Why the bible is most assuredly not a Catholic book,

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hisalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SIA said:
catholic means universal. Catholic is the church that tries to convince everyone that it is the only one Jesus founded. Huge difference.
Click to expand...
Look at the earliest attestation of the word:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8 St. Ignatius c. 104.

Ignatius is the first known writer to put great stress on loyalty to a single bishop in each city, who is assisted by both presbyters (elders/priests) and deacons. St. Clement shows how the bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and are One.

I think Manny already posted an exhaustive history of the term.
 
SIA said:
Wrong Manny. Read the Scriptures you quote. The Gospel of John proclaims the Word as God. Jesus says that he and the father are one. Jesus told Peter that when he sees him he sees the father. Plenty of clear cut evidence that the trinity is spoken of tons of times in Scripture. You are beginning to use the same logic as the Jehovahs Witnesses Manny.
Click to expand...
Btw, it was Philip, not Peter.

So, knowing that verse, you venerate icons?
 
As always SIA will ignore history to fit his own views and beliefs…
 
SIA said:
I was for decades. Do the Scriptures depict one particular denomination as the Church Jesus founded? Read the Scriptures where Jesus founded his Church. Did he say that all of his followers would be of one institution and all under one roof?? Absolutely not. That’s because he meant nothing of the such.
Click to expand...
No, He didn’t. He didn’t pray in His final hours “on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, are in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that Thou sent Me.” John 17:20-1 (at least in my Bible).

He prayed "only for these alone, not those who believe through their word because the Church is invisible, so they will be separate and disunited even as You and I are separate and divided Father, and that we may remain aloof from them, so that they can think about us.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
NOT A SINGLE Christian manuscript of the Bible does not contain these Books. Not one.

If you are going to use the Masoretic, text, which was not fixed until the 7th century, you had better follow the Jews in everything else and deny that Jesus is the Christ.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t make much logical sense, though, Al. Though I understand the point you’re trying to show…the apostles state that the oracles of God were given to the Jews. The New Testament was given to the Church (along with the inherited OT). The validity of Jesus is not dependent on whether the Jews accepted Him as God. The Palestinian rejection of the deuterocanonicals is not related in any way to the person of Christ.

For what it is worth, though, Al, the Church should include the DC in Scripture because the Church has always done that, independent of whether an individual rejects them.
 
TriuneUnity said:
That doesn’t make much logical sense, though, Al. Though I understand the point you’re trying to show…the apostles state that the oracles of God were given to the Jews. The New Testament was given to the Church (along with the inherited OT). The validity of Jesus is not dependent on whether the Jews accepted Him as God. The Palestinian rejection of the deuterocanonicals is not related in any way to the person of Christ.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is in the sense that the rejection was connected to the rise of the Church, e.g. the same council of Yavneh which started the rejection of the LXX (the books for instance like Wisdom and Maccabees which talk the clearest on the Resurrection, the Christians favorite topic) also inserted a curse on the Judeo-Christians into the synagog service.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Actually, it is in the sense that the rejection was connected to the rise of the Church, e.g. the same council of Yavneh which started the rejection of the LXX (the books for instance like Wisdom and Maccabees which talk the clearest on the Resurrection, the Christians favorite topic) also inserted a curse on the Judeo-Christians into the synagog service.
Click to expand...
That may or may not be the case… I am no expert on the Council of Jamnia, if it even existed. There are reasons to reject the DC as inspired other than what may have happened at a 1st century gathering of rabbi’s. Not saying those reasons are 100% valid, just that they exist.
 
TriuneUnity said:
That may or may not be the case… I am no expert on the Council of Jamnia, if it even existed. There are reasons to reject the DC as inspired other than what may have happened at a 1st century gathering of rabbi’s. Not saying those reasons are 100% valid, just that they exist.
Click to expand...
My point that whatever reason (and of course I argue none exist), no Christian can appeal to the Council of Yavneh as one of them.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
My point that whatever reason (and of course I argue none exist), no Christian can appeal to the Council of Yavneh as one of them.
Click to expand...
Is it common for Christians to appeal to the Council of Jamnia? I, personally, have never encountered it.

I did dig up some sources on what took place at the council

Frank M. Cross designates the Council of Jamnia “a common and somewhat misleading designation of a particular session of the rabbinic academy (or court) at Yabneh.” He adds, “Recent sifting of the rabbinic evidence makes clear that in the proceedings at the academy of Yabneh the Rabbis did not fix the canon, but at most discussed marginal books, notably Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) and the Song of Songs. . . . Moreover, it must be insisted that the proceedings at Yabneh were not a `council,’ certainly not in the late ecclesiastical sense.” Cross sees Josephus, independent of any Jamnia proceedings, reflecting “a clear and coherent theological doctrine of canon that must stem, we believe, from canonical doctrine of Hillel and his school.” Albert Sundberg recognizes that the “Council of Jamnia” hypothesis is dead. At the same time, still contending that the Hebrew tripartite canon was probably fixed between 70 and 135 C.E., he suggests that my own view of the hypothesis may have been too quickly accepted. He asks, “What alternatives are there to Jamnia as the venue?” Lee McDonald summarizes the case, “There is evidence that a discussion was held at Jamnia on the canonical status of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, but this is not enough to suggest that any binding or official decisions were made regarding the scope of the biblical canon at Jamnia.” (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Jack P. Lewis, Jainnia Revisited, p 161, 2002)
 
Isa_Almisry said:
My point that whatever reason (and of course I argue none exist), no Christian can appeal to the Council of Yavneh as one of them.
Click to expand...
Don’t the Orthodox have a greater number of DC books than Rome does?
 
ibkc said:
This is one of the silliest premises for an apologetical debate that I have ever seen. Come on, Hisalone - you can do better than this. 😉
Click to expand...
What is sillyis any attempted claim that the bible is a Catholic Book. God entrusted the Jews with the bible. However it is His work.
 
adstrinity said:
I don’t think that’s true. I think Hisalone is scraping the bottom of the barrel because this is all Hisalone has. We have refuted everything else Hisalone has said; it seems to me he is clutching at anything to make sense in his mind. Hisalone’s theology leads to he is alone as far as his beliefs. Don’t worry. I’ll say a decade to the BVM, and ask to St. Anthony, St. John the Baptist, and St. Helen (the last two being patrons of converts) to join me in prayer to God for Hisalone.
…Might I ask all who participate in this thread to do the same?
Click to expand...
You are left defenseless. You cannot refute my polemic so you attack me. Classic.
 
Hisalone said:
What is sillyis any attempted claim that the bible is a Catholic Book.
Click to expand...
The New Testament was written by Jewish followers of Christ and the founders of a new religion called Christianity. The canon of the Bible was determined several hundred years later by the Catholic Church, translated into the Vulgate by a Catholic, and received its present form courtesy of the Catholic Church.

Next?
 
Isa_Almisry said:
No, He didn’t. He didn’t pray in His final hours “on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, are in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that Thou sent Me.” John 17:20-1 (at least in my Bible).

He prayed "only for these alone, not those who believe through their word because the Church is invisible, so they will be separate and disunited even as You and I are separate and divided Father, and that we may remain aloof from them, so that they can think about us.
Click to expand...
One cannot be Born again and not be a member of Christs Church. Therefore no man can exclude what the Holy Ghost has included.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top