Redstone said:
No. These holy tests as a canon are a product of the Apostolic Church, which came centuries before.
The Word of God is a Divine Person, a personal Spirit, the very Reason and Logic and Order of all creation (Logos).
The telos of life is theosis to this Logos.
Quote:
I was responding to your statement that we can't say Rome gave us the Bible because the OT existed beforeJesus"Rome", and that we need to convert to Judaism. I was just highlighting that Jesus was Jewish, and so were Peter and all of the Apostles who were also the very first Christians. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled so you have it exactly backwards above.
Quote:
Here is another example of your changing words to rephrase what I actually said shifting the meaning and setting up your straw-man to beat down. Congratulations. Authoritative =/= Infallible.
With regard to Jesus and the Pharisees remember what he said about them they sit on Moses' Seat therefore do and observe whatever they tell you, but do not do what they do because they are hypocrites. Jesus recognized that at that moment they were the proper authority with the power to bind and loose because they sat on the seat of Moses. Infallible? No. Authoritative? Yes.
Quote:
I would like to point out that that NONE of these words you have posted in your "response" to the question originally asking Where did we get the Bible from have attempted to address the actual question. NOT ONE. 100% of everything you have posted here is just telling us what we cannot claim and/or what the end result or consequence of our position must mean (which you are very wrong about btw).
Quote:
And now to address this point First Century Christians like Mary, Peter, the Apostles, Paul, etc. etc. etc. were ALL Jews who became followers of Jesus. The fact that other Jews did not convert to become followers of Jesus but remained Jews changes nothing about the NT Church. The fact that Jews kept being Jews does nothing to change what Christians believe or what the Christian Church believes or teaches. Jesus built his Church on Peter and the Apostles and gave them His authority and the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit and promised that guidance until the end of the ages. That's good enough for me.
Quote:
We are still on the question of Where did we get the Bible from? right? Because thus far you have offered nothing in the way of an answer to that question. Nada.
Quote:
You continue to say that no Church or human "commissioned" the writings that became the NT as if proactively commissioning the writings is somehow necessary. I don't understand the point you are attempting to make or what you think that proves? Jesus Christ chose his Apostles and Disciples and He established his visible and authoritative Church on earth. These leaders, through the course of establishing churches and spreading the good news and teaching the faith did many things. One of those many things was to write letters to instruct, teach, encourage, correct, and reproof. They were not hyper-focused on the documentation part, but some of these many letters were preserved by the Church and were eventually recognized as Scripture. Was that their intent? Probably not, but the Church gathered and collected writings and discerned which of them should be included or excluded from the Bible.
Quote:
I have looked into who removed the books from the Bible, and the answer should be very concerning for any "Sola Scriptura" Protestant believer. Unfortunately, it seems most would rather just keep their heads buried in the sand about it and not look into it critically for themselves. When America was born the Bible contained 73 books. In the early 1800's, Protestant Bible societies began a movement to finally have the 7 Deuterocanonical books expunged from the Bible and eventually they were successful. Alarmingly it is not possible to pinpoint WHO was actually responsible and by WHAT authority they made this decision or from WHERE this "authority" derived.
Quote:
I know you keep saying this but it really answers nothing. I can accept the books are/were disputed which begs the question WHO ended the dispute? By what authority? Saying they were disputed does not give permission to jettison the books and cast them out.
Quote:
The entire disagreement we are having is about what books belong in the Bible. Your response is vague and ambiguous and thus unintelligible. When you say Church what do you mean and when?
Redstone said:
No, the claim is that the Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox) Church came first, determined the canon in councils over 3 centuries, should be read and studied, and WORKS IN CONCERT with Apostolic spiritual authority, and tradition, and that the best way to worship is the direct fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant:
Sacrament, liturgy, the Apostolic priesthood
Quote:
But as Redstone wants to claim, Scripture only exists because of "the Church" which is also Rome for yall.
I agree with you. How did you get that I was some how opposed to what you wrote?Faithful Ag said:Scripture mining may be how most Protestants justify their beliefs, but that's is not what the majority of Christians have done historically. Seriously, the Bible didn't even have chapters and verses for over 1,000 years and the vast majority of Christians were not even literate for hundreds of years after that. The faith was received through the Apostolic church.BluHorseShu said:But isn't it an assumption that Mary did not remain a virgin afterward? Yes, I know we can get into the whole debate about whether Jesus brothers were cousins or step brothers and the Greek terms used etc. Scripture mining is how most justify their particular beliefsTrailerTrash said:
Mary has to be a virgin for Christ to be God, we all agree.
Churches that value tradition like the scripture are kind of like Aggies, they take one very important true doctrine and then build enormously complex traditions on top of it.
The perpetual virginity or the assumption of Mary etc etc. things that are not in the Bible but one might assume happened because of what is in the Bible, like adding on to your house, or the 12th man out of what a coach said 100 years ago, becomes a trademark, a lawsuit, and a uniform everyone wears.
And on Mary's virginity, there is nothing to assume about her perpetual virginity. The church has consistently taught from the earliest days that Mary was perpetually a virgin. It is really only in the last few hundred years that people assume or attempt to make the case otherwise. Everyone, even the Reformers, affirmed Mary's perpetual virginity.
The scriptures individually are not a product of anyone but their inspired authors. The collation of scriptures into the bible is the product of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church that Christ created. Nothing in the Bible affirms the collation of its books. Christ gave us the Church as a representative of His authority. The Churches authority cannot contradict Scripture. All authority come from God. But just like the disciples/apostles the Church carries on the teaching of scripture and some of these are through the same traditions used by the disciples/apostles.AgLiving06 said:Quote:
I was responding to your statement that we can't say Rome gave us the Bible because the OT existed beforeJesus"Rome", and that we need to convert to Judaism. I was just highlighting that Jesus was Jewish, and so were Peter and all of the Apostles who were also the very first Christians. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled so you have it exactly backwards above.
It's certainly not backward.
If the Pharisees were the "Authoritative church" as you claim, you still have a problem. You are rejecting the authoritative church with the claim of having a new authoritative church.
You have two competing authoritative churches that disagree with each other. Under the rules you've created, you must decide how both can be authoritative (probably infallible) and yet have a very different understanding.
Because while we may agree that Jesus is the promise God made to mankind, Judaism most certainly does not agree with that and as the authority, they are either correct or not.Quote:
Here is another example of your changing words to rephrase what I actually said shifting the meaning and setting up your straw-man to beat down. Congratulations. Authoritative =/= Infallible.
With regard to Jesus and the Pharisees remember what he said about them they sit on Moses' Seat therefore do and observe whatever they tell you, but do not do what they do because they are hypocrites. Jesus recognized that at that moment they were the proper authority with the power to bind and loose because they sat on the seat of Moses. Infallible? No. Authoritative? Yes.
No, I am using the words that have been used in this very thread. I asked asked previously if I agreed with the "fallible collection of infallible books"
But it is good that we agree that just because someone claims authority doesn't mean they have that authority, nor that they are infallible.Quote:
I would like to point out that that NONE of these words you have posted in your "response" to the question originally asking Where did we get the Bible from have attempted to address the actual question. NOT ONE. 100% of everything you have posted here is just telling us what we cannot claim and/or what the end result or consequence of our position must mean (which you are very wrong about btw).
Because the intent of my initial response was to challenge (correctly) the premises of the original question. That
FTACo88-FDT24dad did not want or like the challenge is not my issue.
But where did we get the Bible from? I'll quote my favorite theologian, Johann Gerhard:
"Although God did not directly write the Scriptures, but used prophets and apostles as his pen and instrument, yet the Scripture is not, aon that account, of any the less authority. For it is God, and indeed God alone, who inspired the prophets and apostles, not only as they spoke, but also as they wrote; and he made use of their liips, their tongues, their hands, their pen. Therefore, or in this respect, the Scriptures also, as they are, were written by God himself For the prophets and apostles were merely instruments."Quote:
And now to address this point First Century Christians like Mary, Peter, the Apostles, Paul, etc. etc. etc. were ALL Jews who became followers of Jesus. The fact that other Jews did not convert to become followers of Jesus but remained Jews changes nothing about the NT Church. The fact that Jews kept being Jews does nothing to change what Christians believe or what the Christian Church believes or teaches. Jesus built his Church on Peter and the Apostles and gave them His authority and the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit and promised that guidance until the end of the ages. That's good enough for me.
And? Did the followers of Jesus remain Jews and follow the customs of the jews? No, they followed Jesus and turned against the ways of the Pharisees...the group with claimed authority.Quote:
We are still on the question of Where did we get the Bible from? right? Because thus far you have offered nothing in the way of an answer to that question. Nada.
answered, and your response is completely irrelevant as you continue try and only answer the questions you want to ask yourself.Quote:
You continue to say that no Church or human "commissioned" the writings that became the NT as if proactively commissioning the writings is somehow necessary. I don't understand the point you are attempting to make or what you think that proves? Jesus Christ chose his Apostles and Disciples and He established his visible and authoritative Church on earth. These leaders, through the course of establishing churches and spreading the good news and teaching the faith did many things. One of those many things was to write letters to instruct, teach, encourage, correct, and reproof. They were not hyper-focused on the documentation part, but some of these many letters were preserved by the Church and were eventually recognized as Scripture. Was that their intent? Probably not, but the Church gathered and collected writings and discerned which of them should be included or excluded from the Bible.
Yes it matters. Redstone is currently attempting to claim the Scriptures are a product of Rome. It absolutely matters that no authoritative group played any specific role in the creation of the Bible.Quote:
I have looked into who removed the books from the Bible, and the answer should be very concerning for any "Sola Scriptura" Protestant believer. Unfortunately, it seems most would rather just keep their heads buried in the sand about it and not look into it critically for themselves. When America was born the Bible contained 73 books. In the early 1800's, Protestant Bible societies began a movement to finally have the 7 Deuterocanonical books expunged from the Bible and eventually they were successful. Alarmingly it is not possible to pinpoint WHO was actually responsible and by WHAT authority they made this decision or from WHERE this "authority" derived.
Good! You looked! So we can agree that Luther did not remove those books. Glad we can finally put that to rest and not make that silly accusation anymore.
Just so we are clear, you claim this is "very concerning for any 'Sola Scriptura' Protestant." Why? History is on Protestants side.
What you alone established is that the Reformers did not remove the books, and they upheld the historical view of those books, that they were included in the Bible, but given their apocryphal status, would not be used in doctrinal matters.Quote:
I know you keep saying this but it really answers nothing. I can accept the books are/were disputed which begs the question WHO ended the dispute? By what authority? Saying they were disputed does not give permission to jettison the books and cast them out.
The actual dispute over the apocryphal books has never been resolved. It's well established that the view of Rome is not equal to that of even the EO. Rome did their best to try and settle it at Trent, but that's about it. That they were disputed is not for an authority to say, but instead one of historical fact. That they are not primary in doctrinal matters.Quote:
The entire disagreement we are having is about what books belong in the Bible. Your response is vague and ambiguous and thus unintelligible. When you say Church what do you mean and when?
No, as with everything, it's not about what belongs in the bible, but about Rome's claim to authority. For all the claims of what the Reformation did, the damage done by the claims of Rome and the Pope so far exceed anything else that it's not close. The amount of false doctrine and death that sit at the hands of the Pope might make Satan blush.
---------
The rest is just ramblings.
Without your appeal to Scripture, you have nothing to claim.
But as Redstone wants to claim, Scripture only exists because of "the Church" which is also Rome for yall.
It's circular and the proof is in the schisms at the feet of Rome. Starting with the great schism, then burning of heretics and then the Reformation that finally recovered the Scriptures from the hands of a fallible man and church.
BluHorseShu said:The scriptures individually are not a product of anyone but their inspired authors. The collation of scriptures into the bible is the product of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church that Christ created. Nothing in the Bible affirms the collation of its books. Christ gave us the Church as a representative of His authority. The Churches authority cannot contradict Scripture. All authority come from God. But just like the disciples/apostles the Church carries on the teaching of scripture and some of these are through the same traditions used by the disciples/apostles.AgLiving06 said:Quote:
I was responding to your statement that we can't say Rome gave us the Bible because the OT existed beforeJesus"Rome", and that we need to convert to Judaism. I was just highlighting that Jesus was Jewish, and so were Peter and all of the Apostles who were also the very first Christians. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled so you have it exactly backwards above.
It's certainly not backward.
If the Pharisees were the "Authoritative church" as you claim, you still have a problem. You are rejecting the authoritative church with the claim of having a new authoritative church.
You have two competing authoritative churches that disagree with each other. Under the rules you've created, you must decide how both can be authoritative (probably infallible) and yet have a very different understanding.
Because while we may agree that Jesus is the promise God made to mankind, Judaism most certainly does not agree with that and as the authority, they are either correct or not.Quote:
Here is another example of your changing words to rephrase what I actually said shifting the meaning and setting up your straw-man to beat down. Congratulations. Authoritative =/= Infallible.
With regard to Jesus and the Pharisees remember what he said about them they sit on Moses' Seat therefore do and observe whatever they tell you, but do not do what they do because they are hypocrites. Jesus recognized that at that moment they were the proper authority with the power to bind and loose because they sat on the seat of Moses. Infallible? No. Authoritative? Yes.
No, I am using the words that have been used in this very thread. I asked asked previously if I agreed with the "fallible collection of infallible books"
But it is good that we agree that just because someone claims authority doesn't mean they have that authority, nor that they are infallible.Quote:
I would like to point out that that NONE of these words you have posted in your "response" to the question originally asking Where did we get the Bible from have attempted to address the actual question. NOT ONE. 100% of everything you have posted here is just telling us what we cannot claim and/or what the end result or consequence of our position must mean (which you are very wrong about btw).
Because the intent of my initial response was to challenge (correctly) the premises of the original question. That
FTACo88-FDT24dad did not want or like the challenge is not my issue.
But where did we get the Bible from? I'll quote my favorite theologian, Johann Gerhard:
"Although God did not directly write the Scriptures, but used prophets and apostles as his pen and instrument, yet the Scripture is not, aon that account, of any the less authority. For it is God, and indeed God alone, who inspired the prophets and apostles, not only as they spoke, but also as they wrote; and he made use of their liips, their tongues, their hands, their pen. Therefore, or in this respect, the Scriptures also, as they are, were written by God himself For the prophets and apostles were merely instruments."Quote:
And now to address this point First Century Christians like Mary, Peter, the Apostles, Paul, etc. etc. etc. were ALL Jews who became followers of Jesus. The fact that other Jews did not convert to become followers of Jesus but remained Jews changes nothing about the NT Church. The fact that Jews kept being Jews does nothing to change what Christians believe or what the Christian Church believes or teaches. Jesus built his Church on Peter and the Apostles and gave them His authority and the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit and promised that guidance until the end of the ages. That's good enough for me.
And? Did the followers of Jesus remain Jews and follow the customs of the jews? No, they followed Jesus and turned against the ways of the Pharisees...the group with claimed authority.Quote:
We are still on the question of Where did we get the Bible from? right? Because thus far you have offered nothing in the way of an answer to that question. Nada.
answered, and your response is completely irrelevant as you continue try and only answer the questions you want to ask yourself.Quote:
You continue to say that no Church or human "commissioned" the writings that became the NT as if proactively commissioning the writings is somehow necessary. I don't understand the point you are attempting to make or what you think that proves? Jesus Christ chose his Apostles and Disciples and He established his visible and authoritative Church on earth. These leaders, through the course of establishing churches and spreading the good news and teaching the faith did many things. One of those many things was to write letters to instruct, teach, encourage, correct, and reproof. They were not hyper-focused on the documentation part, but some of these many letters were preserved by the Church and were eventually recognized as Scripture. Was that their intent? Probably not, but the Church gathered and collected writings and discerned which of them should be included or excluded from the Bible.
Yes it matters. Redstone is currently attempting to claim the Scriptures are a product of Rome. It absolutely matters that no authoritative group played any specific role in the creation of the Bible.Quote:
I have looked into who removed the books from the Bible, and the answer should be very concerning for any "Sola Scriptura" Protestant believer. Unfortunately, it seems most would rather just keep their heads buried in the sand about it and not look into it critically for themselves. When America was born the Bible contained 73 books. In the early 1800's, Protestant Bible societies began a movement to finally have the 7 Deuterocanonical books expunged from the Bible and eventually they were successful. Alarmingly it is not possible to pinpoint WHO was actually responsible and by WHAT authority they made this decision or from WHERE this "authority" derived.
Good! You looked! So we can agree that Luther did not remove those books. Glad we can finally put that to rest and not make that silly accusation anymore.
Just so we are clear, you claim this is "very concerning for any 'Sola Scriptura' Protestant." Why? History is on Protestants side.
What you alone established is that the Reformers did not remove the books, and they upheld the historical view of those books, that they were included in the Bible, but given their apocryphal status, would not be used in doctrinal matters.Quote:
I know you keep saying this but it really answers nothing. I can accept the books are/were disputed which begs the question WHO ended the dispute? By what authority? Saying they were disputed does not give permission to jettison the books and cast them out.
The actual dispute over the apocryphal books has never been resolved. It's well established that the view of Rome is not equal to that of even the EO. Rome did their best to try and settle it at Trent, but that's about it. That they were disputed is not for an authority to say, but instead one of historical fact. That they are not primary in doctrinal matters.Quote:
The entire disagreement we are having is about what books belong in the Bible. Your response is vague and ambiguous and thus unintelligible. When you say Church what do you mean and when?
No, as with everything, it's not about what belongs in the bible, but about Rome's claim to authority. For all the claims of what the Reformation did, the damage done by the claims of Rome and the Pope so far exceed anything else that it's not close. The amount of false doctrine and death that sit at the hands of the Pope might make Satan blush.
---------
The rest is just ramblings.
Without your appeal to Scripture, you have nothing to claim.
But as Redstone wants to claim, Scripture only exists because of "the Church" which is also Rome for yall.
It's circular and the proof is in the schisms at the feet of Rome. Starting with the great schism, then burning of heretics and then the Reformation that finally recovered the Scriptures from the hands of a fallible man and church.
Redstone said:
Oh?
The Muratorian Fragment is probably the earliest physical copy of a text ….The date? About 200 AD.
This is fragment of a much larger series which were considered canonical or quasi-canonical during the second century. That line was fuzzy. Copies of copies. Not divine. Inspired, sure, but mediated by men. Including St. Paul's awkward style (David Bentley Hart, NT translation for details)
These debates were heated and difficult.
Where were the debates? Levant, Rome, Anatolia.
Councils:
Many.
Final decisions:
Synod of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382, followed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage
Revelation? Extremely controversial. Who decided? And why again is Enoch excluded?
Redstone said:Quote:
But as Redstone wants to claim, Scripture only exists because of "the Church" which is also Rome for yall.
The canon exists because the councils detailed above codified it.
"the Church" is the Apostolic Church that existed in unity - for more than 1,000 years - before tragic break (and as a Catholic, it was mostly our fault)
AND STILL EXISTS if you read the Council of Florence as I and many others do.
The Sacraments, liturgy, beliefs, and worship are in small relative part disparate (and even within the East and West, as Greece-Russia recent break demonstrates)….
AND ALSO FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME
This is the contentious bunch that gave Protestants the canon. It took about 400 years.
Edit:
I again bring up Enoch because it's so illustrative. Jesus taught from it. St. Jude revered it. Excluded why and how?
Quote:
It is recognized by all that (1) by the end of the second century the four gospels, the letters of Paul, and 1 Peter and 1 John had acquired very broad use and high authority in almost all regions of early Christianity,
Quote:
(2) that the status and use of other writings continued to be variable through the third and well into the fourth century,
Quote:
(3) that lists that strictly delimit the scope of authoritative writings clearly belonged mainly, perhaps exclusively, to the fourth and fifth centuries."
Quote:
So God made His word clear from the start. Paul's letters were in circulation even earlier:
Quote:
So the bulk of the canon did not require any sort of church decision making and was widely accepted.
Quote:
Agree, with an important caveat: as David Bentley Hart, a believer and translator and expert in koine Greek details in his New Testament -
Quote:
Certainly so - - debated, decided, and codified as I've detailed.
Quote:
The Apostolic Church did codify the canon by the 5th Century, yes. From councils in Levant, Rome, Anatolia, North Africa.
Quote:
We agree! Through the Apostolic Church, which came first. Guided by the Holy Spirit of God and the Word of God Jesus.....which is not texts, as Muslims believe the word of God is a text.
Quote:
Oh? Revelation - EXTREMELY controversial (who decided?) and Enoch (again, quoted directly by St. Jude and taught widely in the Temple?
And Revelation is not used for doctrine? Are you not familiar with the MANY Protestant sects since the lamentable and terribly translated Scofield?
Quote:
As our resident EO has pointed out, they don't read Revelation during their Divine Service.
Quote:
DBH isn't a credible source.
Quote:
Keywords being "other writings." Excluding the Gospels, Pauline letters, 1 Peter, 1 John. Or the Homologoumena or the vast majority of the NT itself. These books were immediately accepted without any question. No debates no nothing.
Quote:
Nonsense. Local councils maybe codified their own stuff, but if we are going to start claiming local councils had real authority, this is gonna get real wild.
Quote:
The Apostolic Church did not come first. The Word of God came first.
Quote:
As our resident EO has pointed out, they don't read Revelation during their Divine Service.
I am not. You are unable to step back from your preconceived ideas to look at what I am saying objectively. This is the problem you face, not me. I am not "creating rules".AgLiving06 said:It's certainly not backward.Faithful Ag said:
I was responding to your statement that we can't say Rome gave us the Bible because the OT existed before Jesus "Rome", and that we need to convert to Judaism. I was just highlighting that Jesus was Jewish, and so were Peter and all of the Apostles who were also the very first Christians. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled so you have it exactly backwards above.
If the Pharisees were the "Authoritative church" as you claim, you still have a problem. You are rejecting the authoritative church with the claim of having a new authoritative church.
You have two competing authoritative churches that disagree with each other. Under the rules you've created, you must decide how both can be authoritative (probably infallible) and yet have a very different understanding.
Because while we may agree that Jesus is the promise God made to mankind, Judaism most certainly does not agree with that and as the authority, they are either correct or not.
AgLiving06 said:No, I am using the words that have been used in this very thread. I asked asked previously if I agreed with the "fallible collection of infallible books"Faithful Ag said:
Here is another example of your changing words to rephrase what I actually said shifting the meaning and setting up your straw-man to beat down. Congratulations. Authoritative =/= Infallible.
With regard to Jesus and the Pharisees remember what he said about them they sit on Moses' Seat therefore do and observe whatever they tell you, but do not do what they do because they are hypocrites. Jesus recognized that at that moment they were the proper authority with the power to bind and loose because they sat on the seat of Moses. Infallible? No. Authoritative? Yes.
But it is good that we agree that just because someone claims authority doesn't mean they have that authority, nor that they are infallible.
The comical thing is that when I responded to your "challenging the premise" post you accused me avoiding the question at hand. I think I might go back and just pull everything you have said and make one long post of your using lots of words telling everyone else what they think and what their problems are while stating little if anything to support your own position.AgLiving06 said:Because the intent of my initial response was to challenge (correctly) the premises of the original question. ThatFaithful Ag said:
I would like to point out that that NONE of these words you have posted in your "response" to the question originally asking Where did we get the Bible from have attempted to address the actual question. NOT ONE. 100% of everything you have posted here is just telling us what we cannot claim and/or what the end result or consequence of our position must mean (which you are very wrong about btw).
FTACo88-FDT24dad did not want or like the challenge is not my issue.
AgLiving06 said:
But where did we get the Bible from? I'll quote my favorite theologian, Johann Gerhard:
"Although God did not directly write the Scriptures, but used prophets and apostles as his pen and instrument, yet the Scripture is not, aon that account, of any the less authority. For it is God, and indeed God alone, who inspired the prophets and apostles, not only as they spoke, but also as they wrote; and he made use of their liips, their tongues, their hands, their pen. Therefore, or in this respect, the Scriptures also, as they are, were written by God himself For the prophets and apostles were merely instruments."
The followers of Jesus considered themselves Jews and saw Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, who was much greater than imagined because he was the Messiah for everyone. Again, the authority was placed with Peter and the Apostles and their successors.AgLiving06 said:And? Did the followers of Jesus remain Jews and follow the customs of the jews? No, they followed Jesus and turned against the ways of the Pharisees...the group with claimed authority.Faithful Ag said:
And now to address this point First Century Christians like Mary, Peter, the Apostles, Paul, etc. etc. etc. were ALL Jews who became followers of Jesus. The fact that other Jews did not convert to become followers of Jesus but remained Jews changes nothing about the NT Church. The fact that Jews kept being Jews does nothing to change what Christians believe or what the Christian Church believes or teaches. Jesus built his Church on Peter and the Apostles and gave them His authority and the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit and promised that guidance until the end of the ages. That's good enough for me.
It is completely untenable that "no authoritative group" played any role in the creation of the Bible. The Bible did not come to us through some nebulous, unknowable, and mysterious group. The Bible did not fall out of the sky. This is the issue you cannot on one hand discount and avoid while on the other hand claiming you know with certainty what is and is not Holy Scripture. You reject the 7 disputed books and we accept them. How can we know who is right and who is wrong?AgLiving06 said:Faithful Ag said:
You continue to say that no Church or human "commissioned" the writings that became the NT as if proactively commissioning the writings is somehow necessary. I don't understand the point you are attempting to make or what you think that proves? Jesus Christ chose his Apostles and Disciples and He established his visible and authoritative Church on earth. These leaders, through the course of establishing churches and spreading the good news and teaching the faith did many things. One of those many things was to write letters to instruct, teach, encourage, correct, and reproof. They were not hyper-focused on the documentation part, but some of these many letters were preserved by the Church and were eventually recognized as Scripture. Was that their intent? Probably not, but the Church gathered and collected writings and discerned which of them should be included or excluded from the Bible.
Yes it matters. Redstone is currently attempting to claim the Scriptures are a product of Rome. It absolutely matters that no authoritative group played any specific role in the creation of the Bible.
I have never claimed Luther was the one who removed them but he was the one who moved them which set the table for them to eventually be removed. There is a difference that you refuse to recognize or accept.AgLiving06 said:Good! You looked! So we can agree that Luther did not remove those books. Glad we can finally put that to rest and not make that silly accusation anymore.Faithful Ag said:
I have looked into who removed the books from the Bible, and the answer should be very concerning for any "Sola Scriptura" Protestant believer. Unfortunately, it seems most would rather just keep their heads buried in the sand about it and not look into it critically for themselves. When America was born the Bible contained 73 books. In the early 1800's, Protestant Bible societies began a movement to finally have the 7 Deuterocanonical books expunged from the Bible and eventually they were successful. Alarmingly it is not possible to pinpoint WHO was actually responsible and by WHAT authority they made this decision or from WHERE this "authority" derived.
Just so we are clear, you claim this is "very concerning for any 'Sola Scriptura' Protestant." Why? History is on Protestants side.
In fact, Luther used the Deuterocanonical Books in debates as Scripture to confirm doctrine and was forced to admit as much and then flip flopped on his position in the Leipzig Disputation in 1519. Luther was not consistent in his historical reception and use of Scripture in his public life.AgLiving06 said:
What you alone established is that the Reformers did not remove the books, and they upheld the historical view of those books, that they were included in the Bible, but given their apocryphal status, would not be used in doctrinal matters.
AgLiving06 said:Faithful Ag said:
I know you keep saying this but it really answers nothing. I can accept the books are/were disputed which begs the question WHO ended the dispute? By what authority? Saying they were disputed does not give permission to jettison the books and cast them out.
The actual dispute over the apocryphal books has never been resolved. It's well established that the view of Rome is not equal to that of even the EO. Rome did their best to try and settle it at Trent, but that's about it. That they were disputed is not for an authority to say, but instead one of historical fact. That they are not primary in doctrinal matters.
Ahhh, I see. When you cannot support your position just default back to Pope = Satan. Nice.AgLiving06 said:No, as with everything, it's not about what belongs in the bible, but about Rome's claim to authority. For all the claims of what the Reformation did, the damage done by the claims of Rome and the Pope so far exceed anything else that it's not close. The amount of false doctrine and death that sit at the hands of the Pope might make Satan blush.Faithful Ag said:
The entire disagreement we are having is about what books belong in the Bible. Your response is vague and ambiguous and thus unintelligible. When you say Church what do you mean and when?
I think this illustrates a fundamental difference in perspective, because the Orthodox and Catholics don't require an appeal to Scripture as foundational to our claims, but rather it is the reverse. I think that is the underlying issue that Protestants cannot come to terms with. The Church preceded the Bible, and the Bible was born out of and through the Church, and that is the reality you cannot escape.AgLiving06 said:
The rest is just ramblings.
Without your appeal to Scripture, you have nothing to claim.
But as Redstone wants to claim, Scripture only exists because of "the Church" which is also Rome for yall.
It's circular and the proof is in the schisms at the feet of Rome. Starting with the great schism, then burning of heretics and then the Reformation that finally recovered the Scriptures from the hands of a fallible man and church.
It was not necessary that Mary be sinless for anything is possible with God, however it was fitting that Mary, the Mother of God who would contain in her body the uncontainable God, would be made sinless and pure for her purpose to be the God-Bearer. Who is to say that Satan did not tempt Mary, but I would agree that Satan may not have seen or known Mary's role and purpose until after she had given birth to Jesus. The reality is that we don't know, but Jesus is the Savior and Redeemer, not Mary.Catag94 said:
A few questions I have for the Catholics:
1) If it was necessary for Mary to be sinless in order to be the "Ark of the new Covenant" the Tabernacle of God, why did Satan not spend more effort tempting Mary to sin the way he spent effort trying to temp Jesus for 40 days. It seems Satan would have calculated that it may be easier to temp Mary (100% human) than Jesus whom he knew was fully man and fully God!
Everything we understand and believe about Mary leads us closer to Christ, and help us to understand Christ more fully. The Marian dogmas are NOT about Mary, but about Christ, which is a what most Protestants completely misunderstand.Catag94 said:
2) How is the salvation God offers to one through Christ and His sacrifice, affected by one's belief/disbelief in the 4 Marian Doctrines?
Catag94 said:
3) Your Catholic Bible in Luke 1:35 says, And the angel of the lord said, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child who is to be born will be called Holy".
What is to say that the meaning here is that the power of the Most High overshadowed Mary's sinful nature leading to Jesus being Holy (along with Him being God)? Before you answer this one, think about the Sacraments like the Eucharist. Now through apostolic succession, the power of The Most High works through the priest to perform the miracle of transubstantiation during the Consecration when you celebrate Mass. (correct me if I'm wrong). And, if your priest happens to be in a state of mortal sin (let's say he is having sex with a married parishioner), I think you'd tell me that through the Power of the Most High, and because of Apostolic succession, the Sacrament is still Holy and valid for those who properly receive it.
So, if the Power of The Most High works in the instance of a Catholic priest in a state of Mortal sin, why can it not work in Mary EVEN if she is, 1) born with original sin, or 2) sinned after birth but before her encounter with Gabriel?
Terminus Est said:Quote:
As our resident EO has pointed out, they don't read Revelation during their Divine Service.
These sorts of throw away lines are why it is hard to take you seriously. You get backed into a corner; so you just say something that while true, isn't germane to the topic at hand.
What is the quote trying to achieve? Are you claiming Revelation is actually not a part of scripture as the Orthodox don't use it in their Liturgy?
How does this speak to Redstone's statements that Revelation being included in Biblical canon, whereas Enoch was not, despite its heavier bonafides as proof of the necessity of the Church? I'll hang up and listen.
Quote:
That so? Probably the most prominent Orthodox Christian scholar in the English language? With a widely praised NT translation?
Quote:
So the dozens of synods and councils where these writings were discussed and debated.....claiming what about them exactly? They were just talk? For fun?
Quote:
Of course they carried authority. How exactly do you think Revelation is canon and Enoch is not?
Quote:
Seriously, why are you avoiding this ESSENTIAL meta question?
WHO decided Revelation was in and Enoch out, and WHEN? What was the process?
Quote:
Yes, the founder via St. Peter and St. John - the leader of His ordained priests at the Pascal celebration, the Mass, before His holy passion - did exist before the Church.
AgLiving06 said:Terminus Est said:Quote:
As our resident EO has pointed out, they don't read Revelation during their Divine Service.
These sorts of throw away lines are why it is hard to take you seriously. You get backed into a corner; so you just say something that while true, isn't germane to the topic at hand.
What is the quote trying to achieve? Are you claiming Revelation is actually not a part of scripture as the Orthodox don't use it in their Liturgy?
How does this speak to Redstone's statements that Revelation being included in Biblical canon, whereas Enoch was not, despite its heavier bonafides as proof of the necessity of the Church? I'll hang up and listen.
It's absolutely true and germane to the discussion.
There is a recognition of tiers among all kinds of groups understand and acknowledge that though books may be "part of the canon," that does not make them "equal."
What? The Scofield simply uses the KJV. Now the KJV's translation may be open for criticism, but you seem to imply that the Scofield Bible used its own unique translation.Quote:
terribly translated Scofield?
Jabin said:What? The Scofield simply uses the KJV. Now the KJV's translation may be open for criticism, but you seem to imply that the Scofield Bible used its own unique translation.Quote:
terribly translated Scofield?
Terminus Est said:AgLiving06 said:Terminus Est said:Quote:
As our resident EO has pointed out, they don't read Revelation during their Divine Service.
These sorts of throw away lines are why it is hard to take you seriously. You get backed into a corner; so you just say something that while true, isn't germane to the topic at hand.
What is the quote trying to achieve? Are you claiming Revelation is actually not a part of scripture as the Orthodox don't use it in their Liturgy?
How does this speak to Redstone's statements that Revelation being included in Biblical canon, whereas Enoch was not, despite its heavier bonafides as proof of the necessity of the Church? I'll hang up and listen.
It's absolutely true and germane to the discussion.
There is a recognition of tiers among all kinds of groups understand and acknowledge that though books may be "part of the canon," that does not make them "equal."
What does this have to do with whether they're considered scripture or not? Or with the process that deemed them so?
You are incoherent, you brought up the point about the absence of Revelation in Orthodox Liturgy as a red herring so you wouldn't have to answer Redstone's question about why some books were included in the canon and some weren't. Much like my "who is the church" question on another thread, you can't give straight answers; because a straight answer would invalidate your position. You have to make oblique references, say things that while true aren't even tangentially related to the topic at hand, and then of course; declare that no one else is making sense.AgLiving06 said:Terminus Est said:AgLiving06 said:Terminus Est said:Quote:
As our resident EO has pointed out, they don't read Revelation during their Divine Service.
These sorts of throw away lines are why it is hard to take you seriously. You get backed into a corner; so you just say something that while true, isn't germane to the topic at hand.
What is the quote trying to achieve? Are you claiming Revelation is actually not a part of scripture as the Orthodox don't use it in their Liturgy?
How does this speak to Redstone's statements that Revelation being included in Biblical canon, whereas Enoch was not, despite its heavier bonafides as proof of the necessity of the Church? I'll hang up and listen.
It's absolutely true and germane to the discussion.
There is a recognition of tiers among all kinds of groups understand and acknowledge that though books may be "part of the canon," that does not make them "equal."
What does this have to do with whether they're considered scripture or not? Or with the process that deemed them so?
Because it causes significant issues for you and Redstone. Restone's claim is that "the Church established the canon in an active role with councils and what not.
However, history shows that the vast majority of the canon did not require councils or anything of that nature. So then we see that there is a historical understanding, that differs within groups, that some books took longer to be accepted and their acceptance comes with a "second tier status."
Redstone has a problem. He can't point to a mythical church or council that unified the canon. What we see is a church that came to agree with what the the majority of believers already knew to be canon. So the role of the church is one of passive (thank the Lord) and not active
Redstone said:
You've highlighted the center of our disagreement: what is the "Word of God?" What we can say for certain is that for more than the first 1,500 years of the faith, 300 years of which did not have a codified canon, Jesus Christ Incarnate was taught to be this holy Word.
Terminus Est said:You are incoherent, you brought up the point about the absence of Revelation in Orthodox Liturgy as a red herring so you wouldn't have to answer Redstone's question about why some books were included in the canon and some weren't. Much like my "who is the church" question on another thread, you can't give straight answers; because a straight answer would invalidate your position. You have to make oblique references, say things that while true aren't even tangentially related to the topic at hand, and then of course; declare that no one else is making sense.AgLiving06 said:Terminus Est said:AgLiving06 said:Terminus Est said:Quote:
As our resident EO has pointed out, they don't read Revelation during their Divine Service.
These sorts of throw away lines are why it is hard to take you seriously. You get backed into a corner; so you just say something that while true, isn't germane to the topic at hand.
What is the quote trying to achieve? Are you claiming Revelation is actually not a part of scripture as the Orthodox don't use it in their Liturgy?
How does this speak to Redstone's statements that Revelation being included in Biblical canon, whereas Enoch was not, despite its heavier bonafides as proof of the necessity of the Church? I'll hang up and listen.
It's absolutely true and germane to the discussion.
There is a recognition of tiers among all kinds of groups understand and acknowledge that though books may be "part of the canon," that does not make them "equal."
What does this have to do with whether they're considered scripture or not? Or with the process that deemed them so?
Because it causes significant issues for you and Redstone. Restone's claim is that "the Church established the canon in an active role with councils and what not.
However, history shows that the vast majority of the canon did not require councils or anything of that nature. So then we see that there is a historical understanding, that differs within groups, that some books took longer to be accepted and their acceptance comes with a "second tier status."
Redstone has a problem. He can't point to a mythical church or council that unified the canon. What we see is a church that came to agree with what the the majority of believers already knew to be canon. So the role of the church is one of passive (thank the Lord) and not active
So once again, you claim that the "vast majority of the canon didn't require councils"; I would argue that all of the canon required councils because without the councils they're just someone's preferred reading list; but even with that; what about the books that weren't included in the "vast majority"? What about the very books that Redstone has named that you've yet to explain how they became to be canonical?
You have no canon without the councils; it doesn't matter what a majority of people believe; look at the Arian heresy for a great example of where the majority can be in the wrong. This does make me better understand the structure of Protestant belief however; where it's believed that if enough people want something magically it becomes the new canon. Certainly explains the huge liberalization of beliefs concerning contraception, lgbtq issues and divorce within the Protestant sphere that magically coincided with societal liberalization.
