223 what were all of Pauls writings?
That we have: Romans, 1+2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1+2 Thessalonians, 1+2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews
You see this was the problem for the early Christians.
To the contrary: i neither "see this;" nor was it any problem--rather it was a blessing--for the early Christians to whom Paul wrote
Peter nowhere mentions the name of every epistle that Paul wrote or who he wrote to
By that, r u or Catholicism teachin that Paul didn't write Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothies, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews or any combination thereof? Or is Catholicism, or u, setting forth that Paul wrote something else we have?
Peter also nowhere mentions the complete table of contents for the new testament that would be binding on all christians.
the NT needs no table of contents to be the NT
what about all those other books in the new testament?
They're written by Matthew, Mark (for Peter), Luke, John, James, and Jude. Matthew was one of the 12 disciples. John Mark was Peter and Paul's coworker. Luke was Paul's coworker. John was one of the 12. James was the Lord's younger brother. Jude was the Lord's younger brother
how do you know what scripture is?
I kno what it isn't
This is the issue of the Canon.
I've no issue with the canon, with Scripture. The NT's the NT. The OT's the OT
without a divinly inspired table of contents, you have no way of knowing what scripture is.
To the contrary: Scripture needs no table of contents 2 b Scripture
How do you even know that the book of Peter that you just read is itself inspired?
The early Christians and i both receive it as such. It itself is palpably not a forgery, as many others before me have realized; and carries the sense, authority, and tone of Peter and of Scripture. Do u or Catholicism contend that 2 P is not Scripture and/or not inspired?
The majority of Christians for the first 300 years or so were not so sure?
If so: that's their problem (Tho it's unso, given Muratorian Canon etc). And if that's meant to be a statement: i disagree certainly as to the 1st recipients of 2 P: whether they called 2 P 'Scripture' or not, the effect was the same. Each book from Mt-Rev were written, and sent, in the 1st place, to believers, churches. Not to unbelievers, not to heretics, not to the world, not to sects
You historically have to rely on Catholic councils and tradition.
To contrary: I don't. Even if by 'Catholic councils and tradition' u mean our common Christian heritage. Since both the writers and recipients of the NT PRECEDE the councils u refer to
Where we got the bible, our debt to the Catholic church
I'm glad Catholicism preserved, copied, and even translated the Bible through its history. Should it, or any Christian group, have done otherwise? I'm sorry Catholicism also did much to frustrate translation and preservation of the Bible. Such as the murder of William Tyndale. And the murder of speakers of the Bible such as Jan Huss. But no, given that the church of Christ is not the Catholic Church, i cannot credit the Bible to the Catholic Church
Show me the historical proof if Im wrong
Historically, the NT was written, and received by its recipients, from about 150-90 years before the muratorian canon. 150-90 years. That's alot of time. Hebrews, James, 1 P, and 2 P were written, and received by their rcipients, from 332-315 years before the year 382 and its council. 332-315 years. That's over 3 centuries. Equivalent to the distance between the years 1674-1691 and us (2006). Thas alot o time
Peter does speak of Salvation or soterian in the context of verse 15.
'Salvation' in 2 P 3:15 is not the word 'justification;' nor is it the thought of justification, as Paul used 'justification' in Romans. Since Peter wrote 2 P 3:15 about Christians
the Catholic Council in Rome in 382 did formerly recognize and authoritativly Canonize those books for all Christians to read as God breathed scripture.
Hebrews, James, 1 P, and 2 P were Scripture; were read or benefitted from as Scripture (such as by their original readers); were authoritative, were for all Christians, and were God-breathed (from at latest the instant they were written), about 332-315 years (comparable to the span of time between 1674/1691 and 2006) b4 the council in Rome in 382
Mormon believe that the book of mormon is inspired scripture because they read it and prayed about it. They may tell you that they have a burning int he bosom and God spoke to thier heart and is telling them that its inspired.
Do u, or Catholicism, find the Book of Mormon to be of the same calibre as the New, or Old, Testaments?
They also say that there is no other book like the book of mormon. Are they right??
No. They're mistaken, at best
Muslims believe the same about the Koran. Are they right?
No. At best they're mistaken
Then how can you be?
Itz not me. It's God. His Spirit both inspired His Scriptures, and lives in me
YOu utilize the same arguments they do.
Then one o' us isn't tellin the truth
you owe your new testament canon to the Catholic church
No i don't. Although many early, post-apostolic Christians used the word 'universal' ('catholic') to describe the church, just as i do in my language, my Bible and historical research shows me that Catholicism, a Church centered around Rome or a self-proclaimed Bishop of Rome, is neither the church who authored the NT, nor is it even the church in existence in 382 in Rome or elsewhere (tho some germinal elements were there). Instead: the particular consolidated, and applied political-religious power of a single man and office in the old Roman Empire capitol of Rome which i recognize today as the Catholic Church didn't fully commence until Gregory 1 and Justinian's laws around AD 600