So you are taking the word from a member of the Orthodox Church? Ok. We do agree that the bible is the infallible word of God.xfrodobagginsx said:Well there you go. It's all fake and should not be believed. The Bible is the infallible Word of God.Realitybites said:xfrodobagginsx said:
Where does the Bible, Jesus or the Apostles this claim about that position?
They do not ever make such a claim. The church fathers do not make such a claim. The mutual excommunications that terminated the relationship of the Latin church with the rest of Christendom and launched what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 AD testify against it.
The doctrine of papal infallibility was adopted at the First Vatican Council of 1869-1870 in the document Pastor Aeternus.
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
214,249 Views |
2842 Replies |
Last: 10 min ago by 4th and Inches
Francis is NOT my favorite among the Pope that I have lived under. I feel that his pontificate of Mercy has lead to too much ambiguity in the Church. Bishops and Priests have abused his words to their liking.KaiBear said:The current Pope is easily the worst in my lifetime.Coke Bear said:Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.Oldbear83 said:
Popes were and are a bad idea.I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)Oldbear83 said:
Power corrupts
Having said that, he had done some great things. He called out the Italian mafia and told them to repent of their ways or they'd end in hell.
He called abortion "murder" and essentially called the providers "Hit men."
He speaks frequently of the evils of sin and the devil.
He's not all bad, but he's certainly no JPII.
Coke Bear said:Francis is NOT my favorite among the Pope that I have lived under. I feel that his pontificate of Mercy has lead to too much ambiguity in the Church. Bishops and Priests have abused his words to their liking.KaiBear said:The current Pope is easily the worst in my lifetime.Coke Bear said:Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.Oldbear83 said:
Popes were and are a bad idea.I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)Oldbear83 said:
Power corrupts
Having said that, he had done some great things. He called out the Italian mafia and told them to repent of their ways or they'd end in hell.
He called abortion "murder" and essentially called the providers "Hit men."
He speaks frequently of the evils of sin and the devil.
He's not all bad, but he's certainly no JPII.
Mussolini made the trains run on time. The question is that with his belief in and promotion of Perennialism, is Francis a heretic.
It is my opinion that his statements show that he actually isn't a Christian at all. You cannot simultaneously believe in Peter's confession of faith and "the truth is one, the paths are many."
While those who dont follow John "Damn Them All" Calvin's TULIP strategy can put the eternal destiny of those who fall under the rubric of Romans 2:14-15 and have not heard the gospel in God's hands, what he affirmed went far beyond that.
See, that's the difference then. You're only concerned whether something is bound in the same codex as Scripture so you can say that it's "in the bible", without regard to whether it is actually Scripture or not. If you argue that it IS and always has been considered scripture, then history is not on your side as I've clearly shown.Coke Bear said:FIFY.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- Jerome only obeyed the Church to include the Apocrypha in his translation, NOT to include them in HIS canon. My "conjecture" about his reasons why he deferred to the Church to include them does NOTHING to change the fact that he never thought them to be canon, and as we see clearly from church history thereafter all the way to the Reformation, his view was, yes, vastly shared. I'm giving historical facts. You are only giving opinion.
Did he include the deuterocanon in the bible? Yes! The same canon was affirmed in several councils.You have unwittingly my my case in your point. Councils are only called when the Church needs to refute heresy of clarify a particular doctrine. When Luther moved the deuterocanon and tried to remove NT books and amend Ephesians, the Church called the Council of Trent, (Probably later than it should have been called) to officially dogmatize the true canon and properly correct and end some abused that were happening in the Church at that time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- Multiple councils approved different canons. You need to learn church history. Your catholic bible was never formally dogmatized until Trent in the 1500's. As I've clearly shown from church history, there was never agreement regarding the Apocrypha by the Church until then. In fact, as I've shown, the canon from Trent was actually the minority view amongst all major scholars and theologians during the Middles Ages.I'll have to do more research as to why he stated that other than it's factual. The Sadducess, Pharisees, and Essenes (and others) had different canons.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- Cite Lee McDonald's reasoning for why he believed the Jews didn't have a uniform canon. Does he explain it?Please allow me more time to do more research on this. As far as I've found, my Google sources show the Biblia Complutensia containing the entire Septuagint. I can find no reference stating that it did not consider the deuterocanon as canon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- The Glossa Ordinaria was not a canon list, it was THE standard text on biblical commentaries used to train all theologians of the time. If the Apocrypha was always part of the Bible as you've claimed, then why did the major reference work of the time say that it wasn't?
- yes, the Biblia Complutensia included the full Septuagint..... and explicitly said that the major books of the Apocrypha found in the Septuagint WERE NOT CANON. Focus, man, focus.
- the Latin bibles cited that the Apocrypha were not canon. If you're going to blame this on the fact that they were Hebrew translations, then go ahead and disown your own official Latin bible of the Roman Catholic Church - the Vulgate. Because it's a Hebrew translation too.The whole "vast majority" phrase. This is completely false and full of his anti-Cathlolic spin. It it were true, then the Council would have never affirmed them or they would have outright denied them.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- what historical facts did William Webster get wrong?Who complied the 27 books and when? How do we know that these are the correct books?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- who gave us the NT? As I said earlier, it was God who gave it to us. His people, His church, recognized it as his word and received it.
On the other hand, Protestants believe that the bible should only contain canon Scripture, consistent with Jewish, biblical, and church history. That is the more appropriate and correct concern.
I don't see how I've made your point - if the Catholic church via multiple councils approved different canons, some which included apocryphal books that others didn't, two (Athanasius, Amphilochius) which rejected all the major apocryphal books, and one (Laodicea) that didn't even include them at all, then that goes directly against your claim that the apocrypha were always "in the bible". It also means that by dogmatizing a canon in the 1500's, the Council of Trent made an anathema of the rulings of the Catholic church's own previous councils. This not only defeats your point, it shows that the RCC is in contradiction.
You've repeatedly asserted that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes had different canons, but you've yet to show any actual historical proof of that. Up until now, you've only cited the presence of certain writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls as "proof" of a different canon, which is really bad logic.
You are also stuck in another bad logic, that "since the whole Septuagint was included, it means all of it was considered canon" with regard to the Biblia Complutensia. Much like Jerome's Vulgate translation, the inclusion of the apocryphal books in the Biblia Complutensia was due to those apocryphal books being considered useful for edifying and teaching for the church, NOT because they were canon. In both Jerome's Vulgate and the Biblia, a clear distinction was made between the apocrypha and the rest of scripture.
Webster's "vast majority" phrase was backed up by actual historic facts. Your "refutation" is based pretty much on the fact that you don't like that characterization.
The New Testament was "compiled" by believers. The Gospels were already being circulated in the early church, being widely recognized as authoritative and divinely inspired, long before any Church council deemed them to be so. The same was true of the letters of the apostles - Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. These writings organically came together as God's people recognized them as His word. Various church councils only formally designated them as such.
Coke Bear said:Francis is NOT my favorite among the Pope that I have lived under. I feel that his pontificate of Mercy has lead to too much ambiguity in the Church. Bishops and Priests have abused his words to their liking.KaiBear said:The current Pope is easily the worst in my lifetime.Coke Bear said:Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.Oldbear83 said:
Popes were and are a bad idea.I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)Oldbear83 said:
Power corrupts
Having said that, he had done some great things. He called out the Italian mafia and told them to repent of their ways or they'd end in hell.
He called abortion "murder" and essentially called the providers "Hit men."
He speaks frequently of the evils of sin and the devil.
He's not all bad, but he's certainly no JPII.
Lenin wasn't all bad either .
It is simply mythology
joseywales said:
It is simply mythology
What is?
KaiBear said:Coke Bear said:Francis is NOT my favorite among the Pope that I have lived under. I feel that his pontificate of Mercy has lead to too much ambiguity in the Church. Bishops and Priests have abused his words to their liking.KaiBear said:The current Pope is easily the worst in my lifetime.Coke Bear said:Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.Oldbear83 said:
Popes were and are a bad idea.I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)Oldbear83 said:
Power corrupts
Having said that, he had done some great things. He called out the Italian mafia and told them to repent of their ways or they'd end in hell.
He called abortion "murder" and essentially called the providers "Hit men."
He speaks frequently of the evils of sin and the devil.
He's not all bad, but he's certainly no JPII.
Lenin wasn't all bad either .
Wasn't he a communist? I think that makes him pretty bad
xfrodobagginsx said:KaiBear said:Coke Bear said:Francis is NOT my favorite among the Pope that I have lived under. I feel that his pontificate of Mercy has lead to too much ambiguity in the Church. Bishops and Priests have abused his words to their liking.KaiBear said:The current Pope is easily the worst in my lifetime.Coke Bear said:Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.Oldbear83 said:
Popes were and are a bad idea.I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)Oldbear83 said:
Power corrupts
Having said that, he had done some great things. He called out the Italian mafia and told them to repent of their ways or they'd end in hell.
He called abortion "murder" and essentially called the providers "Hit men."
He speaks frequently of the evils of sin and the devil.
He's not all bad, but he's certainly no JPII.
Lenin wasn't all bad either .
Wasn't he a communist? I think that makes him pretty bad
Sarcasm
Oh, I see.KaiBear said:xfrodobagginsx said:KaiBear said:Coke Bear said:Francis is NOT my favorite among the Pope that I have lived under. I feel that his pontificate of Mercy has lead to too much ambiguity in the Church. Bishops and Priests have abused his words to their liking.KaiBear said:The current Pope is easily the worst in my lifetime.Coke Bear said:Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.Oldbear83 said:
Popes were and are a bad idea.I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)Oldbear83 said:
Power corrupts
Having said that, he had done some great things. He called out the Italian mafia and told them to repent of their ways or they'd end in hell.
He called abortion "murder" and essentially called the providers "Hit men."
He speaks frequently of the evils of sin and the devil.
He's not all bad, but he's certainly no JPII.
Lenin wasn't all bad either .
Wasn't he a communist? I think that makes him pretty bad
Sarcasm
He's not a heretic. Being a heretic is a obstinate, post-baptismal denial of one of the dogmas of the Church. He has never done that.Realitybites said:
Mussolini made the trains run on time. The question is that with his belief in and promotion of Perennialism, is Francis a heretic.
It is my opinion that his statements show that he actually isn't a Christian at all. You cannot simultaneously believe in Peter's confession of faith and "the truth is one, the paths are many."
While those who dont follow John "Damn Them All" Calvin's TULIP strategy can put the eternal destiny of those who fall under the rubric of Romans 2:14-15 and have not heard the gospel in God's hands, what he affirmed went far beyond that.
Now having said that, his most recent comments are very unfortunate (and embarrassing). Many faithful Catholics are waiting on a retraction or correction of that comment.
Sometimes he tries to speak with too much ecumenicism.
Are you equating Francis to Lenin?KaiBear said:
Lenin wasn't all bad either .
Coke Bear said:Are you equating Francis to Lenin?KaiBear said:
Lenin wasn't all bad either .
Lighten up, Francis.
In some broad ways....,..yes.Coke Bear said:Are you equating Francis to Lenin?KaiBear said:
Lenin wasn't all bad either .
Care to elaborate?KaiBear said:In some broad ways....,..yes.Coke Bear said:Are you equating Francis to Lenin?KaiBear said:
Lenin wasn't all bad either .
Coke Bear said:Care to elaborate?KaiBear said:In some broad ways....,..yes.Coke Bear said:Are you equating Francis to Lenin?KaiBear said:
Lenin wasn't all bad either .
With respect…..not really.
Have an old friend from Argentina staying with us and don't have the time to properly present my rationale.
However fact that you like this pope gives me the incentive to reexamine his record.
I have to say that Pope Francis committed heresy by saying that all faiths lead to God. That is completely false and unBiblical. Shame on him. Jesus Christ is the ONLY Way to heaven. No others.
Have you read the old bible I told you about? Probably one of the first old English bibles? There were, of course, centuries of bibles before that.
I have the UVERSION Bible with dozens of translations. Probably every available English Translation. These are all Translations from the same manuscripts. They aren't a translation of a translation...
This is the 1540 version. Have you EVER seen it? Much less attempted to READ it? I doubt it. Try page 3.
Some translations are more accurate than others.
[link to www.originalbibles.com (secure)]
I've read my fair share of ancient texts, and let me tell you, these Roman historians are a fascinating bunch.
Cool. Roman historians are the best from their day and would be put to death for putting inaccurate info into the history.
They mention Jesus, they do! Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius all of them have something to say about this guy who seems to have caused quite a stir in the Roman Empire. But let's break down what they're really saying.
There are a lot more than those even.
Tacitus mentions Jesus being executed by Nero. Well, that's a pretty big deal, isn't it? But remember, Tacitus was writing decades after Jesus' supposed death. So, how accurate can his account really be?
VERY accurate. The Romans took history VERY seriously. A few decades is actually very soon for back in the ancient days.
Pliny the Younger and Suetonius mention Christians worshipping Christ as God. Now, that's interesting, but it doesn't necessarily prove that Jesus was divine. After all, people have worshipped all sorts of things as gods throughout history.
No, but it proves that people believed that He was divine. Now what would make them believe that other than His miracles were true and His death and resurrection was true?
And then there's Josephus, the Jewish historian. He mentions Jesus, but some scholars have questioned the authenticity of certain passages. So, can we really trust his account?
Only Liberals who will stop at nothing to disprove the Bible and Jesus. Yes you can trust his account. Liberals don't care about what is true, they care about proving what THEY want to be true.
As for the archaeological evidence, well, that's a different story. It's always good to have physical proof to back up historical claims. But even archaeological evidence can be interpreted in different ways.
Well, there has never been an archaeological find that has DISPROVED anything in the Bible and there have been plenty of finds that actually AFFIRM stories in the Bible.
So, what does it all mean? Well, I think it's clear that Jesus was a real person, a historical figure who lived and died in the Roman Empire. But whether he was the Son of God, that's a question of faith, not history. And as for the miracles, well, that's a whole different can of worms.
Yes a real person, who was prophesied about hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and How He would die and much more.
In the end, the truth about Jesus is probably a lot more complicated than any of us can fully understand. And that's okay. Sometimes, the most interesting mysteries are the ones we can't solve.
I think the Bible and History makes it very clear who He is and that He is the very Son of God, prophesied hundreds of years before His birth. I know Him personally. Yes I do. He has performed true miracles in my family and in my life. I have no doubt who He is. He is why I come on to this board and share the Gospel because He has come to me when I was both awake and in dreams and spoken to me. He led me to a Church that discipled me in the foundational doctrines of the faith.
I have the UVERSION Bible with dozens of translations. Probably every available English Translation. These are all Translations from the same manuscripts. They aren't a translation of a translation...
This is the 1540 version. Have you EVER seen it? Much less attempted to READ it? I doubt it. Try page 3.
Some translations are more accurate than others.
[link to www.originalbibles.com (secure)]
I've read my fair share of ancient texts, and let me tell you, these Roman historians are a fascinating bunch.
Cool. Roman historians are the best from their day and would be put to death for putting inaccurate info into the history.
They mention Jesus, they do! Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius all of them have something to say about this guy who seems to have caused quite a stir in the Roman Empire. But let's break down what they're really saying.
There are a lot more than those even.
Tacitus mentions Jesus being executed by Nero. Well, that's a pretty big deal, isn't it? But remember, Tacitus was writing decades after Jesus' supposed death. So, how accurate can his account really be?
VERY accurate. The Romans took history VERY seriously. A few decades is actually very soon for back in the ancient days.
Pliny the Younger and Suetonius mention Christians worshipping Christ as God. Now, that's interesting, but it doesn't necessarily prove that Jesus was divine. After all, people have worshipped all sorts of things as gods throughout history.
No, but it proves that people believed that He was divine. Now what would make them believe that other than His miracles were true and His death and resurrection was true?
And then there's Josephus, the Jewish historian. He mentions Jesus, but some scholars have questioned the authenticity of certain passages. So, can we really trust his account?
Only Liberals who will stop at nothing to disprove the Bible and Jesus. Yes you can trust his account. Liberals don't care about what is true, they care about proving what THEY want to be true.
As for the archaeological evidence, well, that's a different story. It's always good to have physical proof to back up historical claims. But even archaeological evidence can be interpreted in different ways.
Well, there has never been an archaeological find that has DISPROVED anything in the Bible and there have been plenty of finds that actually AFFIRM stories in the Bible.
So, what does it all mean? Well, I think it's clear that Jesus was a real person, a historical figure who lived and died in the Roman Empire. But whether he was the Son of God, that's a question of faith, not history. And as for the miracles, well, that's a whole different can of worms.
Yes a real person, who was prophesied about hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and How He would die and much more.
In the end, the truth about Jesus is probably a lot more complicated than any of us can fully understand. And that's okay. Sometimes, the most interesting mysteries are the ones we can't solve.
I think the Bible and History makes it very clear who He is and that He is the very Son of God, prophesied hundreds of years before His birth. I know Him personally. Yes I do. He has performed true miracles in my family and in my life. I have no doubt who He is. He is why I come on to this board and share the Gospel because He has come to me when I was both awake and in dreams and spoken to me. He led me to a Church that discipled me in the foundational doctrines of the faith.
Happy Sunday! Find a good Bible Believing Church and attend!!!
Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet thank you.
My Cousin's Daughter's liver is failing her. She might die. Please pray for her. Thank you.
praying!xfrodobagginsx said:
My Cousin's Daughter's liver is failing her. She might die. Please pray for her. Thank you.
Yet, The Council of Rome (382) The Council of Hippo (393) The Council of Carthage (397) The Council of Carthage (419) and The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1442) argue against your "history" position. All of them affirmed the Deuterocanon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
See, that's the difference then. You're only concerned whether something is bound in the same codex as Scripture so you can say that it's "in the bible", without regard to whether it is actually Scripture or not. If you argue that it IS and always has been considered scripture, then history is not on your side as I've clearly shown.
On the other hand, Protestants believe that the bible should only contain canon Scripture, consistent with Jewish, biblical, and church history. That is the more appropriate and correct concern.
Sadly, they removed 7 canonical books from sacred scripture.
Another false assumption. The previously listed councils are affirmed ALL the Deuterocanon. Please state which of the Deuterocanon books were denied by which council.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I don't see how I've made your point - if the Catholic church via multiple councils approved different canons, some which included apocryphal books that others didn't, two (Athanasius, Amphilochius) which rejected all the major apocryphal books, and one (Laodicea) that didn't even include them at all, then that goes directly against your claim that the apocrypha were always "in the bible". It also means that by dogmatizing a canon in the 1500's, the Council of Trent made an anathema of the rulings of the Catholic church's own previous councils. This not only defeats your point, it shows that the RCC is in contradiction.
Again the Councils affirm the canons, not individuals.
Church Fathers like Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome, who all state that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture. Acts 23:8 notes that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits, which aligns with their limited scriptural canon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You've repeatedly asserted that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes had different canons, but you've yet to show any actual historical proof of that. Up until now, you've only cited the presence of certain writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls as "proof" of a different canon, which is really bad logic.
You, yourself, have stated that the Protestant bible is exactly what the Pharisees used affirmed by Josephus.
The Essenes canon contained the Deuterocanon. As the works were found in the caves in 1947. Dead Sea scholar Emanuel Tov states in his book, "There is a special layout for poetical units that is almost exclusive to biblical texts (including Ben Sira) and is not found in any of the nonbiblical poetical compositions from the Judean desert" The Essenes considered them canon.
Three different sects three different canons.
Finally on this point, you've repeated stated that we should trust what the Pharisees used as scripture, but in Matthew 16:6, Jesus warns, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," suggesting their teachings could be corrupting.
I'll take Jesus' word here and let the magisterium decide what is scripture.
Please provide excerpts from these works that state Complutensia didn't claim the Deuterocanon as canon. (Not a quote from some random Protestant). In none of my research could I find that claim. I also asked a Catholic apologist to research your claim and they could not find that listed in the Complutensia nor the Glossa.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You are also stuck in another bad logic, that "since the whole Septuagint was included, it means all of it was considered canon" with regard to the Biblia Complutensia. Much like Jerome's Vulgate translation, the inclusion of the apocryphal books in the Biblia Complutensia was due to those apocryphal books being considered useful for edifying and teaching for the church, NOT because they were canon. In both Jerome's Vulgate and the Biblia, a clear distinction was made between the apocrypha and the rest of scripture.
With respect to Jerome, in the prologue to Judith, he tells his patron that "because this book is found by the Nicene Council [of A.D. 325] to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures. He later also defended of the Deuterocanon part of Daniel, "What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?"
Jerome also believed in Scripture and Tradition which is a refutation of Sola Scriptura. He also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Jesus. So are you going to take all of his words or just the ones you want to force to fit your narrative?
Webster can claim "vast majority" all he wants, and it doesn't make it true. Even if it was true, it was the councils that decided what was canon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Webster's "vast majority" phrase was backed up by actual historic facts. Your "refutation" is based pretty much on the fact that you don't like that characterization.
Who were those believers? They were the members of the Councils aforementioned.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The New Testament was "compiled" by believers. The Gospels were already being circulated in the early church, being widely recognized as authoritative and divinely inspired, long before any Church council deemed them to be so. The same was true of the letters of the apostles - Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. These writings organically came together as God's people recognized them as His word. Various church councils only formally designated them as such.
Someone had to determine what NT books were canonical and what weren't. Other "books" like the Shepard of Hermas and the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians were being read in the churches. The Letter of Clement held significant importance and was respected in early Christian practice. The Church determined that those letters were not canonical.
The same early Church that determined what was canonical in the NT had the same authority to determine what canonical in the OT. The councils concluded that the Deuterocanon WAS canon, and it has been affirmed consistently since 382. It did not matter what individual Church fathers felt about them. The councils and magisterium spoke.
It was the Catholic Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that determined what was canon all 73 books.
Prayed for her today!xfrodobagginsx said:
My Cousin's Daughter's liver is failing her. She might die. Please pray for her. Thank you.
I also took this petition to the tomb of Bishop Fulton Sheen today for intercession.
My the Lord heal her!
I feel for you Frodo. My wife's sister died week before last, the funeral was Monday.xfrodobagginsx said:
My Cousin's Daughter's liver is failing her. She might die. Please pray for her. Thank you.
She had Bile Duct cancer which rapidly spread before they knew what was happening.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't like how he made this comment. I am not trying to Pope-splain, but from what I understand, he had a prepared speech he was to give and decided to go off-script, again.xfrodobagginsx said:
I have to say that Pope Francis committed heresy by saying that all faiths lead to God. That is completely false and unBiblical. Shame on him. Jesus Christ is the ONLY Way to heaven. No others.
Even before he started his pontificate, he has always preached evangelism and ecumenicism. His first papal document was about evangelism and the necessity of accepting and teaching others that Jesus Christ as our savior.
He was addressing young people in Singapore, which has Buddhist, Christians, Muslims, Taoist, Hindus, and Nones.
He starts by saying, "I admire you, young people and your ability to have inter-religious dialogues." He then councils the young people against fighting about religion.
His statement about that was:
"All religions are PATHS to God."
He's technically correct. Different religions are ways that people try to pursue God. That doesn't mean that they will all get you to a correct understanding of God or that those ways are all equal.
The only way to salvation is thru Jesus.
The press has misconstrued his comments, again.
Having said that, his office should have released a clarifying statement about his off-script remark.
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils, but were only regional councils, therefore their rulings did not have full authority over the whole Church.Coke Bear said:Yet, The Council of Rome (382) The Council of Hippo (393) The Council of Carthage (397) The Council of Carthage (419) and The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1442) argue against your "history" position. All of them affirmed the Deuterocanon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
See, that's the difference then. You're only concerned whether something is bound in the same codex as Scripture so you can say that it's "in the bible", without regard to whether it is actually Scripture or not. If you argue that it IS and always has been considered scripture, then history is not on your side as I've clearly shown.
On the other hand, Protestants believe that the bible should only contain canon Scripture, consistent with Jewish, biblical, and church history. That is the more appropriate and correct concern.
Sadly, they removed 7 canonical books from sacred scripture.
And no, those Councils do not argue against my "history position" - they do nothing to erase the clear facts from church history that shows the majority view up until the time of the Reformation was that the Apocrypha were not considered canon Scripture.
If anything, you're only providing evidence for my point that the Catholic Church is in conflict with itself, considering that other Councils approved different canons than the ones you mentioned.
How is this a "false assumption"? I've only cited facts.Coke Bear said:Another false assumption. The previously listed councils are affirmed ALL the Deuterocanon. Please state which of the Deuterocanon books were denied by which council.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I don't see how I've made your point - if the Catholic church via multiple councils approved different canons, some which included apocryphal books that others didn't, two (Athanasius, Amphilochius) which rejected all the major apocryphal books, and one (Laodicea) that didn't even include them at all, then that goes directly against your claim that the apocrypha were always "in the bible". It also means that by dogmatizing a canon in the 1500's, the Council of Trent made an anathema of the rulings of the Catholic church's own previous councils. This not only defeats your point, it shows that the RCC is in contradiction.
Again the Councils affirm the canons, not individuals.
The Council of Trullo approved those "individual canons" of Athanasius and Amphilochius which rejected the major apocryphal books. It also approved the Apostolic canon which included 3 Maccabees, which was rejected by later Councils. The Council of Laodicea did not include any of the apocrypha, if you accept that list as historically legit.
Now you have to explain how the ruling of the Church's own previous Councils above being anathematized later by the Council of Trent doesn't show the Church to be in contradiction.
Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome all held the view that the Sadducees had the shorter canon for two main reasons:Coke Bear said:Church Fathers like Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome, who all state that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture. Acts 23:8 notes that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits, which aligns with their limited scriptural canon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You've repeatedly asserted that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes had different canons, but you've yet to show any actual historical proof of that. Up until now, you've only cited the presence of certain writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls as "proof" of a different canon, which is really bad logic.
You, yourself, have stated that the Protestant bible is exactly what the Pharisees used affirmed by Josephus.
1. They were talking about the Sadducees of THEIR time, not during Jesus' time. About a century after the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, the Sadducees joined with the Samaritans, who held to the shorter canon. However, during Jesus' time, there is no evidence that they held to the different canon than the Pharisees.
2. They misunderstood what Josephus wrote. F.F. Bruce explains - "The idea that the Sadducees (like the Samaritans) acknowledged the Pentateuch only as holy scripture is based on a misunderstanding: when Josephus, for example, says that the Sadducees 'admit no observance at all apart from the laws', he means not the Pentateuch to the exclusion of the Prophets and the Writings but the written law (of the Pentateuch) to the exclusion of the oral law (the Pharisaic interpretation and application of the written law, which, like the written law itself, was held in theory to have been received and handed down by Moses)".[note]F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 40-41.[/note]
The fact that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits does NOT necessarily mean they held to the shorter canon. It means they had a different interpretation of it which considered those things as figurative, not literal.
Biblical evidence that the Sadducees had the same canon as the Pharisees: when the three wise men came to King Herod looking for the baby Jesus, he summoned the chief priests to find out where Jesus was to be born. During that time, most of the chief priests were Sadducees. They told Herod that Scripture predicted Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem, which comes from the book of Micah. This strongly suggests they believed the Prophets to be part of Scripture too.
Also, from the late second century B.C. up to the time of Jesus, the Sadducees were in control of which books were placed in the Temple, which meant these books were considered scripture. The Prophets and the Writings were placed in the Temple archives along with the Law of Moses during this time.
Having the same layout as the canon books does not necessarily mean these books were also considered canon. Emanuel Toy is only making an inference. It is not proof.Coke Bear said:
The Essenes canon contained the Deuterocanon. As the works were found in the caves in 1947. Dead Sea scholar Emanuel Tov states in his book, "There is a special layout for poetical units that is almost exclusive to biblical texts (including Ben Sira) and is not found in any of the nonbiblical poetical compositions from the Judean desert" The Essenes considered them canon.
Three different sects three different canons.
Finally on this point, you've repeated stated that we should trust what the Pharisees used as scripture, but in Matthew 16:6, Jesus warns, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," suggesting their teachings could be corrupting.
I'll take Jesus' word here and let the magisterium decide what is scripture.
The Essenes produced the work Jubillees - in it, the number of canon books is cited at 22, the exact number that Josephus cites. This is more direct evidence, rather than inference. Sorry, but this pretty much seals it.
I'll close with the words of renown biblical scholar F.F. Bruce - "It is probable, indeed, that by the beginning of the Christian era the Essenes (including the Qumran community) were in substantial agreement with the Pharisees and the Sadducees about the limits of the Hebrew scripture."
I'm not sure where you're getting your info on this. The Sadducees died out shortly after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome all held the view that the Sadducees had the shorter canon for two main reasons:Coke Bear said:Church Fathers like Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome, who all state that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture. Acts 23:8 notes that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits, which aligns with their limited scriptural canon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You've repeatedly asserted that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes had different canons, but you've yet to show any actual historical proof of that. Up until now, you've only cited the presence of certain writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls as "proof" of a different canon, which is really bad logic.
You, yourself, have stated that the Protestant bible is exactly what the Pharisees used affirmed by Josephus.
1. They were talking about the Sadducees of THEIR time, not during Jesus' time. About a century after the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, the Sadducees joined with the Samaritans, who held to the shorter canon. However, during Jesus' time, there is no evidence that they held to the different canon than the Pharisees.
2. They misunderstood what Josephus wrote. F.F. Bruce explains - "The idea that the Sadducees (like the Samaritans) acknowledged the Pentateuch only as holy scripture is based on a misunderstanding: when Josephus, for example, says that the Sadducees 'admit no observance at all apart from the laws', he means not the Pentateuch to the exclusion of the Prophets and the Writings but the written law (of the Pentateuch) to the exclusion of the oral law (the Pharisaic interpretation and application of the written law, which, like the written law itself, was held in theory to have been received and handed down by Moses)".[note]F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 40-41.[/note]
The fact that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits does NOT necessarily mean they held to the shorter canon. It means they had a different interpretation of it which considered those things as figurative, not literal.
Biblical evidence that the Sadducees had the same canon as the Pharisees: when the three wise men came to King Herod looking for the baby Jesus, he summoned the chief priests to find out where Jesus was to be born. During that time, most of the chief priests were Sadducees. They told Herod that Scripture predicted Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem, which comes from the book of Micah. This strongly suggests they believed the Prophets to be part of Scripture too.
Also, from the late second century B.C. up to the time of Jesus, the Sadducees were in control of which books were placed in the Temple, which meant these books were considered scripture. The Prophets and the Writings were placed in the Temple archives along with the Law of Moses during this time.
While they and the Samaritans shared the same Pentateuch-only canon, they were distinct groups with different beliefs and practices. There's no way the strict Sadducees would have intermingled with the Samaritans.
Have you forgotten the parable of the Good Samaritan?
The teaching of the Pharisees being corrupt doesn't mean that what they viewed as canon was corrupt. Jesus never once said their canon was wrong. In fact, he completely verified their canon (Law, Prophets, Psalms/Writings) as God's word. You're conflating two different concepts.Coke Bear said:
Finally on this point, you've repeated stated that we should trust what the Pharisees used as scripture, but in Matthew 16:6, Jesus warns, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," suggesting their teachings could be corrupting.
I'll take Jesus' word here and let the magisterium decide what is scripture.
You continually make bad logical arguments like this.
The Councils of Rome - 382, HIppo - 393, and Carthage - 397 & 419 were ALL affirmed by Florence in 1442. Well before the Protestant Rebellion. They were ratified in Trent.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils, but were only regional councils, therefore their rulings did not have full authority over the whole Church.
And no, those Councils do not argue against my "history position" - they do nothing to erase the clear facts from church history that shows the majority view up until the time of the Reformation was that the Apocrypha were not considered canon Scripture.
If anything, you're only providing evidence for my point that the Catholic Church is in conflict with itself, considering that other Councils approved different canons than the ones you mentioned.
You have to ask yourself, why was there no mention of this at the earlier ecumenical councils? It's because the canon was not called into question. It was accepted the the majority of the Church and the Magisterium.
This is confirmed with the following statement:
Protestant Church historian J.N.D. Kelly writes that, although some early writers had different views on these books, "for the great majority, however, the deuterocanonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense"
Jesus never condemned the Deuterocanon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The teaching of the Pharisees being corrupt doesn't mean that what they viewed as canon was corrupt. Jesus never once said their canon was wrong. In fact, he completely verified their canon (Law, Prophets, Psalms/Writings) as God's word. You're conflating two different concepts.Coke Bear said:
Finally on this point, you've repeated stated that we should trust what the Pharisees used as scripture, but in Matthew 16:6, Jesus warns, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," suggesting their teachings could be corrupting.
I'll take Jesus' word here and let the magisterium decide what is scripture.
You continually make bad logical arguments like this.
You and your apologist friend need to look in the Preface. Here is English bishop, theologian, and biblical scholar B.F. Westcott's comment regarding it:Coke Bear said:Please provide excerpts from these works that state Complutensia didn't claim the Deuterocanon as canon. (Not a quote from some random Protestant). In none of my research could I find that claim. I also asked a Catholic apologist to research your claim and they could not find that listed in the Complutensia nor the Glossa.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You are also stuck in another bad logic, that "since the whole Septuagint was included, it means all of it was considered canon" with regard to the Biblia Complutensia. Much like Jerome's Vulgate translation, the inclusion of the apocryphal books in the Biblia Complutensia was due to those apocryphal books being considered useful for edifying and teaching for the church, NOT because they were canon. In both Jerome's Vulgate and the Biblia, a clear distinction was made between the apocrypha and the rest of scripture.
"At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation" - B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471
For the Glossa Ordinaria, you need to look in the Prologue:
"Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.
The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon."