How does a Catholic explain John 19:30?

[Dmarie]

Tb's quote: "There was never anyone except Catholics deciding on the cannon from early on. The protestant church has a NT canon only because the Catholic Church gave them one."

What??? Where???
A very bold statement, and a very "catholic" one.

Please cite where in Scripture and not catholic dogma, that it was only "Catholics" who "decided" and "gave" us the Word of God. What does it mean then when the Scriptures say "the Word of God" or "the Word of the Lord"...? I don't see anywhere where it says "Catholics decided" or "Catholics gave"....
So, "...never anyone except Catholics....", well then,...
is not the Holy Spirit "Someone"?? All through Scripture you find "the Holy Spirit spoke through", or "the Holy Spirit came upon", or "the Holy Spirit moved him to speak". Was it not the Holy Spirit who gave us the Scriptures???

Please provide your Scriptural proof.

"...holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
(II Peter 1:21)

Blessings...Dmarie

[Dmarie]

So your quote Tb in regards to St. Jerome, "I would not say he was strongly against it",...
how can you say that not speaking out against the whole of the RCC, which of course includes the Pope, not be a strong and bold statement against it? You are belittling this.

Again, please read St. Jerome's statement above, and please, provide his statement of "recantation" as you stated he made.

Also, again again, the RCC did not officially declare as inspired the Apocryphal writings (and not all 15, but the RCC chose only 11), until the Council of Trent. Why did the RCC have to declare and make official these writings if they were supposedly already deemed "inspired", and...why did they wait so long? Even Cardinal Cajetan, who went against Luther and opposed him in 1518 at Augsburg, did not include the Apocryphal Writings in his well known written and published book, "A Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament". So, apparently Cardinal Cajetan did not deem these to be inspired nor "Authentic" to even include them in his book.

Blessings...Dmarie

[tealblue]

Hello Tb.
I hope you had a blessed Easter.

Well, here we go...
What evidence do you have that Jesus "quoted from the Septuigent"?
The Septuigent, was a Greek translation.
Jesus was hebrew and spoke aramaic, so all evidence points that He, along with the apostles used and quoted from the old Hebrew bible, and not the Septuigent.

When Jesus quotes an OT passage like he does in Mark 7:6–7 from isa 29:13 it matches the greek version of the OT. It doesn't match the hebrew. Sometimes his quotes match the hebrew versions but most of the time they don't.

Also, what Codex's were you referring to? You failed to name them.
If you were referring to the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Siniticus, and the Codex Alexandrius, well, they were all written in greek also. Again, why would Jesus use a "Greek" translation when He spoke aramaic?

Mark 7

24h From that place he went off to the district of Tyre.* He entered a house and wanted no one to know about it, but he could not escape notice. 25Soon a woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard about him. She came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth, and she begged him to drive the demon out of her daughter.

Greek was also the language and I am sure Jesus spoke it also. The lady in this passage is greek.

To say that the Hebrew Bible was compiled of 22 books, again is inaccurate info Tb. Any google will tell you this, however I do realize your responses come through the prism of CC dogma.
The prophets, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit gave us the OT, and not according...to cite your quote..."The bible never came with a list of books. These were decided by people hundreds of years ago. Tradition." Just because the Bible did not come with a "list of books" does not mean we can't distinguish when a sentence ends, when a paragraph ends, when a thought ends, when a book ends. I think God is very capable of compiling and writing a Book...HIS BOOK, by whatever means HE chooses, and HE chose fallible men through the dircection and inspiration of HIS HOLY SPIRIT to write an infallible Book. God is perfect, and He is perfectly able to write a perfect Book. Just because He chose to not include a "list" of contents, or appendix for that matter, does not demean or exclude in any way its PERFECTION.

I also remind you and refer you back to what Jesus has to say about "tradition"...which is much, and He certainly doesn't mince words. The "priests" in those days "added" to the original teachings of the prophets making the Word of God into a "list" of their own traditions. Jesus specifically said that His "...yoke was easy." Look up how many times He rebuked the scribes and the pharisees, and for specifically what He rebuked them for.

There is a difference between traditions of men and tradition of the apostles. Paul specifically tells us to follow HIS traditions. Yes paul is a man but there is a distinction.

By the way, can you also please cite specifically Jerome's recantation?

Blessings...Dmarie

Yes

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

It was long thought that the deutercanonicals were not original in hebrew but with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls fragments of 4 of the books were in hebrew.

[tealblue]

Tb's quote: "There was never anyone except Catholics deciding on the cannon from early on. The protestant church has a NT canon only because the Catholic Church gave them one."

What??? Where???
A very bold statement, and a very "catholic" one.

Please cite where in Scripture and not catholic dogma, that it was only "Catholics" who "decided" and "gave" us the Word of God. What does it mean then when the Scriptures say "the Word of God" or "the Word of the Lord"...? I don't see anywhere where it says "Catholics decided" or "Catholics gave"....
So, "...never anyone except Catholics....", well then,...
is not the Holy Spirit "Someone"?? All through Scripture you find "the Holy Spirit spoke through", or "the Holy Spirit came upon", or "the Holy Spirit moved him to speak". Was it not the Holy Spirit who gave us the Scriptures???

Please provide your Scriptural proof.

"...holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
(II Peter 1:21)

Blessings...Dmarie

Its not biblical proof its historical proof. Most outside of either Catholic or protestant circles will say that the Catholic church did assemble the cannon. It all depends on which protestant group you talk to when its said that the Catholic church came into existance. Whatever fits there particular befiefs.

[tealblue]

So your quote Tb in regards to St. Jerome, "I would not say he was strongly against it",...
how can you say that not speaking out against the whole of the RCC, which of course includes the Pope, not be a strong and bold statement against it? You are belittling this.

Again, please read St. Jerome's statement above, and please, provide his statement of "recantation" as you stated he made.

Also, again again, the RCC did not officially declare as inspired the Apocryphal writings (and not all 15, but the RCC chose only 11), until the Council of Trent. Why did the RCC have to declare and make official these writings if they were supposedly already deemed "inspired", and...why did they wait so long? Even Cardinal Cajetan, who went against Luther and opposed him in 1518 at Augsburg, did not include the Apocryphal Writings in his well known written and published book, "A Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament". So, apparently Cardinal Cajetan did not deem these to be inspired nor "Authentic" to even include them in his book.

Blessings...Dmarie

For one St Jerome is not the whole church. Why does the protestant religion cling to Jerome on this. Only because they agree with his first assertion about the secondary cannon. Does the protestants agree with jerome on other things like Mary's perpetual virginity. Why is he an authority on this one thing. I mean your arguament that not all agreed with the deutero's doesn't make any sense. Remember the council of Nicea? Not all of the bishops agreed to what we know as the trinity doctrine. Using that kind of argument means we should reject the triune doctrine. Not all bishops agreed with the doctrine and it took 300 years for the church to make it official. Why did the church have to pronounce the trinity if it was already in use. Does this reasoning sound familiar? It should its the same line of agrument you use agianst the deutero's. Mormons. JW's and oneness use the same argument against the trinity as protestants use against the deutero's.

[Dmarie]

Greetings.
Your answers as a whole, are very weak and unsubstantiated Tb. Again,
do you really believe that Jesus, the apostles, as well as any "orthodox" jew, would carry and use a "Greek" translation of their old Hebrew OT? Do you really think that they, being orthodox jews, would walk around speaking greek, reading greek, quoting greek? Please, think about this. Yes, greek was the predominant language, but that does not at all mean that Jesus nor His apostles, or any orthodox jew had conformed to this in regards to the study and use of their OT Hebrew Bible. This was certainly most sacred to them. Who knows, maybe Jesus also spoke greek, (He is certainly most capable of it), but again, being Jewish, He spoke aramaic. Did not Jesus say that He came to fulfill all the Law and the Prophets? The Law and the Prophets were originally written in Hebrew.

Traditions, Traditions. Please cite for me the list of thetraditions of the apostles. Surely, there would be a written list of these important traditions if we are to follow and adhere to them. God did give us His written Word. Did He not command the prophets and the apostles to write things down?

Please give me the complete reference to Jerome's recantation so that I may read that in context.

Blessings...Dmarie

[Dmarie]

Its not biblical proof its historical proof. Most outside of either Catholic or protestant circles will say that the Catholic church did assemble the cannon. It all depends on which protestant group you talk to when its said that the Catholic church came into existance. Whatever fits there particular befiefs.

And just exactly Who are the "most" you cite?

What's more important to you Tb..."biblical" proof, or "historical" proof?

Blessings...Dmarie

[tealblue]

Greetings.
Your answers as a whole, are very weak and unsubstantiated Tb. Again,
do you really believe that Jesus, the apostles, as well as any "orthodox" jew, would carry and use a "Greek" translation of their old Hebrew OT? Do you really think that they, being orthodox jews, would walk around speaking greek, reading greek, quoting greek? Please, think about this. Yes, greek was the predominant language, but that does not at all mean that Jesus nor His apostles, or any orthodox jew had conformed to this in regards to the study and use of their OT Hebrew Bible. This was certainly most sacred to them. Who knows, maybe Jesus also spoke greek, (He is certainly most capable of it), but again, being Jewish, He spoke aramaic. Did not Jesus say that He came to fulfill all the Law and the Prophets? The Law and the Prophets were originally written in Hebrew.

What do you mean by use and carry? Like the apostles carried around an old testement bible with them. By the way some jews still use the OT cannon that has 46 books. Eitheopian jews do.
Sorry but it is a fact that the most quotes from Jesus come directly from the LXX. The translations are different from the hebrew and LXX versions.

Traditions, Traditions. Please cite for me the list of thetraditions of the apostles. Surely, there would be a written list of these important traditions if we are to follow and adhere to them. God did give us His written Word. Did He not command the prophets and the apostles to write things down?

Why do you think that these things must be written down? Show me one place where Jesus or any apostle commanded anything written down. Paul is specific about following oral as well as written tradition. The idea of it must be in the bible is a myth. Jesus had much more to say about starting a church than assembling a bible.

Please give me the complete reference to Jerome's recantation so that I may read that in context.

Blessings...Dmarie

I think the burden of proof is on you. Jerome published the vulgate with all 73 books. How much the pope or anybody had to do with the final decision is speculative at best. Even that fact alone should tell you that all along there has been 73 in the Catholic cannon. If the council of Trent is really where the 7 books were adden then we should not even have to discuss the pope pressuring Jerome to add them in. The reason Trent had to confirm 73 books is because up until the reformation it was never in question. Sure a few here and there. Even today there are priest who believe that it should be allowed to serve openly gay. There is a reason for a church and a pope. So in order that lone individuals can't make their own rules.

[tealblue]

And just exactly Who are the "most" you cite?

What's more important to you Tb..."biblical" proof, or "historical" proof?

Blessings...Dmarie

There is no biblical proof for the cannon of scripture. Its 100 percent tradition. Show me the biblical index. How do you know that the book of revelation is an inspired book? There are many early writings that discount the book of revelation not being inspired. were they pressured? A christian goes to the book store and picks up a copy of the bible and thats what he goes by. As far as the NT goes you are whether you admit it or not following the authority of tradition.

[Dmarie]

There is no biblical proof for the cannon of scripture. Its 100 percent tradition. Show me the biblical index. How do you know that the book of revelation is an inspired book? There are many early writings that discount the book of revelation not being inspired. were they pressured? A christian goes to the book store and picks up a copy of the bible and thats what he goes by. As far as the NT goes you are whether you admit it or not following the authority of tradition.

Hello Tb.
I hope you are doing well.
I have to say that I have been quite saddened because of your evolving and escalating disdain towards the authority of the Holy Scriptures. Yes, this is how you have definitely been coming across in your responses, especially your last ones. You want to pick and choose whatever scriptures suit your response(s), and then turn around and question their inspiration. How ironic. This is Catholicism.

The Scriptures were written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They were God breathed. This is evident all through the Scriptures, how holy men were moved and told by God to "...write these things down." St. Peter, considered to be the first Pope by catholics has this to say about the written word:

"Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken by the holy prophets, and of the commandments of us, *the apostles of the Lord and Savior,...." (2Peter 3:1,2)

He goes on further to say about the apostle Paul, who wrote much of the NT:

"...as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2Peter 3:15,16)

I understand your mind-set all too well Tb. I was born into catholicism.
You made a comment to me on a previous post, something about putting God and the Bible in a box, well my friend, it is you who have chosen to misplace the rightful Preeminence of God and the Authority of His Word (the Holy Scriptures), and have placed them in the coffer, as well as yourself, and to place all of this under the total authority of the RCC? Now, how messed up is this?

A true and faithful friend of mine witnessed to me for 7yrs until I finally came to accept what Jesus had done for me...His finished work on the cross, and my salvation. I didn't know alot of the things he was saying to me at the time, but my friend did challenge me to look them up in the Bible for myself, which I eventually did, and there was so much I did not know to my surprise. I went to church regularly. I thought the CC had taught us everything important in the Bible. Well, they didn't.

But,...you knew about some of these things. Maybe alot of them.
You said that you were once lutheran I believe, then evangelical, then catholic. Were you even born-again? You never really answered my question as to why you left the previous two, and chose catholicism. You stated something about "intellectual honesty." What's this supposed to mean? I can understand the lure that catholicism may have in all of its beliefs and practices,(which it is certainly rich in). It makes you feel like you're doing something to earn your way. Well, it's empty, and you'll never have that peace that God promises us in His salvation. You are in bondage Tb...come back!

Blessings...Dmarie

[tealblue]

Hello Tb.
I hope you are doing well.
I have to say that I have been quite saddened because of your evolving and escalating disdain towards the authority of the Holy Scriptures. Yes, this is how you have definitely been coming across in your responses, especially your last ones. You want to pick and choose whatever scriptures suit your response(s), and then turn around and question their inspiration. How ironic. This is Catholicism.

I don't see it as a distain for the authority of scripture just the distain of the personal use of it. Who has the authority of interpretation?

The Scriptures were written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They were God breathed. This is evident all through the Scriptures, how holy men were moved and told by God to "...write these things down." St. Peter, considered to be the first Pope by catholics has this to say about the written word:

So how do you know that God didn't move holy men in creating the Catholic church?

"Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken by the holy prophets, and of the commandments of us, *the apostles of the Lord and Savior,...." (2Peter 3:1,2)

He goes on further to say about the apostle Paul, who wrote much of the NT:

"...as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2Peter 3:15,16)

Paul also said this in cor 11

1Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you


I understand your mind-set all too well Tb. I was born into catholicism.
You made a comment to me on a previous post, something about putting God and the Bible in a box, well my friend, it is you who have chosen to misplace the rightful Preeminence of God and the Authority of His Word (the Holy Scriptures), and have placed them in the coffer, as well as yourself, and to place all of this under the total authority of the RCC? Now, how messed up is this?

A true and faithful friend of mine witnessed to me for 7yrs until I finally came to accept what Jesus had done for me...His finished work on the cross, and my salvation. I didn't know alot of the things he was saying to me at the time, but my friend did challenge me to look them up in the Bible for myself, which I eventually did, and there was so much I did not know to my surprise. I went to church regularly. I thought the CC had taught us everything important in the Bible. Well, they didn't.

But,...you knew about some of these things. Maybe alot of them.
You said that you were once lutheran I believe, then evangelical, then catholic. Were you even born-again? You never really answered my question as to why you left the previous two, and chose catholicism. You stated something about "intellectual honesty." What's this supposed to mean? I can understand the lure that catholicism may have in all of its beliefs and practices,(which it is certainly rich in). It makes you feel like you're doing something to earn your way. Well, it's empty, and you'll never have that peace that God promises us in His salvation. You are in bondage Tb...come back!

Blessings...Dmarie

I was born luthern but was never really luthern in belief. Most of my life I had been evangelical in practice. Mostly baptist or calvary chapel sort of thing. For about 10 years I have had the same beliefs as you do about being born again and being already saved. My journey started out when I took a trip to Germany. I have seen the church that Constantine bulit in the 4th century. As I went back into history I realized is that the church started out as Catholic. The early church were Catholic. The early beliefs were Catholic. when I read the bible I see the Catholic church all the way. The evangelical belief is based on nothing but personal interpretation of scripture. I believe you have been sold on a bill of goods. I recomment reading Tim Staples conversion story. His story like mine started out as a journey to disprove the Catholic faith. Like him I never really wanted to become Catholic at all and in the end was a very depressing thing. This is what I mean by intelectual honesty. Looking at the whole of the bible, history and early christian belief to make honest decisions that are not based on personal beliefs. I have no lure to the catholic church as you say. Truthfully I would rather be evangelical. But, I am not going to be some where I think is a lie.

[Dmarie]

I was born luthern but was never really luthern in belief. Most of my life I had been evangelical in practice. Mostly baptist or calvary chapel sort of thing. For about 10 years I have had the same beliefs as you do about being born again and being already saved. My journey started out when I took a trip to Germany. I have seen the church that Constantine bulit in the 4th century. As I went back into history I realized is that the church started out as Catholic. The early church were Catholic. The early beliefs were Catholic. when I read the bible I see the Catholic church all the way. The evangelical belief is based on nothing but personal interpretation of scripture. I believe you have been sold on a bill of goods. I recomment reading Tim Staples conversion story. His story like mine started out as a journey to disprove the Catholic faith. Like him I never really wanted to become Catholic at all and in the end was a very depressing thing. This is what I mean by intelectual honesty. Looking at the whole of the bible, history and early christian belief to make honest decisions that are not based on personal beliefs. I have no lure to the catholic church as you say. Truthfully I would rather be evangelical. But, I am not going to be some where I think is a lie.

Hi, Tb.
Thank you for sharing,...but I'm confused. You set out on a personal spiritual journey "...to disprove the Catholic faith"...why? What was lacking within your "evangelical" faith, and what exactly was the "lie", or lies, that led you to do this?

As for using the "evangelical" and "protestant" labels, personally, I shy from using these discriptives. I understand their importance in regards to distinguishing one's theological and biblical position, but I also believe that they can be used, and often times are used in too broad of a sense. I'll stick with the only and first discriptive word used to describe a follower of Jesus Christ, and that is "christian"..."And the diciples were first called Christians in Antioch."

You stated that "intellectual honesty" led you to your new found faith of Catholicism, but what was saddening to me in your statement Tb was when you said that "...in the end was a very depressing thing." By your statement, there obviously was no joy in this for you. Jesus promises us a peace and a joy in Him. This intellectual honesty" of yours, and by your own admission, has left you without the peace and joy of God.

Listen to your heart Tb! ..."The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, yyou will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation."

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

I haven't posted for some time now. However, this very topic on the canon was also the same topic that lead me to the Catholic Church initially. As a Protestant, I always thought the Council of Trent was when the Catholic Church laid down the canon. I thought this was a little late in the game and was also critical of it. However, history does not support a Protestant canon because Protestantism came at just about prior to the Council of Trent.

What inconsistency that bothered me in my Evangelical faith, always just under the surface that I typically just shrugged off was the approach to the canon of Scripture. What I mean to say will become relevant in my example:

When you read Dr. Norman Geisler's "Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," you will notice that the canon is split into O.T. and N.T.. When I looked on the surface, reading Romans 2 that the oracles of God belong to the Jews... that seemed logical to me and I left the O.T. canon alone. When it came to the N.T. canon, you might read St. Athanasius' Easter Letter referenced or even in a larger council of Augustine read the same 27 books at the Council of Carthage. However, when checking the Council of Carthage the canon list is the same as Trent. When reading Augustine's "City of God" the canon is the same as Trent. The liturgical use of the books in questions have always been cited as Scripture. The O.T. books listed by Augustine were not the same as Protestants, because the Protestants ascribe to the Palestinian collection of which sometimes the Council of Jamna is cited. This happened in around 95 AD, Josephus is quoted at times about a canon, but that was written in around 90 AD. THe Christian explosion happened, and Church never ascribed to the Jewish canon as it was done in reaction against the Church's growth and Judaism rejected their Messiah. How in the name of God, are we suppose to accept a canon by an apostate Judaism? The collection of books the CHurch used was the Septuagint, 95% of O.T. in the N.T. were directly copied from the LXX. The canon of Scripture is therefore ONE canon and not two seperate. There is only One God, One Scripture. This is what sort of rubbed my skin the wrong way. It mainly started with reading "The Lost Books of the Bible" and "The Forgotten Books of Eden" and reading their introductions that suggested these books should be part of the canon of scripture. It was purely rubbish. The Council of Carthage, Rome, Florence, Constantinople, and several others clearly established a canon of scripture early on that these liberal theologians apparently snubbed or were (without knowledge) of their apostolic authority.

Sorry for the length. I think "*" ig.norant is not a great censoring. I am not a rocket scientist, therefore I am ig.norant of how to make them. It is not a bad word when used appropriately.

[Dmarie]

"What inconsistency that bothered me in my Evangelical faith, always just under the surface that I typically just shrugged off was the approach to the canon of Scripture." ...

THe Christian explosion happened, and Church never ascribed to the Jewish canon as it was done in reaction against the Church's growth and Judaism rejected their Messiah. How in the name of God, are we suppose to accept a canon by an apostate Judaism?"


*Greetings Columcille. I appreciate your response, but I'm not quite following you. I want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly.

When you say "Church" are you specifically meaning the "RCC", and if this is so, then the RCC as you state "...never ascribed to the Jewish canon as it was done [written?]...." because the Jewish Canon "...was done in reaction against the Church's [RCC's?] growth....", and because "...Judaism rejected their Messiah."??? Is this correct, or did I just totally hack and misread your statement? If I did, please accept my apology and please correct me and clarify. Your last part was very clear. My response: Do we not all fall under that umbrella? Are we not all guilty of the shed blood of Christ that He may have mercy on all?

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

"What inconsistency that bothered me in my Evangelical faith, always just under the surface that I typically just shrugged off was the approach to the canon of Scripture." ...

THe Christian explosion happened, and Church never ascribed to the Jewish canon as it was done in reaction against the Church's growth and Judaism rejected their Messiah. How in the name of God, are we suppose to accept a canon by an apostate Judaism?"


*Greetings Columcille. I appreciate your response, but I'm not quite following you. I want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly.

When you say "Church" are you specifically meaning the "RCC", and if this is so, then the RCC as you state "...never ascribed to the Jewish canon as it was done [written?]...." because the Jewish Canon "...was done in reaction against the Church's [RCC's?] growth....", and because "...Judaism rejected their Messiah."??? Is this correct, or did I just totally hack and misread your statement? If I did, please accept my apology and please correct me and clarify. Your last part was very clear. My response: Do we not all fall under that umbrella? Are we not all guilty of the shed blood of Christ that He may have mercy on all?

Blessings...Dmarie

Historically, 95 AD... there was no Protestant Church. The Church was one. It was universal with bishops being appointed by the apostles, entrusted with the writings as they copied and circulated. I.e. when Paul wrote the Church at Rome, it did not go to Corinth first or was copied on a xerox machine and distributed to all the local churches. Those who received it were known and established as Christians. It was not like some popped up on their own without some discipleship ties back to the apostles. When I referenced Church, I was referencing all the communities of which comprised the communties of Rome (Roman Catholic), Antioch (Antiochian Orthodox--EO), later on Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox), Alexandria (Coptic Orthodox--Oriental Orthodox or pre-Chalcedonian Churches), and at all the regions.

As far as your other questions, historically speaking we had not part to play in the formation of the canon. Only liberal theologians attempt to add more works to what they consider scripture, like some who say we should add "The Gospel of Thomas" or talk about the mysterious "Q." I am pretty sure the canon is fixed and closed. The point I was making was that the Jews rejected their messiah and therefore have no authority in rejecting the books that discussed the final resurrection. There are plenty of passages that come from the books of the "deuterocanon" that clearly teach a resurrection. There are even prophetic instances like in Wisdom 2 where it discusses the suffering of Christ. Judaism as a belief system, not as a people, has no authority on the people of God through Christ's Church. Hence the Protestant canon to me that accepted the Palestinian collection at Jamna (circa mid 90s AD) is not reasonable. Judaism when fulfilled in Christ is now apostate; Messianic Judaism being an exception since they accept Yashua as Messiah, but even this is a more recent movement historically and mainly a Protestant and not a Catholic/Orthodox phenomena.

[Dmarie]

Historically, 95 AD... there was no Protestant Church. The Church was one. It was universal with bishops being appointed by the apostles, entrusted with the writings as they copied and circulated. I.e. when Paul wrote the Church at Rome, it did not go to Corinth first or was copied on a xerox machine and distributed to all the local churches. Those who received it were known and established as Christians. It was not like some popped up on their own without some discipleship ties back to the apostles. When I referenced Church, I was referencing all the communities of which comprised the communties of Rome (Roman Catholic), Antioch (Antiochian Orthodox--EO), later on Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox), Alexandria (Coptic Orthodox--Oriental Orthodox or pre-Chalcedonian Churches), and at all the regions.

As far as your other questions, historically speaking we had not part to play in the formation of the canon. Only liberal theologians attempt to add more works to what they consider scripture, like some who say we should add "The Gospel of Thomas" or talk about the mysterious "Q." I am pretty sure the canon is fixed and closed. The point I was making was that the Jews rejected their messiah and therefore have no authority in rejecting the books that discussed the final resurrection. There are plenty of passages that come from the books of the "deuterocanon" that clearly teach a resurrection. There are even prophetic instances like in Wisdom 2 where it discusses the suffering of Christ. Judaism as a belief system, not as a people, has no authority on the people of God through Christ's Church. Hence the Protestant canon to me that accepted the Palestinian collection at Jamna (circa mid 90s AD) is not reasonable. Judaism when fulfilled in Christ is now apostate; Messianic Judaism being an exception since they accept Yashua as Messiah, but even this is a more recent movement historically and mainly a Protestant and not a Catholic/Orthodox phenomena.

Greetings again Columcille.
So, by referencing the "Church" in your prior statement, you are [I]"...referencing all the communities of which compromised the communities of Rome (Roman Catholic)...."[I],... whew, hence... it is the RCC you are specifically making reference to.
Your statements as a whole, along with an obvious tinge, or should I say, smack, of "jewish" disdain, you are of a "Replacement Theology".

You were quite clear in your point, (not to mention, your feelings), "...that the Jews rejected their messiah, and therefore have no authority...." However, you failed to understand what Scripture plainly teaches, "Chiefly, because to them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2) ""...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) "...that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Again, as I stated and have asked you,... are we not all guilty of the shed blood of Christ, and not just the Jews as you have pointedly indicated? Have we not all rejected Him and denied Him so that He may have mercy on all?

What about Peter? Did Jesus reject him when he denied Him 3 times? He was jewish.
No, of course not! He was restored!

Do you really think God has rejected Israel because, by your sharp statement, "...the Jews rejected their messiah and therefore have no authority...."??? Of course not, and how could you say this when God Himself, numerous times, plainly says that He has an everlasting covenant with them..."To Israel as an everlasting covenant." (Psalm 105:10) What does the apostle Paul boldly say: "For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ******** of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved,...For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:25, 29- *for that matter, please read ALL of Chpt.11 for total context). What does it mean when God says "irrevocable"?... it means it's a done deal.

Please be careful my friend when you tread heavily in accusation on those whom the Lord has called "beloved" "...but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." (Romans 11:28)

Blessings...Dmarie

[Dmarie]

...and yes, THEY DO have the authority given to them by God to accept and reject those books which have made up the Canon of Scripture..."Cheifly, because to them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2)

"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:29)

Blessings...Dmarie

[tealblue]

Hi, Tb.
Thank you for sharing,...but I'm confused. You set out on a personal spiritual journey "...to disprove the Catholic faith"...why? What was lacking within your "evangelical" faith, and what exactly was the "lie", or lies, that led you to do this?

Basically I was learning to evangelize Catholics. To "save" them. I didn't see things as lacking at the time. Then the truth got in the way as I see it.

for using the "evangelical" and "protestant" labels, personally, I shy from using these discriptives. I understand their importance in regards to distinguishing one's theological and biblical position, but I also believe that they can be used, and often times are used in too broad of a sense. I'll stick with the only and first discriptive word used to describe a follower of Jesus Christ, and that is "christian"..."And the diciples were first called Christians in Antioch."

You stated that "intellectual honesty" led you to your new found faith of Catholicism, but what was saddening to me in your statement Tb was when you said that "...in the end was a very depressing thing." By your statement, there obviously was no joy in this for you. Jesus promises us a peace and a joy in Him. This intellectual honesty" of yours, and by your own admission, has left you without the peace and joy of God.

It was depressing because I did NOT want to give up my faith as I knew it in protestanism. I have peace now but at the time it was a tough pill to swallow.

Listen to your heart Tb! ..."The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, yyou will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation."

Blessings...Dmarie

Thats all fine but the scriptures were written in a time when people knew what the meaning was behind them. 2000 years later someone comes along and atributes meaning to them. Can you sum up the entire Christian faith to the likes of John 3:16? What does "believe to righeousness" really mean?

[tealblue]

...and yes, THEY DO have the authority given to them by God to accept and reject those books which have made up the Canon of Scripture..."Cheifly, because to them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2)

"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:29)

Blessings...Dmarie

So why do you accept their authority on the cannon of the OT but not on the authority of the NT (which by the way would be none of them)? If you really thought that the Jews had authority on scripture then you would be Jewish. That is like saying that congess only has authority on the first few amendments.

[Dmarie]

Thats all fine but the scriptures were written in a time when people knew what the meaning was behind them. 2000 years later someone comes along and atributes meaning to them. Can you sum up the entire Christian faith to the likes of John 3:16? What does "believe to righeousness" really mean?

Hi tealblue.
None of this flies, and your response is quite disappointing and revealing. How many times do we read throughout the Scriptures of Jesus explaining the Scriptures to the people, His diciples and to the pharisees, who of all people, should have "known" the Scriptures. He confronted and rebuked them sharply for this, and who exactly is this "someone" you are referring to who came along "2000 years later" and attributed "meaning to them."?
Very Vague.

You ask me..."What does 'believe to righteousness' really mean?...summed up...
John 3:16

Blessings...Dmarie

[Dmarie]

So why do you accept their authority on the cannon of the OT but not on the authority of the NT (which by the way would be none of them)? If you really thought that the Jews had authority on scripture then you would be Jewish. That is like saying that congess only has authority on the first few amendments.

Greetings tb.

You are misrepresenting my position on this forum. I never said I rejected, as you put it, "...the authority of the NT (which by the way would be none of them)" What I believe I have made clear in my postings is my rejection of the "Apocrypha" or as the CC prefers to refer to them, the "Deuterocanonicals", as "inspired" Scripture, because they were never a part of the Hebrew Scriptures.

By the way, Jesus was Jewish. Did He not choose this?

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

Dmarie,
I am not specifically referencing the Roman Catholic Church, the term "Roman Catholic" was never specifically used historically until a battle where the Catholics lost at the "Spanish Match." It was the treaty that was written up by Protestants that forced the Catholic Church to be called "Roman Catholic." (See etymology)
What I am saying is that the Nicene-Constantinople Creed clearly points to "One holy, Catholic and apostolic Church." When I referenced "Rome" and put (Roman Catholic), I was attempting to show the historical lineage of today's patriarches (popes) of the "Roman" Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox respectively.


"Roman Catholic, n. and a." Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Volume, Etymology:

Roman a. 10. The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish, which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the 17th century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618–24), and appears in formal documents relating to this, printed by Rushworth (1659), I. 85–89. After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term, and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed.

[Dmarie]

Dmarie,
I am not specifically referencing the Roman Catholic Church, the term "Roman Catholic" was never specifically used historically until a battle where the Catholics lost at the "Spanish Match." It was the treaty that was written up by Protestants that forced the Catholic Church to be called "Roman Catholic." (See etymology)
What I am saying is that the Nicene-Constantinople Creed clearly points to "One holy, Catholic and apostolic Church." When I referenced "Rome" and put (Roman Catholic), I was attempting to show the historical lineage of today's patriarches (popes) of the "Roman" Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox respectively.


"Roman Catholic, n. and a." Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Volume, Etymology:

Roman a. 10. The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish, which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the 17th century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618–24), and appears in formal documents relating to this, printed by Rushworth (1659), I. 85–89. After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term, and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed.

Greetings Columcille, and sincerely, thank you for taking the time to explain all this, but I do think analogies speak of a simular thing.

analogy: "in biology, simularity in function, dissimilar in origin and structure (Webster's New World Dictionary)

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

Greetings Columcille, and sincerely, thank you for taking the time to explain all this, but I do think analogies speak of a simular thing.

analogy: "in biology, simularity in function, dissimilar in origin and structure (Webster's New World Dictionary)

Blessings...Dmarie

I do not see how the analogy fits because it lacks reference. For instance, I can point to Ignatius letters, to Ireneaus' writings, to Polycarp, to Justin Martyr. The Church expanded, it did not stay in Jerusalem. As such, as a matter of administration and maintaining orthodoxy, it needed the structure that was in place.

[tealblue]

Hi tealblue.
None of this flies, and your response is quite disappointing and revealing. How many times do we read throughout the Scriptures of Jesus explaining the Scriptures to the people, His diciples and to the pharisees, who of all people, should have "known" the Scriptures. He confronted and rebuked them sharply for this, and who exactly is this "someone" you are referring to who came along "2000 years later" and attributed "meaning to them."?
Very Vague.

You ask me..."What does 'believe to righteousness' really mean?...summed up...
John 3:16

Blessings...Dmarie

yes but how do you know personally that you yourself is reading the scriptures right? The word righeousness means different from a non Catholic to a Catholic. To a non Catholic righeous means simply an imuted righteousness. Which ever idea you choose changes the entire meaning of the bible itself. Some non Catholics believe you are saved by a simple belief in Jesus and some believe in a more deep rooted strict obediance.