Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Why didn't you bold and highlight this portion? Are you familiar with the history of the Church and what role the councils played in the formation of Christianity?

Why don't you tell us about all the Bishops who were in favor of Arianism? There were many. Tell me about the musings of St John Chrysostom on the Jews and how St Jerome thought that Satan would be reconciled one day. There are very holy people who get things wrong, which is why we rely on the Councils and the Magisterium.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage set the canon for Christianity; this is why the "apocrypha" is included in both Orthodox and Catholic scripture. Are there levels of "God-breathed"? Do we need to revise Timothy with saying "only some scripture is profitable"?

---

So it's now your claim that a local council set the canon for the entire church? That may be more novel than Trent trying to set the canon itself.

The rest really just supports the Protestant view. Church history is messy and there was rarely a uniform belief. To claim some singular viewpoint as Rome forces something on the fathers that just wasn't there.

---

Rome was specifically mentioned as being needed to confirm the scriptural canon proceeding the Council of Carthage. This is how the Church works, not by one monk deciding to add words, or remove books on his own authority, but by the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles of Christ, and their successors the Catholic Episcopate.

---

And yet the Synod of Laodicea which was held prior to this council determined the Apocrypha was not part of teh canon.

Canon 60:

These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world;
2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.
And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.


So if we are going to suddenly claim the local councils are somehow dictating the doctrine of the entire church, things are going to get real interesting real quickly.

I do recall someone making the argument that the reason we shouldn't hold to councils as infallible is because they tend to contradict each other....

--------------------
So what you are asking us to do is ignore councils and prominent historical church fathers who disagree with something that not even Rome could get an actual majority for on their own vote.

That seems suspect.

---

We are not even certain that they discussed the canon of the Bible at the council of Laodicea, as it mainly focused on behavioral matters;. Either way you shouldn't hang your hat on this council as it was a very small regional council of about two dozen who may or may not have published a canon which excluded the book of Revelation. This was also not sent to Rome for confirmation, so was more of a Q&A forum, which is why no one talks about the council of Laodicea

---

And it appears we have no record of the Council of Hippo except for Carthage and yet you claim that as a source. Even with Carthage, there are seeming problems with some of the text that was added.

You're taking the stance that the only councils that are valid are the ones you agree with, which as I've already shown goes in direct contrast to the beliefs of many significant church fathers, who did not attend or even seem to agree with these councils.

What is abundantly clear is that the Apocrypha was around and that they were controversial books (by definition). Some groups affirmed them in some capacity, some did not.

This is why what Rome did at Trent is novel. Instead of taking the historical view, that is well documented, that these books were disputed and many did not see them as canon, but as useful, they forced them on par.

---

They had been on par for over a thousand years. They were included in Protestant bibles even after Trent and were only removed by publishers to save money on printing. Yes, it is embarrassing but you need to embrace it. You cannot argue that the so-called "apocrypha" was part of of the settled Biblical canon of all of Christianity for over 1000 years before the reformation. Your only argument is that some scripture isn't as important as other scripture. Again, is the Gospel of John more divinely inspired than Revelation? Than Acts?

---

Yeah, Not true and of course, no support provided.

Edit...And think of what you're saying. A group, after the fact, decided that the early church got it wrong...That the earliest Fathers, and maybe the Apostles just didn't understand the proper canon, but 500+ years later, they were suddenly definitive on those books.

That's the argument you want to make?

---

No support provided? Are the books part of the Orthodox Bible? how did they get there? Were the books part of the Protestant bible? When were they taken out?

Your argument is that these books were not considered Biblical canon until the council of Trent. There are mountains of evidence to prove otherwise. If the early church didn't consider these biblical canon, why are they in everyone's Bible 1,000 years + before Trent?

Why were they removed from Protestant bibles AFTER Trent?

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Why didn't you bold and highlight this portion? Are you familiar with the history of the Church and what role the councils played in the formation of Christianity?

Why don't you tell us about all the Bishops who were in favor of Arianism? There were many. Tell me about the musings of St John Chrysostom on the Jews and how St Jerome thought that Satan would be reconciled one day. There are very holy people who get things wrong, which is why we rely on the Councils and the Magisterium.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage set the canon for Christianity; this is why the "apocrypha" is included in both Orthodox and Catholic scripture. Are there levels of "God-breathed"? Do we need to revise Timothy with saying "only some scripture is profitable"?

---

So it's now your claim that a local council set the canon for the entire church? That may be more novel than Trent trying to set the canon itself.

The rest really just supports the Protestant view. Church history is messy and there was rarely a uniform belief. To claim some singular viewpoint as Rome forces something on the fathers that just wasn't there.

---

Rome was specifically mentioned as being needed to confirm the scriptural canon proceeding the Council of Carthage. This is how the Church works, not by one monk deciding to add words, or remove books on his own authority, but by the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles of Christ, and their successors the Catholic Episcopate.

---

And yet the Synod of Laodicea which was held prior to this council determined the Apocrypha was not part of teh canon.

Canon 60:

These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world;
2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.
And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.


So if we are going to suddenly claim the local councils are somehow dictating the doctrine of the entire church, things are going to get real interesting real quickly.

I do recall someone making the argument that the reason we shouldn't hold to councils as infallible is because they tend to contradict each other....

--------------------
So what you are asking us to do is ignore councils and prominent historical church fathers who disagree with something that not even Rome could get an actual majority for on their own vote.

That seems suspect.

---

We are not even certain that they discussed the canon of the Bible at the council of Laodicea, as it mainly focused on behavioral matters;. Either way you shouldn't hang your hat on this council as it was a very small regional council of about two dozen who may or may not have published a canon which excluded the book of Revelation. This was also not sent to Rome for confirmation, so was more of a Q&A forum, which is why no one talks about the council of Laodicea

---

And it appears we have no record of the Council of Hippo except for Carthage and yet you claim that as a source. Even with Carthage, there are seeming problems with some of the text that was added.

You're taking the stance that the only councils that are valid are the ones you agree with, which as I've already shown goes in direct contrast to the beliefs of many significant church fathers, who did not attend or even seem to agree with these councils.

What is abundantly clear is that the Apocrypha was around and that they were controversial books (by definition). Some groups affirmed them in some capacity, some did not.

This is why what Rome did at Trent is novel. Instead of taking the historical view, that is well documented, that these books were disputed and many did not see them as canon, but as useful, they forced them on par.

---

They had been on par for over a thousand years. They were included in Protestant bibles even after Trent and were only removed by publishers to save money on printing. Yes, it is embarrassing but you need to embrace it. You cannot argue that the so-called "apocrypha" was part of of the settled Biblical canon of all of Christianity for over 1000 years before the reformation. Your only argument is that some scripture isn't as important as other scripture. Again, is the Gospel of John more divinely inspired than Revelation? Than Acts?

---

Yeah, Not true and of course, no support provided.

Edit...And think of what you're saying. A group, after the fact, decided that the early church got it wrong...That the earliest Fathers, and maybe the Apostles just didn't understand the proper canon, but 500+ years later, they were suddenly definitive on those books.

That's the argument you want to make?

---

When you say the "early church". Can you define your terms? That there was disagreement between some Church fathers is not the same as saying the Church. Jerome also did not reject all of the parts of Deuterocanonical books and he included all 7 in the Vulgate because he recognized the Church's authority given to it by God to determine the canon.

---

I provided a pretty large response on the disagreement earlier in this thread. That would be a good starting point. But really a quick google search shows just how mixed the response was towards these books.

And as with Faithful Ag, the question is not whether they were included or not, but as to their status and Jerome gave them the name Apocrypha because they were disputed texts.

---

But you're conflating church fathers with One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Magisterial teaching is not a Chinese menu of Saint quotes to pick from here and there on this and that.

---

Quote:

---

the historical evidence supporting my claim is what you stated directly below. The Books were there. Whatever disputes between individual church fathers or Bishops there may have been early on, the Church left the books there, and in fact insisted they remain there to which Jerome submitted.

---

Quote:

---

what do you do with the more than 1,000 years between "this time" and Luther? The church kept them in and used them with numerous cross-references in the NT citing these books. I am consistently relying on what the Church did following the dispute vs. trying to interpolate what they were really thinking but chose not to clarify for those thousand plus years. The books were used to confirm and support NT scripture and church doctrine.

---

Quote:

---

You are still saying something different here. The Holy Spirit guided the Church. The infallible source is the Holy Spirit which guides and protects the church infallibly. Through this Church (Bishops), and as a part of her Sacred Tradition, we have received the Scriptures and we can have confidence in their reliability and accuracy. In order for the Scriptures to hold and maintain their place as an infallible source you must have the correct books AND an infallible interpretation. The only way this can happen is through the church which objectively kept the books there.

---

Quote:

---

We are supposed to believe and follow the church discerns through her Bishops, the magesterium vs. cherry picking what quotes or positions we can cobble together pitting church fathers against each other.

---

Quote:

---

Jerome may have given the books the name Apocrypha, but he submitted to the wisdom and discernment of the Church.

You keep saying the position Rome took is novel, but you fail to acknowledge the Luther acted first. For the sake of argument let's say we agree the books were "disputed" - who resolved the dispute and when? Are you taking the position that Athanasius resolved the dispute, or maybe Jerome? If not who and when? Luther? Is this dispute something any individual man can resolve?

---

Quote:

---

No. I presuppose nothing. The facts are simple. Luther decided to make changes to what he had received through the Church because Luther thought he knew better than the collective church. You do not deny these facts, you just want to justify his reasoning and justify his position. My question is where did Luther derive the authority to do what he did? Jerome did not claim this type of authority, but somehow Luther knew more or had a better view of the "historical view" some 1200 years

---

Quote:

---

How could Luther have mandated his order be followed? It's almost comical to compare Luther, an individual man, to the collective Church and her Bishops. The whole point is that Luther had NO AUTHORITY to do what he did. That authority was placed with the Church and her Bishops, which was forced to make a declarative decision because of the confusion Luther introduced (or re-introduced if you will).

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Why didn't you bold and highlight this portion? Are you familiar with the history of the Church and what role the councils played in the formation of Christianity?

Why don't you tell us about all the Bishops who were in favor of Arianism? There were many. Tell me about the musings of St John Chrysostom on the Jews and how St Jerome thought that Satan would be reconciled one day. There are very holy people who get things wrong, which is why we rely on the Councils and the Magisterium.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage set the canon for Christianity; this is why the "apocrypha" is included in both Orthodox and Catholic scripture. Are there levels of "God-breathed"? Do we need to revise Timothy with saying "only some scripture is profitable"?

---

So it's now your claim that a local council set the canon for the entire church? That may be more novel than Trent trying to set the canon itself.

The rest really just supports the Protestant view. Church history is messy and there was rarely a uniform belief. To claim some singular viewpoint as Rome forces something on the fathers that just wasn't there.

---

Rome was specifically mentioned as being needed to confirm the scriptural canon proceeding the Council of Carthage. This is how the Church works, not by one monk deciding to add words, or remove books on his own authority, but by the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles of Christ, and their successors the Catholic Episcopate.

---

And yet the Synod of Laodicea which was held prior to this council determined the Apocrypha was not part of teh canon.

Canon 60:

These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world;
2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.
And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.


So if we are going to suddenly claim the local councils are somehow dictating the doctrine of the entire church, things are going to get real interesting real quickly.

I do recall someone making the argument that the reason we shouldn't hold to councils as infallible is because they tend to contradict each other....

--------------------
So what you are asking us to do is ignore councils and prominent historical church fathers who disagree with something that not even Rome could get an actual majority for on their own vote.

That seems suspect.

---

We are not even certain that they discussed the canon of the Bible at the council of Laodicea, as it mainly focused on behavioral matters;. Either way you shouldn't hang your hat on this council as it was a very small regional council of about two dozen who may or may not have published a canon which excluded the book of Revelation. This was also not sent to Rome for confirmation, so was more of a Q&A forum, which is why no one talks about the council of Laodicea

---

And it appears we have no record of the Council of Hippo except for Carthage and yet you claim that as a source. Even with Carthage, there are seeming problems with some of the text that was added.

You're taking the stance that the only councils that are valid are the ones you agree with, which as I've already shown goes in direct contrast to the beliefs of many significant church fathers, who did not attend or even seem to agree with these councils.

What is abundantly clear is that the Apocrypha was around and that they were controversial books (by definition). Some groups affirmed them in some capacity, some did not.

This is why what Rome did at Trent is novel. Instead of taking the historical view, that is well documented, that these books were disputed and many did not see them as canon, but as useful, they forced them on par.

---

They had been on par for over a thousand years. They were included in Protestant bibles even after Trent and were only removed by publishers to save money on printing. Yes, it is embarrassing but you need to embrace it. You cannot argue that the so-called "apocrypha" was part of of the settled Biblical canon of all of Christianity for over 1000 years before the reformation. Your only argument is that some scripture isn't as important as other scripture. Again, is the Gospel of John more divinely inspired than Revelation? Than Acts?

---

Yeah, Not true and of course, no support provided.

Edit...And think of what you're saying. A group, after the fact, decided that the early church got it wrong...That the earliest Fathers, and maybe the Apostles just didn't understand the proper canon, but 500+ years later, they were suddenly definitive on those books.

That's the argument you want to make?

---

When you say the "early church". Can you define your terms? That there was disagreement between some Church fathers is not the same as saying the Church. Jerome also did not reject all of the parts of Deuterocanonical books and he included all 7 in the Vulgate because he recognized the Church's authority given to it by God to determine the canon.

---

I provided a pretty large response on the disagreement earlier in this thread. That would be a good starting point. But really a quick google search shows just how mixed the response was towards these books.

And as with Faithful Ag, the question is not whether they were included or not, but as to their status and Jerome gave them the name Apocrypha because they were disputed texts.

---

But you're conflating church fathers with One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Magisterial teaching is not a Chinese menu of Saint quotes to pick from here and there on this and that.

---

Yes...I don't believe in or support your claim of magisterial authority. So their claims aren't particularly relevant and it "should" be even more concerning to you when you have to essentially admit that their claims don't align with the early church.

---

Why mention Jerome at all then? That's kind of the point of the Magisterium. If you can't make a compelling argument for the formal sufficiency of scripture, which church father should I appeal to? Irenaeus on this one thing, Origen on another, and Luther for the things on which those two disagree?

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Why didn't you bold and highlight this portion? Are you familiar with the history of the Church and what role the councils played in the formation of Christianity?

Why don't you tell us about all the Bishops who were in favor of Arianism? There were many. Tell me about the musings of St John Chrysostom on the Jews and how St Jerome thought that Satan would be reconciled one day. There are very holy people who get things wrong, which is why we rely on the Councils and the Magisterium.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage set the canon for Christianity; this is why the "apocrypha" is included in both Orthodox and Catholic scripture. Are there levels of "God-breathed"? Do we need to revise Timothy with saying "only some scripture is profitable"?

---

So it's now your claim that a local council set the canon for the entire church? That may be more novel than Trent trying to set the canon itself.

The rest really just supports the Protestant view. Church history is messy and there was rarely a uniform belief. To claim some singular viewpoint as Rome forces something on the fathers that just wasn't there.

---

Rome was specifically mentioned as being needed to confirm the scriptural canon proceeding the Council of Carthage. This is how the Church works, not by one monk deciding to add words, or remove books on his own authority, but by the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles of Christ, and their successors the Catholic Episcopate.

---

And yet the Synod of Laodicea which was held prior to this council determined the Apocrypha was not part of teh canon.

Canon 60:

These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world;
2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.
And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.


So if we are going to suddenly claim the local councils are somehow dictating the doctrine of the entire church, things are going to get real interesting real quickly.

I do recall someone making the argument that the reason we shouldn't hold to councils as infallible is because they tend to contradict each other....

--------------------
So what you are asking us to do is ignore councils and prominent historical church fathers who disagree with something that not even Rome could get an actual majority for on their own vote.

That seems suspect.

---

We are not even certain that they discussed the canon of the Bible at the council of Laodicea, as it mainly focused on behavioral matters;. Either way you shouldn't hang your hat on this council as it was a very small regional council of about two dozen who may or may not have published a canon which excluded the book of Revelation. This was also not sent to Rome for confirmation, so was more of a Q&A forum, which is why no one talks about the council of Laodicea

---

And it appears we have no record of the Council of Hippo except for Carthage and yet you claim that as a source. Even with Carthage, there are seeming problems with some of the text that was added.

You're taking the stance that the only councils that are valid are the ones you agree with, which as I've already shown goes in direct contrast to the beliefs of many significant church fathers, who did not attend or even seem to agree with these councils.

What is abundantly clear is that the Apocrypha was around and that they were controversial books (by definition). Some groups affirmed them in some capacity, some did not.

This is why what Rome did at Trent is novel. Instead of taking the historical view, that is well documented, that these books were disputed and many did not see them as canon, but as useful, they forced them on par.

---

They had been on par for over a thousand years. They were included in Protestant bibles even after Trent and were only removed by publishers to save money on printing. Yes, it is embarrassing but you need to embrace it. You cannot argue that the so-called "apocrypha" was part of of the settled Biblical canon of all of Christianity for over 1000 years before the reformation. Your only argument is that some scripture isn't as important as other scripture. Again, is the Gospel of John more divinely inspired than Revelation? Than Acts?

---

Yeah, Not true and of course, no support provided.

Edit...And think of what you're saying. A group, after the fact, decided that the early church got it wrong...That the earliest Fathers, and maybe the Apostles just didn't understand the proper canon, but 500+ years later, they were suddenly definitive on those books.

That's the argument you want to make?

---

When you say the "early church". Can you define your terms? That there was disagreement between some Church fathers is not the same as saying the Church. Jerome also did not reject all of the parts of Deuterocanonical books and he included all 7 in the Vulgate because he recognized the Church's authority given to it by God to determine the canon.

---

I provided a pretty large response on the disagreement earlier in this thread. That would be a good starting point. But really a quick google search shows just how mixed the response was towards these books.

And as with Faithful Ag, the question is not whether they were included or not, but as to their status and Jerome gave them the name Apocrypha because they were disputed texts.

---

But you're conflating church fathers with One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Magisterial teaching is not a Chinese menu of Saint quotes to pick from here and there on this and that.

---

Yes...I don't believe in or support your claim of magisterial authority. So their claims aren't particularly relevant and it "should" be even more concerning to you when you have to essentially admit that their claims don't align with the early church.

---

Why mention Jerome at all then? That's kind of the point of the Magisterium. If you can't make a compelling argument for the formal sufficiency of scripture, which church father should I appeal to? Irenaeus on this one thing, Origen on another, and Luther for the things on which those two disagree?

---

You're making an argument that the modern magisterium existed in Jerome's time and I don't think that claim holds to any historical accuracy.

Jerome gets mentioned because he's essentially the father of the modern bible structure.

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Why didn't you bold and highlight this portion? Are you familiar with the history of the Church and what role the councils played in the formation of Christianity?

Why don't you tell us about all the Bishops who were in favor of Arianism? There were many. Tell me about the musings of St John Chrysostom on the Jews and how St Jerome thought that Satan would be reconciled one day. There are very holy people who get things wrong, which is why we rely on the Councils and the Magisterium.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage set the canon for Christianity; this is why the "apocrypha" is included in both Orthodox and Catholic scripture. Are there levels of "God-breathed"? Do we need to revise Timothy with saying "only some scripture is profitable"?

---

So it's now your claim that a local council set the canon for the entire church? That may be more novel than Trent trying to set the canon itself.

The rest really just supports the Protestant view. Church history is messy and there was rarely a uniform belief. To claim some singular viewpoint as Rome forces something on the fathers that just wasn't there.

---

Rome was specifically mentioned as being needed to confirm the scriptural canon proceeding the Council of Carthage. This is how the Church works, not by one monk deciding to add words, or remove books on his own authority, but by the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles of Christ, and their successors the Catholic Episcopate.

---

And yet the Synod of Laodicea which was held prior to this council determined the Apocrypha was not part of teh canon.

Canon 60:

These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world;
2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.
And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.


So if we are going to suddenly claim the local councils are somehow dictating the doctrine of the entire church, things are going to get real interesting real quickly.

I do recall someone making the argument that the reason we shouldn't hold to councils as infallible is because they tend to contradict each other....

--------------------
So what you are asking us to do is ignore councils and prominent historical church fathers who disagree with something that not even Rome could get an actual majority for on their own vote.

That seems suspect.

---

We are not even certain that they discussed the canon of the Bible at the council of Laodicea, as it mainly focused on behavioral matters;. Either way you shouldn't hang your hat on this council as it was a very small regional council of about two dozen who may or may not have published a canon which excluded the book of Revelation. This was also not sent to Rome for confirmation, so was more of a Q&A forum, which is why no one talks about the council of Laodicea

---

And it appears we have no record of the Council of Hippo except for Carthage and yet you claim that as a source. Even with Carthage, there are seeming problems with some of the text that was added.

You're taking the stance that the only councils that are valid are the ones you agree with, which as I've already shown goes in direct contrast to the beliefs of many significant church fathers, who did not attend or even seem to agree with these councils.

What is abundantly clear is that the Apocrypha was around and that they were controversial books (by definition). Some groups affirmed them in some capacity, some did not.

This is why what Rome did at Trent is novel. Instead of taking the historical view, that is well documented, that these books were disputed and many did not see them as canon, but as useful, they forced them on par.

---

They had been on par for over a thousand years. They were included in Protestant bibles even after Trent and were only removed by publishers to save money on printing. Yes, it is embarrassing but you need to embrace it. You cannot argue that the so-called "apocrypha" was part of of the settled Biblical canon of all of Christianity for over 1000 years before the reformation. Your only argument is that some scripture isn't as important as other scripture. Again, is the Gospel of John more divinely inspired than Revelation? Than Acts?

---

Yeah, Not true and of course, no support provided.

Edit...And think of what you're saying. A group, after the fact, decided that the early church got it wrong...That the earliest Fathers, and maybe the Apostles just didn't understand the proper canon, but 500+ years later, they were suddenly definitive on those books.

That's the argument you want to make?

---

No support provided? Are the books part of the Orthodox Bible? how did they get there? Were the books part of the Protestant bible? When were they taken out?

Your argument is that these books were not considered Biblical canon until the council of Trent. There are mountains of evidence to prove otherwise. If the early church didn't consider these biblical canon, why are they in everyone's Bible 1,000 years + before Trent?

Why were they removed from Protestant bibles AFTER Trent?

---

I don't actually believe the EO holds the same standard as Rome does.

A quick look at the St. Tikhon's Seminary says the following: "Although the Orthodox Church accepts these books as being canonical, and treasures them and uses them liturgically, she does not use them as primary sources in the definition of her dogmas."
----------

And you incorrectly state my argument. My argument is that while the Apocrypha was part of the Bible, it was held out as separate or different than the rest of the canon. What Trent does is novel in that it forces them as equals to the rest of the canon in all aspects. That is novel.

In terms of when they were removed, I go back to my very first post, that it was a mistake, but to try and associate the removal with the Reformation is incorrect as has been well established.

---

You could have stopped at "accepts these as canonical". If the Apocrypha is part of the Bible, and the Bible is God breathed how can it be removed?

---

Zobel said:

---

There's tiers within scripture. The Torah stands over the OT as a whole, the NT stands over the OT, the Gospels stand over the NT as a whole. It doesn't need to be so contentious. It's ok that the apocrypha are a tier apart.

---

Zobel said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Zobel said:

---

There's tiers within scripture. The Torah stands over the OT as a whole, the NT stands over the OT, the Gospels stand over the NT as a whole. It doesn't need to be so contentious. It's ok that the apocrypha are a tier apart.

---

Not okay to remove books from the Bible however. God-breathed is God-breathed. Obviously the books of the Gospel are the top tier; but that doesn't make the other books matter less.

---

I agree to a certain amount… but the churches which didn't historically have certain books in their canon didn't suffer for it. The Faith was delivered once for all to the saints, not the Bible. The only reason this is an issue is because of sola scriptura, which is why it became contentious so late in church history.

---

Zobel said:

---

Did the first church in Jerusalem suffer without the epistles of Paul before he wrote them? Was the East somehow lacking for not using Revelation?

Every church in history has had the scriptures they needed.

---

Quote:

---

What is meaningful is that Jerome, despite his personal views, understood that his view was the minority view, was opposed to the Church's view, and was possibly wrong - which is why Jerome put his opinion aside and followed the judgement of the church.

---

Quote:

---

What is also meaningful is that the day Luther was born the books were there. For whatever reasons, the books were there and had been there for more than 1,000 years. Luther decided to elevate himself and his ideas to be on the level of the church and on the level of Jerome (or actually above them).

---

Quote:

---

Yes, an anathema was attached to the decision - but an anathema simply means you are cut off from the church (it does not damn someone to hell). Trent basically said if you do not agree with the Church, you are now outside the Church.[/quote[

Oh it only means your cut off from the church....so nonchalant to kick a significant portion of Christian history out of the church for something you can't even back up with historical support...

Quote:

---

my response was directed more to your offense at the anathemas that Trent placed on those who reject the Deuterocanonical books. Luther didn't have the authority to place an anathema on those who accept them because Luther was just an individual. Luther was not in an authoritative position but the Church was and is

---

And this is the actual crux. The misbelief that Rome has the authority to cut people off from God. Its this misbelief that led to the great schism and to the subsequent issues. It's the primary issue that will continue to separate the church, likely until Christ returns.

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

I'll respond to the whole post when I have a little more time but I would say with regard to anathema's - it is not the church cutting people off from God. It is the Church making it clear what the Church believes, and if one cannot or will not assent to what the Church believes or professes then that person knows clearly that they are outside the Church.

The church says what it believes and the individual can choose for themself where they stand.

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"And this is the actual crux. The misbelief that Rome has the authority to cut people off from God. Its this misbelief that led to the great schism and to the subsequent issues. It's the primary issue that will continue to separate the church, likely until Christ returns."

+++

How do you answer Christ's words to the Apostles when he says (Mt 18:18-20) "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Authority or no authority?

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"And this is the actual crux. The misbelief that Rome has the authority to cut people off from God. Its this misbelief that led to the great schism and to the subsequent issues. It's the primary issue that will continue to separate the church, likely until Christ returns."

+++

How do you answer Christ's words to the Apostles when he says (Mt 18:18-20) "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Authority or no authority?

---

The problem that you and Faithful Ag and others have is this misconception that Rome speaks for the entire Christian Church.

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"And this is the actual crux. The misbelief that Rome has the authority to cut people off from God. Its this misbelief that led to the great schism and to the subsequent issues. It's the primary issue that will continue to separate the church, likely until Christ returns."

+++

How do you answer Christ's words to the Apostles when he says (Mt 18:18-20) "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Authority or no authority?

---

The problem that you and Faithful Ag and others have is this misconception that Rome speaks for the entire Christian Church.

---

Who speaks for the Churches that make up the Body of Christ?

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"And this is the actual crux. The misbelief that Rome has the authority to cut people off from God. Its this misbelief that led to the great schism and to the subsequent issues. It's the primary issue that will continue to separate the church, likely until Christ returns."

+++

How do you answer Christ's words to the Apostles when he says (Mt 18:18-20) "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Authority or no authority?

---

The problem that you and Faithful Ag and others have is this misconception that Rome speaks for the entire Christian Church.

---

Who speaks for the Churches that make up the Body of Christ?

---

A great many people have spoken and will speak for the Church.

---

I understand that given your position it is extremely difficult to give a straight answer but the purposeful vagueness of your responses does nothing to further the discussion.

How do we vet them? The Lutherans have transsexual lesbians claiming the Eucharistic nature of abortion. You have the Anglicans consecrating genderqueers. Who has the authority to say "this is not okay"

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"And this is the actual crux. The misbelief that Rome has the authority to cut people off from God. Its this misbelief that led to the great schism and to the subsequent issues. It's the primary issue that will continue to separate the church, likely until Christ returns."

+++

How do you answer Christ's words to the Apostles when he says (Mt 18:18-20) "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Authority or no authority?

---

The problem that you and Faithful Ag and others have is this misconception that Rome speaks for the entire Christian Church.

---

Who speaks for the Churches that make up the Body of Christ?

---

A great many people have spoken and will speak for the Church.

---

and exactly how does someone know when one of these great many people are speaking for the church vs. appearing to be of God while deceiving their audience?

---