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.
I see the church as the complete Body of Christ. You see it as the Vatican. And there is nothing written by any apostle or apostolic father to certify that. It's all RCC tradition that was established centuries after Peter.
Thry the Book of Romans whose Church was established by St Peter where he remained until he was martyred. That same Church became the central Church of the western world. Not the Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran or Calvinist Churches which were established by laymen, not Apostles. I know it's hard for Protestants to acknowledge where there entire religion and theology was first established. It's the same arrogance that makes a Protestant think they can start there own church taking from the Catholic Church what they like and disregarding what they don't like. How can 100,000 different interpretations of the Bible all have the fullness of truth when they all disagree with each other based on what they liked about Catholic theology and what they didn't like? Is it the Lutherans that got it right? Was it the Calvinists that got it right? Was it the Baptists or Anabaptists that got it right? Was it the Quakers or the Mennonites? Was it the CHurch of England? Was it the Arminists? You have no idea because Protestantism is a buffet. Believe what you like to believe and reject the rest. How about following the teachings of the Church founded by Christ's Rock or one of the other churches founded by an Apostle? That would be inconvenient when we can reject the teachings of Christ and lean on our own understanding.? Admitting that the Apostles knew more than us can be very humbling so we reject that with our pride and think that we have a better understanding of scripture than the men who wrote it.
For 99% part it's just seven OT books many Christians consider deuterocanonical. And Christianity isn't founded upon nor is dependent upon those books.
The book of Romans makes no such claims. Nor does any of Paul's writings. Nor any other writings made by apostles or apostolic fathers. Most Christians go by those teachings. By what was taught, established and instituted for several centuries. That's the foundation of Christianity.
So we toss 'em? Should we toss the gospel of John? I mean why do we need three gospels? You either follow the Apostolic Churche's cannon or you follow your own. I choose to follow the books accepted by the Church that Jesus founded and his disciples carried forward. Feel free to follow Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or whatever other scholar that you think knew better that the Church founded by the Apostles. Word of Faith maybe or Baptist? See that's why there was only on Church for the first thousand years. Christ established only one Church. All the other spit-offs tend to lean on their own understanding, not the understanding of the Prophets and Apostles. Have fun
Are you really saying that Peter did NOT establish the Church of Rome?
www.britannica.com
You mean why do many Christians not consider them inspired canon? That's a good question. Several reasons were laid out in the OP. Do you care to addess them?
The apostolic church as in the church that existed in the time of the apostles and apostolic fathers didn't canonize the deuterocanonical books of the OT. That happened afterwards. It was done by other Christians long after the apostles and apostolic fathers. In the long run Christians didn't stick to what was established by the apostles and apostolic fathers. That's why there was a schism and a reformation.Should we toss the gospel of John? I mean why do we need three gospels? You either follow the Apostolic Churche's cannon or you follow your own. I choose to follow the books accepted by the Church that Jesus founded and his disciples carried forward. Feel free to follow Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or whatever other scholar that you think knew better that the Church founded by the Apostles. Word of Faith maybe or Baptist? See that's why there was only on Church for the first thousand years. Christ established only one Church. All the other spit-offs tend to lean on their own understanding, not the understanding of the Prophets and Apostles. Have fun
At best that conclusion is extremely tenuous.Are you really saying that Peter did NOT establish the Church of Rome?
the mention of “Babylon” in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city. If Peter was not the author of the first epistle that bears his name, the presence of this cryptic reference witnesses at least to a tradition of the late 1st or early 2nd century. “Babylon” is a cryptic term indicating Rome, and it is the understanding utilized in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 6 and in the works of various Jewish seers.
St. Peter the Apostle - Disciple, Rome, Martyr | Britannica
St. Peter the Apostle - Disciple, Rome, Martyr: The problems surrounding the residence, martyrdom, and burial of Peter are among the most complicated of all those encountered in the study of the New Testament and the early church. The absence of any reference in Acts or Romans to a residence of...
But you DO accept the New Testament that was established at Carthage and Hippo? Just not the others your church doesn't like. So how did they have the authority to establish all of the books that you base tour entire theology on but not others?
The Church that existed in the time of the Apostles is the same Church that exists today. Like I said, whatever your church (one of 100,000) was founded on, it was not an Apostle but an apostate. Someone who thought they were smarter and were given more truthful revelation that the postles and their students. They were nwvwe smarter nor given the full truth of Revelation. They were just more innovative and dynamic in that they figured out a fast-food version of scripture that they preferred over the Ribeye steak they were given by the Apostles and their followers. It was good enough for the first 1500 years of the Church's existence but the last 500 they wanted something with more salt and fat. Though still beef, it's low quality food that is bad for you. Does Calvin really know more that the postles who sat at the feet of and learned from Jesus' own mouth?
I addressed the 13th and largest "reason" that parts of the Bible should be tossed but I ask again. why was the entirely New Testament worthy of being trusted writings in the synod but not the Old? Nobody decided they were no good until 1000 years after they were approved. What transpired in that 1000 years to make the always-accepted books irrelevant? Nothing beyond some guy convincing their peers that they don't matter. Which books of the Bible should chuck in the trash today? I mean since your church knows better than Christ's Disciples of Jesus Christ? Maybe you can tell us what books we should keep and throw out because you've put more thought into that than a body of believers from the time the scripture was put down on paper. Personally, I think it's rather arrogant to think that one knows better than a group of world-class thinkers that go back 2000 years. At least I know I'm not that smart or insightful anyway.
Is it untrue or do you even know better that the most renown biblical schol
It's tenuous evidence. The Britannica article you posted presents it as such, because that's what it is.
I accept the New Testament the same as virtually all Christians have accepted it. And I accept the books of the Old Testament the same as virtually all Christians have accepted it. As for the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, I personally don't have a problem with them. And there's nothing keeping me from reading them. I've never been told not to read them or that they're forbidden.
They didn't agree with extra and superfluous things added to Christianity that did not exist in scripture and did not exist in the early church. Even the Roman Catholic church rescinded some of those things eventually.
The seven deuterocanonical books don't hold up to the same scrutiny as the the rest of the Bible.
Revelation was the last New Testament book debated and finally chosen, you could argue it does not "hold up" as well as other books, but the decision made by the Catholic Church was based upon which text was God-breathed or not. The process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries, so obviously there was prayer and debate among those Christians who were so close to the Apostles in time. All European Christian Bibles contained all 73 books for the next thousand years or so until reformation times. Luther was able to get some, but not all of the books he wanted removed from the Bible. Why did some Christians, after all of that time, decide they knew better than the early Christian Church and decided they had the authority to decide? There is nothing in the Bible even suggesting so much time would go by before these particular Protestants produced the first supposedly totally correct Bible. Would God mislead Christians for a thousand years with the wrong Bible?
It's not a matter of authority. It's a matter of scholarly acumen. The seven questionable books added to the Old Testament was decided upon by a couple of groups. And none of them knew the apostles or apostolic fathers. Another group could have easily not included them. There's a difference between false scripture and deuterocanonical scripture. Deuterocanonical scripture is simply secondary scripture rather than counterfeit scripture. Certain bible publishers decided they did not want to include the deuterocanonical books. No one had to use their bible. Bibles with 46 old testament books have always been readily available to anyone who wants one. One can just as easily get access to and read Tobit as they can Ruth. I can easily quote Baruch 2:6 (The Lord our God is in the right, but there is open shame on us and our ancestors this very day) because I have just as much access to it as any other OT book.
So your scholars figured this out a thousand years later? They accept the list provided by Saint Athanasius of the New Testament books, even the same order, all approved by the Catholic Church in the later 300s. Did you know Saint Athanasius quoted from the Deuterocanonicals?
If various scholars came to the same conclusion as "my" scholars throughout the pre-reformation centuries, what would have happened if they had spoken out? How would it have been received? How would they have been treated?
shamelessorthodoxy.com
Another diversion? "hey, look at the west!?Private Site
shamelessorthodoxy.comDivorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: An Addendum
Many months ago, I made a post on the history of divorce and remarriage in the Latin West during the first millennium. In this post, I presented two Church Fathers, six church councils, and four pe…
When did the Catholic Church introduce annulments? They are unheard of in the early Church.
