Do you know how the canon of the bible was compiled? How books like the Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Judas, etc were eliminated and others were kept? Did you know that Luther wanted to cut out St. James and called it a gospel of straw?
It takes an infallible church to compile a list of books. If not then you have what we see in Protestant Christianity where the “lost books” still are read and the questionibg never ends.
“Do you know how the canon of the bible was compiled?”
Historian J. A. Wylie said this
It is idle in Rome to say, “I gave you the Bible, and therefore you must believe in me before you can believe in it.” The facts...conclusively dispose of this claim. Rome did not give us the Bible—she did all in her power to keep it from us; she retained it under the seal of a dead language; and when others broke that seal, and threw open its pages to all, she stood over the book, and unsheathing her fiery sword, would permit none to read the message of life, save at the peril of eternal anathema” (emphasis in original).i
Many actual good Christians died by the hands of you romans trying to read, obtain, and learn the Bible over the last thousand years and now all of a sudden you romans what to claim the openness of the Bible, yeah ok.
For you to even make a silly statement like that tells me that what I’m about to say is going to be way above your head. You have spoken nothing but rcc talking points noting more nothing less. It’s apparent that you haven’t even did the basic research about the Bible.
The Holy Bible was written by Messianic Jews not pagan romans. The one Gentile Dr. Luke transcribed the record from those Jewish eye witnesses.
If it was collected by the rcc then why don’t you have the original autographs? You have copies just like everyone else does because the originals were collected and destroyed in persecution of the real Church and by the grace of the Lord Jesus copies survived.
As far as canonized all you have to do is read the 1st century and early 2nd century writings and you can see that a protestant Bible was already accepted long before there was a pagan rcc.
“It takes an infallible church to compile a list of books”
So you are telling me that pope francis and the cardinals that elected him are infallible... now that makes sense why you romans can’t see Scripture you can’t even see your own hypocrisy. All you can do is criticize him and then you think he and his electorate can be infallible... maybe in goofy land.
“If not then you have what we see in Protestant Christianity where the “lost books” still are read and the questionibg never ends.”
I have asked this question so many times and never received and answer, so apparently you have all the answers, so here you go I’ll be waiting.
Hey I’m still waiting on that reply mr. rome answer person. I mean since you rc’s gave the world the bible and you know all the mysteries of your god. Since you and other rc’s continue to use the argument of Luther removed the 7 books I will continue to ask why are they so important to a rc?
At face value it appears that you rc’s are just mouth pieces and have no idea what you really believe in except the rcc.org. 1 Peter 3:!5 demands they you be able to defend your belief to everyone.
Do those 7 books belong in the Old or New Covenant?
If they are Old Covenant theology how exactly does that pertain to a New Covenant Christian?
If they are New Covenant books please explain this...
How are they New Covenant when they are clearly before Jesus Christ was manifested in the flesh at Bethlehem?
What theological significance such as salvation, heaven, or hell do they bring to the New Covenant that wasn’t clearly explained in our current New Testament?
I have asked this question before and never get and answer, so either explain it or quit using it. With no explanation it appears that you rcc’s are simply mouth peices of propaganda with no real understanding of Rome’s beliefs.
Please help me to understand why you rcc’s hang on to those 7 books like they contain the ultimate secrets to eternal life or eternal hell.
Post 278
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3864661/posts?q=1&;page=251
That is ignorant and absurd, for the fact is that an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ, as manifest by the frequent appeals to Scripture, including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27) And writings of which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church. Moreover it is even implicitly affirmed in Catholicism that btwn her canon and ours, we hold to the most ancient OT canon: “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
Meanwhile, it was not until approx. 1,400 years after the last book was penned that your church finally provided her "infallible" canon of the whole Bible - after the death of Luther in 1546. Who, as with other scholars, had freedom to disagree on the canon, which he did as a private opinion which Protestantism disagrees with.
And in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries [go to link and read] and right into Trent, which after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it, provided the first "infallible" RC canon (which is not all the same as even that of the EOs).
Thus the question, if souls cannot discover the contents of Scripture and or be assured of its meaning without faith and reliance upon Rome, the self-proclaimed infallible judge, then how did souls prior to Rome rightly discern both men and writing as being from God?
Also, how can it be that souls cannot know what writings are of God without faith in Rome yet they are expected to see that Rome is of God and thus submit to her, and thus know what writings are of God?
, In addition, further consider the problems with Catholic apologetical ("we gave you the Bible=you need to submit to us") logic: If agreement with what an entity states on somethings means that one should submit to all, then 1st century souls should have submitted to all the judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses, as the magisterial stewards of Scripture.
And every man on the committee(s) was infallible?
O... K...