In the Crosshairs of the Canon [How We Got The Bible] [Ecumenical]

CatholicCulture.org ^ | not available | Jeffrey L. Morrow , This Rock

[Iscool]

You are posting on an ecumenical thread, antagonism is not allowed.

You are right...I apologize to all...

[Notwithstanding]

btw, Jesus and his crew used the Old Testament that you claim is “wrong”

not sure why you would think that the Jewish leaders of the day who rejected Christ should be given deference on the issue of which canon of scripture is correct

[Notwithstanding]

No problem.

Nevertheless,

your point is understood,

and legitimate for debate.

[RightWhale]

The conversation appeared to be civil, that is, without use of charged words, up to post 24.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not pick at the scab.

This is an ecumenical thread.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not be antagonistic.

[Petronski]

I thought that "picking at scabs" referred to reintroducing deleted comments.

[Religion Moderator]

The way I use the term, "picking at scabs" means reopening wounds that should be healed. The antagonistic post was identified and rebuked. The poster has apologized.

I did not remove it so that others can see what is not acceptable in an ecumenic discussion. For posters to continue targeting it is "picking at the scab."

But I will remove it and the sidebar if the posters refuse to let it go.

[Notwithstanding]

Your comment is inapposit to what I wrote.

I accepted his apology and then informed him that I consider the point he was trying to make one that was legitimately up for debate.

I stand by the entire statement, and ask you to explain how reaching out to Iscool and encouraging discussion of the point he made is anything but kind and in the spirit of the exact sort of issue-oriented discussion that FR is designed to foster.

[Petronski]

I’m only seeking clarification. I now have a better understanding. It was not meant as a challenge.

[Notwithstanding]

Iscool,

You indicated that rejection of the current Jewish version of the Old Testament is difficult for Catholics to justify.

I can see why you might have that thought at first glance.

An actual analysis of the historical facts undermines your position, however, and supports the Catholic position.

If you wish to discuss this, I am happy to.

[annalex]

If you want to be on the Catholic Theology for non-Catholics list but are not on it already, or if you are on it but do not want to be, let me know either publicly or privately.

Previously posted (all threads are open, unless marked otherwise):

On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church
The Great Heresies
SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING
Hermits and Solitaries [Ecumenical]
THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE
RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERIT
A Well-Rounded Pope [Ecumenical]
A Monastery to Last 1,000 Years [Ecumenical]
Explaining Purgatory from a New Testament Perspective [Ecumenical]

[Salvation]

Thanks for your links and information, but I prefer to stick with the original post.

[A.A. Cunningham]

is histerical(sic)...

What's hysterical is your deficient knowledge of history and your lousy spelling skills.

[Cronos]

Since 1611, hundreds of millions of Christians have rejected your church's distorted version of this topic and continue to do so...

Well, no, not even millions -- there have been a few like Zwingli, Luther etc. who changed the canon as per their own choice. They led many with them. Furthermore, the generations lost since then have just followed what their leaders taught them, against the Church.