Roman Catholic Thoughts On Spiritual Delusion . . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bonnie

Super Member
Who decided the "core" of the new testament at the end of the 2nd century, long after the passing of the apostles?
The Church as a whole. There are several reasons, which would take too long to describe here. But someone on here described part of the process. I will try to find it later. I need to wash dishes. Ciao!
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
Why was God only "pretty much decided" by the end of the second century what the canon was? When did He become fully decided on it?
Romans 3:1
What advantage then hath the Jew?
or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way:
chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God
.​

Approx 66 AD
Rev. ch 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.
plural, not just One
I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

17 And the Spirit and the bride say,
Come.
And let him that heareth say,
Come.
And let him that is athirst come.
And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

it is finished; don't add to it nor take away

the water of life
Proverbs 9:17​

Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.

18 But he knoweth not that the dead are there;
and that her guests are in the depths of hell
.

all the "Ole Whore" of Scripture did was "Stole from the Jews"
claimed it as hers, and used the Iorn fist of Ceasar to put down any opposition
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
Then why didn't Bonnie say that? Is it too difficult to say that God worked through the Popes and bishops to codify Scripture, even though it is the truth? Because if they didn't do it, then it floated down from heaven.
Then why didn't Bonnie say that?

Its been said as long as i've been here. And anyone whose been a believer longer than 6 months knows God moved men to write His word. I have a feeling you already knew what she meant.

Is it too difficult to say that God worked through the Popes and bishops to codify Scripture

Gimmie a minute till i stop laughing.

Because if they didn't do it, then it floated down from heaven.

So where did the materials come from that you allege your 'popes' codified? Did those just 'fall out of heaven'? Or did someone pen those letters that were considered inspired by the close of the first century...most of them.
 

mica

Well-known member
Nondenom40 said:
Mocking Gods word again? God inspired the writers to write. Thats all Bonnie meant. Not to speak for her but we know how we got our bible and the rcc had nothing to do with it.
Then why didn't Bonnie say that? Is it too difficult to say that God worked through the Popes and bishops to codify Scripture,
there's a difference between inspired writing of it by men He chose and your not inspired Popes and bishops (not chosen by Him) claiming to codify it.

even though it is the truth? Because if they didn't do it, then it floated down from heaven.
it isn't.

maybe you should spend more time considering that.
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
From God.
As is Sacred Tradition.

CCC78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes." "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."

The same 'collective' that approved the canon also approved Tradition.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
As is Sacred Tradition.

CCC78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes." "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."

The same 'collective' that approved the canon also approved Tradition.
The difference is the bible tells us scripture is God breathed. Your ccc tells you sacred tradition is. See the problem? Show us the 2 Tim 3:16 for tradition.
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
organgrinder said:
And yet it does in many cases. Do you not see that, especially in the Marian doctrines?
No, because the organization to which Stella has devoted her body, mind, soul and spirit tells her that there is no disagreement. So to her, there is no disagreement!

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
The place of Mary among Christians was already finding worth to faith in her Son, in the early Church and was accepted. She was present at so many important events in the life of her Son. All 4 gospel writers mention her presence and Luke's account of the annunciation lifts her high above the words on the page. A women blessed among women. It is not surprising or unexpected that there would be vehement hostility towards love of her just as there was against love of her Son. It was foretold.

If anyone wants to know what the Church teaches, we have an abundance of literature on that through the internet. Unlike disagreements among other Christians, the Church has the authority to settle important questions. You don't need to try and figure out whats what by merely evaluating the credibility of individuals who are in conflict.
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
The difference is the bible tells us scripture is God breathed. Your ccc tells you sacred tradition is. See the problem? Show us the 2 Tim 3:16 for tradition.
But do you get that when Paul wrote that to Timothy, there was no canon of Scripture. He wasn't referring to the bible. That volume was the work of the body of the Church. I find that lots of nonCC's don't seem to realise this timeline.
 

mica

Well-known member
As is Sacred Tradition.

CCC78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."
what the rcc transmits is not 'accomplished in the Holy Spirit'. you don't know how the HS works.

so just more attempts to lift up your 'church'
instead of Christ.

"The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."
who do you consider to be 'holy Fathers'?

there is no 'life-giving presence' in, of or by the Holy Spirit in the rcc.


The same 'collective' that approved the canon also approved Tradition.
so both were approved by false teachers.
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
Then why DOES IT have disagreements, and PAGAN inclusions?? Find me "Purgatorial Sanctification", or "Ever Virgin" in the scriptures.
Not everything regarding Jesus was written down. (John 21:25) It's so improbable to believe that the Apostles only ever transmitted the very limited things that eventually became the canon. They lived and taught for many years after the Resurrection and all that they passed on by way of word of mouth couldn't just be defunct, meaningless? That original oral tradition was never abrogated by the canon. I find that impossible to believe.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
But do you get that when Paul wrote that to Timothy, there was no canon of Scripture. He wasn't referring to the bible. That volume was the work of the body of the Church. I find that lots of nonCC's don't seem to realise this timeline.
I was asking for a similar verse on tradition. But what do you call the o.t.? And Peter and Paul both recognized scripture as it was being written. And no, the rcc didn't write or produce a bound volume. The rcc wasn't around then.
 

mica

Well-known member
But do you get that when Paul wrote that to Timothy, there was no canon of Scripture. He wasn't referring to the bible. That volume was the work of the body of the Church.
2 Peter 3 kjv -
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;

in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


I find that lots of nonCC's don't seem to realise this timeline.
what timeline?
 

mica

Well-known member
Not everything regarding Jesus was written down. (John 21:25) It's so improbable to believe that the Apostles only ever transmitted the very limited things that eventually became the canon. They lived and taught for many years after the Resurrection and all that they passed on by way of word of mouth couldn't just be defunct, meaningless? That original oral tradition was never abrogated by the canon. I find that impossible to believe.
iow, you don't trust God to give to mankind what only He could know that we needed to know.

you
once again show that you believe the rcc knows more than God knows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top