The canon of Scripture

[Jazzy]

What is the canon of Scripture?

 

[Josiah]

Canon of Old Testament:

How We Got the Old Testament

This is in 4 parts.... How We Got the Old Testament Writing began around 3400 BC in ancient Samaria, a land where Abraham (and Judaism) would be born some 1300 years later, so writing was already an ancient and well established by the time of Abraham. It’s very likely that Abraham could...

www.christianityhaven.com

Canon of New Testament:

How We Got the New Testament

. This is in 6 parts: How We Got the New Testament It’s an important question but one very few Christians ask. There are two common MYTHS: Roman Catholic: Jesus told Peter that these 27 books (and only these) are canonical, Peter told the Catholic Church, and eventually (it took many...

www.christianityhaven.com

.

 

[Stephen]

Canon of Old Testament:

How We Got the Old Testament

This is in 4 parts.... How We Got the Old Testament Writing began around 3400 BC in ancient Samaria, a land where Abraham (and Judaism) would be born some 1300 years later, so writing was already an ancient and well established by the time of Abraham. It’s very likely that Abraham could...

www.christianityhaven.com

Canon of New Testament:

How We Got the New Testament

. This is in 6 parts: How We Got the New Testament It’s an important question but one very few Christians ask. There are two common MYTHS: Roman Catholic: Jesus told Peter that these 27 books (and only these) are canonical, Peter told the Catholic Church, and eventually (it took many...

www.christianityhaven.com

From your link:.

There are two common MYTHS:

Roman Catholic: Jesus told Peter that these 27 books (and only these) are canonical, Peter told the Catholic Church, and eventually (it took many centuries) the Roman Catholic Church told the world.

Who invented that myth?
You - so you could ridicule the Catholic Church?

 

[Albion]

There are two common MYTHS:

Roman Catholic: Jesus told Peter that these 27 books (and only these) are canonical, Peter told the Catholic Church, and eventually (it took many centuries) the Roman Catholic Church told the world.

Who invented that myth?
You - so you could ridicule the Catholic Church?

I don't know about the "Jesus told Peter" that the 27 books are canonical part of the statement, but it's undeniable that the Roman Catholic Church holds and teaches that she was, from the beginning, the one and only church that Jesus founded and that the Bible as we know it was the creation of the Roman Catholic Church. There's nothing mythical or untrue about that.

 

[Stephen]

I don't know about the "Jesus told Peter" that the 27 books are canonical part of the statement, but it's undeniable that the Roman Catholic Church holds and teaches that she was, from the beginning, the one and only church that Jesus founded and that the Bible as we know it was the creation of the Roman Catholic Church. There's nothing mythical or untrue about that.

I'll assume that by Roman Catholic Church you mean the Catholic Church and are just ignorant of the difference.

 

[Castle Church]

There are two common MYTHS:

Roman Catholic: Jesus told Peter that these 27 books (and only these) are canonical, Peter told the Catholic Church, and eventually (it took many centuries) the Roman Catholic Church told the world.

Who invented that myth?
You - so you could ridicule the Catholic Church?

I am confident that it was meant as a joke, did you read "Myth #2"?

Evangelical: God sent out a mass-email to all Christians telling everyone that these 27 books (and only these) are Scripture. It’s just that no one has found this email.

Just as no one thinks God sent an email, no one thinks that Jesus told Peter about the books to include.

 

[Albion]

I'll assume that by Roman Catholic Church you mean the Catholic Church and are just ignorant of the difference.

About that, I think you're going to assume whatever makes you feel better.

I use both terms, but If the term "Catholic Church" is used, it can also refer to the other Catholic denominations, not just the Church of Rome and its various rites .

 

[Stephen]

About that, I think you're going to assume whatever makes you feel better.

I use both terms, but If the term "Catholic Church" is used, it can also refer to the other Catholic denominations, not just the Church of Rome and its various rites .

Roman Catholic Church was a pejorative term invented by Protestants the Reformation. But if it makes you feel better to be insulting!

 

[Albion]

Roman Catholic Church was a pejorative term invented by Protestants the Reformation. But if it makes you feel better to be insulting!

I really can't help if you choose to feel insulted over a word that Catholic churches across America display on their own lawn signs.

 

[Josiah]

Roman Catholic Church was a pejorative term invented by Protestants the Reformation. But if it makes you feel better to be insulting!

Brother @Stephen , with all due respect, get over it.

1. "Protestant" "Lutheran" are both pejorative terms invented by Catholics during the Reformation. "Protestant" originally applied to a FEW who objected to a ruling that non-Catholics were forbidden to worship. Catholics extended the term to apply to anyone who was not a docilic, obedient member of a Catholic parish. Non-Catholics typically called themselves "Evangelicals" (from the word "Gospel" - those who embrace and believe the Gospel) and that's STILL often the term they use for themselves, but rather than CHOOSING to be offended (as you do), they simply accepted it without the derision. The term "Lutheran" also was a term Catholics invented, charging that those who agreed with Luther on justification were "followers of Luther, not Christ" (a charge some Catholics STILL make, "You have Luther, we have Jesus"). They called themselves "Evangelicals" or at times "Evangelical Catholics." They sometimes STILL do. But rather than CHOOSING to be offended (as you do), they simply accepted it without the derision. Perhaps you should consider following the example of your Christian brothers and sisters and rather than CHOOSING to be offended, CHOOSING to use this to divide... simply accepting the term without derision.... and move on.

2. This Catholic practice of accusing other Christians by renaming them is not unique to Lutherans. Catholics also did it with those who rejected infant baptism, calling them "RE-Baptizers" ("Anabaptists" - which today has been shorten to "Baptists"), insisting that the FIRST baptism was valid and thus they baptized AGAIN (mocking their view), but they didn't CHOOSE to be offended and buy into the derision and division that Catholics sought but accepted it and moved on.



Back to the issue at hand....

How We Got the Old Testament

This is in 4 parts.... How We Got the Old Testament Writing began around 3400 BC in ancient Samaria, a land where Abraham (and Judaism) would be born some 1300 years later, so writing was already an ancient and well established by the time of Abraham. It’s very likely that Abraham could...

www.christianityhaven.com

How We Got the New Testament

. This is in 6 parts: How We Got the New Testament It’s an important question but one very few Christians ask. There are two common MYTHS: Roman Catholic: Jesus told Peter that these 27 books (and only these) are canonical, Peter told the Catholic Church, and eventually (it took many...

www.christianityhaven.com

.

 

[Stephen]

I really can't help if you choose to feel insulted over a word that Catholic churches across America display on their own lawn signs.

You really don't understand.
Yes, a particular congregation (church) may have a sign Roman Catholic because it belongs to the Roman (or Latin) RIte. But the Worldwide Church with Pope Francis as Pope has 23 different rites.
The Catechism is the Catechism of the Catholic Church not Roman Catholic Church etc etc.

 

[Stephen]

Brother @Stephen , with all due respect, get over it.

Very polite!.

I left this forum because of the anti-Catholic attitudes here. I thought I would look in to see if it had changed but obviously not.

I admire MoreCoffee fore sticking it out,

Goodbye.




.

 

[Josiah]

You really don't understand.

@Stephen


1. So, you choose to be SO OFFENDED by your church being referred to as "Roman Catholic" that you must flee this site. Wow. You must be offended a lot. And very easily.

2. Your choosing to be offended is your choice. But you fail to acknowledge the hypocrisy of your choice. Catholics chose to invent terms such as "Protestant" and "Lutheran" and "Anabaptist/Baptist" - all as divisive terms of derision and mockery. And you're okay with that. BUT you choose to take great offense (even make it your "deal breaker") if someone refers to your church as "Roman Catholic." Hum. How hypocritical.

3. @Albion is correct. MANY Catholics refer to their own church as "Roman Catholic." And to your silly point: Almost 100% of the parishes here in the USA and there in the UK are Roman Rite so your point about how the term only applies to SOME parishes of your church is absurd - it DOES apply to nearly all parishes in our countries.

4. You CHOOSE to use and promote pejorative terms for churches and other Christians. Terms like "Catholic" "Preotestant" "Lutheran" "Baptists" etc. Yet you CHOOSE to be offended when others use terms you think are pejorative. How hypocritical of you.

5. About half of Christians are part of your church. But ALL Christians are "catholic." True, your own church has chosen that as the legal moniker of their own denomination (how egotistical!), but that does not mean that the other billion or so Christians are not part of the one, holy, catholic church. It's kind of insulting to assert that unless one is a docilic, submissive member of a parish owned and operated by your denomination we are thus not part of the one, holy, catholic church - but we all know that's the reality. That's what your church does. BUT the rest of us don't agree with your singular church on this, we don't agree that by our not registering in a parish owned and operated by your denomination we are thus not a part of the church catholic. Yet unlike you, we don't CHOOSE to be offended by the legal moniker your church chose for itself. Just as we don't CHOOSE to be offended by the names you give to us and our churches. But how ironic that you CHOOSE to be offended by others noting the way your church could offend us.

6. You CHOOSE to buy into the pejorative terms your church uses.... but get offended when others use a term FAR less pejorative and OFTEN used by American Catholics. Consider ending your CHOOSING to be offended. Others don't do that. We just don't join you in your in hypocritical, divisive game.

7. We note how you choose to completely evade the issue of this thread and to try to hijack it by trying to turn it into how offended you choose to be. You might consider being less touchy and hypocritical... and not hijack discussions to such... but actually discuss issues.

MoreCoffee

He doesn't play your games.



.

 

[Josiah]

Back to the issue....


.

 

[Albion]

You really don't understand.
Yes, a particular congregation (church) may have a sign Roman Catholic because it belongs to the Roman (or Latin) RIte.

It can't be an "insult" then.