What would of happened had these 2 books been put in the Bible?

[PRmerger]

I’m just suggesting that if we** use the same criteria** for the Didache that we apply to Hebrews or John III then you have yourself another book that could be in the Bible. It’s just too late for it.

What criteria are you talking about???

 

[PRmerger]

Why wasn’t Gregory the Great given the charism of infallibility?

I don’t think you understand the charism of infallibility. It is not invoked, even by a pope, each and every time he speaks.

Did you know that Pope B16 wrote an entire book on Jesus that has no claim of infallibility?

My apologies. Just by the title of the website I assumed it was from a Catholic site.

Accepted. It does fool a lot of folks by its title.

 

[dronald]

That’s funny. The above in bold sounds suspiciously like revisionistic history to me.

“May have well been” is just me speculating. The only reason we can speculate that such an accurate account of what Jesus taught (but also anti-abortion, confessing sins before Eucharist, and so much more) and was left out of the Canon is that it wasn’t nearly as popular as Hebrews.

Oh, I didn’t say that, dronald. At all.

I just defer to the authority of the Catholic Church, as do you, to say that 3 John is theopneustos but the Didache is not.

You don’t have any other reason to include one and exclude the other…

except that you defer to the CC’s decision.

It’s hard for me to overlook the importance of this document and not want to share it with the world. I understand that the CC rejected it, now I must understand why they rejected it.

True. And even if you did declare the Gospel of Peter to be inspired, what criteria would you use?

And would you offer this authority to any other person to decide whether another text ought to be added to the canon?

And would you also offer this authority to any other person to exclude some books from the NT?

The late date of Peter (and so many others) the contradictions and the lack of Apostolic origin are enough to reject a book. I don’t see this in the Didache.

What criteria are you talking about???

See above.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible affirms the Trinity, and so do Protestants. Even Ignatius was pretty explicit that he believed in the Trinity as you and I believe in it.

The argument was that the canon of Scripture was not formalized until centuries later, implying that it was not part of the faith until it was formalized.

If you believe this, then you have to also apply this to the Trinity and say that since it was not formal dogma until centuries later, it was not part of the faith until formalized.

You can’t have it both ways and say, “It doesn’t matter that the Trinity wasn’t formalized until centuries later” and “It does matter that the canon of Scripture wasn’t formalized until centuries later.”

 

[PRmerger]

The late date of Peter (and so many others) the contradictions and the lack of Apostolic origin are enough to reject a book. I don’t see this in the Didache.

What Apostle wrote Hebrews?

 

[PRmerger]

The late date of Peter (and so many others)

What is the latest date that you use as this criterion? And how do you know?

the contradictions

So you are saying that the faith came first, and then the teachings that contradicted this faith were excluded from the Bible?

If so, then you are manifesting wonderful apologia for Sacred Tradition!

 

[dronald]

The argument was that the canon of Scripture was not formalized until centuries later, implying that it was not part of the faith until it was formalized.

If you believe this, then you have to also apply this to the Trinity and say that since it was not formal dogma until centuries later, it was not part of the faith until formalized.

You can’t have it both ways and say, “It doesn’t matter that the Trinity wasn’t formalized until centuries later” and “It does matter that the canon of Scripture wasn’t formalized until centuries later.”

Right, so why can’t we add the Didache to the Canon now that it has resurfaced? The Trinity existed well before it was formalized. If the Didache was inspired and lost, then it is still inspired, no?

What Apostle wrote Hebrews?

This is exactly my point. Because we have no clue who exactly wrote Hebrews and no clue who exactly wrote the Didache, but we know they both came out of the first Century and are completely in line with Christian Theology, they both can be accepted.

I don’t accept Hebrews because the CC does.

What is the latest date that you use as this criterion? And how do you know?

During the Apostolic age, anything after the death of John I can’t see as being included in the Canon. If it can be proven that the Didache came before 100AD (and most believe it did) then why can’t it be added now?

So you are saying that the faith came first, and then the teachings that contradicted this faith were excluded from the Bible?

If so, then you are manifesting wonderful apologia for Sacred Tradition!

I know right! <3

 

[PRmerger]

Right, so why can’t we add the Didache to the Canon now that it has resurfaced?

Because the Church, in her wisdom, discerned that it was not theopneustos.

The Trinity existed well before it was formalized. If the Didache was inspired and lost, then it is still inspired, no?

No. If the Church did not proclaim that it’s inspired, it is not inspired.

We have to apply the same principle to the Didache that we do to all of the other books in the NT. That principle is this: if the Church included or excluded it, then we know whether it’s inspired or not.

There is no other way to know.

This is exactly my point. Because we have no clue who exactly wrote Hebrews and no clue who exactly wrote the Didache, but we know they both came out of the first Century and are completely in line with Christian Theology, they both can be accepted.

So your criterion that it has to be Apostolic in origin is not actually a criterion, yes?

I don’t accept Hebrews because the CC does.

Then what criterion do you use to say it’s inspired?

You can’t use Apostolic in origin, since you don’t know authorship.

What other criteria are you applying here?

During the Apostolic age, anything after the death of John I can’t see as being included in the Canon. If it can be proven that the Didache came before 100AD (and most believe it did) then why can’t it be added now?

Based on what? Who says that anything after the death of John can’t be included in the canon?

Where does the Bible say that is a criterion?

I know right! <3

We’ll have you in RCIA soon enough!

 

[dronald]

Because the Church, in her wisdom, discerned that it was not theopneustos.

No. If the Church did not proclaim that it’s inspired, it is not inspired.

We have to apply the same principle to the Didache that we do to all of the other books in the NT. That principle is this: if the Church included or excluded it, then we know whether it’s inspired or not.

There is no other way to know.

But whyyyyyyy!

I want statements, I want someone to say why it was excluded. Not that it was excluded because it was excluded because we’re the Church.

So your criterion that it has to be Apostolic in origin is not actually a criterion, yes?

I couldn’t say that if I accept Hebrews! …or Mark, or Luke. Lol.

Then what criterion do you use to say it’s inspired?

You can’t use Apostolic in origin, since you don’t know authorship.

What other criteria are you applying here?

If it wasn’t written during the time of the Apostles then I can’t trust it as authoritative. If what was written was written during the time of the Apostles and is in perfect harmony with everything else, why not accept it?

Based on what? Who says that anything after the death of John can’t be included in the canon?

Where does the Bible say that is a criterion?

I don’t believe anything after the death of John ever was accepted into the Canon. Although Clement came close… I wonder what our divisions would look like if 1Clement made it.

We’ll have you in RCIA soon enough!

Yes. My Megachurch’s Evangelical Pastor whom I am meeting with this Wednesday is quite concerned.

I may take the Protestant side here; but oh my, I am quite the defender of Catholicism at my Church. Lol.

 

[PRmerger]

But whyyyyyyy!

Because the Church in her wisdom discerned that it was not needed to proclaim the Good News.

I couldn’t say that if I accept Hebrews! …or Mark, or Luke. Lol.

Right. So the ONLY reason you accept Hebrews is…

wait for it…

wait for it…



because…

the CC told you it’s inspired.

If it wasn’t written during the time of the Apostles then I can’t trust it as authoritative.

Since you don’t know who the author of Hebrews is, you can’t know that it is apostolic in origin. You simply have to defer to the Church

If what was written was written during the time of the Apostles and is in perfect harmony with everything else, why not accept it?

You can’t use the criterion of “It’s in perfect harmony with everything else”, dronald.

Because that would be circular reasoning. “I believe it because it’s in the Bible!” and “I can’t believe it because it’s not in the Bible!”

IF there was a book that was inspired, you would have to believe everything it said, whether it was in perfect harmony or not. That is, since there’s an inspired book that says that Jesus walked on water, you couldn’t say, “Well, it talks about impossible things, so we have to exclude it from the canon.”

No. If it’s inspired, then you have to believe it.

You can’t say, “It has things that are believable, so it must be inspired!”

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe anything after the death of John ever was accepted into the Canon.

Right. And this is, again, a tacit submission to the authority of the CC to tell you what to accept and what to reject.

Yes. My Megachurch’s Evangelical Pastor whom I am meeting with this Wednesday is quite concerned.

I may take the Protestant side here; but oh my, I am quite the defender of Catholicism at my Church. Lol.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[dronald]

Because the Church in her wisdom discerned that it was not needed to proclaim the Good News.

Right. So the ONLY reason you accept Hebrews is…

wait for it…

wait for it…



because…

the CC told you it’s inspired.

That’s my dilemma though, I actually accept Hebrews because it makes sense to accept Hebrews. The same way that I want to accept the Didache and I’m at odds as to why any Church or any Bible doesn’t include it.

I have a big “PROTESTANT” stamp on my forehead here but a lot of my questions are from a concerned Catholic point of view. If I was a Catholic I would ask, “But what was the official reason” and your answer would be, “Because the Church says so, no more questions.” This is hard for me to grasp.

Since you don’t know who the author of Hebrews is, you can’t know that it is apostolic in origin. You simply have to defer to the Church

It’s from the first half of the first Century and it has nothing in it that we should reject.

You can’t use the criterion of “It’s in perfect harmony with everything else”, dronald.

Because that would be circular reasoning. “I believe it because it’s in the Bible!” and “I can’t believe it because it’s not in the Bible!”

IF there was a book that was inspired, you would have to believe everything it said, whether it was in perfect harmony or not. That is, since there’s an inspired book that says that Jesus walked on water, you couldn’t say, “Well, it talks about impossible things, so we have to exclude it from the canon.”

No. If it’s inspired, then you have to believe it.

You can’t say, “It has things that are believable, so it must be inspired!”

My argument is that the criteria for the Didache and Hebrews are very similar. Books written in the first Century, by an obviously knowledgeable Christian with crazy good knowledge of “The Scriptures” (1 Corin 15) and yet one is rejected and the other is not. And all we can say is we don’t know why one was left out, but it was, so it was.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/happy-moves.gif

Okay, but if it happens… Try to look surprised.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s my dilemma though, I actually accept Hebrews because it makes sense to accept Hebrews. The same way that I want to accept the Didache and I’m at odds as to why any Church or any Bible doesn’t include it.

I get what you’re saying.

But you still haven’t said what criterion you’re using to include Hebrews.

Remember, you can’t say “Because it contains things which are consistent with what’s in the Bible”…

because that’s circular,

For example, IF the epistle of Clement were indeed inspired, you would have to believe the part about the phoenix appearing, right?

You couldn’t say, “Well, I don’t believe Clement is inspired because it contains stories about a mythical phoenix.”

I have a big “PROTESTANT” stamp on my forehead here but a lot of my questions are from a concerned Catholic point of view. If I was a Catholic I would ask, “But what was the official reason” and your answer would be, “Because the Church says so, no more questions.” This is hard for me to grasp.

Well, there is no other answer. The Holy Spirit directed the Catholic Church to keep certain books and exclude others.

It’s from the first half of the first Century and it has nothing in it that we should reject.

Again, that’s circular. If it’s inspired, then you have to believe it.

My argument is that the criteria for the Didache and Hebrews are very similar. Books written in the first Century, by an obviously knowledgeable Christian with crazy good knowledge of “The Scriptures” (1 Corin 15) and yet one is rejected and the other is not. And all we can say is we don’t know why one was left out, but it was, so it was.

So what about the Epistle of Barnabas?

Okay, but if it happens… Try to look surprised.

LOL!

 

[COPLAND_3]

Since there are numerous sects of Protestants that reject things that are fully spelled out in Scripture, such as Baptism, works concerning salvation, etc., then even with those books added it would make little difference. People without authority will only see what they want to see. Same goes for some Catholics, they only want parts of Catholicism in their lives and they will reject or ignore what they interferes with their way of life.

 

[dronald]

I get what you’re saying.

But you still haven’t said what criterion you’re using to include Hebrews.

Remember, you can’t say “Because it contains things which are consistent with what’s in the Bible”…

because that’s circular,

Well, if you’re going to introduce texts as authoritative they must all work together without any contradictions.

For example, IF the epistle of Clement were indeed inspired, you would have to believe the part about the phoenix appearing, right?

You couldn’t say, “Well, I don’t believe Clement is inspired because it contains stories about a mythical phoenix.”

Too many cans of worms can be opened with so many statements like this lol. No, it can be taken many ways.

I’m just saying, it would be interesting to see how history would have played out had 1Clement been included from day 1.

Well, there is no other answer. The Holy Spirit directed the Catholic Church to keep certain books and exclude others.

Protestants give the same answer.

“Hey Pastor, why isn’t the Didache in the Bible?”
“Because the Holy Spirit didn’t want it there.”

So what about the Epistle of Barnabas?

Never read it to be honest, which I probably should…

Do you think the Epistle of Barnabas is perfectly in line with Scripture, from the 1st Century and yet also rejected like the Didache?

 

[PRmerger]

Since there are numerous sects of Protestants that reject things that are fully spelled out in Scripture, such as Baptism, works concerning salvation, etc., then even with those books added it would make little difference. People without authority will only see what they want to see. Same goes for some Catholics, they only want parts of Catholicism in their lives and they will reject or ignore what they interferes with their way of life.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, if you’re going to introduce texts as authoritative they must all work together without any contradictions.

Catholics don’t see the texts as authoritative, dronald. The faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was put to writ.

Rather, the texts reflect the teachings which were given once for all to the saints.

“Hey Pastor, why isn’t the Didache in the Bible?”
“Because the Holy Spirit didn’t want it there.”

True.

And then the next question is: how did the Holy Spirit manifest this truth? Whom did the HS use?

Do you think the Epistle of Barnabas is perfectly in line with Scripture, from the 1st Century and yet also rejected like the Didache?

I don’t use the criterion as to something being “in line with Scripture”…because, as I said, it’s circular.

Frankly, Philemon seems to be a bit “out there” and if I used the criterion of something being “in line with Scripture” I would have to exclude Philemon.

 

[dronald]

Catholics don’t see the texts as authoritative, dronald. The faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was put to writ.

Rather, the texts reflect the teachings which were given once for all to the saints.

I don’t see how this is possible. Not everything Paul wrote was understood before Paul wrote it. Just like not everyone could know what John saw on Patmos before John saw it. Can you explain this in a little more detail please?

And then the next question is: how did the Holy Spirit manifest this truth? Whom did the HS use?

Again… Can of worms.
I would say the Church, but you would say that your Church is the only True Church.

Frankly, Philemon seems to be a bit “out there” and if I used the criterion of something being “in line with Scripture” I would have to exclude Philemon.

I plan on asking my Pastor this Wednesday if I have the authority to choose which of the NT books I don’t like and if I could exclude some of them if I felt like it… And if I can’t, why not?

Tough stuff. haha.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see how this is possible. Not everything Paul wrote was understood before Paul wrote it. Just like not everyone could know what John saw on Patmos before John saw it. Can you explain this in a little more detail please?

I’m not sure what you’re asking.

What I was saying was that Sacred Tradition came first–it is the Word of God given by Christ to the Apostles. Some of what was given to the Apostles was written down–Sacred Scripture. The rest was retained in Sacred Tradition.

Thus, the faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Again… Can of worms.
I would say the Church, but you would say that your Church is the only True Church

Well, what Church had bishops that met in councils in the 4th, 5th, 8th, 15th and 16th centuries?

Certainly not the megachurches.

It was the Catholic Church, and ONLY the Catholic Church (at least, until the 11th century) that was responsible for this.

I plan on asking my Pastor this Wednesday if I have the authority to choose which of the NT books I don’t like and if I could exclude some of them if I felt like it… And if I can’t, why not?

Tough stuff. haha.

Yeah. And make sure you ask him by what authority he can tell you yes or no.

 

[Porknpie]

I would say the Church, but you would say that your Church is the only True Church.

I plan on asking my Pastor this Wednesday if I have the authority to choose which of the NT books I don’t like and if I could exclude some of them if I felt like it… And if I can’t, why not?

Tough stuff. haha.

Dronald,

This early Church had Bishops and the Eucharist. Keep in mind that St Ignatius was a disciple of St John, the apostle taught by Christ. And the Church was called “Catholic”

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

This Church had one faith, one belief.

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

If you were not with the Bishop, you were not part of Christ’s Church. In other words, you were not part of the “true Church”.

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

Augustine clearly states the Christian Church.

We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).

This same Catholic Church infallibly determined the canon of scripture, including 27 NT writings out of several hundred. How? Christ said he would lead his Church to all Truth. He’s done so now for 2000 years. But really though, to be consistent, as you reject the Eucharist and the other sacraments held by the apostles and this Catholic Church, you should reject the books in the bible and should feel free to add the Didache and say that the Church got it all wrong from the apostles. Well actually you’ve (Protestantism) done this already by removing seven books of the OT.