The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[Root of Jesse]

Coffee has been avoiding the list #267 for some time now.

But you can't have it both ways. you can't claim you need all of those doctrines to be RCC - then pretend that not having them in the first century NT text - shows the RCC existed at that point. it does not.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, you don't make the rules as to what ways we can have it. We have Scripture and Tradition guided by the Magisterium. All our teachings come from those.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Jews also changed theirs after the rise of Christianity in hopes of slowing the attraction to Christ.

Not only that, their Canon was not set until after the Christians set theirs. At the time of Jesus, the Sadducees only held the Torah, while the Pharisees and the Essenes held different texts as their Canon.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not only that, their Canon was not set until after the Christians set theirs.
At the time of Jesus, the Sadducees only held the Torah, while the Pharisees and the Essenes held different texts as their Canon.

Makes me wonder who Jesus despised the most, the Pharisees or Sadducees.

The Sadducees were associated more with the Priesthood I think.........

Matthew 3:7
Seeing yet many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming upon his baptism he said to them "produce of vipers!

This is an interesting event in Acts 23 when Paul got both of those sects into a dissension and division.......

NKJV Acts 23:
7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.
8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection -- and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.
9 Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees' party arose and protested, saying, "We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God."

http://www.christianforums.com/t7454770/
Why did Sadducees not believe in Resurrection? Acts 23:8

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3974

Being closely associated with the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared from history when the Temple was destroyed in 70.




.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Makes me wonder who Jesus despised the most, the Pharisees or Sadducees.

The Sadducees were associated more with the Priesthood I think.........

Matthew 3:7
Seeing yet many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming upon his baptism he said to them "produce of vipers!

This is an interesting event in Acts 23 when Paul got both of those sects into a dissension and division.......

NKJV Acts 23:
7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.
8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection -- and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.
9 Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees' party arose and protested, saying, "We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God."

http://www.christianforums.com/t7454770/
Why did Sadducees not believe in Resurrection? Acts 23:8

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3974

Being closely associated with the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared from history when the Temple was destroyed in 70.




.

Well the Sadducees didn't believe in life after death, which made them sorta sad, u see?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, yes and no. In the 4th century several church councils proclaimed the canon, but all of the books--with the exception of three or four that are seldom cited in doctrinal disputes--were already in use by the churches of the Christian world and considered to be inspired.

So it's not as though there was nothing...and then the church decided that 70+ books were to be the Bible. And then, as already noted, various churches used a different set from then until now and the RCC changed its mind somewhat in the 16th century.

Thanks, Albion. I think I'll stay out of the Council of Trent, since it's not my concern anyway. I'm interested to know, but not invested or informed to discuss.

Didn't want to fail to acknowledge you, but I see it's being/been discussed in detail anyway.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Looks like the Holy Spirit had some work to do in cleaning up the garbage, being left with the 66.

I love how God works. Don't you?

Those "books for edification" are NOT inspired.

You are calling the books regarded as Scripture by the Church for some 1500 years (and until today as well) "garbage" ...

And giving Luther and others the title of Holy Spirit?

Luther also wanted to remove what ... Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation? Are those "garbage" as well then? Perhaps another reformer will come along in another 1000 years and rid us of those as well?

Really sad that God wasn't able to get it right for the first 1500 years, wouldn't you say? Maybe even sad for us, in case it's still not right, and we should cut Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation?

 

[~Anastasia~]

God gave it to us, but the Catholic Church codified it. Decided which books were and which weren't to be considered Scripture. Decided which books were and which weren't to be used in Liturgy.

Regarding the Council of Trent making it official, that's true. The Church never makes it official until some question rises as to whether or not something is true. Then the Church decides, with the Holy Spirit, what's right and wrong.

My point in saying what I did was that the Councils were pre-Schism. I prefer to think of it as The Church gave us the canon - not specifically the Catholic church, or the Orthodox Church, etc. since there was only "The Church" at that time. Not for a point of pride or argument, but for unity, such as it was. Historically it seems more accurate to me anyway. But I meant no argument or insult.

 

[By Faith Alone]

GOD was in control of it all. GUARANTEED!!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Originally Posted by Kylissa
Was Scripture canonized before the Great Schism of 1054? Of course?

That's kind of my point. When the majority of the canon was decided, it was decided by THE Church.

If the church decided tomorrow on some aspect of scripture - it does not mean that nobody was reading scripture until the RCC met to discussed it "again".

The first century NT was already accepted as scripture according to the witness of Peter.

Details matter.

I agree that I consider Scripture to be canonized before the Schism, and before Trent.

As far as Scripture being set and canonized as witnessed by Peter … you'll have to tell me where that one comes from. And are you saying that the canon was completely written, set, accepted, and all other spurious writings rejected by the time of whatever it was Peter said?

History seems to record otherwise …

Indeed, details do matter.

But the point was the Scripture was set historically, and not of recent derivation (Trent) … and on that point you and I would actually seem to agree. At least with what you are saying in this post. I would guess your Scriptures do not include part of that early canon?

__________________________________

Originally Posted by By Faith Alone

GOD gave us the Bible.

Originally Posted by Kylissa
Would you be willing to describe the process by which He did so?

(And FWIW, I wouldn't be arguing that the Catholic Church specifically gave us the Bible.)

2Peter 1:19-20 "holy men of old" (not Catholics) "moved by the Holy Spirit" (not Catholic) "spoke from God"

Which excludes "and then waited many centuries for a Catholic council to tell them about it so they could believe in it".

That is a key detail often missed in this catholic argument.

Is this the witness of Peter you refer to? That this refers to the "holy men of old" who wrote and canonized the NEW Testament???

I really am not interested in this particular rabbit trail, but for the sake of argument, are you then saying that all of the the NT was written, and accepted as Scripture, and all of the spurious writings already rejected - IOW Scripture COMPLETELY decided, then Peter came along and wrote 2 Peter, and that's what he was referring to?

I'm not sure if that's what you are actually arguing. And if so … it brings about the silly question of how 2 Peter made it into the Bible? (Not to mention why wasn't Revelation then included until much later?)

Of course we all believe Scripture is inspired by God. I don't see anyone arguing against that.

But … there were other people writing as well, and some of their writings were accepted by some as being inspired too. Who decided that theirs were not inspired of God, and the ones that we do have were inspired?

Most of us agree, I think, that a council of men, members of the Church, met and discussed this, and among them decided what was inspired and what was not. I don't see anyone actually arguing that a bound Bible floated down from the sky - if it didn't, then you have to allow that men were involved in the process. These men (I hope!) were members of God's Church. So … the Church was responsible. Not for the inspiration, but for the compilation.

(And honestly, I think that took a period of time and was affected by how the writings were being used and what effect they had on the faithful, as well as the fact that they lined up with the accepted faith.)

________________________

Originally Posted by Kylissa
Oh? I'm not that familiar with Catholic history. But did the Council of Trent actually change what books were considered canon?

Read the Bible.

Peter said they already were accepting the NT text as scripture.

This just isn't that hard.

Now, now. I wasn't online and haven't responded to your other posts.

But perhaps this is your answer to my above question? You really DO think that according to 2 Peter, the whole of Scripture was decided and canonized "of old" (compared to when he wrote that)???

LOL, then really, how DID 2 Peter make it into the Bible???

And my question was whether or not the Council of Trent actually changed the Canon for the Catholic Church. I'm not Catholic, so forgive me, but I haven't gotten around to looking into that. But it sounds to me as though the accepted canon as read in Church remained the accepted canon read in Church. I'll leave that to others who actually know what they are talking about to discuss.

 

[By Faith Alone]

You are calling the books regarded as Scripture by the Church for some 1500 years (and until today as well) "garbage" ...

And giving Luther and others the title of Holy Spirit?

Luther also wanted to remove what ... Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation? Are those "garbage" as well then? Perhaps another reformer will come along in another 1000 years and rid us of those as well?

Really sad that God wasn't able to get it right for the first 1500 years, wouldn't you say? Maybe even sad for us, in case it's still not right, and we should cut Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation?

I did NOT give the titles of the Holy Spirit, did I?? No matter who did what, it was GOD in control.

In comparison to Scriptural Truth they are UNINSPIRED and should not be taken as such. THAT is the point. If they line up with the 66 then fine, but don't hang onto every word as is a FACT. That is how the uninspired were found out. Through ERROR.

 

[~Anastasia~]

GOD was in control of it all. GUARANTEED!!

So your position would be that God purposely gave the Church "garbage" for part of their canon, and waited 1500 years to toss out the garbage?

What about Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation? Are those going to be "garbage" someday too?

And why on earth would God choose to establish His Church and give her "garbage" for as part of her Holy Writ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

My point in saying what I did was that the Councils were pre-Schism. I prefer to think of it as The Church gave us the canon - not specifically the Catholic church, or the Orthodox Church, etc. since there was only "The Church" at that time.

Not for a point of pride or argument, but for unity, such as it was. Historically it seems more accurate to me anyway. But I meant no argument or insult.

I had heard that * Catholicism recognizes more councils than the EOs and much of Protestantism.

Would make for an interesting discussion.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7363129/
Councils of early Christianity question

On another thread the topic of councils came up and I found it interesting.

From what I gather, the RCC had 22, the OO 3, the Orthodox have 7.

I would like to know how many councils other Churches hold to. Thanks

The RCC considers all general councils to be ecumenical councils and therefore authoritative.

It's true that after the original 7, those that followed were attended by only the RCC but since the RCC considers everyone else to be fallen away from the one, true church--the RCC--all these councils are, by definition, ecumenical.
And they did add much for the RCC to the issues settled by the first 7, for instance Papal Infallibility.

As for my own church, I agree with what was said by my friend Secundulus, that Anglicans very often answer the question by saying that we accept 4.

These are the only ones, out of the initial 7, that dealt with fundamental questions about the nature of God, whereas the latter 3 dealt with refinements of that issue or less basic matters such as the place of images...and they were not as truly representative of the whole church as the earlier ones were. Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Papalists within the Anglican fold, however, favor the 7. Nothing "official" has ever been decided about the number of councils except that the Articles of Religion do state that the Nicene Creed is to be accepted because it accords with Scripture, which POV I think reflects an Anglican attitude toward councils generally.

.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I had heard that the Catholicism recognizes more councils than the EOs and much of Protestantism. Would make for an interesting discussion.

Wouldn't surprise me as after all the EO, Catholics, and Protestants have other differences.

I was focusing on the unity and similarities, particularly since it was the early Church in discussion, and they were united at that time.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

So your position would be that God purposely gave the Church "garbage" for part of their canon, and waited 1500 years to toss out the garbage?

What about Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation? Are those going to be "garbage" someday too?

And why on earth would God choose to establish His Church and give her "garbage" for as part of her Holy Writ?

He would not. Do you want the real reason some Protestants removed them?

Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45)
Purgatory/ Toll Houses/ Partial judgement (Wisdom 3:1-7)
Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14)
Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15)

A few brief reasons. I have about 50 more. But basically: Too Catholic is the real reason.

 

[Erose]

Makes me wonder who Jesus despised the most, the Pharisees or Sadducees.

The Sadducees were associated more with the Priesthood I think.........

Matthew 3:7
Seeing yet many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming upon his baptism he said to them "produce of vipers!

This is an interesting event in Acts 23 when Paul got both of those sects into a dissension and division.......

NKJV Acts 23:
7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.
8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection -- and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.
9 Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees' party arose and protested, saying, "We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God."

http://www.christianforums.com/t7454770/
Why did Sadducees not believe in Resurrection? Acts 23:8

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3974

Being closely associated with the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared from history when the Temple was destroyed in 70.




.

Well think of where we would be now if the Sadducee party won out. Protestants wouldn't have a 66 book canon, but rather just a 32 book canon.

 

[Erose]

My point in saying what I did was that the Councils were pre-Schism. I prefer to think of it as The Church gave us the canon - not specifically the Catholic church, or the Orthodox Church, etc. since there was only "The Church" at that time. Not for a point of pride or argument, but for unity, such as it was. Historically it seems more accurate to me anyway. But I meant no argument or insult.

I think one point you should consider here is that the Church in the early centuries referred to herself as the Catholic Church. This title is not something that was invented after the Schism began to occur.

One can debate if the Catholic Church of today is linked to the Catholic Church of old; but in doing so the burden of proof falls to the one making such a claim, as history as we know it, is against such a claim. In fact I would say that taking this approach is really a waste of time, for it is indefensible. One has to (and sadly a good number of folks do) reinvent a lot of history, and at that point, anyone with even some smattering of European history should be able to see the lies for what they are.

 

[~Anastasia~]

He would not. Do you want the real reason some Protestants removed them?

Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45)
Purgatory/ Toll Houses/ Partial judgement (Wisdom 3:1-7)
Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14)
Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15)

A few brief reasons. I have about 50 more. But basically: Too Catholic is the real reason.

I can't cite them all, but a quick read shows why they were excluded, and it's not too hard to see why James, particularly is a problem. I've spoken with Christians today who will nearly spit on the book of James. Sorry - I get a little upset when someone disrespects Holy Scripture.

And of course God would not do that. I simply asked because it would seem to be where the stated assertions would lead.

Matt 7
9 Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

Matt 4
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"

God would not give His Church "garbage" to nourish them for 1500 years - I am displeased with any implication that He is that sort of God - worse even than "evil" men.

 

[Tzaousios]

Looks like the Holy Spirit had some work to do in cleaning up the garbage, being left with the 66.

I love how God works. Don't you?

Those "books for edification" are NOT inspired.

By what criteria have you designated the deuterocanonical books "garbage" and "not inspired?" Going by this statement, it would appear that it is merely because you associate them with Roman Catholicism, therefore they MUST be garbage and uninspired.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

By what criteria have you designated the deuterocanonical books "garbage" and "not inspired?" Going by this statement, it would appear that it is merely because you associate them with Roman Catholicism, therefore they MUST be garbage and uninspired.

What other books other than the accepted Deuterocanon by the early church was rejected? What about the book of Enoch for example?


http://www.christianforums.com/t7796133-2/
More Light on the Apocrypha - Deuterocanon - Anaginoskomena

I noticed there are a few new resources for students of the disputed books of the Old Testament.

The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition With Notes

and

GW Apocrypha Hardcover: The Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament

and

New Living Translation: Catholic Reference Edition

Has anyone here been using these and can tell us what yoiu think of them?

I'm also wondering if the NLT version is available in a stand-alone volume of just the disputed books.

.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think one point you should consider here is that the Church in the early centuries referred to herself as the Catholic Church. This title is not something that was invented after the Schism began to occur.

One can debate if the Catholic Church of today is linked to the Catholic Church of old; but in doing so the burden of proof falls to the one making such a claim, as history as we know it, is against such a claim. In fact I would say that taking this approach is really a waste of time, for it is indefensible. One has to (and sadly a good number of folks do) reinvent a lot of history, and at that point, anyone with even some smattering of European history should be able to see the lies for what they are.

You have a point, and in the Orthodox Church the Creed is spoken each week to say that we believe in "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church". It doesn't even say "Orthodox".

I am simply trying to take a kinder, gentler approach. Of course, both the Orthodox and Catholic claim to be "the Church" and that the other split off.

But that reminds me of a thread on here where some posters were upset that the Catholic Church "co-opted" the term "catholic" as their name. That led into unproductive silliness.

What one calls oneself doesn't bear out proof. And I will certainly respectfully allow you and all the Catholics their position. While I am not Catholic, and I disagree on a few points of doctrine/dogma, I greatly respect the Catholic Church and have to offer thanks for helping me to better understand so many theologies through her catechism, and in the process to better understand even a variety of Protestants as well as the Orthodox position. Just having things so well written out is extremely helpful, even in the cases where I might not agree.

In the end, I find too many similarities among all of the traditional Churches to be comfortable pitting any one against another.

Each of us has to be persuaded in our own minds. And for that matter, I have family members who have just begun attending church for the first time in their lives. I don't find their church to be ideal - it is almost not really what I'd even call "church". But they believe in God, they encourage reading the Bible, and they meet together. If I were to insist (if I had that power) that my family members attend MY Church ... I think they would honestly run screaming the other way and may never darken the door of any Church again. I have been in such a position myself while changing churches before - sometimes I was not ready or just barely ready for what I was about to learn and understand. So for that reason, I have to even respect their church, and hope it leads them to grow in the faith. It seems to be what they need and what they can appreciate right now.

Sorry, I'm rambling. More than you asked for. God bless you!!!