SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Pwrlftr]

This is nice and all but you completely ignore the Alexandrian text as if it did not exist, and also pretend that the Jews did use it, when we know for a fact that they did.

CM,

This probably got missed but can you tell us what evidence there is for the alexandrian canon?

Do we have any extant manuscripts that exist telling us what books it contained?

If we do, how far back do they date?

Do any first century Jews or ECF’s for that matter list the books that the Jews used prior to and at the time of Jesus?

 

[VociMike]

The apocryphal books were never considered canonical until Trent. That’s a fact!

By your definition, nothing was canonical until Trent.

 

[VociMike]

The gospel of John was never “added” since it was always inspired.

Apples and oranges. What is “inspired” and what is recognized as inspired (and when it is so recognized) are not the same thing.

And if you’re arguing that every inspired book was immediately and universally recognized as inspired, then all those early councils were just wasting their own time and everybody else’s time in telling people what was already universally known. How absurd is that?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Sorry—have to go now—later!

 

[Pwrlftr]

And **if **you’re arguing that every inspired book was immediately and universally recognized as inspired, then all those early councils were just wasting their own time and everybody else’s time in telling people what was already universally known. How absurd is that?

Never argued that so thank you for not putting words in my mouth.

 

[VociMike]

Never argued that so thank you for not putting words in my mouth.

Then tell me how and when the Gospel of John was included in the canon.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Then tell me how and when the Gospel of John was included in the canon.

It was recognized by the early church as being canonical. Where you and I disagree is that I don’t think any pope, council, or magesterium is infallible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It was recognized by the early church as being canonical. Where you and I disagree is that I don’t think any pope, council, or magesterium is infallible.

Then the Bible is not infallible because the Church declare them to be canonical. If the Councils are infallible.

If it was not then we would still be required to be circumcised stated by the Council of Jersulem and you might as well deny the Trinity because it was the Council who defined it. It was not the Bible.

Your claim are falsely and extremely erroneous. When the Church declares anything in a council in terms of faith and morals, it is infallible. PERIOD.

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

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.

Marcion? The same Marcion who had his own version of Luke which did not include the Nativity story? The same Marcion who accepted this version of Luke as the only Gospel and rejected the others? Are we talking about the Marcion who rejected James as well? This is your source for the modern canon?

As far as an early established canon is concerned… ever heard of the Ebionites? They rejected Paul’s epistles and did not consider them “canon”.

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Marcion? The same Marcion who had his own version of Luke which did not include the Nativity story? The same Marcion who accepted this version of Luke as the only Gospel and rejected the others? Are we talking about the Marcion who rejected James as well? This is your source for the modern canon?

As far as an early established canon is concerned… ever heard of the Ebionites? They rejected Paul’s epistles and did not consider them “canon”.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Then the Bible is not infallible because the Church declare them to be canonical. If the Councils are infallible.

I don’t know what you are saying.

That which was inspired by God is inerrant or infallible because it is God breathed. The nature of scripture is independent of you, me, or your church recognizing it as such.

If it was not then we would still be required to be circumcised stated by the Council of Jersulem and you might as well deny the Trinity because it was the Council who defined it. It was not the Bible.

We were required to be circumcized at the council of Jerusalem?

The trinity is found within the scriptures. Go to a non-catholic seminary and you will find volumes of works all on the trinity and all based on nothing but the scriptures.

Your claim are falsely and extremely erroneous. When the Church declares anything in a council in terms of faith and morals, it is infallible. PERIOD.

I’m assuming you mean my claim that your church isn’t infallible.

Your church’s ecumenical councils are thought to be infallible but not every council has the charsm of infallibilit protecting it.

For example, the councils of Carthage and Hippo were provinicial councils and did not declare the canon infallibly.

BTW, typing in bold overlarge font doesn’t do anything to help you prove your point.

 

[VociMike]

It was recognized by the early church as being canonical. Where you and I disagree is that I don’t think any pope, council, or magesterium is infallible.

So the recognition of the Gospel of John as being inspired scripture could be wrong. It is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion.

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

It was recognized by the early church as being canonical.

Define “early church”.

There were groups of “Christians” that did not accept John as canonical. The Marcionites were one such group.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Then the Bible is not infallible because the Church declare them to be canonical. If the Councils are infallible.

If it was not then we would still be required to be circumcised stated by the Council of Jersulem and you might as well deny the Trinity because it was the Council who defined it. It was not the Bible.

Your claim are falsely and extremely erroneous. When the Church declares anything in a council in terms of faith and morals, it is infallible. PERIOD.

Manny you don’t understand the devious irrationality of the heretic’s mind. Heretics have no moral problem hijacking scripture by opening it up to private interpretation devoid of the pedigree of teaching and tradition, re-wrapping it with a new font and flowery old English speech and selling it as a product for money and power. Nor do Heretics have a problem hijacking tradition and doctrine that is not explicitly scriptural when it suits their efforts to hijack and undermine authority if it brings more to their error. They think there is safety in large numbers and in so thinking become the “many” who will not be able to enter by the narrow gate. Heretics will only reject tradition, doctrine and scripture when it makes it clear to anyone that can read that they are robbers.

To wit:
*Verily, verily I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber” –John 10:1 *

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. 12“He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. -John 10:10-12

God will most assuredly slay the hired hand (paid ministers hired by those who purchase an interpretation of what they want to hear) or the theif who thinks to hijack His word and recast it in a way that leads the flock astray.

James

 

[fbl9]

hello Prwlftr does not the catholic church have volumes of works regarding the trinity based on scripture. you seem to think infallibily is some kind of magical cloak. it is a gift of God to HIS church. because a council does not declare anything infallable does not mean other councils declorations are not infallable. why do you think there is so many other different christian groups, and don" tell me you are in union with them all on these pages there has been demostrated a wide variance of beliefs. so tell me if one dies in sin do they go to heaven,or do you have to be in a state of grace,or even if one doesn"t believe in the trinity.i have met ‘christians’ who hjold no belief in the trinity.how can you demonstrate by walking in the doors of these different groups are one?myself as acatholic i can travel the world over and still be in the same church as in my home town.

 

[Pwrlftr]

So the recognition of the Gospel of John as being inspired scripture could be wrong. It is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion.

Could be, but I don’t believe it is.

You believe your church is infallible, you could be wrong.

 

[Pwrlftr]

hello Prwlftr does not the catholic church have volumes of works regarding the trinity based on scripture.

From what I see constantly posted on these forums it appears that many Catholics believe without “tradition” the trinity would be an unknown doctrine. That may not be what they intend to convey but it very much comes across that way.

you seem to think infallibily is some kind of magical cloak. it is a gift of God to HIS church. because a council does not declare anything infallable does not mean other councils declorations are not infallable.

I don’t think your church is infallible in the least. If “infallibility” did exist, of course it would be a gift of God.

Even in your church there is a recognition that some church councils are not infallible and some are. Certainly ecumenical councils can be infallible according to your church.

why do you think there is so many other different christian groups, and don" tell me you are in union with them all on these pages there has been demostrated a wide variance of beliefs. so tell me if one dies in sin do they go to heaven,or do you have to be in a state of grace,or even if one doesn"t believe in the trinity.i have met ‘christians’ who hjold no belief in the trinity.how can you demonstrate by walking in the doors of these different groups are one?myself as acatholic i can travel the world over and still be in the same church as in my home town.

I wouldn’t define any one who rejects the trinity as Christian and I think that is pretty close to what your church also teaches.

It seems that many catholics want to compare their one denomination to all other denominations. This seems a little unfair and dishonest.

Maybe we should compare those churches who hold to sola scriptura and compare those churches to those who believe they have some sort of infallibility…LDS and RCC vs reformed theology.

But even withot going that far, your church does have a set of canon law and a catechism which defines, to one degree or the other, various doctrines, traditions, and disciplines. Even with that we find catholics who are pro abortion, don’t accept the real presence, believe the rapture, dont’ believe scripture is inerrant, believe scripture is inerrant, use ABC, don’t use ABC, accept papal infallibilty, reject papal infallibility…I could go on but I am sure you get my point.

While yes, you should have unity but in reality your church is no more unified than any other.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Define “early church”.

There were groups of “Christians” that did not accept John as canonical. The Marcionites were one such group.

Early church…how about we go with the first few centuries.

I don’t know why you bring up the Marcionites as I never said there was 100% agreement. As a matter of fact we still don’t have 100% agreement on the canon between protestants, catholics, and the orthodox do we?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Hey CM,

This question is based on your above statement but I would like anyone here to answer this.

Often times it is said that the apostles and Jesus used the Alexandrian canon but no evidence is given as to what the Alexandrian canon is.

Do we know anything about the supposed Alexandrian canon?

a.) Are there any extant manuscripts of the Alexandrian canon?
i.) If so, what are the manuscripts entitled?
ii.) If so, when do the manuscripts date to?

b.) Does any Jewish source (rabbi, historian, philosopher, etc.) roughly of the same time period we are talking about list the books of the Alexandrian canon?

It’s interesting that people often make the claim that Jesus and the apostles used this canon but the earliest mansucripts of the septuagint we have only date back to around the 4th century and they were Christian copies of the septuagint.

We know Melito who lived in the middle of the second century listed the canon he received from the Jews and didn’t include the deutero’s. We know that Philo lived in and among the Alexandrian Jews and he didn’t ever list the deutero’s. We know that Josephus didn’t include the deutero’s in what he listed the canon of the Jews being.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if anyone can provide proof tha the Alexandrian canon ever existed.

This was my first post in the thread and I don’t think anyone tried to answer it.

 

[VociMike]

Could be, but I don’t believe it is.

You believe your church is infallible, you could be wrong.

The question has never been what I believe, so don’t muddy the waters. The question is, how can Christians possibly have an inerrant canon of scripture without “popes, councils or magisterium,” to use your construction?

So tell me, how can Christianity know for certain it got the canon right without “popes, councils or magisterium”?