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.
1. The OP topic is The “Traditions” Given by the Apostles.” Those teachings are found in the 27 books of the NT. That is the scope of the discussion. The OP is not about the Old Testament.
Okay, so disregard the paragraph that refers to the Old Testament. Pretend it's not even there. You didn't answer my question. Regarding the New Testament only, the books accepted as canonical has changed significantly since the early second century. Why is today's canon accurate and the older ones not?
Quote:
2. To the best of my knowledge, the LDS accepts the twenty-seven books of the NT as God-breathed and authoritative. I agree with them 100%. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants agree as well.
3. Since we both believe the 27 books of the New Testament to be the word of God, the burden of proof is on you to show other books such as the Book of Mormon to be God-breathed.
Be blessed,
Kate
The burden is on nobody. I didn't even mention the Book of Mormon and I wasn't even thinking of it. I'm not even going to try to prove the unprovable to you. It all comes down to faith. You have faith in one book. I have faith in that book and in three others. Neither of us can prove that any of it is God-breathed.
Overall this is a good post, though I would quibble with a few minor details presented.
The fundamental question is of course this: who gets to decide what is and what isn't Scripture?
Since God didn't drop a completed Bible in anyone's lap, we know that what is and what isn't Scripture has always been decided by men. Since men have disagreed over the centuries, whom are we to trust?
By God or by men? And which canon? The canon you use now or the one that was used in the 4th century or the one that was used in the 15th century?
By God. It includes books up to and including those written by the apostles. The last one authored was Revelation. It was generally accepted around that time, but it was formally recognized at Hippo and Carthage in the 390's.
You want to argue that? Ok. I honestly don't care to get into it. The point I was making is that it is established. It's generally accepted what is the Inspired Word of God and what isn't. And when a church tries to claim special revelation that contradicts it (be it your church, the RCC, or the babtist church on the corner, that's an issue.
By God. It includes books up to and including those written by the apostles. The last one authored was Revelation. It was generally accepted around that time, but it was formally recognized at Hippo and Carthage in the 390's.
So God apparently kept changing His mind? Had you lived in the 4th century, for instance, long after Revelation was penned, you'd have accepted a different canon than you do today. What was wrong with the canon used back in the 4th century? If it wasn't God-breathed, why wasn't it? that canon did not include Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But it did include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Christians of the 4th century were probably just as certain as you are today that their Bible was complete and perfect.
The fundamental question is of course this: who gets to decide what is and what isn't Scripture?
Since God didn't drop a completed Bible in anyone's lap, we know that what is and what isn't Scripture has always been decided by men. Since men have disagreed over the centuries, whom are we to trust?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Your guess is as good as mine.
Is it though? Is that what God left to us? A guessing game?
Is it though? Is that what God left to us? A guessing game?
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. Wasn't revelation to the Church supposedly discontinued shortly after the death of the last apostle?
So God apparently kept changing His mind? Had you lived in the 4th century, for instance, long after Revelation was penned, you'd have accepted a different canon than you do today.
Why would you believe that? The Canon was established long before then.
Quote:
What was wrong with the canon used back in the 4th century? If it wasn't God-breathed, why wasn't it? that canon did not include Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews.
Hippo and Carthage both recognized them, and they were widely in circulation well before then. Not sure what your point is here.
Quote:
But it did include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Christians of the 4th century were probably just as certain as you are today that their Bible was complete and perfect.
The Catholic Church has numerous traditions (doctrines) outside of the 27 books of the New Testament. The burden of proof lies with the Catholic Church and you to prove those traditions are God-breathed.
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.
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.
I'm sorry...maybe I missed it. Can you show me the verse that supports the idea of continuing to present a bloodless sacrifice after Hebrews specifically says there is none needed?
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.
