Posted on 07/20/2013 5:38:15 PM PDT by narses
“...aside from the empty authority of some church tradition, there is no internal or truly historical reason to accept them.”
This is ahistorical nonsense. I’ll leave aside the snarkiness about tradition, except to say “see 2 Thess 2:15.”
As for no reasons... Surely you mean aside from the reason that “the Scriptures” referred to in the Gospels reference the only set of scriptures that were available to Jews of the day, i.e., the Septuagint, which includes all the books mentioned in the article.
-yudan, adult convert to Holy Orthodoxy
“And if you read the early Church Fathers you will see the history......they attended the synagogue on the Sabbath. Then they would meet in home churches and celebrate the Eucharist. So go a little deeper into Church History.”
“Justin Martyr describes the early Mass that they celebrated as being very similar to the one we celebrate today.”
I don’t see how this supports your claim that Paul ceased being a Jew when he was called by Christ. Or any of the disciples, for that matter.
“Where does Scripture say it is for the confirmation of doctrine? Or that Scripture alone confirms doctrine?”
In the verse you quoted, though for some reason you quoted it improperly. It’s missing words.
2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
That the “man of God may be perfect” is incredibly important, since it demonstrates the suffieciency of scripture.
Now as to “historical and geographical errors.” If these exist in “God-Breathed” scripture as you put it, then this essentially affirms that the Holy Spirit is capable of giving error in His inspirations. This is an attack that damages the credibility of the entire Christian religion.
Christ founded the Catholic Church on the Apostles to carry on his work.
When did your church start?
Placemark to read.
“This is ahistorical nonsense”
How, exactly, is that ahistorical nonsense? Is there any proof that Jerome, Pope Gregory, and many many others were wrong in their rejection of these works? And supposing you’re an Eastern Orthodox, is there any real logical reason why I should pick and choose which early church Fathers to believe? Unless there is a majority consensus going back to antiquity, there’s no reason to value their opinions. More importantly, however, if there is no internal consensus (that is, within the scripture as compared with the scripture), then we cannot consider your position correct.
“As for no reasons... Surely you mean aside from the reason that “the Scriptures” referred to in the Gospels reference the only set of scriptures that were available to Jews of the day, i.e., the Septuagint, which includes all the books mentioned in the article.”
Actually, there was no monolithic group of books called the Septuagint in those days. Nor did every book that was translated in Greek automatically considered divine scripture. Only the Books of Moses were translated by the Jews and made up the LXX originally, supposedly translated by the “70” translators under divine inspiration. At least, so goes the legend, and that’s all it really is. No one knows when the rest of the Old Testament was translated into Greek, or by who, or by whose authority. The same goes for the Apocrypha, some of which was originally written in Greek in the first place, and some of which were translated, and retranslated, multiple times. Josephus himself, in giving the Jewish understanding of the canon, ruled out those books since they were all produced during that period in time where there was no Prophet. Furthermore, none of the copies of the LXX we have today actually possess all of the same books, and some even have extra books which you don’t believe are scripture anyway. Furthermore, as I showed with my previous quotes, the existence of these books in a codex to begin with don’t imply that the people who used them believed they were inspired scripture either, since they included just about any book they thought was useful to read.
Thus all your arguments are irrelevant.
“Thus all your arguments are irrelevant.”
ROTFLMAO!!!!
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
---Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"
I did not quote improperly. Only the KJV uses the word doctrine rather than teaching. It is also one of the only ones to use the word perfect rather than equipped, prepared, furnished, competent etc.....
So, not missing words. And the KJV had an agenda regarding the use of some words and is not one I trust as being entirely accurate in its interpretation.
The errors are no reflection on the perfection of God, but instead profoundly confirm humanity of its authors. There is no reason Judith as fiction cannot be canonical. Jesus used parables all the time to teach.
“I did not quote improperly. Only the KJV uses the word doctrine rather than teaching. It is also one of the only ones to use the word perfect rather than equipped, prepared, furnished, competent etc.....”
The Vulgate and Webster translate it the same way (well, though the vulgate says “perfectus” lol), which I immediately have on my computer. I’m pretty sure others have it that way too.
As for the difference between teaching and doctrine... ummm. I can’t think of any.
BfL
‘Last week, my friend who is a Baptist was visiting and came with me to Mass. The first reading was from the second Book of Maccabees. She had never heard of that book.’
.................................................
Did she tell you that after she woke up?
You have said anything worth replying to.
True ecumenism is not pandering to the heretical beliefs of protestants, it is pointing out their errors, demonstrating the truth of the Catholic Church, and bringing them into full communion with her.
Because that would not have been the complete truth.
No, I’m saying these particular books are not inspired by the holy spirit.
Which is why they were removed from the Bible.
“When did your church start?”
When Christ was born. Did he ever use the word Catholic?
What you have posted here indicates a lot of consideration on your part. Good for you.
But, with all due personal deference, my (admittedly individual, so forgive me) observation is that there are a lot of inferences to personal/individual conclusions, whether individual historical luminaries of Western Christendom or yourself.
This is one of the foundational differences in Eastern and Western Christian philosophies. In the Greek East (and originally the Latin West) there was/is dependence on conciliar thought and a rejection of doctrinal declarations of individuals who do or had/have done their thinking and made their declarations on their own. Luther, Alexander Campbell, etc...
Aside from the obvious large historical schisms (Arius, Nestorius, Monphysites), and (admittedly silly) disagreements on the calendar, the Greek East remains theologically one Church.
This can’t be said of of the West, where individual men start new movements whenever their feelings get hurt. And many of whose approaches to faith are HIGHLY legalistic.
I’m sure you and I have plenty we will agree to disagree upon.
Good day to you. Warm regards.
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.