Catholi Vs. Protestant Bibles

[Catholic Crusader]

..,..could help me out with a link or something?

here's your link: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

 

[Hezekiah]

Now, can we move on from this?

Moving on  agreed.

Okalee Dokaley

Okalee dokaley, neighbhoreno. :P

 

[Paidion]

And you cannot prove that the Deuterocanonicals are not inspired.

Assumptions and more assumptions! More attacks on a straw man.

Search my posts! You'll never find even a hint that I have been trying to prove that the "Deuterocanonicals" are not inspired. You must have a martyr complex.

What I was trying to show, and it appears that I have been successful, is that you were mistaken in saying that the "Deuterocanonicals" are part of the sacred writings that the Apostles used. For if that were so, we would expect some quotes by the Apostles from these writings. But there are none. However, the Apostles freely quoted from the Psalms, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, for example.

So where is this "rule" that something must be quoted by proto-canonical Scriptures for a deutro-canonical to be valid? That would rule out the entire NT series after the Pastorals with the exception of 1 John and 1 Peter... Could you be consistent at least?

More assumption, more strawmen, and an unjustified accusation.

I have never appealed to any such "rule". The reason I stated the fact that the "Deutrocanonical" books have never been quoted by the apostles, is as stated above in my response to CC.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...Assumptions and more assumptions! More attacks on a straw man.....

Boy, people sure love to fling that word "attack" around. You ask for proof about the Deuterocanonicals' inspiriation. I ask for proof that they are not inspired. What's the difference?

As I said: The Church that canonized the New Testament is the same Church that canonized the an Old Testament containing the Deuterocanonicals. So my position is consistant: Yours is not. So, please explain where you derive the personal authority to contradict these decisions.

 

[Paidion]

The Church that canonized the New Testament is the same Church that canonized the an Old Testament containing the Deuterocanonicals.

It wasn't the CHURCH of the first two centuries, I assure you!

Although your church gradually developed from the early CHURCH, it is a dramatically different organization. Indeed, the early CHURCH was not an organization at all.

People can join the Catholic Church. But no one could join the CHURCH which Jesus founded. Rather the LORD added people to that CHURCH those who were being saved. [Acts 2:47]

You join a club.

Only God can add you to the true CHURCH.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The Church that canonized the New Testament is the same Church that canonized the an Old Testament containing the Deuterocanonicals.

It wasn't the CHURCH of the first two centuries, I assure you!.....

And I assure you, it was. The NT was canonized in the 4th century. Why? Because there were disputes over which books were inspired.

And why did the same Church wait until Trent to formally canonize the OT? Because there were no real disputes over the OT until Martin Luther decided to rip 7 books out of it. Trent was, in part, a reaction to that blasphemy.

 

[francisdesales]

So where is this "rule" that something must be quoted by proto-canonical Scriptures for a deutro-canonical to be valid? That would rule out the entire NT series after the Pastorals with the exception of 1 John and 1 Peter... Could you be consistent at least?

More assumption, more strawmen, and an unjustified accusation.

I have never appealed to any such "rule". The reason I stated the fact that the "Deutrocanonical" books have never been quoted by the apostles, is as stated above in my response to CC.

I was speaking to another poster, and I quoted him. I didn't say you appealed to that rule.

However, I would like to hear your reasoning behind why Christians have not removed Esther, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and nearly a dozen other books from the OT, since they are not quoted by the NT...

Nor are other New Testament Deuterocanonicals, such as Hebrews or James, quoted by NT proto-canonicals.

This line of reasoning for determining the Canon is no better than the other gentleman's approach.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Although your church gradually developed from the early CHURCH, it is a dramatically different organization. Indeed, the early CHURCH was not an organization at all.

Eh? What's this??? Wow...

Jesus created an organization of men whom He taught His Gospel to - and commanded them to go out and teach and baptize to the world. These Apostles, along with the other disciples, as a group, worshipped together, broke bread together, and walked in the ways of Christ together. Are you familiar with what an organization IS?

Indeed, the very BEGINNING of Christianity was an organization. Consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 18: 16-17

Now, who did Jesus mean we are supposed to take disagreements to if two Christians disagree? To a non-organization??? No, the Church is an organization of similarly bound men and women who share the same doctrines and beliefs, the same Eucharist and part of the Body of the same Lord, Jesus Christ.

People can join the Catholic Church. But no one could join the CHURCH which Jesus founded. Rather the LORD added people to that CHURCH those who were being saved. [Acts 2:47]

I don't see the distinction between the Lord adding people to the Church in Acts 2 and the Lord adding people to the Church today through the exact same means - Baptism...

Unless you think God picked up people and dragged them kicking and screaming to the baptismal waters in Acts.

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

Enough! This is NOT a dispute over the early church and what they have become, nor is this a Baptism thread. Some of you have taken a simple question about the origin of the Christian Bible and made it a weapon of war.

On the first page, Hezekiah said this would open up a big can of worms. Although correct, it doesn't have to end that way. Lets get back on target or consider this discussion over.

Thanks,
Vic

 

[francisdesales]

Enough! This is NOT a dispute over the early church and what they have become, nor is this a Baptism thread. Some of you have taken a simple question about the origin of the Christian Bible and made it a weapon of war.

On the first page, Hezekiah said this would open up a big can of worms. Although correct, it doesn't have to end that way. Lets get back on target or consider this discussion over.

Thanks,
Vic

It seems that whenever someone begins a thread that invariably is going to draw a "Catholic vs Protestant" discussion, the conversation turns to "the Catholic Church cannot be allowed to exist" attitude. Not much of 'agree to disagree'. You know, the usual "popish" crap is allowed to fly, comments about the "so-called apostolic succesion", crazy historical assumptions that the early Church was not an "organization". Other such accusations that have nothing to do with the Deuterocanonicals. I am called "arrogant" for refuting the silly idea that Origen didn't believe that various Deuterocanonicals were Scripture (and posting numerous proofs) or taking arguments to their logical conclusion to show how ridiculous they are in very simple terms...

It would be nice to discuss issues without attacking the other person's faith, but it seems this is a difficult thing for some of our separated brothers to do.

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.
Yup. I notice everything was fine until our POV got posted.