Was the early church "high and dry" being without Scripture until the 3rd centrury?

[itsjustdave1988]

michael

Didn’t the deposit of truth handed on by the Apostles have the canon list?

Not explicitly, at least not in a written list. I get that you want written proof of the unwritten traditions. But I think such is absurd. If they were written, then they would not be unwritten traditions.

I know that some would like to pretend that everything was written down, but this is contrary to the evidence of Sacred Scritpure, and of early Church history.

“If anyone despises or rejects any written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, anathema sit.” (Second Nicene Council)

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Looking to Church Fathers(they, having been retrospectively designated?) does give you a picture of what the selected CFs believed. But only a statistical picture - which you personally feel comfortable, morally, relying on.
Were there other documents from multiple sources (NOT retrospectively viewed as a CF but of unknown validity in their day) which were circulating within the community and which were capable of exerting influence on believers at the time, which (due to subsequent analysis as “heretical”) did not survive the ravages of time? You don’t know, but the answer is probably yes.
This system, however, must be recognized as a standard of secular creation - not that that makes it bad. Nowhere in Scripture, however, is such a concept proposed that each individual is responsible for deciphering history to establish relative probability in ascertaining “moral certainty” with respect to Church teaching. Nowhere is “history” designated as the “final authority” that your interpretation of Scripture is meant to be judged against. You will counter that you really have no other option. But I will submit to you that you need to identify anyone in the history of the Church who followed this route successfully in order for it to be valid.
You want intellectual security, not moral security. Actually, you want both, but you want your “moral certainty” to be a function of your intellectual certainty. This, again, does not ring any biblical bells in my mind and also fails the test of Church tradition. I’m the same way, but I don’t have the time nor intellectual capacity to have researched as deeply as you have. The fundamental problem is that we don’t trust the holy Spirit to guide the Church completely with respect to doctrine.
I, as a Catholic, know that I should but it still requires humility for me and I pray for that. I understand that your background makes it significantly harder for you to the point that you would feel irresponsible abrogating that responsibility to something you see as vague as Tradition.

Only dimly aware,

Phil

But Phil, you already do operate under this moral certianty. You have no choice.

Are you infallible?

If you say no. Then how is your interpretation of history any better than my interpretation of the canon.

We both start as fallible people. Neither one of us can know anything with ABSOLUTE certianty outside of mathmatics and and analytical propostitions.

Therefore, it has no effect on my when you say are you infallible. And I say no. And you say, how do you know your interpretation of this or that is true. Because you are not infallible and you work off you fallible interpretation of history as well.

Don’t you see? We are both bound by fallibility. That is why we must look to the evidence. It would be very easy for me to punt to some theoretical source of infallibility, but that would just come from a methodology that is constructed by a fallible person.

None of us can have the kind of certianty that most Catholics seem to fool themselve into thinking that they are right because the church says they are right.

Here is your objection of my methodology:

Fallible interpretation of an infallible book.

Here is your methodology:

Fallible interpretation of an infallible churches interptretation of history and tradition.

How is yours any better? I just go to an infallible source. You have an infallible middle man. But both of us start the game as fallible people.

Just my thought.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Looking to Church Fathers(they, having been retrospectively designated?) does give you a picture of what the selected CFs believed. But only a statistical picture - which you personally feel comfortable, morally, relying on.
Were there other documents from multiple sources (NOT retrospectively viewed as a CF but of unknown validity in their day) which were circulating within the community and which were capable of exerting influence on believers at the time, which (due to subsequent analysis as “heretical”) did not survive the ravages of time? You don’t know, but the answer is probably yes.
This system, however, must be recognized as a standard of secular creation - not that that makes it bad. Nowhere in Scripture, however, is such a concept proposed that each individual is responsible for deciphering history to establish relative probability in ascertaining “moral certainty” with respect to Church teaching. Nowhere is “history” designated as the “final authority” that your interpretation of Scripture is meant to be judged against. You will counter that you really have no other option. But I will submit to you that you need to identify anyone in the history of the Church who followed this route successfully in order for it to be valid.
You want intellectual security, not moral security. Actually, you want both, but you want your “moral certainty” to be a function of your intellectual certainty. This, again, does not ring any biblical bells in my mind and also fails the test of Church tradition. I’m the same way, but I don’t have the time nor intellectual capacity to have researched as deeply as you have. The fundamental problem is that we don’t trust the holy Spirit to guide the Church completely with respect to doctrine.
I, as a Catholic, know that I should but it still requires humility for me and I pray for that. I understand that your background makes it significantly harder for you to the point that you would feel irresponsible abrogating that responsibility to something you see as vague as Tradition.

Only dimly aware,

Phil

Phil,

We both start with an inability to attain to ABSOLUTE certianty. You don’t have it and I don’t have it either.

My method:

Fallible person (me) interpreting and infallible text.

Your method:

Fallible person (you) believing in an infallible Church interpreting an infallible church and infallible tradition.

We both start with fallibility. There is really no difference. I just take out the middle man and go back to the source.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

This atonement made to the devil I think is misrepresented here. It is not as if before Anselm people had no accurate understanding of the atonement, just an emerging one.

You have just summed up my understanding of sola scriptura and sole fide in the two sentences above. Now all you have to do is to allow the understanding of doctrine to develop and see the Reformers as those who took things to the next step.

I think that you are coming around!

Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Doctrinal reversal is not doctrinal development.

The early Church’s constant affirmation of the authority of unwritten tradition, which is even solemnly proclaimed at the second Council of Nicea cannot be reversed under the pretense of “development of doctrine.”

Any remarks on your Book of Daniel, or shall we conclude as was suspected, the evidence is not that which compels you, but instead you rely strictly upon tradition of a rather non-Christian kind.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

This simply means to stand firm in the teaching that I gave you. I don’t see anything in this that would imply that there teaching were to be infallibly passed on by an successor who was given the authority and infallibility of the apostles.

So you would re-write the passage as, "Y’all stand firm in what I taught you, but whatever drivel those who come after you want to adopt, that’s fine with me and Jesus?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Clearly, in hindsite, Jesus meant to establish a Church that would last for thousands of years. And, not being capable of failure, He must have given that Chuch some tools to maintain the message He taught.

Look around you – which Church remainds coherent, and which churches have fragmented and re-fragmented?

Clearly, the break-away Protestants are lacking something, and that is shown by their constant spinning-off of different churches with different doctrines.

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

Doctrinal reversal is not doctrinal development.

The early Church’s constant affirmation of the authority of unwritten tradition, which is even solemnly proclaimed at the second Council of Nicea cannot be reversed under the pretense of “development of doctrine.”

Any remarks on your Book of Daniel, or shall we conclude as was suspected, the evidence is not that which compels you, but instead you rely strictly upon tradition of a rather non-Christian kind.

I was just saying that your reasoning for the development of the atonement is the same reasoning I find for the development of other doctrines. They are the same in my mind. You may not agree, but at least this helps you to understand how I think.

I don’t understand your comments on the book of Daniel, nor the implications that it has. You need to clarify your thoughts and talk as if you are teaching a 4 year old to me. I did not see any evidence for anything, so I just ignored it for now.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

So you would re-write the passage as, "Y’all stand firm in what I taught you, but whatever drivel those who come after you want to adopt, that’s fine with me and Jesus?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Clearly, in hindsite, Jesus meant to establish a Church that would last for thousands of years. And, not being capable of failure, He must have given that Chuch some tools to maintain the message He taught.

Look around you – which Church remainds coherent, and which churches have fragmented and re-fragmented?

Clearly, the break-away Protestants are lacking something, and that is shown by their constant spinning-off of different churches with different doctrines.

I just see the Catholic Church as one interpretation among many. I stand on the outside looking in and find no warrent for apostolic succession in Scripture. Scripture is the only varified source for revelation that I know of. The successors of the Apostles did not have apostolic authority because they do not and did not show the signs of an apostle that Paul referred to (2Cor 12:12).

Have a great night,

Michael

 

[Kurt_G]

michaelp:

You have just summed up my understanding of sola scriptura and sole fide in the two sentences above. Now all you have to do is to allow the understanding of doctrine to develop and see the Reformers as those who took things to the next step.

I think that you are coming around!

Michael

But Michael, the Reformers didn’t even agree among themselves what that “next step” should be, except for one unifying theme: “This Catholic Church is wrong and has to go!”. That’s the only thing those reformers all agreed on.

There always have been, and I guess will be for the forseeable future, valid theologicial arguments from all sides. How were they settled immediately after Jesus? Holy Scripture gives us the pattern, in Acts 15. Think about it… the “Judaizers” were in the Church, as Scripture says “some from among us”.

It seems to me these folks were just trying to get everyone to follow the laws of Holy Scripture (though it was OT, it was all they had at the time… it was their “bible”, and it was the Word of God. So in Acts 15 a group of people, “the Church”, actually excercise control over which Scriptural commands to follow, and which Scriptural commands no longer apply. Then this same Church has the boldness to claim to speak for God the Holy Spirit.

We have a myriad of doctrinal disputes today among many of us who are all trying to follow Jesus Christ. My suggestion is that Holy Scripture has already given us the pattern of what we should do about such doctrinal disputes… we take them to the Church, according to Acts 15.

Now, if we can find a subsequent place in Holy Scripture which “undoes” this pattern, I guess we can talk about it. I just can’t find anything which reverses Acts 15, that is to say, which nullifies the authoritative Church mentioned there, in favor of everyone’s personal interpretation of Holy Scripture.

You can theorize about doctrinal development happening through the Reformers, as all of them develop such doctrine outside the Church. But the theory looks pretty unbiblical to me.

All of the Church’s doctrinal development has occurred within the Church, and stays within the confines outlined in Acts 15.

Gotta go… later…
GOD BLESS US ALL!

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

I just see the Catholic Church as one interpretation among many.

Bingo – but until Martin Luther came along, there was really only one doctrine – the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have remarkably similar doctrines.

And then suddenly there are a myriad of churches, all in disagreement with each other.

michaelp:

I stand on the outside looking in and find no warrent for apostolic succession in Scripture. Scripture is the only varified source for revelation that I know of. The successors of the Apostles did not have apostolic authority because they do not and did not show the signs of an apostle that Paul referred to (2Cor 12:12).

In fact, they did. Re-read the whole passage. Paul is clearly talking about signs that he, Paul, has shown. He says:

12,11 I have been foolish. You compelled me, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I am in no way inferior to these “super-apostles,” even though I am nothing. 12,12 The signs of an apostle were performed among you with all endurance, signs and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Note that both Paul and Matthias were selected after the departure of Christ.

Now let me see if I undestand you – you started by claiming the Church had “80%” of the New Testament by the end of the First Century. When confronted with the difficulties in communication, the evidence (from the Apostles to well into the 4th Century) of continued heresies arising, the argument switched to a rejection of Tradition.

Now, when Tradition is shown to be necessary to the formation of the New Testament, you want to argue about the Apostolic Succession.

You are putting me in mind of the motto of the Knights of the Round Table.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

But Phil, you already do operate under this moral certianty. You have no choice.

Are you infallible?

I know this one!!! NO i’m not.

michaelp:

If you say no. Then how is your interpretation of history any better than my interpretation of the canon.

You lost me.

michaelp:

We both start as fallible people. Neither one of us can know anything with ABSOLUTE certianty outside of mathmatics and and analytical propostitions.

The difference is, you are seeking to KNOW, through the intellect, Truths which may or may not be accessible intellectually. I am not. I, ACCEPT AS TRUTH THROUGH FAITH, that which I otherwise might not come to know through the intellect.

michaelp:

Don’t you see? We are both bound by fallibility. That is why we must look to the evidence.

This is not a conclusion of necessity. The other obvious conclusion - we must look to another source - is interesting.

michaelp:

It would be very easy for me to punt to some theoretical source of infallibility, but that would just come from a methodology that is constructed by a fallible person.

I don’t think it would be very easy at all. I think you would have to give up something you hold dear. Who do you think constructed the methodology in question?

michaelp:

None of us can have the kind of certianty that most Catholics seem to fool themselve into thinking that they are right because the church says they are right.

I know what you’re saying, but I would probably word it a little differently. I would characterize their “certainty” as faithful confidence in their beliefs. I also understand why that is unattractive to you.

michaelp:

Here is your objection of my methodology:

Fallible interpretation of an infallible book.

With no ultimate accountability, though with the very best of intentions. this was sort of the point of the thread.

michaelp:

Here is your methodology:

Fallible interpretation of an infallible churches interptretation of history and tradition.

But I recognize that I am not the ultimate authority. I “subject myself to the presbyters” so that “I may be exalted in due time”.
Not sure that verse even fits, but I thought I’d try and work it in somehow! And, again, I have to say that you claim that there is a lot of “fallible” interpretations of Catholic doctrine and I have repeatedly asked for examples. You did give some which you were careful to describe, not as your own, but as the result of a brief thread search. They were pretty weak and relatively inconsequential with the exception of “no salvation outside the Church.” But the “fallible” interpretation of an infallible source - Scripture - produces RADICAL uncertainty on some basic issues. Apparently the big unifying doctrine is Salvation by faith alone, but what faith is exactly, whether it can be lost, and whether anyone truly knows they have salvific faith are not clear.

michaelp:

How is yours any better? I just go to an infallible source. You have an infallible middle man. But both of us start the game as fallible people.
Just my thought.

Michael

I won’t claim to be better - I will just share my thoughts as well and I really enjoy hearing yours. I trust that we both are seeking to do God’s will to the best of our ability and that He is doing things His way.

Phil

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

You have just summed up my understanding of sola scriptura and sole fide in the two sentences above. Now all you have to do is to allow the understanding of doctrine to develop and see the Reformers as those who took things to the next step.

I think that you are coming around!

Michael

But in doctrinal development the next step is not a contradiction.

It would be as if the doctrines regarding Mary were developing over time and then suddenly the Church declares that she was not a virgin when she concieved Jesus and that she was born with a sin nature.

The doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide are contradictions to the previous 1600 years.

 

[michaelp]

Kurt G.:

But Michael, the Reformers didn’t even agree among themselves what that “next step” should be, except for one unifying theme: “This Catholic Church is wrong and has to go!”. That’s the only thing those reformers all agreed on.

There always have been, and I guess will be for the forseeable future, valid theologicial arguments from all sides. How were they settled immediately after Jesus? Holy Scripture gives us the pattern, in Acts 15. Think about it… the “Judaizers” were in the Church, as Scripture says “some from among us”.

It seems to me these folks were just trying to get everyone to follow the laws of Holy Scripture (though it was OT, it was all they had at the time… it was their “bible”, and it was the Word of God. So in Acts 15 a group of people, “the Church”, actually excercise control over which Scriptural commands to follow, and which Scriptural commands no longer apply. Then this same Church has the boldness to claim to speak for God the Holy Spirit.

We have a myriad of doctrinal disputes today among many of us who are all trying to follow Jesus Christ. My suggestion is that Holy Scripture has already given us the pattern of what we should do about such doctrinal disputes… we take them to the Church, according to Acts 15.

Now, if we can find a subsequent place in Holy Scripture which “undoes” this pattern, I guess we can talk about it. I just can’t find anything which reverses Acts 15, that is to say, which nullifies the authoritative Church mentioned there, in favor of everyone’s personal interpretation of Holy Scripture.

You can theorize about doctrinal development happening through the Reformers, as all of them develop such doctrine outside the Church. But the theory looks pretty unbiblical to me.

All of the Church’s doctrinal development has occurred within the Church, and stays within the confines outlined in Acts 15.

Gotta go… later…
GOD BLESS US ALL!

That is right. The Reformation was a rejection of Tradition as being authoritative along side that of Scripture. That is the same thing that I have a problem with.

I would go along with this model also if we had apostles who were verified as apostles according to the rules that Paul laid out in 2 Cor 12:12.

 

[michaelp]

Bingo – but until Martin Luther came along, there was really only one doctrine – the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have remarkably similar doctrines.

And then suddenly there are a myriad of churches, all in disagreement with each other.

I don’t think that this is good, but the Catholic church of the day was not representing Christ in any fasion that represented any love, truth or unity. The Reformers left a system that was terribly corrupt and the system that sprang forth was divided. They both have problems.

In fact, they did. Re-read the whole passage. Paul is clearly talking about signs that he, Paul, has shown. He says:

12,11 I have been foolish. You compelled me, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I am in no way inferior to these “super-apostles,” even though I am nothing. 12,12 The signs of an apostle were performed among you with all endurance, signs and wonders, and mighty deeds.

No, he says that he performed the signs of “a” (indefinite article) true apostle. Of course he was argueing about himself in particular, because he performed the signs that “a” apostle should perform. You cannot actually be suggesting that this was “Paul the Apostle” criteria and no one elses. This does not make any sense.

Now let me see if I undestand you – you started by claiming the Church had “80%” of the New Testament by the end of the First Century. When confronted with the difficulties in communication, the evidence (from the Apostles to well into the 4th Century) of continued heresies arising, the argument switched to a rejection of Tradition.

I am not sure if I understand this. But again, I must reiterate as I have before, I do believe that tradition is an authority, or a source for truth, but not an infallible source.

Now, when Tradition is shown to be necessary to the formation of the New Testament, you want to argue about the Apostolic Succession.

No, I am arguing against infallible tradition. That is it.

You are putting me in mind of the motto of the Knights of the Round Table.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

I like that story.

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

I know this one!!! NO i’m not.

You lost me.

The difference is, you are seeking to KNOW, through the intellect, Truths which may or may not be accessible intellectually. I am not. I, ACCEPT AS TRUTH THROUGH FAITH, that which I otherwise might not come to know through the intellect.

This is not a conclusion of necessity. The other obvious conclusion - we must look to another source - is interesting.
I don’t think it would be very easy at all. I think you would have to give up something you hold dear. Who do you think constructed the methodology in question?
I know what you’re saying, but I would probably word it a little differently. I would characterize their “certainty” as faithful confidence in their beliefs. I also understand why that is unattractive to you.
With no ultimate accountability, though with the very best of intentions. this was sort of the point of the thread.

But I recognize that I am not the ultimate authority. I “subject myself to the presbyters” so that “I may be exalted in due time”.
Not sure that verse even fits, but I thought I’d try and work it in somehow! And, again, I have to say that you claim that there is a lot of “fallible” interpretations of Catholic doctrine and I have repeatedly asked for examples. You did give some which you were careful to describe, not as your own, but as the result of a brief thread search. They were pretty weak and relatively inconsequential with the exception of “no salvation outside the Church.” But the “fallible” interpretation of an infallible source - Scripture - produces RADICAL uncertainty on some basic issues. Apparently the big unifying doctrine is Salvation by faith alone, but what faith is exactly, whether it can be lost, and whether anyone truly knows they have salvific faith are not clear.

I won’t claim to be better - I will just share my thoughts as well and I really enjoy hearing yours. I trust that we both are seeking to do God’s will to the best of our ability and that He is doing things His way.

Phil

Phil, I think that we are at least closer to understanding each other. If nothing else comes out of this, I really appreciate that. I do appreciate your statement that it ultimately comes down to faith.

May God bless your Christmas Phil, you and your family. Same to the rest of you all.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

But in doctrinal development the next step is not a contradiction.

It would be as if the doctrines regarding Mary were developing over time and then suddenly the Church declares that she was not a virgin when she concieved Jesus and that she was born with a sin nature.

The doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide are contradictions to the previous 1600 years.

I am not sure that I would totally agree with this. But it finally comes down to our opinion since we have been through this on many other threads.

But the Ransom to Satan theory was held by the majority of the Church until the 11th century. That is a direct contradiction to the satisfaction to God theory. But we both see this as a development.

Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

michael,

I don’t understand your comments on the book of Daniel, nor the implications that it has.

It pertained to your assertion you made here:

I just need to look generally at the concensus and take this into account. The weight of evidence tells me that the early Church had access to and believed that the Gospels Acts, and the Pauline corpus was inspired. There is no Church father who speaks otherwise. There is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I am on safe ground.

I see an inconsistency your approach as it pertains to the NT, compared to the approach with the OT, and I’m wondering why.

For example, according to The Additions to the Book of Daniel by Protestant scholar Bruce Metzger:

… the ancient Greek version of the Book of Daniel is considerably longer than the surviving Hebrew text. … All Greek witnesses place the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Jews in Dan ch. 3…

The Greek translation made by Theodotion … includes all the outstanding passages in the Greek Daniel as integral parts of the book … The Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic versions follow Theodotion.

… Jerome’s Latin Vulgate followed Theodotion

Theodotian was a Jew of the 2nd century of our era whose version of Daniel contained the Septuagintal portions. What did the early Christian Churches accept? According to Jerome’s scholarship, which Protestants unconvincing claim to accept, the Churches accepted the version from the 2nd century Jew Theodotian instead of the shorter version of the Masoretic text of Daniel. Why did he accept Theodotians version? According to Jerome’s own words in his refutation of Rufinius, he accepted this version of Daniel because it was “the judgement of the Churches.” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

According to Bruce Metzger, ALL Greek witnesses, Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic follow Theodotion. The textual evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the larger Daniel, right? Yet, unlike Jerome or Origen, or any other early Church Father, Protestantism rejected it. Why? By what authority? Surely you have some evidence that the “consensus” of the early Church must have discarded the Theodotian Book of Daniel in favor of the Masoretic, right? If so, can you tell me who in the early Church, or who in the first 1000 years of Christianity successfully argued for abandoning the Theodotian Daniel in favor of the Masoretic (Jewish) recension?

I’m just curious as to why your method of looking to the “general consensus” is inconsistently applied with respect to the Book of Daniel? I suspect that you aren’t really looking to the “general concensus” at all, as you claim, otherwise you would accept the Catholic Bible.

The general consensus of Christianity even today, is in favor of the Catholic Bible, as only Protestants reject the books of the Catholic Bible as Sacred Scritpure.

Nonetheless, for the first 1000 years of Christianity, every Christian Church read from a Bible that included the larger Theodotian version of the Book of Daniel, as it was the one accepted universally throughout Christianity. Christians seemingly rejected the Masoretic version, in favor of Theodotian’s version. Why has Protestantism not accepted this “consensus?” Why haven’t you?

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

michael,
It pertained to your assertion you made here:
I see an inconsistency your approach as it pertains to the NT, compared to the approach with the OT, and I’m wondering why.

For example, according to The Additions to the Book of Daniel by Protestant scholar Bruce Metzger:
Theodotian was a Jew of the 2nd century whose version of Daniel translated from Hebrew contained the Septuagintal portions. What did the early Christian Churches accept? According to Jerome’s scholarship, which Protestants unconvincing claim to accept, the Churches accepted the version from the 2nd century Jew Theodotian instead of the shorter Masoretic book of Daniel. Why did he accept Theodotians version? According to Jeromes own words in his refutation of Rufinius, he accepted this version of Daniel because it was “the judgement of the Churches.” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

According to Bruce Metzger, ALL Greek witnesses, Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic follow Theodotion. The textual evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the larger Daniel, right? Yet, unlike Jerome or Origen, or any other early Church Father, Protestantism rejected it. Why? By what authority? Surely you have some evidence that the “consensus” of the early Church must have discarded the Theodotian Book of Daniel in favor of the Masoretic, right? If so, can you tell me who in the early Church, or who in the first 1000 years of Christianity successfully argued for abandoning the Theodotian Daniel in favor of the Masoretic (Jewish) recension?

I’m just curious as to why your method of looking to the “general consensus” is inconsistently applied with respect to the Book of Daniel? I suspect that you aren’t really looking to the “general concensus” at all, as you claim, otherwise you would accept the Catholic Bible.

The general consensus of Christianity even today, is in favor of the Catholic Bible, as only Protestants reject the books of the Catholic Bible as Sacred Scritpure.

Nonetheless, for the first 1000 years of Christianity, every Christian Church read from a Bible that included the larger Theodotian version of the Book of Daniel, as it was the one accepted universally throughout Christianity. Christians seemingly rejected the Masoretic version, in favor of Theodotian’s version. Why has Protestantism not accepted this “consensus?” Why haven’t you?

Well, if I ever get time to study up on the issues and the evidence for this, I will let you know my opinion about Daniel. Right now I cannot tell you how it relates to this discussion since I do not have an opinion on this matter. But I am certianly open to go where the evidence leads. I am not bias to any tradition on this matter.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’ve told you how it relates. You claimed a methodology which highlighted an inconsistency. Just wondering why.

It seems instead you accept nothing more than Protestant tradition as authoritative when it comes to asserting what books are in Scripture. You don’t look at the consensus, as you claimed. Your tradition of canonicity is NOT based upon the general consensus of the Christian Chruch of today, nor of the Christian Church of the first 1000 years, but only based upon the tradition asserted by Protestants. A rather novel tradition for Christians, based upon the authority of Pharisees which the early Church rejected. Strangely ironic.

Protestants rarely wonder how they got the Bible and why theirs is significantly smaller than the Bible used in the 1st 1500 years of Christianity. I’m not surprised that you haven’t studied it. I’m thinking you won’t like what you find. The Protestants that claim fellowship with Jerome’s scholarship have some 'splaining to do.

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

I’ve told you how it relates. You accept nothing more than Protestant tradition as authoritative when it comes to asserting what books are in Scripture. You don’t look at the consensus, as you claimed. Your tradition of canonicity is NOT based upon the consensus of the early of the Christian Chruch of today, nor of the Christian Church of the first 1000 years, but only based upon the tradition asserted by Protestants. A rather novel tradition for Christians, based upon the authority of Pharisees which the early Church rejected. Strangely ironic.

Wait . . . I just told you I was open to the discussion on Daniel and would read up on it. How do you interpret that as “You accept nothing more than Protestant tradition as authoritative?” That is the beauty about being a non-catholic, I can change my position when the evidence suggests such. This post was very unfair. Dave, please believe me, I have no love lost for any tradition. I do hold people and their view in high esteem, sometimes reserving judgement on things since I will never have time to examine everything the way that I would like.

But my post said that I would have to look at the evidence for Daniel and reserve a decision for later. Isn’t that OK?

Michael