Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

I’m not going to engage with you if you insist on hacking up my comments in order to create straw men.

Ah. So here it is. My 6500 posting experience tells me that this is the comment of the evanescent.

The fading Protestant poster…came here to try to prove his case…

and then…

sadly…

leaves when asked to provide

apologia that’s just

indefensible.

There is no other way to discern that “all generations shall call me blessed” and “my breath is offensive to my wife”, except…

through

the

authority

of…

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. :doh2:

 

[PRmerger]

This structure of hierarchy that you have lords one over another.

There is nothing profane about structure and hierarchy. In fact, hierarchy means “sacred order”. It is holy indeed!

The nature of your priesthood is antithetical to the equality of the brotherhood.

Forgive my skepticism, but I doubt you understand the “nature” of our priesthood.

There was NO priesthood established in the first century.

This had been discussed *ad nauseum *on this forum. I don’t wish to have a discourse on this. This position is so anti-factual that I feel as if I’m discussing the 6,000 year old earth with individuals. I am simply incredulous that people believe this.

There is NO SUCH THING as Sacred Tradition. Don’t you see all the exhortations agianst Judaizers and legalization in scripture? When Christ was crucified, he ended the need for tradition.

This is a man-made tradition you’re professing, Giro.

It’s all arbitrary!

Sadly, that is the corner you’ve backed yourself into.

God will judge every individual on his or her own merits,

And you know this how?

The Sermon on the mount is superior because it IS the words of Christ.

And you know this how?

The Gospels are the most reliable texts we have, and I have no reason to believe that Matthew lied. Given the choice between Matthew and “sacred tradition” I will follow Matthew.

Why? Why do you accept Matthew and not the Gospel of Peter?

The Gospel of Thomas teaches a different Christ than the one taught by the Synoptics

This a great example of begging the question.

“I know it’s not inspired because it’s different than what’s in the Bible” and “It’s not in the Bible because it’s not inspired.” :whacky:

A better question might have been to ask my position on the Epistle of Barnabas. I think that it is on par with the pastorals.

Why? What does it profess?

 

[Cruxis117]

Ah. So here it is. My 6500 posting experience tells me that this is the comment of the evanescent.

The fading Protestant poster…came here to try to prove his case…

and then…

sadly…

leaves when asked to provide

apologia that’s just

indefensible.

There is no other way to discern that “all generations shall call me blessed” and “my breath is offensive to my wife”, except…

through

the

authority

of…

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. :doh2:

This is kind of off topic, but I just was wondering, where in Scripture does it say “my breath is offensive to my wife”? I’m not actually asking to challenge you or anything, I’m just curious because I really like that verse.

 

[IrishJoe]

Why does anyone accept any of it ?

Protestantism = beacause it’s available all together in the bookshop!

Catholics = because our council says so, the council gets its authority from the books they say are ok. For some reason this is not circular logic.

 

[clmowry]

Why does anyone accept any of it ?

Protestantism = beacause it’s available all together in the bookshop!

Catholics = because our council says so, the council gets its authority from the books they say are ok. For some reason this is not circular logic.

The Catholic faith is not based on the authroity of any book.

Chuck

 

[PRmerger]

This is kind of off topic, but I just was wondering, where in Scripture does it say “my breath is offensive to my wife”? I’m not actually asking to challenge you or anything, I’m just curious because I really like that verse.

I know. It makes me laugh!

It’s found in Job. He is lamenting all the bad things that have happened–he is being attacked by troops, has been stripped of his glory–and on top of that, his wife finds his breath stinky!

Now, clearly, without the Catholic Church to tell you that this verse is part of the Holy Bible, no one of his own authority–using science, or logic, or geometry–could discern that this is inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

Why does anyone accept any of it ?

Protestantism = beacause it’s available all together in the bookshop!

Catholics = because our council says so, the council gets its authority from the books they say are ok. For some reason this is not circular logic.

No, it’s not circular. It’s spiral.

“We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.” source

 

[Randy_Carson]

 

[TinaG]

Buttered?

-Tina “Analyst of Popcorn” G

 

[Cruxis117]

I know. It makes me laugh!

It’s found in Job. He is lamenting all the bad things that have happened–he is being attacked by troops, has been stripped of his glory–and on top of that, his wife finds his breath stinky!

Now, clearly, without the Catholic Church to tell you that this verse is part of the Holy Bible, no one of his own authority–using science, or logic, or geometry–could discern that this is inspired.

Wow! I would have never guessed haha, thanks!

And I definitely agree to the second statement.

 

[tester]

I know. It makes me laugh!

It’s found in Job. He is lamenting all the bad things that have happened–he is being attacked by troops, has been stripped of his glory–and on top of that, his wife finds his breath stinky!

Now, clearly, without the Catholic Church to tell you that this verse is part of the Holy Bible, no one of his own authority–using science, or logic, or geometry–could discern that this is inspired.

Please clarify:
are you stating that the Jews BEACUSE of the Catholic Church, consider the Book of Job as inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

Please clarify:
are you stating that the Jews BEACUSE of the Catholic Church, consider the Book of Job as inspired?

I am not making any commentary at all about what the Jews consider inspired. They had no agreement on this for millenia, and it is not my debate.

My argument is that YOU (as in any non-Catholic Christian, not “you” as in tester) know it is inspired only by virtue of the authority of the Catholic Church.

There is no way you could read an ancient text and discern for yourself what’s part of God’ Holy Word.

 

[tester]

I am not making any commentary at all about what the Jews consider inspired. They had no agreement on this for millenia, and it is not my debate.

My argument is that YOU (as in any non-Catholic Christian, not “you” as in tester) know it is inspired only by virtue of the authority of the Catholic Church.

There is no way you could read an ancient text and discern for yourself what’s part of God’ Holy Word.

Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (often simply called To the Philippians) composed around 110 to 140 AD directly quotes Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and calls it Scripture.

What Catholic Church degree or council had decided that by 140AD?
How did Polycarp know those letters were Scripture?
If I was there in in 140 AD and had access to the Paul’s letter , would I know it was Scripture?

supakoo.com/rick/PolycarpToPhilippians-2010-03-28.pdf

Chapter 12
For I am confident that you are well versed in the Scriptures, and nothing is hid from you; but to me this is not granted.** Only, as it is said in these Scriptures, “be angry but do not sin,”64 and “do not let the sun go down on your anger**.”65 Blessed is the one who remembers this, and I believe that it is so with you. Now may God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal Priest himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness, and without wrath, and in patience, and in longsuffering, and endurance, and purity, and may he give you a share and place with his saints, and to us with you, and to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead. Pray for all the saints.66 Pray also for the kings, and for magistrates, and princes, and for those who persecute you and hate you,67

64 [XR] Eph 4.26, quoting Ps 4.5
65 [XR] Eph 4.26
66 [XR] 1Ti 2.1
67 [XR] Mt 5.44

 

[tester]

I am not making any commentary at all about what the Jews consider inspired. They had no agreement on this for millenia, and it is not my debate.

My argument is that YOU (as in any non-Catholic Christian, not “you” as in tester) know it is inspired only by virtue of the authority of the Catholic Church.

There is no way you could read an ancient text and discern for yourself what’s part of God’ Holy Word.

Consider Irenaeus

"The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic “Against the Heresies,”

Questions:
How did Irenaeus know those writings were Scripture?
What Catholic Church degree or council had decided that by 180AD?

 

[PRmerger]

Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (often simply called To the Philippians) composed around 110 to 140 AD directly quotes Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and calls it Scripture.

Yes! This is a wonderful example of Sacred Tradition: the witness of the early Christians.

 

[PRmerger]

Consider Irenaeus

"The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic “Against the Heresies,”

Questions:
How did Irenaeus know those writings were Scripture?
What Catholic Church degree or council had decided that by 180AD?

Again, another perfect example of Sacred Tradition at work.

 

[tester]

Yes! This is a wonderful: the witness of the early Christians.

Tychicus delivered Paul’s letters to Ephesus.

"Tychicus, the dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will tell you everything, so that you also may know how I am and what I am doing. I am sending him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage you. "
Ephesians 6:21-22

OK, I see how this will go…

If I say it was common knowledge, widely known, or generally accepted.
the reply will be it is an example of Sacred Tradition.

But please explain how the the Jews knew the books of Moses or Isaiah were inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

Tychicus delivered Paul’s letters to Ephesus.

"Tychicus, the dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will tell you everything, so that you also may know how I am and what I am doing. I am sending him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage you. "
Ephesians 6:21-22

OK, I see how this will go…

If I say it was common knowledge, widely known, or generally accepted.
the reply will be it is an example of Sacred Tradition.

Well, yes, and no. What exactly do you think Sacred Tradition is?

But please explain how the the Jews knew the books of Moses or Isaiah were inspired?

My understanding is that some of the Jews did not think Isaiah *was *inspired, right? Some only accepted the Torah. Some accepted the Talmud. Some accepted the Torah and the prophetic books. Some accepted…

 

[tester]

Well, yes, and no. What exactly do you think Sacred Tradition is?..

Please clarify at what point does a well-known undisputed fact becomes Scared Tradition

Romans 16:22 I, Tetris, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord.

When Paul dictated the Letter of Romans to Tetris, was that Scared Tradition?

When Tetris give the letter to Trusted Traveler going to Rome and says: deliver this letter from Paul to the Church in Rome. Is that Scared Tradition?

When Trusted Traveler gives the letter to the Church in Rome and says I have this letter from Paul for you. Is that Scared Tradition?

When they read the letter in Church and Christian Man tells his 10 friends and family: I just heard Paul’s Letter to us. Is that Scared Tradition? And then they tell their 10 friends and family…

If Josephus (37 – c.100 AD/CE),* also Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph son of Matthias) and Titus Flavius Josephus was a first-century Romano-Jewish historian and hagiographer of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded first century Jewish history, such as the First Jewish–Roman War which resulted in the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels.*…writes about it ; Is that Scared Tradition?

My understanding is that some of the Jews did not think Isaiah *was *inspired, right? Some only accepted the Torah. Some accepted the Talmud. Some accepted the Torah and the prophetic books. Some accepted…

well you qualified it with the word “some” so i guess you could find 3 Jews somewhere who thought that: of course

did MOST Jews in the time of Jesus think Isaiah was inspired ? of course!

 

[PRmerger]

Please clarify at what point does a well-known undisputed fact becomes Scared Tradition

This is backwards, tester. Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, handed down orally from the mouths of Jesus and the Apostles. So what they taught, whether by word or by letter, was* theopneustos.* It always was Sacred Tradition. It didn’t “become” ST.

In the case of the canon of Scripture, this Sacred Tradition was defined infallibly at the
Council of Rome in 382; this decision was again confirmed, infallibly by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).