Exactly. Coming from the Catholic tradition, it is difficult to understand why one should be ashamed to disclose one’s church. If we believe it is the true Church, it follows that we are proud and brave enough to let our Church be known, to be scrutinized, investigated and challenged.
Yes, obviously it is not something one meets in a regular basis, that’s why it becomes a question here. In other word, why?
Yes, for those who do not undertand this kind of dialoguing technique, it looks sneaky alright, as if there is something to hide and not being open.
Reuben, Reuben…I cannot find anywhere on your profile where you indicate you are Catholic.rfournier103:
Exactly. Coming from the Catholic tradition, it is difficult to understand why one should be ashamed to disclose one’s church. If we believe it is the true Church, it follows that we are proud and brave enough to let our Church be known, to be scrutinized, investigated and challenged.
All of the books of the Bible were written by the end of the 1st Century and history tells us that there was a wide consensus of which books were to be considered scripture by the end of the 2nd century. There are citations from almost every New Testament book by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. Clement did include a few books he calls “scripture” that did not end up in the New Testament. Showing that there wasn’t yet a complete consensus.
It seems logical to me that this being accurate, any teachings Jesus gave the disciples before His ascension into Heaven that are necessary for the Churches of God would be recorded in those scripts from the first century. In that complete way Jesus certainly never left His Church stranded or floundering for pure doctrine.adf417:
All of the books of the Bible were written by the end of the 1st Century and history tells us that there was a wide consensus of which books were to be considered scripture by the end of the 2nd century. There are citations from almost every New Testament book by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. Clement did include a few books he calls “scripture” that did not end up in the New Testament. Showing that there wasn’t yet a complete consensus.
The oldest known manuscript that list the orthodox New Testament is called the Muratorian Canon. It was written between 170-200. It included all 4 Gospels, Acts, all 13 Pauline letters, 1 and 2 John, Jude and Revelation. This shows that those text were used as “scripture” long before any council decisions on “what is scripture”.
A man I’ve conversed with who has a Ph.D. Ecclesiastical History with a focus on the Ante-Nicene church wrote this:
"The New Testament developed, or evolved, over the course of the first 250-300 years of Christian history. No one particular person made the decision. The decision was not made at a church council. The particular writings that became those of the New Testament gradually came into focus and became the most trusted and beneficial of all the early Christian writings. "
In other words, the Bible was we know came into being by a consensus of the church. It wasn’t an immediate consensus as it took around 250 years for a final consensus to form. However, the books that we know as the New Testament have been used as authoritative scripture since the before the beginning of the 2nd Century. In the first 250 years a few books were added and few removed because the majority of the churches agreed as to what was and was not to be considered scripture.
As far as the Trinity being Biblical, all you have to do is read the writings of Athanasius and see how much he used Scripture against the Arians. In his work, Against the Arians, there are six scriptural citations in the first paragraph alone.
Quite. This is why Christ established the visible Church; which already had 2nd and 3rd generational leadership present in some places before the ink was dry on the very last pages of the canonical NT.
I am a Catholic. hehe. I am glad to tell you.Reuben_J:
Reuben, Reuben…I cannot find anywhere on your profile where you indicate you are Catholic.rfournier103:
Exactly. Coming from the Catholic tradition, it is difficult to understand why one should be ashamed to disclose one’s church. If we believe it is the true Church, it follows that we are proud and brave enough to let our Church be known, to be scrutinized, investigated and challenged.
ouch. It’s a jungle out there. It’s hard to know who’s who. Interesting though.
This is really amazing, if true. How is that a Christian can live his life being an anti fellow Christians rather than espousing the love of God?
Well Reuben, I have been wondering that about all the non-Catholic bashing that has been going on. I am going to be brave and tell you that if you are the same Reuben J that was on the old format, something about you has changed.JamalChristophr:
This is really amazing, if true. How is that a Christian can live his life being an anti fellow Christians rather than espousing the love of God?
It is important to note that the vast majority of New Testament books were used as scripture from very early in the church. There was a consensus on most of the books we call the New Testament easily by the beginning of the 3rd Century and probably closer to the beginning of the 2nd Century. So it is not correct to say that we didn’t have any scripture for the first 250 years of the church. The Apostolic Fathers quoted many of our New Testament books and considered them as scripture. What we didn’t have was a final canon. The final canon was formed when a consensus was formed about the final few books. But up until that time the other books were already being used as authoritative scripture.