No, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say that membership in the Church automatically guarantees salvation; only that membership, rather than communion, is what is beneficial to salvation.
I apologize, but I don’t quite get what you’re saying here. Could you explain further, using more concise language?
Quoting from Scripture does not prove SS.
They did not have a canon. If so, tell me when,where and under WHOSE authority? Which group authorized it? Essenes? Pharisees? Who?
Silly? Indeed…silly to believe the Apostles had a formal canon and taught,believed and defended SS. Speaking of making up events and bogus history.
U-huh…yet it took how many centuries to canonize the Bible? Apparently SS did exclude the NT-didn’t it?
I would like to point out that during the council of Jerusalem, if they were using Scripture to back up they were stating then gentile would have had to been circumcised, which was not the case since there was no New Testament in place at that time. Moreover, there was no official canon of the Old Testament due to disputes as to what was Scripture and what was not considered Scripture among the Jewish religious leaders and rabbis, scribes, Pharisees and the Sadducees, so SS was not used, but what Jesus had taught them in which Peter referred to when he spoke.Moreover, even they quoted from Scripture, it is completely absurd to believe the were advocates of SS. How could SS even be true, if the NT was not even written when the council occured at Jerusalem? SS includes the current Bible and there was not official canon in 1st century Palestine.
Hi Nices325: I have to agree with your statement since even if the Apostles quoted Scripture it would not be SS since the Apostles were relying on what they were taught by Jesus Himself and there was no New Testament that was written down. As a matter of fact there were only Paul’s letters which were maybe two or so and the Gospels were not yet or had not been written when the council met in Jerusalem to discuss the question of whether or not the gentiles were to be circumcised under Mosaic law which when reads the text carefully one sees that the Pharisees that had converted felt that Gentiles had to be circumcised according to Mosaic law that they as found in the scroll of Genesis said all Jews were to be circumcised. The only reference to Scripture were from James concerning dietary laws but does not quote any particular text of Scripture but only that all of the prophets agreed with it.
Exactly! If the Apostles were practicing Sola Scriptura and SS ONLY, then why didn’t they say all gentiles MUST be circumcised? SS advocates are always exclaiming:
Don’t think your statement contradicts dominus… But not sure but I think you mix Dominus with another CC statement found elsewhere dealing with the topic of “ignorance” .The post following it I alluded to that. Not sure, but Dominus does not deal with the “ignorance vs non-ignorance” on Catholic historicity does it ? Is that not a dialogue from another source?
Don’t want to do that but you wrote "Membership is what saves ". Words have meanings.
Agreed, you didn’t nor did i say that you meant that. Understand CC gives no guarantees except that membership in Her(historicity) is guaranteed to be right.
That doesn’t sound any better.
Agreed a bit in need of explanation. It is like what is more important, to be a “member” of the correct historical church or to be and do the things a member is supposed to do and be ? A bit like judge by their fruits.(Stupid is as stupid does)… We all agree circumcision was OT sign of historically correct membership, yet St. Paul says true historical correctness was circumcised in the heart above the outward membership thru circumcision of flesh…Further, emphasizing just what saves reveals one’s gospel. For instance they had Judaizers insisting on circumcision membership in early church, rather than the inward working of the Holy Ghost apart and before any work/rite. So what is our emphasis ? Membership in the correct historical church as in “membership is what saves” or communion, reconciliation thru Calvary, placing us in the Body, the Church ? Again the emphasis.
Understand the Jews did not canonize till 1st century late. So Jesus never quoted scripture ? Does Holy Writ have to be canonized to be Holy Writ ? When St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians it was not Holy Writ till end of 3rd century and canonization ? I thought it was “Holy” as soon as the Spirit put it to man who put it to pen. Recognizing it as such, or not, does not make it or not make it God breathed. But I would also add that it is also God’s gift to recognize it “Holy”
No one is denying inspiration. It was canonized for that precise reason because it was through God’s Church (Catholic./Orthodox) via its bishops who determined which scriptures were of divine origin or not. And how did they know? Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If the canon you accept was not there until the late first century and it was done by jews who by all accounts lost their authority with the destruction of temple and the revelation of Jesus Christ, why do you trust their canon?
So was the OT inspired and authoritative at the time it was received, and even at the time of our Lord ?
Understand the “final” canonization . But did not the holy Spirit guide their reception way before then ? Also are you saying it was the bishop of Corinth or the bishop of Galatia or the bishop of Ephesus orthe bishop of Philipi that decided upon arrival of St. Paul’s letters that they were “Holy”, as above the entire "city’ church to whom the letter was addressed ?
Is it either or ? Is it not about the correct historical church ? No, I like your emphasis. It is about a personal Jesus. Christianity is above Lutheranicity or Catholicity etc.
Don’t get this. I thought Judaism was about Jehovah and the coming Messiah and their (our) Holy Writ and Islam about Allah and his prophet Mohammed as described in the Quran.
Why did Jesus quote from it ? So Judaism lost authority over their own history ? Don’t think the first century canonizers did any differently than they would have a century earlier. It is the difference of thinking about it for 400 years vs 500 years. …Anyways canonization does not make it there, and lack of it does not make it “not there” as you wrote. There is also something I would call call an informal acceptance without a centralized mechanism, perhaps lest anyone should be tempted to “boast”. Judaism did fine without canonization and perfectly delivered the Messiah to the world as foretold. Christianity did fine for 3-4 hundred years before canonization and for 1500 years before final canonization of entire bible. Any problems were inconsequential to canonization.
No one called me - gifted me with the notion of starting my own church and calling my church the church established by Jesus. Jesus founded just one church (I will build my church - singular) and that is where the laying on of hands would take place - where we see ordained presbyters/bishops, going all the way back to Jesus.
Sorry Jose ,I did’nt realise you have been drawn into the debate on SS so much already on this thread : I noticed you have commented considerably on this matter ,which is indeed outside of the thread subject; and you must have been under some pressure on account of this.
Exactly. The Apostles were quoting from Apostolic Tradition.
Why can’t he just call on his congregation to lay hands on him?
