Just go down to the library of any theology department of any major university and you’d find shelves of library books on Petrine authority.
Oh, if you doubt Petrine authority, you must also doubt the accuracy of the books assembled as the canonical texts established in the Synod of Rome in AD 382.
And, oh, you must then think that every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and David Koresh and Jim Jones have a claim to split open the pages of the Bible and each may definitely offer their “own” interpretations.
And oh, you must then think Christ taught many truths and established many Churches each contradicting one another.
I see. So you don't have any proof on your own. It must be in some library somewhere. As a Prot, I go by the Bible so some book someone supposedly wrote that theorizes a possibility just wouldn't really do it for me. But I am glad you are so easily assuaged. Good luck with that.
They were the church then went astray and people became literate and realized how wrong the popes were but no there is 1 church Christ church n all who put their faith in him realizing he is the only way to Heaven are part of His church
>>>The same Church that through Petrine authority confirmed the true Word of God in its assembly of the canonical texts after researching for over 200 years, hundreds of texts, cross-checked against the received oral tradition.<<<
>>>Oh, if you doubt Petrine authority, you must also doubt the accuracy of the books assembled as the canonical texts established in the Synod of Rome in AD 382.<<<
>>>Well if you don't believe in Petrine authority then you must question the accuracy of the canonical books assembled in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority that proclaimed the Written Word of God.<<<
>>>The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I.<<<
>>>You must then doubt the canonical texts as well since these were established by men: the early Church Fathers (theologians) under Petrine authority?<<<
>>>Well if you don’t believe in Petrine authority then you must question the accuracy of the canonical books assembled in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority that proclaimed the Written Word of God.<<<
>>>Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the Canon.<<<
Steelfish, you keep making this claim about the NT canon as though it is unchallengeable, and yet when I challenged you in a recent thread you refused to defend your claim or refute my counterargument. I realize that Elsie has given you an intellectual spanking on this thread (applause), but we have unfinished business, so don't run away like a scared little rabbit like you did last time. Surely with all of those scholarly RC writings you keep referring to, somewhere you can find the official RC explanation for the conundrum that I presented. Here, I will refresh your memory:
=====
Even though James is considered the earliest book written in the contemporary N.T., it was one of last accepted as canonical, and was taken in and out a number of times over the centuries. Some eastern countries have never accepted James (traditional Indian Christian communities, for example). In fact, James in many ways proves itself non-canonical, but only one example is necessary to draw doubt from any open mind. The following is from my book, MetaChristianity VI - Unlocking James Bible Mysteries:
quote==>
Ja.2.21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
James made this claim to justify his works-righteousness gospel:
Ja.2.22-24 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
But Abraham was credited as righteous (Ge.15.6, Ga.3.6) ten years before the incident with Isaac in Ge.22. There is nothing about Abraham being considered righteous because of the incident with Isaac. This incident with Isaac was about Abraham's obedience to God's specific instructions and subsequent earthly blessings bestowed on him, not his righteousness. "Now I know that you fear God...I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore." Abraham's righteousness was "fulfilled" when "he believed God" in Ge.15. Between these two events God instructed Abraham to institute circumcision as part of His covenant with Abraham (Ge.17). Why would James not cite this as the "fulfillment" of Abraham's righteousness? Was it not enough works? Paul explains:
Ro.4.9-11a Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
Paul confirms that Abraham was credited with "righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." Here's the timeline:
1) faith/righteousness = Ge.15
2) circumcision = Ge.17
3) Isaac incident = Ge.22
But, presuming James is correct, how does James know that the Isaac incident was enough? And how are we to know when we have done enough works so that our own righteousness is "complete" as James attributed to Abraham? Must we offer up our sons as well? What if we don't hear God say "stop!"? And just what are we to make of the statement of Ge.15.6 "Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness"? If Abraham, without sufficient works, was not "completely" credited as justified for the ensuing ten years, what did Moses think he was doing declaring that God credited Abraham as righteous just for believing?
Ja.2.24 You see that a person is [being] justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James here illustrates that not only does he not understand justification, but he is not even consistent in what he espouses. In verse twenty one he claimed that Abraham "was considered righteous for what he did". He also claims in verse twenty two that "his faith was made complete by what he did." So Abraham had accomplished righteousness according to James. But then James in an about face claims that justification is an ongoing process - "a person is [being] justified by what he does". (Even though the "being" is excluded from most translations it is correct based on the Greek grammar.) James now claims that justification is an open-ended proposition. In other words, James insists that justification is a continually on-going process - a complete contrast with what he claimed about Abraham.
The answer to James’ original question is NO, Abraham was NOT considered righteous "for what he did." Paul confirms this in Romans:
Ro.4.1-5 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works [or as James put it, "what he did"], he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
If Paul had agreed with James he would have confirmed what James said. But he did not - he contradicted James in stark black and white. Paul and Moses agree, and James is the odd man out. James tried to pull a fast one, and even if this were the only evidence against the canonicity of James, it would be enough by itself.
<==/quote
As a side note, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does not explain this blatant contradiction between James, and Moses and Paul.
This is just one of many evidences that I explore in my book that leads the conclusion that the epistle of James is not inspired of God and not canonical.
=====
Steelfish, you really should put-up or shut-up. Go search your precious RC documents and find a countering explanation to uphold James as canonical, or withdraw your rubbish about the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority.
I look forward to hearing your (their) explanation.
Or will you run away again?