The Origin of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sword_Brethren said:
Parts of it. Some reason I was thinking of the The New Testament canon not OT. The sources I quoted were dealing with the New Testament Canon.
Click to expand...
No problem. I read your post and was thinking OT canon.

By chance, have you listened to the White vs Michuta debate on the OT canon?
 
MercyMia said:
Uh… I wasn’t obscuring the point I was merely addressing another poster’s unease with the tone of this thread.
You simply cannot argue your way around the fact that the Catholic Church chose the books of the New Testament and you are using those books to this very day. I know that is a tough truth to swallow because it leaves very little room for your “non-denominational” denomination to have any authority. IF the Catholic Church was wrong about some books, what makes you trust that we are not wrong about all of the New Testament books and thus you are following our false gospel Hmm? The holy spirit doesn’t make errors - and if he guided the Church to choose the right books for the NT I say thats pretty solid proof we are the one true Church. For you to disagree renders your belief in bible alone useless, since it is our bible that you follow. May I ask then name of your non- denominational church and the year it was founded. And if you say 33AD, pleae provide historical documentation of your non-denominationl church being referred to anywhere. Also, if your Church is the TRUE church - why did God not entrust you with his bible? Why did he leave you to rely on the books of the bible chosen by the “anti-Christ” church as you call it? Why did he leave you to have to rely on the King’s James Version of his word, which is a translation of a translation that came 1500 years after Christ?
Click to expand...
So I was 100% correct, you want to know peoples affiliation so you can pigeon hole them.
The congregation, assembly Jesus started was not the Roman Catholic Church. Christ Church had no denomination is still does not. You mistakinly claim your authority from scriptures yet you in turn say your authority superceeds scripture. Even Augustine wrote that all doctrine is to be from scripture not tradition, yet you claim you are the same “church” as he, not so. The concept of Sola Scriptura did not come from a vacum it came at a period of time that the Roman Catholic Church was abusive, corrupt and apostate. Bring the Church of God back to the doctrines of the bible was a work of God.
Christs Church is made up of all believers who are in his body. They can be CAtholic and they can be nonCatholic. It is your concept of Church that is in serious error.
 
CWBetts said:
So what you are telling me is that Sola Scripura can’t really be found in the Bible? If that is thae case, then how can you adhere to the doctrine, bing non-Scriptural?
Click to expand...
right on ,the doctrine of SS is not taugh anywhere in the Bible. Christ Tell Us to submit to the Authority on the Church.
 
CWBetts said:
Just so you know, you have been reported for your vitrol directed at the Church
Click to expand...
So he is not free to express his opinion?
I happen to believe that JWs and Mormons are not part of the Body of Christ. Does that mean I have agnst against them? Of course not.
 
Bill_Pick said:
right on ,the doctrine of SS is not taugh anywhere in the Bible. Christ Tell Us to submit to the Authority on the Church.
Click to expand...
You mistakenly claim your authority is from the bible then you claim that your authority superceeds the bible.
 
Sword_Brethren said:
Please, explain this to me more.
Click to expand...
Sure.

The LXX (septuagint) was/is the Greek translation of the OT. The only manuscripts we have available to us of the septuagint are all Christian manuscripts and date back no earlier than the 4th century. I believe the manuscripts are the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and the Sainaticus. I may have butchered the spelling but am sure you could google septuagint + vaticanus and come up with the information.

Anyway, the previously mentioned manuscripts all contain different collections of books. I forget which manuscript contains which books but for example one manuscript may contain 3rd and 4th Maccabees while another may omit the 1-4 Maccabees altogether (Vaticanus?). While it’s true that none of the manuscripts match the protestant OT it is also true that none of the manuscripts match the Catholic OT either.

When someone refers to the LXX one needs to know what manuscript they are referring to so as to know which books that particular manuscript contains. Because of this one can’t equate the LXX with the deuterocanonicals.
 
Hisalone said:
You mistakenly claim your authority is from the bible then you claim that your authority superceeds the bible.
Click to expand...
Your the guy said said you are smart, when you know the meaning of Sola Scriptura get back and maybe we can talk
 
Hisalone said:
So he is not free to express his opinion?
I happen to believe that JWs and Mormons are not part of the Body of Christ. Does that mean I have agnst against them? Of course not.
Click to expand...
If you would read the Froum Rules, insults such as these are a clear violation.
 
Hisalone said:
So I was 100% correct, you want to know peoples affiliation so you can pigeon hole them.
The congregation, assembly Jesus started was not the Roman Catholic Church. Christ Church had no denomination is still does not. You mistakinly claim your authority from scriptures yet you in turn say your authority superceeds scripture. Even Augustine wrote that all doctrine is to be from scripture not tradition, yet you claim you are the same “church” as he, not so. The concept of Sola Scriptura did not come from a vacum it came at a period of time that the Roman Catholic Church was abusive, corrupt and apostate. Bring the Church of God back to the doctrines of the bible was a work of God.
Christs Church is made up of all believers who are in his body. They can be CAtholic and they can be nonCatholic. It is your concept of Church that is in serious error.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The congrgation strted by Christ had a priesthood. St. Peter had a primacy above the others. The theology of the Apostles and first century Christians was Catholic in nature, and in the early second century was well-known as “Catholic”, as evidenced by St. Ignatius of Antioc’s letter to the Church in Smyrna. If you read the early Church Fathers, you will see that their theology was very Catholic. If you have any historical evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it. But for you to say that the CHurch started by CHrist was not what would become the Catholic CHurch on your say-so, without any evidence whatsoever, well lets just say that I am dininclined to grant your claims any credence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top