t think so…You’ll never know since you recognize no authority (except possibly your own or perhaps your denomination or non denom…). The better question is, why do you reject the canon of scripture that history plainly shows was the documented and authoritative choice of the early church in favor for a Bible that does not conform to any that they canonized.

Oh and don’t waste time bringing up Jamnia (or Javnia) since it was not an authoritative council in any way and was held by the same Jews who rejected Christ to begin with. Why would any believer base their canon on such a group? Again, this is not at all true. the Alexandrian text of the Old Testament was in fact the translation of the OT used in Christ’s own time.(Link to source)

It would appear to me that if one wants to remain faithful to the scriptures that Our Lord used then one would use the same basic translation that He did.2 Timothy 2:2 reads, And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. while 3:14 reads, But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and this is a very weak argument. The fact that this was written to Timothy and that there is now a separation between Catholics and Orthodox has little to do with it and nothing whatever to do with both this topic of the canon of scripture or infallibility.

Moreover, this does not support your conclusion, especially coming from someone who rejects the same canon that the early church affirmed. Worse yet is the glaring fact that your own faith community has no link whatever to any semblance of apostolic succession or authority.
(Con’t’d)

You should take time to learn what is in the Orthodox Bible. It is not the same as the RCC. But then nothing is.

By the way, list any quotes Christ made from the apocrypha books. He did not recognize them as Scripture either. No writer of the New Testament quoted from them either.

 

[juliamajor]

Militant

I’ll begin with your questions about the canonization of the New Testament.

We first must discuss the Old Testament. It was canonized by the Jews as it was their book. Documentation for that comes from the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. He names them, although in the Jewish manner, as 22 books. However breaking them down as they are today, they are the original 39 books, since we separate the songs and prophets. Josephus says the books are divided into three divisions, the same three divisions as the Massoretic text. Nothing has been added to this canonized Old Testament, including the apocryphal books. They were never a part of the Old Testament.

Nothing has been added to these books since the reign of Artaxerxes, since the time of Malichi. Artaxerxes reigned from 464 – 424 B.C.

Furthermore, we know of the canonized Old Testament because Jesus quoted from it extensively. He said the Scriptures, at that time, were complete. Read John 5:39 and Luke 24:44. Jesus testified to the authority of the Old Testament, the Law, the Writings and the Prophets; the threefold division.

The New Testament does not speak of a completed canon of Scripture, but it does testify to writings already considered to be the Word of God. Peter recognized the writings of Paul as Scripture. He cited Paul’s letters as Scripture.

When Paul wrote to Timothy, he quoted a passage from Luke as Scripture. 1 Timothy 5:18, and Luke 10:7.

The earliest list, of the New Testament was drawn up by Marcion. He did not claim his list to be authoritative but it did demonstrate that the idea of a New Testament canon was accepted at that time.

It is well to note that nothing accepted as canon in the New Testament was written after 90 A.D., after John died. What we call the Bible today was already in circulation very early in the history of the church. By the end of the second century all but seven books were recognized as apostolic. They were: Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation. Although most churches had already accepted them, it was in the fourth century when all the churches, at that time, recognized the 27 books as canon.

The significance is that all the churches had the 27 books and taught from them. It was the heretical books that were being discussed so much and eventually eliminated from consideration for canonization because they were not accurate, inspired or even historically true.

The Damasine Council of Rome in 332 A.D. recognized all 27 books as did the third Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. The question of the canon was closed in the Western Churches. By the year 500 A.D., all Greek speaking churches had accepted the 27 books in our New Testament.

Some still say the church gave us the Bible. I believe God decided which books should be in the canon. He made the final determination. It was His guidance that made the churches accept the books.

To say the church gave us the New Testament is like saying Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity and Benjamin Franklin gave us electricity. God gave us gravity by the force of His creation and likewise with electricity and everything else we have. God inspired the books of the New Testament and to say God did not give them to us is simply not true. The church only recognized them they gave us nothi

To claim that the church gave us the Bible is simply pathetic.

Let’s look at how the Catholics accepted the canon. Jerome’s canon included Lamentations, but Augustine’s did not. Jerome omitted Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, First and Second Maccabees, but Augustine included them all.

Roman Catholics accept the canon of Augustine, including Lamentations.

Jerome included all the books of the New Testament in his canon but admitted that Philemon, Hebrews, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude and Revelation were of doubtful authority.

Jerome did not include any of the apocryphal books at all in his translation, but after pressured by Augustine, he finally admitted them but said they were deutero-canonical, not sufficient for teaching, training, etc. but useful for historical and reading purposes. Strange but that’s exactly wha Martin Luther said and what the King James Bible said.
Torah and prohets were in place for awhile but the writings( which the deuteros are part of) remained fluid until the Christian era…"there is no evidence for a fixed number of sacred books until the last decade of the first century AD.,when it is attested in 2Esdras and by the historian Josephus(against Apion 1:37-41 Intro to the Apocrypha and article by John J Collins

Professor of Hebrew Bible and Postbiblical Judaism Divinity school university of Chicago in the Harper collins Bible commentary.)

 

[Old_Scholar]

Why are you being dishonest? You signed on to this board in Nov. and have not asked most of these questions in any of your posts. Furthermore, I have never seen a sincerely asked question by anyone go unanswered here.

However, let’s lay that aside and start again on the right foot. Why don’t you start out on an honest footing here. Ask one question at a time and we will try our best to answer each, one at a time. Please make your next post a sincere question rather than a sarcastic remark.

Your servant in Christ.

You may be right. It could be on another post that I have asked these same questions frequently. I get no proper response there either. I will attempt to take them more slowly in the hope of getting an answer.

Thank you!

 

[guanophore]

Some still say the church gave us the Bible. I believe God decided which books should be in the canon. He made the final determination. It was His guidance that made the churches accept the books.

Of course! The Christ cannot be separated from His Church, as He is the Head, and She is the Body.

To say the church gave us the New Testament is like saying Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity and Benjamin Franklin gave us electricity.

It is true, that if these truths had not been revealed through these individuals (they worked very hard on it), they would eventually have been revealed through someone else.

Who else is qualified to determine the Word of God, other than those to whom it was given?

God gave us gravity by the force of His creation and likewise with electricity and everything else we have. God inspired the books of the New Testament and to say God did not give them to us is simply not true.

The Church does not have this “either/or” thinking that is common in Protestantism. The Church recognizes that everything she is, and has, and creates, is all from God’s grace.

The church only recognized them they gave us nothing.

This is a misunderstanding of the incarnational principle.

I suppose it is possible that the text could have dropped out of the sky with no involvement by people, but that is not how God chose to do it. He chose to work through the Church.

If one looks at this objectively, it is unequivocally apparent that the church did not become authoritative for the church by including them in a formal canon.

if you mean to say “canon” then I agree with you .

On the contrary, the church included them in her canon because the church already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their worth and apostolic authority, directly or indirectly.

Yes.

When the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. they did not impose anything new upon the Christian communities but simply codified what was the general practice of the churches.

Why do you suppose this was necessary?

To claim that the church gave us the Bible is simply pathetic.

To deny the facts of what happened by God working through men, inspired by God to write, and God, working through the community and the Council to authenticate is pathetic.

Strange but that’s exactly wha Martin Luther said and what the King James Bible said.

This is not so strange. Many have differing opinions. Not all of what the early fathers wrote was accepted. The church discerns between them, and by the power of the HS, decides what is right.

You should take time to learn what is in the Orthodox Bible. It is not the same as the RCC. But then nothing is.

By the way, list any quotes Christ made from the apocrypha books. He did not recognize them as Scripture either. No writer of the New Testament quoted from them either.

I think this belongs on another thread, and since it has been addressed on many, it might be more effiicent to go there first.

 

[juliamajor]

“the greek speaking church accepted a larger collection of Jewish writings as authoritative than what was included in the Hebrew Canon .The notion of an alexandrian canon has been discredited…only Torah and prophets were closed before ad.70.The Christian Church,then, inherited an OPEN CANON in thearea of the writings.Whether in fact the list of canonical Writingswas still fluid in the diaspora Judaism at the time of theGreat revolts(ad66-135)is disputed,n\but at least it was fluid in christianity in the second and third century ad…”

 

[guanophore]

These books were not considered canonical but were approved only for reading and historical purposes. They contain many errors and were written by “God only knows who.”

They have not ever and are not now considered Scripture.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, of course. However, since Jesus and the Apostles quoted from these books, the Church considers them inspired.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Ah,but now you are changing the criteria! You are saying that, if there are no extant writings, then the doctrine is not valid. By that criteria, the whole NT has to be thrown out!

Either you have proof of all of your doctrines going back the time of the apostles and Jesus or you don’t. I didn’t say anything about whether the belief/doctrine was valid or not, I just said you can’t prove all of your doctrines come from apostolic teaching.

As to the NT, we clearly see from the earliest days of the church different father’s discussing John, Romans, etc… This is something we don’t necessarily have for all of the doctrines your church teaches.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Actually, Catholics are are allowed a certain amount of freedom in the interpretation of scripture. The Church rightly sets the boundaries and guidelines for this interpretation. One cannot interpret scripture for themselves and go outside of the boundaries of Christian teaching. The Judaizers, the Gostics, the Donatists, the Nestorians, and others did this very thing. They were refuted and condemned for doing it.

Scripture even tells us that private interpretation in the fashion discouraged by the Church is wrong.

The apostle Peter says the following:

2 Peter 1:20-21
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Peter 2:1-2
BUT FALSE prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

2 Peter 3:15-17
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

These are not the only verses of scripture that can be brought to bear on this topic, but they should be sufficient to give any person arguing “sola scriptura” food for thought and reflection.

Every non-Catholic Christian Church has traditions that guide them in their understandings of scripture even if they are not willing to admit it. Non-Catholic Christian fellowships did not get their understanding of the “Trinity” strictly from their personal reading of scripture. You need to choose your teachers carefully and you need an authentic teacher.

The apostle Paul has this to say about teachers:

2 Timothy 1:11
For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

1 Timothy 3:1-2
THE SAYING is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,

Titus 1:7-9
For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

2 Timothy 3:14
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, **knowing from whom you learned it **

These passages show who our teachers are in doctrine and in the word of God found in scripture. These teachers are the bishops who are the successors of the apostles. We are not self taught by simply reading scripture on our own. Likewise, “we are not to have **itching ears **and seek out teachers to our own liking.”[2 Timothy 4:3-4]

I hope this helps to answer a couple of your unanswered questions.

**Your quotes are accurate but they are not complete. We are told that the Scripture is sufficient for everything.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:**

We are also told by Christ to “search the Scriptures” not check your memory…Peter says that he is writing down everything in order to be sure we have what we need. Christ condemned the traditions of men and instructed us to heed the Scriptures. He never once said to pay attention to tradition.

Knowing how things are passed down orally, how can you possibly believe you are told the truth verbally when it has been thousands of years. In the first and second century, even with the written word, heretics were already distorting what they had learned and the ECF had a very difficult time keeping the truth in the church and not heresy.

Look at what has happened to the church since the 3rd century. Search the writings of the early church fathers, especially the first and second centiry, and see if you can find the doctrines and dogmas the RCC teaches today. It just isn’t there.

It is necessary to have written Scriptures and anything oral cannot be trusted. Church history has shown that. That’s why God had the Scriptures written down so we could not go wrong but unfortunately there are those who won’t believe them.

 

[guanophore]

Either you have proof of all of your doctrines going back the time of the apostles and Jesus or you don’t.

I said that all the doctrines are traced back to the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. I never said I could satisfy your impossible criteria of a proof. You reject the extant evidence, and require evidence that is impossible to produce, even to prove that Jesus existed, or that there is such a thing as Christianity.

I didn’t say anything about whether the belief/doctrine was valid or not, I just said you can’t prove all of your doctrines come from apostolic teaching.

Certainly by using the standards you have created. Neither, by using those standards, can I prove that Jesus ever existed, or that He started a Church.

As to the NT, we clearly see from the earliest days of the church different father’s discussing John, Romans, etc… This is something we don’t necessarily have for all of the doctrines your church teaches.

Yet, the original manuscripts that the fathers were using no longer exist!