Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BlueDragon; Elsie; terycarl; EagleOne
instead speaking about what 'Rome' teaches that is addition to scripture, as in "extra-biblical", not in the bible, etc.

I know that this is the Protestant mantra, but this is not the case. By about 4 century the canon was formed and in the Catholic Church has not changed since for both Old Testament and the Old. There was, of course, textual work done by linguists, and translations were done but that is the same Catholic Bible since then. But the books of the Bible have not changed since John the Evangelist finished his Apocalypse, so that is, roughly, 2000 years.

That the Church teaches something in addition to what it teaches through the Holy Scripture is of course true. But the Church does not fool anyone that it is scripture. When a pope writes an encyclical, for example, it does not get added to the canon of scripture. It is known to all to be a latter teaching, and often speaking to a problem that just emerged, not covered in the scripture in any way.

Because you-all Protestants invented the idiotic idea that the faith comes from scripture alone, plus tossed whatever books you don't like and ignore half of the content of the Gospels, you have that perception of the world where "extra-biblical" has some special meaning that you put in it. I am not playing your games.

5,576 posted on 01/09/2015 7:58:11 AM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5558 | View Replies ]


To: annalex
By about 4 century the canon was formed

What TOOK so long?

5,582 posted on 01/09/2015 1:47:25 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5576 | View Replies ]

To: annalex
By about 4 century the canon was formed

What TOOK so long?


Because you-all Protestants invented the idiotic idea that the faith comes from scripture alone,

This, coming from someone who has been taught that the bible only is NOT enough?

Who dropped the ball in putting it all together?

5,583 posted on 01/09/2015 1:48:36 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5576 | View Replies ]

To: annalex
As you had quoted myself;

[he was] "...instead speaking about what 'Rome' teaches that is addition to scripture, as in "extra-biblical", not in the bible, etc."

In the course of conversation here, you had provided previous reply which unavoidably encompassed issues in regard to biblical canon, rather than "teachings" as it were, and you also were the one who brought that 'canon' aspect into the conversation...

I'm just not interested in assisting in this squirming away from your own comments which you are now engaging in, switching suddenly from one aspect to another -- while arguing against some other position or sense of what was being discussed. That you do this sort of thing constantly, is infuriating.

Facts of history (as I have shown but a few) have refuted the claim of yours which was highlighted.

The "Catholic Bible" has indeed changed in the last two thousand years -- in eventually having adopted the so-called (OT) deuterocanon as being equal to the "protocanon" (the rest of the "Hebrew Bible").

But now --- without having made any admission to this, the timeline is now changed by yourself to the 4th century. Yet going by Athanasius alone it would be better to take it to the 5th century...and as in the links which I provided, it can be seen that these additional writings were not entirely accepted by the Church as being anything more than "ecclesiastical writings" not fully on par with the rest of Scripture.

As I made note of also --- full acceptance was not even in existence in the course of voting upon the issue at the Council of Trent.

Were the ones who voted against full and indiscriminate inclusion of those writings; just so many more ignoramuses to be added to the list which includes Melito, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem and Ephiphanius, (those two having been declared "saints"), Athanasius & Jerome also, for all those men simply must have been ignorant -- if what you say here now in the 21 century is true in the senses which you have apparently intended for your claims to apply.

How many "saints" must be set aside and ignored in order to provide room for such statements as;

The above statement of yours is not precisely germane to the previous closer examination of one of your (many) claims, and comes across as a moving of the goalposts which by some bizarre form of reasoning must include assumption that deuterocanon, was from the earliest beginnings of "the Church" regarded as "bible" (truly Scripture).

Again, excerpt from The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha

Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation between marked footnotes #128 & #129

Was Catejan an imbecile also -- who did not "know" that the so-called deuterocanon was actually canonical, and always had been? I take it that one (Catejan) hasn't been "sainted" quite yet...so at least there is one who disputes your here claims, that is not a "saint", but whom you have along with a gathering of saints (by default) placed in category of ignoramus.

You seek to add generalized broadly sweeping accusation which is your own mere opinion (and that has been shown to be in error previously also)?

Excuse me, but the early church "fathers" very much relied upon Scripture foremost. Athanasius did, here again as provided (with hyper-link to source) just previously, to which I will now add emphasis for portion;

6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me

Athanasius is not the only one whom himself relied most chiefly upon Scripture, regarding that alone for "doctrines of godliness". Those of and within "the Church" could well enough err --- and he knew it, for he had to oppose them.

No one can argue from their own "ecclesiastical authority" if that not be most firmly and most well grounded in Scripture. Facing difficulties and theological dispute --- that "saint" turned to the Scriptures. Athanasius contra mundus, et mundum contra Athanasium or "While the world is set against Athanasius, Athanasius is equally set against the world." Luther was a distant echo of those who went before him, combating error and yes, even "heresy" within the Church.

in interpretation --- these so called "protestants" did not "ignore half of the Gospels", most particularly when the focus is upon the Reformers, and those theologians taken in aggregate, the truth of things being discernible after some sifting of those individuals writings, and study of early Church "fathers" (ECF's) in comparison to RCC practices and commonly held views of Reformation era.

Theological principles and concepts either have solid foundational support in Scripture -- or "they" don't.

But I've had to play yours, and do all the work while I was at it!

You've just lost the discussion/debate on just about each and every thing which you yourself said, anyway.

But now want me to play along with your own "game playing", while we all ignore how the RCC, by it's own admission teaches things which have no biblical foundation, such as the Assumption of Mary, which could be tolerable...but to that is added the Marionist "Immaculate Conception" -- which has little to nothing to do with the conception of Jesus himself, other than be a dogma which arose from gnosticism -- and the fears of men, namely that the Holy Lord could not have been born into what is said to be "sinful flesh" without being impossibly contaminated. To combat that worry, this "Immaculate" and "sinlessness" of Christ was extended to Mary herself -- from her own birth.

That is entirely "extra-biblical", and as I mentioned already and will again -- the RCC admits to that condition of that particular dogma.


5,588 posted on 01/09/2015 3:11:12 PM PST by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5576 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson