Compiling of the New Testament

[Jon]

John,

You are right, we all are free to make our own decisions. However, there is only one Truth. So, the question is, for an individual, "how do I discern the Truth?" It is not possible that multiple denominations with different theories of the Truth are all correct. When you look at Church history, there have always been groups that disagree about what the Truth is, even in the time of the apostles. So, going back to the beginning, how do we know who is following what Christ wanted? The majority for the first 1000 years after Christ was the Catholic Church, until the Great Schism. Then, denominations creeped in after the time of Luther. I look at it and say "does it make sense that if Luther is right, that God would allow the Church to be misled for 1500 years? " I feel the answer is no, as it doesn't make sense that God, who said he would establish a Church, and "the gates of Hell would not prevail against it", would lead Christians to their doom for 1500 years, only for someone in the 16th century to set the record straight.

Sean,

If one of us chooses the Catholic Church and the other does not, we cannot be both led by the Holy Spirit, because one of us is wrong and there is only one Truth. It is true that it is my personal decision to accept the Roman Catholic Church as the true Church, but I do so because it is the ONLY Church that has history that dates back to the Apostles. To answer your question about councils and the Bible, BOTH are infallible. This does not make one superior to the other, as they do not contradict each other. The Church that presided over the council in 397 WAS the Roman Catholic Church, so I don't know how to answer your question on "how do I know that council was the Roman Catholic Church?"


As an aside, any book is a living document because the meaning of the same words today is not the same as they were in the past. Even given the same language, with time, the meaning can be interpreted differently. In the case of the Bible, it has changed language AND changed in time. So, it is impossible to really interpret and understand exactly what the Bible means without external aid. This is why the meaning of holy scripture must be aided in interpretation from an organization founded by God himself - the Church founded by Jesus in the time of the Apostles, the Roman Catholic Church. It is also impossible that all denominations have the complete Truth - only one can possess the complete Truth. I did make a personal decision to accept that the Church that has the complete Truth did not start 1500 years after Christ. This is how I decided to become a Roman Catholic. I may start a different thread to discuss this point in more detail as it is not directly related to the NT thread I started. It may have to wait until after my two week work trip to China coming up early next week (some websites are banned there, not sure about this one )


Regards to all,
Jon

[jriccitelli]

I appreciate your answers and interest, I have many Catholic friends and family (My Mohawk Indian Grandmother was raised in a Catholic school in Providence and my grandfather is from Italy) some Godly, some not, just as it is with most people I know.
By their fruits you shall know them, same with the Church, churchs, and its people, yes?
(Every human will be judged on their ‘own’ belief faith and works. Some may have no faith, some a little, we do not ultimately know another persons heart or fate, but we should be sure, and not ignore, so great a salvation, Catholic and Prot. Agree on this. So please do not take this dialog as anything but understanding another view point, peace)
Misconception One; The Catholic Church tries to maintain that it was the same in the 4th century as it was in the 1st century.

[jriccitelli]

The ‘Church’ has ‘always’ been, and consisted of real believers. The problem is with men who supposed its leadership and headship was themselves, rather than Christ as the Head.
The Body was and is the same, and its leadership and even its traditions were sincere but ‘over time’ it became institutionalized and ‘eventually’ added the ‘Papacy’ and Pope.
Catholicism has added many, many things to what ‘was’ biblical, the addition of a man at the head, and then the office of priests, and then the centralization of the church under the miss application of the word ‘Catholic’ or ‘universal’ the list goes on. But Gods Word, true believers and the Church have always persisted and endured. As the Catholic ‘church’ went from simply ‘control and politics’ to ‘greed and abuse’ (and I am speaking of the Papacy and leadership, not the people) so did its theology. Soon a religion of love and charity was changed into a system of ritual and abuse, in order to keep and increase the papacy’s power, death sentences were put upon all who would disagree, so for century’s many people were burned and mistreated. And along with this the scriptures also were kept from the people, the liturgy was spoken in Latin, the people were kept illiterate, and they burned both bibles and those who copied them. Much more could be said, but my point is that Gods Word and ‘His’ Church endures forever, and has.
(Please do not take the above paragraph personally, I am not questioning believers and followers of Christ throughout history but those who suppose leadership, and that is the point, I will bring this back to;

All throughout the Torah and throughout the ministry of Christ it is the ‘Leadership’ of man that is condemned throughout. God has endured the faithlessness of man to trust Him alone and allowed demands to ‘give us a king’ to guide us (i.e. Saul) and ‘give us an idol’ to worship (i.e. Aaron and golden calf) ‘give us prophets who speak lies’ ‘give us signs’ all these and more, people demand and God grants them their wish. In the end we will all look back and see the foolishness of man, and the folly of trusting in an arm of flesh. All this is for our future understanding. We will understand that it is wrong to put trust in anything but the Word of the Lord, as nearly every book and page of the Old Testament reveal the error of 'men'. The Priesthood was corrupt, the pen of the scribes and the prophets told lies, page after page. The religious leaders are the ones who put Jesus on the cross, and it was the High Priest who pronounced His judgment. This was also a judgment on the priesthood and leadership of men. To miss this is to be misled. Jesus is our King, Shepherd, Rock, Lord, Father, Guide, High Priest and Savior, to stray from any of these things would be a corruption, and the early Church knew this. His blood is the witness to mans corruption. Why would anyone put faith in an arm of flesh again?

[jriccitelli]

Back to the original thread;
One obvious thing that Catholic Apologists overlook is; ‘Who’ assembled the ‘Hebrew’ Canon (Torah). The Holy See cannot lay claim to this, yet Catholic Apologists seem to ‘always’ use this line that ‘the Council approved the Canon’ so this assumes to ‘prove’ that ‘they’ alone have the final Authority on all spiritual matters.
The Hebrews considered what they held as scripture, Moses and the prophets, on scrolls. How did they know which ones to read?
So I ask the Catholic apologists; Who decided and preserved the Hebrew Torah?

[Paidion]

It is true that it is my personal decision to accept the Roman Catholic Church as the true Church, but I do so because it is the ONLY Church that has history that dates back to the Apostles.

Both the Orthodox Church and the Episcopal Church can name a succesion of bishops from the Apostles to bishops in their respective Churches.

The Church that presided over the council in 397 WAS the Roman Catholic Church, ...

There was no Roman Catholic Church in 397. There was just the Catholic Church. There was no Roman Catholic Church until the Catholic Church split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in 1050 A.D.

so I don't know how to answer your question on "how do I know that council was the Roman Catholic Church?"

The fact is that the council wasn't the Roman Catholic Church — since the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist at the time of the council. That's why you can't know. It is impossible to know what isn't the case.

[Jon]

Both the Orthodox Church and the Episcopal Church can name a succession of bishops from the Apostles to bishops in their respective Churches.

There was no Roman Catholic Church in 397. There was just the Catholic Church. There was no Roman Catholic Church until the Catholic Church split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in 1050 A.D.

The fact is that the council wasn't the Roman Catholic Church — since the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist at the time of the council. That's why you can't know. It is impossible to know what isn't the case.

Paidon, we're talking about the same thing but your interpretation of the historical facts is not quite right. Yes, the Church in 397 did not call itself "Roman Catholic" as there was no need to. In 1050 when the Orthodox Church split, they stopped recognizing the infallible Pope and changed some beliefs, so when the Orthodox SPLIT by denying the entire Truth, they lost their link to the succession of Bishops in the True Church. Then, the True Church had to revise its name as to be distinct from the heretics. So, the same Church in 397 is the same as what is called the Roman Catholic Church today.

[Jon]

John,

I do not take your comments personally. If I believed your description of the Catholic Church, I would probably also have a problem with it. I'm not sure who has taught you this information about the Church, but it is a long list of misconceptions and mistruths. For example "the liturgy is in Latin". Yes, because it was the most common language of the time. "they burned books". Yes, because the books were mistranslations themselves and would have led the Faithful astray. Practically everything else you mentioned is a misrepresentation of the truth. The Catholic Church is not as your describe it. It's no wonder you have a problem with it. If your source of information was unbiased and honest, your view of the Church would not be as negative.

If you'd like to discuss the origin of the Torah, it's a good topic for another thread. I myself will probably start another thread to discuss the historical truth about Luther (off this topic as well).

Regards,
Jon

[Sean]

Jon,
I would appreciate if you would read/listen to some of the resources from aomin.org on this issue.

You can start by listening to a brief overview of some Roman Catholic issues discussed by James White including Sola Scriptura, apostolic authority and the cannon found here:
http://theopologetics.podbean.com/2011/ ... n-in-rome/

You can post your thoughts here. If you want to skip the intro stuff, go to the 12:17 mark and start listening there.

It makes more sense to me if you can answer someone like James White because he has spent years looking into this issue extensively and debated several Roman Catholics on this issue.

[Paidion]

In 1050 when the Orthodox Church split, they stopped recognizing the infallible Pope and changed some beliefs, so when the Orthodox SPLIT by denying the entire Truth, they lost their link to the succession of Bishops in the True Church. Then, the True Church had to revise its name as to be distinct from the heretics. So, the same Church in 397 is the same as what is called the Roman Catholic Church today.

The separate histories of the Eastern and Western branches of the church, and the manner in which Rome had primacy in the earliest centuries in the west is debatable. I have not found clear evidence that Rome ruled the whole church in those early centuries. The doctrine of "the infallible Pope" was not defined until the First Vatican Council of 1870. It is true that early bishops were called "papa" in an affectionate way, but this was not an indicator of primacy.

So in my opinion in my historical reading thus far, the Church of 397 was no closer to being identified with the Roman Catholic Church of today that it is with being identified with the Orthodox Church of today. You say that the Orthodox split off in 1050. The Orthodox say that the Romanists split off in 1050. I say that there was simply a major split in the Catholic Church, and neither branch is justified in saying that it is the "true" Catholic Church any more than the other. However, in my observations of the teachings of both branches, I would say that the Orthodox more closely resembles the Church prior to the split that the Romanist Church.

[Jon]

Paidon,

Clearly you have read a lot about the history of the Church and for that I applaud you. Though we may disagree with the events that happened in 1050, we are in good company - this division has been around for 1000 years and I sincerely doubt that you and I are going to resolve it.

Can I take it that you are Orthodox?

Jon