Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus said, " By their fruits you will recognize them."
Appreciate your asking.
You misunderstand. I don't "reject" the Ethiopian canon, I'm simply not a heir to that tradition. I'm a Catholic of the Roman Rite and in my tradition the canon consists of seventy-three books. Christianity is not one single tradition, even in Catholicism there are multiple rites all with their own traditions. For example, I'm pretty sure Eastern Catholics follow a slightly different rendering of Scripture than that of their western counterparts, yet that in no way detracts from our common faith.
Because I have no authority whatsoever to decide on such questions. No individual does. It is the Church alone that possesses the authority to interpret scripture (including what is and is not scripture) in light of sacred tradition. I'm not a Protestant, I don't assume the Bible came down from heaven. In the Catholic view, it was the Church which progressively recognized certain writings as divinely inspired, not any individual person. (Although some certainly gave their opinions). No single church father in and of himself is authoritative, it is the judgement of the Church that is.
No need to apologize. I understand, believe me.
See
Yes and no, how true. Would be comforting to get past it. Not sure working on it is the answer though, maybe. Don't think the lilies "try" to bloom.
EXACTLY! Facts are facts.
Mainly because he was just coming out of a Catholic mindset. His viewpoints were still being formed and not necessarily correct in all points. Just because one is a "Christian" doesn't mean they have all their ducks in order. Thus, as mentioned before, the 66 books were determined in the time of Jerome as noted before with all cited information... way before Luther.
It’s really not a matter of “correct” or “incorrect,” as you state it here. The canon is generally misapprehended. It was originally intended to be only a “baseline standard.” When the canon was closed, it was not intended to completely exclude other texts; it was merely intended to say, “this is the stuff you can read in church.”
The only apostle to have written anything is Paul. Thomas supposedly may have written — or caused to have written Thomas, and it’s not part of the canon.
The job of prophecy is not to predict future events ala Jeanne Dixon, but rather to speak God’s truth.
There’s historical inaccuracy in most of the histories.
Substitutionary atonement is not the only, best, or even primary salvation construct. I don’t know where you dreamed this criterion up, but it’s certainly not historic.
I call mawkish BS.
Respectfully — and you know I do respect you — for most scholars, it’s because there’s no anthropological or historical context for the sources of BoM material, and there’s no historical or theological continuity between the BoM texts and biblical texts. The material simply can’t be authenticated. Further, it doesn’t conform to literary forms consistent with other texts of the same alleged age. Were those problems to be solved, the BoM would be given more serious consideration.Excellent question. I'm pretty sure I don't have the answer. One thing I do know, though, is that people seem to be able to deal with the differences between the various Christian denominations's Bibles a whole lot more rationally than they do with additional Christian scripture compiled in a book with an entirely different title.
Easy: they weren’t. This was a venture undertaken completely in a church committee. ‘Nuff said.