Posted on 01/13/2010 10:43:08 AM PST by NYer
Sorry, but you are not following God’s orders to build the Ark of the Covenant; You’re worshipping gods made with hands. The Ark was a model of something that really exists in heaven, and only one man visited it once per year.
Now we have the arisen Christ, and have no need for a model of anything; we speak directly to the Father, and only the Father, under the authority won by the son. There is no other intercessor.
“It matters little how many paragraphs you type”
That seems to be true; the man’s mind is closed to reason.
May the Lord give him understanding.
“we follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”
If that were true, you would be:
a. More persuasive.
b. More charitable.
c. Catholic.
Cute, but totally lacking in logic or truth.
The Holy Spirit does not persuade those that are not chosen.
I believe you said you believed nothing done or said after Jesus died. I was pointing out to you that the whole story and works of Paul happened after Jesus died— as did all the letters from the Apostles who walked with Christ.
editor-surveyor:
Please keep posting your thoughts as every time you do so it allows me to show how nonsensical your views are and that “none of them are consistent with Apostolic Tradition/orthodox Doctrine”
With respect to the book, ie. I assume the Bible, which is a collection of books put togher by the Catholic Church in the 4th century through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So keep on quoting the NT, every time you do so you rely on the authority of the Catholic Church and the Synod of Rome (382 AD) under Pope Damasus and St. Jerome, the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD)
The notion that the first generations of Christians had a NT is untenable. If we just look at Christ’s paschal mystery (passion, death, resurrection, and ascension) at around 30 AD, we know that the first generation (20 year period) of Christians had no NT writing at all as Biblical scholarship indicates that St. Paul’s First letter to the Thessalonians was the first NT work written in around 49 AD. The Gospel of Mark was written around 64 AD, while the Gospels of MT and Luke were written between 70-80 AD, and the Gospel of John at around 90-95 AD. So from this basic outline provided above, the first 3 generations of Christians did not have the Gospel of John.
Here is a detailed link on the development of the NT Canon from Newadvent.org (a Catholic site), but one that is well researched in all aspects of the NT canon.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
The formation of the Canon becomes an issue during the 2nd century when the Catholic Church and those with orthodox doctrine had doctrinal conflicts with the Gnostics. The Gnostics held similar doctrines which you seem to hold in that they had an anti=physical bias, along with being dualistic, and thus rejected the incarnation and thus the implications of the Incarnation.
Marcion, a leader of the Gnostics, proposed that the NT should be defined as only St. Luke’s Gospel and 10 of St. Paul’s 13 letters and he wanted the OT rejected all together. The “CHURCH OF ROME” [for emphasis, not yelling] rejected Marcion’s canon and as the “Anglican Patristic and Church History Scholar Henry Chadwick” notes he was excommunicated there in 144 AD (The Penguin History of the Early Church, Revised Edition, page 39). Jaroslav Pelikan in Volume 1 of his 5 Volume work “The Christian Tradition [written while he was a Protestant-Lutheran] describes Marcion’s Gnostic doctrines and how the Church dealt with it. He concluded by stating “this makes Marcion an important figure not only in the history of the development of doctrine, but also the history of both the text and the canon of the New Testament” (p. 79).
So, it is clear that around the time of Marcion’s excommunication by the “Church of Rome in 144 AD”, the idea of a complete NT, as we know it today, is not present. On the other hand, we see the Church of Rome exercising the Primacy in defending the Apostolic Tradition from Gnosticism and starting to more formally define the NT canon. Thus, the authority of the Church would thus become important in formulating the Canon.
Again, Chadwick writes (p. 42)
“The second weapon of the orthodox defense was the gradual formation of the New Testament canon. In the first century, the Christian Bible had simply been the Old Testament (read in the Septuagint version). Authority resided in this scripture and in oral traditions, as in apparent in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.”
Chadwick notes that oral tradition was viewed as an authority that had not yet been merged into a written document (i.e. the Scripture). However, he notes that the Maricion and other Gnostic controversies provided an impetus for the Church to recognize which written documents contained authentic apostolic tradition. Thus, St. Justin Martyr, who died circa 155 AD. provided an orthodox Church father who attested to MT, MK, and LK. These gospels seemed to be recognized much earlier than John, which was met with resistance. It wasn’t until Irenaeus (185 AD) that John became recognized. Chadwick points out that “strict application of apostolic authority” by the Church of Rome led to the exclusion of the book of Hebrews, which would not be admitted until the 4th century. Chadwick cites the Muratorian fragment, written in 200 AD as the first canonical list of the early Church, which was published by the Church of Rome. The Muratorian fragment lists 23 of the 27 books in the NT (1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, James are not listed). In addition, he lists the Revelation of John, but states it should not be read in Church.
Over the next 200 years, the formation of the Canon would continue. Origen gives a description of the canon in the 3rd century from the Church of Alexandria, and we see that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, all which would become part of the NT, and Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews, were all disputed. The evidence here suggests that some books that would eventually not be recognized were in fact viewed as canonical as late as the time of Origen. In his history of the Church Eusebius, written between 300 and 325 AD, he gives us a clear picture of the state of the Biblical canon. He points out that Peter’s first epistle, in which Mark is mentioned, was composed in Rome itself and Peter indicates this himself referring to Rome figuratively as Babylon. Thus, Eusebius indicates that 1 Peter is agreed upon while 2 Peter is not canonical, but it is studies with other scriptures. The fourteen of Paul are obvious and certain, but he notes that Hebrews is disputed saying that it was rejected by the Church at Rome as not being Paul. Eusebius goes on to point out that the 4 gospels should be put in first place, followed by the Acts of the Apostles then the epistles of Paul, 1 John and then 1 Peter. After those, if it is desirable, then perhaps Revelations can be put in.
However, he then goes on to show that there are several disputed books. He lists James, Jude, and once again 2 Peter. He also points out that 2 John and 3 John are disputed. Finally, he goes back and points out that Revelation (the Apocalypse of John) are rejected by some, while others include it as canonical. In summary, Eusebius’s account gives us a clear picture that the New Testament canon was not completely formed by 325 AD.
Of course, over the next 75 years the process was completed.. St. Athanasius’ 39th Easter letter lists the 27 New Testament books and 40 of the 46 Old Testament books that would be in the Catholic Canon (Baruch was included, the other 6 deuterocanonical books are admitted there use as devotional reading. The Synod in Rome in 382 led by Pope Damasus, along with St. Jerome, listed the 46 books of the OT and 27 NT that are in the Catholic Bible today. While there is some historical disputes as to what was actually in Pope Damasus’s Decree, as most of the details of Pope Damasus and the Synod in Rome in 382 comes from a 6th century writing, although there are 4th and 5th century writings in the 6th century text, it is also clear that Jerome’s completed Latin Vulgate Translation consisted of all the books that are in the Catholic Canon today.
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397 AD, respectively [St. Augustine’s influence here] are consistent with Rome in 382. The Council of Trent, (1534 to 1565), in response to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, reaffirmed the Catholic Canon of the 4th century. Thus, it is accurate to state that the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, protected and defended the orthodox Catholic faith and canonized the scriptures that were in conformity with apostolic tradition.
In closing, I am glad you accept the NT canon as settled by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century as it is the only correct thing you have done is this thread so far. And every time you qoute the NT, you are relying whether you have the intellectual honestly to admit it, the authority of the Catholic Church.
tsk, tsk,
The church of God doesn’t show an idol of his son hanging on a cross. His church knows that he is risen.
Keep on drinking your bad wine.
You have demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of the Son of God.
He is risen indeed.
I showed you why.
editor-surveyor
Actually, as an American of Italian Ancestry, I do like wine, preferably Red. As for lack of knowledge of the Son of God, is your statement infallible? Can you tell me why I should take it as infallible? Who gave you the authority to make these infallible statements? Did you get your Protestant Pastors license from an on-line University?
You have already shown you are nothing but a hit and run poster as you can’t refute anything I have written. The CHurch Fathers reject your iconoclasm and your incorrect understanding of the Incarnation, the formation of the canon and why the NT consists of the 27 books it contains can’t be demonstrated by your theology and the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787 AD condemns your iconoclasm as the summary of all heresies.
Perhaps when you grow up, you can come debate the big boys.
tsk, tsk
annalex:
I shall have a glass of Merlot here in a few minutes and salute your posting of that beautiful work by Donatello.
Ciao
S Bogom.
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.