Christian Forums

Quote from: Wayfarer on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:10:31
Orthodox don't define scripture they live it. Coming from a Baptist background into Orthodoxy, was like seeing the scriptures come to life in worship. 

Coming from a Baptist background into Catholicism, this is how I felt as well.

As I recall, it was an Orthodox person that made the statement.  

Quote from: jmg3rd on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:21:34
To most evangelicals the Scriptures define the church.
To the Orthodox the Church defines the scriptures.

The Church must define scripture.  Without a central authority to do so, nothing but chaos reigns, i.e. the Reformation.  If Scripture defines the Church, then why are there close to 35,000 different Protestant denominations?  Hmmmm...makes you wonder a bit.

Well, they're there because they didn't think the Catholic church defined it either.  Remember, the "mother" gives birth to children not the other way 'round, and therefore can't blame the children for their existence.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:27:37
Well, they're there because they didn't think the Catholic church defined it either.  Remember, the "mother" gives birth to children not the other way 'round, and therefore can't blame the children for their existence.

Except the "Mother" in this case was not the Catholic Church, but the Renaissance.  This is where the seeds of the Reformation were originally sown.

I am just thankful to the Lord that this "child" has seen the light and returned home.

If only men and women would tear down their idols, and stop resting in their oxies, ists, and isms...

Salvation is in Christ, and He is none of these.

I was unaware that papal abuse, false relics, and indulgences were just Renaissance issues.  I thought Luther viewed them as Catholic issues.

Indeed.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:32:49
I was unaware that papal abuse, false relics, and indulgences were just Renaissance issues.  I thought Luther viewed them as Catholic issues.

This is what is laughable.  If you think that Reformation dealth primarily with religious issues, then you are sadly wrong.  Did the Church have its problems, of course it did.  But it goes much deeper than what Luther had thought.  The Renaissance set the stage for relativist thinking, concentrating on the realm of the subjective.  The Renaissance compelled man to question traditional values and reexamine his role in the world.  The relationship between man and God was also questioned in a variety of ways as well.  It was at this point that many questioned the role of the Church.

Ironically, the Church did have its problems but what Luther did was shift Christianity as a religion that had existed primarily in the objective realm into the dangerous waters of the subjective.  Again, why do you think there are 35,000 Protestant denominations.  Protestants cannot even agree on how the Scriptures should be interpreted.  I call it the battle of the "Holy Spirits."

First of all, you ignored the main issues: papal abuse, false relics, and indulgences with a waving of your hand. Secondly, you attempted to muddy the waters by reinterpreting history, and used the Renaissance as a smokescreen to avoid said issues (papal abuse, false relics, and indlugences). Third, you continue to use a bloated figure of "35,000 denominations" as some sort of supposed trump card, that only you see as relevant. If there were 35,000, or even 100,000 "Protestant denominations", it would not validate the Roman Catholic church, papal abuse, false relics, or indulgences... Let me ask you a question, broach: are you a Roman Catholic apologist, or a follower of Jesus Christ? If you are a follower of Christ, deal with the issues. Please don't brush them aside.

What he said.

Quote from: James Rondon on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:55:09
First of all, you ignored the main issues: papal abuse, false relics, and indulgences with a waving of your hand. Secondly, you attempted to muddy the waters by reinterpreting history, and used the Renaissance as a smokescreen to avoid said issues (papal abuse, false relics, and indlugences). Third, you continue to use a bloated figure of "35,000 denominations" as some sort of supposed trump card, that only you see as relevant. If there were 35,000, or even 100,000 "Protestant denominations", it would not validate the Roman Catholic church, papal abuse, false relics, or indulgences... Let me ask you a question, broach: are you a Roman Catholic apologist, or a follower of Jesus Christ? If you are a follower of Christ, deal with the issues. Please don't brush them aside.

1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

2. I did address the issues.  I haven't brushed anything aside.  The Church had problems at the time of Luther.  I dealt with those issues.  Were there bad popes?  Yes.  You need to specify more on "false relics."  Were there issues with indulgences..YES.  Was there corruption within the Church...YES.  Surely, you are not suggesting that sinners do not exist within the Church?  What church doesn't have its problems today?  You don't throw out the baby with the bath water though.  I think that most people fail to really grasp what the Reformation did.

However, these issues have nothing to do with the cental doctrines that have stood for 1500 years prior to Luther.  Luther did more than just whine about corruption here and there.  He totally took Christianity into an entirely different direction.  He revamped the entire faith, including its doctrines that have stood for more than 1500 years.  He let Pandora out of the box that led to the destruction of the sacraments, the authority of the Church, the rejection of the Real Presence, etc.

I am not reinterpreting history.  The Renaissance is not a smokescreen.  It sowed the seeds.  History just doesn't happen overnight.  The emerging ideals of the Renaissance set the stage for the Church to be challenged.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:26:13
As I recall, it was an Orthodox person that made the statement.  

Then the person likely meant that the scriptures are not above the Church. It is the Church which is a witness of scripture, that is what all those stories are about in there. The witness of God's people and His interaction with them throughout history.

Human history is the witness of God, not poetic literature. That is if one believes in the miraculous, God's divine interaction with humanity.

God is a living dynamic in our lives, either one acknowledges that or not. The bible, is only a tip of the iceberg of all the peoples lives He has touched in His mysterious way.

Quote from: Wayfarer on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46

Quote from: Wayfarer on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

It was in the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

What does this mean, if your not a catholic your not a follower of Christ?

Or if you are a follower of Christ your automatically a catholic?

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:16:56

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46

Quote from: Wayfarer on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

It was in the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

That certainly wouldn't be before the catholic cannon, would it?

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:20:49

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:16:56

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46

Quote from: Wayfarer on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

It was in the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

That certainly wouldn't be before the catholic cannon, would it?

I believe many protestants considered it scripture.

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46
The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

Asbolutely false.

1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.

Additionally, you if reject some of the "Catholic cannon," then you must by definition reject the entire New Testament cannon.  It was the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that decided what books would be included in the final cannon.  Either accept all or reject all.  The Holy Spirit is either right or wrong...and my guess is that the Holy Spirit is never wrong.

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:23:38

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:20:49

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:16:56

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46

Quote from: Wayfarer on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

It was in the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

That certainly wouldn't be before the catholic cannon, would it?

I believe many protestants considered it scripture.

I believe it still wasn't considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:25:32
I believe it still wasn't considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

What do you mean by "catholic cannon?"  There was only one approved cannon...period.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:24:59

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46
The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

Asbolutely false.

1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.

Additionally, you if reject some of the "Catholic cannon," then you must by definition reject the entire New Testament cannon.  It was the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that decided what books would be included in the final cannon.  Either accept all or reject all.  The Holy Spirit is either right or wrong...and my guess is that the Holy Spirit is never wrong.

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

Thank you for pointing that out, manna to you.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:27:29

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:25:32
I believe it still wasn't considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

What do you mean by "catholic cannon?"  There was only one approved cannon...period.

A big gun?  or the bit for a horse?

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

I am a Catholic because I am a follower of Christ.  And you are right, there is a big difference.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:34:02

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

I am a Catholic because I am a follower of Christ.  And you are right, there is a big difference.

You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:34:02

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

I am a Catholic because I am a follower of Christ.  And you are right, there is a big difference.

This comment points to mark number 6.

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:23:38

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:20:49

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:16:56

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46

Quote from: Wayfarer on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

It was in the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

That certainly wouldn't be before the catholic cannon, would it?

I believe many protestants considered it scripture.

Not so much scripture as beneficial reading to the Christian. 

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:11
"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

That's it?  Please tell me you have more than that.  This is very much subject to opinion and very convenient.  But let me continue...

The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.  The councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, made this determination.  The Chirstian Church was in no way bound by the opinions of the Jewish authorities on the canonical standing of these books.  They couldn't even agree on the canonical standing of these books.

Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.  In addition, the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated. Imagine that, even after the Jewish canon has been supposedly closed in 94 A.D., they were still included.

The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii).

Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.

The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther's gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon ("chief books") Hebrews, James ("epistle of straw"), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament "Apocrypha." He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, "Christ is not taught or known in it." These opinions are found in Luther's Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.

Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:

Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. {see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6}

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

{see also Revelation 5:8}

Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.

St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of

Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology:

1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can't benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The "penance interpretation" is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of "Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day," and so forth.

As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:

Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.

2 Maccabees 7:29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers.

{a mother speaking to her son: see 7:25-26}

Ironically, in some of the same verses where the New Testament is virtually quoting the "Apocrypha," doctrines are taught which are rejected by Protestantism, and which were a major reason why the deuterocanonical books were "demoted" by them. Therefore, it was not as easy to eliminate these disputed doctrines from the Bible as it was (and is) supposed, and Protestants still must grapple with much New Testament data which does not comport with their beliefs.

Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) "useful and good to read." Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants, and the Anglicans maintained them in this secondary sense also. The English Geneva Bible (1560) and Bishop's Bible (1568) both included them as a unit. Even the Authorized, or King James Version of 1611 contained the "Apocrypha" as a matter of course. And up to the present time many Protestant Bibles continue this practice. The revision of the King James Bible (completed in 1895) included these books, as did the Revised Standard Version (1957), the New English Bible (1970), and the Goodspeed Bible (1939), among others.

Bottomline, you argument is weak and historically without merit.  The Canon was decided by the Church and sanctioned by the councils, with guidance with the Holy Spirit, this included the Apocrypha.

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:34:02

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

I am a Catholic because I am a follower of Christ.  And you are right, there is a big difference.

You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

Someday you may get it....

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26
You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

I know it can be a thin line in such discussions, and we all often find ourselves on either side (accuser/accused) of it.  But I do think this is awfully close to breaking the rule of questioning another poster's Christianity. 

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:50:49

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:11
"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

That's it?  Please tell me you have more than that. 

I do.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=20142.msg413517#msg413517

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:50:49
The Canon was decided by the Church and sanctioned by the councils, with guidance with the Holy Spirit, this included the Apocrypha.

Oh, please, please, please.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:53:22

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26
You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

I know it can be a thin line in such discussions, and we all often find ourselves on either side (accuser/accused) of it.  But I do think this is awfully close to breaking the rule of questioning another poster's Christianity. 

Oh, I am use to it.