Posted on 04/26/2005 9:00:20 AM PDT by TheTruthess
I explained previously why I believe my Bible is the complete Bible. But I guess I need to amplify those comments.
The Bible is from God. It is authored by God. It is given to us by God. Do you suppose that He is somehow incapable of forming and shaping His own Word without the help of the church? Would He breathe His inspired Word to the Apostles and then just leave it to man to figure out what is and what isn't Scripture? Have you more faith in the church than you do in God? And if you believe that God is responsible for forming the Bible, than how could you believe it is incomplete?
One of the gifts God gives us is the gift of faith. It is by faith that I believe God has given us the Bible. It is by faith that I believe the Bible is true. I don't believe the Bible is true because the Church tells me it is. The Church did not write the Word of God. God did. My faith is a gift of God. Not a product of the church. And my faith rests in Him and His Word alone.
He didn't need me. All he needed was the Bible. Which is one reason he made such an effort to define it.
"Without Tradition, I can interpret that as: God the Father, Jesus the Archangel, and the Holy Spirit, a force but not a person."
No. Without reading all of Scripture you might interpret it that way. But that is exactly why you cannot remove one verse from the Bible and expect to understand what it means. I can give you all the Scriptural evidence you need concerning the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but maybe we can simplify things first. Can you tell me which part of the Nicene Creed cannot be directly supported with Scripture?
Yet it is exactly those Books that Athanasius says are "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness." So you are saying that the Deuterocanonical books are too difficult for unlearned Catholics to understand, but that those are the books unlearned Catholics should be read for instruction. That makes no sense. You wrote earlier that "nowhere does Athanasius say that the Deuts are NOT the inspired Word of God." Here is what Athanasius says regarding how he considers the books listed in his canon, " it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine;". He then lists his canon. After listing his canon he says the following, "I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness." So he describes the books of his canon as divine, but lists the Deuterocanonical books as existing outside the canon and suitable only for reading to new members of the church. Can you think of any reason why he would argue that Scripture (inspired Word of God) would not be suitable for reading in Church, but would be suitable for reading by new church members. Again, I don't think this makes any sense. Paul tells us that ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. If Athanasius believes the Deuts he lists as existing outside the canon are not suitable to be read in church, what does that say about whether he thinks they are profitable for doctrine, reproof correction etc (ie Scripture).
Finally, St Cyril, writing during the same period explains that anything not read in Church should not be read at all. And that what he lists as canon is "the Divine Scriptures". He does not include in that list any of the Deuts with the exception of Baruch, which he includes with Jeremiah.
I see that you have made a lot of presumptions regarding your belief system...Let us step back from our presumptions and try to figure out what we can without these biases effecting our thinking. The Church is God's instrument of salvation on earth, which you take for granted.
"The Bible is from God."
How do you know??? Does EVERY single book says that???? Hardly! Esther doesn't even mention the word "God"! Give me one reason why I can, as a 21st century man, look at Esther and determine that it is Scripture? And the Bible itself. Biblia in Greek means "books". Plural. You are forgetting that the individual books were written by different writers covering hundreds of years. It was only much later when it was put into its current form together.
"It is given to us by God"
Says who? Why should I believe that? The Gnostics claim the same thing for the Gospel of Thomas. Why should I believe you? The Muslims say the Koran was given to them by God. Why should I believe or not believe them? You are going to have to do better than that.
"Do you suppose that He is somehow incapable of forming and shaping His own Word without the help of the church?"
Of course he COULD, but has He??? The answer is a resounding NO! Or are you suggesting something like the Koran that fell out of the sky?
"Would He breathe His inspired Word to the Apostles and then just leave it to man to figure out what is and what isn't Scripture?"
Our conversations of the last several weeks on the Deuterocanonicals have suddenly left your memory??? God the Spirit guides the successors of the Apostles to the truth, so says Jesus.
"Have you more faith in the church than you do in God?"
I thought the Church was the Body of Christ? Why the dichotomy? Christ blesses us through HIS Church, His Body. The Church is the means that He comes to us. Certainly not the only one, but the most recognizable, visible means. And others, looking at the Church, see Christ's Body still incarnated in our world today.
"And if you believe that God is responsible for forming the Bible, than how could you believe it is incomplete?"
I don't, but where does the Bible tell us that? Scripture doesn't say that there will be no more inspired writings. So why do you use extra-Biblical tradition to close the canon? Can God no longer inspired Scripture? If I was a Jew from 200 BC, I COULD say the same thing about the New Testament, or some of the Deuterocanonicals. Oh, wait, they DID! They said inspiration had ended already. Now you say the NT is inspired? God can't do that again? What evidence or proof are you going to use that God will not inspire writings again?
"The Church did not write the Word of God. God did."
Where does Scripture say that? Besides the Decalogue, when did God write anything?
"My faith is a gift of God. Not a product of the church."
REALLY? God came down to you, personally, and gave you faith? No one has seen God and lived. How did God give you this without the Church? Even Paul already had a background in Judaism. But you are now greater than Paul that you received all you know from God directly? And He told you that the Bible was His writings? Amazing! Sorry for the sarcasm, but your arguments are not convincing in the slightest.
Scriptures come from the community of faith, the Church, inspired by God. Denying that is a false dichotomy - God has ALWAYS worked through other mediators towards His people, first the Jews, then the Christians.
"And my faith rests in Him and His Word alone."
God spoke to you? Are you sure? Or do you mean the Scripture? You are going to have to answer me where we got the Scriptures. They certainly didn't come to us without the Church.
You know what I believe already. That is no secret. But you are going to have to do some serious thinking to come up with how you know God speaks through the book we now call the Bible without refering to the Church. It is not self-attesting. If you could prove it was, you might have a case. But it is obviously not.
Regards
"set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine;"
Seems like he is giving two lists, to me.
A canon
Another list, not canon, but is accredited as Divine.
His writings outside of 39th Festal Letter decisively prove this. It seems your bias is adversely affecting your judgment. The case is clear. In various writings, Athanasius calls some of the Deuts Scripture. Case closed. I will give you a piece of advice you have recently gave me. You should interpret what someone says by looking at everything within his writings (you were refering to interpretation of the Bible vs interpreting one verse). Please practice this.
Regards
"He (Athanasius) didn't need me. All he needed was the Bible."
LOL! Arius used the very same Bible. Come on , Rokke. We see Apostolic Tradition virtually slapping you in the face, and you continue to deny it!
"Can you tell me which part of the Nicene Creed cannot be directly supported with Scripture?"
NONE! That's the beauty of the Catholic faith, it's all in the Bible, explicitly or implicitly! The trick is getting to a defined dogma, a teaching that is guaranteed by the Spirit, that most closely follows the Apostolic teachings. As history clearly shows, the Bible is not all that clear on MANY issues! It is not a catechism! Jesus didn't leave a Bible, He left an authoritative Church to teach and preach what He taught...
You are being totally anachronistic and simplistic to point to particular verses, ignoring others that contradict, to come up with the exact same theological beliefs that was defined at Nicene, etc. As if it was so simple to come to the same conclusion independently! Than why did it take hundreds of years to come up with the same thing you did in one day? Please. You are in denial again.
Regards
Then can you teach us with only the Bible - the only thing in which we believe and have faith? In order to teach others we must always begin with the one thing they DO believe.
Lea
"Then can you teach us with only the Bible - the only thing in which we believe and have faith?"
Before one says they have faith only in the Bible, they must realize they are making a circular argument - the Bible is the Word of God, because the Word of God says it is. We must look outside of the Bible if we are to even KNOW that it is the Word of God. And finally, Jesus, God Himself, strangely, didn't leave a Bible. He left a Community of Faith, the Church, to preach and teach His Word. Your effort to rid the Church of its use is throwing the baby out with the bath water. You can't have the Bible without the Church. And vice versus.
Regards
That's the beauty of the Catholic faith, it's all in the Bible
If it's all in the Bible, then teach us with only the Bible.
Teach me from what I believe to believe what YOU believe. I am asking since you are saying it's all in the Bible. If you believe in the Bible, as do I, then teach me from It. You won't be able to teach me about the Catholic church any other way. You should be able to since you state the Catholic church is all in the Bible. Teach me because I do not want to be wrong. If you believe I am wrong - teach me. If you believe I am wrong then you believe I am not saved. Do you want me to be saved? Teach me.
Lea
That is not Scriptural. That is not the Word of God. If you believe it is, show me where it appears in the Scripture.
How do I know the Bible is from God? I've already told you, and you agree that the Bible is God's Word. It is truth. If you truly believe the Bible, the answers to your questions become much clearer. For example, how does a 21st Century man look at Esther and determine it is Scripture? He reads the words from Paul that explain that unto the Jews were committed the oracles of God. The Hebrew Canon contains the book of Esther. That is all I need to know. With regard to the word "Bible", call it Scripture if you'd like, but God's Word remains God Word. "Biblia" didn't come into use until the fifth century. Are you somehow implying that what is contained in what we now call the Bible was changed in meaning or content by the adaptation of a Greek title?
Why should you believe that God gave us His Word? Because if you don't believe that, you have nothing. You don't have to believe me. I am merely a man. But if you don't believe the Word of God, why in the world would you believe the word of the church? Nobody can "prove" that Paul's epistles were written by Paul. No one can "prove" that Christ died on the cross. But if you don't believe that, you are not a Christian. And you have no faith in Jesus Christ. I do. And I have faith in His Word.
"Of course he COULD, but has He??? The answer is a resounding NO!"
Apparently you believe the Church is responsible for the Hebrew Canon... With regard to the Koran, which Old Testament prophesy does Mohammad fulfill? Which Old Testament prophesy describes his role? Similarly, what Old Testament support is there for the Book of Mormon? Why didn't Christ ever mention he would appear to Semitic people in North America? The Old Testament and New Testament are inextricably linked. The Old Testament describes God's Law. The New Testament describes the fulfillment of that law. How can you possibly compare either of them to the Koran?
"God the Spirit guides the successors of the Apostles to the truth, so says Jesus."
Tell me where Jesus says that. What verse are you referring to?
"I thought the Church was the Body of Christ?"
The church is the body of Christ, but Christ is its head. They are not equal. The church is subject unto Christ. Christ is not subject to the church. Again, I ask, have you more faith in the church than in God?
"Christ blesses us through HIS Church, His Body."
Scriptural reference?
"The Church is the means that He comes to us."
Scriptural reference?
"And others, looking at the Church, see Christ's Body still incarnated in our world today."
Unfortunately, I don't believe this is true. I believe they see a church in conflict. A church full of criminals. A church full of money grubbers and swindlers. A church full of hypocrites. And before you take offense, I am not referring to just the Catholic church. I am referring to the "Christian" church as viewed by non-Christians.
"So why do you use extra-Biblical tradition to close the canon?"
I don't. I trust in the faith given to me by God, through the Holy Spirit, and a lifetime spent studying His Word. The Old Testament explains God's Law. The New Testament explains the fulfillment of that law. I believe the Law has been fulfilled. And I wait for Christ's return.
You ask where Scripture says that God wrote the Word of God? Is that a trick question? Do you think man wrote the Word of God? Paul tells us "All Scripture" is given by inspiration of God. Peter calls Paul's Epistles Scripture. You can believe the Bible or not. I chose to believe it.
"God came down to you, personally, and gave you faith?"
Absolutely. Just like He gave me life. Faith is a gift of the Spirit. It comes through studying and knowing the Word of God. Our God is a personal God. He lives within us. He longs to be with us. Nothing can separate us from His love. How could you not believe that God cannot be with you without the church?
"Sorry for the sarcasm, but your arguments are not convincing in the slightest."
Neither is your faith.
"Scriptures come from the community of faith, the Church"
Scriptural reference?
"God spoke to you? Are you sure?"
Yes and yes. Do you believe that when you pray, God cannot respond? Are your prayers one way communication? That might explain why many Catholics seek comfort in water stains, cloud formations and toast. They are obviously desperately seeking some evidence that God desires to communicate with us. They must believe the the Holy Ghost fills us but remains mute. That Christ lives within us but cannot speak to us. That the best God can do is project a picture of Mary in a water stain under a highway bridge. That Paul only thought he heard "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?". How sad. And wrong.
"You are going to have to answer me where we got the Scriptures. They certainly didn't come to us without the Church."
No. You are going to have to finally read and understand the answer I have given you over and over again. The Scriptures come to us from God. They did before Christ, and they did after Christ. The Scriptures are the Word of GOD.
"But you are going to have to do some serious thinking to come up with how you know God speaks through the book we now call the Bible without referring to the Church."
God spoke to Paul without the Church. NOWHERE is it written that salvation comes through the church. You have been led from the ONE source of Truth and now have faith only in the Church.
"If you could prove it was, you might have a case."
Without faith, prove to me God exists.
Sigh. I notice in this post that you revert right back to name calling instead of answering my questions. If I am biased, why is it that I agree with the experts of your church, while you do not? That not withstanding, can you explain to me why Athanasius would not want all divine Scripture to be read in Church? What inspired Word of God, suitable for teaching new Catholics, is not suitable to be read in God's own church? St Cyril specifically says what isn't suitable for reading in Church should not be read at all. Now you are saying that Athanasius believes some divine Scripture is suitable for reading ONLY outside of church. Without calling me names, can you explain how this makes sense? Which Church Father are we supposed to believe? Obviously, some Christians were being led astray by their church here. Was it the members of the church in Jerusalem, or the members of the church in Alaxandria?
And Satan quoted Scripture as well. But what did Christ use to refute Satan? Tradition? No, He used Scripture. I repeat to you. Athanasius didn't need me. All he needed was the Bible. God's Word is always sufficient.
I am so glad that we agree that the Nicene Creed is entirely supported by Scripture. That will save me a lot of time explaining how concepts like the Triune God are Scriptural.
"As history clearly shows, the Bible is not all that clear on MANY issues!"
We agree again! In fact, that statement is supported by Peter in guess what....The Scriptures!
"It is not a catechism!"
Not that the Catholic Catechism is always clear either.
"Jesus didn't leave a Bible, He left an authoritative Church to teach and preach what He taught..."
It is an interesting read to examine what the church looked like right after Christ was crucified. And what an amazing role the Holy Ghost had in sparking its growth. Just as Christ explained would happen...in Scripture.
"As if it was so simple to come to the same conclusion independently! Than why did it take hundreds of years to come up with the same thing you did in one day?"
First, it isn't simple. Where in the world did you infer that I says it takes one day? It takes deep and long study of God's Word. It takes a lifetime of prayer. And it takes the direct interaction of the Holy Spirit. All those things are explained by Christ in Scripture. But no where does He say it takes the Church. No where does He say it takes tradition. In fact, time and again He warns of the dangers of relying on tradition instead of the Word of God. Please prove me wrong by showing anywhere that Christ says it is impossible to understand the Scripture without the Church. By that I mean an actual Scriptural example. Book, chapter and verse. I think that would be a good thing for us both to study.
OK. What is your source concerning the authority of the Church? Don't say the Bible. That too, would be a circular argument. Your source must be an infallible source that exists entirely outside of the Bible.
Lea,
"If it's all in the Bible, then teach us with only the Bible."
I will strive to do so. However, the Bible is not clear on many issues. That is why the Church's interpretation is so important. Why is it that "eat my flesh and drink my blood" is understood differently by most Protestants? And the language is crystal-clear. Yet, people are scandalized by it, and refuse to accept the implications. Since Christ left behind an autoratative Church behind, created a New Covenant with His expanded people, we should consider not only what they wrote but what they meant when they wrote Scripture. Thus, Apostolic Tradition - seen mainly when defining dogma at Councils, is necessary to spell out what we are to believe as Christians. A good example of this is "Is Christ God, an Angel, a man who the Logos entered after Jesus' birth, a combination God/man who left during the Crucifixion, etc..." Only the Church can determine correctly the answer to this.
All we have to do is look at the various Protestant churches beliefs and how they vary drastically on such fundamental questions to see the effectiveness of private interpretation. The Church looks to its Tradition and to the Bible when formulating such doctrine. By the authority granted by Christ to bind and loosen, they give us defined beliefs - ones we can be sure are guided by the Holy Spirit. This is the ONLY way we can know that we have the truth - when God Himself has promised to back it up, not some fallible pastor telling us something.
Regards
"If I am biased, why is it that I agree with the experts of your church, while you do not?"
I fear that you do not read my posts very well. I have given you ample evidence that you DO NOT agree with the "experts" - you have mentioned three Fathers. Whoopie! Jerome, I will give you. Cyril, I am neutral on. Both resided in Jerusalem. Is it any wonder they thought Hebrew was some sort of language that God addressed His people in ONLY? Athanasius, obviously, is not in agreement with your conclusions. When someone writes over and over during the course of YEARS, saying something is Scripture - perhaps your interpretation of 39th Letter is wrong? Have you considered that you may be wrong? I have shown in the letter itself that one can interpret the Letter the way I have said by looking at the Preface of the Letter, before he mentions the canon. If you continue to dwell on this, that is too bad. I had thought we could study this more neutrally, but you have not shown me that to be the case. Your desperate attempt to change Athanasius' determination of the Deuts throughout his life notwithstanding, it seems you choose not to accept that the majority of Church Fathers treated the Deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture.
The original gist of this was to somehow prove that the Church Fathers did not consider the Deuts as inspired Scripture. Have you proven that? Have you proven that the Church was misguided or were somehow out of touch with everyone else's thoughts? Hardly. Can you admit you are wrong, and move on?
My biggest mistake in this whole mess was to not demand some sort of guideline that would say - "Ok, this guy thought the Deuts were Scripture". Rather, you prefer to approach this with you mind already made up. This seems obvious to me in the face of my research. If you choose to ignore this, there is nothing more to add to it. Calling you biased is apt given the information available. An unbiased person approaching this subject with what we have discussed would not continue to harp on Athanasius as you have, so desperate to ignore the many times he calls the Deuts Scripture!
Regards
"What is your source concerning the authority of the Church?"
Be patient. That will come in due time. But it certainly is not a circular argument.
Regards
I want to keep this subject on one track, so for now, I want to concentrate on how YOU know the Bible is the Word of God. All questions regarding the Church will be addressed later.
"How do I know the Bible is from God? I've already told you, and you agree that the Bible is God's Word."
I agree, but for different reasons. Explain it to me again. If I was a non-believer, how would you convince me, without reference to anything but the Bible?
"For example, how does a 21st Century man look at Esther and determine it is Scripture? He reads the words from Paul that explain that unto the Jews were committed the oracles of God"
Another circular argument. The Jews wrote a lot of things. Everything a Jew writes is Scripture? And who is this Paul that he determines what is Scripture?
"The Hebrew Canon contains the book of Esther."
And the Ethiopian Jewish canon contains the Deuterocanonicals! Also, the Hebrew Canon does NOT include the New Testament. Jamnia specifically did away with such "spurious" writings. If you are going to use that argument (again and again), you better take it to its logical conclusion.
"Are you somehow implying that what is contained in what we now call the Bible was changed in meaning or content by the adaptation of a Greek title?"
Of course not. Just reminding you that the Bible is not one book, but a collection of many books.
"But if you don't believe the Word of God, why in the world would you believe the word of the church?"
You still haven't answered the question "how do you know you have the Word of God?". You are jumping to a conclusion we have not yet reached.
I said "...Sorry for the sarcasm, but your arguments are not convincing in the slightest."
You said "Neither is your faith."
I had hoped you were intelligent enough to figure out that I am asking you questions separate from what I already believe in. YOUR answers are not convincing in the slightest. They are based on purely subjective feelings - like God came to you! What does Paul say about Satan coming as an angel of light in 2 Corinthians? How do you know you are not being fooled? That is utterly unconvincing, if I was an unbeliever.
"You are going to have to finally read and understand the answer I have given you over and over again. The Scriptures come to us from God. They did before Christ, and they did after Christ. The Scriptures are the Word of GOD."
Again and again, you are going to have to stop dodging "How do you know?" Circular arguments abound in this discussion. Merely stating something doesn't prove anything. How can you KNOW that you have the Word of God? How do you know God inspired it? Tell me, what proof do you have, inside the Bible, that this book is from God? Why do you continue to try to decapitate the Body of Christ from His Head?
For example, you write: "God spoke to Paul without the Church. NOWHERE is it written that salvation comes through the church."
So the Body of Christ, united with the Head (presuming the two are not separated) does not offer salvation? Wow.
Again, you know what I believe. However, why, if I was an unbeliever, why would I believe a book is the Word of God? What authority does a book have in of itself? Even Christians do not say that God wrote the Bible Himself. Your beliefs are based on a circular argument. In your effort to do away with Christ's Body, your argument is hopelessly unconvincing.
But let's get back to the Bible alone. I am intrigued and have yet to see any reason why I should take a book and trust that it is from God. The Bible is not self-attesting. We don't have the originals. We don't know who wrote much of it, as the writings themselves don't have author's names. We know that "Paul" complains of forgeries and to ignore them on 5 or 6 times. There are also many other "Scriptures" out there, both orthodox and heterodox, that some "Christians" claim are inspired by God. This adds to the confusion of "self-attestment of Scripture".
So answer me, how do I, a person 2000 years removed from its writing, know that the Bible is the Word of God?
Regards
"Satan quoted Scripture as well. But what did Christ use to refute Satan? Tradition? No, He used Scripture."
Jesus used Scripture in its proper context, a la Tradition. Satan did not. He picked and chose verses out of context, like some Protestants do.
"That will save me a lot of time explaining how concepts like the Triune God are Scriptural."
That God is one without other persons is also Scriptural! Where does the Bible specifically state "God is Triune"? The Bible says a lot of different, sometimes contradicting things about God. What happened at Nicene?
"We agree again! In fact, that statement (the Bible is not all that clear on MANY issues) is supported by Peter in guess what....The Scriptures!"
Really? Peter got that from reading Scriptures? I thought it was common sense!
"It is an interesting read to examine what the church looked like right after Christ was crucified. And what an amazing role the Holy Ghost had in sparking its growth. Just as Christ explained would happen...in Scripture."
Again, your point has evaded me. Are you trying to say the impetus for the Church for preaching and teaching was the yet unwritten Scripture? What are you trying to prove?
"Where in the world did you infer that I says it takes one day? (to determine who God is) It takes deep and long study of God's Word."
Well, forgive me, I didn't realize that you had already made such a life-long commitment to prayer and study in your search for the definition of the relationship of God the Father to the Son. And so forth. Your quick, one day answer led me to believe that you determined this in one day. The Scripture passages that you gave me, however, show how much you have actually researched this. You are basing your beliefs on what the Church has already determined, claiming this for your own beliefs. It is not absolutely necessary to reach the same conclusions on this as you naively imply. Consider the very fact of your protestant existence. You disagree with many other protestants on fundamental subjects. If Scripture was so clear, explain this?
"show (me) anywhere that Christ says it is impossible to understand the Scripture without the Church."
What is Scripture without the Church? See, it is one big circular argument, over and over again. As to your request, consider Acts 8:31 "HOW CAN I (UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM READING, SCRIPTURE) UNLESS SOMEONE GUIDES ME"? That about says it all, don't you think?
Regards
This is a flaw we must share, because you have yet to respond to a question I will now ask you a third time. Why would Athanasius consider divinely inspired Scripture to be unsuitable for reading inside the Church, but useful for instruction outside of the Church. How could the inspired Word of God not be good enough to read in church? Does the Catholic Church today teach that some of God's Word should not be read in church?
As for those experts you think disagree with me, here is how they define Canon...
"The word canon as applied to the Scriptures has long had a special and consecrated meaning. In its fullest comprehension it signifies the authoritative list or closed number of the writings composed under Divine inspiration, and destined for the well-being of the Church, using the latter word in the wide sense of the theocratic society which began with God's revelation of Himself to the people of Israel, and which finds its ripe development and completion in the Catholic organism."
And do they think that definition applies to what Athanasius lists. Read for yourself...
"We find the substantive first applied to the Sacred Scriptures in the fourth century, by St. Athanasius; for its derivatives, the Council of Laodicea of the same period speaks of the kanonika biblia and Athanasius of the biblia kanonizomena."
So does Athanasius say the Deuts are part of those which are composed under Divine inspiration, and destined for the well being of the church? Well...no. He says, "there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon," and proceeds to list the Deuts. But as I've said several times now, we will just have to agree to disagree. I personally, have no problem with that. But I am curious about those questions I've asked several times now.
"you have mentioned three Fathers."
No, here is the list I gave you, "The same can be said of St Cyril, St. Epiphanius, Eusebius, St Hilary, Rufinus and as you've already mentioned, Jerome."
"The original gist of this was to somehow prove that the Church Fathers did not consider the Deuts as inspired Scripture."
No, the original gist of this was the following: "How about we look at whether the Deuterocanonicals were considered Scripture by the early Church." We got through exactly one before you said you didn't have the time to look at each Church Father. So has anything been proven? Sure...we've proven that nothing on the topic can be proven.
"Can you admit you are wrong, and move on?"
You're a funny guy jo kus.
"Rather, you prefer to approach this with you mind already made up."
Funny except when you insist on telling me what I'm thinking. Then you are just being a jackass.
Sure. I'll be happy to. I've been answering questions for you for weeks now. As an example, check out your post 51 to me and my response in post 53. Or your post 58 and my post 61. Or your post 64 and my post 71. I consider it a common courtesy to respond to a question asked. Now it is your turn. My responses to you stop until you answer the questions I've asked you in posts 63, 70, 71, 73, and 74. I've answered your question concerning why I believe the Bible is the Word of God many times now. You haven't even tried to answer many of the questions I've asked of you in those posts. Some of them just require a single Biblical verse. You haven't listed one. I am no longer convinced you are really familiar with what is in Scripture. And I am certainly convinced that you don't understand faith. Show me I'm wrong. You say the Catholic faith is all in the Bible. Show me. Then I will discuss with you how I know the Bible is the Word of God.
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.