Posted on 06/29/2015 11:23:16 AM PDT by RnMomof7
I in now way question the status of Hebrews. It is precisely because the Catholic Church declares it to be Scripture that I take it as such. But if there are scholars who do question its Pauline authorship how do you know that it is Scripture?
"you want to deny the existence of a visible and hierarchical church that was established by Jesus." NOT ONCE have I denied that there is a societal institution and that it had its first expression as a gaggle of confused men (and probably a few women, buit mostly men) in an Upper Room, whose confusion was dealt with by Jesus appearing among them in a locked and shuttered room! THAT was the start of the societal institutional Church. That church remained somewhat confused until Pentecost arrived and what Jesus had Promised fell upon them as if tongues of fire! They were meeting in t he Jewish Temple in Jerusalem for most of the first three decades right there. The First Church Council was held there. Have you not been reading the posts I've labored to offer?
When God's Holy Spirit entered believers on the Day of Pentecost, did you know that the event and scene was prophesied in the Septuagint? Do you realize there was as yet no bishoprics or deacons or other church offices? Are you aware that it was James the brother fo Jesus who issued the ruling from the first great church council, IN JERUSALEM. The council met as the earthly societal institution church, made up of members of THE ONE TRUE CHURCH which is spiritual. The members of the spiritual Church have one thing in common, one thing that identifies each and every one of them, no matter what city they were from, or what Bishopric would eventually be establish elsewhere from Jerusalem, as Members of The Church? Do you know what that cohesive 'thing' was? Can you name it, identify it? It was most definitely not membership in The Catholic Church. ... Go ahead, let your mind name it for you!
Those who follow Christ follow him carrying their cross, not skipping along doing whatever they want and it's obvious from the love of and pride in Self Protestantism breeds that the heaviest cross for people is the same one Eve refused; the cross of obedience.
Obeying His Apostles who He put in charge of His Church so that His Words would be correctly handed down to us and correctly interpreted to mean what He intended, not what anyone who listens to some spirit hanging from a nearby tree thinks is Scripture means.
The Holy Spirit seeks to reach individuals to lead them to His Church while Protestantism denies the power of and blasphemes the Holy Spirit by obeying the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Jewish Rabbis of Jamnia rather than the Apostles with regard to the canon. Those who swallow the lies of Protestantism move further and further away from the Holy Spirit, not toward being guided from above in any way, shape, or form.
A man cannot have two masters and all of Protestantism rests on accepting the very same Pharisees Christ Himself condemned as the master of the individual rather than accepting Christ and those He granted His Authority to as their master.
have a nice day
Indeed! The deviation from the old covenant was what condemned Jesus in the eyes of the generation of vipers on the Sanhedrin! Wow, you go Girl! We want more! It is so beautiful to hear from those in Whom His Spirit dwells.
You remain clueless. By choice or ignorance?
Mark was indeed a Jew. He was the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10-11) who was a Jew.
As for Luke I would caution you to make such a definitive statement until you read this and then be able to give proof from scripture for your assertion.
I would suggest you do some study rather than just parrot the polemic of the Catholic Church.
At the time, they were still in the midst of writing stuff. How can there be sola scriptura when everything written was new? This scripture they were writing was the “new tradition.” There was no precedent. Now it’s old, but then it wasn’t. They were breaking tradition, saying unclean food was okay to eat, that circumcision wasn’t necessary. If the church fathers were the Apostles, there was no sola scripture because it was still in the process of being written. If the Church fathers were the ones deciding what would be included in the New Testament, after all the original Apostles were gone, that’s a different question. Who, in the original question, are the church fathers?
Pfffft. There are "scholars" who claim there should be women priests also. It's Satan who likes to cast doubt.
Just takes a sentence here and there out of context and you can "prove" nearly anything from what the Early Church Fathers wrote. The way they argued a point was to first restate what they argued against in the most persuasive form they could put it in. Then they proceeded to strike that assertion of the point down to show that even in the most clearly, persuasively, stated form, it was an invalid point.
So, I've had people "prove" that the Early Church Fathers didn't believe Jesus Christ was divine, that there is no Trinity, and in this case, that everyone at the time believed in Sola Yourselfa in spite of the fact that the New Testament was incomplete and the only accepted Old Testament included all the books Protestants throw out.
The same love of Self and pride in Self that led Eve to fall is what drives Protestantism and it's a virulent enough disease that about half the Catholics in the US, if not more, embrace the same thing although in their case it's known as, Cafeteria Catholicism. Whatever you call it, it's the same thing that caused Eve to sin and still the siren song Satan uses to lead people down the easy, broad, highway to their own destruction.
No, they want people to accept what the Holy Spirit rather than a cabal of self interested, proud men tells totally depraved people.
Totally depraved does not mean being unable to recognize righteousness. It means being unable to ATTAIN righteousness. It means needing to accept any righteousness as an utter gift from God rather than as something one can earn in one’s own power.
What an interesting read! Luke is my favorite writer in the New Testament. I began my journey through the scriptures many decades ago by reading first the messages to Theophilus. Thanks for that link.
As a comparison, let’s call the original apostles the “founding fathers.” Once the founding fathers died, those who came immediately after would be the “early leaders.” The founding fathers couldn’t be originalists, because they were writing the original. The early leaders could be originalists
or not. But there have always been “progressivists” since the last founder died, as well as originalists.
Then when did the great apostasy actually occur? At what date did the beliefs and teachings of the early church become unreliable?
>You are looking for light switches again. No particular date we could call a light switch, but we know by the time of John’s epistles, including Revelation, it was bad enough that John would say -
“Even now are there many antichrists...they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us,” 1 John 2:18, 19.
The seven churches in Revelation has many references of apostatizing going on at John’s day, for example, the Nicolaitans. Christ warning the churches to hold fast amidst it.
So by the time of John’s epistles the church was already unreliable? Then how can we accept its judgment on what is the canon of Scripture?
John was part of that church you speak of, its history traced to Pentecost...to Jerusalem, where they were born from above.
But how can we know today the books attributed to John are actually his?
Are you saying that you can tell who is "Born from above" and who isn't? Does this also include the ability to determine who is saved and who isn't as well?
I separated those two questions because some non-Catholics don't believe in the OSAS doctrine.
Yes, Scripture means writings. Look at the Greek etymology, NOT THE CURRENT DEFINITION.
If they didn’t why did they go to all the trouble to gather the authentic books in a canon?
What you are driving at, of course, the RCC line that it has supposedly “given” us the canon of scripture. How silly. The RCC did not even exist at that time. Proven over and over again on this forum.
Worse, how blasphemous. God, his Spirit, is who gave us the scriptures, both OT and NT. Though written by men, it was he the CEO overseeing it the work...preserving it until this day. You attribute to men, what belongs to God. Not very wise on your part.
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.