Posted on 12/26/2011 12:46:40 PM PST by rzman21
How has Sola Scriptura encouraged the work of the Holy Spirit in every believer?
Hasn’t it resulted in a competing babble of ideas as to what the Bible actually means?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit can contradict himself?
We also know the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, by which our Lord Christ Jesus provided us the example of the Christian way of thinking in this Church Age. Remaining in fellowship with God, through faith in Christ, never ceasing in prayer to the Father, and allowing God the Holy Spirit to perform His work in us to glorify the head, our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.
>>Who defined the dogma of the Hypostatic Union?
How do you know that Appolinarius wasn’t right after all or Nestorius, or Eutyches for that matter?
Does Jesus have One Nature or Two Natures?
If the canon was completed c. 100 A.D. then why did it take 500 years for Revelation to be universally accepted by all Orthodox Christians?
Which early writers???
Because numerous early writers considered it such. (rzman21)
Which early writers??? (DNA.2012)
(I think the authorship sequence above is correct -- if not, excuse it --) DNA.2012, you have to remember that some who post here cannot rely on The Holy Scripture alone, but need, for their doctrine, to rely on "tradition," "reasonings," and "experiment." Above, relying on 'early writers' is leaning on someone who is uninspired and errant. And the definition of the Revelation as 'apocryphal'(= hidden or fake) is exactly opposite of what the title (Revelation = apokalupsoh = unveiling, disclosure)and the author, Holy One John the Theologian, proclaim it to be. So the Revelation, the Apocalypse, is not apocryphal, it is apolyptical! Any writer, however early or late, who questions this writing is opposed to the disclosure of the consummation of the divine plan of redemption and establishment of the Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace -- so don't take anyone seriously who relies on 'numerous early writers.' Especially when they cannot rely on the authentic, revealed, inspired, inerrant, plenary, verbal, PROVIDENTIALLY PRESERVED, TRANSMITTED, translated in the literal/historical hermeneutic, and applied in concert with the entire agreement of the whole body of the Word. Such gainsayers are calling the Apostle John a liar. They insist on drawing their baggage of fallibility to the dispute.
LESSON: Don't wrangle with them. They already have stiff necks and hardened hearts. Let God do the work. Just pray for them. (1 Cor. 2:12-15) They have not obeyed the Gospel.
Ignore them and go about your work to enroll sincere disciples who will listen and learn of The Faith. Matt. 28:19-20 The Faith comes by oral instruction, and oral instruction by the spoken Word of The God. (Rom. 10:17) Be prepared to speak.
The timeline given in this post for appearance of the NT books is not correct. For instance, the letter of Jude was the first written and circulated epistle.
Here's a link to another chronology for the appearance and authorship of the NT canon with some examples that oredate the one you have given:
A. D. 37 - 45 General (catholic) Epistle by James, Our Lord's brother (a son of Mary)
A. D. 45 The Gospel (in Semitic) written by Levi (Matthew)
A. D. 49 Mid-summer, The Epistle to Galatians, by Paul from Antioch (Acts 14:27,28)
A. D. 50 The Gospel According to Matthew (in Greek) written by Levi (Matthew)
A. D. 51 Early spring, The First Epistle to Thessalonians by Paul The Apostle, from Corinth
This well-researched chronology may help you:
http://www.happyheralds.com/Chron-list-of-NewTestament-Books.pdf
With sincere respect.
I'm sorry! I meant to say James in the above, not Jude!
Because every Tom, Dick and Luther hadn't personally ratified it.
What you, and every Roman Catholic thread on the Apocrypha, fail to mention is that THE JEWS THEMSELVES rejected the Apocrypha (which are Jewish-authored books, before Christ) as inspired canon.
Luther didn’t just pull his rejection of the Apocrypha out of a hat—but had centuries of Roman Catholic scholarship to back him up too (including that of St. Jerome—the translator of the Vulgate...who coined the word “Apocrypha”), besides ancient Jewish unanimity in rejecting these intertestamental books.
Even the Greek LXX—the translation of the Old Testament probably most familiar to 1st Century Jews, written sometime around 200 BC, had the books we call the Apocrypha in a separate section (translated after the original biblical canon) indicating that as early as 200 BC the Jews did not accept these books as of the same quality and authority as the Tanak itself.
The last recognized prophet before John the Baptist was Malachi—of the last Old Testament book of his name. He was dead long before the Apocryphal books were written—which means one has to posit that inspired canon was written by people who had no word from God (prophets, by definition had a word to communicate from God)...a contradiction.
In both New Testament and Old Testament formation, there is a phenomena one can call “universal organic canonization” meaning, long BEFORE a council formally recognized books as canonical, the usage and informal recognition in the Churches was already there....(with some exceptions, like 2, 3 John or Revelation) with (near) universal agreement. The same is true for Old Testament canon...long before the Jews formally identified the Old Testament books (without the Apocrypha) as canonical...usage was already ahead of them...
Since they were orthodox Jews, very likely Jesus and the Apostles never regarded the Apocrypha (with it’s silly superstitious legends and such...(see Tobit, or Bell and the Dragon) as canonical. But since the Jews declared the Apocrypha NOT canonical (early 2nd C) ...of course later Roman counsels had to NOT agree with them...
A good article. Well written and, despite how long it might look, fairly concise. I wish lecturers had been so concise.
I’m not exactly sure about some of the anger in the comments as the article doesn’t actually seem to address the issues they are disagreeing about.
I’m also baffled as to why this is tagged homosexual agenda.
What you and every antiCatholic fail to mention is that the Septuagint predates every other Talmud and that the vast majority of the Jews (including those in now Israel) used it as Scripture. Jesus quoted from it frequently. Since Greek was the lingua franca of the era, and Alexandria was the center of Jewish thought at the time, the Septuagint was the Talmud of choice. Very few Jews at that point actually knew Hebrew.
The Jews rejected the Septuagint because it was being used to convert Jews to Christianity.
St. Matthew quotes from the Septuagint recension of the Isaiah Chapter 7 rather than the Hebrew.
So the anti-Catholic Protestants side hate the Catholic Church so much that they side with the enemies of Christ.
I’m also baffled as to why this is tagged homosexual agenda.
>>Certs me.
The antiCatholics define themselves by what they are not (Catholic), rather than what they are. On the occasions that they do self identify as a positive (usually Christian), they then often go to all kinds of extremes to show that they really have clue as to what Christian is.
The antiCatholics define themselves by what they are not (Catholic), rather than what they are. On the occasions that they do self identify as a positive (usually Christian), they then often go to all kinds of extremes to show that they really have clue as to what Christian is.
>>That’s why I call them devout anti-Catholics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.