Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
SolomonVII said:I see much wisdom in understanding that this was a decision made in concert with the Holy Spirit, and just leaving it at that.
Montalban said:And the church bore witness that the books they held were scripture
Exactly.
No. Circular logic doesn't apply either way.What? So it must be false?
Well 'right' was Paul who handed his Epistles over and thus the witness for those Epistles.Or is it true because the "right people" said it is?
How did the Holy Spirit do this?Is the Holy Spirit not the right person to claim the authenticity of the books He wrote through inspired men?
Albion said:Except of course that that church was the so-called Undivided Church of the first millennium.
It gives a lift to some people to think "that was us," but a number of today's different churches/denominations/communions can and do claim descent from it.
It is true that several communions claim apostolic succession, partly because one Bishop may have left the Church in order to grant apostolic succession to a breakaway communion. But I think the communions which have the most valid claims to true apostolic succession are the RCC and EOC.
Albion said:We were not even talking about Apostolic Succession there, steve.
No. Circular logic doesn't apply either way.
Well 'right' was Paul who handed his Epistles over and thus the witness for those Epistles.
Whether they are 'true' in their message is one thing, but they are truly Paul's messages because the churches bore witness to this.
How did the Holy Spirit do this?
Just imagine you lived back then. There's more than a dozen books that existed re: Christianity. You can see some of them at
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
The church gathers together and looks at what books to put in the bible. They do so. EVEN IF the Holy Spirit worked through them, or not - perhaps you think the HS just handed the church a completed bible you'd still be faced with the question "How do I know that these books that the church presented me as being genuine are in fact genuine" - unless you accepted the church as genuine.
You're 2,000 years (or so) removed from the process, and devoid of that church so I'd still like to know how you know the bible is genuine.
I'm not devoid of that church, being part of it.
And other communions de-emphasize apostolic succession because they claim to have leapt backwards from the continuity of the Church to the original 1st Century Church. Be that as it may, the Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church."
Oh, yeah. Absolutely. & more, it's as if there weren't collections of epistles & gospels around previous to the council. Also, don't forget to ignore the fact that the EO & RVVV have diifferent collections (canons), & that what is supposed to be a monolith (orthodoxy) was a scismatic mess way before anyone Protested for the sake of Reform.quote=daydreamergurl15;You make it sound like these men MADE the books to be inspired. NO! These books were ALREADY WRITTEN, already INSPIRED before these men bound them. And by the way, the Jews bound the Old Testament before the council did, does that mean they have authority? Protestants goes with the Jews OT because they were given the oracles of God. But the binding of them by the Jews doesn't make it any more or less inspiring, and seeing as we came up with the same books, you would think the Holy Spirit was working through these men to say what is and isn't inspired. And yeah, these books were handed down, how else do you think we have them to bind them? As for the false ones, the Apostles reminded them of the very thing and we keep forgetting that people has the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Sola FidelisAnd I am part of the church because the church is the body of believers. No where in scripture does it say that the CHURCH are the members of the Catholic faith, it said the church is the body of believers.
Amen. Not some guy's opinion a hundred years later.Being 2000 years removed from the church means nothing because those in council were 314 years removed from it, and yet Scripture still speaks to us today. When I read the Scriptures, I'm not reading what someone wrote in 314 AD, I'm reading the writings that were written at the time of the events taking place.
daydreamergurl15 said:You make it sound like these men MADE the books to be inspired. NO! These books were ALREADY WRITTEN, already INSPIRED before these men bound them. And by the way, the Jews bound the Old Testament before the council did, does that mean they have authority? Protestants goes with the Jews OT because they were given the oracles of God. But the binding of them by the Jews doesn't make it any more or less inspiring, and seeing as we came up with the same books, you would think the Holy Spirit was working through these men to say what is and isn't inspired. And yeah, these books were handed down, how else do you think we have them to bind them? As for the false ones, the Apostles reminded them of the very thing and we keep forgetting that people has the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And I am part of the church because the church is the body of believers. No where in scripture does it say that the CHURCH are the members of the Catholic faith, it said the church is the body of believers.
I always accept the church as genuine but the genuineness of the truth deals with the death of Christ on the cross not making the book inspired.
Being 2000 years removed from the church means nothing because those in council were 314 years removed from it, and yet Scripture still speaks to us today. When I read the Scriptures, I'm not reading what someone wrote in 314 AD, I'm reading the writings that were written at the time of the events taking place.
Rick Otto said:Tgr RCC canonized the Bible IT has, not the Bible WE have.
You make it sound like the RCC's canon is the only one ever produced.
Is that what you think?
Rick Otto said:Which Catholic Church? Which Scriptures?
Your presentation of unity & authority is full of holes.
He didn't say that the Church MADE the books inspired, he said that the Church BORE WITNESS to their inspiration. The Church canonized the Bible you have today, except for some writings that Protestants don't include in their Bibles.
Do you not have the exact same New Testament as the Catholic Church?
I can understand that for some Christians, looking into the history of how the Bible came to be canonized through Holy Tradition and Church authority may seem to be a threat to their faith, but a thread like this might invariably open the issue. But once again, this type of inquiry is not the same as questioning the validity of the Bible. It is simply a matter of umnderstanding by what process the Bible came to be as it is today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?