What Do You Think Would Have Happened If...

[Born_Again]

What gives the RCC the authority to add to the initial 66? Keep in mind, Christianity was outlawed in Rome until after Constantine took office and became christian. Then suddenly it s a good idea to start adding books? Nearly 300 years after the crucifixion. Prior to that, you mean to tell me the church didnt feel the need to write anything else? Come on....

 

[Stranger]

The problems with your theory is that it relies on the incorrect notion that the modern Jewish Bible is identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. We know the Old Testament was still very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period.

YOU said "The Old Testament is from the Jews in Israel. It is their Bible". Which Old Testament Jews do you speak of?

The Sadducees who regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical with the rest of the Old Testament being regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today.

The Pharisees which was another Jewish faction of the time. These Jews held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon which was far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture.

The Diaspora Jews made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture, the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The vast majority of Jews at the time regarded the Septuagint as inspired Scripture. In fact, the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint as Scripture.

You really didn't answer any of my legitimate questions from post #36:

God inspired the books" and then he told WHO which books were inspired and should be in the bible?

The Christians in what day?

WHO "recognized certain books as of Gods Spirit"?

What "individual churches" are you speaking of?

What table of contents did you look at? The one from the Gutenberg Bible?

I told you. The Old Testament from the Jews in Israel. The one they use is the one I use. As listed in my previous reply.

I did answer your questions. I use a King James Bible. It's contents are those in my previous reply.

Now, do you disagree that the 66 books listed in the previous reply are inspired by God?

Stranger

 

[tom55]

I told you. The Old Testament from the Jews in Israel. The one they use is the one I use. As listed in my previous reply.

I did answer your questions. I use a King James Bible. It's contents are those in my previous reply.

Now, do you disagree that the 66 books listed in the previous reply are inspired by God?

Stranger

Which Old Testament Jews? The Sadducees , the Pharisees or the Diaspora Jews? They all had a different list of inspired books and all were active during Jesus ministry.

The Septuagint version of Scripture (from which Christ quoted) includes the Deuterocanonical books. Two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible OR the KJV?

Furthermore, scholars now know the Textus Receptus contains errors, which means the King James Version contains errors.

I agree with you that historically we know The New Testament canonization was over a period of time. It took about 400 years before The Church finalized the list of 27 NT books. It was then received by the people of God as from God because The Church decided what the 27 books would be. Unless you have someONE else in mind who decided?

So I ask you again. Since we agree God inspired the books WHO did he tell which books were inspired and should be in the bible?

YOU mentioned individual churches. What "individual churches" are you speaking of?

 

[tom55]

What gives the RCC the authority to add to the initial 66? Keep in mind, Christianity was outlawed in Rome until after Constantine took office and became christian. Then suddenly it s a good idea to start adding books? Nearly 300 years after the crucifixion. Prior to that, you mean to tell me the church didnt feel the need to write anything else? Come on....

The Septuagint version of Scripture (from which Christ quoted) includes the Deuterocanonical books. Two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible OR the KJV?

It is a complete myth that the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonicals to the Bible. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. The Council of Trent reaffirmed it in the face of the Protestant attack on Scripture.

Historically we know that prior to the councils of the late 300s there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament. It seems ironic you reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) especially since these are the very same early Church councils that YOU agree with for the canon of the New Testament. You accept the RCC NT list but reject the RCC OT list?

In summary you are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the New Testament but you are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament.......You got some explaining to do young man. <_<

 

[Born_Again]

The Septuagint version of Scripture (from which Christ quoted) includes the Deuterocanonical books. Two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible OR the KJV?

It is a complete myth that the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonicals to the Bible. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. The Council of Trent reaffirmed it in the face of the Protestant attack on Scripture.

Historically we know that prior to the councils of the late 300s there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament. It seems ironic you reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) especially since these are the very same early Church councils that YOU agree with for the canon of the New Testament. You accept the RCC NT list but reject the RCC OT list?

In summary you are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the New Testament but you are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament.......You got some explaining to do young man. <_<

I will. I shall return... To make sure I dont make any errors, I am doing my homework. I'll be back. LOL

 

[tom55]

Revelation 22:19(ESV)
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Though this speaks to taking away from the Word of God, I dont see how adding to it, after the 66 were written, is any different. The Mormon Church did the same thing. They miraculously produced golden tablets no one else saw and said they were from God as well. Then they used that make their own laws of the church as well.... How is that any different from what the RCC did?

That scripture quote does not speak of "taking away from the Word of God". It speaks of "taking away from the words of the book of THIS PROPHECY".

 

[Stranger]

Which Old Testament Jews? The Sadducees , the Pharisees or the Diaspora Jews? They all had a different list of inspired books and all were active during Jesus ministry.

The Septuagint version of Scripture (from which Christ quoted) includes the Deuterocanonical books. Two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible OR the KJV?

Furthermore, scholars now know the Textus Receptus contains errors, which means the King James Version contains errors.

I agree with you that historically we know The New Testament canonization was over a period of time. It took about 400 years before The Church finalized the list of 27 NT books. It was then received by the people of God as from God because The Church decided what the 27 books would be. Unless you have someONE else in mind who decided?

So I ask you again. Since we agree God inspired the books WHO did he tell which books were inspired and should be in the bible?

YOU mentioned individual churches. What "individual churches" are you speaking of?

Again I told you. The Jews from Israel determined the Old Testament Canon. The Palestine area. You have it now in what is called the 'Tanakh'. It is the exact same Old Testament that I listed in my reply #39. The Apocryphal books are not there because they are not inspired by God.

No, the reception of the people of God is first. The writing carries its own authority. No church ever made a writing authoritative. They church can recognize that the people received this as authoritative and inspired by God. " My sheep hear my voice ". So, as I said, overtime, the early church, which is composed of all believers in Christ, would accept certain books and ignore or refuse certain books.

So, again I ask you, Are not all the books listed in my reply #39 inspired by God? Please answer.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

Again I told you. The Jews from Israel determined the Old Testament Canon. The Palestine area. You have it now in what is called the 'Tanakh'. It is the exact same Old Testament that I listed in my reply #39. The Apocryphal books are not there because they are not inspired by God.

No, the reception of the people of God is first. The writing carries its own authority. No church ever made a writing authoritative. They church can recognize that the people received this as authoritative and inspired by God. " My sheep hear my voice ". So, as I said, overtime, the early church, which is composed of all believers in Christ, would accept certain books and ignore or refuse certain books.

So, again I ask you, Are not all the books listed in my reply #39 inspired by God? Please answer.

Stranger

I apologize. I thought we were in agreement that your list in #39 was accurate. I thought you understood that I have been asserting that historically it lacked a few inspired books. I should have answered you directly: YES, we agree!! :)

If "No church ever made a writing authoritative" then WHO made the KJV of the bible the authoritative Bible for you? Why did you choose the KJV and not any other version?

The Sadducees Jews and the Pharisees Jews were of the Palestine area during Jesus time. Diaspora Jews far outnumbered the Jews in Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem. All three sects had a different list of inspired books. Soooooo....once again you have to decide which Jewish sect you want to pick to back up your theory. Which one do you choose to get your list of inspired books from?

The Jews do not have a closed canon because their Messiah has not yet come. So if they add new books to the Tenakh, are you going to accept those new books as inspired also?

Why do you accept what books the Jews have to say are inspired and not what books The Church has said are inspired? The Jews say that the NT books are not inspired. Do you accept that notion?

 

[Born_Again]

Im not done yet, Tom, but I gotta tell ya, its not looking good for you. So far, I can see why these books are not accepted. How you got duped into accepting them is beyond me.... I will be back with more...

And to show you I'm not using anti-Catholic sources to make my conclusions, here is one of the sources I am using. www.usccb.org/

Be back later!!

 

[Born_Again]

Quick question, why did it take all the way to 2008 for the RCC to say "oh, by the way, all Catholics should have a bible and use it."? Was it because the RCC had their followers so convinced that they were "infallible" that they trusted whatever was fed to them?

 

[tom55]

Quick question, why did it take all the way to 2008 for the RCC to say "oh, by the way, all Catholics should have a bible and use it."? Was it because the RCC had their followers so convinced that they were "infallible" that they trusted whatever was fed to them?

And from what Catholic source did you get that quote?

 

[Stranger]

I apologize. I thought we were in agreement that your list in #39 was accurate. I thought you understood that I have been asserting that historically it lacked a few inspired books. I should have answered you directly: YES, we agree!! :)

If "No church ever made a writing authoritative" then WHO made the KJV of the bible the authoritative Bible for you? Why did you choose the KJV and not any other version?

The Sadducees Jews and the Pharisees Jews were of the Palestine area during Jesus time. Diaspora Jews far outnumbered the Jews in Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem. All three sects had a different list of inspired books. Soooooo....once again you have to decide which Jewish sect you want to pick to back up your theory. Which one do you choose to get your list of inspired books from?

The Jews do not have a closed canon because their Messiah has not yet come. So if they add new books to the Tenakh, are you going to accept those new books as inspired also?

Why do you accept what books the Jews have to say are inspired and not what books The Church has said are inspired? The Jews say that the NT books are not inspired. Do you accept that notion?

I appreciate it. It is important to me that we understand the Bible I have is inspired by God.

The KJV is not attempting to prove the Canon. It is simply translating the Canon.

Show me the books of the Pharisees and Sadducees and how they differed from traditional Jews of that era. It doesn't matter if the Jews of the Diaspora outnumber the Jews of Palestine. It just means more were wrong. No, its not a decision I have to make. I have the Tanakh in front of me. It is the same as our Old Testament.

Who came up with that theory that because the Jews Messiah hasn't come, the Canon is not closed? Just try and add more books to it and see where it gets you. They won't add any more books.

No I don't accept what the Jews today say about the New Testament. The Jews of the Old Testament and of the New Testament were 400 years apart. Look at the condition of America, a Christian nation in the begining, is now. It is secularist and atheistic. And it is not 300 years old. The Tanakh comes from the traditional Hebrew text. Our Old Testament.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

I appreciate it. It is important to me that we understand the Bible I have is inspired by God.

The KJV is not attempting to prove the Canon. It is simply translating the Canon.

Show me the books of the Pharisees and Sadducees and how they differed from traditional Jews of that era. It doesn't matter if the Jews of the Diaspora outnumber the Jews of Palestine. It just means more were wrong. No, its not a decision I have to make. I have the Tanakh in front of me. It is the same as our Old Testament.

Who came up with that theory that because the Jews Messiah hasn't come, the Canon is not closed? Just try and add more books to it and see where it gets you. They won't add any more books.

No I don't accept what the Jews today say about the New Testament. The Jews of the Old Testament and of the New Testament were 400 years apart. Look at the condition of America, a Christian nation in the begining, is now. It is secularist and atheistic. And it is not 300 years old. The Tanakh comes from the traditional Hebrew text. Our Old Testament.

Stranger

Oh goodness. You want me to answer your questions but you won't answer mine:

If "No church ever made a writing authoritative" then WHO made the KJV of the bible the authoritative Bible for you? Why did you choose the KJV and not any other version?

 

[Born_Again]

And from what Catholic source did you get that quote?

The above posted site. If you take the time to read all of what they have posted on there, you can have all sorts of fun punching holes in their teachings, traditions, theology and doctrines!!! :) I'm going to take a few days and fully educate myself in the Catholic church and come back to you. I'm researching all current teachings as well as the past popes. ( I really had to know who drummed up the Rosary and why) I want a full understanding before I come back to you. I'll make it worth your while.

 

[Stranger]

Oh goodness. You want me to answer your questions but you won't answer mine:

If "No church ever made a writing authoritative" then WHO made the KJV of the bible the authoritative Bible for you? Why did you choose the KJV and not any other version?

You are mixing canonization with translation. And I did answer you. The authoritative Scripture contain 66 books. Thirty Nine in the Old. Twenty Seven in the New. I like the KJV. I think it is the best version. But there are other versions of the 66 books of the Bible. But that is another subject.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

The above posted site. If you take the time to read all of what they have posted on there, you can have all sorts of fun punching holes in their teachings, traditions, theology and doctrines!!! :) I'm going to take a few days and fully educate myself in the Catholic church and come back to you. I'm researching all current teachings as well as the past popes. ( I really had to know who drummed up the Rosary and why) I want a full understanding before I come back to you. I'll make it worth your while.

A link to that quote would be great. That would prove you are right and I am wrong when I say you made it up.

BTW...The saying of the rosary is not a requirement to be Catholic. It's not doctrine or dogma. It's just a series of prayers and those prayers consist of words that come mainly from the Bible. Do you think it is a bad thing to use words from the bible to pray?

 

[tom55]

You are mixing canonization with translation. And I did answer you. The authoritative Scripture contain 66 books. Thirty Nine in the Old. Twenty Seven in the New. I like the KJV. I think it is the best version. But there are other versions of the 66 books of the Bible. But that is another subject.

Stranger

The first translation of the KJV of the bible had the 73 books. Why did you choose the later version of the KJV that had fewer books?

The Douay–Rheims Bible and the Gutenberg bible was translated BEFORE KJV. Why did you choose the KJV that was translated later?

Early Christians read the Septuagint which included the seven deuterocanonical books. We also know the authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.

 

[Stranger]

The first translation of the KJV of the bible had the 73 books. Why did you choose the later version of the KJV that had fewer books?

The Douay–Rheims Bible and the Gutenberg bible was translated BEFORE KJV. Why did you choose the KJV that was translated later?

Early Christians read the Septuagint which included the seven deuterocanonical books. We also know the authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.

The apocryphal books were never considered by the KJV as part of the canon. In early Protestant Bibles they were placed in a section of their own and labeled as not being fit to establish doctrine but could be read.

Jerome always stated that the apocrypha were not canonical. When was his 'Vulgate' translated? And, I like the King James Version.

What Septuagint? Do you have a copy of it? Where did authors quote from the Septuagint? If the 'Septuagint' included the apocrypha as Scripture, then it was wrong. Where is the proof that the apocrypha was considered Scripture in the so called Septuagint?

Stranger

 

[OzSpen]

If the Catholic Church isn't the pillar and foundation of truth, which Church is?

You know....the Church Jesus established in Matthew 16. The Church the Apostles talk about all thru scripture that is supposed to decide if someone is to be treated as a pagan or tax collector, elect the best among them to be elders and deacons. The ONE Church that speaks with ONE voice to decide if all new Christians have to be circumcised or not. The Church that we know from the historical writings of our Early Church Fathers!! The ONE Church that lives in harmony with each other where there are no divisions because that Church is of ONE mind, united in thought and purpose (1Corintians). You know the ONE.....NOT the separate LOCAL CHURCHES that teach different doctrine and then change their doctrines when they get new elders or they want to keep up with social culture.

See....no red herring fallacy here. Only the facts from scripture and history.

Which ONE Church do you choose?

Tom,

Again you fail to deal with the issue I raised of HOW you engaged in a red herring fallacy. When you refuse to answer the content of my topic and are off and running with where you want to go, making it sound like the topic, you have committed a red herring fallacy. That's what you did and that's what I demonstrated in my post.

If you continue to commit fallacies in your responses to me, we have no ground for further discussion. I will desist from communicating.

I choose to worship the ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST who is the head of HIS church. I don't worship the Pope who is head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Again you fail to deal with the issue I raised of HOW you engaged in a red herring fallacy. When you refuse to answer the content of my topic and are off and running with where you want to go, making it sound like the topic, you have committed a red herring fallacy. That's what you did and that's what I demonstrated in my post.

If you continue to commit fallacies in your responses to me, we have no ground for further discussion. I will desist from communicating.

I choose to worship the ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST who is the head of HIS church. I don't worship the Pope who is head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Oz

Which Church is "His Church"? You know the one Jesus established and Scripture talks about? Is it invisible?

The Church has 2,000 years of doctrine/dogma/beliefs documented and backed up by scripture and history. Their beliefs are backed up by the greatest Christian minds of the last 2,000 years. You have your doctrine/dogma/beliefs written down on a website based on your personal beliefs and you worship yourself as a great theological mind. You have written down on your website what you believe scripture means and (I presume) you follow that belief. You have made yourself your own pope and Magisterium of your own church.

It is very clear you lack the ability and the facts to articulate or back up your unbiblical position that Jesus/scripture did not establish a visible and hierarchical church with the authority to loosen and bind and determine what is heretical or who should be treated as a pagan or tax collector. I on the other hand have used scripture to back up my position. Sadly the only response you have to me is the same old red herring fallacy or logical fallacy or straw man accusation.