Compiling of the New Testament

[darinhouston]

you don't really need to have a Priest, a Rabbi and a Methodist Minister -- you just need to have three priests.

Maybe, but the punchline isn't nearly so funny.

Maybe -- let's see -- "three priests go up to a bar..." -- pretty funny if you ask me...

[Perry]

As long as there are human brains, the tendency to think will be almost irresistible.

I hope you're right about that. Sometimes the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

[steve]

I did say "almost" irresistible. However, some people do seem successfully to resist the impulse.

[jriccitelli]

I think Steve's forum here is a great resource for those seeking information in Christ and I might add that I do like to hear your responses Jon, although I wish for 'you also' to consider joining the true Church, that is to become one with person of Christ by believing He died for 'all' our sins, not just some of them.

You do understand that what may appear to be sarcasm on my part, are actually legitimate points.
I felt you are already skipping over points brought up already in response to your thread question, a very good topic question i might add, and answers here I think would be of benefit to all concerned, just as would be the effort and answers Steve may put into answering something like Justification by faith.
I would hate to see Steve's or your comments get thrown into a whirlpool of scattered notations all under one topic, so I think it would be cool if the answers to 'Catholicism and Justification' are a different thread. Since I do have a lot at stake also in this as I pointed out I have Catholic friends and family that I hope will look at this Bible forum.

I also consider scripture so intertwined as to be hard to separate topics sometimes, but I think it would be better to post a new thread (i.e. Justification and Catholicism) or return to the one already entitled 'Does conduct determine a Christian's final salvation?' under 'Soteriology', there you have already brought up the topic Jon and Justification would be easier to find under 'that' heading (I might add that the 'authority of the scripture' topic is also in the thread 'Roman Catholic and The Bible'. Under 'Roman Catholicism')
I like the points Steve brought up (like Pharaoh) so I would hate to see these lost while we argue about Geocentrism or something of a different topic.

[john6809]

“You could be right, but my point was that Paul recommended married church leaders, while the RCC forbids them. I am of the opinion, though, that Paul did want all the overseers to be married men. He gives his reason: The management of their wives and children are the proving ground for their qualification as managers of the assemblies (1 Tim.3:4-5). How can this qualification be determined in the case of a single man? Perhaps it can be, and Paul might make exceptions where there are special circumstances (Paul was not a legalist). However, Paul states it as desirable that an overseer be married.”

I should have spent a bit more time thinking this through before I posted. It is obvious that the statement about successfully guiding a family would be training and proving grounds for doing the same for the church, which would naturally require a man to be married. I actually came to this after I posted yesterday and before you responded.

“Right. Paul was not giving the qualifications for an apostle, but for an elder in the assembly. There are different types of leaders in the church. Not all have the same task, and not all have the same qualifications. I do not think that Paul ever served, or wished to serve, as an elder in the local assemblies. He had a role much more like that of Jesus Himself, who also was unmarried. I believe that Paul knew what he was writing, and what the words would mean to Timothy. While Paul may have been flexible enough to recognize exceptions, the rule he laid down is not unclear.”

I didn’t mean to suggest that Paul ever served or wished to serve as an elder. I only found it interesting that Paul could be qualified to be an apostle, yet under-qualified to be an elder. Again, just something I didn’t think through far enough. That’s why I am here. I get to learn something new every time I sign on. Thanks Steve.

[john6809]

Darin Wrote, “I actually think there is some merit to this line of exegesis, but it’s certainly not clear and I would be VERY reluctant to ordain single, celibate men in light of what appears to be very specific teaching (even if there’s ambiguity for a possible exception). Paul may well have had the appearance of impropriety or the very real and modern-day sexual temptations in mind when he gave the instruction. I’ve actually heard that Paul was, himself, married, though I’m not sure it’s determinative. He was not an overseer of a congregation with the pastoral care and feeding and vulnerabilities that one might associate with that position/role. He was a very special Apostle, and an evangelist/missionary/church planter. He didn’t say this was necessary for all in leadership positions or the like – it was specific to a role which he himself didn’t fill.”

Thanks Darin. I have read this portion, possibly hundreds of times. I don’t know why this issue never seemed to affect me to the point that I felt it necessary to devote some extra time and attention to it. I guess I pick my issues when time for studying is at a premium. With this new understanding, I agree wholeheartedly with your statements.

[Perry]

I should have spent a bit more time thinking this through before I posted... That’s why I am here. I get to learn something new every time I sign on.

I'm glad you wanted to "think things through" before posting. I should probably do more of that myself. However, don't be too timid. It's okay to ask questions around here. Most of us have the same spirit you're bringing to the forum... we're here to learn.

[Jon]

I think Steve's forum here is a great resource for those seeking information in Christ and I might add that I do like to hear your responses Jon, although I wish for 'you also' to consider joining the true Church, that is to become one with person of Christ by believing He died for 'all' our sins, not just some of them.

You do understand that what may appear to be sarcasm on my part, are actually legitimate points.
I felt you are already skipping over points brought up already in response to your thread question, a very good topic question i might add, and answers here I think would be of benefit to all concerned, just as would be the effort and answers Steve may put into answering something like Justification by faith.

Hi John,

It's been so long since I started this thread if there are points you think I'm skipping it is not intentional and I'll circle back. Frankly some of your posts are so detailed and lengthy that I get lost in them.

I do have one question for today, though. Why would you wish for me to consider joining the "true Church" as you see it? Do you believe I am not saved as a Roman Catholic? I thought if we disagreed, at least I, as a Roman Catholic, was on the only side of the fence that considered the other one likely not saved, though it is up to God to know for sure. Is the feeling mutual from non-Catholic Christians to Catholics? If so why would that be?

Jon

[Jon]

It is true that the RCC preserved the Bible through the centuries so that I could have a copy today (it is also true that Pharaoh "preserved"—in the sense of keeping in custody—the people of Israel for several centuries in Egypt, and Babylon did the same for 70 years). For that historical fact, I can thank God—not the papal church, which often did everything in its power to deprive us all of the scriptures in our own language. If your comment is intended to suggest that the RCC "produced" the Bible, I would have to disagree. The Bible I read was written by prophets and apostles—not popes or bishops.

Steve, I don't claim that the RCC "produced" the Bible, but they did, without a doubt, document which books would be included, most likely inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. I have heard no one respond to this thread with any evidence that anyone could verify the correct books of the Bible without the direct intervention of the RCC. Have you ever questioned if the list of books is accurate? If not, why not? I can clearly rely on the RCC, but as you cannot, why do you accept this list of books as valid? This was the whole point of this thread.

As for the RCC depriving scriptures in the vernacular, that is an arguable statement. You can easily find the Douay-Rheimes Bible available in English. Is there any reason why you would not choose this Bible over others?

In most cases, their meaning is not difficult to ascertain, if one is not led astray by some counterintuitive interpretation imposed on the text by an organization of corrupt religious leaders.

You really don't understand the Roman Catholic Church, if this is your thinking. You keep on this theme of corruption in an "organization", that your own thinking is the only path to Truth. You can be easily misled, however. This is evident in the wellspring of Christian denominations that all believe they have it right. To get back to your points, though, the differences in salvation including baptism are not moot, but if you convince people that they are, I believe you are leading them down the wrong path. For you to promote them as moot is to mislead other Christians seeking the Truth, albeit unintentionally. I believe you truly think you are on the right path, but I think you are lost to the Truth.

I am not trying to bait you on my question of "how do you know who is right?". This was my sincere question when I was searching for the Truth in college, and no one could give me a viable explanation for this question - I may just not have found the right person to ask at that time. I believe the answer to the question is that since there is only only one Truth, and none of these groups agree, that none of them can have the complete Truth. If you have a different interpretation of the theological reality of Christian denominations I would like to hear your view.

My answer to the question is now "no group can claim they were given the original teaching of Jesus except for the Catholic Church, so they must be right". I find it very unbelievable that God would lead Christians astray for 1500 years only to finally reveal the Truth to Luther and others like him.

I know you have read the Bible many times over, but you come off as prideful that it is so simple to understand. If it was that obvious, why do so many Christians interpret it differently? Outside of the Roman Catholic Church, so many groups disagree. The interpretation of the Bible cannot be so simple, or there would not be so many different interpretations of it.

Why do you think there was so much imagery in Roman Catholic Churches? Because visual images were a way to tell the story of the Bible and of Jesus where people were illiterate. The stations of the Cross are just one example. There were so many false translations of the Bible floating around when people started to try translating it that the RCC discouraged reading FALSE translations of the Bible for fear the laity would get the message wrong. Despite their efforts, it happened with Luther's Bible, the King James Bible, and eventually led to Protestants removing books from the Bible that didn't support their view of the Truth.

I wish you well on your journey, but I fear that you have been on it for so long that you could not even consider that you may not be on the right path. That is the biggest tragedy I'm faced with today. I'll keep you in my prayers.

Jon

[Perry]

Jon,

I have a very specific criticism of your latest post.

It appears that on the one hand, you are suggesting that protestants are tacitly acknowledging the authority of the RCC by accepting the cannon of scripture...

... [the RCC] did, without a doubt, document which books would be included, most likely inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. I have heard no one respond to this thread with any evidence that anyone could verify the correct books of the Bible without the direct intervention of the RCC. Have you ever questioned if the list of books is accurate?

And then, on the other hand, you're criticizing protestants for not accepting the authority of the RCC for its cannon of scripture...

… and eventually led to Protestants removing books from the Bible that didn't support their view of the Truth.

Do you see any inconsistency in your reasoning here?