Posted on 07/18/2009 9:27:36 PM PDT by bronxville
How tall was he???
Neither website is allowed on the Religion Forum at all - nor are any other websites supporting Jack Chick materials or any other hate-mongering sources such as National Alliance, KKK, Aryan Nations, anti-Semitic webistes, False Jesuit Oath, etc.
Sir, I suggest you read up on the canon of the Bible. Lots of good links here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html
Beyond that point, the books of the New Testament were preserved by the Catholic Church, transcribed by the Catholic Church, and survived to the modern era due to the Catholic Church.
Even the weak argument that the King James version did not come from the Latin Vulgate does not wash: The Latin Vulgate was well known in its content by all of the translators involved in writing the King James version. Beyond that, the Orthodox versions, written in Greek, used by the King James translators, had been fully approved by the Roman Catholic Church long before the Great Schism.
My statement was 100% correct.
I also suggest you study some of the links I have posted, on this thread.
I'm not a Republican...
But don't tell anyone...
bdeaner, you are simply wrong on this. Paul’s writings were accepted as scripture by Peter. The Gospels were accepted by 100 AD. By 200 AD, most of the current New Testament was accepted. Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation were accepted by some, not by others. However, I can’t think of many doctrines that rest solely on passages in these books.
These were being used regularly for worship and doctrine by 200AD - long before the councils in Africa produced their lists. And Catholic scholars as late as Erasmus were allowed to express doubts about which books belonged in the canon. Luther’s questions on canonical books were not extraordinary. And it took the Council of Trent in the 1500s to formally declare for the Roman Catholic Church which books were canon.
The Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha wasn’t some new, startling idea. Many had expressed doubts over it - for significant reasons - a thousand years before the Reformation.
You REALLY need to read some history.
No, I do not.
Compared to you, I am an expert on the subject.
Is there a single sentence in the book, “Who wrote the Bible” that you can disprove?:
http://www.geocities.com/catholic_profide/wbible.htm
Is there a single date or fact, in this history of Christianity or in this history of the Bible, than you can disprove?:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2286074/posts
God has used even heathen and unbelievers to proclaim His glory or speak His will:
And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. – John 11:49-52
And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, [saying, It is] the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. But the word of God grew and multiplied. – Acts 12:21-24
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. – Isaiah 55:11
It is the view of many rather warped Christians that, somehow, Christianity itself did not exist until the Reformation.
My intent is to remind those folks of the true history of the Church and the Bible, (Or to TEACH them, if they never knew the truth in the first place!)
In reply, I aver this commandment as my obsession:
This is the first and great commandment. – Matthew 22:37-38
I doubt I can disprove anything to you. However, I’ve skimmed thru the first part of the book you mention, and it simply ignores the fact that most of the NT was considered scripture almost as soon as it was penned.
There were a few books that were disputed, and there was always debate about the Apocrypha.
If I had to discuss doctrine based on the 22 books that were pretty much accepted within a few years of writing, I could do so comfortably.
But what you are failing to recognize is that the list drawn up were attempts to RATIFY what was already broadly accepted. I believe one of the christian churches that split with Rome long ago still only acknowledges 22 NT books. To say the Pauline epistles were not used as scripture until the councils in the late 300s is simply silly. Ditto with the Gospels, and Acts, and 1 Peter.
I can cheerfully discuss doctrine on heaven, hell, baptism, purgatory or the lack thereof, salvation by believing, etc based on books that were accepted as scripture by 150 AD.
Forgive me if I don’t acknowledge your ‘expertise’, since it differs strongly from fact.
“Sir, I suggest you read up on the canon of the Bible. Lots of good links here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html";
I had a quick look at your link. What is it supposed to prove?
There would be no Bible if not for the Catholic Church.
Everything else I have posted is in support of that fact, which you downplay by treating the Church as little more than a printing press.
Tall enough to cause an earthquake in the Protestant establishment. You just may like to read up on him.
I agree.
Well said!
You make a wonderful point. Our Christian ancestors were so diligent about identifying Scripture and condemning fakes that by the mid 100's AD almost all books were accepted as evidenced by the Muratorium fragment. A good example of how quickly fakes were identified and rejected are the Gospel of James, aka, the Protoevangelium of James and even earlier the Gospel of Peter.
The declaration by Athansius, 270 years after the fact, only arose because of a growing popularity in gnosticism in the area where he was a church leader. No earlier declaration were necessary because Christians took the issue so seriously.
Also, I believe the fact that there was so little controversy (except for the books at the end of the NT and the Apocrypha) is indicative of the Holy Spirit guiding our Christian ancestors. All of this was accomplished before a dominant hierarchy appeared.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.