Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would you believe that? The Canon was established long before then.
I know it was. What I am saying is that it was established and then changed and then changed and then changed again over time.
Quote:
Hippo and Carthage both recognized them, and they were widely in circulation well before then. Not sure what your point is here.
My point is that Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter were not in the canon back in A.D. 200. Only two of John's letters were included, but we don't know which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon were in the canon back then. The books comprising the canon changed and were different in the 4th century, as I already pointed out.
Since the death of the last Apostle, different books have been included and excluded over time. You say that today's canon is perfect and that it was determined by God which books should be included. That doesn't make sense if the canon changed over time.
Quote:
What did? They were never inspired.
How do you know. The were once believed by Christians to be inspired. Why were those Christians wrong and today's Christians right?
And as I asked before, what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
The Christian Faith as a whole is based on an assertion, a claim, which is then backed up by evidence. There are no "proofs", as Christianity is not a mathematical equation.
The Catholic Church presents a comprehensive defense for every tradition it holds, including the evidence it has for doing so. What else can she do?
Apparently it's defense changed over the ages then. I suppose we can assume that the evidence changed, but one way or the other, the canon has changed significantly over the years and there has to be a reason for that.
Quote:
You either believe it or you don't. It just makes no sense to me to claim to believe in Christ while rejecting His Church. I guess some people can do it, but I could not.
LOL. I do believe in Christ. Furthermore, I belong to His Church. Look, my Church gives your Church a lot of credit for preserving the scriptures as well as it did. We wouldn't have a Bible at all without you guys. That doesn't mean that it's "His Church."
It appears so. Do you believe He told the Christians of the 4th century (through the Pope, I'm assuming) that the canon of that day and age was to be what it was and then changed His mind later on to include Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Hebrews and to drop the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas? Personally, I don't think He was communicating with anybody (i.e. the Pope or any of the Church fathers) back then.
We believe that the Holy Spirit speaks and moves through the Church, and not necessarily through any individual. What the Church authoritatively declares, the faithful are bound to submit to. This is the authority of "binding and loosing" (Matt. 18). When the bishops of the Church spoke authoritatively, united at the Councils of Carthage and put forth a final canon, the matter was settled once and for all. This pronouncement has never been contradicted* and has only been re-confirmed multiple times since then.
*Of course I realize that individuals and groups outside the Catholic Church have put forth contradicting canons since Carthage, but they have no divine authority to do so and the Catholic Church has never accepted them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Wasn't revelation to the Church supposedly discontinued shortly after the death of the last apostle?
No. We would make a distinction between different types of revelation. No revelation can be accepted that proposes some new or novel doctrine; but revelation in the sense of a supernatural demonstration or affirmation of some known truth has definitely continued.
Apparently it's defense changed over the ages then. I suppose we can assume that the evidence changed, but one way or the other, the canon has changed significantly over the years and there has to be a reason for that.
There was debate within the Church regarding the canon for several centuries; but as I said, the debate was ended at Carthage when an authoritative pronouncement was made once and for all.
LOL. I do believe in Christ. Furthermore, I belong to His Church. Look, my Church gives your Church a lot of credit for preserving the scriptures as well as it did. We wouldn't have a Bible at all without you guys. That doesn't mean that it's "His Church."
I'm glad that we can agree on the importance of there being One Church, apostolic in origin.
I know it was. What I am saying is that it was established and then changed and then changed and then changed again over time.
My point is that Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter were not in the canon back in A.D. 200. Only two of John's letters were included, but we don't know which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon were in the canon back then. The books comprising the canon changed and were different in the 4th century, as I already pointed out.
Since the death of the last Apostle, different books have been included and excluded over time. You say that today's canon is perfect and that it was determined by God which books should be included. That doesn't make sense if the canon changed over time.
How do you know. The were once believed by Christians to be inspired. Why were those Christians wrong and today's Christians right?
And as I asked before, what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
I've given you my answer. I honestly don't care. None of the canons in question include the BoM, or the Pearl of Great Price, etc...and none of them include the RCC Magisterium, or the ramblings of the fundy babtist preacher down the street.
I've given you my answer. I honestly don't care. None of the canons in question include the BoM, or the Pearl of Great Price, etc...and none of them include the RCC Magisterium, or the ramblings of the fundy babtist preacher down the street.
We are not talking about the Book of Mormon at all! We are talking about the Bible. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for you to bring up the Book of Mormon except to bait me. Sorry, but I'm not going to be the one to take this thread off-topic.
We are not talking about the Book of Mormon at all! We are talking about the Bible. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for you to bring up the Book of Mormon except to bait me. Sorry, but I'm not going to be the one to take this thread off-topic.
Yes, and the BoM was just one of the things I mentioned that is not include din the canon. I'm no more trying to bait you than I am trying to bait Mike, or any fundy babtist. As for going "off-topic"? You're the one pressing this, not me. So let's drop this here.
Yes, and the BoM was just one of the things I mentioned that is not include din the canon. I'm no more trying to bait you than I am trying to bait Mike, or any fundy babtist. As for going "off-topic"? You're the one pressing this, not me. So let's drop this here.
What?!?!? I never even mentioned the Book of Mormon.
What?!?!? I never even mentioned the Book of Mormon.
I mentioned it, along with 2 other things. Good grief, I'm not camping on it. I mentioned it in passing. Don't get in a twist over it. I'm not picking on you or it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, my Church gives your Church a lot of credit for preserving the scriptures as well as it did. We wouldn't have a Bible at all without you guys. That doesn't mean that it's "His Church."