Posted on 10/17/2017 8:10:47 AM PDT by Salvation
Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, Rome
St. Paul writes this in todays reading from the Letter to the Romans: “I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16).
Gospel here refers to the whole of the New Testament rather than merely the four Gospels. The gospel is the apostolic exhortation, the proclamation of the apostles of what Jesus taught and said and did for our salvation. This proclamation was recorded and collected in the letters of the apostles Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude, and in what later came to be called the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The gospel is the transformative word of the Lord proclaimed by the apostles in obedience to the command of the Lord,
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matt 28:19-20).
Of these apostles (sent ones) Jesus says this:
Very truly I tell you, whoever receives the one I send receives me; and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me (Jn 13:20).
So the gospel is the authoritative and transformative proclamation of the Lords word through the apostles in totality. Of this full and received message St. Paul says he is not ashamed, though he has suffered for preaching it; others have suffered and even been killed for it!
Can we say the same? Are we unashamed of the gospel? Sadly, too many people are to some extent ashamed of the gospel. Even among practicing Catholics and clergy, there are too many who promote a compromised, watered-down message rather than boldly, joyfully, and confidently proclaiming the full gospel.
St. Paul says that he is not ashamed of the gospel. What about us? Are we confident and uncompromising in proclaiming the gospel or are we ashamed and fearful? Do we compromise the gospel in order to avoid the scorn of an unbelieving, sin-sick world? Do we stand up without shame and proclaim the truth with love and confidence?
Are we ashamed of the gospel or are we joyful and confident?
This song says, You should be a witness! Stand up and be a witness for the Lord!
I’m sorry. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying the sermons of the APostles did not exist before 100 AD?
We don't have copies of the sermons or conversations he had outside of the New Testament.
When Paul was writing to the church at Rome....why didn't he carve out an exception for Mary regarding all have sinned?
Have you ever wondered why he didn't? Because he knew she was a sinner.
Why didn't Luke come right out and say that Mary was sinless? Because he knew she was a sinner.
That's why such much of what Rome teaches about Mary is rejected by Christianity. It's not found in the NT.
Dear Mrs. Don-o, with respect, none of that addresses the issue I pointed out to you earlier:
There is no way to know what *traditions* were referenced when Paul wrote...
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Here is exactly what we know...
Paul TAUGHT these *traditions* orally or in his writings.We only have a record of his writings - as well as the writings of other Apostles - as the Holy Spirit inspired them to be written, flawlessly.
There is no separate *inspired list of traditions* that are not recorded in Scripture.
What happens in FRomanic Practice is that Paul's simple statement is transmogrified into a Blank Check, wherein is written, "Whatever Rome Declares is Apostolic Tradition Because Paul Said to Follow Traditions"And of course, Paul specified the *traditions* he referred to are what he taught. We have his epistles that contain what the Holy Spirit *chose* to inspire.
The rest is almost always accretions of history and syncretic paganism.
For example...
The Roman Empire conquered the Greeks and incorporated many of its pagan traditions with its own."Jupiter was the king of the gods. Like all the Roman gods, he was based on his Greek counterpart, Zeus. Each profession had its patron god or goddess. Betty Crocker would have prayed to Vesta, the goddess of the hearth. You worshiped the gods not out of moral obligation, but to gain a favor."
- Europe 101: History and Art for the Traveler, Rick Steves and Gene Openshaw
Later, Rome made Christianity official. All this was blended into Syncretic Christianity. Once Christianity was incorporated into Rome, these gods were replaced with specific saints for every profession or favor wanted.
Today, you can see many of them written about on FreeRepublic threads, idolized in practice and worn as idols around FRomans and Romans everywhere.
Not a scintilla of these practices and teachings are traditions Paul wrote about and there is no evidence that he ever taught or believed any of it.
These checks are written on an account at the Bank of Historic Pagan Belief.
Any proof or evidence that any Apostle taught half of what Rome teaches and you assert.
2) Why doesn’t abundant historic evidence constitute proof?
Evidence of what? To be evidence that it was taught requires an unbroken line of proof that it existed at each stage, which you have demonstrated over the years you can not prove.
Therefore to accept Scripture is to accept Tradition.
Hit the delete button on Tradition, and Scripture disappears from your screen.
All false arguments and logical fallacies that have been addressed and rejected on FR on numerous occastions, but you continue to trot them out as real arguments instead of the assertions they are.
90 Shepherd of Hermas (earliest non-Scripture Christian literature)
96 Didache (earliest extant Church catechism)
96 Letter from Clement, Bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians
99 All New Testament writings finished (but no canon)
108 Seven letters of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch
110 Letter of Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, to the Philippians
150 Writings of Justin Martyr
155 "Martyrdom of Polycarp" written
176 Athenagoras writes "Embassy for the Christians"
177 St. Irenaeus of Lyons, "Against All Heresies": lists the succession of Popes beginning with Peter.
180 Apostle's Creed written by the Christians in Rome.
208 Tertullian writes in "On Monogamy", that a good widow prays for her dead husband's soul
220 Pope St. Callistus I excommunicates Sabellius, who taught that the Son of God did not exist before the Incarnation
251 First Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian, whose famous treatise, On the Unity of the Church, argues that the Church was founded on Peter, and that the local bishop was the head of the local Church.
208 St. Stephen I is elected Pope: he invoked Matt. 16:18 as evidence for the authority of the Chair of Peter.
265 Three councils held at this time in Antioch condemn the heretical teaching that Jesus became the Son of God through adoption because of his merits, and that God is only One Person.
300 Armenia becomes first officially Christian nation.
305 The Council of Elvira (Spain)
313 Lateran church tribunal, presided over by Pope
320 St. Pachomius founds the first two monasteries-- one for men, one for women
325 The Council of Nicaea defines Trinitarian belief in God. The Father and God the Son are declared equally God against the teachings of Arius. This council produced the Nicene Creed.
330 Building of first St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
350 St. Ephraem, musician and theologian, known as the Harp of the Holy Spirit. Author of the Nisibene Hymns, some of which are Marian.
381 Pope Damasus I approved the canons of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This Council produced the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed, which almost all branches of Christendom accept to this day.
383 Pope St. Damasus I commissions St. Jerome's translation of the Greek texts into Latin for the first authoritative translation of the Bible into a vernacular language. (Latin was still vernacular at that time). Several books were disputed --- even by Jerome --- but he finally decided the best course was simply to agree with the already-established practice of what had long been approved to be read in the Churches. i.e. to affirm the books already used in the Liturgy.
405 St. Jerome completes his translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew.
419Synod of Carthage affirms the canon of Hippo, with the words, "Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of Rome], and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to be read in church."
Paul's letters were already considered Scripture by this time.
The OT was already established.
The Councils didn't pick and choose the books of the NT. They recognized what the Church was using.
383 Pope St. Damasus I commissions St. Jerome's translation of the Greek texts into Latin for the first authoritative translation of the Bible into a vernacular language. (Latin was still vernacular at that time). Several books were disputed --- even by Jerome --- but he finally decided the best course was simply to agree with the already-established practice of what had long been approved to be read in the Churches. i.e. to affirm the books already used in the Liturgy.
The books in question of the OT were not those you claim to have been long approved. They did not include the apocrypha.
393 Council of Hippo Regius, the first council that accepted the present New Testament canon.
Emphasis on accepted...not picked. They recognized what the Church was already using.
You've let out a lot of detail on how the NT canon came into being.
I still find it interesting that at Trent, when the Roman Catholic Church finally officially approved its canon, that it didn't include ANY of the other writings Roman Catholics hold so dear.
Yes, they were. But there was still no official NT canon. They were from a very early date confident, about the Gospels and Paul. There was iffiness about Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and even the Revelation of John.
Some Christians included other books as well, such as the so-called New Testament Apocrypha: the 'gospels' of the Ebionites, the Hebrews, the Nazarenes, the Infancy Gospels of James, Thomas, and Pseudo-Matthew.
It's only since the fifth century that a widespread consensus emerged limiting the New Testament to the 27 books of the modern canon.
These were the lingering disputes that came up at councils for a definitive judgment., If they had not been controversial there would be no reason for a Council or Synod to take up the question.
"The OT was already established."
Well, yeah... if you want to say the Septuagint canon was established, go right on ahead. That gives you a 46-book OT. Amen? I'll give you an Amen.
You should be aware, though, that the Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon, and that's the text principally relied upon by the 16th and 17th century Reformation. That was adopted by the Jews between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. Yes, AD. The oldest extant manuscripts date from around the 9th century. AD. By then, the Rabbinical Jews had long dropped the Septuagint canon. The LXX were the scrolls Jesus and the Apostles were familiar with, as the Septuagint provides 85% of the OT quotes used in the NT. And of course it includes the Deuterocanonicals.
Amen.
"The Councils didn't pick and choose the books of the NT. They recognized what the Church was using."
Sorry, but you are recycling that which isnt evidence, as I demonstrated the last time you made this claim.
You have not proven:
1. That there is any list of traditions beyond Pauls teachings in Gods inspired Word.
2. That any Apostle ever taught the things Rome incorporated from paganism.
predated the fixing of the Biblical canon by 200 - 300 years
Another red herring argument that should be noted.
2/3 of the canon of a Scripture was set before the birth of Christ.
the Epistles from the Apostles were circulated among NT Assemblies while the Apostles were alive.
Peter identified Pauls writings as Scripture.
the Roman canon was re-examined on several occasions and errors corrected.
And most importantly, the same Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture, preserved Scripture. He is still alive and faithful today.
YES!! YES!! That's the point!!
You do realize what you're saying don't you?
Would that be the same "Our Father" (we know it as "The Lord's Prayer") from the King James Bible that even Catholics use because it's a much more beautiful translation?
In light of this, can you perhaps answer your own question now?
How frequently do you say the Our Father ?
I’d say once a week generally speaking although I’m unaware of any specific requirement.
I’m curious though, is this a sort of contest? Is frequency and repetition of the very same words regarded as more desirable among Roman Catholics for some reason?
Or, is it perhaps sincere, humble and thankful prayer that is effective, rather than rote, repetitive ritualization?
Seems I recall something Biblically unfavorable regarding vain repetition. Do you recall this?
I don't think anyone disputes there are saints in Heaven. However with Romam Catholicism's belief in purgatory you don't really know who is there or who is in purgatory.
My goodness. I thought Yoda was a Jedi Master.
Isaiah 42:8 I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
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.