Circle_Master Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 (edited) wait... we just showed that they did in fact quote these books, didn't we? You didn't show anything of the sort. I will put money on the line that you didn't even check any of those resources out because you want it to be the truth. You posted a lost of verses, however, upon my survey, I found no clear quotes from ANY. I would challenge you to go through and show me somewhere it is clear that one of them is quoted. I.e. 'Jesus replied 'As the prophets wrote 'lah blah lah'' etc. God can't speek greek? what about the NT? The article is referring to the apocryphal books, not the pseudepigrapha. The period of silence is the time from when the second temple was completed, and no 'woosh' happened. The glory (shekinah) of God did not enter it, and no prophets were raised up. according to the same ppl who said the NT was part of scripture, their contents show that they are part of scripture. if you can believe the stories of, say, Jonah, how can these stories not be accepted? their contents show they're not part of protestant theology, not that they're not part of scripture. That is a given, this is from an anti-Catholic webpage, not a pro-Catholic webpage. I could make the same arguments from the other pages given. Please stay on topic. yeah, Ancient Jewish writers who did not have God's authority, and ancient Jewish councils at 100 AD who had lost their authority when it was given to the Apostles. (talking about a line that said Jewish writers did not accept them as inspired) I'm sorry, but even before 100 AD, and before Christ came, we have writings indicating they were not inspired. Even if you say 100AD, why are you saying that is wrong? You are basing your entire faith off of tradition that has extremely loose connections to the first century, and very strong ones to the 16th century. That in itself is much more shaky I would say. I still find it ironic that the Catholic Church accepted Urban VI based on his Italian heritage during the Great Schism. I wonder as well, I see responses once in a while indicating that these traditions were 'realized' over time. Kindof like, God revealed them after a while. Maybe that is Catholics who have little faith in the historical proof presented, or perhaps the ones who actually realize that the traditions taught today in the Catholic Church do not have evidence in the first century church. Anyway, for those people, how about the Papal vs Conciliar authority debate between men such as Giles of Rome/James of Viterbo and Conrad of Gelnhausen/Henry of Langenstein. I find it odd that now the Pope is considered the ultimate authority according to Tradition III which a good chunk of the Catholic Church holds to. Not just tradition and Scripture which it used to be. The debate would never have occured if these traditions were known and present from the beginning of the church. And if they have developed, you are putting a ton of weight in a belief that the Pope has this authority to declare if a tradition is biblical or not as it springs up. you posted more stuff... let me catch up If the Catholic Church can't be trusted on the Canon, why trust her on the Trinity? If She is this devious beast who adds un-inspired books to the Bible, maybe she corrupted the text of the inspired books, She was the only kid in town for about 1,054 years. It's called archaeological evidence . We have tens of thousands of copies of the NT which would have escaped any 'Catholic Corruption' on the text if there was one. In response to the question on how we choose our NT Canon, I would suggest "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce at http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Boo...t=SRC&ite\ m_code= Edited December 24, 2003 by Circle_Master Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Peace be with you Circle_Master. You are basing your entire faith off of tradition that has extremely loose connections to the first century, and very strong ones to the 16th century. That in itself is much more shaky I would say. What denomination are you part of? It's called archaeological evidence . We have tens of thousands of copies of the NT which would have escaped any 'Catholic Corruption' on the text if there was one. What? No matter where a copy of the NT is found, or at what point in time it is dated back to, it's roots will always be in the Church. Another point. If your belief is that the NT is inspired based on archeological evidence, then what were Christians suppose to do before these discoveries? I may have misunderstood your reply. I think Hyper posed a very good question, and "archaelogical evidence" doesn't satisfy me as a very well thought out answer. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Archaeological evidence was against the Catholics corrupting text on purpose. I don't think they did that. And I don't even believe the Catholic church was too off track with most of their doctrine and actions until around the 13th century with Innocent III. The Muratorian Canon has all of the protestant NT except 1 John, 2/2 Peter, Hebrews and James at around 180 A.D. Irenaeus mentions all the books except Jude, 2 Peter, James, Philemon, 2/3 John, Revelation Syriac Version of the Canon from the 3rd Century leaves out Revelation. Athanasius of Alexandria in 365 listed the 27 books of the N.T. as the only inspired ones. Jerome in 394 sent a letter to Paulina, the bishop of Nola which listed only the 39 O.T. Books and 27 N.T. Ones. Not the Apocryphal ones. The Synods of Carthage in 397 and 418 both confirm the current 27 books in N.T. Besides historical support Things such as 'doctrinal correctness', 'Apostolic origin/sanction', 'usage by the Church', 'the internal witness of the HS', 'the Spiritual and moral effect' and the 'attitude of the early church' were used back then. Yes, the Catholic Church used them as well for the Canon. They didn't accept the council of Jamnia blindly, that came later as the Apocrypha were translated with the known inspired works with Jerome in the Vulgate, and became part of the doctrine of the church. Again, I suggest you read the book by F.F.Bruce. Of course no one will, but if you really are seeking and not just debating, it would be a good place to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 What dUSt said; and do you realize that many of the old manuscripts are missing verses that you and I hold to be inspired? example: I don't know the book, chapter, and verse and am too ill to go and find it, but did you know the passages in one of the Gospels about the woman caught in adultury, the "go and sin no more", "cast the first stone" verses are missing from the oldest surviving manuscripts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Yes, that would be John 7:53 through 8:11. This would be the effort of textual critism to piece together the correct original texts. I believe only the autographs are inspired and perfect, not our human copies. You have to struggle through this same issue as well, this isn't just a protestant thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 May the peace of Christ be with us Circle_Master. Thank you for your answer, and I will read the FF Bruce book if I can find it somewhere cheaper than $20 (unless, of course, you wanna buy it for me? haha). Now. Are you part of a denomination? It'll help me understand where you're coming from (even though I realize that most Protestants aren't bound to a set of specific beliefs, but rather, a "personal" interpretation of those beliefs). Also. I don't think you satisfied the queston of why you believe the Bible is inspired. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 I don't have to struggle, Holy Church has by putting these veres into Her Bible said that they are the Word of God, and as such worthy of my belief. I don't think verses missing from the oldest manuscripts need trouble the Catholic conscience nearly as much as the Protestant one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Yes, that would be John 7:53 through 8:11. This would be the effort of textual critism to piece together the correct original texts. I believe only the autographs are inspired and perfect, not our human copies. You have to struggle through this same issue as well, this isn't just a protestant thing. But I also see a big difference in that a Catholic struggles with this issue with the Church, as opposed to a Protestant struggling with this issue all by themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 I fail to see a difference ultimately. Do you not have scholars which struggle through it as protestants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 I fail to see a difference ultimately. Do you not have scholars which struggle through it as protestants? I think the difference is that: it is part of a Catholic's faith to rely on the scholars in the Church. As Catholics, we admit to leaning on the Church for guidance and help with interpreting the Holy Bible. On the other hand, most Protestants I meet say that all they need is the Bible, so it would seem to me that if a Protestant has to rely on Protestant scholars to help them with interpretation, it causes quite the dilemna with what they claim to believe. Am I wrong or have I distorted something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 I believe we made a connection here. Both of us rely on our better scholars. Fortunately for me, I can judge and evaluate my scholars based on their Godliness, and writings and go through Scripture and see if it speaks as they wrote. You on the other hand are stuck with whatever is written. It is not even a guarantee that your author is saved. It's been said even of Pope's in the past that they weren't saved (by Catholics *cough*). That is a heavy dilemma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 (edited) Here's the beauty of Catholicism, not all of our Popes have been good, and quite possibly when we get to Heaven we're going to discover that quite a few of them ain't (I'm from Bama) there, but such is the protection that the Holy Spirit gives Christ's Bride, that the Head of the Church whhether or not he is in a State of Sanctifying (saving) Grace, cannot lead God's little ones into error. Edited December 24, 2003 by hyperdulia again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 I believe we made a connection here. Both of us rely on our better scholars. Fortunately for me, I can judge and evaluate my scholars based on their Godliness, and writings and go through Scripture and see if it speaks as they wrote. This is probably why I'm not Protestant. I see Sola Scriptura and "relying on Scholars" as incompatible. But it really all falls back on how you personally interpret scripture. If you have to decide which of your scholars are compatible with scripture, and which are not, then in my mind, it defeats the purpose. Whereas, with the Church, it is looked at as a whole. You on the other hand are stuck with whatever is written. It is not even a guarantee that your author is saved. It's been said even of Pope's in the past that they weren't saved (by Catholics *cough*). That is a heavy dilemma. There might have been popes who didn't make it to heaven. Who knows? This still doesn't negate the fact that the Church is a whole. It would be unfair of me to point out to you bad people who share the same beliefs as you. One rotten egg doesn't ruin the whole dozen (is that a saying?). God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 I'll touch up on other stuff later. It's Christmas time, but I will let you know what I am denominational-wise and whatnot I'm a.... evangelical dispensational premillenial pretribulational and possibly reformed in my soteriology christian hedonist protestant Christian which belongs to no denomination. I might be a little more epangelical than dispensational as well. I have more research to do in that area however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 I'll touch up on other stuff later. It's Christmas time, but I will let you know what I am denominational-wise and whatnot I'm a.... evangelical dispensational premillenial pretribulational and possibly reformed in my soteriology christian hedonist protestant Christian which belongs to no denomination. I might be a little more epangelical than dispensational as well. I have more research to do in that area however. I wish you luck with all that. lol I'm Catholic. God bless. Merry Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now