Then they can show me that the North African Council of Cartage was "ecumenical." It wasn't. Period.
Fair enough. It would just shock me if Catholics hereon would agree that no official Church Canon was established in at least one of those early Councils. I have heard many argue strongly against that idea. But, I can't speak for them.
FK: I said that we Bible-believing Christians use that term to refer to each other, and that we know each other when we come across each other. My experience has been that the term works well across denominational lines.
Works well? Last time I checked, Joel Osteen preaches there's no hell! You find him in your theological camp as a "Bible-believer?"
Along with everything else I know about him, if he preaches that, then NO. See how easy that was? :)
Being a "Bible-believer" says nothing of the private theology each and every such self-styled believer conjures. That's like using the universal "Christian" label.
Not at all. The "Christian" label is MUCH broader and includes, as you said, even false Christians. The term "Bible-believing" Christian is much more narrow. Not only does it exclude all false Christians, but it even excludes a large number of TRUE Christians. To me, that makes the term actually mean something. :)
The Church Christ established and left to the Apostles and their successors simply believes that God in His infinite love offers the same blessings to all.
Obviously, in strong contradiction to the Scriptures. The Church you say was established by Christ feels free to contradict Christ whenever it wants. In this case, for example:
Rom 9:14-16 : 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
So, obviously, God does not treat everyone equally in all ways. God gives saving grace to whomever He wishes, but not to all men.
Jamnia resulted in throwing out all the books written by Christians, including the Gospels. They rejected the Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. You call that Christ-friendly?
Well, they WERE Jews, so we would expect them to reject anything in the NT. That's not surprising. But, I expect that they would have rejected the Septuagint because it was in Greek, not the original language. Presumably, they HAD the real Masoretic Text. You can't blame them for that. :)
FK: Fair enough. It would just shock me if Catholics hereon would agree that no official Church Canon was established in at least one of those early Councils
The only Councils that are binding to the whole Church are those recognized as ecumenical by the Church. The North African Council at the end of the 4th century was not an ecumenical council. This doesn't mean that the Church as a whole did not adopt the canon over time. The specific North African Council that canonized the Bible was the first conciliar definition of the canon. Until that time, different bishops had different canons. The canon used by St. Athanasius (c. 360 AD) was the one that was accepted by that Council.
Kosta: Works well? Last time I checked, Joel Osteen preaches there's no hell! You find him in your theological camp as a "Bible-believer?"
FK: Along with everything else I know about him, if he preaches that, then NO.
But he claims he believes in the Bible. I am sure his beliefs are based on something he found in it. Even the devil quotes the Bible, FK! Being a Bible-believer doesn't make one an orthodox Christian.
Not only does [the term "Bible-believing"] exclude all false Christians, but it even excludes a large number of TRUE Christians.
So, then you admit that it is not necessary to believe in the Bible to be a TRUE Christian? Which begs the question, what then makes the "Bible-believing" Christians different from other true Christians?
Of course, I don't agree with you at all, as all Christians must believe the message of the Bible, as seen through the prism of Christ as taught by the Church and expressed in the books collected by the Church that are in the Bible.
In addition to that true Christians believe in the Holy Trinity and in the Hypostatic union known as Incarnation, in Christ with two wills and two natures, one divine and one human, unconfused and distinct in one Person.
The Church derives its beliefs from Christ's oral teachings, which were later expressed as apostolic writings or scriptures (graqh) of known and unknown authors that comprise the New Testament.
FK: Obviously, in strong contradiction to the Scriptures. The Church you say was established by Christ feels free to contradict Christ whenever it wants. In this case, for example: Rom 9:14-16 : 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
Why don't you quote Christ instead of quoting Paul quoting the OT and saying it's "Christ?" Christ is quoted as saying God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. [Mat 5:45]
In your book, Paul and Moses trump Christ.
So, obviously, God does not treat everyone equally in all ways. God gives saving grace to whomever He wishes, but not to all men.
Obviously, Christ, even Paul is telling us otherwise. He died for all, and thus offered righteousness to all mankind. Some take it, and some don't. One does not quote the OT to express Christ correctly; one quotes Christ to express the OT correctly. True Christians put Christ first, Paul and Moses second.
But, I expect that they would have rejected the Septuagint because it was in Greek, not the original language. Presumably, they HAD the real Masoretic Text. You can't blame them for that
How naive, FK. The Dead Sea Scrolls, written in the "original language" agree with Septuagint as well as with the Masoretic Text, so the original language was not the issue, even though it may have been used as an excuse.
Judaism was not monolithic, but heterodox. The Samaritans, who are Jews, ethnically and religiously, were treated as such by the Pharisees only when their worship and Tanakh (written in biblical Hebrew) agreed with Pharisaical worship Tanakh version! Otherwise they rejected it, and treated them as non-Jews (one major reason being that the Samaritans don't believe the Temple should be in Jerusalem).
Modern Judaism is a derivative of Pharisaical Judaism that rejected all other forms of Judaism, including that of the Sadducees and the Essenes and Samaritans (until the 18th century). More importantly, Pharisaical Judaism was an enemy of Christ and anything Christian, so the very fact that the New Testament is overwhelmingly based on Septuagint is reason enough for them to throw it out, whether it was written in Greek or not!
And if the theory that Mark wrote his Gospel in Hebrew first is true, why is is not in the Tanakh, except for it being Christian? Can't blame the language in Mark's case.