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.
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.
Well, there was no need to mention it at all. It made no more sense to mention that it's not in the canon than it would have been to mention that Shakespeare's works are not a part of the canon. So let's just drop it.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
And when was that?
The African churches met in council in Carthage in AD 397 and pronounced a Biblical canon which they later sent to Rome for approval. It seems to have been approved by Rome (likely by Pope Boniface I) and therefore set in stone, as the decrees from this council are re-affirmed in later councils and synods.
It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two Books of the Maccabees.
Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.
So let the church over the sea be consulted to confirm this canon. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.
Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church.
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? 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.
Of course there are proofs. Call them evidences if you choose, but they come down to the same thing. Jesus prophesied the temple would be destroyed, and it was. Five hundred people saw the resurrected Jesus. There is plenty of proof for the 27 books being inspired by God.
As I’ve said, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants agree that the 27 books of the New Testament are God-breathed. This has been accepted for the past 1700 years and more.
Many claim their church is “His” church, yet they deny, contradict and undermine Scriptures from the 27 books of the NT they say are God-breathed. You even said you believe the Bible to be corrupt. I’m praying you don’t believe the extant Greek manuscripts themselves are corrupt because those are where we get our NT from, and your church has taken a stand on that fact. You would be contradicting the RCC.
The Catholic Church is filled with human traditions. There is no proof or evidence that any are God-breathed.
You even said you believe the Bible to be corrupt.
Even though I have made my position on this clear multiple times, you continue to misrepresent it. I don't believe you are doing that intentionally, so allow me to reiterate my position once again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
Yes, the 66 book version of the English Bible is corrupted, in particular the portions of the translations based on the Masoretic texts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
Many of the most popular 66-book English Bibles are based off of corrupted translations (i.e. Masoretic text), so to that degree they would be corrupted translations.
I would NOT say that all English Bibles are corrupted, as they are not all based off of corrupted transcripts/texts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
You know good and well that there is not just *one* Bible. There are dozens or maybe hundreds of translations; and that's just for the English language, not to mention the hundreds or thousands of other languages into which the Bible has been translated.
*Your* Bible may or may not be corrupt, and John Doe's Bible may or may not be corrupt.
I've already answered as clearly as I can. Some English Bibles are corrupt, and some are not.
How could I possibly be any clearer? If you're going to ask me "is the Bible corrupt", my follow-up question will be "which Bible are you referring to?"
I’m praying you don’t believe the extant Greek manuscripts themselves are corrupt
Of course not. There are also English translations which are certainly not corrupt. But I've already explained all of this to you. I'm unsure as to why you are having such a hard time grasping my position on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
The Catholic Church is filled with human traditions. There is no proof or evidence that any are God-breathed.
There is plenty of evidence, which the Church amply provides for any given tradition. You simply don't find the evidence compelling -- that, or you haven't actually examined the evidence.
Last edited by EscAlaMike; 04-03-2024 at 01:16 PM..
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.
Actually, there is a very good reason to bring up the Book of Mormon, and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Many Christians believe that neither group holds to the traditions taught by the apostles. They see them as having gone beyond the scope of the 27 books, and in some cases contradicting those teachings found in the New Testament. I would guess that Mike wouldn’t agree with Mormon doctrine anymore than you would agree with some Catholic doctrines. The differences between Mike, You and I is that I do hold to the traditions taught by the apostles. I don’t go beyond them. Which of us is right in our thinking? I guess we will find out someday. I pray each of us will be acceptable in the eyes of God. I pray our faith in Jesus, the Son of God, makes up for all the places and times we fall short.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Actually, there is a very good reason to bring up the Book of Mormon, and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Many Christians believe that neither group holds to the traditions taught by the apostles.
"Many Christians" believe all kinds of things, some of them very ridiculous.
2/3 of the world's Christians belong to a Church with actual, traceable Apostolic origins. These churches with traceable Apostolic origins are the Catholic Church, Orthodox churches (Eastern and Oriental), and the Assyrian Church of the East. These churches do have disagreements with one another on particular points of doctrine and practice, but all claim to have the Apostolic Faith; and all would say that your version of Christianity most definitely does not.
I understand that this fact is utterly meaningless to you.
=EscAlaMike;66605172]Of course not. There are also English translations which are certainly not corrupt. But I've already explained all of this to you. I'm unsure as to why you are having such a hard time grasping my position on this.
I’m going by what you said, which was the Bible is corrupt. I assumed you were referring to the OT because you brought up the masoretic texts. You never stated your position on the NT.
Quote:
There is plenty of evidence, which the Church amply provides for any given tradition. You simply don't find the evidence compelling -- that, or you haven't actually examined the evidence.
Actually I have examined the evidences for many claims, the assumption of Mary for one. 1. There is no Scriptural evidence. 2. The apostolic fathers don’t mention it. 3. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the first “genuine” written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the sixth to the eighth centuries. 4. Mary isn’t mentioned in the Scriptures after Acts 1 where she is in the upper room.
The Assumption of Mary is a tradition of men. It was not a tradition of the apostles.
This thread is not about Catholic doctrines. I only bring the assumption story up because I wanted you to understand that I have looked at the evidences provided by the Catholic Church, and my conclusion is that the claim is false.
Last edited by MissKate12; 04-03-2024 at 02:06 PM..
"Many Christians" believe all kinds of things, some of them very ridiculous.
2/3 of the world's Christians belong to a Church with actual, traceable Apostolic origins. These churches with traceable Apostolic origins are the Catholic Church, Orthodox churches (Eastern and Oriental), and the Assyrian Church of the East. These churches do have disagreements with one another on particular points of doctrine and practice, but all claim to have the Apostolic Faith; and all would say that your version of Christianity most definitely does not.
I understand that this fact is utterly meaningless to you.
It’s not so much meaningless as it is false. You’ve chosen to follow traditions not handed down by the apostles. I’ve chosen to adhere to the apostles’ doctrines and never go beyond them. Someday, we will find out which of us took the right path. Meanwhile, I pray that God sees that we love Him, and that He forgives us where we fall short. He is a God of mercy. That much I know.
Be blessed,
Kate
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.
