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.
And here we are in a thread that you started with precisely the same books that differ between Catholic and Protestant bibles as its subject, so, those books are mentioned frequently. It's the topic.
What is wrong with you? hislegacy started this thread. for the 3rd time I am not hislegacy.
My humble apologies, I am elderly and sometimes a little forgetful. But it is not so kind of you to say that something is wrong with me. But I forgive you.
Considering that it is the Roman Catholic canon the protestants took a hatchet to, I would say the protestant shouldn't even bring up other canons (EO, OO).
It apparently counted for something in the 16th century. If it didn't count for anything, none of the 73 inspired books would have made it into the protestant Bible.
Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bounded in Heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in Heaven. Jesus disagrees with you.
Thars is what is unique about Christ's Church, everyone is not their own authority.
Did Jesus really have a governing committee living in a palace in mind when he said that? A system where no one is allowed to think outside of what the committee has decreed or they'll be cast out?
I didn't say something is wrong with you, I asked what was wrong. I was tired, I was having a senior moment, and the like, would have been appropriate responses. I'm not a spring chicken myself.
My point is that it was the Canon of Scripture, primarily of the Western Church, and essentially in line with the EO and the OO for six hundred years before the idea of a Roman Catholic Church had meaning. As a catholic Christian, I accept the 73 books as they are as scripture, and as an Anglican Christian, I recognise that some of them are in the proto-canon and some are in the Deutero-Canon. The difference is that I will not use the Deuterocanonical texts to affirm the truth, though at times they support and affirm our understanding of the primary canon.
How many more times was I supposed to correct you before becoming flustered?
I've read worse attacks on Protestantism. I trust you pointed those out as well.
Jesus had in mind a Royal Steward of His Church. That is biblical. And yes, he who reject you rejects Me and the One who sent Me. Reject His Church, you willingly cast yourself out. That is just the way it is according to His own words
Typical Anglican thought. Stand firmly for nothing, accept anything.
Patience is a virtue, and gentleness - mind you, I am not especially good at either, but I try.
It's doubtful Jesus meant to apply that to that which is not within his teaching.
How about we both say sorry, shake hands, and forget about it?
So what do you think it meant? How do apply those words of Christ?
I think in Luke 10:16 Jesus meant to carry on what he taught them within the bounds of what he taught. Both in his own words which he God made sure were written down and in the written words of his apostles. And indeed the church operated within those bounds for centuries up to a certain point. Then man started adding in edicts, doctrine and practices outside those bounds.
