/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>548893

>So how do Protestants know the Canon

The inward working of the Holy Spirit.

>>548893

Why would Protestants need to determine the canon? Sola scriptura assumes that scripture already exists. I don't need to write The Bible, I just need to read it

How do c*thlics know the canon but don't follow it

>>548893

Some accept the Catholic Church's authority – or at least agree with its teachings – up to a certain point in time. For example, the Council of Nicaea is accepted as valid by most Protestants.

Of course, the canon was revised by the Protestants. They generally agree with the original reasoning for doing so (that the books are spurious, written too late in time, or something like that).

To me (as someone who was raised Protestant), I don't see the big deal with including the Apocrypha. The stories were obviously regarded as important at some point in time. Hell, we can add in the Book of Enoch too while we're at it!

>>548893

Some of us are a complicated case around tradition.

>>548896

So does anyone who disagree blasphemy against the Spirit? Does anyone who claim any different canon reject the Spirit?

Are you saying that you have a specific revelation and anyone who doesn't ascend to your revelation is automatically damned? Are you a new prophet?

>>548897

If you say something is an authority it's pretty important to say what that actually is, especially as it changes very often.

>>548928

Whose tradition?

>>548896

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that every protestant thinks they are a pope

>>548959

>So does anyone who disagree blasphemy against the Spirit? Does anyone who claim any different canon reject the Spirit

No. Since not all men receive equal grace from the Holy Spirit, it does not follow that all men would be equally enlightened as to His word.

>Are you saying that you have a specific revelation and anyone who doesn't ascend to your revelation is automatically damned? Are you a new prophet?

The bible already has supreme authority, so it, as the first principle of belief, possesses marks that it is the word of God, and when the Holy Spirit renovates a man, He manifests these marks so to the saint scripture would be bright as light.

>>548959

I just don't even get the question. There already exists a book called The Bible, and protestantism is based on the belief that this book called The Bible is the only truly authentic source of doctrine and practice. Why would protestants need to determine the canon? We don't need to write The Bible, we just need to read it.

>>548963

>>548964

It was protestants who changed the Bible so yes the actual canon is important

your forebears DID "arrange" it atleast, differently than it had been for 1800 years.

Not only that but there are many Churches which have different scripture and call it the Bible to the same degree.

A mormon or muslim could pronounce the same faith in their scripture as you, what you have is called a simple ascent. If you want a deeper and more complex faith, actually understand what the Bible is so you can have a full understanding of the topic.

There is a massive hole in your thinking now you are are just looking past, you just accept it on tradition of those who have told you it is the Bible. It will be more fulfilling if you actually understand why that is.

One of my favorite things to bring up, did you know the "apocrypha" or deuterocanon were actually printed in protestant Bibles up until around 1829?

Do you know why they removed it?

To save on printing costs.

Your Bible is the product of people not wanting to pay for as much paper, so they just cut some stuff out of it.

It doesn't even have the dignity of being for a theological reason/disagreement.

Is god's full revelation dependent on people reading a Bible that was mutilated by someone trying to save money on printing paper?

Someone possibly tore out pages of the Bible, is that not something you should be concerned with? Should that not be the primary concern you want to look into and be aware of. There might be more to the Bible, and some may have torn something out of it harming millions/billions of people for totally mundane reasons.

You say you have faith but you don't actually understand what that means, you haven't actually taken the time to look at your belief and how that works. Through that you can better understand and glorify God.

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Unless you think you are intellectually incapable of understanding these things, you are failing to do this by not considering it. God didn't ask us to just accept things blindly, but the more we know the more we Glorify him. He wants your entire intellect and mind, not just your heart.

>>548972

Mormons agree with what The Bible is, they just don't believe in The Bible alone and accept other scriptures. Muslims don't believe in The Bible at all, and they view Quranic sola scriptura (Quranism) as a heresy, so they're totally irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm not sure at all what point it is you're trying to make. There's a book called The Bible. I don't need to write it, because it already exists. I determine the canon by going between the title page and Genesis 1. Asking me to decide what the canon is is like me asking you how you decide what the Catholic Church teaches. You don't decide, it's given to you. The Bible already exists, I'm not a prophet, I don't need to write any more scripture. The Bible already exists.

>>548959

that of the OHCA

>>548975

Sorry no it doesn't, you are asserting your feelings onto the world.

This is just modernism stuck in your head, your feelings don't decide the world.

You understanding the Bible to be something doesn't just make it so, that is putting yourself in the position of God, only his will is so perfect.

The Bible is not a "thing" that exists on it's own, what you use is just the collection of books a Church thought would be good to read during worship services, that's it. You've had books randomly removed but you have no idea why, you've just been served something. The Bible as a word doesn't mean anything in itself. You are either giving yourself or those who taught you the Authority of God, I'm sorry but if you want Truth you are going to actually have to take the time and look into things.

God didn't call us to kill our brains and just blindly accept what people tell us, you aren't worshiping God you are worshiping your parents/pastor. God wants something better for you, and like I said it just means you will need to look into things more. Take nothing for granted, but look to dedicate your whole mind and heart to God.

>>548977

I think your understanding might be a bit "divorced" from reality.

You can't say one while you imply there are two.

>>548972

Oh my goodness. Where do I even begin?

>It was protestants who changed the Bible

No, my friend, we did not "change" anything. What we did was take a position on the authority and canon of the bible.

>your forebears DID "arrange" it atleast, differently than it had been for 1800 years

Since the 2nd century there has not been unity on the canonicity of certain books. This has never changed, only been formalized by religious schisms.

>A mormon or muslim could pronounce the same faith in their scripture as you

Yes they could. An atheist could also pronounce the same faith in no god as I do in the God. Does this have any relevance to the reality?

>you just accept it on tradition of those who have told you it is the Bible

While I certainly accept it because of the tradition of the Church (since I would not even know the books if the Church had not delivered them), this is not the basis of my belief. As I said, the basis of my faith in the bible is the bible itself and the renovation of the Holy Spirit.

>did you know the "apocrypha" or deuterocanon were actually printed in protestant Bibles up until around 1829?

Why yes, I did know that. What's strange to me is that you seem completely unaware that the Protestant reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries unanimously rejected those books, even though they printed them alongside the canonical books.

>You say you have faith but you don't actually understand what that means, you haven't actually taken the time to look at your belief and how that works.

Why do you pretend to read my heart and know my past?

>Unless you think you are intellectually incapable of understanding these things, you are failing to do this by not considering it. God didn't ask us to just accept things blindly, but the more we know the more we Glorify him. He wants your entire intellect and mind, not just your heart.

My friend, I earnestly recommend you take your own advice, because you have expressed astounding ignorance on the most basic issues.

>>548986

>Why yes, I did know that. What's strange to me is that you seem completely unaware that the Protestant reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries unanimously rejected those books, even though they printed them alongside the canonical books.

This is the problem when you are used to arguing to people, you are able to repeat things like this without even slightly noticing how incoherent this statement is.

Try to look past the memes

>>548982

>I think your understanding might be a bit "divorced" from reality.

>You can't say one while you imply there are two.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>548972

>One of my favorite things to bring up, did you know the "apocrypha" or deuterocanon were actually printed in protestant Bibles up until around 1829?

Why is it called "deuterocanon"? Just a "random" reason like you keep saying?

It couldn't possibly be called that because those particular books are not known in the original languages, but only in the Greek septuagint? Meanwhile the rest of the OT is known in the originals?

No, it couldn't be that. Luther just decided one day, and the roman catholic church amazingly agreed to call it the deuterocanon because of him.

Before that, everyone on earth agreed with the Council of Trent, as the Council of Trent says.

>>548987

>historical fact is incoherent

>>548987

>Try to look past the memes

>is meming himself

>>548982

What the Hell are you talking about? I don't "feel" like The Bible exists, it just does. It already exists. Here, I have some proof that The Bible already exists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1586409441/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_hUh.zbRANXRZ9

https://www.bible.com/bible/1/GEN.1.kjv

See? Nobody needs to write anything! The Bible already exists! I'm not gonna determine the canon, I'm just gonna read it, because The Bible already exists! I don't feel like The Bible already exists, I know that The Bible already exists!

>>549006

Of course what Schaff did not want to tell you is that the Deuterocanonical books were cited a lot by Early Christian authors. Even worse, Justin Martyr himself used the claim that the Jews actually removed some books from their OT and cites from one which is a virtually unknown source.

Melito's canon also cannot be used to say he supported throwing out the Deuterocanon since what is ignored is the fact that some Deuterocanon are simply parts of established OT books in their Greek form. Melito uses Greek conventions in his list thus making it likely his canon may include the deuterocanonical books as well.

Clement of Rome also cites Judith in the same way he cites Old Testament figures, so that statement there is redundant and ignorant of the facts of the matter.

>>549076

You take that the bible is the final authority (sola scriptura) and that the canon of it (the part which defines the contents of the bible) is just merely there?

The bible itself does not prove the contents.

>>549076

Poppy had a Baphomet reference in one of her videos, if shes christian at all than shes as christian as any other controlled internet popstar with signaling plastered all over her videos.

>>548896

Why did people not know how the canon is supposed to look like before it was decided by the Church then?

God forordained the writing of the 66 books and their collection into Scriptures. The church canonized them because they are the word of God. They arent the word of God because the church canonized them.

>>548964

Do you think God wrote the Bible?

The canon is a tradition, that's what OP is getting at. Sola scriptura invalidates scripture itself, not to mention the fact that this doctrine is not in scripture to begin with.

>>549111

How do you know this? It doesn't say anything like that in scripture.

>>549104

Why would I need The Bible to prove The Bible? That's recursive. Using The Bible as your final authority implies that The Bible already exists as a book. It already exists, so I don't need to determine it. When you read a book, how do you determine what it says? When you listen to music, how do you determine how it goes? When you watch a movie, how do you determine what happens? I'm not writing The Bible, it already exists

>>549106

I don't care if she's Christian or not. I posted that video because it shows someone reading The Bible, proving that The Bible exists

Also, the wifi here keeps cutting out. That's why my responses are so far apart and why my ID keeps changing. I'm not trying to samefag

>>549128

> I'm not writing The Bible, it already exists

How did it come into existence? If even 1% of it is accounted for by the efforts of mere men, then your entire position falls apart.

>>549115

Yes it does. It says that God will preserve his word forever and that it's completely incorruptible.

Therefore, if you already believe Scripture, you have to believe that complete Scripture not only exists today but that it has been unchanged and known throughout the world since the day it was written. That the original words down to the last iota are still here. Our faith hold that this is true. So by process of elimination, there is only one possible candidate for that, the textus receptus. Everything else— every other version— has not always been known or is a translation and not original. We can prove the former because for many centuries everyone used the textus receptus exclusively. Even if they didn't like it (such as disputing 1 John 5:7), they used it.

So now that we've determined that, all we have to do is find a reliable translation of that same unchanged original directly into our primary language, and we have it for ourselves.

John 10:27-28King James Version (KJV)

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

>>548899

this

>>549098

>>549184

false. They were quoted as Scripture. Take Irenaeus for instance,

Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart' [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, 'You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous' [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [ca. A.D. 190]; Dan. 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Notice that here, a deuterocanonical section is cited AS Scripture and AS Daniel's own words so this makes the whole "muh historical" claim essentially nonsencial in its own right and ignorant and with this shown here, essentially demolished.

and another example from Polycarp,

Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!" (Epistle to the Philadelphians 10 [ca. A.D. 135]).

this is clearly NOT citation for historical reasons

>>549184

But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying,'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615

try again when you actually have proof the ante nicene fathers dont cite the deuteros as Scripture

and remember, my point is simply they dont have the Protestant canon and have books against it

>>549184

But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.' [2 Maccabees 7:28]" Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230),in ANF, IV:270

because this is not doctrinal

>>549184

and to top it off, from a father that Protestants claim deny Scriptural status to the deuterocanon

[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9]and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:158.

>>549184

and of course even worse, the Jews had no closed canon even after Josephus. This is why the Janmia hypothesis is DEAD

>>549252

>the Protestant canon

You mean the original canon as opposed to the "deutero"canon?

>>549255

>People retardily still thinks Jenmia was a council, rather than what it was; a discussion on whether certain books made the hands unclean.

The old testament was closed when the prophets eased, which 1 maccabees 12(?) and sirah 1 admits.

>>549109

Why do you believe mythology has some basis in historical reality?

>>549128

The whole point is, how do you know that the bible minus deuterocanonical books is the real canon?

Nowhere in the bible is the canon set, and since the different books and letters were written by many different people (most of which didn't even knew each other) and then combined together by a council of priests and bishops in Carthage (this is a historical fact) you need a confirmation of the canon in the bible itself to make sense of sola scriptura.

Even if you take quotations, which on their own do not explicitly state the canon, you fall short of a lot of books.

What always baffles me is, doesn't anyone, ANYONE from a protestant denomination ever take his bible and say "Now, how did this thing come to be?"

>>549307

>>549307

nope. this is false as we even have in later Rabbinic tradition, disputes over which books should be canonical

>>549370

>The whole point is, how do you know that the bible minus deuterocanonical books is the real canon?

Because it has to exist. Read my earlier post seriously.

>you need a confirmation of the canon in the bible itself

Let me try to make a reductio ad absurdum argument from this. Do we need a confirmation of the exact number of words in John within John in order to trust we have the whole book? Don't you doubt whether there could be missing parts, since the book of John itself doesn't say anywhere in it how long it is? In fact it never even says "this is the end of the gospel" anywhere so how do you know it's really over? Why aren't people losing their minds over this? Or do you instead just realize that God, the author, must have preserved the Gospel intact as He intended and as Scripture says.

>>549370

>this is a historical fact

No it isn't, it's modern popular Roman Catholic myth. This was merely a local council which never held any authority outside of its time and place (until Roman Catholic apologists rested the bible itself on it), and did not intend to decide the canon of the bible, but merely set forth what was in use already. It wasn't even the first list of canon.

>you need a confirmation of the canon in the bible itself to make sense of sola scriptura

If scripture contained a list of its own contents, would you believe it? No, of course not, if in the bible was the canon of the bible you would need to believe the bible already to accept the canon. This is why no such list is in scripture, it would be redundant. The only way a canon can function is extra biblically.

>>549577

>>Everything I don't like about history is Roman Catholic conspiracy and lies

Why did you decide to ignore everything else I said and reply to your hallucination of what I said instead?

>Then when was the bible compiled

The dogmatic canon of the Roman Catholic Church was produced in 1546 at the Council of Trent

>what books did it contain

The Council of Trent declared the canon to be "of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second, of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle".

>and when was our Septuagint added?

The Septuagint is a text, not a book.

Yes. But you misunderstand tradition. Tradition is very important, and Protestants follow tradition. You can't be a Christian and not follow tradition, given the age of Christianity. There is a huge difference between tradition as passed down by the writers of scripture, and tradition that seems to really stretch or even contradict scripture. Remember that Protestants were once Catholics. We didn't just pop out of nowhere. We agree on many things. We agreed on the canon, for example, up until the counter reformation. What we disagree on is dogma and tradition that is apart from scripture. For example - the idea that priests should be celibate. The idea of the Pope. The idea of purgatory. The extreme exaltation of Mary. Salvation through works. Etc.

The question for me is, why do Catholics seem to contradict what is in the canon that they claim to accept as the word of God?

>>549592

>The dogmatic canon of the Roman Catholic Church was produced in 1546 at the Council of Trent

The canon was reaffirmed, as the canon had existed for over a millennium by then.

The reason why you say Trent is because any council that would've been called before the Reformation began would debunk your theory, which it already does.

I ignored the rest of your post because it's all fanfiction.

The Council of Carthage in 397 was the first ecumenical Council that officially confirmed the biblical canon and it was no small one either.

It was part of a complete synod that spanned several years and thousands of priests and bishops attended it.

Oh of course! The Council of Carthage is a myth! Well you got me there, definitely proves your point.

>and when was our Septuagint added?

Whoops I meant deuterocanonicals, but please tell em when exactly they were added.

>Inb4 Trent

The deuterocanonical books were already considered canon way before that.

>>549594

>The question for me is, why do Catholics seem to contradict what is in the canon that they claim to accept as the word of God?

Your question should maybe be "Why would Catholics compile a bible that they go against later on?"

Why wouldn't we have declared only canon that what wouldn't contradict our position?

Maybe, just maybe, it was meant to be interpreted as the people who compiled it did?

>>549613

>The canon was reaffirmed

I stated a historical fact. There was no dogmatic list of canon in the Roman Catholic Church before 1546 and therefore no "infallible" list of canon before then either.

>The Council of Carthage in 397 was the first ecumenical Council

See, this is what I mean by myth. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, because if you had the slightest clue, you would know Carthage was regional, not ecumenical.

>officially confirmed the biblical canon

Carthage did not lay down a canon so as to decide canon for the church, it was describing the canon used in North Africa.

>thousands of priests and bishops attended it

Now this is just getting comedic

>Whoops I meant deuterocanonicals, but please tell em when exactly they were added.

History isn't that simple. The books had been accepted since the 2nd century, and they had been rejected since the 1st century. But this fact refutes the notion a council determined the canon since men knew the canon beforehand.

>>549635

>I stated a historical fact. There was no dogmatic list of canon in the Roman Catholic Church before 1546 and therefore no "infallible" list of canon before then either.

No, the Council of Carthage is a historical fact, the rest is your fanfiction.

>The Council of Carthage in 397 was the first ecumenical Council

See, this is what I mean by myth. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, because if you had the slightest clue, you would know Carthage was regional, not ecumenical.

It's pretty ecumenical when bishops and priests attend it from outside of Africa.

>thousands of priests and bishops attended it

>Now this is just getting comedic

Also non-bishops attended it, I read about 2000 people would've been there in total.

>But this fact refutes the notion a council determined the canon since men knew the canon beforehand

Then why where there many non-canonical scriptures in rotation and did even some Church Fathers quote them?

I mean didn't people already know the canon?

Also, how did they know the canon if not even the ones who wrote New Testament knew the complete canon?

>>549645

>It's pretty ecumenical when bishops and priests attend it from outside of Africa

They didn't

>I read about 2000 people would've been there in total

Then I recommend you stop reading whoever told you that because they are liars, or clueless, or both.

>Then why where there many non-canonical scriptures in rotation and did even some Church Fathers quote them?

Because not all men receive equal grace from the Holy Spirit

>Also, how did they know the canon if not even the ones who wrote New Testament knew the complete canon

The apostles did know the full canon. Hence why the first men to believe the apocrypha was scripture were in the 2nd century.

>>549646

>The apostles did know the full canon

How could they've known the full canon if St. Paul hadn't even finished writing all his epistles and the Apocalypse wasn't written yet?

>>549666

The full canon of 60 AD is not the full canon of 2017 AD

>>549669

So they couldn't know of the full canon?

Then how and when did people start to know the full canon?

How do you know these people have the right canon, when other people (like Church Fathers) also quote apocrypha?

>>549675

>So they couldn't know of the full canon?

A canonical book is a book which is scripture. A book is automatically non-canonical if it doesn't exist. Romans was not canon before Romans existed.

>how

The Holy Spirit.

>when

As soon as divine revelation was delivered.

>How do you know these people have the right canon

Deduction.

>>549681

>The Holy Spirit

If I had to believe everybody claiming the Holy Spirit I'd have 33k+ options to comsider.

>As soon as divine revelation was delivered.

So no actual time or date you can say when, so I take it just came out of nowhere somewhere in time.

>Deduction

What deduction? From which sources?

Tell me how you know which people (and who these people were) had your canon and why they are right.

>>549729

>From which sources?

The bible

>What deduction?

Well, for example, the bible tells us God's word will never be lost, therefore, Tobit is not scripture, since we do not (and have not for quite some time) have the original text of the book.

Ignoring the rest of your post because it's just shitposting.

>>549740

>The bible is the source of my canonical deduction

Please explain how.

>Well, for example, the bible tells us God's word will never be lost, therefore, Tobit is not scripture, since we do not (and have not for quite some time) have the original text of the book.

So, we have the original text of all the other books and letters?

>Ignoring the rest of your post because it's just shitposting.

So you don't know when the canon became as it is now, or who proclaimed it first?

>it's a catholics don't understand their own fake theology thread

every single time

>>549753

>Please explain how

The bible tells us scripture possesses certain qualities. If a book lacks these qualities, it mustn't be scripture.

>So, we have the original text of all the other books and letters?

We have the original text of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments

>So you don't know when the canon became as it is now

It became as it is now when the last book of scripture was written

>who proclaimed it first?

The apostles of Jesus Christ.

>>549919

>The bible tells us scripture possesses certain qualities. If a book lacks these qualities, it mustn't be scripture.

Well, give the qualities.

>We have the original text of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments

That sounds cool, never heard they found the original epistles of Paul, what museum are they in?

>It became as it is now when the last book of scripture was written

So, according to you, when the book of Revelation got written on that little island of him it suddenly combined with all the other books and letters to form what we call the bible?

>The apostles of Jesus Christ.

The apostles knew the epistles of St. Paul?

>>549928

>Well, give the qualities

I recommend you read the bible

>That sounds cool, never heard they found the original epistles of Paul, what museum are they in?

Do you know the difference between a text and a manuscript?

>So, according to you, when the book of Revelation got written on that little island of him it suddenly combined with all the other books and letters to form what we call the bible?

The canon is the list of what books are scripture. Every book of scripture was scripture from the moment it was written.

>The apostles knew the epistles of St. Paul?

Yes

>>549932

>I cannot name these qualities

Okay, I take they don't exist then.

>Do you know the difference between a text and a manuscript?

So, you got the original text but not the original piece of paper it was written on?

>The canon is the list of what books are scripture. Every book of scripture was scripture from the moment it was written.

Yeah, but who what or when was it decided that these books should be compiled into one book we now call the bible?

>Yes

So they were clairvoyant and knew what letters their former persecutor would write?

>>549936

>So, you got the original text but not the original piece of paper it was written on?

Yes, that is how it works

>Yeah, but who what or when was it decided that these books should be compiled into one book we now call the bible?

That would be God. If you mean to ask who decided to bind the books together then my answer is that your question is stupid because the binding has nothing to do with their ontology.

>So they were clairvoyant and knew what letters their former persecutor would write?

Have you ever read the Book of Acts?

>>549615

No, why don't you guys seem to follow the canon? The Council of Trent was AFTER the protestant reformation. It was, in fact, because of the protestant reformation. There was a Canon prior to the Catholic church "officially" declaring it, which Catholics and Protestants obviously agreed on.

For example - why do you believe in salvation according to works, given that the scriptures (e.g. Romans) literally say that works do not save?

>>549978

>For example - why do you believe in salvation according to works, given that the scriptures (e.g. Romans) literally say that works do not save?

Because they believe pope > bible

>>549978

The Canon, before Luther talked to some rabbis and revised the OT according to their (((expert))) opinions, had in every tradition always included the "deutero"canon. Hell, the other apostolic Eastern churches, in whichever communion, have a couple *more* books in their canon. The idea that Tobit or Baruch are late additions by Catholics or something has no basis in reality.

>>550051

The apocrypha had always been seen as secondary, not God inspired scripture, until the Council of Trent where the Catholic Church decided to canonize them to essentially stick it to Protestants. Deuterocanonical literally means "secondary canon." The Catholic Church itself did not canonize the entire collection of Deuterocanonical books. If your issue is with the Protestant rejection of the mostly historical Apocrypha, then don't stop there, ask why Catholics decided to pick and choose from the lot.

>>550225

>Deuterocanonical literally means "secondary canon."

They get around that by establishing a hierarchy of scriptures, so the canonical books are superior to the apocrypha, even though both are inspired, which is, unfortunately enough for them, completely incoherent.

>>549955

>Yes, that is how it works

How can you know that that's the original text without the original manuscript existing?

>That would be God. If you mean to ask who decided to bind the books together then my answer is that your question is stupid because the binding has nothing to do with their ontology.

So if people that go completely against your theology compiled the books into the bible then it wouldn't matter?

>Have you ever read the Book of Acts?

In the time of the apostles there were no Pauline letters until later in their life, and they didn't and couldn't know about the letters and books that came after them.

My point is, you have no standard as to how you know how the current books in the bible are canon since your only answer is the Holy Spirit a.k.a. the answer from 33000+ other people like you.

You're also trying to avoid answering clear on the creation of the bible itself, which shows me that you just want to play your own pope.

>>549978

>No, why don't you guys seem to follow the canon?

>For example - why do you believe in salvation according to works, given that the scriptures (e.g. Romans) literally say that works do not save?

First of all, we do not teach that works save, we teach that only grace saves, and this can be maintained by doing good works.

Second, your question goes from the idea that we catholics are wrong.

Then tell me, why would we compile a book that supposedly completely contradicts our position on salvation?

Ever thought of the possibility that the people who compiled the bible and over centuries passed down its interpretation would probably not compile a book that contradicts them?

Ever thought that you might be wrong here and are just misinterpreting scripture?

>>550034

>So YOU have the original copy of John that they used?

No, but that's why we believe in Sacred Tradition.

We believe that the people at that council in Carthage in 397 had valid apostolic succession and the Holy Spirit compiled the bible right there and then.

>According to you, you either you need to have that original paper that they used or to have physically been there at the time when the first bible was made or else you can't claim this, according to your own logic.

I do not claim this, I claim that by looking at history one can see that the bible was compiled by people we today would call catholic or orthodox.

Because we catholics and orthodox people believe in Sacred Tradition we have, on pure faith that these people who compiled the bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, a reason to take the canon to be authorative.

All I see protestants ever use is nothing except that the Holy Spirit told them personally and that they 'feel' it's the true one.