ss again

[benhur]

May the peace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you on your journey. Take your time, pace yourself, pray, and allow the Holy Spirit to do His work and allow yourself to be filled with peace and joy.

Nice response to Ed, blessings.

 

[benhur]

The Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch; the Pharisees only accepted the books the protestants do, and the Hellenes accepted the full catholic old testament canon. Would you like to learn what the bible says about the Hellenes canon? It calls them scripture:Now is not all scripture inspired of God and profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct and to instruct in justice?

Oh boy we go deeper. Yes, I read something of the Hellenizing of Judaism and the friction when looking at the macabeans and Hanukah. Yet Paul was Pharisee was he not not, I would not assume that scripture to him was entire LXX ( Pharisees rejected extra books as you say) . But unless designated as differently, right scripture is anything written. Maybe Paul was saying they not only to see if gospel fit scripture but also just what books were "inspired / But good point/thought.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not sure what you mean by Hebrew for 100% of Hebrew bible is in the Septuagint, unless you mean the quote is actual Hebrew like some of the stuff said at the cross. OK. Again the CC does not retain all the LXX either. The CC rejected some LXX books.Did he?

I mean that you can tell when the Hebrew language is quoted and when the Greek language is quoted. Whenever Greek was quoted it came from the Septuagint. This shows the early church was using the Greek Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew version. This of course makes sense since they were writing in Greek.

The Catholic Church holds 100% of the Septuagint. There are other Apocryphal books such as the book of Enoch that are not canonical. But they also are not part of the Septuagint.

This is a short informative summary I suggest you read. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

That the time of year is talked of in terms of a festival does not mean He celebrated it. He went to the temple, the Court of the Gentiles and no where else, and the Jews went to Him and he “taught”. It is like saying around Christmas time a Rabbi ,a priest and an atheist met . Are we to assume then it was to celebrate Christmas ?( No ,but it does sound like the beginning of a joke.) It is pure assumption that because “he went to the temple” during a festival, it was to "celebrate ". Really , celebrate, when they were trying to kill him ? And celebrate with things that were not scriptural, (9 candles instead of 7) and a myth about oil ? It is my opinion He did not celebrate Hannukah.

If I wrote about you; “The day of Christmas came and Ben Hur was in the church speaking with the pastors and people…”

Would it be a stretch, knowing you are a Christian and Christians celebrate Christmas, to say you were participating in Christmas activities?"

Or is the stretch saying “Ben hur does not celebrate Christmas he just happened to be there”

OK. Why are they not in Hebrew bible ?

Spend 10 mins watching this, or at least the first 5 mins! youtu.be/PjvXbotd9Lw

Goes both ways, to reject or to accept could be biased couldn’t it ?

No not at all
]

 

[Porknpie]

I would like to make a statement to all posters. A few years back I was drawn to the Roman Catholic Church for a variety of reasons. About two years ago I began doing a great deal of research…lots of books. Last fall I entered RCIA. For six months I was in RCIA and 3 weeks before I was to be confirmed this spring during the Easter Vigil I couldn’t go through with it. I couldn’t honestly confess before God and man that the one true Church established by Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church (and all those in full union with Her). Am I still seriously looking at the Roman Catholic Church? Absolutely! At this point in time I am rock solid Protestant. I will keep doing research, continue reading books, my mind remains open to the possibility but only God can possibly move me to cease being Protestant. If God does lead me to the Roman Catholic Church I will surely submit to Her authority.

Sola scriptura
Sola fide
Sola gratia
Solo Christo
Soli Deo gloria

God bless all.

Ed

Ben,

My wife, “Pie”, is a convert to Catholicism. She went through RCIA 1 1/2 times. The first time, she went so far as to meet the bishop a couple of weeks prior to Easter and decided that she was not ready. She then … out of the blue … decided that she wanted to convert a couple of years later while we were living in another state. That was over twenty years ago and today she is a rock solid Catholic.

Couple of quick points:

• Catholicism only adds to your current faith tradition.
• conversion is a journey … the Church will be here when you are ready. It’s not going anyplace after 2,000 years
• continue asking questions and pray for the Spirit to guide you.

As a personal testimony, there is nothing better than knowing that Christ established His Church and the seven sacraments as the means of giving us his grace for our salvation. There is nothing better in this world than receiving him: body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.

St Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr speak of this Eucharist, consistent with John 6… and not of some symbolic meal.“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

PnP

 

[Jon_S_1]

Ben,

My wife, “Pie”, is a convert to Catholicism. She went through RCIA 1 1/2 times. The first time, she went so far as to meet the bishop a couple of weeks prior to Easter and decided that she was not ready. She then … out of the blue … decided that she wanted to convert a couple of years later while we were living in another state. That was over twenty years ago and today she is a rock solid Catholic.

Couple of quick points:

• Catholicism only adds to your current faith tradition.
• conversion is a journey … the Church will be here when you are ready. It’s not going anyplace after 2,000 years
• continue asking questions and pray for the Spirit to guide you.

As a personal testimony, there is nothing better than knowing that Christ established His Church and the seven sacraments as the means of giving us his grace for our salvation. There is nothing better in this world than receiving him: body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.

St Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr speak of this Eucharist, consistent with John 6… and not of some symbolic meal.“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

PnP

I love Ignatius of Antioch. He was so impacting on my conversion. This is the guy who became Bishop of Antioch, where they were first called Christians, in 57 AD. He knew the Apostles, especially John. He was friends with Polycarp bishop of Smyrnea and mentioned in the New Testament.

He writes so much on the Eucharist and Ecclesiology.

“Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

– St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

 

[edkw55]

You are on the right track Ed!

The above is true in that Trent did officially promulgate what had already been in effect sense the early church and thus closing the canon. The original synod/councils (Carthage/Hippo) were not ecumenical councils but local councils and upon completion sent the results to Rome -

Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon [Canon 47 of the Third Council], because we have received from our fathers that these are the books which are to be read in church.’" (The Canon On Scripture, F. F. Bruce - protestant)

Peace!!!

The book you refer to above “The Canon of Scripture” by F.F. Bruce I read about 20 years ago. He was one of the most highly regarded Protestant scholars and historians of the 20th century. I can tell you for a fact that he rejected the Deuterocanonical books as belonging in the canon of Scripture.

Ed

 

[edkw55]

If I can add to this Jon - the book “Why-Catholic-Bibles-are-Bigger” by Gary Michuta. Its a more in depth look with many citations into everything you have been stating.

Peace be with you ED and thank you for having a truly open mind!

I am currently seeking out books written by the most renowned and highly regarded scholars and historians, both Catholic and Protestant, on the issue of the canon of Scripture and the Deuterocanonical books . I already ordered the book you mentioned above.

Peace be with you as well.

Ed

 

[edkw55]

To this I say

Ed,

God’s followers, those early Christians who discerned what writings were inspired and inerrant were Catholic Bishops. They discerned seventy three books to be sacred scripture at the Council of Rome in 382 and then at the Synod’s of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397. The below list is from the Council of Rome:

“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.” Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382).

God willed that there be seventy three books in the bible.

Unfortunately, some 1,200 years later, 7 books have been removed from protestant bibles.

This is against God’s will … and against the apostolic faith handed down from Christ to the apostles. Even the original King James Bible of 1611 had all 73 books.

PnP

I need to do a lot of research on this issue in order to make any kind of reasonable decision about this or even open my mouth at all to comment.

Ed

 

[edkw55]

This link might help you Ed

It has within it a list of at least 5 early church lists of the canon that show it with the 73 books.

catholic.com/quickquestions/didnt-the-catholic-church-add-to-the-bible

I also found this video extremely informative and I crossed checked a lot if it.

youtu.be/PjvXbotd9Lw

I read the article you mentioned a while back and watched the video yesterday. The video was thought provoking but I need to do a lot of research, from both the Catholic and Protestant perspective before making up my mind on this one.

Ed

 

[edkw55]

I think so. I am thinking of how Luther was also “cornered” into a tough position where a decision was to be made and he could not forfeit his differing convictions that he claims were founded on scripture…Good call Ed.

Hi benhur,
I’m glad I didn’t misrepresent what you intended to say. Your key words above, “founded on Scripture”, that’s my stand as well.

Ed

 

[edkw55]

Your position seems to be that you should obey Jesus and follow the Church HE established so long as that Church agrees with you.

Be sure to tell Jesus that when you meet him. :crying:

Seems I could say the same concerning your position.

 

[edkw55]

The question was how was his answer in post #95 different than the mormon claims?

Are you seriously comparing Protestantism with Mormonism?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Are you seriously comparing Protestantism with Mormonism?

The authority similarity I believe exists and that’s the point of the question.

I could also say why the baptist interpretation of scripture is better than the JHW for example.

The closest I can get to an answer is along the lines of Alistair McGrath saying "the truth is in the consensus of Protestantism.

But that’s a bit of a stretch since it ignore the opinions of Catholics and Orthodox (because they already have the consensus if included) and it is very unbiblical to say the truth is by majority rules. Further it would really limit the truth to sola Scriptura and sola Fide as the rest is too hotly debated. But even those two terms mean different things to different people so the whole thing breaks down.

 

[edkw55]

I think Ed is realizing he cannot answer this question because of a lack of knowledge of the development of the New Testament, yes Ed?

Yes! (disregarding the Protestantism/Mormonism comment of coarse)

 

[edkw55]

So, based on this, are you willing to admit that it is possible that Jesus did want a visible church, not an invisible church? That He would use the Catholic Church as the home for that visible church for all these centuries? That when it strayed, He would bring individuals to re-direct it back to th correct path?

I admit that what you say is reasonable and possible (both historically and Biblically) but I’m a long way from accepting that this is true.

Ed

 

[edkw55]

May the peace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you on your journey. Take your time, pace yourself, pray, and allow the Holy Spirit to do His work and allow yourself to be filled with peace and joy.

Thank you so much!

 

[edkw55]

Ben,

My wife, “Pie”, is a convert to Catholicism. She went through RCIA 1 1/2 times. The first time, she went so far as to meet the bishop a couple of weeks prior to Easter and decided that she was not ready. She then … out of the blue … decided that she wanted to convert a couple of years later while we were living in another state. That was over twenty years ago and today she is a rock solid Catholic.

Couple of quick points:

• Catholicism only adds to your current faith tradition.
• conversion is a journey … the Church will be here when you are ready. It’s not going anyplace after 2,000 years
• continue asking questions and pray for the Spirit to guide you.

As a personal testimony, there is nothing better than knowing that Christ established His Church and the seven sacraments as the means of giving us his grace for our salvation. There is nothing better in this world than receiving him: body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.

St Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr speak of this Eucharist, consistent with John 6… and not of some symbolic meal.“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

PnP

I appreciate your words, especially about your wife…not saying I’ll ever make it across the Tiber.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I admit that what you say is reasonable and possible (both historically and Biblically) but I’m a long way from accepting that this is true.

Ed

I think as you discern you should keep these words from Protestant Carl Trueman in your head. He is dead right.

"“Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day.”

-Carl Trueman, professor at Westminster Theological Seminary

So you really should start at Cstholicism and then say I am protesting x y and z. And have solid indisputable reasons for x y and z.

 

[edkw55]

The authority similarity I believe exists and that’s the point of the question.

I could also say why the baptist interpretation of scripture is better than the JHW for example.

The closest I can get to an answer is along the lines of Alistair McGrath saying "the truth is in the consensus of Protestantism.

But that’s a bit of a stretch since it ignore the opinions of Catholics and Orthodox (because they already have the consensus if included) and it is very unbiblical to say the truth is by majority rules. Further it would really limit the truth to sola Scriptura and sola Fide as the rest is too hotly debated. But even those two terms mean different things to different people so the whole thing breaks down.

kinda like magisterium or better still majority of one(Papal Infallibility)/

 

[Jon_S_1]

kinda like magisterium or better still majority of one(Papal Infallibility)/

No that’s really totally different.

The whole reason for McGrath’s argument is that there is no Magesterium or ability to define concise doctrine in Protestantism.