The Origin of the Bible

[CWBetts]

When was the first dogmatic statement regarding the canon of the OT for your church?

Take time to read my posts. Dogmatic statements do not tend to be made until necessary. They dogmatic statement was unnecessary before the Reformation. It was the spread of heresies by Luther, Calvin, and their ilk that made the DOgmatic statement necessary.

 

[SemperReformada]

Take time to read my posts. Dogmatic statements do not tend to be made until necessary. They dogmatic statement was unnecessary before the Reformation. It was the spread of heresies by Luther, Calvin, and their ilk that made the DOgmatic statement necessary.

From what you say above you agree that Trent was the first dogmatic statement on the canon of the OT? Is this correct?

 

[josie_L]

From what you say above you agree that Trent was the first dogmatic statement on the canon of the OT? Is this correct?

This was the first and last dogmatic statement of something that had been affirmed over and over again in the history of the Church. What is your point and what is your position concerning the deuterocanonicals? God bless.

p.s. No one henceforth can ever argue against the deuterocanonicals.

 

[JonNC]

=josie L;5561234]This was the first and last dogmatic statement of something that had been affirmed over and over again in the history of the Church. What is your point

Josie,
The point is that you are correct. While the Church, prior to Trent, can be said to have affirmed the canon, individuals were permitted to discuss, debate, agree with and not agree with this affirmed position. Accordingly, Luther’s positions on the canon were not heresy.

p.s. No one henceforth can ever argue against the deuterocanonicals.

More correctly, no Catholic can argue against them. But the key word is henceforth, IOW, from Trent on. The charge of heresy against Luther cannot be made because of his view of the canon. Why? Because he was already dead when Trent dogmatically defined it.

Jon

 

[CWBetts]

From what you say above you agree that Trent was the first dogmatic statement on the canon of the OT? Is this correct?

I am saying that it needed to be dogmatically decreed because others were trying to alter the canon.

 

[ufamtobie]

QUOTE=StrawberryJam;5523047]And, absolutely none of the answers you get here will prove the christian God is the correct God to worship

.

Strawberry Jam,

Then what are you doing here? Is it out of jealousy that you are here, because we Christians believe in a Christian God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and by God’s Grace we look forward to a heavnely place to go to, after our lives here on earth is over, Vs. You, when you die have only the worms. If I were you, I would be jealous to. lol

But then again, I am glad you are here because obviously you being Jealous of the Christians, the Christian God, will use that sinful jealousy of yours, to make you a Christian and perhaps a far better Christian than anyone of us here, I would love to witness that.

Do you really think that you are here on your own accord? No! God is aready using your Jealousy, to make you into a Christian.

Ufam Tobie

 

[geekborj]

The Bible clearly says that the writers of scripture were inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit as I have noted in my OP.

Where in scripture does is say that the Church has the promise of the Holy Spirit to alway interpret scripture infallibly?

1 Tim 3:15 “… the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

If the Holy Spirit works through the Church, then the Church is given the graces to become “the pillar and foundation of truth.” Being the pillar and foundation, does that mean it is not infallible in terms of faith and morals?

 

[geekborj]

In Christ we are one. We cannot be one with those that insist that all submit to man made traditions and doctrines.

Christ is exactly the one making the Church ONE both in Body and Spirit – the Eucharist. “In Christ we are one.” This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[geekborj]

I will disagree with this. It is clear from history that the OT was accepted long before the RCC got involved, further the NT was what we have now long before Trent came along. Indeed it can be found throughout the early Church much of the NT as it stands today, the idea that God needs man to preserve His Holy Word is quite absurd.

Those books you speak were rejected by many before Luther was on the seen even Jerome had reservations about the Apocrypha, if internet Catholics stop insisting falsely that their church is responsible for everything then maybe we can all get along. The biggest problem is armchair catholics apologist who refuse to study and just think their church did it all.

Catholics believe that having Jerome (or any single or prominent Doctor of the Church) rejects a book, it has to be rejected by the whole Church. Even Jerome wanted to subject himself to the Church. The true Man subjects himself to authorities. Aligning one’s will to the will of the Father does not diminish his/her fee will nor his/her rational decisions.

While there are indeed “armchair catholic apologist,” the same is true that there are “armchair protestant apologist” who refuse to study deeply how Luther and his minions argued against the Church as opposed to the manner how Jerome and the Doctors of the Church behaved.

 

[geekborj]

Here is a good article about the canon answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/look-at-the-canon even has a chart

Look, the table in the above article seems to lie about some things:

1. Jesus or the NT not using the deuterocanonical books? scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
2. “A hypothetical 1st century council” (of “Jamnia”) as fact?
3. Josephus listing any books?
4. Melitus canon composing of ONLY the Protestant canon? See here.
5. Council of Laodicea rejects most of Apocrypha except one? Is the book of Revelations to St. John in Patmos one of the Apocrypha? The Book of Revelation is omitted in the list.

Indeed, it is only through the Holy Spirit (and He is working through the Church) that we can know “all things” as quoted in the above link.
John 14:26
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
What was highlighted was “bring to your remembrance all that [Jesus] said to them” and conveniently forgot the first clause of AND.

Can’t the Church speak today with authority just as the Church did before? How can the Holy Spirit diminish in the Church when Christ himself told us that he will be with us until the end of times and that he will be sending his spirit so that we will not be orphans?

 

[geekborj]

No, you see you want the authority of men so much that you will take their word as if it is infallible placing them on the same plain as God. Christians follow God, not someone in an ivory tower who presumes God’s power

Wait, what authority did Jesus gave to men?
Jn 20:21 “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
How was Jesus sent by the Father? By what authority?

 

[Hisalone]

I am saying that it needed to be dogmatically decreed because others were trying to alter the canon.

The Catholic Cannon was not closed until Trent. This cannon was unsettled from Jerome onwards, many Catholcis did not see the Apocrypha as cannon.

Lo and behold my public library has the print edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia McGraw Hill 1967 Vol 2 p390

“The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of OT cannon.
**That this had not been done previously ****is apparent **from the uncertainity that persisted up to the time of Trent”

 

[CWBetts]

The Catholic Cannon was not closed until Trent. This cannon was unsettled from Jerome onwards, many Catholcis did not see the Apocrypha as cannon.

Lo and behold my public library has the print edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia McGraw Hill 1967 Vol 2 p390

“The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of OT cannon.
**That this had not been done previously ****is apparent **from the uncertainity that persisted up to the time of Trent”

This does NOT mean the the Church “added books” at Trent. All this means that the confusion was settled once and for all, and any arguments among Catholics anyways, were brought to an end. And if you would actually READ the documents from Trent, you would see that the Canon was “reaffirmed”. To remind you, the prefix “re-” means “again”, so the Canon was affirmed again from the synods that had named the Canonical books, namely Hippo and Carthage in the west, and Constantinople in the east. Why don’t you just give up on this ludicrous claim that the Church “added” books in the 16th century. It is simply not true.

 

[Hisalone]

This does NOT mean the the Church “added books” at Trent. All this means that the confusion was settled once and for all, and any arguments among Catholics anyways, were brought to an end. And if you would actually READ the documents from Trent, you would see that the Canon was “reaffirmed”. To remind you, the prefix “re-” means “again”, so the Canon was affirmed again from the synods that had named the Canonical books, namely Hippo and Carthage in the west, and Constantinople in the east. Why don’t you just give up on this ludicrous claim that the Church “added” books in the 16th century. It is simply not true.

There can be no reafirmation when it has never been universally affirmed in the first place.
What is plain and clear is that Catholics have attempted to re-engineer their postition on the cannon so as to appear they were consistant all along when in fact they were not.

 

[CWBetts]

There can be no reafirmation when it has never been universally affirmed in the first place.
What is plain and clear is that Catholics have attempted to re-engineer their postition on the cannon so as to appear they were consistant all along when in fact they were not.

:sigh: I guess this discussion is over. You had your mind made up before it was started. Come to think of it, that is how you always come across. You seem to be on some kind of mission to prove the One True Church wrong…

 

[Bill_Pick]

:sigh: I guess this discussion is over. You had your mind made up before it was started. Come to think of it, that is how you always come across. You seem to be on some kind of mission to prove the One True Church wrong…

looks like we have the gosple according to Hisalone

 

[Hisalone]

:sigh: I guess this discussion is over. You had your mind made up before it was started. Come to think of it, that is how you always come across. You seem to be on some kind of mission to prove the One True Church wrong…

There is no issue so obvious as the cannon where Catholics have attempted to re write history. You falsely believe your Church cannot err. It has as will continue to err.

 

[Bill_Pick]

There is no issue so obvious as the cannon where Catholics have attempted to re write history. You falsely believe your Church cannot err. It
.

Well it looks like Hisalone is he own pope The Scriptuea according to Hisalone,His Church can err but Hisalone can,t whats wrong with this picture…Lets all pray for our new Pope,His is what is.,
God forbid me

 

[Detales]

As a Catholic by definition and by experience, I’m wading in in support of Hisalone on this one. The entire investment of the Church is in the illusion of consistency and originality of doctrine. In fact, all you have to do is read even the fathers of the church on this one. The Catholic church is neither original since even Trent nor consistent since the time Jesus alleged ministry.

I’m not saying He wasn’t, or didn’t, but that what the church has to say in the matter is constructed and conjectural. Even Eusebius admitted that his history omitted everything harmful to the church and embellished everything that made its leaders look good.

This is why I have come to the conclusion that the church is in fact materialistic in nature and origin, an that it and its members simply have a dramatic stake in not admitting the actual origins ans history of the church. As we well know, all of the elements of the Jesus story have been around in pretty much that form since 3000 years before He walked the Earth.

Incarnation, the passion, death, and resurrection, are all real and tangible dynamics. But not as the church describes them. Those descriptions have wandered from the Way of Truth and have become effective prophylactics, as evident by the not only the unwillingness, but the habitual inability of the church or its members, to look at themselves dispassionately.

Such an examination may be exceptionally uncomfortable and disturbing, as it was for me. Nevertheless, it is good advice to use what God gave you between your ears and look critically at how humans acquire and sustain belief systems, including in this case, the posture of Catholicism. Such an examination will do absolutely nothing to change God or The Son as they actually, in Fact, are. CS Lewis’ dictum about prayer might well apply here: “I pray not to change God, but to change myself.” We might do well, all of us, to follow that dictum as to discovering our Real relationship with Deity and see through the structures of the church, even if we wish to continue to partake in them, which is fine, of course. The point is to be Awake, not to be dogmatically correct. It may be the differences between Life and death. Life? Or dogma? Hmmmm…

 

[CWBetts]

As a Catholic by definition and by experience, I’m wading in in support of Hisalone on this one. The entire investment of the Church is in the illusion of consistency and originality of doctrine. In fact, all you have to do is read even the fathers of the church on this one. The Catholic church is neither original since even Trent nor consistent since the time Jesus alleged ministry.

I’m not saying He wasn’t, or didn’t, but that what the church has to say in the matter is constructed and conjectural. Even Eusebius admitted that his history omitted everything harmful to the church and embellished everything that made its leaders look good.

This is why I have come to the conclusion that the church is in fact materialistic in nature and origin, an that it and its members simply have a dramatic stake in not admitting the actual origins ans history of the church. As we well know, all of the elements of the Jesus story have been around in pretty much that form since 3000 years before He walked the Earth.

Incarnation, the passion, death, and resurrection, are all real and tangible dynamics. But not as the church describes them. Those descriptions have wandered from the Way of Truth and have become effective prophylactics, as evident by the not only the unwillingness, but the habitual inability of the church or its members, to look at themselves dispassionately.

Such an examination may be exceptionally uncomfortable and disturbing, as it was for me. Nevertheless, it is good advice to use what God gave you between your ears and look critically at how humans acquire and sustain belief systems, including in this case, the posture of Catholicism. Such an examination will do absolutely nothing to change God or The Son as they actually, in Fact, are. CS Lewis’ dictum about prayer might well apply here: “I pray not to change God, but to change myself.” We might do well, all of us, to follow that dictum as to discovering our Real relationship with Deity and see through the structures of the church, even if we wish to continue to partake in them, which is fine, of course. The point is to be Awake, not to be dogmatically correct. It may be the differences between Life and death. Life? Or dogma? Hmmmm…

Oh dear, we seem to have another self-appointed pope.