Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer
I’m confused by someone who rejects ‘official episcopal oversight’ declaring other folks to be heretics.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
“So how do explain away Marcion?”
The heretic Marcion!? How do you explain away Ignatius who was devoured by lions, who confessed that Jesus is God, the eternal perseverance of the Saints, and many other essential non-heretical doctrines? How about Polycarp, who was burned alive for his faith and wrote to the churches about the scripture they had in their possession? How do you explain away Irenaeus, who spoke of the 4 Gospels and quoted from almost every book in the New Testament?
For the same reason he rejected lots of orthodoxy. He also rejected the Gospel as well as the Apostles creed as we understand it, are you saying there was no generally accepted Gospel or Apostles creed at the time since Marcion rejected them? The Gnostics rejected the Gospel at that time too, so there must not have been any generally accepted orthodoxy of the Gospel back then since the Gnostics didn't accept it.
“Ah, now that you are pinned down you change your story. You said “the Vulgate published in 400 AD by Pope Damasus was the first canon with all the books.” Athanasius catalogued the current canon, with all the books, well before that.”
I said collate, but that’s a different word, so your attempt to say that I lied, is wrong.
Yes, Athanasius did provide the list, and his list was the one cited by Pope Damasus. However, he didn’t publish a bible that reflected this canon, which is what my question asked. The Vulgate is very important to Protestants and absolutely fundamental to their position of sola scriptura.
Luke and John written shortly after 70 A.D.
Matthew and Mark written shortly before 70 A. D. I’ve read as early as 50 A.D.
Which books did Luther "tear out"? He considered James an "epistle of straw" but he still included it at the end of his translation. As well as all the other books.
“How do you explain away Ignatius”
So, please give me the canon according to Ignatius.
“How do you explain away Irenaeus, who spoke of the 4 Gospels and quoted from *almost* every book in the New Testament?”
You’ve got me there! *almost*!= All. Thanks for confirming my point.
Christians don’t believe we have to rely on a man to interpret the Bible, or to understand Gods will.
____________________________
Was that what Jesus told Nicodemus? What did Philip (deacon) say to the Eunuch?
No. I told you that contraception was effective and that it was one of the reasons that I felt Western society was collapsing. You, on the other hand, insisted that condoms do not work.
Thank you, I was just posted that from the original article.
I dont know, why don’t you tell me.
“Which books did Luther “tear out”? He considered James an “epistle of straw” but he still included it at the end of his translation. As well as all the other books.”
Parts of Daniel (not sure how you tear out part of a book and maintain sola scriptura).
Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1+2 Maccabees, Baruch, 3+4 Ezra.
So I take it that you would not be charmed by the relic of a saint’s tongue - as I saw once in an Italian church? O ye, of little faith and large squeamishness.
Then why do they?
Jerome didn't want to include those either. Cuz they are not scripture.
So now you want to listen to Jesus? Jesus said to pray to the Father, not to those who “neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.”
“You’ve got me there! *almost*!= All. Thanks for confirming my point.”
And what, exactly, is your point? That we needed the Roman Catholic church to confirm that Jude is scripture, because Irenaeus never had a purpose for quoting it? Or, perhaps, that the epistle to the Hebrews is scripture, since Rome denied that it was scripture in the 4th century, contrary to Jerome’s observation that it was anciently employed within the Christian church?
I will have to stick with Jerome and the early Christian writers over you. Sorry.
“There was no New Testament (i.e. no Christian Bible) when the Apostles and the earliest Christians walked the earth. The Gospels were written sometime between 60 A.D. and 100 A.D. Therefore the earliest Chistians couldn’t have been practicing according to the precise dictates of the Gospels, letters of Paul, etc. Were they practicing incorrectly also?”
Of course not. The apostles were alive and teaching and writing and their epistles and Gospels were circulating. Even their errors were being corrected - just read Corinthians...
“Catholics believe that souls of the faithfully departed reside in heaven. We don’t worship saints or Mary, but we ask those souls to join us in prayer. The fact that it isn’t mentioned in the Bible is a doesn’t make it invalid.”
Total crapshoot. See #8 on this thread.
It’s in the Bible.
;-)
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.