Posted on 02/05/2006 12:36:59 PM PST by Gamecock
OK, I'm being serious here:
What was the canon of the original KJV and Luther Bible? How did it vary from the Catholic canon?
That is EXACTLY what the New Age Gnostics are doing, saying that Mary Magdelene was Jesus' wife and had kids, etc...ad nauseum.
But don't you know the "spirit" tells them it is so?
Regards
It's amazing what arguments you can make when you throw up a strawman that big.
Christ didn't divide His Kingdom. He preserved it by drawing faithful men out of an increasingly apostasizing institution, just as He preserved a faithful remnant in Israel as the nation at large was bowing to the Baals.
The Catholic Church formally ceased being a Christian church at Trent when it anathematized the Biblical doctrine of justification. As with Israel, the Church is ultimately defined spiritually, not institutionally. Catholic ecclesiastical doctrine is conveniently self-serving.
At Judgement, those members of the Roman Catholic Church who are saved will be saved despite their membership in that institution, not because of it.
No, no contradiction, just differences (2Tim.2:15-'rightly dividing')
There is an organized Church, which is composed of various offices and duties.
In the Organized church, one may have both believers and unbelievers.
The spiritual church is only composed of believers, united by the Holy Spirit after the New Birth (Jn.3), being Justfied by Faith, not works (Eph.2:8, Tit.3:5).
This was the 'mystery' revealed to Paul (Eph.3).
Even the OT assembly could be called a 'church' (Acts.7:38)
Thus, there is two aspects to the 'church'.
An organization that should be only composed of believers in Christ (but sometimes is not) whose goal is to grow in grace (Eph.4), and the spiritual church, the Body of Christ, His Bride, which can only be composed of believers since one can only become part of it through the new birth, being baptized by the Holy Spirit into it.
Thus, even though the various churchs are divided by differing doctrines, if one is saved, there is unity among the individuals, not among the differing churches
Where did you get that bit of nonsense from?
Would you like to start a thread on the Septuagint?
You accept the Apocrypha books as scripture. You are again incorrect. There is no Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible
There isn't?
Oh, you mean you just don't call them Apocrypha books.
You have 14 Books that you regard as Canonical, which we do not.
As for the New Testament, there are differences within the Books themselves. You mean translations?
I mean the Greek text that the Roman Catholic Church Bible uses, the Critical Text, not the Received Text of Erasmus or Beza.
The Roman Catholic bible is not the Christian Bible. I guess Christianity didn't exist until the Protestant Reformation, then. I wonder why Jesus didn't protect His Church like He promised...
Oh, the Church existed as did the Bible.
It was only driven underground by the Romanists who attempted to destroy both.
Bingo!
And how many writings refer to Christianity during that period?
Very, very few!
What we know of Christianity, historically, we get mostly from the Bible, not from secular historical sources.
Those men believed in something called Apostolic Succession. They believed that God protected the writings of the first teachers that were sent by Christ, called Apostles. And they believed that God continued to protect them. Their witness was proven in the blood of martyrs and the confessors of the faith. This is not a circular argument, brother.
Now, you are asserting what you need to prove.
Where does it state in the first two centuries anything about 'apostolic succession'?
It sure isn't in the Bible!
You have to have a Bible before you can even discuss what a church is or isn't. The Bible came before the Church? WOW! Amazing....Where does Jesus give the Apostles a Bible? Did He commission them to preach and teach all that He taught them, giving them pamphlets and bible tracts? Do you actually have any clue on how the first Christian communities were formed? By oral teaching! NO NT BIBLE YET!
Oh, and they had no Old Testament!
What was Christ, Peter and Paul quoting all the time?
The New Testament was formed by revelation to the Apostles and put in writing.
We do not go by 'oral tradition' since there are no more Apostles left to pass it on.
It is the Bible which gives us the truth of what a church is or isn't, not any particular church. "But if I tarry long, that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15.
Paul is addressing local churches, which were located not in buildings but in homes (Rom.16:5,1Cor.16:19)
By the way, what version did you get that quote from?
The King James does not have the word 'expedient' in it.
It doesn't match the Douey-Rheims or the NAB either.
Brother, the Bible again disagrees with you. Perhaps you should go back and read the whole NT before you start making groundless assertions.
Since I read the Bible through a number of times a year, I am quite confident of my views.
But anytime I can get a Roman Catholic to actually attempt to use scripture to make a point, I count it a great success.
Did I say the organization was invisible?
The churches were local assemblies composed of people who may or may not be Christians.
The true unity lies not in the organization but in the organism which is the Body of Christ united spiritually through rebirth (Jn.3)
That is why even though churches may differ, there are probably believers in most of them, even in the Roman Catholic Church despite what they teach.
As for the Aramic nonsense, you had to go to that myth since even the Latin did not help you out with that verse.
Peter states that the Rock is Christ (1Pe.2:8).
The Church is built on Christ (1Cor.3:11)
Those churches are local, not united under any human head or gov't. They shared the same faith, the same baptism, the same loaf, and the same leadership. Yes, brother, they were united in the faith under the leadership of the Apostles. That is quite clear in the New Testament.
If they shared the same faith, then they were indeed united-spiritually
Sharing the same loaf doesn't mean one is saved since even Judas participted in the Last Supper.
The spiritual church (made up of all those who believe in the saving work of Christ) is revealed by Paul, to whom alone it was revealed (Eph.3:3) and who revealed it to Peter (2Pe.3:15-16) I don't find ANYWHERE in the NT that denies a visible organization of believers. You foist that interpretation onto Scriptures when it is just not there.
Did I say that there was not a visible organization of believers?
I said that the visible organiztion can be composed of both believers and unbelievers (as even the original Apostles were).
The essential unity lies in the sharing of the same faith in the death, burial and resurrection of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ and depending on that for ones salvation (not works).
Salvation doesn't come from any organized church, salvation comes from the words of God (Rom.10:17, 1Pe.1:23).
It is salvation which places one in the Body of Christ, the Church, the Bride of Christ, and then one joins a local church to grow in the Lord. (Eph.4)
Paul shared the SAME Gospel as the other Apostles. He didn't teach a different Gospel - if you read Galatians chapter one, you'd see that.
Amen, Paul did share the same Gospel as the Apostles, which was by Faith alone, in Christ alone.
A Roman Catholic appealing to the Book of Galatians!
Will wonders never cease! LOL!
There was certainly offices (Bishops/Pastors/Elders/Deacons) but the organization consisted of local churches.
Now, in the 1st century of Christianity, before the completion of the New Testament, when churches would be established, it was the Apostles who were given responsibility of overseeing them.
The Council in Acts had to deal with the Gentiles being accepted as being equal with the Jews.
Remember even Peter and Barnabas had a problem with this later on (Gal.2).
The true church is made of only believers united by spiritual Baptism into the Body of Christ.
There are many visible churches, which contain both saved and unsaved people, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.
I think the bible reveals that the various churches were organizationally "connected" and that there were leaders occupying offices overseaing the churches and overseeing the elders within the churches.
I think we're going to disagree on this one, ftD. I've said my piece, though, and I respect you too much as a friend to enter any contest over it.
Just arriving on this thread, and it's too late to pound-away at the keyboard trying to refute utter nonsense point-by-point. So this will serve: the quality of your scholarship is demonstrated by your assertion that the Catholics have 14 books in their Bible that the Protestants do not. Please, by all means, go ahead and NAME them. I count only seven (46 versus 39), and they are far from "extra" relative to your OT. Good night.
I never denied that and the statements you make before this. I am defending the NECESSITY of having a VISIBLE Church so as to be able to even take into consideration Matthew 18. Certainly, Jesus clearly tells us through His parables and teachings that some "inside" the visible Church are not of the Elect. For example, see Mat 7:21.
Thus, even though the various churchs are divided by differing doctrines, if one is saved, there is unity among the individuals, not among the differing churches
There were NO "various" churches divided by doctrines in the Scriptures! What we have now is not what was present in Scriptures. The various communities shared the SAME faith and the SAME loaf. They shared in communion, they were one Body in more than just name. We do not share in communion. That is why we call Protestants "separated brothers". Sure, we are united in many things, but on some essentials, we disagree. We do not all recognize the Lord in the Breaking of the Bread.
With that said, the Church accurately considers that individual Protestants can be united to the Catholic Church - while the entire community is not. There are a lot of unwitting Catholics and a lot of "Catholics" who are not...
Regards
Not in particular. I already have enough letters to respond to without proving that the earth is round again and again...
You have 14 Books that you regard as Canonical, which we do not.
Fourteen? What religion are you again???
I mean the Greek text that the Roman Catholic Church Bible uses, the Critical Text, not the Received Text of Erasmus or Beza.
Since when is the "received text of Erasmus" the official text of the Church? I suppose next, we'll be switching to the "received text" of Joseph Smith? Since when is "critical text" infallibly guided by the Spirit?
Oh, the Church existed as did the Bible. It was only driven underground by the Romanists who attempted to destroy both.
Your funny. Yea, the "Romanists" had lots of political power the first 300 years of Christianity, didn't they...
I got more serious letters to respond to. Good day.
LOL! There are 10 volumes of Christian writings that precede the Council of Nicea in 325. Perhaps you should consider reading them. There are also a number of writings outside this collection. Please!
Where does it state in the first two centuries anything about 'apostolic succession'? It sure isn't in the Bible
Since you are not aware of the Church Fathers' massive amounts of writing, it is not surprising you have not heard of what the Church believed in the first couple of centuries. As to the Scripture, one merely needs to read the Pastorals and the Acts of the Apostles to figure out that men were being commissioned by the original apostles to continue the Work of the Body - to bring the Kingdom of God to a new generation of men. Didn't Christ say that He would be with men for all generations?
The New Testament was formed by revelation to the Apostles and put in writing. We do not go by 'oral tradition' since there are no more Apostles left to pass it on.
Of course it was. But you misunderstand what "tradition" is. It is not oral tradition today. It was orally given initially before the Scriptures were written. But eventaullly, all of this got written down. Tradition is not something that is passed along orally TODAY. It is just something that the Apostles didn't directly address when the were writing letters to communities. They didn't find it necessary to teach EVERYTHING through those letters. It wasn't necessary to rehash EVERYTHING - only those things that people were unsure on or where there were problems.
Paul is addressing local churches, which were located not in buildings but in homes
Think for a second here. Christianity was an outlawed religion. It did not have the status of a protected religion like Judaism. It is ridiculous to think that the Church should have cathedrals in the first 300 years!
By the way, what version did you get that quote from?
Either the KJV or the NKJV. I don't remember.
anytime I can get a Roman Catholic to actually attempt to use scripture to make a point, I count it a great success.
Ditto, brother.
Regards
Think of what you are saying...If I have a problem that CANNOT be resolved among us, I am to take it to an assembly that "may or may not be Christian"? I am supposed to submit my obedience in their judgment on the issue to them? LOL!
As for the Aramic nonsense, you had to go to that myth since even the Latin did not help you out with that verse.
Are you going to explain the word "Kephas" or not?
Peter states that the Rock is Christ (1Pe.2:8).
Different context. Why are YOU calling Simon a rock?
The Church is built on Christ (1Cor.3:11)
Does it say "but not Simon Peter"?
Salvation doesn't come from any organized church, salvation comes from the words of God (Rom.10:17, 1Pe.1:23).
Salvation comes THROUGH the Church, not FROM the Church. You wouldn't have the Word of God, now, would you, without the Church?
Amen, Paul did share the same Gospel as the Apostles, which was by Faith alone, in Christ alone.
You have read the Scriptures through over and over and you believe that? Where does the Scripture say we are saved by faith ALONE? What nonsense.
A Roman Catholic appealing to the Book of Galatians!
Why wouldn't I? It is inspired Scripture, just as much as any other book. It teaches Catholic Doctrine. I don't have problems with Galatians, when read in light of the Church's teachings.
Regards
That is why we have adult water Baptism, to insure (as best we can) that the local church is composed of individual Christians.
The fact is that a local church well may be composed of unbelievers as well as believers.
You think everyone in a church is saved?
As for the Aramic nonsense, you had to go to that myth since even the Latin did not help you out with that verse. Are you going to explain the word "Kephas" or not?
Why do I need to explain 'Cephas' when that was not what was used in Matthew 16:18, Petros was used.
Since Petros is masculine and 'Petra' is neuter (upon this rock, I will build my church) Christ could not have been referring to Peter as being the 'Rock' upon which the church is built.
That is why Rome ran to the Aramic (having no gender) to state that the word in the 'original' was not Petros, but Cephas.
That Peter had a name in Aramic is not relevant to the question of what is being said in Matthew 16:18.
Peter states that the Rock is Christ (1Pe.2:8). Different context. Why are YOU calling Simon a rock?
I am not calling Simon a rock.
Literally his name (Petro) means 'a small stone', so maybe we should call him 'pebbles'.
Peter was part of that large Rock, which is Christ.
That was based on his confession of faith in Him. (Matthew 16:16)
The Church is built on Christ (1Cor.3:11) Does it say "but not Simon Peter"?
It doesn't have to, Peter states who the church is built on (1Pe.2:8) and never once does he point to himself as being that Rock.
He knew who the Rock was, you ought to listen to him and follow the real Rock, the Lord Jesus Christ, not the faker in Rome.
Salvation doesn't come from any organized church, salvation comes from the words of God (Rom.10:17, 1Pe.1:23). Salvation comes THROUGH the Church, not FROM the Church. You wouldn't have the Word of God, now, would you, without the Church?
The church did not give us the words of God, the Holy Spirit did.
He also gave us individual spiritual gifts that recognized the New Testament scriptures as being from Him.
Salvation gets you into the Church (spiritual body of Christ) but comes by the hearing and believing the words of God (1Thess. 2:13)
Amen, Paul did share the same Gospel as the Apostles, which was by Faith alone, in Christ alone. You have read the Scriptures through over and over and you believe that? Where does the Scripture say we are saved by faith ALONE? What nonsense.
Well, you must never have read Rom.4:5, Gal.2:16, Eph.2:8-9, Tit.3:5?
What part of 'without works' do you not understand?
A Roman Catholic appealing to the Book of Galatians! Why wouldn't I? It is inspired Scripture, just as much as any other book. It teaches Catholic Doctrine. I don't have problems with Galatians, when read in light of the Church's teachings.
It teaches anti-Catholic doctrine, it teaches Christian freedom in Christ, through faith alone.
The Galatians were going back to Jewish rituals to add to their faith, but were rebuked by Paul for doing so.
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would prevert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed....I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Gal.1:7-8,2:21)
That last verse in chapter 2 came after Paul rebuked Peter for going back to the Law. (Gal.2:11) Regards
Likewise.
Those writings are not secular history, they are religious writings.
We have very little secular history from the 1st century that gives us any knowledge of Christ outside of the Bible.
What we know about Christ and the Apostles comes from the Bible, not outside sources
Where does it state in the first two centuries anything about 'apostolic succession'? It sure isn't in the Bible Since you are not aware of the Church Fathers' massive amounts of writing, it is not surprising you have not heard of what the Church believed in the first couple of centuries.
And what do the 'Church Fathers' have to do with historical proof of Apostolic sucession.
The Roman Catholic Church began in the 4th Century.
No Apostolic sucession for the first 300 years.
As to the Scripture, one merely needs to read the Pastorals and the Acts of the Apostles to figure out that men were being commissioned by the original apostles to continue the Work of the Body - to bring the Kingdom of God to a new generation of men. Didn't Christ say that He would be with men for all generations?
Men were commissioned to lead the churches throughout the first century, other Apostles such as Timothy, Silvanus, James the Lord's (half) brother(Gal.1:9)(LOL!).
These men finished the work of overseeing the churches until the completion of the NT Canon in 96 AD.
The last writing we have from an Apostle is from John, the Book of Revelation, which warns us about false Apostles (Rev.2:2)
As for Christ being with the church, He is since He indwells each believer at the moment (not process) of salvation (Jn.14:23, Col.1:27)
The New Testament was formed by revelation to the Apostles and put in writing. We do not go by 'oral tradition' since there are no more Apostles left to pass it on. Of course it was. But you misunderstand what "tradition" is. It is not oral tradition today. It was orally given initially before the Scriptures were written. But eventaullly, all of this got written down. Tradition is not something that is passed along orally TODAY. It is just something that the Apostles didn't directly address when the were writing letters to communities. They didn't find it necessary to teach EVERYTHING through those letters. It wasn't necessary to rehash EVERYTHING - only those things that people were unsure on or where there were problems.
Well so much for the Bible!
What God had written down is what God wants us to know, not some 'tradition' that seems to get changed when it is convient to do so.
Christ had no use for any traditon that went against the Holy Scriptures (Mk.7:7)
Paul is addressing local churches, which were located not in buildings but in homes Think for a second here. Christianity was an outlawed religion. It did not have the status of a protected religion like Judaism. It is ridiculous to think that the Church should have cathedrals in the first 300 years!
Christianity was not in homes because of persecution, but because there was no need for a building.
The cathedrals came when Church and State united and forced everyone to be a 'Catholic'.
By the way, what version did you get that quote from? Either the KJV or the NKJV. I don't remember.
Well, neither have the word 'expedient' in it.
You probably had another verse in mind and mixed them together.
anytime I can get a Roman Catholic to actually attempt to use scripture to make a point, I count it a great success. Ditto, brother. Regards
Amen.
Well, there is no historical evidence of a BC Septuagint.
The Septuagint that we have today came from Origen in the 3rd Century AD.
Neither Christ nor the Apostles ever used any Greek Old Testament.
You have 14 Books that you regard as Canonical, which we do not. Fourteen? What religion are you again???
Are we now playing games?
The Roman Catholic Canon has in it the following books which Christians do not.
The Book of Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Macaabees, , the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and additions to the Book of Daniel.
So the Roman Catholic Bible contains at least 8 additional books.
These are 'apocrypha' Books, which even Jerome rejected as being equal with scripture (Deutro-canonical)
I mean the Greek text that the Roman Catholic Church Bible uses, the Critical Text, not the Received Text of Erasmus or Beza. Since when is the "received text of Erasmus" the official text of the Church? I suppose next, we'll be switching to the "received text" of Joseph Smith? Since when is "critical text" infallibly guided by the Spirit?
The 'text' is the preserved words of God and since, 'by their fruits you shall know them' we know that it is this textual tradition that represents the true New Testament.
From that Received Text is the one that resulted in the people getting the Bible back into their native language (Luther, Tyndale), so they could understand the words of God and not be held in bondage by the empty rituals of Romanism.
Oh, the Church existed as did the Bible. It was only driven underground by the Romanists who attempted to destroy both. Your funny. Yea, the "Romanists" had lots of political power the first 300 years of Christianity, didn't they...
The Romanists did not exist during the first three hundred years of the Church.
The persecution by the Romanists came after they aligned themselves with the State in the 4th century.
Since the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in the first 3 centuries they cannot take any credit for the preservation of the scriptures.
I got more serious letters to respond to. Good day.
I am sure you do, I hope you respond to them more honestly then you did this one.
Did I deny the necessity of having a visible church?
Since you admit that unbelievers can be part of that visible church, then just being a member of any visible church does not mean one is saved.
However, if one is a member of Christ's spiritual church (Body, Bride) then he must be saved since that only occurs when the Holy Spirit brings it about after faith in Christ (1Cor.12:13)
Thus, even though the various churchs are divided by differing doctrines, if one is saved, there is unity among the individuals, not among the differing churches There were NO "various" churches divided by doctrines in the Scriptures! What we have now is not what was present in Scriptures. The various communities shared the SAME faith and the SAME loaf. They shared in communion, they were one Body in more than just name. We do not share in communion. That is why we call Protestants "separated brothers". Sure, we are united in many things, but on some essentials, we disagree. We do not all recognize the Lord in the Breaking of the Bread.
Well, the Protestants do recognize the Lord when the break bread.
What they do not recognize is what the Romanists have said the bread becomes (God Himself).
Now, since Judas 'broke bread' with Christ Himself and was not saved, the breaking of Bread cannot be the source of unity, but only an outward manifestion of that unity (like water baptism).
The true unity must come from the spiritual unity that exists when each individual is united to Christ and thus, becomes 'brother and sister' in the Lord.
Doctrinal differences cannot change that fact.
With that said, the Church accurately considers that individual Protestants can be united to the Catholic Church - while the entire community is not. There are a lot of unwitting Catholics and a lot of "Catholics" who are not...
No, individual Protestants are united to Christ not the Catholic Church (funny how you guys keep confusing the two).
There may even be saved Catholics, who have received Christ by faith alone and still remain part of the RCC.
In that case, they also are united with the Protestant believers spiritually.
That goes even for Mormons and JW's who despite what their churches teach, are saved.
Many of these received the Gospel as children in other Protestant churches, and could have been saved then.
Regards
Likewise.
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.