Christians - Bible Interpretation

[writer]

57 Holy Tradition is not "an addition to" the Bible.
Depends on what specific "Holy Tradition" you're speaking of

Holy Tradition produced the Bible.
To the contrary, the apostles and prophets wrote the NT and O

the Bible is part of Holy Tradition. The two cannot be so easily distinguished or separated.
To the contrary: whatever specific tradition contradicts the Bible is separable from the Bible

59 the Church founded by Jesus (the Roman Catholic Church).
Jesus Christ died as one grain, to bring forth many grains, which by virtue of containing His life comprise His Body as members. Jesus Christ did not found the Roman Catholic Church

I don't see how you can disagree with the fact St. Peter was the first Pope.
Mebbe it's cuz like u wrote
The office of Pope evolved over time, so there is a big difference between Pope Benedict and St. Peter.

Jesus appointed St. Peter chief pastor of His Church and told him that it would be built upon Peter.
To the contrary, as Peter, Paul, Augustine, Isaiah, the Psalmist, and God declared, realized and wrote: Christ is the foundation of His church; who revealed Himself to all His apostles. "Behold, I lay in Zion a cornerstone, chosen and precious; and he who believes on Him shall by no means be put to shame. The stone which the builders rejected has become head of the corner. A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense..." 1 P 2:6-8; etc.
Thanks

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Holy Tradition is not "an addition to" the Bible. Holy Tradition produced the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is part of Holy Tradition. The two cannot be so easily distinguished or separated.

The Bible, more particularly, is the product of Holy Tradition, since the Church was established before the Bible and produced it.

This is the source of much confusion for Protestants, who struggle to found their own churches on the Bible, when it is historically the other way around. The Bible is founded on the Church - the Church isn't founded on Scripture. The Church is founded by Christ and cared for by the apostles of Christ and their vicars (that is, people who stand in place of the apostles). The first apostles and earliest Christian bishops produced the Bible and preserved it, and later drew up many canons, one of them being the Canon of Scripture.

The Protestants reject all of the canons, modifying the canon of Scripture a bit by excluding the Apocrypha. Interesting that the Protestants are sola scriptura and yet don't have all the Scripture. That has to be some kind of punch line in heaven.

 

[writer]

The Bible, more particularly, is the product of Holy Tradition, since the Church was established before the Bible and produced it.
To the contrary: the OT was written before the church was brought into existence. And the church's members (her apostles) wrote the NT. Not "Holy Tradition."

(That is: neither "Holy Tradition" wrote the Bible; nor did the apostles write--or speak--"Holy Tradition." Unless someone has any tradition they'd care to specify...)

Take care

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Bible, more particularly, is the product of Holy Tradition, since the Church was established before the Bible and produced it.
To the contrary: the OT was written before the church was brought into existence. And the church's members (her apostles) wrote the NT. Not "Holy Tradition."

(That is: neither "Holy Tradition" wrote the Bible; nor did the apostles write--or speak--"Holy Tradition." Unless someone has any tradition they'd care to specify...)

Take care

Quite right - the OT is not the product of the NT church... I see a unifying faith between the OT prophets and the NT apostles which enables me to include their traditions as Holy Tradition.

The Bible is Holy Tradition. It was reffered to and treated as Holy Tradition long before the Reformers descided to cut and paste their canon together...

 

[writer]

64 Quite right - the OT is not the product of the NT church... I see a unifying faith between the OT prophets and the NT apostles which enables me to include their traditions as Holy Tradition.Then it'd seem you'd've been able to include their canon as yours, Genesis-Malachi (Gen-Chronicles, diff order)

The Bible is Holy Tradition.
Which's why things contrary to it, even (or especially) if labelled "Holy Tradition" also, r best to discard

the Reformers descided to cut and paste their canon together
To the contrary: the reformers returned both to many truths of the canon; and to the canon's own limit

62 struggle to found their own churches on the Bible,
The church (singular) is founded on the apostles' teaching.
Revelation 21:14; 2 Tim 3:16; Ephesians 3:5; Acts 2:42; Romans 16:25-26; 2 Thes 2:14-15; etc

when it is historically the other way around. The Bible is founded on the Church - the Church isn't founded on Scripture.
One shouldn't attempt to separate the apostles from their teaching. Or try to teach the church something else

their vicars (that is, people who stand in place of the apostles).
For instance, anyone claiming to speak infallibly thereby removes himself from any "place of the apostles"

canons, one of them being the Canon of Scripture.
Scripture needs no "canon" to be, or to become, Scripture. Rather: it's Scripture.
Even if nobody recognizes so

The Protestants reject all of the canons, modifying the canon of Scripture a bit by excluding the Apocrypha.
Who are "the Protestants" s'pose to be?
In any case, the Jewish Apocrypha never was Scripture, never could be Scripture, never will be Scripture, and isn't Scripture. Nor was it ever to Jews.
The earliest extant copies of the Septuagint date from 500ish AD.
Much, if not most, of the Apocrypha, is outright fiction.
Neither the apostles nor the prophets wrote fiction.
Thanks

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Who are "the Protestants" s'pose to be?

Anyone who stands outside of the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, or Coptic Church.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Anyone who stands outside of the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, or Coptic Church.

Not entirely true. There are some who were not part of the protestant movement and who consider themselves restorationists: restoring the primitive church with it's spiritual power and integrity.

 

[athanasius]

Writer said;
“Scripture needs no "canon" to be, or to become, Scripture. Rather: it's Scripture.Even if nobody recognizes so”

My answer:

Quite true. scripture is scripture. The church and her councils don’t “make” those books scripture, God does. But I think Mr writer misunderstands the whole point of the argument in the Canon. Just because Scripture is scripture when it was written doesn’t mean that everybody will recognize that it is scripture. And scripture itself has no way of showing us what its complete new testament canon is.

If we as Christians are going to believe in a infallible new testament canon then we need a infallible outside source to tell us what that canon is because scripture does not contain a divine table of contents that list all the books in the new testament canon. Even if there was a book in the bible that did list all the other books that belong to the bible we would have no way of knowing if that book itself was scripture without a outside source.

In other words just because a book may claim itself to be inspired doesn’t mean it is. The book of Mormon claims it is inspired as well as the Koran but we do not believe that those books are. We also cannot just say that we know the new testament is scripture because God internally spoke to our hearts and told us because mormons would say the same thing about their holy book but we know they are wrong.

And the early church proves that we cannot just know what the canon of the new testament is by our own feelings because the early Church considered many books scripture that we do not today, book s like the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistle of Clement yet no one believes these are scripture today.

We need a Authoritative outside source to be able to look at the traditions of the canon and weed them out and infallibly proclaim the canon that is of God. We need the church that Jesus founded and gave Authority to speak infallibly for him (Matt 16:13-19, 18:18, Luke 10:16, Acts 15:28). We need the church that historically the Holy Spirit would guide into all truth(Jn 16:13-14).

The Church that down through history has had councils(Such as Nicea) and made authoritative decisions led by the Holy Spirit on important doctrine. There is only One Church that Jesus founded historically and history is quite clear that it was the Catholic Church as attested to by both Protestant and Catholics Scholars. Peter being the fist Pope all the way down to our current Holy Father Benedict 16th. See the historical list here: See my Post # 49 http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23977&page=5

It was this Catholic church historically that would be the one Jesus promised he would lead into all truth(Jn 16:13-14) and promised the gates of death wouldn’t prevail against it(Matt 16:18-19). It was this Catholic church historically that God used to identify and infallibly proclaim the correct tradition of the New testament canon which we all adhere to.

This was done in the year 382 A.D. at the council of Rome under Pope Damasus I and ratified again at other councils in Hippo(393) Carthage(397) and florence(1438). Up until Rome in 382 there had not been a authoritative declared new testament canon and many canons that were believed to be scripture had books in them that were not. This is the Catholics power point if you will. Mr writer does not seem to get this.

God historically gave us the Catholic Church as my list shows. God also gave us the Canon. God worked through his Catholic Church, and her Popes and Councils to proclaim to us what the Canon of the new testament would be. In others words the only reason why protestants believe the books that they have in their new testament are scripture is because they follow the historical infallible proclamations of the Catholic church and her Popes and councils .

They(Protestants) when they try to quote scripture apart from the teaching of the Catholic church are picking fruit from a tree they didn’t plant so to speak. The irony is that the very scripture Writer and other protestants quote to argue against the authority of the Catholic Church and her traditions clearly was given to them by the very-Catholic church and her Apostolic traditions in 382 Ad that he argues against .

In other words the only reason why they(protestants) can quote you the new testament and even know what books make up the new testament is because the Catholic church and her traditions decided in the 4th century what made up the canon and what didn’t.

Mr writer wrongly thinks that the catholic church teaches that it created the canon. We teach that God created the Canon. But we also teach that God created the church and used the Catholic church and her traditions and Popes and councils to discover and proclaim to the people what the real Canon tradition was. Thus by relying the authority of the Catholic church and her Popes and councils and traditions to get the bible, the protestant nullifies his whole position of sola scritura.

This is the nail in the coffin for the protestant on the false doctrine of sola scriptura. Once this doctrine(sola scriptura) crumbles so the rest of the theology of the protestants crumbles too. They need the apostolic traditions and the Pope and the magisterium and we welcome them home back to Jesus Catholic church and pray for them.

To read a complete refutation of writers false claim on this subject point by point please see my post # 246 at this link
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16456&page=25

I would recommend a Historical work on the canon of the bible. This book is indispensable for studying the canon it is called

“Where we Got the Bible, our debt to the Catholic church” by the Henry Graham. This book was written by a protestant(presbyertian minister) who studied the new testament canon issue and eventually led him to convert to catholicism.

The Tradition of the new testament Canon is one example of a tradition that is not found in the pages of the new testament itself and is part of the traditions that we are to hold fast to that are not written down in scripture(2 Thess 2:15)

I hope this helps everybody.

God bless all
In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasius

 

[athanasius]

This may have nothing to do with this thread but Go Cardinals! They have won 3 games so far and my boy Eckstien is a devout Catholic and he really helped last night! Whoo hooo!!

 

[Baerly]

The church I am a member of is not Catholic nor Protestant.

We still worship according to new testament teachings today.

The church of Christ had its begining on the day of Pentecost in 33 A.D.


in love Baerly

 

[Baerly]

The office of Pope evolved over time, so there is a big difference between Pope Benedict and St. Peter.

The Pope is the leader of the Church founded by Jesus (the Roman Catholic Church). Jesus appointed St. Peter chief pastor of His Church and told him that it would be built upon Peter.

I don't see how you can disagree with the fact St. Peter was the first Pope.

Please check out these lessons. Thanks, Baerly


Peter, Pope, Catholicism: Catholicism - Was Peter the First Pope? [SIZE=-1]Peter, Pope, Catholicism - Catholicism - Was Peter the First Pope? - With all of the recent news regarding the Catholic Church many have heard stated as ...
www.preachersfiles.com/catholicism/001356.htm - 8k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
Catholicism [SIZE=-1]Here's another article related on this subject . Just wrote it . Hope some of you can find it useful . Was Peter the First Pope ? ...
www.preachersfiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17046 - 53k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]

 

[Baerly]

Are you refuting that all who have been baptized are one? Do you not understand that "denominations" are but different facets of the one Body?

We're arguing semantics. Where you see division, I see only differences. I think division does matter to Jesus -- so much so that he made us all one. But differences of identity, name, practice, proclamation, variances in understanding and voicing that understanding, do not intrinsically cause division. The differences we perceive do not matter to Jesus. But the division (such as you appear to be creating within the different denominations) does matter to Jesus.

I didn't say that the passage had nothing to do with baptism. I said that the thrust of the message wasn't with regard to baptism, but with regard to the unity of the Church. Your question negates your premise that I attempted to answer in the green field, above. That is, that baptism -regardless of our perceived differences -- makes us all one -- whether we choose to call ourselves Catholic, Presbyterian, or Moravian.

Both the bible (the word of God) and I disagree with most of what you wrote above.

To be a part of the Church of Christ (Rom.16:16) one must be baptized (immersed) in water for the remission of sins (Acts 8:37-39) (Acts 22:16 ; 2:38) (Gal.3:27).One must understand Jesus only built one church (Mt.16:18).This idea that Jesus is pleased with all these different churches that are supposed to be a part of the one church is not what the bible teaches at all.

(Eph.5:23-33) teaches that there is only one church. Jesus is the head (Col.1:18),and the body = the church (Eph.1:22,23). The church should only do what the head (JESUS) tells it to do (Mt.28:18-20). There are as many churches as the bible teaches we are to have wives. In (Eph.5:23-33) scriptures teach we are to only have one spouse.Therefore there is only one church (1Cor.12:13,20). The bible does not speak of any denominations,in fact the bible speaks against them and any divisions (1Cor.1:10) (Gal. 1:6-9) (1Tim.1:3).

I am willing to discuss this further if needed. in love Baerly

 

[sojourner]

Both the bible (the word of God) and I disagree with most of what you wrote above.

In your interpretation. Let's take a closer look at what's really going on here.

This idea that Jesus is pleased with all these different churches that are supposed to be a part of the one church is not what the bible teaches at all.

Different denominations are not the same thing as "different churches" Denomination and Church are not synomymous. Most denominations (there are notable exceptions) agree that, on some level, we are all part of the one Body of Christ. Apparently, you are the one that is hoping to see division where there is only difference.

The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms defines "denomination" as: "A distinct religious group with particularly held beliefs or practices." While it is true that the Church consists of various religious groups with particularly held beliefs and practices, it does not follow that each of these groups constitutes a different Church.

Again, the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms is helpful here. It defines "Church" as: "(Gr. kyriakon, 'thing belonging to the Lord,' Lat. ecclesia, Fr. eglise, derived from Gr. ekklesia, 'assembly') The community of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. In the New Testament it is used in a limited sense for local communities and in a universal sense for all believers." (emphasis mine)

Therefore, when the NT talks about the Church at Ephesus, and the Church at Galatia, and the Church at Corinth, etc., these are different groups (denominations) of the same Church (assembly). We know that each Biblical group had slightly differing beliefs, practices, problems, collections of scripture, etc.

(Eph.5:23-33) teaches that there is only one church. Jesus is the head (Col.1:18),and the body = the church (Eph.1:22,23). The church should only do what the head (JESUS) tells it to do (Mt.28:18-20).

Each different group does recognize Jesus as Head. Each group does strive to follow Christ, as the will of Christ is revealed to each.

Some (I would go so far as to say most) Christians have determined that infant sprinkling is a valid form of baptism. Some have not made that determination. It's not really up to you to determine who's right and who's wrong. It's up to you to determine in what way you will respond to the call of God.

 

[athanasius]

Baerly Said
“The church I am a member of is not Catholic nor Protestant. We still worship according to new testament teachings today. The church of Christ had its beginning on the day of Pentecost in 33 A.D.”

My answer:
Mr Baerly is incorrect. The Church he is a member of IS protestant. Mr Baerly holds to protestant disctinctives such as Sola scriptura(Scripture alone as ultimate authority) and sola fide(Justification by faith alone). Mr Baerly is a protestant he just doesn’t wanrt to admit it.

The Church of Christ which Mr Baerly belongs to can trace its origins back to the protestant American restoration movement in 1827 . His denomination is a offshoot from Thomas & Alexander Campbell restoration movement within american protestantism in the early to mid 1800’s.

See evidence here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement# under modern branches.
Also see evidence here http://www.scripturecatholic.com/history.html

Again if Mr Baerly wants to say he belongs to the Church that Jesus founded in 33 A.d. then Mr Baerly would have to be a Catholic. Becuase there was no other church besides the Catholic church back then. The Protestant denominations all came from the Catholic Church beginning in the early 1500’s.

Mr Baerly’s Church was formed from those protestant denominations in the 1800’s. Again The Church of Christ which Mr Baerly belongs to was formed as part of a movement started by Baptist and presbyterian preachers which eventually developed into the many branches of the Churches of Christ.

Hence his church was formed out of Protestant minsters teachings, so he is a protestant. Almost every history class I have been to from both Secular and Christian Colleges has taught this. It is historically undeniable.
The Catholic church on the other hand IS the church that Christ started in 33Ad. The Catholic church can trace its origins back to Peter who traces his origins back tot Jesus himself. For a complete list of the historical evidence of a all the Popes from Peter to Benedict 16th see here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Protestant sources such as the Oxford dictionary of Popes by protestant Church historian JND Kelly also show this historical truth that the Catholic church can trace its popes to Peter and was the first historical church.
Secular historical evidence also shows the same thing in the Merrium Websters Collegiate Encyclopedia it list all the popes from Peter to our current Pope.

And Catholic historical sources admit the same such as the Catholic encyclopedia of History.

So Mr Baerly if he want to prove to us that his church isn’t a protestant church and was originally part of the Church that Jesus founded must demonstrate a few things.

1) He must first show historically why all those protestant, secular, and Catholics historical sources and are wrong about the Catholic church being he first church that goes back to Peter.

2) He must demonstrate how his church was never founded by proterstant ministers in the 1800’s and is not part of the Stone- Campbell restoration movement of the second great Awakening in american history.

3) If He claims that the protestant Churches of Christ were the original christians then how come The Lord used the Catholic church and her Popes and councils in 382 Ad under Pope Damasus I, then Hippo393 and Carthage 397 to give us the new testament Canon we have? How come God didn’t use the Church of Christ to give us the New testament Canon? Simple because the churches of Christ were not founded yet(Until the 1800’s).

4) Again how can Mr Baerly claim to go by the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura when it took the Catholic church and her councils and Popes in the late 4th century to decide what the Bible was? This again shows that all Protestants including Mr Baerly have to kneel before the Catholic Church and her Traditions and Authority to know what the new testament even is. This is the irony of the whole thing.

For a good refutation of the Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura please see my Post # 246 here;

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16456&page=25

And read a simpler refutation of it here in my post # 68 here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23977&page=7

Well I hope that helps. Gods bless al of you

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasius

 

[sojourner]

I could be mistaken -- but I think I remember Baerly saying that his church was not one of the Churches of Christ that are part of the Stone-Campbell movement. Perhaps Baerly could clear that up for us?

 

[athanasius]

It is interesting if he said that because many of the links he gives are from the Church of Christ who came from the Stone-Campbell movement. But if he is not then why is he quoting thier websites as Authoritative? Also if he is not maybe then he can tell us what the denomination is of the church he attends. Many Churches of Christ bodies deny that they are a Protestant denomination. But the encyclopedia and history show differently. I look forward to hearing his defense of my post #74.

In Mary's Love,
Athanasius

 

[sojourner]

My impression is that Baerly doesn't think in terms of denomination -- only in terms of the restored Church. The Churches of Christ (Stone-Campbell variety) don't think of themselves as denomination. So, Baerly -- wazzup there?

 

[writer]

68 I think Mr writer misunderstands the whole point of the argument in the Canon...scripture itself has no way of showing us what its complete new testament canon is.
To the contrary: Scripture both cannot be broken, Jn 10:35;
is "God-breathed, 2 Tim 3:16;
and self-labels, eg 2 P 3:16; Rv1:11; Lk 24:44; Mt 4:4-10; etc

If we as Christians are going to believe in a infallible new testament canon then we need a infallible outside source to tell us what that canon is because scripture does not contain a divine table of contents that list all the books in the new testament canon.
To the contrary: Scripture labels Scripture, Lk 24:44; 2 P 3:16; Mt 4:4-10; etc.
And Scripture's inside-source is the Spirit of God, 2 Tim 3:16; 1 P 10-12; Rv 2:7; etc

Even if there was a book in the bible that did list all the other books that belong to the bible we would have no way of knowing if that book itself was scripture without a outside source.
God's not only His Scrip's "inside source," He's also it's "outside source."
"All Scripture's God-breathed and profitable..." 2 Tim 3:16

We also cannot just say that we know the new testament is scripture because God internally spoke to our hearts and told us because mormons would say the same thing about their holy book but we know they are wrong.
To the contrary: God wants to be inside us. That's why He became a man, died on
a cross, then resurrected. His new covenant is to write Himself into our hearts,
"this is the covenant...I'll put My law in their inward parts and write it upon their hearts; and I'll be their God, and they'll be My people/You are our letter, inscribed in our hearts, known and read by all men. Since you are being manifested that you're a letter of Christ ministered by us, inscribed not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tablets of stone but in tablets of hearts of flesh...God has also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, ministers not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life," Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 3:2-3, 6

And the early church proves that we cannot just know what the canon of the new testament is by our own feelings because the early Church considered many books scripture that we do not today, book s like the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistle of Clement yet no one believes these are scripture today.
Neither're they Scripture then.
Thanks

 

[Scuba Pete]

This idea that Jesus is pleased with all these different churches that are supposed to be a part of the one church is not what the bible teaches at all.

Paul seemed to be pleased:

Philippians 1:15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. NIV

I would suggest that if the motive makes little difference that the denomination has little impact as LONG AS CHRIST IS PREACHED. What does it matter indeed? It obviously doesn't.

 

[athanasius]

MR WRITER SAID;

To the contrary: Scripture both cannot be broken, Jn 10:35;
is "God-breathed, 2 Tim 3:16;
and self-labels, eg 2 P 3:16; Rv1:11; Lk 24:44; Mt 4:4-10; etc


My response;

Ok just because 2 tim 3:16 says all scripture is God breathed(we Catholics agree with) that doesn’t mean that we are going to know what all scripture is. That is why it took the Church 4 centuries to figure what constituted the canon of the new testament.

Again none of the scriptures you mention above (eg 2 P 3:16; Rv1:11; Lk 24:44; Mt 4:4-10; etc) give us or name us the complete canon of the new testament. I have been over this with you before Mr writer and yet you still haven't listened or learned. I will show you again.

Writer may argue that Peter says that all of Pauls writings are scripture and he will quote(2 Peter 3:15) But as I have shown historically that argument doesn’t work because the vast majority of Christians did not even consider 2nd Peter to be inspired scripture or canonical until the early 4th century as almost all the earliest canons will show ie..the Murtorian Canon of 180 A.D. and others.

Also even if Peter did mention that all of Pauls writings are inspired, this would still not help poor Mr writer. Why? Simply because Peter never made a list of all Pauls inspired writings. Peter doesn’t name each book ie..Romans, Galatians, Revelation, Matthew, 1 John etc. Peter doesn’t give a complete list of all the books in the bible either? What about Johns epistles?

Peter never mentions them in this passage? what about James epistles? does Peter mention James and his epistle is this passage? What about the book of Revelation? Ahh It may not have even been written yet. So how could Peter mention that book? How could Mr Writer know it was inspired? Peter never mentioned it.

The bible has no divinely inspired table of contents. No one author ever list all the books that would make up the bible.

Even hypothetically if there were a book that list all of the books, how would we know that the book that list them was inspired to begin with? He is under the false belief that everyone in the first century believed all the new testament books you have in your bible to be the inspired word of God. This is his error.

The immediate congregations that some of these books were written to did recognize them to be authoritative.

For example, when Pauls wrote to the Hebrews, it of coarse was authoritative. He was a apostle. It is also true that some of the congregations may have been aware of his other letters, although not all of them were.

But as history shows, the “Church as a Whole” outside of the Hebrew congregation that Paul wrote too(In his epistle to the Hebrews) did not know that his letters to the Hebrews were inspired scripture.

History shows this as I have shown. that’s why before the 4th century Hebrews was not considered canonical for the vast majority of Christians in the universal church. Also 1 2nd 3rd John, 1 and 2nd Peter, James, and Revelation had the same problem.

Also in the early church the early christians accepted books he and all protestants do not. Like the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas or the didache. Some of these books were used in the early Liturgies and treated as scripture. It wasn't until much later that Athanasias in 367 gave his list of the 27 books of the new testament that we all have and only then it wasn’t until 382 at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I that we are officially given this canon for all Christians. This was ratified by other councils such as Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 and florence 1439.

As far as Matt 4 is concerned this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the canon of scriptures at all. Matt 4 does not give us a list of all the books that belong to the bible does he? Can Mr writer show me why he thinks this passage says it does??

Lk 24:44 also does not give us a list of what books belong in the new testament canon and what books didn’t. Christ did come to fulfill the Law of Moses(Matt 5:17) but this passage does not say anything about the Canon. I believe Mr writer is trying to make this passage say something it doesn’t. Can you show me Mr writer where this passage teaches which books are in the new testament canon.

We Catholics agree that all scripture is God breathed and inspired but first you have to know what constitutes scripture and what doesn’t. Again hypothetically even if there was a book in the bible that did list all the other books as being scripture we would have no way of knowing if that book that list the other books is scripture itself. And the Bible nowhere gives us a list of all the books that are to be included in the Canon. For that you must rely on Tradition outside of scripture and the Catholic church, her Popes and councils Authority as history attest too.

Thus the protestant doctrine of scipture alone crumbles because the scripture that protestants think is sole sufficient couldn’t give us what the makes up the new testament(scripture itself). You had to rely on the Catholic Church for that. This truly is the nail in the coffin for the false protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

Once sola scriptura crumbles so the rest of the protestant disctinctive doctrines crumble with that. You had to rely on catholic tradition and Papal authority to even know what the new testament was. This is just a historical fact.

The irony is that the very scripture Writer and other protestants quote to argue against the authority of the Catholic Church and her traditions clearly was given to them by the very-Catholic church and her Apostolic traditions in 382 Ad that he argues against .

In other words the only reason why they(protestants) can quote you the new testament and even know what books make up the new testament is because the Catholic church and her traditions decided in the 4th century what made up the canon and what didn’t.

I urge anyone reading this to study history and it will reveal this. I would recommend everyone read this book

“Where we Got the Bible our debt to the Catholic church” by Henry Graham.
Graham was a protestant minister who upon studying the history of the bible came to realize that Christ Catholic church gave us the New testament and he converted.

It’s real nice to believe that you do not need a outside infallible source to tell you what the infallible scripture is but we have seen that this simply isn’t true on a historical level and on a practical level.

On a historical level we needed the church to tell us what constituted the new testament canon because we did not know from internal evidence alone as witness by the many different canons in the early church before the canon was settled in the 4th century. On a practical level this argument doesn’t work also. The Mormons and Muslims would swear to you that they have internal evidence that their books are the Word of God. But we know that they are not. We needed the church that Jesus founded to weed out the false books and tell us what the canon was and what the canon wasn’t. Again this happened through christ Catholic church, her Popes, and her councils.

May the Lord bless you Mr writer in Jesus through Mary,
Athanasius