You may have Jesus confused with this kid.
Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
"All that the Councils did was settle the question of the authorship of the five and and the place James should have. The inspiration and authoritative nature of the writings had already been settled in the individual churches and did not need any imprimatur from any Council."
Actually, there was quite a bit of disagreement regarding many books now accepted in Christian Canon. In the earliest known canon, known as the Muratorian Fragment (dated late 2nd century), lists 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Letters of Paul, John and Jude. Hebrews, James and Peters Epistles are absent. An Apocalypse of Peter is listed as is an Apocalypse of John. Wisdom is listed as part of the Hebrew Canon. There were a number of competing "prologues" to the Gospels also listed.
Taken from "Patrology, Vol IV," A. Berardino, Christian Classics, 1992.
"And one can plainly see both"
No, one can not. You are injecting what you want to see.
Funny, that's what the Pharisees said.
Yet Christ was big on submitting to their authority, unlike Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Henry VIII and their followers.
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
-Matthew 23:1-3
OH, but its not "Biblical" it is not mentioned in the Bible. Don't be a Papist!
Oh so that's the test. Whenever it is "easy" to see, its "biblical", whenever it is "not easy" to see, its "not biblical." Very convenient test Petro.
Right, but you can assure me that's what I am doing. So, to be a Protestant all I have to do is misinterpret what's clearly in the Bible, and delete those parts that are clear so long as such misinterpretations and deletions support your "easy" view of what's "biblical". Again, very, very easy test for you Petro, not to mention (1) convenient; (2) intellectually dishones; and (3) heretical.
What does a passage on spiritual hypocrisy have to do with Tradition with a capital T?
But did not Jesus speak to "dead" people?
I'm just asking when did your church come along. When was it formed, by whom? Your membership, articles of faith or core beliefs, how did it come about?
And no, I'm not talking about 2000 or 4000 years ago, not talking about your ancestor who kept their heads down, etc, etc. Your particular church now.
What's it's modern history? Who is its leadership?
BWaaahahhah...wait a second...I think we have a few of those here at FR:)
Nope, not even in the 16th century. Luther was at odds with the others like Zwingli.
"Oh so that's the test. Whenever it is "easy" to see, its "biblical", whenever it is "not easy" to see, its "not biblical." Very convenient test Petro."
No friend. Whenever it IS in the Bible it is Biblical. Whenever it is NOT in the Bible it is not Biblical.
Convenient indeed.
:)
no, whenever Petro can understand what's in the Bible its "biblical"
You may have Jesus confused with this kid.
I believe he's referring to the transfiguration.
"no, whenever Petro can understand what's in the Bible its "biblical""
Take me to the verses describing the Immaculate conception...
"No, they kept them around as Holy Tradition."
Holy Traditions is inerrant?
Only the Calvinist ones.
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.