An article of faith

Taken said:

I accredit the Jews for the New Testament.
Your pride in Gentile Catholics is nothing new.

Click to expand...

Thay's funny - I accredit the HOLY SPIRIT for the New TestAment.

I also accredit Him for leading His Church to ALL truth (John 16:12-15) in declaring the Canon of Scripture in 383 AD.
And for reiterating that Canon -
- at the Synod of Hippo (393)
- at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397)
- in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse
- at the at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419)

And for closing the Canon at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books.

Taken said:

Read enough it should be called “Everything you want to know about Gaslighting.”
Seen enough of how many Catholics respond to know “the Catechism is their go to book.”

Click to expand...

Like I schooled you oin my last post - it's a REFERENCE Book, supported by VOLUMS of Scripture.

But, you keep inventing your lies - and I'll just keep on exposing you . . .

Taken said:

False. I did not say that.

Click to expand...

In Post #275 - YOU asked the following:

Taken said:

Where is the teaching of the Apostles, if not IN the Bible?

Click to expand...

I showed you TWO examples:
- The Didache
- The Canon of Scripture

Now, you're back to playing your usuale "denial game".

Good job . . .[/QUOTE]

BreadOfLife said:

I didn't say that the Didache was THE sourse for the KJV's usage of thie concluding doxoloxy in Matt. 10:16.
It was an indirect source.

The actual source was said to have been a footnote on a manuscript, according to the book I referenced, Rev. Henry G. Graham's, Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt To The Catholic Church.
It's a fairly short - but very interesting read.

Click to expand...

OK, I've read it. Can't find any reference to the Didache as a source, direct or indirect. Graham merely speculates that some copyist or other "might actually embody and copy into the sacred text of the Gospels words or notes or phrases which did not really belong to the Gospel at all, but had been written on the margin of the parchment by some previous scribe merely to explain things. These 'glosses’, as they are called, undoubtedly have crept in to some copies and the Protestants are guilty of repeating one every time they say their form of the Lord’s Prayer, with its ending 'For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’ Such an addition was not uttered by Our Lord; Catholics consequently do not use it."

No doubt copyist errors of this sort have crept in to translations many times -- but have we any reason to pick on this verse as being one instance of it? I assume that if Graham had an actual document to back up his theory that this doxology was a copyist mistaking of an earlier note for original language -- for example, the way the Johannine Comma can be traced to a marginal note in a fourth-century Latin translation, and eventually to Erasmus, thence to the Textus Receptus and thence to the KJV -- Graham would have shared it. (Respectfully, he's not much of a scholar!) Anyway, it would be nice to have some scholarship to back up his speculation.

Although I am not Roman Catholic, I agree with the Catholic view that this doxology was absent from Matthew's original. Why the KJV translators deemed it sufficiently well attested to deserve inclusion in their translation, however, still seems up in the air. Pointing to Tyndale just kicks the can further down the road. I'm hesitant to end up where you have in settling on the Didache as the ultimate basis, particularly given its lack of a "kingdom" reference.

Have you read Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates? Interesting stuff! You can get it here. His conclusion that "the Sermon on the Mount is itself an agglomeration of materials originally separate" is persuasive. And maybe that's where we will ultimately find our clue on the question of this doxology's authenticity.

Anyway, thanks for your input.

I have to comment, guys, there seems to be a lot of Catholic-bashing on this post (and lots of others). Honestly, I don't get it. It's almost as though anything @theefaith and @BreadOfLife posts is presumptively erroneous to @Taken and @amigo de christo. And vice versa.

I am not so foolish as to believe that my urging you to be less vitriolic will end the vitriol (although I wish that it would). But I'd urge you to acknowledge that some theological subjects are inherently difficult to resolve, so we should all be slow to reject competing views -- and even slower to claim as "proof" what may not be fully supportable once the onion gets peeled back (if for no other reason than that overreaching destroys one's credibility). "Test everything," as 1 Thess. 5:21 admonishes, but don't convince yourself that the Spirit is your tester, for the Spirit descends on more people with more divergent views than just you alone! The more vitriolic you are, the less any reader will believe that the Spirit underlies your positions -- for the Spirit is a Spirit of love. Display a little, and it will enhance your credibility.

For my part, I find it useful to test opposing views with logic, reason, and due regard to apostolic traditions as well as reference to Scripture, but always with the realization that I am fallible and I could be wrong -- and always free of any presumption based on a source rooted in either Catholicism or Protestantism. Both camps have something to offer.

Taken said:

I don’t agree with @theefaith religious views, or that the Bible is invalid for verification.
I don’t agree with @BreadOfLife religious views, or that the Bible stands equal with other writings for verification, or that he is the spokesman for all Catholics, or his Juvenile antics of speaking for others and then blasting others for what he has said for them.

Scripture in my view, is ALL true, nothing new that I have not clearly said before.
Scripture in my view, is FULL of Absolute Opposites.
It is the Individual who decides, chooses, WHICH of the TWO Opposites, he will follow, he will adhere to, he will commit to;
Freewill of the Individual effected.
~ Yes/No, Light/Dark, In/Out, With/Without, Up/Down...

Scripture itself reveals;
Yes, agree with the Word of God, BUT.... leaves the person with HOPE.
Yes, agree with the Word of God, AND... willing to heartfully commit;
...leaves the person with ASSURANCE.

Without Shame or Need for Defense, I have chosen Reliance ON Scripture ALONE, for Teaching me ABOUT God and His Word and His Power.
Without Shame or Need for Defense, I Trust, the beauty of this Earth is Gods handiwork’s. I Trust, my Blessings are Gods handiwork’s.
I Trust, God is Faithful and my ASSURANCE with Him forever, IS no longer Hoped for, rather IS Accomplished.

@theefaith / @BreadOfLife both Catholic, both advocate the position being of the Catholic Church is “continual HOPE”. Not all Catholics advocate the same. Not all Protestants advocate the same.
~ Individuals “adopting” any particular “Religious NAME TAG”; Protestant, Catholic, Islam, Buddhist, whatever, is simply an “indication”, of agreeing to the “Rituals” each denomination establishes, as necessary for “membership” in their ‘particular’ denomination.
~ Individuals may certainly “agree” and “adhere” to the “Rituals”, yet have “differences” / “divisions” in every thing being “sermonized” as being without question “infallible”.

I know the logic of concluding differences.
I also believe discussing Spiritual things, have little to do with carnal mindful logic, but rather rests with Spiritual Wisdom.

Glory to God,
Taken

Click to expand...

Your entire rant can be whittled down to the text abpove in RED.

You need to remember that it's NOT me who made the claim that Oral Tradition is on par with Scripture - but the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul's pen:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

The Holy Spirit says "Eitheer/OR" - and NOT Sola Scriptura.
YOR insistence on Sola Scriptura is a 16h centuery man-made invention.

And if there is ANY question regarding sacred Oral Tradition - the Holy Spirit has appointed the CHURCH as the final earthly Authority - and NOT the individual:
Matt 16:16-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

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.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

Taken said:

or that he is the spokesman for all Catholics,

Click to expand...

Another blatant LIE which I've never uttered - but which YOU constantly repeat . . .