Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
It looks like boring has just become boorish.
Attributing motive to another Freeper is a form of mind reading. It is “making it personal.”
Do not make this thread “about” yourselves. That is also “making it personal.”
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Not just, but yes.
“It’s a very visible and active church”Maybe it's invisible to non-believers. You can not see it? Hmmmmm....I see, but you can’t draw a line showing that THIS is the Church. That’s not visible, that’s invisible.
Since it seems to me that it doesn't matter what church a person belongs.
Well, you are correct on that, if you mean a local group of believers, Christians that are born again and live in Christ and Jesus also lives in them, then yes.
All these and other believers are a part of the church that Jesus started when he walked the earth in human form.
The Church you believe in is invisible. Some random collection of “christians you happen to like”.
LOL, pretty much your false interpertation of what I really said. I've explained it to you AGAIN above, for the last time.
“No comment on the bigamist comment”As Reagan used to say when dealing with statements like that "There you go again."There’s just one Church, not many. Christ has one bride, not many. No comment! Hah!
Yes there is one church, and it is not a denomination like Catholicism or any other.
Born again Christians, including some Catholics, make up the church Jesus started.
Those that choose to believe that the Catholic Church is the only church that people MUST belong to to be saved can stay in their denomination and believe that if they wish.
Christ actually commands us to pray for one another - this doesn't cease in heaven, and scripture teaches us that the saints, are alive, right now, in heaven.And I am sure they are fervently praying for you, that the truth may be known in your heart.
“The magisterium did not disagree with his professional opinion until about a thousand years later. Until then, the professional opinion in the Latin church was Jerome’s.”
This is false. The decision of the Latin Church and the Magisterium at the time was to include the books into the biblical canon. The Magisterium and Pope Damasus as a whole did not accept Jerome’s position.
We know this because of what the Vulgate actually does contain - all the books, not the books minus Jerome. We can verify this externally with copies of the Vulgate published after Jerome. Hence Codex Amitianus, which has the exact list that the Church has today.
“But it is your imagination”
Not my imagination whatsoever.
“or in the canon”
If it’s canonical then you concede that the Church did and does teach this in continuity with today?
“And it is this distinction that makes all your arguments to be utterly irrelevant.”
Not so. Not at all. You quoted the Church saying one thing that it does today. Then you yourself argue that the Church said the exact same thing to Jerome. Sounds like continuity of the Magisterium, which is exactly my position there. That puts the Catholic church back to the 4th century. It also demonstrates that Jerome, while an excellent translator was in error, despite your argument that Jerome was infalliable.
“The Dead Sea Scrolls do not include Hebrew copies of all the apocrypha”
True, but it does contain Baruch, Ecclesisticus and Tobit. This is evidence that Jews prior to Jesus at the time did use these books.
It also lacks Esther. This is insufficient evidence to prove that they did not use Esther (absence of evidence!= evidence of absence).
If your hypothesis is correct we would expect to see none of these books. However, we do see some of them. Ergo, we can conclude that they were in use by the Jews at the time.
“Even Jerome had a copy in Aramaic”
Jerome didn’t understand Aramaic. This is why the Vulgate today does not use Jerome for the text of Judith, but uses the Veltus Latina - the old Latin translations from prior.
It is interesting - I did not know that until I did some reading, which is why the translation is different.
“The problem isn’t the idea that these were produced in the post-Prophet era for the Jews, but that the Jews did not consider them part of the canon”
These Jews did consider them of sufficient value and use at Qumrun. Again - if they were non-canonical, one would expect not to find them at all. However - canonical books are missing, and some of these books are there. This is evidence that the Jews at Qumrun did use them at the time of Christ.
We also have evidence from the Septuagint (far stronger than at Qumrun), that they were considered Canonical. The Jews were the ones who put the LXX together. So, clearly, many Jews did consider them to be canonical and did consider them to be scripture.
Just because the books are in Greek doesn’t make them non-canonical. It simply means that they were written in a different period.
“therefore made no effort in preserving them in Hebrew.”
Then why did they preserve them in the Greek if they had no value?
If they had no value, they would not have been preserved. That they have come down to us is evidence that they have considerable value. The opposite is not true. Is the Hexapla unimportant? No. Absence of evidence!= evidence of absence.
“but basically appeals to an examination of the evidence to determine if they are inspired.”
Which returns us to the question - who has the authority to decide what is and is not inspired?
“If that’s the case, we return to pointing out that the RCC admits today that Judith is a work of fiction and contains historical and geographical errors.”
Does the Catholic church claim that Judith is Canonical? Yes or no?
“Sirach does not claim to be inspired”
Does the Catholic church claim that Sirach is canonical? Yes or no?
“And Tobit depicts the “Angel of the Lord” not only lying about his identity, but teaching a fellow that if one roasts fish guts, that evil spirits can be fended off.”
Does the Catholic church claim that Tobit is Canonical, yes or no?
Once again it all comes down to authority - who has the authority to determine the Canon? What makes you different from Marcion, a fellow heretic who preached doctrines contrary to Christ?
“I never saw that stated, straw man question.”You insist on citations, yet give no citation of where the poster "said" something, and no mention of which poster you are speaking about.Funny, Natural Law saw it.
Yes, he did say that.
I'm sure the poster in question will straighten you out in your last false interpretation of what he/she said.
Your last comment in the post I am replying to, I will not mention as it is such a convoluted "translation" of what was said.
A little clarity and proof in your posts would be helpful for the cause of reasoned dialogue.
And what do you mean by natural law? How can a law see anything?
Or do you mean a poster named Natural Law, who calls the Religion Forum a cesspool?
If you meant a poster, then I'm sure you would have pinged her.
“Well, you are correct on that”
Thank you. Now if the Church is invisible to unbelievers, that is exactly my point. Christ himself says that we are to be the light of the world. You might think you are making a clever argument by arguing that ‘only believers can know who truly is a member of the church’, but that’s completely wrong and contrary to what Christ teaches.
Believers should be identifiable by non-Christians as being Christians, as being followers of Christ. If, by your argument, the Church is in fact invisible, then it’s not a church at all. Arguing that only believers can know who really is a believer is self-referential. By that definition - no one could become a Christian, “because how would a non-Christian know that he has truly found Christ?”
“All these and other believers are a part of the church that Jesus started when he walked the earth in human form.”
Which brings us back to historical continuity. Most mainline protestant churches go back about 500 years at most. Most protestant churches don’t even go back that far. If this is in fact true - we would expect to see some continuity between the Church then and the Church now. That we don’t, is evidence that all of these churches are in fact not a part of the church that Jesus founded.
“Yes there is one church, and it is not a denomination like Catholicism or any other.”
That’s not what Christ says. He actually says that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church. Meaning that there is historical continuity from the time of Christ until now for his Church.
“Those that choose to believe that the Catholic Church is the only church that people MUST belong to to be saved can stay in their denomination and believe that if they wish.”
Except we don’t teach that. What we do teach is that the Church is the Church that Christ built but that while the Church is the bride of Christ - God is still sovereign. He is not limited to the believers inside of the Catholic church.
“You insist on citations, yet give no citation of where the poster “said” something, and no mention of which poster you are speaking about.”
Then you need to read the thread if you don’t think I was clear that I was talking about GPH.
Perhaps you should read the thread before entering a discussion next time.
“The “infallible” or “ordinary Magisterium” cannot contradict what had been the historical position of Christian scholars and Bishops and “Popes” 1,200-1,400 years after the fact.”
The magisterium as a whole absolutely can correct the individual opinion of a bishop. This is an important thing to understand. There’s a difference from when you cite bishop A saying this and what the Catholic church teaches.
Also, given that the Vulgate did include the books in question - it becomes clear that Jerome’s opinion that they were not canonical did not prevail. It happens. It happened to Arius, to Nestorius, and yes, to Marcion as well. Sometimes the opinion of a bishop does not previal.
“because WE say so” doesn’t pass muster.”
And it passes muster when one man, not a bishop does?
If you don’t make what you are saying clear, there is no communication.
It’s not allowed for me to read your mind here on the FR RF to figure out what you are talking about.
Please refer back to post #1000 and note that what differentiates a cesspool from other pools is its contents. Thank you for again proving me right.
Three days on the road and I finally made it home last night (little play on the old ‘six days on the road’ song). The wife kept me briefed, via our ‘dumb’ phones, as she has access to my FR account. I was able to sit down here and already know how to reply. So, you want a response to your comments?.....that great! I’ll be glad to oblige!
First of all here are some verses where the Christ speaks of the Father in him, and he in the Father (Christ’s words, not mine):
John 10:38 “But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is IN me, and I IN him.
14:10 “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak NOT of MYSELF: but the Father that DWELLETH IN ME, HE doeth the works”.
14:11 “Believe me that I am IN the Father, and the Father IN me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” And he just told us in the previous verse WHO DOETH the WORKS.
I said: “How many times in John did the Christ tell us that the words that he speaks, and the works that he does, are not his, or even his will, but the Father’s?”
You said: How, exactly, does that deny that the ‘Word is God’? The Scripture teaches that the Word that is God was “made flesh” and dwelt among us. He, not thinking it “robbery to be equal with God... made himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Php 2:6-6).
I say: Equal because of the Father is in him, and he is in the Father. Jesus Christ tells us where the Words come from:
John 3:34,35 “For he whom God hath SENT speaketh the WORDS of God: for God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath GIVEN ALL THINGS iinto his hand.” The Spirit, which “proceedeth from the Father” (Jesus’ words, not mine), was GIVEN to the Christ without measure; unlimited, and in every fiber of his being.
8:26 “I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that hath SENT me is true; and I SPEAK to the world those things which I have HEARD of him.” 27 “They understood not that he spake to them of the FATHER.”
47-50 “And if any man hear my words........He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have NOT SPOKEN of MYSELF; but the FATHER which SENT me, he GAVE me a COMMANDMENT, what I should SAY, and what I should SPEAK. And I know his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I SPEAK therefore, even as the FATHER SAID unto ME, so I SPEAK.”
17:14 “I have given them THY WORD...” 17:17 “..THY WORD is truth”. (remember who the Son was talking to in John 17?)
You said: I’ll also add that, essentially, your theology takes away salvation by God, and gives it to a created being who, by his own merits and obedience, won salvation for humankind. The scriptures state that the only savior is God Himself: Isa_43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. Isa_45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Hos_13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
I say: “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself... 2Cor. 5:19. Remember...he said the Father is in him, and he is in the Father.
“(Col. 1:15, the Son is the firstborn of every creature. And he did the things that his Father showed him to do)”The firstborn of every creature, in the Jewish usage, is a reference to preeminence, not His being a creature, since the following verses state that He created everything, that He was before everything, and by Him all creation continues to exist. Verse 18 makes that clear:
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
I say: Preeminence, because of the Father in him, and he in the Father.
You said: The only creator is God:
Gen_1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
I say: Because of the Father in him, and he in the Father.
“15Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.”
I say: Key phrase: ‘Son of God’, not ‘God the Son’. When Martha testified that “thou art the Christ, the Son of God..”, Jesus didn’t correct her (”excuse me, but I’m ‘God the Son’, Martha). Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Jesus didn’t correct him and say, “No, I’m God the Son”. Once again, Jesus praying to the Father, “And this is life eternal, that they might know THEE the ONLY TRUE GOD, ........AND........JESUS CHRIST, whom THOU hast SENT.” John 17:3
You said: So I guess you admit the Holy Spirit is God.
Because I said: “God (is a Spirit) dwells in the Son; so all your scriptures about the first and the last, and the Alpha and Omega are about the only person of God, and the Son he sent. “..he that acknowledges the Son hath the Father also”. 2:23”
Then you said: Since Christ existed before He was made flesh, and was Himself a Spirit before incarnation, yet is called God and credited with all creation, do you propose that God’s Spirit lived within the Son’s Spirit? As for the scriptures from Revelation, it’s illogical that Jesus would say that He is the First and the Last, and then say “Which was dead and is now alive,” and actually infer from this that Jesus Christ did’t mean that He is the First and the Last which was dead and is now alive.
I say: That’s,.....you guessed it,.....because the Father is in him, and he is in the Father.
You said: Yup, who are yet one God:
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
I say: The greatest teacher of all gave the disciples that commandment, and they promptly went about baptizing in the name of JESUS. Now, first of all, note that he says ‘name’ in the singular, not ‘names’. ‘Son’ is a title. “thou shalt call his NAME Jesus”. Luke 1:21. Jesus Christ said that his name is not his own (John 5:43), And Heb. 1:4 says that he inheritted it. “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER will SEND in MY NAME...”. Sooooo.......what name are YOU going to use to request the coming of the Holy Ghost?
AND........don’t forget Matthew 28:18; Jesus..spake...”All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in Earth” (that’s pretty much everywhere, and let’s see, who GAVE it unto him?......could it be the Father that dwelleth in him, and he in the Father?).
You said: Joh 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God.
I say: Let’s see, didn’t someone important say, “I AM IN the Father, and the Father IN me”?
I said: “Still leaving the Father outside of the Christ (or inside dormant), as a bystander, not being the power in him, that the Christ repeatedly said the Father is.”
You said: Pretty sure that’s just your fantasy of what the Christian view is.
I say: Nice diversionary comment (to avoid answering the point I was making). No, you point out how the Son did all the saving and creating. That leaves the Father a little less than equal.
Who’s greater: The Son says, “My Father, which is GAVE them me, is GREATER then ALL..”. 10:29; and “..for my Father is GREATER than I..”. 14:28.
The Son credits the Father’s house as having many mansions. Example of separate and distinct theology: It’s the Father’s house, but Son built it, but it’s still the Father’s house.
I say: You also didn’t answer this: “So in your theology, the Son is God, but a separate entity, the firstborn, but he NEEDED to be SHOWN WHAT TO DO?”
Jesus Christ said in John 4:23 that “true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit, and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him”. He says nothing about worshipping two more separate and distinct persons of God.
When you worship Jesus Christ, you are worshipping the Father, because.............
And now some references for further edification:
A few verses of the Christ saying he was SENT (by the Father, of course): John 7:28,29,33; 8:16, 18, 26; 9:4; 10:36; 12:49; 13:20.
A few of the Christ saying he was doing his Father’s WILL (and not his own will): 5:30; 6:38,39,40. The Christ had his own will, and it didn’t want to die.
A few verses of the Christ saying he was doing the WORKS of his Father: 5:36; 9:4; 10:25; 14:10,11,12; 17:4.
There are a whole big bunch of ‘GIVEN’ references; too many for me to list right now. But, we know the Son was GIVEN ALL THINGS by the Father. 13:3
Food for thought: 17:1 A vine (Son) and a husbandman (the Father). The husbandman plants the vine and cares for it, etc..
I will cut this short, ....I had so many more passages to point to, but will close with this for tonight:
Rev. 11:15 “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, AND of HIS Christ; and he (singular) shall reign for ever and ever.”
He (singular) shall reign ....................because “I and my Father are one”.
Thanks for you input. I think I have answered you opinion in post 1,012.
**Do you also deny that Jesus was also fully human and was talking at that point as a human?**
No denial about the humanity of Christ. To understand my witness, just check out post 1,012. Thanks
If you don’t understand what a thread is talking about the perhaps you should read it before posting in it.
“This is false. The decision of the Latin Church and the Magisterium at the time was to include the books into the biblical canon. The Magisterium and Pope Damasus as a whole did not accept Jerome’s position.”
That’s based on the Decretum Gelasianum, which was not connected with the Council of Rome until the end of the 18th century, and since that time has been shown to have no connection with it at all, and likely the work of some anonymous author in the 6th century. The apocrypha was not settled, at least for the RCC in an “inspired scripture useful for confirmation of the faith” kinda way, until the Council of Trent. Until that time, even amongst those who included them in the canon, the understanding was “for instruction in piety,” and therefore differentiated from the regular scripture.
Now, you might say, even as a forgery, the Decretal might give some idea of what they thought was inspired scripture in the 6th century. But “Pope” Gregory, in commentaries he wrote during his time as Pope, repeats that same phrase we all know and love:
Gregory on Maccabees:
“Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people. For Eleazar wounding an elephant in battle, slew him, but fell under him whom he had destroyed.” — Morals, book 19, on 39th chap, of Job.
There are quotes ranging across 2,000 years, not limited to the church Fathers I have quoted, but going up to Bishops and leaders of the church up to the eve of the Reformation, even in editions of the Bible put forward and approved by Popes!
“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)
“The earliest Latin version of the Bible in modern times, made from the original languages by the scholarly Dominican, Sanctes Pagnini, and published at Lyons in 1528, with commendatory letters from Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII, sharply separates the text of the canonical books from the text of the Apocryphal books. Still another Latin Bible, this one an addition of Jerome’s Vulgate published at Nuermberg by Johannes Petreius in 1527, presents the order of the books as in the Vulgate but specifies at the beginning of each Apocryphal book that it is not canonical. Furthermore, in his address to the Christian reader the editor lists the disputed books as ‘Libri Apocryphi, sive non Canonici, qui nusquam apud Hebraeos extant.” (Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180)
If it was such settled dogma for so long, the RCC would never have needed Trent to respond to the Reformation.
“True, but it does contain Baruch, Ecclesisticus and Tobit. This is evidence that Jews prior to Jesus at the time did use these books.”
The great problem, of course, is that the Dead Sea scrolls contain many books not included as “inspired scripture” of the Catholic church. If the point is merely to say “they were used,” it doesn’t mean anything, unless by “they were used” you mean “they should be used as inspired.” They even contain books which do not refer to the apocrypha as scripture, but differentiate them between inspired and non-inspired, which always quotes from the Old Testament with a specific formula “it is written,” but never from the Apocrypha, as you see in the Manual of Discipline. The fact that these books are found in Greek, rather than Hebrew, also doesn’t lend support for your cause. Keep in mind we aren’t arguing about when they were written, but whether the Jews considered them inspired. In this case, I have to side with Josephus:
“From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.” ... “We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine...”(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
The learned Jews always rejected them, because they recognized their late creation during a period in time where no Prophets existed who could justly attribute to them “inspired” status.
“We also have evidence from the Septuagint (far stronger than at Qumrun), that they were considered Canonical. The Jews were the ones who put the LXX together. So, clearly, many Jews did consider them to be canonical and did consider them to be scripture.”
The Jews only report translating the first four books of Moses into the LXX. The rest were added later, and the various Apocrypha books in the LXX do not match from copy to copy, and these copies, inevitably, date back to non-Jewish sources.
“I say: Let’s see, didn’t someone important say, “I AM IN the Father, and the Father IN me”?”
We’ve been over this before. Christ continues: “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.”
Thus, your proof text that every scripture where Christ is called God is simply referring to the Father “in Him” simply doesn’t fly, because Christ here is only telling us of the special unity we have with Christians with our God. If taken as you do, then we also can claim to be God, receive worship, and make the claims that Christ does, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us.
Each of your “I say..” comments is based upon this one premise, which you’ve repeated each time you’ve posted to me. (I’m not sure why you needed time to know how to reply, when this post is nearly identical to what you’ve told me before!) Therefore, I have to settle with the plain words of the scripture which declare that Jesus has always been with God, and is God, and “the same in the beginning with God.”
That's off subject. I am not concerned with what is said in that vein.
We are discussing the church that Jesus started when He walked the earth.
“Yes there is one church, and it is not a denomination like Catholicism or any other.”Jesus made it perfectly clear that there is one church, made up of all those that believe on Jesus, are born again, and live in Him and He in them. From the New Testament.That’s not what Christ says.
You dispute my statement, "...there is one church, and it is not a denomination like Catholicism or any other” by saying that is not what Christ said. Please show me where He said the opposite, that it is a denomination like Catholicism.
You asked me to read the thread, I have. I would ask you to read the Bible, New Testament and see for your self. Even Peter said most of what I stated.
"...there is historical continuity from the time of Christ until now for his Cchurch.
Exactly what I have been stating , made up of those described above.
“Those that choose to believe that the Catholic Church is the only church that people MUST belong to to be saved can stay in their denomination and believe that if they wish.”Who is we? And I am glad there are those that go against the words of the various popes who pronounce that:Except we don’t teach that.
“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” -Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302 AD)Unless of course when they state "The holy universal Church" (note they do not say Catholic as in Catholic) but holy universal Church. Maybe they got it, and others have skewed it differently so as to take the word "catholic" (meaning universal,) capitalize it and give it the denominational meaning it has in today's world, and declare it to be THE Christian denomination above all others.
“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her (The Catholic Church)… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)
“The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved.” Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD)
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved.” Pope Saint Gregory the Great (590-604)
Again, even if your contention is true, which I am not conceding, the Church did not set canon to identify the sole depositum fidei (deposit of faith). The purpose was to identify those reading to use within the Liturgy of the Word in the Mass. The continual insistence that Canon must be something different because it must conform to Sola Scriptura is absurd.
Peace and blessings
“Again, even if your contention is true, which I am not conceding, the Church did not set canon to identify the sole depositum fidei (deposit of faith).”
I can’t recall ever making this argument at all. I’ve only reacted to the claim by RCC members that the apocrypha are inspired scripture. In reality, the discussion of what the early Christians and scholars actually believed about it overthrows Rome’s claims to having the “deposit of faith” (in other words, the unwritten tradition of the Apostles). Since, after all, one does not inherit innovations. Without the unanimous consent of the Father’s, and even of their own cardinals, Bishops, and Bible translations up to before Trent, they cannot claim to merely be reiterating what “Mother Church” has always taught. Just because a Church Council 1,500 years later changes things up, doesn’t mean that thinking people are bound to it. It’s revisionist history at its worst.
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.