The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 151

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

"I have seen in the last week much ugly use of religion for chest thumping and blaming 'ragheads' and even blaming our decadence for the events of the last week. I would rather that we continue here, respectful of our unity in citizenship, in displaying how religion can be talked about without veering off into ugliness." (SoothingDave, 9/19/01)

Threads 1-50

Threads 51-100

Threads 101-150

[the808bass]

And I've read he would have taken out more than he did, including the "Catholic Epistles" and Revelations.

I read once that George Bush was an alien from outer Noth here to gather intelligence. There's really no accounting for all of it, is there?

[al_c]

My, y'all are moving quickly.

Just checking in ... no time to post readings today ... sorry. I'll try again tomorrow.

Peace.

[the808bass]

You said: Yes, they exist, but they are like 0.005% of the Catholic world and are mostly easliy dismissed.

The authors of God's Peoples say: Around A.D. 500 one-half of the world's 40 million Christians lived in South Asia, from India to Persia.

[JHavard]

For all of you who were waiting to post to RobbyS, I must appologize for his absence, but he had to Private Message all the RCC's to see if it is alriglt to reveal that with all his complaning about the KJV, it is probably the one he uses.

He tried the Vatican, but they refused to take his call. +<:-}

[the808bass]

And I've read he would have taken out more than he did, including the "Catholic Epistles" and Revelations.

Just for kicks, what books did Irenaeus consider canonical? (Hint - they don't even add up to 27) Dang, you walked right into that one. He leaves out Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John and James. Is he worse than Luther? Is he a blasphemer?

[RobbyS]

Jeuusalem, Knox, New English,NRSV and only grudingly the New American Bible. The first I used, of course, was the KJV; the first Catholic version was the Douay Bible.

[RobbyS]

I understand that at one time the Nestorian Church reached all the was into China, but then along came the Muslims.

[JHavard]

Jeuusalem, Knox, New English,NRSV and only grudingly the New American Bible. The first I used, of course, was the KJV; the first Catholic version was the Douay Bible.

Now, dosen't that make you feel better to get that out in the open?

One more question please, what do any of these translations have that is doctrinally different then our King James?

[RobbyS]

Is he a blasphemer? No, and he certainly was no rebel against ecclesiastical authority.

[RobbyS]

Impressive that you can make the type bigger and bigger like that.

[the808bass]

I understand that at one time the Nestorian Church reached all the was into China, but then along came the Muslims.

Yeah, the Muslims didn't do any favors for the Asian Christians. However, from what I read, the church in China was done away with by Eperor Wu Zung in 845 AD after he was persuaded by some Daoist monks that they posed a threat.

[the808bass]

No, and he certainly was no rebel against ecclesiastical authority.

So the ideas which one holds are of no importance as long as they line up with ecclesiastical authority? (And why do my posts have such big gaps at the end?)

[RnMomof7]

Hi al I was just passing through too..kinda surfing around...hows Grace??:>))

[Conservative til I die]

Irenaeus's decisions are no more a)infallible or b)binding than mine or yours. Irenaeus was a great man and a great thinker, but he is not authoratative.

And there is a huge difference between Irenaeus not being sure on the authenticity of those books in the 2nd Century, and Martin Luther wanting to do away with them in the 16th Century, 1200 years after their authenticity were accepted.

And stop being so obnoxious.

[JHavard]

Is he a blasphemer? No, and he certainly was no rebel against ecclesiastical authority.

OK, we'll give him a plus for that, but is he the same one that taught that the reason Satan tempted Eve, was because she was the smarter one of the two, and he knew if he could fool her, Adam would be a shoo in?

Oh, I almost forgot, didn't he also teach that the human body never perished but remained preserved for ever?

And before I forget, he and Tertullian conceived the idea that the soul is not a divine emanation, but simply a seperate creature made by God out of "nothing".

Sorry, one more thing, was he the same one who ridiculed the concept that there could be an usurper of God such as Satan?

I just wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same Irenaeus.

[JHavard]

Hi smiley, how goes it?how is Mommonem?

[apologist]

And I've read he would have taken out more than he did, including the "Catholic Epistles" and Revelations.

Just for kicks, what books did Irenaeus consider canonical? (Hint - they don't even add up to 27) Dang, you walked right into that one. He leaves out Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John and James. Is he worse than Luther? Is he a blasphemer?

Or how about Jerome, who assembled the Vulgate, yet considered the deuterocanonicals to be non-canonical (but useful for teaching)?

(but I digress... this was covered about 120 threads ago...)

[Havoc]

Why wouldn't he

[RobbyS]

One more question please, what do any of these translations have that is doctrinally different then our King James? Apart from not including the full canon, not much. But, practically speaking, it is as hard to read as Sharespeare/Milton.

[pipeorganman]

From 145 Just for kicks, what books did Irenaeus consider canonical? (Hint - they don't even add up to 27) Dang, you walked right into that one. He leaves out Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John and James. Is he worse than Luther? Is he a blasphemer?

It's very simple. Irenaeus, who died around the turn of the 2nd/3rd century, could freely debate the authenticity of the New Testament Canon because the Canon had not been settled until the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397. Once the Canon was settled, it became binding on all believers. Therefore, Luther did not have the right or privilege to change one word of the Bible.

So the ideas which one holds are of no importance as long as they line up with ecclesiastical authority?

One may hold to any ideas that he has until such time that the Church definitively defines a doctrine. After that, yes, one's ideas must "line up with ecclesiastical authority."

An example: I could get the idea that the Trinity actually consists of 4 persons instead of 3. Since this has already been previously defined by the Church, I must believe in the correct doctrine. I am also not allowed to teach my contrary and heredical doctrine of 4 persons instead of 3.

As you can see from the above example, some pretty weird ideas could get started if the Church did not insist on unity of belief.