- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Venial Sin my butt!
Posted on 2/23/24 at 8:08 pm to dchog
Posted on 2/23/24 at 8:08 pm to dchog
quote:
Why does the Tanakh not have these books?
Here's a part of the story that I know to be true:
For centuries the main reasoning behind it was because no ancient manuscripts of these books were ever found that were written in Hebrew. If they were never written in Hebrew, the Rabbis ruled that the book or passage could not be Holy Scripture. That reasoning seemed understandable for almost 1,000 years.
Then, in 1946, the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered. In some of those ancient manuscripts are found, written in ancient Hebrew, some of the Bible material from the Old Testament that were left out of the Tanakh, because they *thought* that no such Hebrew document ever existed. They have existed since ancient times. They were simply lost until 1946.
So, one of the original main reasons for excluding these books from the Medieval Jewish Bible was proven to be wrong.
3
Posted on 2/23/24 at 8:14 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:Uh, no thank you.
Venial Sin my butt!
Posted on 2/23/24 at 9:15 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Why is it a no no?
Because it leads to inaccurate conclusions.
quote:
Call it what you want
It’s not about what I want- it’s about accurate exegesis.
quote:
I prefer plagiarism
Of course you do.
But since when does preference determine truth? Truth is objective, and exists independently of our preferences- and often our perception. This is certainly a good example of that. quote:
but Matthew used Mark as a source and in many cases copied Mark word for word, sentence for sentence, story for story.
Seems likely. And Mark may have copied from Q. And Luke may have worked with all three documents. So what?
None of this even calls into question the claims of Inspiration by the Holy Spirit. And, it actually serves to explain the similarities between the three, and why each author would have taken certain liberties in his own account (such as Matthew condensing certain details); having knowledge of the other extant works. These men were “on the same team”- they were not competing for a Pulitzer. 
They each had their own intended audience and unique perspectives. The synoptic Gospels complement each other. quote:
think my confusion was that you are arguing in both accounts the girl is already dead. I thought you were arguing in both accounts the girl was still alive.
The girl is dead when Jairus approaches Jesus. He didn’t know that until his servant arrived (presumably very shortly after Jairus reached Jesus) with the bad news.
quote:
Clearly, in Mark, the daughter is not dead but still alive when Jairus approaches Jesus.
No. She was dead. Jairus just didn’t know that until his servant told him. She was alive when he left her (barely), but died before he reached Jesus.
quote:
Matthew on the other hand like you described is very clear the girl is already dead when Jairus approaches Jesus.
Yes. Matthew was well aware of the logistics of the event. So was Luke- but with only 16 chapters to his Gospel account, he could afford to expound in greater detail. Matthew, with a much longer Gospel, was looking for ways to cut down on words. Which is why he used the aorist,” has died”, to eliminate the need for the details of event that had already been covered by Mark- that certainly his audience was well aware of. I’m no textual critic, but I’d be willing to bet that there’s a difference between “has died” and “is dead” in Ancient Greek literature. “Has died” is an aorist. If he’d have said “is dead”, maybe you’d have a point. Perhaps you can do some research and tell me if that’s incorrect.
quote:
It is strange you can make yourself believe that those two stories are the same without contradiction.
What’s strange, is that you refuse to accept a very rational and sensible explanation of a perceived contradiction. Matthew’s use of the aorist combines the aspects of “is dying” and “is dead.” “Has died” describes the process of dying and the outcome. Combine that with the fact that Matthew was looking for things that he could remove ( things that he knew his readers were already aware of), and there is no contradiction. And it sacrifices nothing in regards to accuracy. It’s actually very clever. Is this not sensible?
quote:
We probably just need to agree to disagree and move on.
I would be happy to move on- if you would admit that this is at least a plausible explanation. Surely your faith in Bart does not rest entirely upon this singular issue.
That said, I would like to commend you for staying on task up to this point. I think that benefits us both. 
quote:
Matthew did a lot to reject and counteract Paul’s gospel
That’s a bold claim, my friend. Would you care to back that up with some scripture? I’ve never heard of this before, and I’m eager to explore it with you. I only ask that we keep it separate from the issue at hand.
quote:
When a new revision is released of a document, the older version normally becomes obsolete and no longer accurate
Sure- if this were a “revision.” Clearly, this statement does not reflect reality- as both Gospels (and Luke) are still in circulation as complementary, “synoptic” Gospel accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
quote:
I don’t think you do understand
That’s obvious. :lol:
We could both be wrong- but we can’t both be right.
quote:
It’s all counterfeit and it’s all easily refutable
Easy? If that were true, there would never be a point where we would agree to disagree.
quote:
None are convincing,
… to the unwilling. To those who can’t afford to be wrong.
quote:
because none are based on reality.
I disagree. Objective truth is a reality. Objective moral standards are a reality. The universe had a beginning- that is a reality. The world as we see it at bare minimum appears to be designed- that is a reality. Infinite regress is impossible- that is a reality. 95% of people believe that there is a God. That is reality. You refuse to accept reality- that is reality.
quote:
God could sure save us the trouble though and reveal himself to everyone in a manner that would positively convey his realness,
If YHWH did; if He somehow overrode your free will to deny His existence, but left you with the free will to either accept or reject Him (this, in itself, is illogical)- would you repent? Would you love Him? Would you submit to His authority? Would your decision be of your own volition at that point?
quote:
Yes his debate arguments are painful
It seems that atheists have “denominations” too.
quote:
Come on, man. You know it is possible to believe something someone tells you, and to not believe another story of that same person.
Fair point. I withdraw my earlier comment.
quote:
Bart’s motives of not understanding suffering could be convincing if he wasn’t a scholarly textual critic of the Bible
So, you really believe that it’s just an act? Interesting. With the money made from selling popular level books, I can’t imagine that he needs the salary from his day job. You sure do believe a lot of things you can’t possibly prove. So ironic.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 9:56 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Scared? Not hardly.
You replied like 4 times writing a couple hundred words about how you’re not going to argue against my assertion of the irreconcilable contradiction. Your actions speak louder than words.
quote:
My emotions are more of a mixture of pity (for your eternal soul)
Hey let’s see what the inspired word of God says about that subject.
quote:
19For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same spirit, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. 20All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. 21Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? 22So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?
quote:
I would rather the Lord save you, but may His will be done if He doesn't.
Save me from his own anger, jealousy, rage, and hell of his own creation.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 7:09 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
These men were “on the same team”- they were not competing
They were part of different factions trying to correct the others’ works based on their different theologies. Changes were deliberate. The Jesus in Mark was a regular human but with an unnamed father… Matthew “corrected” it with the birth narrative in the house with the visit of the magi and also corrected geographic mistakes of Mark. Luke “corrected” Matthew with a different birth narrative of a barn/manger (because no house was available) with visits from shepherds rather than magi. Luke also deliberately removed much of the suffering of Jesus - instead of crying out asking why his El had abandoned him, he calmly says “father into your hands I commit my spirit”.
quote:
The girl is dead when Jairus approaches Jesus. He didn’t know that until his servant arrived (presumably very shortly after Jairus reached Jesus) with the bad news.
We are talking about the story in Mark here. Jairus tells Jesus his daughter is on her last leg and is in need of being healed. You are stating about that part of the story that Jairus’ daughter is already dead but Jairus didn’t know it yet - you made that part up with a kip-cast to a giant to a back tuck but crashed the landing. The author wanted to convey that Jairus’ daughter was alive when Jairus approached Jesus, as that is what the story literally states. You though try to change the story by injecting a thought from your bars routine that wasn’t there in the story. You don’t like Mark’s story, so you change it in your head to something it doesn’t say… because the author of Matthew who also didn’t like many of Mark’s stories… changed Mark’s story.
quote:
What’s strange, is that you refuse to accept a very rational and sensible explanation of a perceived contradiction. Matthew’s use of the aorist combines the aspects of “is dying” and “is dead.” “Has died” describes the process of dying and the outcome. Combine that with the fact that Matthew was looking for things that he could remove ( things that he knew his readers were already aware of), and there is no contradiction. And it sacrifices nothing in regards to accuracy. It’s actually very clever. Is this not sensible?
If Matthew was trying to cut down, while making the same point of Jesus resurrecting a young girl, like you are saying, then maybe it is sensible and clever. It explains Matthew’s potential thought process in making the condensed version. But even though that rationalization explains the contradiction between Mark and Matthew, it doesn’t get rid of the contradiction. The contradiction is still there, but now we have a possible plausible explanation about why it exists. Matthew no doubt didn’t intend to create a contradiction, but rather a “better” and possibly “more correct” story, and he was probably not planning to use both Mark and his own Matthew book at the same time on the same audience and claim both to be 100% historically accurate.
quote:
That’s a bold claim, my friend. Would you care to back that up with some scripture?
I’ll give you one quick example. When did Jesus get assigned the name “Jesus” according to Paul, and according to Matthew?
quote:
Sure- if this were a “revision.” Clearly, this statement does not reflect reality- as both Gospels (and Luke) are still in circulation
That’s not the fault and probably not the intention of these revisers. They weren’t able to capture and burn all the old copies.
quote:
Objective moral standards are a reality
Tell me, should we punish children for the sins of their parents?
quote:
The world as we see it at bare minimum appears to be designed- that is a reality.
Appears to you maybe because you don’t understand the natural world like scientifically minded people like me. Your reality on this topic is backwards.
quote:
If YHWH did; if He somehow overrode your free will to deny His existence, but left you with the free will to either accept or reject Him (this, in itself, is illogical)- would you repent?
If a god revealed himself to me, things might be different
depending on if he was a good god or an evil god. quote:
It seems that atheists have “denominations” too.
Yes.
quote:
You sure do believe a lot of things you can’t possibly prove. So ironic
Yes but it isn’t ironic. I don’t claim that my belief, without offering proof, is the “Truth” with a capital “T”. That’s a major difference.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 12:20 pm to Squirrelmeister
Any of my fellow Catholic baws at St. Catherine of Sienna today for the Archdiocese of New Orleans Men’s Conference?
ETA: I’d Iike to say hello. Sitting in 3rd row from back of church on left side.
ETA: I’d Iike to say hello. Sitting in 3rd row from back of church on left side.
This post was edited on 2/24/24 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 2/24/24 at 2:22 pm to GreenRockTiger
I am Catholic and have engaged in sexual congress with miners but my people are mountain people and chicks covers in coal dust are kinda sexy to me. Is that wrong?
Posted on 2/24/24 at 4:16 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Is that wrong?
It’s okay if you’re married
Posted on 2/24/24 at 5:51 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
They were part of different factions trying to correct the others’ works based on their different theologies
Prove it. I could understand if you made these claims as “possibilities.” At best, all you have is the speculation of liberal scholarship. Which is ironic; that in your politics- you are conservative (thank you for that), but in your approach to theology, you side with the people who would side with the people who would claim that gender is fluid, truth is subjective, and the potato received 81 million votes.
I’m not saying anything other than that is very much so a minority position. The first thing that comes to mind is “have your cake, and eat it too.” Anyways, I would appreciate it if you would provide some scriptural basis for your claims. At least that way, we could attempt to get down to brass tacks. quote:
The Jesus in Mark was a regular human
No offense, but this is laughable. Regular humans don’t perform miracles.
quote:
but with an unnamed father… Matthew “corrected” it with the birth narrative
What are you talking about? Mark doesn’t even have a birth narrative in his Gospel.
quote:
geographic mistakes of Mark
Please explain- with scripture.
quote:
Luke “corrected” Matthew with a different birth narrative
Scripture, please.
quote:
Luke also deliberately removed much of the suffering of Jesus - instead of crying out asking why his El had abandoned him, he calmly says “father into your hands I commit my spirit”.
What you’re claiming as an “either/or”, I see as a both/and. Using scripture, show me how I’m wrong.
quote:
You are stating about that part of the story that Jairus’ daughter is already dead but Jairus didn’t know it yet - you made that part up with a kip-cast to a giant to a back tuck but crashed the landing.
quote:
thought from your bars routine
That’s good stuff. Thanks for the laugh!
quote:
You don’t like Mark’s story, so you change it in your head to something it doesn’t say… because the author of Matthew who also didn’t like many of Mark’s stories… changed Mark’s story.
None of this is true. I love Mark’s account, and I love Matthew’s account. And, Matthew didn’t change anything from Mark’s account. He merely condensed certain details. I didn’t change this in my head.
I just spent a little more time and effort on trying to reconcile the apparent contradiction, and it worked. For me. You keep dismissing the existence and purpose of the aorist in Ancient Greek literature, conveniently, because that would be the only way your point would stand. Yet, the aorist exists, and your point fails. quote:
If Matthew was trying to cut down, while making the same point of Jesus resurrecting a young girl, like you are saying, then maybe it is sensible and clever. It explains Matthew’s potential thought process in making the condensed version
You should have led with this, and then we could’ve moved on. Yet, for whatever reason, you decided to sandwich this admission between two slices of denial. However, I’ll accept this admission nonetheless. I know it was difficult. Kudos to you. I think the matter is settled, as far as I’m concerned. You can afford to let this one go. You have so many other reasons to doubt.
quote:
I’ll give you one quick example. When did Jesus get assigned the name “Jesus” according to Paul, and according to Matthew?
Why don’t you tell me- by quoting scripture, and we’ll see what happens?
quote:
That’s not the fault and probably not the intention of these revisers.
Thank you for using the word “probably.” You’re always entitled to your opinion, and I think it makes you appear more intellectually honest to speak in this manner.
quote:
They weren’t able to capture and burn all the old copies.
quote:
Tell me, should we punish children for the sins of their parents?
Should we? I suppose not. But, who are we to judge? Are we in a position to even begin to understand the implications? Is it even our place to do so? No. It isn’t. Should God? God, being who He is, should do exactly what He does. And, we should understand that whatever He does- is what’s best for us. Will the clay say to the Potter “Why have you made me this way?” Try telling your boss how to run the company he started- and tell me how that works out for you. :lol:
quote:
Appears to you maybe because you don’t understand the natural world like scientifically minded people like me. Your reality on this topic is backwards.
Wicked smaht! But, I actually wrote that with Dawkins in mind, as he (and many others) describe the “illusion of design.” This is probably the most ridiculous position that one could hold. “I’m, yeah… it totally looks to be designed. But somehow I know that it’s only an illusion.” Preposterous. :lol:
quote:
If a god revealed himself to me, things might be different depending on if he was a good god or an evil god.
The second part of this statement is the true answer. You have placed yourself on the throne. Somehow, you fail to see the fault in this manner of thinking. Think about a God that literally created everything out of nothing. Are you seriously telling me that you are able to judge the actions of such a being? Do you possess the infinite wisdom and knowledge that would be required to do so? If so, then why can’t you use it to convince me of your position?
quote:
I don’t claim that my belief, without offering proof, is the “Truth” with a capital “T”. That’s a major difference.
This statement flies in the face of 95% of every other statement you have made. Capital T or not, you most certainly speak as though your positions are bulletproof- even in the wake of your own concessions. If you were to take a position of agnosticism, rather than the militant atheist- your arguments would garner more respect.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 8:21 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:quote:Prove it. I could understand if you made these claims as “possibilities.” At best, all you have is the speculation of liberal scholarship.
They were part of different factions trying to correct the others’ works based on their different theologies
PS, the proof is in the fact that the gospels state different things happened that cannot be reconciled, and that they wanted to convey different theologies and different messages. In Paul, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being. In Mark, he’s a righteous, but regular human who becomes God’s son at his baptism by John the Baptizer. In Matthew, Jesus becomes the son of God at conception. In Luke, all the details of his birth compared to Matthew are changed. Egypt vs straight to Nazareth, King Herod vs Quirinius, Magi with gifts worthy of a Jewish king vs Sheperds and all that. In John, Jesus goes back to being a pre-existent divine being with no humanly birth narrative.
You don’t think they could burn and destroy old gospels that they disagreed with? Just look at how the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library discovery brought to light older (different) versions of Bible books and also lost books and gospels. Why did it take a discovery to find those books? Why were they hidden there in the first place? It is common knowledge that throughout history, the powers in charge destroyed and burned books they didn’t like. They didn’t have limited government constitutional republics. The ones in charge were the priestly class.
I think it’s a lot stronger than “liberal speculation”.
quote:quote:No offense, but this is laughable. Regular humans don’t perform miracles.
The Jesus in Mark was a regular human
See my comment above. In Mark, Jesus becomes God’s son at his baptism. Before his baptism he was not God’s son. It is clearer when you read my more detailed explanation:
Interesting side notes: What was John the Baptizer doing? He was preparing the way in the wilderness (Mark 1:3-4) which is the exact terminology and words used by the Dead Sea Scroll community at Qumran.
Explanation: Mark 1:11 is one of those rare gems of someone editing Mark to look more like the same scene in Luke. We do have old ancient manuscripts of Luke 3:22 where God says “you are my son, this day I have begotten you” but that was later changed to “You are my beloved Son with you I am well pleased”. That’s a fact. The original is preserved also in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5. Getting past probable facts on the subject, my speculation is that Irenaeus is wrong (that Luke added the birth narrative to Markion’s gospel, rather than Markion using Luke but deleting the birth narrative), and that the version of Luke we have today had to changed Luke 3:22 to account for the fact that Jesus is no longer becoming God’s son at his baptism but rather at his conception now. The editor/redactor then forgot to go to Acts 13:33 and change it to match. It’s called editorial fatigue.
quote:quote:What are you talking about? Mark doesn’t even have a birth narrative in his Gospel.
but with an unnamed father… Matthew “corrected” it with the birth narrative
In Mark 6:3, Jesus is called the son of Mary. Also Joseph is not once mentioned in the gospel of Mark. It is a fact that in ancient Judah, calling someone a son of a woman could be an insult, meaning the child was a bastard. I personally think Matthew is correcting Mark’s version by adding the birth narrative and also giving Jesus a human father in the story, and he kind of also needed a human father to be the lineage of David - Matthew did love him some prophecy fulfillment.
quote:
geographic mistakes of Mark Please explain- with scripture.
Article with maps and scriptures for you
quote:
Luke “corrected” Matthew with a different birth narrative Scripture, please.
I’m not trying to be a dick or anything, but go read the first couple chapters of both Matthew and Luke.
quote:
That’s good stuff. Thanks for the laugh!
I decided to spice up my typical reference to cognitive dissonance. Glad you enjoyed.
quote:
You keep dismissing the existence and purpose of the aorist in Ancient Greek literature, conveniently, because that would be the only way your point would stand. Yet, the aorist exists, and your point fails.
Forget Matthew for a second. Look at Mark - Jairus’ little daughter is still alive when he approaches Jesus. If you presuppose that that they are both biblically inspired and that they say the same thing, you will find a way to convince yourself.
quote:
I’ll give you one quick example. When did Jesus get assigned the name “Jesus” according to Paul, and according to Matthew? Why don’t you tell me- by quoting scripture, and we’ll see what happens?
Oh no. I asked you first.
quote:quote:Should we? I suppose not. But, who are we to judge? Are we in a position to even begin to understand the implications? Is it even our place to do so? No. It isn’t. Should God?
Tell me, should we punish children for the sins of their parents?
This is a thread I will start some time in the future. The topic will be the “objective moral standard”. Foo will be drawn to it like white on rice and it’ll be 13 pages. Let’s table it for now though.
quote:
Wicked smaht! But, I actually wrote that with Dawkins in mind, as he (and many others) describe the “illusion of design.” This is probably the most ridiculous position that one could hold. “I’m, yeah… it totally looks to be designed. But somehow I know that it’s only an illusion.”
Have you read Dawkins? He refers to the illusion of design from the standpoint of the uneducated ignorant masses of creationists. He never ever argues that the natural world appears to have been designed - quite the opposite to put it mildly.
quote:
Think about a God that literally created everything out of nothing.
Creation ex nihilo? Does the Bible actually state this anywhere? All I can find in Genesis 1, Job 38, and Psalm 104 is the Babylonian creation myth of conquering the chaotic sea, splitting it in half, setting the foundations of dry land in the sea, stretching the firmament out like a tent to hold back the heavenly waters above the mountains, blowing his spirit over the waters to uncover dry land… and then there’s the Canaanite creation myth of Genesis 2 but it also is not creation out of nothing, but it starts with a barren waterless wasteland.
quote:
Do you possess the infinite wisdom and knowledge that would be required to do so?
I can judge that Adonai is evil based on biblical text, and I don’t need infinite wisdom to do so. Hope you’re not suggesting Adonai has infinite wisdom… that probably warrants a hole nother thread.
quote:quote:This statement flies in the face of 95% of every other statement you have made. Capital T or not, you most certainly speak as though your positions are bulletproof- even in the wake of your own concessions.
I don’t claim that my belief, without offering proof, is the “Truth” with a capital “T”. That’s a major difference.
My positions are mostly bulletproof. I was referring specifically to believing but not being able to prove Bart Ehrman is full of shite on his reasons for no longer being a Christian.
If I tell you “I think” or “I believe” then I don’t have bulletproof arguments but if I state something matter-of-factly, you can take it to the bank!
Posted on 2/24/24 at 8:22 pm to Champagne
quote:
For centuries the main reasoning behind it was because no ancient manuscripts of these books were ever found that were written in Hebrew. If they were never written in Hebrew, the Rabbis ruled that the book or passage could not be Holy Scripture. That reasoning seemed understandable for almost 1,000 years. Then, in 1946, the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered. In some of those ancient manuscripts are found, written in ancient Hebrew, some of the Bible material from the Old Testament that were left out of the Tanakh, because they *thought* that no such Hebrew document ever existed. They have existed since ancient times. They were simply lost until 1946. So, one of the original main reasons for excluding these books from the Medieval Jewish Bible was proven to be wrong.
Thank you for explanation this to the resident Protestants in denial.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 8:29 pm to Squirrelmeister
Thank you Sir!
*Insert flamboyant Baroque bow here*
PS Of course you know that we don't agree on EVERYTHING, but that shouldn't be important to Gentlemen such as we.
*Insert flamboyant Baroque bow here*
PS Of course you know that we don't agree on EVERYTHING, but that shouldn't be important to Gentlemen such as we.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 10:42 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I think it’s a lot stronger than “liberal speculation”
Agreed. It’s the highest form of Uber-educated “mental gymnastics!”
quote:
Have you read Dawkins? He refers to the illusion of design from the standpoint of the uneducated ignorant masses of creationists. He never ever argues that the natural world appears to have been designed - quite the opposite to put it mildly.
richarddawkins.net
“The beauty of biology, really, is the illusion of design,” Dawkins said.
quote:
My positions are mostly bulletproof.
quote:
if I state something matter-of-factly, you can take it to the bank!
I hope you have overdraft protection!
Posted on 2/24/24 at 11:32 pm to Champagne
quote:For Catholics, of course it is. Rome has said so so that must be the end of it. It wasn't settled until the Council of Trent when an anathema was placed on anyone who rejected the apocryphal books as authoritative Scripture.
Foo, this matter is settled.
There are several reasons to reject the apocryphal books as authoritative and binding on the consciences of Christians, but that doesn't matter to you since you affirm whatever Rome says.
quote:I agree with you about historical facts being incontrovertible. It's a shame you've only accepted the facts that you want to accept.
Historical facts are incontrovertible. You are entitled to your opinion, but, you are not entitled to your own facts.
quote:It technically wasn't settled until the 16th century in response to the Reformation. There was plenty of disagreement about the canon all the way up until Trent.
The fact is that the Canon of the Holy Bible was settled in the 4th Century.
quote:Depends when and where you are referring to. Not all Christens in all areas had the same Bibles.
All of Christendom worshiped from Bibles containing that Canon.
quote:That's a generous take on the issue in your favor. It was more than a "discussion". Theologians, Priests, Cardinals, and at least one Pope actually disagreed and expressed contradictory beliefs about the canon since the 4th century. It wasn't until the Council of Trent in the 16th century that the canon was made final.
Were there discussions regarding whether that Canon was correct? Yes. A few Roman Catholic Biblical scholars did discuss this issue, even after the Canon was settled in the 4th Century AD.
quote:Not all. Catholics and Protestants obviously don't have the same view, but neither do the Orthodox and Coptics, which vary slightly in what they include. And then there is the disagreements that individual leaders and theologians had throughout history.
But the question, we know, was settled because all of the Bibles used by Christendom contained those OT books that the Protestants threw out Twelve Centuries later.
quote:Again, that's not quite what happened. The Reformers used the same reasoning for rejecting the apocryphal books that many Catholics had used throughout church history.
Then, over TWELVE CENTURIES LATER, a few dudes decided that the Medieval Jewish Bible was the REAL Bible, when it came to the Old Testament. So at that point in history, these dudes ripped those books out of the Old Testament and declared "THIS is the real Bible! The Bible that you have known for more than 1,200 years is a False Bible. God fooled us for more than 1,200 with regard to the contents of the Real Bible."
Also, God didn't fool anyone with false books of the Bible. Catholics did
God promised to preserve His word, and He did. We have the same Bible today as we had when the canon was complete. Protestants simply reject those non-inspired ecclesiastical texts as part of the canon.
quote:You're partially correct here. I don't have "evil" intent, but I do have the desire and goal to correct falsehoods that Catholics proffer towards a false gospel that cannot save.
The reason why I don't fully engage with you around here is because IMHO, you have evil intent. You are here to wage war against the Roman Catholic Faith and against Catholics. I am not here to wage war. I am here to offer truthful counterpoints to Anti Catholic Haters like you.
I don't hate Catholics (I really don't). I feel sorry for the average Joseph's and Mary's who have been hoodwinked by tradition to accept the church as their ultimate authority and taught a gospel that isn't biblical, which leaves them with no hope, no peace, and no comfort. Jesus brought the gospel of peace with God, which Catholics do not have because they believe their sins still separate them from the Father in spite of what Christ has done on their behalf. It's a sad thing to see so many well-meaning people profess the name of Christ while trusting in themselves or other human beings for their justification before God.
Also, it's not just me that you don't "fully engage" with. I've seen a pattern with you that when you want to relay some teaching of Catholicism, you simply link to Catholic Answers or the Catechism rather than summarize the teaching in your own words. I don't understand why.
quote:If only you trusted that Bible more than you trusted "sacred tradition", perhaps your views would change. Catholics have spent so much time casting dispersions on the Bible in the name of their traditions that it sickens me. You would think that the Protestant focus of giving God the glory (in Calvinism) and God's Word the authority (sola scriptura) would be at least a good motive to have, even if you disagree with it, but instead, Catholics act like we are Satan himself for those things. Well, if I'm wrong about what I believe, I'd rather err on the side of God's glory than man's.
Folks, the initial charge around here was "Catholics ADDED books to the Bible." The Truth is that back in 382 AD, the Church formally adopted the Canon of Holy Scripture at this committee meeting linked below. This Canon of 382 AD includes all of the Old Testament books that the Protestants later deleted from the Holy Bible.
The links supporting this have already been posted in this thread.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 1:28 am
Posted on 2/24/24 at 11:44 pm to Cheese Grits
You are saved by the Grace of God, not by Captain D's.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 12:23 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
richarddawkins.net “The beauty of biology, really, is the illusion of design,” Dawkins said.
That’s not what he argues in his books. Literally his book The Blind Watchmaker is about how we know the world and life was not designed. I think you are misinterpreting him. Maybe he means that those ignorant of science has delusions of intelligent design.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 2:07 am to Champagne
quote:I thought the OT books were kept in the Temple prior to its destruction? Would not the books of Maccabees been included if the Jews believed them to be Scripture, especially considering they would likely have been the youngest or most recent books included in the canon from their perspective? I find it difficult to believe they would have excluded those writings simply for not being written in Hebrew or not having surviving copies if they were God’s word from only a century or two prior when they had copies of much older books.
Here's a part of the story that I know to be true:
For centuries the main reasoning behind it was because no ancient manuscripts of these books were ever found that were written in Hebrew. If they were never written in Hebrew, the Rabbis ruled that the book or passage could not be Holy Scripture. That reasoning seemed understandable for almost 1,000 years.
Then, in 1946, the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered. In some of those ancient manuscripts are found, written in ancient Hebrew, some of the Bible material from the Old Testament that were left out of the Tanakh, because they *thought* that no such Hebrew document ever existed. They have existed since ancient times. They were simply lost until 1946.
So, one of the original main reasons for excluding these books from the Medieval Jewish Bible was proven to be wrong.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 6:56 am to FooManChoo
quote:
For Catholics, of course it is. Rome has said so so that must be the end of it. It wasn't settled until the Council of Trent when an anathema was placed on anyone who rejected the apocryphal books as authoritative Scripture.
There are several reasons to reject the apocryphal books as authoritative and binding on the consciences of Christians, but that doesn't matter to you since you affirm whatever Rome says.
There is a disagreement here that will probably be never overcome, I think it's a problem with most protestant vs Catholic debates in general, not just this one.
Catholics believe and have always taught that Jesus gave the Church authority over matters of faith and morals. Being that the content of the scriptures is a matter of faith, and morals too. It hsa the authority to dogmatically define what books are contained and what books are not contained in the canon. Protestants as far as I understand believe that no-one has that authority, or no person has that authority. The scriptures alone have the authority on faith and morals.
Catholics see an error in giving the authority alone to the scriptures. Without the authority of the Church, the scriptures would just be someone's personal opinion on what is included or not.
Yes the scriptures are the Word of God, but God didn't come down from heaven and give us a finished scripture for us to believe, instead Jesus gave authority to the Apostles and their successors, which subsists in the Church, and that Church defined which books are inspired by God and which books are not.
Ok, I've given my two cents in this discussion. Have a nice day!
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:16 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
Ok, I've given my two cents in this discussion. Have a nice day!
Happy Sunday brother
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:28 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
That’s not what he argues in his books. Literally his book The Blind Watchmaker is about how we know the world and life was not designed. I think you are misinterpreting him. Maybe he means that those ignorant of science has delusions of intelligent design.
Mental gymnastics
Page 10 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News