Catholics

[bbyrd009]

we seek recognition, to be attended to a certain way, but avoid a different kind of attention, i think the current vernacular terms it "getting roasted" lol, funny how accurate slang can be i guess

 

[ScottA]

The canon of the NT is not a wild fish story. We Catholics eagerly await a non-contradictory, plausible alternate Protestant explanation of how Christianity came to obtain the present NT Canon. Such insurmountable obstacles are representative of the reasons many of us former Protestants felt compelled to accept Catholicism, not some dreamt-up psycho-babble of an alleged infantile desire for fideistic dogma-without-reflection-and-exegesis, as James White would have it.

I, who follow none as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion with thy blessedness, that is, with the See of Peter. On that rock the Church is built, I know.
(St. Jerome, Epistle 15, writing to Pope Damasus)
An interesting fish story from the 4th century. But you don't accept the Early Church Fathers because none of them were Protestant. You have no history so you are forced to dispense with history as fish stories.

I eagerly await a non-contradictory, plausible alternate Protestant explanation of how Christianity came to obtain the present NT Canon. Fat chance.

You never heard me the first time, but again - I wouldn't know about Protestantism.

I also wasn't referring to the canon, but rather to the little fish, whom you all have made bigger over time.

But the non-contradictory, plausible alternative is neither catholic or protestant, but by the spirit of God whom works in spite of men. So, stop acting like you own the canon - it is not your providence, but God's. You are like Israel whom demanded a man be king over them when they had God over them. When given a choice between a man and God, they chose a man...and God not only let them, but insisted they get [their] way. But God did not loose control of men during that folly, nor has He lost control of His Word (or given it), but again has given men their due.

You act as if Christ's ministry was not to introduce the Holy Spirit, to set men free from their own devises, to teach men that they must also be born again of the spirit of God, that followers should lay down their lives - to lose their lives, that they may gain life [in] Him. These were the keys to the kingdom - but you did not enter in, but followed a man...and you will be told the same: "Satan, get thee behind me!"

 

[epostle1]

You never heard me the first time, but again - I wouldn't know about Protestantism.

I also wasn't referring to the canon, but rather to the little fish, whom you all have made bigger over time.

But the non-contradictory, plausible alternative is neither catholic or protestant, but by the spirit of God whom works in spite of men. So, stop acting like you own the canon - it is not your providence, but God's. You are like Israel whom demanded a man be king over them when they had God over them. When given a choice between a man and God, they chose a man...and God not only let them, but insisted they get [their] way. But God did not loose control of men during that folly, nor has He lost control of His Word (or given it), but again has given men their due.

You act as if Christ's ministry was not to introduce the Holy Spirit, to set men free from their own devises, to teach men that they must also be born again of the spirit of God, that followers should lay down their lives - to lose their lives, that they may gain life [in] Him. These were the keys to the kingdom - but you did not enter in, but followed a man...and you will be told the same: "Satan, get thee behind me!"

I am not saying we own the canon, I'm just saying you cannot admit to how we got it in the first place. Instead you go on about how evil men were.

 

[amadeus]

Yea, which has nothing to do with the discussion.

So what. I can't appeal to Protestant scholars because you disagree with them, I certainly can't appeal to Catholic scholars because you will reject them out-of-hand, I can't appeal the the Early Church Fathers because you have nothing to do with them. The only thing you will accept is whatever agrees with your private opinions.
You can have the last word, further discussion with you is pointless.

I do not reject anyone out of hand, Catholic or Protestant, but neither do I jump with both feet is support of someone simply because they are well-educated in scripture.

I have books containing many of the writings of the Early Church Fathers and I have read them and once in a while I still refer to them. You obviously have not really read or understood much of what I have posted. This is why further discussion seems to be futile. This should not be a reason to be hostile, should it?

But as the apostle wrote, "only God gives the increase"
Have a very good day.

 

[bbyrd009]

You never heard me the first time

sounds familiar, ya

You obviously have not really read or understood much of what I have posted

and baby makes 3!


but don't worry, notice that i have not tagged you, so you can just ignore this and it will disappear soon enough

 

[BreadOfLife]

ah, and my witnesses? have they been dodging too? so, we're all just dodging some responsibility to you here, and have not already made abundantly plain what it is we are talking about right now? you are the only one who does not know, then? Well, i guess we don't know, huh, i am maybe not being fair.

maybe a poll, would that sway you? Or i am open to suggestions here. Not sure how to word it neutrally, "Has BoL been informed many times, or none?" something like that i guess

Ummmm, you STILL haven't told me what you are "forgiving" me for.
You were trying to be funny and I exposed you.

Checkmate.

 

[BreadOfLife]

All I did was quote a scripture with precisely zero commentary.
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
Smile!

You don't want to discuss anyway. All you want to do is expound and much of what you put forth is not even yours.

No - all you did was imply that the evidence that Kepha31 presented was "foolishness" by taking a verse of Scripture out of context.

It was a non-answer because you had no response for the overwhelming Protestant scholarship against you.

 

[bbyrd009]

Ummmm, you STILL haven't told me what you are "forgiving" me for.

neither will i, nor will those who have agreed with the post, i guess. What would be the point, after all

You were trying to be funny and I exposed you.

Checkmate.

aw...well go with that then, and you win! yay!

 

[ScottA]

I am not saying we own the canon, I'm just saying you cannot admit to how we got it in the first place. Instead you go on about how evil men were.

I am not denying that the catholics got the canon or how. I am saying you chose second place out of two choices...and got exactly what that entails.

But, hey, you want to explain (concisely please) how you got the canon - please do.

 

[amadeus]

Objective Truth doesn't depend on who is defining the word. That's YOUR position - not mine.
Objective truth is something that is true - regardless of somebody's opinions.

YOUR statement, "Truth is not objective" is a fallacy because it is a mere opinion.
You're a moral relativist . . .

And is not the statement that your your beliefs are objective truth while mine are wrong also a mere opinion?

 

[aspen]

And, as I've been telling your friend Amadeus, Truth is not an opinion.
The truth that the Church teaches is true - regardless of your rejection of it . . .

So.....we can generate Truth?

.....because if not, all we can do is give our opnion about it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am not denying that the catholics got the canon or how. I am saying you chose second place out of two choices...and got exactly what that entails.

But, hey, you want to explain (concisely please) how you got the canon - please do.

Absolutely - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised:

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Jesus promised His Church that WHATEVER it ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Now - here's a little history lesson on just HOW the Holy spirit guided His Church to declare the Canon of Scripture:

- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified.
- It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).
- At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

Now - the REAL question is: Why do YOU adhere to the Canon of the New Testament that the Holy Spirit declared through the Catholic Church?
And - why do adhere to a different OT Canon than the one that the Holy Spirit declared though Catholic Church??

In other words - why do you accept the one and NOT the other??

 

[bbyrd009]

And is not the statement that your your beliefs are objective truth while mine are wrong also a mere opinion?

ha c'mon amadeus, you must know that when he does it it's different!

 

[BreadOfLife]

And is not the statement that your your beliefs are objective truth while mine are wrong also a mere opinion?

Nope.
That's like asking whether or not the sun is hot simply because I say so.
It's hot - and that's just a fact. The fact that I agree that it's hot has nothing to do with it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So.....we can generate Truth?

.....because if not, all we can do is give our opnion about it.

Wrong.
See my last post (#2334) . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

So.....we can generate Truth?

.....because if not, all we can do is give our opnion about it.

ha, i can pretty confidently give you odds of about 1:100 against this getting replied to tho, lol

Wrong.
See my last post (#2334) . . .

ok, i meant a real reply though, not a deflection ok. no cheating

 

[bbyrd009]

Nope.

Wrong.

lol, you guys masochists or something? what?

 

[BreadOfLife]

lol, you guys masochists or something? what?

How about adding something to the conversation instead of just moronic commentary?

 

[bbyrd009]

How about adding something to the conversation instead of just moronic commentary?

i could run that poll for you if you like, being as how you don't seem too inclined.

i mean after all, aren't you just dying to know the truth?

 

[aspen]

Nope.
That's like asking whether or not the sun is hot simply because I say so.
It's hot - and that's just a fact. The fact that I agree that it's hot has nothing to do with it.

Wow....’the sun is hot’ is a comparison, not a truth, but i won’t let that slow you down....

Creation can only reflect truth; only God can can generate truth.