Posted on 04/28/2015 9:30:05 AM PDT by NRx
...The “Bible,” a single book with the whole of the Scriptures included, is indeed modern. It is a by-product of the printing press, fostered by the doctrines of Protestantism. For it is not until the advent of Protestant teaching that the concept of the Bible begins to evolve into what it has become today. The New Testament uses the word “scriptures” (literally, “the writings”) when it refers to the Old Testament, but it is a very loose term. There was no authoritative notion of a canon of the Old Testament. There were the Books of Moses and the Prophets (cf. Luke 24:27) and there were other writings (the Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). But writers of the New Testament seem to have had no clear guide for what is authoritative and what is not. The book of Jude makes use of the Assumption of Moses as well as the Book of Enoch, without so much as a blush. There are other examples of so-called “non-canonical” works in the New Testament.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ancientfaith.com ...
I have personally compared manuscripts from the different groups, and the differences are, with VERY few exceptions, trivial. We know what the books of the Bible said nearly 2,000 years ago. We know how they determined which books would go in the Bible, and it was not in any way arbitrary. The Bible is the word of God.
And necessarily incorrect... But don't tell them I said that ; )
LOL! no.
“- 1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible;”
Well, he was the first person - whom we know of for certain - to produce a complete translation of the Bible IN MIDDLE ENGLISH.
“All 80 Books.”
Fewer actually. His canon matched the Vulgate.
This is a protestant myth. The canon of Scripture was fixed by a series of three councils, the first of which took place in 419, the last of which took place in 692. According to the theory of ecclesiology held by the Latins since their schism from the Church (hey this is an open discussion thread, but it was started with a post from an Orthodox source), the first of these councils, held at Carthage, sufficed, since its acta received an assent from the Pope of Roma (as the local patriarch). The last of the councils was the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumencial Council, which explicitly included the canons of Carthage among those to be held as valid throughout the Church. Some hold that one of the canons of the Council of Chalcedon (451) gave universal force to the canons of Carthage, but application of its reference to "the ancient canons" to canons of a council held a mere 32 years earlier is dubious.
Trent merely reiterated for the Latins, in the face of protestant attempts to abridge it, the canon as they had held it since the reaction against Marcion's heretical canon had forced a decision on "the books to be read in the churches" by a local council of the Patriarchate of Rome over 11 centuries earlier.
I am not Jewish, I am a Christian. As such, I follow the teachings of Christ, not Moses.
Presumption on your part....and a bit of a stretch to call it "tradition".
Could have been Luke, could have been the Holy Spirit, could have been Jesus.
Disagree. Mormons are not Christians, and the vast majority of protestants will acknowledge that Mormons aren't
Mormons do not follow Christ as we know Him as revealed in the Bible....hence they are not His followers.
The Book of Mormon is one of the strongest reasons to reject catholic claims to the verses in the Bible that admit we don't have everything ever recorded about what Jesus and the disciples/apostles did.
If you allow the catholic position on their "tradition" then you have to allow the Mormon their position on the Book of Mormon.
There is no conflict here. The Gospels were written after Paul was executed.
Including Matthew 5:17?
Yes. I fully acknowledge that Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT. That is a teaching of Jesus. Moses taught the law, Jesus taught grace and mercy.
I’d have to disagree. Though I’m not a Catholic, they, like other Christians at least have some basis for what they believe. The Book of Mormon, however, is a work of fiction.
Precisely.
I have myself made this point numerous times, NRx, but the fact that there is no “Bible in the Bible” proves Judaism, not Catholicism or Orthodoxy or anything else.
**begotten not made before time**
You’ll need to use scripture to back that up.
**100% Divine**
That’s the Father.
**and 100% human.**
That’s the Son, who is filled with the Father, and is in the Father. (John 14:10)
**The Word is Jesus Christ, not the Bible**
Jesus Christ said that the words were NOT his, but the Father’s. But, since he is in the Father, and the Father is in him, the Word in the Son proceeds from the mouth of the Son.
**The best I can give you is, most are, some are not.**
That’s an opinion based on what, or who? You’re making a judgement without naming names or qualifications. You need to finish your judgement,.....if you can.
**So how did Paul know that Jesus appeared to 500 people at one time. It’s not in any Gospel — it is Holy Tradition — he was told this person to person.**
There’s no new doctrines in a testamony like that. Jesus Christ clarified what kind of ‘great fish’ swallowed Jonah: a whale. That didn’t change the story.
“You’re making a judgement without naming names or qualifications. You need to finish your judgement,.....if you can.”
Well since you asked, here are a few Protestant sects that I would say are either definitely or at least arguably not Christian.
* Mormons
* Jehovah’s Witnesses
* Any group that does not baptize using water and the Trinitarian formula.
* Sects that deny any of the following... the virgin birth, the literal resurrection, the dual nature of Jesus Christ (both human and divine),the divine inspiration of Scripture and their inerrancy in matters of doctrine.
* Sects that have fallen into apostasy through repudiation of basic doctrine and or rejection of irreformable moral absolutes. Examples would include the UCC the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Presbyterian Church USA, the Episcopal Church etc.
*** Any group that does not baptize using water and the Trinitarian formula.**
Including this group?...........
Peter, Philip, Paul (and the rest of the apostles, since I don’t believe they taught differently from one another).
They baptized in the name of Jesus.
2:38; “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”.
8:12,13 (Samaritans) “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the NAME of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip...”.
8:16; “(For as yet he was fallen upon NONE of them: only they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus.)”
10:46,47,48 (Gentiles) “...Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME of the Lord...”.
(Remember that Peter had made it clear “that God hath made that same Jesus.....both LORD and Christ.” Acts 2:36)
Re-baptism in Ephesus: 19:5,6 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”
Then there is the emphasis on the NAME, which Paul makes clear to be Jesus: 1Cor. 1:13 “Is CHRIST divided? was PAUL crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the NAME of Paul?”
Lets look at Matt. 28:19...
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:..”.
He said ‘name’, not ‘names’. He also didn’t say, “..in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost.”.
The greatest teacher of all gave the disciples that commandment, and they promptly went about baptizing in the name of JESUS.
‘Son’ is a title. “thou shalt call his NAME Jesus”. Luke 1:21.
Jesus Christ said that his name is not his own (John 5:43), And Heb. 1:4 says that he inheritted it.
The apostles knew what they were doing when they baptized in the name of ‘Jesus’. You don’t use his name in water baptism?
Jesus Christ said, “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER will SEND in MY NAME...” (John 14:26). So, what name are YOU going to use to request the coming of the Holy Ghost?
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.