In reply to [removed post]
My friend, you have no clue what the RCC believes. Trent merely confirmed the canon of the Bible that had been set out at Hippo as pushback against Protestant threats to add words and remove James from the Bible.
The rest of your points seem asked of K-2 but am happy to provide a Catholic refutation if intetested.
JJMt said:
To summarize, on your first 3 points above, you differ substantially from your RCC friends whom, if I am not mistaken believe it wasn't until the Council of Trent that the canon was decided.
Where exactly do you think that you and I differ on what made the canon the canon? Assuming that I understand you correctly, I can't see too much I'd disagree with in your first 3 points, other than a lot of the flowery language you like to use.
So you like to rely upon church tradition. That's the EO tradition, I assume? You don't rely upon RCC tradition? When do you believe that the split in tradition occurred - only at the point that they formalized Papal infallibility or earlier? What weight/value do you give RCC tradition after that point, and why? Do you give any value at all to Protestant tradition? If not, why not?
On your point 5, I believe that is exactly what you said. Regardless, do you believe that the RCC church has ever "apostasized"? Which Church "is the repository of the Truth"? Only the EO church? If so, why is that?
Your point 7 is a historical argument. The Church of Christ would debate you on that. And re the second paragraph is 7 is simply wrong. Of course Scripture is the Truth. Just because heretics quote it doesn't make it not Truth. Heretics can quote it out of context as Satan did when he tempted Jesus. Lies are at their most effective when they have a foundation of truth. Of course, Christ is also the Truth, but because I believe that he and the Scripture are the same, that's an easy point for me to make.
Where you and I obviously disagree is that you believe that Church tradition is Truth, seemingly a superior source of Truth to Scripture. Yet you have not been able to point to any fact or evidence to support your claim, challenging my basis for canonicity instead. Yet, the very arguments you make against my basis for canonicity are equally applicable to your reliance on church Tradition.
Your point 8 - you need to review the latest scholastic work on the writing of the NT scriptures. The Pauline epistles were the first written, and were written most likely in the early AD50s. The gospels of Mark and Luke were most likely written in the late AD50s.
Your point 9 - it's hard to respond to a "random article" when lots of lots of Bibles exist long before the invention of the printing press. Just because they may have been assembled differently, or incorporate a book that isn't included today, does not mean that there wasn't a "bible in a book." Heck, we can't even agree completely today but I don't think that anyone would argue that we don't have a "bible in a book" today. I think we have a copy of a "bible in a book" that dates to either the 2nd or 4th century, and we have tons and tons of "bibles in a book" from pre- medieval and medieval times.
Your point 10 illustrates yet another area where you and the EO differ from your RCC fanboys on here, and where your church traditions differ. So, again, who's tradition is a seeker to look to? Why is the EO tradition superior to the RCC tradition? Are you saying that the RCC traditions are wrong, based on the early church fathers?
My friend, you have no clue what the RCC believes. Trent merely confirmed the canon of the Bible that had been set out at Hippo as pushback against Protestant threats to add words and remove James from the Bible.
The rest of your points seem asked of K-2 but am happy to provide a Catholic refutation if intetested.