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.
The full quote in my post above does not say that the protesting Catholics have been around for 2000 years ... just that the hebrew Bible has been known to contain those 22 (or 24 depending on which Jewish group is counting) has been know as such for that period of time in the Christian age and as Josephus points out -- for about 500 years even before that time -
This is true, for the most part, however saint Jerome's opinions were not shared by the Church and thus he was asked to produce a translation that included all the books from the LXX and the NT, he used Hebrew sources for his work, but with respect to the seven books I listed in my other post and the longer versions of Daniel and Esther saint Jerome produced a text in Latin and included it in his Bible.
That too is, for the most part, true. It was, as I very briefly stated, the preference of the Protestant reformers to take the books in question and move them into an intertestamental section or an appendix situated at the end of their translations, and explicitly state that they were not canonical. Here I have expanded on "because they wanted to" but the shorter version is also true. They may have had reasons for wanting to do what they did, time and history is the judge of the quality of their thinking and the data that they used for their choice. The Catholic Church took its road in ancient times, as saint Jerome knew and hence, he produced a translation into Latin which contained all the books required, but he had his point of view and reflected it in his work.
This is an odd thing to state since it is a fact that every book of the holy scriptures that contains any unique doctrine or detail of doctrine and every book that contains unique accounts of events or of history has statements relating to doctrine that are different from all the other books of holy scripture. Thus, Genesis is unique in its account of the beginning with the events ascribed to each day of creation. The Book of Revelation has a number of unique things to say about the second coming and its verses have yielded numerous bodies of doctrine among Protestants. Catholics too have developed some doctrines from statements that are unique to Revelation. The same is true of Hebrews, and James, and Peter's letters, and Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, and Isaiah. So, what you wrote really proves nothing except that many Protestants deny Prayer for the dead and interpret saint Paul so as to make purgatory disappear while Catholics do neither of those things and do so, in part, because of what is contained in the accounts of Maccabees. Other examples can be brought forward too.
Catholics are not followers of Josephus, a man who rejected the Gospels. As I previously stated, different groups of Jews recognized different books of the Old Testament at the time Jesus walked on earth. Not all Jews back then would agree that "one canon" was preserved because the "canon" of Holy Scripture is a Christian term. The canon of the Bible was decided upon through councils, with the approval of the popes. Jews had no such councils. These decisions of the Catholic Church were made by the authority of Jesus given to the Apostles and the Church. As to Josephus, he was fairly accurate although it is hard to believe all of his claims. But at the time he made his statement that 22 books were kept in the Temple, a time when the Pharisees were in charge, that is believable. Which 22 books is a matter of debate. For example, do you believe Esther was included in the 22? Realize that discussions within the Catholic Church to choose the books of the Bible took place in a process that spanned centuries, and these were Catholics FAR much closer to the time of Jesus and the Apostles. Now Protestants, as part of their tradition, use not only the same NT books chosen by Catholics, but even kept the same order. But for OT books they decided to drop some. By what authority?
That statement is inaccurate because we know that many passages allude, quote without attribution, or simply state things that are contained in books that today's Jews do not receive as true. If you are thinking that a quote without citation makes an Old Testament book non-canonical, then Ecclesiastes, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, and Zephaniah fit the same bill. Neither the Catholic Church nor any Protestant church that I know of excludes those books from their canon.
While it is true that Post destruction of Jerusalem Jews very likely have rejected all but the books that a current Tanakh contains it is not the case that all Jews of all time have restricted the "holy books" to the current content of the Tanakh. The translators of the LXX included books that Jews today reject. Jews who read the LXX, in the centuries before the crucifixion, very likely received as holy books the very ones that a current Tanakh does not contain.
Only if one rejects them as the productions of divine inspiration. Catholics receive them as canonical and consequently do not think of those years as silent.
Here you exclude the LXX's testimony and add a speculative opinion about what the translators of the LXX did and believed on no evidentiary basis.
There is abundant evidence that the LXX was in use at the time that the NT was composed because the NT uses the LXX in many of its quotes.
In other more realistic words, they discount dogma, doctrine and tradition that's not found in New Testament scripture, which rankles those who hold to unbiblical dogma, doctrine and tradition.The Apocrypha was always included in New Testament scripture until some Protestants got together and said "Hey, let's throw out the books of the Bible that we don't like," Most of these people follow the non-Biblical term "Sola Scriptura." What is hilarious is the same people who idolize the New Testament as a God, throw out the writing of the same God that they don't want to hear/read. The hypocrisy is knee-slapping funny Ha ha ha ha ha ha hah! What jokersGod love them. Each and every hypocrite that seeks to throw out books of the Bible they worship more than God himself........Congratulations
True indeed. I have noticed that since the 1500's anyone that didn't like their church and was charismatic enough could just start their own church an teach their personal interpretation of scripture. That's why we now have over 100,000 different denominations teaching different things all over the world.
It began with Catholics who realized that the church was imposing unscriptural dogma and practices. That gets misrepresented as the Bible being worshipped more than God himself, as you displayed in your hyperbolic post. Really it seems that the idea is that the Bible should be put aside in favor of unscriptural doctrine, dogma, tradition and practices that began centuries after the founding of the church.
The post above appears to be based on the premise that biblical doctrine is known and can be easily distinguished from allegedly unbiblical doctrine. I do not believe that is the case. Biblical doctrine is not obvious, if it were then there would not be denominations among those who assert that doctrine must be exclusively biblical. And I do not believe every allegation that a doctrine or practise is unbiblical.
And where they are the same they tend to be Catholic doctrine. It is where they differ that some reflect non-Catholic teaching.
More to the point, since I asked for your view, is the belief that baptism is a public proclamation of an Indvidual's faith biblical?
Where they tend to be the same is in foundational Christian doctrine which passes the test of being scriptural. Put another way, foundational Chastain teaching of the early church isn't at odds with sola scriptura and there isn't much if any division between Catholic and Protestant. It's certain doctrine and practices that came about centuries later, that's at odds with sola scriptura. I'd say it's much more like there's Christian doctrine which existed for centuries, and then there's Catholic doctrine that was put into practice centuries later, and that's where the division takes place.
I wanted you to expound more on that for me to be able to give my view regarding it. That's why I prompted you to elaborate on the question you asked. As to what's biblical, I know that when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, they appeared to be alone at the time. If that's what you're getting at, that a baptism has to be a public event, although I don't know what doctrine (if any) says that. Or why it's relevant.
