Posted on 01/18/2002 6:11:04 AM PST by 1stFreedom
A Waldensian canon, at earliest, is centruries later
Understand that Trent basically was the "official" seal of approval on the canon. But all along it was the offical canon of the Church. It just needed reemphasizing for those who questioned the canon. This is a common practice of the Church: explicit, "seal of approval", formal declrations are *usually* reserved to squash serious disputes, not to reaffirm what is ALREADY accepted and believed. Trent was not *when* the Church accepted the canon, it was only a *affirmation*.
Thanks, Ruben
That's It!
What historical truths do you base this on?
Your statement begs the question "Was the Church Catholic before the Edict of Milan?"
We all fall short of ideals. Which parts bothered you?
You mean the Scripture those grievous wolves picked at a Church council?
patent
No, it is because even though God gave us the Truth preserved in the Holy Bible people like you reject it, falsely call yourselves Christians, and prefer instead to folow an idolatrous man made cult.
Here is a simple test. Tell me where in the Bible did Jesus or any of the Apostles "venerate images" or teach anyone else to do so?
B.S. The Vulgate was known as the popular man's edition, and was in Latin as that was the written language that most folks who could read. (the very few who could). But of course the Church did that, translating it into a language people could read, in order to keep the Bible away from them, right?
patent
There you go again, telling us what we believe. Guess what, a man just tried to tell me what I'm required to believe (that's you) and I don't believe him or it. If Jesus said it, we believe it.
patent
For example the part that talks about giving and not asking for it back serves as a good example of human nature. Have you ever loaned money to a friend only to have that friend dump you or become resentful of you? I have, and it was a mystery to me, until I understood the fact that they felt they owed me something they could not repay made them angry with me for the guilt they were experiencing.
So now when a friend comes to me in trouble and needs money, help, whatever, I make sure that they understand I do not expect repayment, that it is a gift of love to be passed on as they can, but not to me. Their relief is all over their face to be released from the obligation of repayment. Sure, you can be taken advantage of, but that is not your lookout, your lookout is to obey and leave it to God to take pleasure in your obedience, and if it be His will, to work in that person the seed of kindness you planted in his memory.
This is utter nonsense for several reasons:
"Church" isn't defined,
JWs and Mormons are certainly unreliable sources for any kind of history,
An body as widespread and established as the Christian Church couldn't possibly "go apostate" in a year.
The writer continues to be deliberately vague and pretends to have resolved the apostasy question. He also fails to distinguish between a formal and a pre-existing informal Canon. He conveniently fails to mention the reason for the Canon in the first place: pseudepigrapha began to circulate.
To reasonable people, the conclusion "that in fact, the church wasn't apostate after all or if it was then the NT cannon and the faith as well is in serious doubt", is inescapable.
The conclusion is not inescapable because the assumptions about the Church and the Cannon have not been established.
Utter nonsense. You could find it out for yourself in the most basic Bible encyclopedia. Even Peter acknowledged Paul's writings to be inspired.
The Catholic is unable to live with the contradictions that Jesus established a Church that He promised would endure, that for a period God preserved the church; that He then stopped doing so; that finally He resumed His protection. The Catholic is unable to ignore the way such elaborate and arbitrary theories serve the peculiar convenience of the sects in question, and the fact that the general apostasy herein hypothesized is undetectable in the historical record. Finally, the Catholic is unable to reconcile such fanciful theories with any notion of a faithful God, and rejects with scorn the image of Christ as an absent and vagrant Spouse.
If I may make a suggestion...if you have an article deleted, it is not a wise idea to repost it. This can be a quick way to get yourself banned.
In Acts 17:10 It tells how the Bereans searched the "scripture" to see if the things Paul told them were true.
In 2 Tim 2:15 Paul tells Timothy to search the "scripture"
Something alot of people overlook is that the Jews of Jesus's day had the OLD TESTEMENT. That is the scripture that the apostles taught from. Jesus and the plan of salvation are all through the OT. Peter at Pentecost showed the Jews he was speaking from how Jesus matched the prophesy that was spoken of in the OT about the Messiah.
The OT Jews were looking for ward to the coming Messiah, but their were very few who recognized him because they were looking for a king and also there was probably alot of them like people today who don't really study God's word and understand what it says, consequently they don't know God's will. This is a good example to keep in mind about why we should study this book and teach is to our children in the manner God told us too. Check out Deut. 6:7
Becky
Dan
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.