P
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
That’s a nonsequitur.
Point that cannot be refuted, Kliska:
[SIGN1]The ONLY way that you know that Hebrews is inspired is because you give tacit submission to the authority of the CC,[/SIGN1]
Now, if you want to say that you obey the authority of the Orthodox Church, I can accept that.
But that acknowledgement still leaves you with the problem of being submissive to some other entity to tell you a truth about God.,
…while also objecting to Catholics doing this.
Remember when you stated this, regarding Catholics here:
You start with the assumption that what someone else has told you is true and go from there.
It seems that you do the same thing.
It is an untenable position to object to Catholics starting “with an assumption that what someone has told us is true” all while quoting from Hebrews, 3 John, Revelation, Mark, as inspired because of “an assumption that what someone has told” *you *is true.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It truly is incontrovertible.I know many protestants buying this horse. A few have told me “its the best argument the Catholic Church has for holding the fullness of truth”.
Peace!!!
P
PRmerger
Guest
And that is why they are heretics.
So I suppose there is no such thing as Once Saved Always Saved?
Oh, please do not misunderstand. I never intended to give a full compendium of reasons for Catholics leaving the faith. :nope:
P
PRmerger
Guest
So if it’s not forbidden, then it’s permitted.
That seems to be the paradigm you’ve espoused, right? Otherwise, you would have object to–
weddings on beaches ( I couldn’t find where it is allowed.)
steeples on churches ( I couldn’t find where it is allowed.)
Wednesday evening Bible studies ( I couldn’t find where it is allowed.)
Bibles in every home I couldn’t find where it is allowed.)
So, to be consistent, if you say that we shouldn’t pray the rosary because you can’t find where it is allowed, you will also have to say that we shouldn’t get married on the beach, have steeples on churches, Wed evening Bible studies and Bibles in every home.
Egg-zactly.
Do you have any Bible verse that the apostles wore wedding rings, said the words, “I do” in their wedding ceremonies, had a Bible study on Wednesday evenings?
K
Kliska
Guest
I haven’t every read it, but have read articles and heard the author interviewed. And, yes, to your first point, that is a very important statement. Those who remain or convert to an RC tradition do so in a similar way that protestants do the same. We are human we are going to make decisions very similarly.
Sometimes the “sad” part is the converts themselves tend to perpetuate the stereotypes on both sides. Not all, but some.
EEeeeeewwww…
You can repeat it over and over and over again and the answer is still “no.” The part you are missing is the process by which the cannon was debated in the RCC in the first place, or in the Orthodox Chruches, or by Luther, or by Cajetan, and I, me, Kliska, can apply the same text crit. This argument that you are using has no impact because the premise is entirely faulty.
No, what it does is show all those reading this that you want me to be doing the same thing.
Again, no, I didn’t assume it was true. The Orthodox Churches don’t either, neither Luther, Cajetan, etc… assumed it was true. Again, there is no one cannon and never has been.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Dear sister, even if you keep repeating over and over again that you do not defer to some other entity (either the EO or the CC), the truth is…
you do tacitly give submission to the authority (of the magisterium).
I am 100% certain that you have never applied text crit to Hebrews, 3 John, etc, etc etc.
And thus, this means that you defer to another authority.
Incidentally, what does that even mean “text crit”, as it applies to the NT writings? Are you of the opinion, then, that if you did apply “text crit” to the writings you could, of your own authority, determine that the CC was wrong and decide, of your own authority, that, say, 3 John (which doesn’t even mention Jesus once) is not theopneustos?
Yes or no?
And I am 100% certain that you have not applied “text crit” to the over 400 other ancient Christian texts, and, as such, you defer to the authority of the CC in discerning that those other texts are not inspired.
Unless you want to posit that, of your own authority, you could apply text crit to the “also-rans” and determine, of your own authority, that they are indeed the Word of God?
Yes or no?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Incidentally, “the process by which the canon was debated” was this: that which conformed to Sacred Tradition was included in the canon. That which reflected novel concepts was rejected.
As such, any talk of “the process” of discernment of the 27 book canon is also a tacit acknowledgement of one’s submission to Sacred Tradition.
It was Catholic men, Catholic bishops to be specific, who applied the nebulous “text crit” to the 400 texts, to discern whether they were proclaiming the kerygma,…
which they knew ONLY from Sacred Tradition.
K
Kliska
Guest
You are dodging the point; is there one accepted cannon across all of Christendom or not? Let me answer for those viewing: No. The RCC has a different cannon than the Orthodox churches, Luther’s view, Cajetan’s view, etc… these are all different takes on the cannon of scripture. There’s no way around it. It is a completely objective verifiable fact.
Actually I don’t.
Hmmm… are you claiming psychic ability? I can assure you I have. James is on the list too. This also shows that there is no point talking with you on this matter. If you believe you know what and who I’ve studied and the conclusions I’ve come to, then I’m wasting my time in 2 ways; If I’m telling the truth you refuse to believe me which makes it all moot, OR if you have psychic ability then my words are superfluous and unnecessary.
Have a good Sunday. :curtsey:
P
PRmerger
Guest
There is only one canon of the NT.
I am interested in knowing if you believe that you could apply “text crit”* to the writings here:
earlychristianwritings.com/
and, if you discerned from your own study that one of them met all the criteria would you give yourself the right to declare one of the rejected books was actually theopneustos?
*text crit: what are, in fact, the criteria you would use? And where do you get them from?
Also, if you get them from Scripture–that is, “Scripture says that A, B and C are needed to have a writing be theopneustos”, could you offer the book, chapter and verse where these “text crit” are laid out?
And if you don’t get them from Scripture, from whence do they come? And doesn’t that mean that you rely on some other entity to give you this criteria?
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
I am also psychic in knowing that you would be bowing out of this discussion.
P
petra22
Guest
The church doesn’t make these rules to be the bad guy. She realizes these rules are hard to accept especially now with today’s culture of free sex for everyone. (The devil has us in his clutches…) But, she can’t turn her back on morality, on truth, on the natural way God set up the universe, on the family life that Jesus blessed and made a sacrament… She can’t be wishy-washy. It’s like that popular country song. You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything!
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
“Nevertheless, if men in our century, with its derisive pride, reject the holy Rosary, there is an innumerable multitude of holy men of every age and every condition who have always held it dear. They have recited it with great devotion, and in every moment they have used it as a powerful weapon to put the demons to flight, to preserve the integrity of life, to acquire virtue more easily, and, in a word, to attain real peace among men.” -Pope Pius XI
Just to tie in your point with the OP.
A
adf417
Guest
It seems you are saying different circles = different truths. Hmmmm!Yeahhh… They must run in different circles.
Grace and Peace!
Peace!!!
K
Kliska
Guest
I believe in absolute truth; there are facts and ideas that are true and facts and ideas that are not true. Obviously we have differing perspectives on which are which.It seems you are saying different circles = different truths. Hmmmm!
Peace!!!
Grace and Peace!
A
adf417
Guest
Not only is there one but only one church to preserve the integrity of it. I would like to remind readers yet again it was from within Christianity we get the translation of John 1:1 today being “a god”. 
I’m sure Arian would have like to have accomplish this years agoPeace!!!
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think that it’s important to dissect this assertion.
What is being proposed is that, independent of any outside authority, Kliska has studied all the NT documents **(AND, I must add, this means she has studied all of the other over 400 other ancient Christian texts) **and determined, of her own authority, that James, Hebrews, 3 John (which doesn’t even mention Jesus once, interestingly) are inspired, and the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, etc etc etc are NOT inspired.
This suggests an astonishing assertion: if the text critic decides* that, say, James is NOT inspired, she may then exclude it from the canon.
Wow.
If the text critic decides that the Epistle of Clement is inspired, then she may now quote from it as the inspired Word of God.
Wow.
See what a pandora’s box this paradigm will wreak?
Not only will there be, in addition to the obscenity of tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one…
if the paradigm that is being espoused by Kliska is embraced, there will also be the obscenity of groups of Christians saying, “I declare that the Gospel of Thomas is the inspired Word of God!” “NO! The Book of Revelation is NOT inspired!”
Just what chaos and confusion hath been wrought by this very, very treacherous paradigm of declaring that we can read an ancient text and using “text crit” discern for ourselves what is inspired.
*Thus far, no criteria have even been mentioned by those espousing this view. “Text crit”–?? What, exactly, are the criteria?
S
stewstew03
Guest
Can you please tell me where I can find a copy of the canon you developed? I’d like to review.
Thanks!
K
Kliska
Guest
I don’t claim to be the end all be all authority that the RCC does, and would never presume to tread on the Holy Spirit’s turf. You have lists of books and the various cannons the different Churches accept. Have fun looking into the ones that made it or didn’t, or if you feel comfortable going with what the RCC calls cannon just because the RCC calls it cannon, then that’s fine too, I’m just not built that way.
- Status