Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Another example of the pious crowd. The meek and humble. You know, Beatitude 101.
"Moreover brethren I declare unto you the gospel which I preach unto you..."(1 Cor. 15:1).
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. 15:3,4).
THERE, for a start.
You mean, that Jerome's Canon did not have the Deuterocanonicals in his proposal for the OT. The apochrypha are something entirely different, such as 3 and 4 Maccabees, or the Prayer of Manasseh. He was one of the few. The Church did not accept his Canon. Therefore Jerome came over to Church beliefs, not vice versa. You state vast majority without source and Middle Ages. Jerome was a contemporary of Augustine and was present when the matter of canonity was settled in 393 (Hippo) and Carthage (400). When Jerome published the Vulgate in 406, it contained ALL of the Deuterocanonical books that the Church holds to be Canon today.
Pope Innocent I in Consulenti Tibi (dated February 405) to St. Exuperious (Bishop of Toulouse) listed the Canon of Scripture that the Church holds today. One must separate the Deuterocanonicals from OT Apocrypha, and the NT Apocrypha from the OT. For example, the Gospel of Thomas and the Revelation of Peter are considered Apocrypha.
A good millennium away.
So, a leader is not a leader unless an infallible Ecumenical Council of Protestant bickering cats agrees? Peter's position is what the Pope's role is now. Primus inter pares. A bishop is a bishop, sure. But there is now and always has been a primus.
"Moreover brethren I declare unto you the gospel which I preach unto you..."(1 Cor. 15:1).
Nope. 1 Corinthians 15:1 does not say anything about sufficiency of Scripture and about the binding and non binding upon Christians.
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. 15:3,4).
Neither does this passage. Paul says that it is sufficient to good works, which is ironic given the hostility to the importance of good works (according to Scripture) that the Sola Scriptura crowd normally shows.
ph
Thinking about it, a couple of common sense ways occur to me to get a general idea of how old the actual concept of the Assumption is as opposed to when it was more recently infallible proclaimed.
1. Were there ancient churches/towns/places claiming to have the relics of Mary? Given how many places claimed to have relics of the true cross you would also think that there would be people claiming to have the relics of Mary unless it was generally thought by the people that there were no relics to have.
2. What does the Eastern Orthodox Church think and teach about the Assumption of Mary? The idea being that they are not likely to believe in something that is a recent invention.
Peter was listed second. Not first, as would be expected IF he were "primus".
"But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person:)" (Gal. 2:6).
God did not seem to believe Peter was "primus". He is no respector of persons.
Oh, and I don’t know the answers myself and I’m supposed be out the door with my family 5 minutes ago so no time to search online now. But I’m sure there are people here that know the answers.
bkaycee, apparently RC apologists' noses are waaay out of joint contemplating me kneeling at the RC altar during the high mass wedding of one of my sorority sisters. lol. This just gets funnier as the day goes by.
And Mark, you were told not to call FReepers a "liar." Please try to obey the forum rules if it is at all within your ability.
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
" That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. 3:15-17).
lol. Only to you. The fact that they were high mass weddings didn't matter to me in the slightest, other than I had to pay a lot for each of those three dresses, none of which were ever worn again.
I enjoy your keeping this going, Mark. Your comments are inane. The fact you go to the extreme of calling me a "liar" over such an innocuous thing as a RC wedding perfectly illustrates that RC apologists think more highly of themselves than is warranted.
Good points and I would like to know the answers myself. Hopefully, they will be forthcoming!
Let us put it into context here. Paul was talking about presenting his bona fides to the Apostles. Go back to Chapter 1.
Galations 1: 18 14 15 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 16
What is the significance here? Paul had to present himself to Peter for acceptance. Notice that he says that he also saw James (the bishop of the church in Jerusalem which would be expected, since James was the bishop in charge). But the emphasis is on Peter. Chapter 2 lists James first, which is proper since James was still the bishop in charge of the area.
If Jesus did not believe that Peter was primus among the stewards of His Church, then why did He change Peter's name? Why was Peter the one who Jesus normally talked to when he was talking to the Apostles, and why was Peter normally the one who replied? Why was Peter the only human being to walk on the water? Why was Peter given the keys to Heaven and the first one the ability to forgive sins? Why was Peter instructed alone to 'feed my sheep'? And many other examples.
No, Peter was sincere, but very fallible. I think that the Passion of the Christ has him scripted very well. He was given responsibilities far beyond his abilities, but as we especially see in Acts, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he went on to lead the fledgling Church and his successors have brought it to the point where it is today.
This is a misleading protestant ploy because Jerome taught otherwise and quoted them as inspired. I can flood you with quotes from the Church fathers involved in the canon who believed they are God breathed.Jerome only thought they were hard to master.
From Saint Jerome....
DO YOU EXPECT ME TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSES AND PLANS OF GOD? THE BOOK OF WISDOM GIVES AN ANSWER TO YOUR FOOLISH QUESTION: [Sir 3:21] "LOOK NOT INTO THINGS ABOVE THEE, AND SEARCH NOT THINGS TOO MIGHTY FOR THEE." AND ELSEWHERE,[5] "Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting." And in the same place, "In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God." You will perhaps deny the authority of this book;" "Jerome, "Against the Pelagians, NPNF2, VI:464-5"
"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory." Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"--- Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8
So , there you have it. Saint Jerome says they are inspired
Posts are not insane. They are things, not people. I would not expect with your education that you would understand that. Now posters can be insane and when they are, they provide endless amusement for people like me.
And Mark, you were told not to call FReepers a "liar." Please try to obey the forum rules if it is at all within your ability.
Didn't I see you on Animal House with Dean Wormer?
Certainly. I am not wary of Scripture, though. I welcome it all.
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
" That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. 3:15-17).
Very good. I believe that I mentioned this myself a number of posts back. I'm not sure that I quite see where Sola Scripture is proven. I see where Paul says that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, and so on, so that the man of God may act perfectly. But again, what Scriptures was Paul referring to? The OT and the OT alone. The NT had not been written yet. Paul's writings are amongst the first, and he had no idea that his writings would be considered Scripture. I have seen no evidence that Paul knew before he died that he had any clue. As a matter of fact, did Paul even know about Matthew's efforts? Don't know.
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.