by Amazing 46 Replies latest jw friends
Didier:
Sola scriptura: the Achilles' heel of Protestantism?
And one that we've been limping on ever since. This is one reason that I'm very careful about how I express my spirituality. I hold my own eclectic views, but when it comes to arguing theology I restrain myself to the canon of 66 books and a strictly Calvinist position. To my mind it is the position that has the least contradiction when using this canon.
Jim,
In re-reading your last reply, I would like to correct some points you misunderstood.
I did not say the Bible is the only way to get to know God - What I said was the Bible is only ONE way to get to know about God. He also works with beleivers thru the Holy Spirit and has shown evidence of himself in all of creation.
And I said that even without the RC's "official" bible cannon they agreed upon - God would have preserved his word for believers and Christians did not ever need a council to decide for them what to read/not read. And along with that I think it is arrogant of the RC to keep insisting because they put the "official" canon together that the word of God belongs to them and only they can interpret it properly. (which they do claim)
And as far as the books not included in the "official" canon - I own most of them and do read them. I do not need the RC to tell me which books are inspired and which are not.
Thanks for all your time, we will have to continue to disagree about our views on the RC. Glad you are happy being part of that denomination. I am happy being part of the universal body of believers in Christ with no denominational distinction. Peace, Lilly
The Watchtower Society, I know has used the scripture at 2 Peter 3:16 to claim that Paul's writings were considered 'Scripture' while he was still alive!
"..............In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught
and unsteady are twisting, as (they do) also the rest of the 'SCRIPTURES', to their
own destruction."
Most of my Bible translations are still packed away in boxes, due to my move, so I do not know how they phrase it, but if true, then, at least some writings/letters would seem to be considered canonical much before the 4th Century. (?)
Outaservice
The Watchtower Society, I know has used the scripture at 2 Peter 3:16 to claim that Paul's writings were considered 'Scripture' while he was still alive!
But in fact, 2 Peter was written quite some time after Paul's lifetime. I agree that by the mid-second century AD, certain Christian writings were regarded as inspired "scripture," just as the OT, 1 Enoch, and other writings were regarded by that time....
Hi Jim,
Being the little that I am, I'd just like to give Marcion some due for his part in getting things started.
Too bad his role was antagonistic. I think I would have enjoyed reading the Antitheses on the platform in the kingdom hall.
Hi Lovelylil,
I did not say the Bible is the only way to get to know God - What I said was the Bible is only ONE way to get to know about God. He also works with beleivers thru the Holy Spirit and has shown evidence of himself in all of creation.
Agreed ... and through the Church ... or whatever congregational arrangement one finds oneself associated.
And I said that even without the RC's "official" bible cannon they agreed upon - God would have preserved his word for believers and Christians did not ever need a council to decide for them what to read/not read. And along with that I think it is arrogant of the RC to keep insisting because they put the "official" canon together that the word of God belongs to them and only they can interpret it properly. (which they do claim)
You still miss my point. In my years of being taught by the Dominicans and Franciscans ... and in my own study of the Church, I have never known them say the Word of God belongs to them. I do not believe the NT Bible is the Word of God. Rather, I believe that Jesus is the Word of God and the NT Bible is a nice history that also contains some of Gods words. The point is: Objective historical fact is that the Bible was not even started to be compiled until late 4th century ... and the idea to do so, and the criteria upon which it was put together and the determination of what was canonical and the ultimate declaration it was inspired was all done by the RCC. Period. No further claims were made other than that historical fact. A secondary point is: Since the Bible was not needed nor available for about 1600 years after Christ, so what did the people have? They had the Church with all of her flaws and blemishes. They had Apostolic tradition. So, God did not find it necessary to have the Bible available for 1,500 years ... actually its availablity was much later as mass printing was not in vogue. That is objective historical fact. Now, if I in the 21st century someone wants to create his/her own thing and be the head of his/her own personal Church of one, so be it. I make no judgments. I made no other claims about the RCC. Those concerns are something you have to deal with, not me.
And as far as the books not included in the "official" canon - I own most of them and do read them. I do not need the RC to tell me which books are inspired and which are not.
Good for you! You are an extremely rare person to have them and read them. 99.9% (approximately) of all Christians have never seen nor heard of them.
Thanks for all your time, we will have to continue to disagree about our views on the RC. Glad you are happy being part of that denomination. I am happy being part of the universal body of believers in Christ with no denominational distinction. Peace, Lilly
Well, how have we really disagreed? The points you argue for I have not raised nor defended. The objective historical facts are just that, history ... and how we personally intrepret it is another matter. Just because I happen to associate with the RCC does not mean that I agree with everything they teach. If you read closely my comments to you in a couple of threads, you will see that I have largely agreed with you. So what is it again that we disagree on? I'm confused!
Pax
Jim Whitney
Jim
Thank you for your reply. I guess I did misunderstand what you were saying about the NT bible and the RC. Thanks for clearing that up. I think you are right, we agree on more than we disagree on. If you found the church you are happy with that is what matters. The RC church was not a good fit for me, that is why I left in my pre-teens. But, Like you said none of the Christian churches today are without flaws, and we do need to find a place to fellowhsip with other believers. For you that place is the RC, for me it is a house church. There is no right or wrong, it is a matter of personal conscience. Peace, Lilly
I feel so ignorant, I have nothing to add on this subject but am so glad to be finally hearing the REAL TRUTH!
Amazing: very interesting info about the Bible.
After finally realizing that Constantine (pagan) decided what books were to be put in the Bible, I wondered which ones are missing? and WHY would a pagan guy be allowed to decide which books a Christian should read? It to me totally throws off the authenticity of the Bible.
I enjoyed this topic greatly.
Codeblue
After finally realizing that Constantine (pagan) decided what books were to be put in the Bible, I wondered which ones are missing? and WHY would a pagan guy be allowed to decide which books a Christian should read? It to me totally throws off the authenticity of the Bible.
Constantine did not decide what books go into the Bible. This is misinformation, popularized by Dan Brown in recent years. See for instance: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html.
