[centre] [sign]
STOP!!!!! TIME OUT!!!!! [/sign] [/centre]
Lets all just stop for a minute and consider what's going one here.
Ignatiaus made a statement - in a post which included previous quotes of his own that you, Mike, cannot read because you have him on ignore. The previous posts were to do with the statement:-
"It is a doctrine of The Church that the Holy Scriptures are the inerrant and God brethed. The doctrine of inerrancy flows very naturally from the Church's teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God and God is Truth...than all that He says must be truth. No error can be contained in anything spoken by God. So if the Bible is inspired it would be free of error."
and also included THE DECREE OF DAMASUS....... The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon.... and The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...
The statement was :-
What is it that you do not understand? It was written by Catholics for Catholics under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
To which Leo the Lioness posted:-
So Jewish Christians and Protestants have no place reading the Bible since it was not written for them?
And I replied:-
Umm no.
What you're saying is that you shouldn't read any historical writings of the Civil War because it's not relevant to you.
What Ignatius is saying is that historical writings of the Civil war were written as relevant to the people and time.
Then you Mike, jumped down my throat in full battle armour.
What I was doing, was making a valid comparison about a comment that was made.
Firstly, let me point out, that I believe Ignatius erred in the use of 'written', instead of 'assembled' when referring ot the Bible AS A WHOLE. However, if he were just to refer to the NT then the use of the word 'written' is appropriate.
Secondly, the comment of the lioness is faulty, for it makes the assumption that this Book is written for the future, when, inessence, the Bible was written for the early Christians, but is still very relevant for us today.
The mistake we are intent on making is in the ownership of the Scriptures. The Bible was assembled by the Church of the time from the many and varied writings that were circulating that were purporting to be Christ's word. It wasn't assembled overnight, they weren't chosen by lottery. Each book added was carefully considered by the Church, before a decision was made about weather or not to include it.
Now Ignatius and I believe that the Early Christians belonged to the catholic Church. That is our position, based on our beliefs. So in saying that, the Bible was assembled by the Catholic Church from the NT writings of the Early Christians/Catholics, along with the established Jewish OT.
Now Mike, firstly let me apologise for my earlier sniping, but your anti-Catholic sentiment is high, and sometimes my nerves do get frayed. And yes, believe it or not, I was thinking charity and love, but I just couldn't hold onto that thought whilst finishing that post.
Secondly, Your consistent push of "Roman Catholic" is annoying. Whether you believe it or not, it is possible for a Catholic to refer to Early Christians, not just Catholics. Christianity is made up of many denominations, the first of which - I believe - was the Catholic Church - meaning the Universal Church. You appear to want to exclude Catholics from Christianity, and for that I feel sorry.
Leothe Lioness, the comment I made on the Civil War was a relative comment. If you picked up a book today, first written around the time of the Civil war, would you assume that you shouldn't read it because you aren't of the mindset of those times?