The Real Presence

[david_ruiz]

Begging the question. The Jews understood correctly just what Jesus was saying, hence their incredulousness. He gave no correction. So what He said is how He meant it.

Right for they were unbelievers .But why not an explanation to his beloved ,believing apostles ,not one clarification , as other times he does ?

This shows just how inconsistent your logic is.

This shows just how inconsistent your logic is.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Why didn’t jesus quote from the “secondary ,uninspired books” of the septuaguint ?

Where in the Bible does it say that it is the exhaustive report of everything that Jesus quoted from the OT?

It does not follow that because Jesus nor Paul quoted from them dozens of times that they weren’t believed to be Scripture. The Septuagint was the collection of books used by Greek speaking Jews throughout the Empire. Early converts to Christianity in the Empire were Greek speaking Jews, so they used the Septuagint.
david ruiz:

Who does the will of the father ,the one who says he won’t and mutters ,yet does it ,or the one who is courteous and respectful ,but doesn’t do it ? Luther did it ,included them.

Only after the long insistence of other protestants. And even afterwards he still insisted that he was right and that the books were not canonical.
david ruiz:

Paul; says nothing like your statement .What part of nothing is something ? (as in nothing good in me)

You’re ripping that right out of its context. You forgot to finish the verse.
Rom 7:
[16] Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
[17] So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
[18] For I know that nothing good dwells within me,** that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. **
[19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
[20] Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
[21] So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
[22] For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
[23] but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.

Again, woundedness, not reprobation.

This passage is about having patience and waiting on God and His grace instead of relying on your own power to fight sin.

Let’s try and keep scripture in its context, please?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Right for they were unbelievers .But why not an explanation to his beloved ,believing apostles ,not one clarification , as other times he does ?

You don’t want “reasoning and faith”, you want “beyond any reasonable doubt.” You have been given plenty of reasons.

And you have still avoided answering my question.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

well, it has been asked with a good bit of frequency (and often with the tone of, how could you be such a spiritual idiot so as to not believe in the real bodily presence)…but for a fellow Canuck I’ll be happy to respond. My reasons are:

a) I don’t think it is a teaching that goes back to the apostles (and therefore, obviously not back to Christ)…if you are interested I’ll be happy to provide the Titles of some scholarly works that support my position;

b) the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine…no scholarly works needed in support of this position as any one with the senses of sight, touch, smell/or and taste can easily verify the matter and I find the philosophy used to support the inconsistency (between what is observed and what is claimed) to be more than seriously lacking; and

c) the efforts to support the claim of a real bodily presence from scripture (IMHO) are flawed and do not overcome the obvious fact that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he likely said (probably in Aramaic), “This - my body”

If this thread takes the normal course, a number of conservative Catholics will:

a) post a bunch of snippets from the ECFs in response to #1 above…typically with no accompanying analysis and as if the scholars that I can marshall in support of my view somehow forgot to read those snippets;

b) claim that I am calling Jesus a liar for not disbelieving my eyes and believing “is” means “is” or claim that I must be saying that God isn’t powerful enough to make bread into his body whilst still leaving the “accidents” of the bread in place; and/or

c) claim that various passages (the 3 institution passages, John 6 and 1 Cor 10 and 11) must be interpreted to verify a real bodily presence even though extremely learned scholars do not agree with that assertion.

That said, if you want to undertsand why I believe what I believe, I am happy to answer your questions

• (1) Jesus Christ said at the Last Supper that the bread/wine HE consecrated (“Blessed”, etc) Is the Actual Body, the actual Blood of His Essence. The Church teaches it is Christ Himself who performs All the Sacraments, including Consecration, Through his Apostolic Powers Priest.
• (2) NOWHERE does Christ or anyone say it is Symbolic.
• (3) The Early Church Fathers, the Apostles All said/wrote the Consecrated Bread/Wine are His Real Presence. None of them, nor Christ Ever said it is Symbolic.
• (4) The Catholic Church, first Chruistians in, have Always said it Is His Real Boby, Real Blood Presene; none of them said Symbolic.
• (5) There are numerous Eucharistic Miracles of Consecrated Hosts dropped or Stolen: Changed to Actual Flesh/Blood. Impossible Scientific Miracles. Several key Books and EWTN TV Video Programs on them. Please search Eucharitic Miracles online or EWTN.
• (6) Only None-Catholic writers/theologians try to Write or Justify “Symbolic”, but none can answer scrutiny, nor real questions, or offer Any Proof.
  
  The Church teaches No one should be shown disrespect; But wrong Ideas can easily be corrected, shown where/how wrong. Peace of The Lord, Friend. :bible1:

 

[Jack_Bauer]

/QUOTE"]I think we can confidently say that despite some disagreements, they (ECF’s) viewed the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ."-benedictus
“Not if you are talking about the first hundred years .” -dave’s response -page 47…shall we start all over …I have read upto abvout 130 a.d of ECF’s .Not much if anything showing RP When RP was more manifest, not sure ,except most agree it was there toward 3-4 c for sure…Am not saying a word on the second hundred years .Have not read it. Got it .That is ALL i am saying .Stop putting words where they are not.

The problem with your statement about the ACF not believing the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ is detrimental to your arguments. Making such a claim eludes to the possibility that either you or I are ignorant of the facts or hiding from the truth. I have studied scripture for decades in depth from a bible only perspective and have come to the conclusion that Protestants really don’t know the bible that well. If they did they’d see the obvious teachings that exist within the pages and show the Catholic Orthodoxy was the real deal.

I understand that someone can be confused, as I was once was confused. I was a fundamentalist for about 2 decades, and that doesn’t include being a non-practicing Protestant in my youth, even though dad had me baptized against mom’s will. Since the beginning of my bible studies, the scriptures brought up more questions than were answerable by the so called bible college educated in our community of Christians. It was obvious to me that some of what they taught was in no way accurate at all and made no sense in light of the many translations on the same textual subject. The sacraments are all there. It’s just that if you read over it without an understanding about the culture of the people of the time you could easily miss it. But the more i studied the more I became disturbed…disturbed that maybe I had made a grave error in judgement by leaving Catholicism. I say Catholicism, meaning One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (which to me means Orthodoxy and Catholicism in communion with each other and indistinguishable).

My “bible educated” church leaders and teachers didn’t know about the ACF in enough depth to know the things they actually taught. They were afraid to read anything outside the bible for evidence of the truth in history - just as I was. It took me 18 years to actually find something and to become motivated enough to think of it as an interesting thing to do so that I could say I read it too and didn’t see any kind of Catholic belief there. My assumptions were all wrong. St. Ignatius wrote the following to the Smyrnaeans in about 107 A.D. according to several different sources:

VI. Let no man be deceived. Even the heavenly powers and the glory of the angels and the principalities both visible and invisible,[1] except they believe in the blood of Christ [Who is God],[2] have a judgment awaiting them. * Let him that receiveth receive*[3] Let not office puff up any man. For faith and love are everything, and there is nothing better than these. Mark those who hold strange doctrine with regard to the grace[4] of Jesus Christ, which came unto us,** how opposed they are to the mind of God**. They have no thought for love, nor for the widow,[5] the orphan, the afflicted, the prisoner,[6] the hungry nor the thirsty. They withhold themselves from Eucharist[7] and prayer, because they confess not[8] that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which in His loving-kindness the Father raised up.

 

[pablope]

Did answer, for the same reason Luther had them in his.

Well, David…you are showing your protestant inconsistency again…you stated previously that it was ok to remove the 7 books from the OT because of Luther’s opinion that disputed their being in the Bible. He had the same opinion about some NT books, so why are these in your Bible, if you are going to go by what Luther said?

In fact, he did have the 7 OT books in his Bible too, so why are these 7 books not in the protestant Bible today? And why are the NT books he disputed in the protestant NT?

Following your protestant logic, should not the 7 OT books removed by protestants be in the Bible today because Luther had them in his?

And following your other logic, if as you say the NT books Luther disputed should be in the NT because Luther had them, why are the OT books Luther disputed not in the protestant OT if Luther had them in his Bible?

Think about it, David.

 

[pablope]

. Could you please tell me what bibles do not have 27 nt books (or at least thier content-that is not combining books) ? I thought I know our two bibles differ slightly in books, so we are up to two bibles .

Where are the other 29998 ?

This would be the result of your advocacy, your statement in a previous post if it was up to everyone to determine what should be in the Bible. 1 Catholic bible and 29999 different protestant versions.

Again let’s be genuine please ,Luther said nothing that many early and contemporary fathers said.

David, you may have missed something I previously stated. I stated Luther’s actions regarding the canonicity of certain books of the Bible should stand on their own. Judge Luther for Luther’s actions, and not justify it for what catholics before him said.

As I also said previously, when CC councils, starting in AD382, came with a definite list of books, to be read in the Church, there were no disputes regarding the inclusion of certain books. It was so till Luther started tinkering with the canon in the 1500s.

He included the 27 as did all the others. However ,some of the books were "disputed " by some since day 1 .All the others were not disputed by anyone .It was totally ok to “dispute” the authenticity /authorship of a letter .

For discussion, yes, but when the CC, though a council and starting with the proclamation of the canon by Pope Damasus in 382, there was no dispute from Catholics.

Again, it was only the protestants who brought up this issue again in the 1500s starting with Luther.

There were forgeries and spuroius books the early churches had to sift thru .So please , Jerome and others said similar things about some of these books in their prefaces to the books ,as do bibles of today.

So what? These are historical facts for everyone to study and learn.

David, Pope Damasus commissioned jerome to come up with the Latin translation, that would eventually be called the Latin Vulgate, after the Council of Rome, AD382.

Eusebius attests to this also.He speaks of 4 classes of writings: 1- the universally accepted,2-the disputed-James ,2 peter, jude 2,3, john, 3-spurious-acts of Paul ,didache,S of hermas, 4- forgeries by heretics-gospel of peter ,thomas ,mattias,acts of andrew and john.Please notice they (1 and 2 ) are included, however as Holy Writ …

The epistle of Clement of Rome was also considered as canonical.

Some are more obvious than others .The 27 are a consensus ,but not always unanimous.

Prior to AD382, there was no consensus. Several bishops had different and varying opinions. But after AD 382, there was no dispute as to what was to be in the Bible to be read in the Church, not extract doctrine.

All Luther did was to give you his academic opinion ,like others did (Catholics),but left it open for other studies /opinions.If you knock Luther for his prefaces ,then you must also knock other catholic scholars /fathers who had similar opinions/prefaces(and for what?

There is a difference, David, between Luther and Catholics.

When the Pope issued the proclamation as to what should be in the OT and NT, there was no dissension from Catholics.

Luther, giving his opinion, rearranged the order of books, both OT and NT. In fact, in the disputed books, he did not give page numbers so that it would be hard to locate them.

So, my question to you…if it was just Luther’s opinion, why are the protestants missing 7 books from the original OT? And if you followed Luther’s opinion in removing 7 books from the OT, why do you not removed the books he disputed/opined as not canonical from the NT?

They all still would have them in the 27).Bash Luther for this and you bash Jerome.

See my response above.

According to Halleys bible commentary-Eusebius made fifty bibles for the churches of Constantinople (325 ?), by orders from Constantine-using the finest velum and skilled copyists.He had all our new testament books and no more.It is believed the Vatican still may have an original.Origen(185-254) quotes almost 2/3 's of NT in his extensive writings (like Lyrikal)and had the 27 books.The old latin version of the bible (160 ad ) had 24 books (not hebrews ,james, 2peter)

Better provide your sources, or start another thread. This thread is close to its limits. Did your source provide the NT canon of the Bibles Constantine commissioned?

If the Constantine Bible had the OT as catholics have them today, why does your Bible have a different OT canon?

I do not think Constantine had the whole 27 NT today. I am not sure Origen had them either.

.The old latin version of the bible (160 ad ) had 24 books (not hebrews ,james, 2peter

What Latin version in AD160? The first latin version, I think, was the Latin Vulgate, courtesy of St. Jerome, after AD382.

Be that as it may, when you get to study the development of the Canon, there were varying lists of what should be in the NT till AD382.

 

[GaryTaylor]

• (1) Jesus Christ said at the Last Supper that the bread/wine HE consecrated (“Blessed”, etc) Is the Actual Body, the actual Blood of His Essence. The Church teaches it is Christ Himself who performs All the Sacraments, including Consecration, Through his Apostolic Powers Priest.
• (2) NOWHERE does Christ or anyone say it is Symbolic.
• (3) The Early Church Fathers, the Apostles All said/wrote the Consecrated Bread/Wine are His Real Presence. None of them, nor Christ Ever said it is Symbolic.
• (4) The Catholic Church, first Chruistians in, have Always said it Is His Real Boby, Real Blood Presene; none of them said Symbolic.
• (5) There are numerous Eucharistic Miracles of Consecrated Hosts dropped or Stolen: Changed to Actual Flesh/Blood. Impossible Scientific Miracles. Several key Books and EWTN TV Video Programs on them. Please search Eucharitic Miracles online or EWTN.
• (6) Only None-Catholic writers/theologians try to Write or Justify “Symbolic”, but none can answer scrutiny, nor real questions, or offer Any Proof.
  
  The Church teaches No one should be shown disrespect; But wrong Ideas can easily be corrected, shown where/how wrong. Peace of The Lord, Friend. :bible1:

The symbolic equates only to the OT as I pointed out already in this thread through the OT in Exodus. However, that point is also misrepresented here. My point is that if the Jews did not “physically” eat the pure white lamb which is symbolic of Christ they could not have been saved. Its no different today, however the sacrifice is replaced with the sacrifice of Christ, then it again becomes a symbolic truth through Gods own words with the Bread and Wine.

How hard it this to see? The apostle John went through painstaken efforts to POUND this home. He did every thing but ran it up a flag and saluted it, and even that could be said as an affirmative symbolic statement.

Peace

 

[CopticChristian]

No he only read on the reformers and not the counter-reformation. That would appeal to the Radical side. I understand that.

Radical has had pregnancy and Breast Cancer. Radical is a she.

 

[Radical]

Radical has had pregnancy and Breast Cancer. Radical is a she.

a she!!! Not the last time that I checked…and as per my standard practice, I’ll believe what I see.

 

[CopticChristian]

a she!!! Not the last time that I checked…and as per my standard practice, I’ll believe what I see.

Then I shall ask for forgiveness as I inferred from your postings and was in error.

 

[david_ruiz]

Begging the question. The Jews understood correctly just what Jesus was saying, hence their incredulousness. He gave no correction. So what He said is how He meant it.

 

[david_ruiz]

Where in the Bible does it say that it is the exhaustive report of everything that Jesus quoted from the OT?

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8339814:

You need to re-read John 6.

He was speaking to BOTH His disciples AND the Jews. And to neither did He give any clarification.

You’re assertion is that He gave no clarification so therefore He must be speaking symbolically. That flies in the face of the basic rules of hermeneutics. The first rule of interpretation is that absent of any obvious language(such as explainations or clairfications of metaphors) the first approach is that the words must be taken in their literal sense.

I am no scholar but does that mean take everything literally unless it is later explained ? I would say the obvious language here is figurative. Now what ? If something can be obviously literal ,needing no explanantion ,why can’t something be obviously figurative ,needing no explanation ? Isn’t there a ton of quotes that we both agree are figurative ,and I don’t recall all of them being explained .

There’s nothing “inconsistent” about my logic. You didn’t even bother to point out the “inconsistency”. Your whole line of reasoning is fallacious.

Sorry ,I think I forgot to erase that in my reply ,it may be your quote to me,I think.

You don’t want “reasoning and faith”, you want “beyond any reasonable doubt.” You have been given plenty of reasons.

Nothing wrong with both .And yes, thank-you everyone, for all your “reasonings” .Indeed we are fascinating creatures of His.

 

[david_ruiz]

The problem with your statement about the ACF not believing the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ is detrimental to your arguments. Making such a claim eludes to the possibility that either you or I are ignorant of the facts or hiding from the truth

 

[david_ruiz]

Well, David…you are showing your protestant inconsistency again…you stated previously that it was ok to remove the 7 books from the OT because of Luther’s opinion that disputed their being in the Bible. He had the same opinion about some NT books, so why are these in your Bible, if you are going to go by what Luther said?

In fact, he did have the 7 OT books in his Bible too, so why are these 7 books not in the protestant Bible today? And why are the NT books he disputed in the protestant NT?

Following your protestant logic, should not the 7 OT books removed by protestants be in the Bible today because Luther had them in his?

And following your other logic, if as you say the NT books Luther disputed should be in the NT because Luther had them, why are the OT books Luther disputed not in the protestant OT if Luther had them in his Bible?

Think about it, David.

I admit you lost me ,and i am at fault .Am not sure about Luther contetsing OT books but yes on NT…At any rate, Luther then is the good guy ,cause you say he included ALL the books , OT and NT. (I thought you guys said he kicked some out ?). Anyways, he is the good guy .Then shame on later folk for getting them out , those second or third edition King Jamesers. I retract all I said about why I like and believe in "my "bible .Deserves better answers,as you rightly point out.

 

[david_ruiz]

]This would be the result of your advocacy, your statement in a previous post if it was up to everyone to determine what should be in the Bible. 1 Catholic bible and 29999 different protestant versions.

No, this is your assumption ,that because we can freely be convicted of truth ,that we will all have diffrent Bibles ,when in fact we don’t .Why/? Could it be that there is some invisible universalism going on ,without top down authority ? Apparently there is ,at least with scriptural cannon(again relative universal in that only one or two cannons,and those two pretty close-not thousands )

David, you may have missed something I previously stated. I stated Luther’s actions regarding the canonicity of certain books of the Bible should stand on their own. Judge Luther for Luther’s actions, and not justify it for what catholics before him said.

I was just doing what suggested above by J Bauer ,to understand the culture of the time ,that is not isolate a situation .Yes ,analyze Luther indepndently ,on it’s own merits ,but also in context of history and other factors.This is wise. Otherwise ,people will think Luther was a total rebel and fabricator, and the only one who ever said such things as in his prefaces to the “books”.Would you prefer such errors ?

As I also said previously, when CC councils, starting in AD382, came with a definite list of books, to be read in the Church, there were no disputes regarding the inclusion of certain books

.I beg to differ .How do you know there was no “discussion” other than complete unanimouty ? I mean they had to make it official .Why ? Yes, to kick out the spuroius etc ,but perhaps also to shore in the 27 that some ,as historians have stated ,were on the “fringes”.Sorry ,I can not back down from this. A book had to be apostolic in nature ,and a few had weak “signatures”. Hence a reaffirming ,coralling, was done.,

It was so till Luther started tinkering with the canon in the 1500s.

Actually the final canon for Catholic bible came in 1500’ s, I think.

The epistle of Clement of Rome was also considered as canonical.

Yes, by many churches, but not all, I think.

Prior to AD382, there was no consensus

.I think consensus does not mean unanimous ,It is a fact that some held the 27 way before the council .That is all I am saying.

When the Pope issued the proclamation as to what should be in the OT and NT, there was no dissension from Catholics.

But the church allowed academic opinion. Why do you flee from what Catholic scholars have written? I promise to keep them in context, that they stiil were obedient to Rome and ALL dogma, including canon. .

In fact, in the disputed books, he did not give page numbers so that it would be hard to locate them

. Good for him .I woulnd’t have put them in there period . Everybody caves. Seriously, I find us all fascinating , so human. Yes, Luther was something else, as we all are.

So, my question to you…if it was just Luther’s opinion, why are the protestants missing 7 books from the original OT? And if you followed Luther’s opinion in removing 7 books from the OT, why do you not removed the books he disputed/opined as not canonical from the NT?

Now you lost me cause I thought in # 904 says he had them in his bible.???

Better provide your sources, or start another thread. This thread is close to its limits. Did your source provide the NT canon of the Bibles Constantine commissioned?

If the Constantine Bible had the OT as catholics have them today, why does your Bible have a different OT canon?

I do not think Constantine had the whole 27 NT today. I am not sure Origen had them either.

I don’t havethat bible in front of me ,but it has been reported that Constantine had the 27, as Origen did .It is thought that the Vatican may have one of these originals .They do have a bible (27 books dating 325-350 A.D.).Thanks for being patient .I am no scholar.Have no better source at the mopment .and no time to “google” it.

Be that as it may, when you get to study the development of the Canon, there were varying lists of what should be in the NT till AD382.

Fair enough ,as long as one accepts that some were 100 % correct before that date .Again ,was not the Holy Spirit guiding Mother Church before 382 ?

 

[david_ruiz]

The symbolic equates only to the OT as I pointed out already in this thread through the OT in Exodus. However, that point is also misrepresented here. My point is that if the Jews did not “physically” eat the pure white lamb which is symbolic of Christ they could not have been saved. Its no different today, however the sacrifice is replaced with the sacrifice of Christ, then it again becomes a symbolic truth through Gods own words with the Bread and Wine.

How hard it this to see? The apostle John went through painstaken efforts to POUND this home. He did every thing but ran it up a flag and saluted it, and even that could be said as an affirmative symbolic statement.

I thought no pounding was necesary according to simple hermeneutics( thread # 901). Just state it (twice-J-6 and LS) ,for it is obvious. No painstaken efforts needed,nor taken.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

" Not so fast there, Pilgrim". There were two sets of Jews here, the believing and the unbelieving. It is clear what the unbelievers thought .**It is not as clear what the believers thought **

, though I lean to at least a figurative understanding…Perghaps you are right , Jesus was so obvious he did not elaborate ever , being obviously figurative. It is the transubstantiation that would have needed elaboration. After all, it only took another 1000 years for it’s full elaboration.

“Not clear what the believers thought”???

[60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"

IOW, they heard it exeactly the same way that the Jews-the “non-believers”-heard it.

[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

“The words I have spoken to you”…You know, “my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink”…“you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you do not have life in you”…“he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me and I in him”…

I highly doubt that you’ll argue that His flesh availed nothing, that is if you assert what every other protestant asserts by falsely citing v 63.

[64] But there are some of you (disciples) that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
[66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

IOW, there are your proto-protestants that you’ve been looking for in the first century.

[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
[68] Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

I believe that Christ is God, therefore I believe in the Eucharist.

Jesus elaborated when He knew He needed to elaborate. He didn’t even try to elaborate here, instead he only more and more forceably repeated His original statement.

To “lean” to a merely figurative “understanding” without any indication from teh text to do so is to impose your preconceived beliefs onto the text. You are committing eisegesis.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The GreyPilgrim;8339835:

Nowhere. But it is what it is. Every inspired quote is from the " Hebrew " accepted canon.

IOW it really doesn’t “prove” anything. Which was my point.
david ruiz:

Don’t follow. I thought Jesus never quoted from these non-canonical books ,Paul maybe once.

Begging the question. You, by your own admission, said that the Bible is not the exhaustive on what books Jesus quoted from.

Argument from silence is not an argument.
david ruiz:

That is right ,but a collection of what books ? Inspired books or Jewish spiritual writings ? I thought the man behind the Septuagint was not a Jew , but desired to collect holy writings of the Jews, inspired or not

You “thought” wrong. And you are ignorant of biblical history. The Septuagint was the result of Seventy (hence “septu”)Jewish priests in Alexandria in the first century BC translating the Hebrew scriptures into common Greek for the Jews of the diaspora. This included what you call “apocryphal” books.

Secondly, the Jews only decided to even meet to proclaim the “inspiration” of the scriptures AFTER the advent of Christianity. Their citeria was arbitrary and they no longer had any authority to proclaim anything.
david ruiz:

.It would be like a rich "pagan’ today wanting Christian writings for his collection ,starting with the Bible but also having say some Clement ,Augutine ,Polycarp etc …Anyways ,that is my unlearned take on it(I am open to corrections).

That “pagan” cab do whatever he pleases, but nowhere does he have any authority. Just like Mormons and their book.

The Church alone had the authority to set the criteria for the canon, to decide authoritatively what books belonged in the canon, and which do not.
david ruiz:

So you are saying man’s nature is “wounded” not reprobate ? I beg to differ. Maybe we are neither. For sure we are at enmity with God in our flesh .We have NO spiritual life ,we are spiritually dead. in trespasses and sin ,UNTIL ,by His grace we are born-again ,regenerated .

1. You’re taking the verse out of context. Finish the sentence. If we can WILL what is right, we are not reprobate.
2. You’re also ignoring the context of the Letter to the Romans itself. He is writing to people who are already Christians! They have already been called, they have already been given regeneration in baptism, they have already received God’s grace.
3. You are ignorant of human nature. Even as an atheist I could love people and do good to and for people. Even in Rome, during the fire of 64 a.d., there are stories of Romans helping children and invalids to safety at the risk of their own lives. These are the same people who exposed their children on the Tiber if they didn’t want them.

That is not reprobate. That is not utter depravity. Luther didn’t know what he was talking about.
david ruiz:

Paul says, “in my flesh dwelleth no good thing”. What part of “no” turned into a little good ?

Again, you are doing offense to the text. Finish the sentence.
david ruiz:

This flesh was with Paul to his death .This is about the old man (flesh) and the new man (spiritual man).

This is about understanding our nature and being set free from condemnation (vs running to the confessional to feel clean-that was just me as a catholic -not saying you).

If you think that confession is merely about “feeling” then you have no understanding about the real effects, nor do you believe in the power of God’s Word.
david ruiz:

You cant’ have full grace till you have full depravity

.

1)Where is that in the Bible?

1. Life is grace. Time is grace. Food is grace. Everything that comes from God is grace.

So you’re saying that we can’t have life without being completely deprived of it?

Or we can’t have time until we’re completely deprived of time? Or we can’t have food until there is no more food?
divid ruiz:

It is not about “fighting sin” and “waiting” for grace (from the confessional-again that was me ).Sin will be with us to the end.Yes, we buffet the flesh , but that is another chapter.

You obviously didn’t read what I wrote.
david ruiz:

This is about the truth setting us free from the law, all moral ,religious law, AND it’s condemnation ."Oh thank God ",Paul says,“for Jesus !” Yes , as you imply ,stop relying on anything of us to try to be righteous.

Where in the Bible did Jesus condemn valid moral and religious law?