Keyan Farlander Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing This is where I disagree...the Church has not even existed as long as the Bible, so how can they define it? (Or, at least be the ultimate authority on it...) Since the Church has existed since the time of Christ, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. It was the Church that enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 I don't have to go to church tomorrow. My parents aren't home and won't be for a while. Go me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 My brother is an alter server and he ALWAYS get the 7:30 morning masses. After about 3 years, I quited alter servers last June due to simmular reasons. My plan is that if I wake up without enough sleep,, my eyes would be red enough to think that Im on high amounts of drugs, then I will get kicked out of the Mass service. Then I wont end up sleeping through it. I can only hope.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Keyan Farlander Since the Church has existed since the time of Christ, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. It was the Church that enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical." Not the Catholic Church. Not purgatory, priests, etc. And that's what I'm talking about... NOTE: I am really not in any condition to carry out any kind of debate X_x EDIT: Yeah, see? Stupid human brain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 If you havent noticed, its been changed so it reflect other Christian religions as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 ... huh? What was changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Uhhhhh..... I don't know. *smack* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Damn. What were we talking about again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Sex and religion. Thats it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Of course! Those two go together hand in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing Not the Catholic Church. Not purgatory, priests, etc. And that's what I'm talking about... Yes - the Catholic Church, purgatory, priests, bishops, a pope, Confession, Eucherist, all of it. You can certainly find that all those things existed at the very beginning of Christianity and were not formally abandoned by a significant number of people until more than 15 centuries later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 ?!? Tell me why they aren't in the Bible then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Because in the mid 300s religious leaders came together and discussed what should and shouldn't be in the Bible. Today, there are different versions of the Bible. The Prodistent Bible, for example, has less amounts of books then the Roman Catholic Church's version of the Bible. The Bibles you see in hotel rooms usually have the books (mostly Old Testiment) and the books that are simular in most Christian religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 The standard Bible today is the New International Version, which includes all of the Old and New Testaments. It doesn't leave any books out. To my knowledge, both Catholics and Protestants use this version. There's also the King James Version, which is probably the second most popular translation. There are others, like the New American Standard, but for the most part, the NIV and the KJV are the ones you're most likely to see. They each have the same exact books in them. When I was young, I had a Bible that had a section called the Deuterocanonicals in them. It included books like Tobit, Susanna, and the Maccabees. Not all Bibles have this section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing ?!? Tell me why they aren't in the Bible then? They ARE in the Bible, but some people choose to see those passages in a light different from what the Church has traditionally taught. But why does everything have to be in the Bible anyway? Christ did not give teaching authority to the Bible, he gave it to the Church. All Christians believe that the Bible contains what the Holy Spirit wanted it to contain, but that does not mean it contains everything we need to know. What the Church has taught through spoken word is just as important as what is in the Bible, and the Bible itself confirms this. Therefore, any claim that states that everything we need to know as Christians can be found in the Bible contains a contradiction. ALL: About the books of the Bible. The Protestant and Catholic New Testaments are the same, but differ in the Old. The Catholic Old Testament contains seven books not found in the Protestant Old Testament - Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch - plus there are additional parts in Esther and Daniel. These seven books are called "deuterocanonical" by Catholics and are considered just as inspired as the others. They are called "apocrypha" by Protestants and are not considered inspired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Keyan Farlander They ARE in the Bible, but some people choose to see those passages in a light different from what the Church has traditionally taught. But why does everything have to be in the Bible anyway? Christ did not give teaching authority to the Bible, he gave it to the Church. All Christians believe that the Bible contains what the Holy Spirit wanted it to contain, but that does not mean it contains everything we need to know. What the Church has taught through spoken word is just as important as what is in the Bible, and the Bible itself confirms this. Therefore, any claim that states that everything we need to know as Christians can be found in the Bible contains a contradiction. ALL: About the books of the Bible. The Protestant and Catholic New Testaments are the same, but differ in the Old. The Catholic Old Testament contains seven books not found in the Protestant Old Testament - Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch - plus there are additional parts in Esther and Daniel. These seven books are called "deuterocanonical" by Catholics and are considered just as inspired as the others. They are called "apocrypha" by Protestants and are not considered inspired. I didn't claim that. But the Catholic church has made major doctrines out of passages that can be interpreted in multiple ways, using their authority of infallibility supposedly gotten from Saint Peter (who never actually claimed this in the Bible, in fact being the most-rebuked major disciple) I agree Peter had plenty of authority, but he was certainly not infallible. If the Catholic Church had A) not considered the pope to be unquestionable and B) not gotten involved in the sorry mess of politics all those centuries ago, there likely wouldn't be Protestants. As for the books of the Bible, I can't really argue with you there for various reasons. How do you define "inspired" anyway? Is this a tangible thing? Where in the Bible does it have this *requirement for inclusion*? Seems to me it should've been more author based. But I digress... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing I didn't claim that. But the Catholic church has made major doctrines out of passages that can be interpreted in multiple ways, using their authority of infallibility supposedly gotten from Saint Peter (who never actually claimed this in the Bible, in fact being the most-rebuked major disciple) As I said, they did not have to come from the Bible. Things do not have to be in the Bible for them to be religious truths. I agree Peter had plenty of authority, but he was certainly not infallible. If the Catholic Church had A) not considered the pope to be unquestionable and B) not gotten involved in the sorry mess of politics all those centuries ago, there likely wouldn't be Protestants. Infallibility applies not to every single thing a pope says, but only when he speaks "from the chair" and intends to speak infallibly. When he does this, we believe God protects him from proclaiming something untrue as the truth. Note that this also only applies to matters of faith and morals. As for the books of the Bible, I can't really argue with you there for various reasons. How do you define "inspired" anyway? Is this a tangible thing? Where in the Bible does it have this *requirement for inclusion*? Seems to me it should've been more author based. But I digress... Of course you can't argue with me - I stated nothing but what the different groups believe. "Inspired" means that the author was inspired by God to write what he did and that in doing so God protected the author from writing anything untrue about God, morallity, etc. Obviously there is nowhere in the Bible that states what indicates an inspired book - after all, how could you decide if that passage were inspired or not? Something outside the Bible has to decide what the Bible contains or you have some circular issues. And it was the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, that decided this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 As I said, they did not have to come from the Bible. Things do not have to be in the Bible for them to be religious truths. Infallibility applies not to every single thing a pope says, but only when he speaks "from the chair" and intends to speak infallibly. When he does this, we believe God protects him from proclaiming something untrue as the truth. Note that this also only applies to matters of faith and morals. Then what happened to not adding to the Bible? The Bible states that no one can add to or subtract from it... and I didn't see a phrase, "except for the pope". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 uh, the Pope DOESN'T add to the Bible. There is no "Pope Urban VII's Bible Number 8" or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Originally posted by Keyan Farlander As I said, they did not have to come from the Bible. Things do not have to be in the Bible for them to be religious truths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 You provide no insight. I declare myself the victor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing Then what happened to not adding to the Bible? The Bible states that no one can add to or subtract from it... and I didn't see a phrase, "except for the pope". That's not adding to the Bible. But the Protestants DID subtract from it, didn't they? Hmm... However, I believe you are refering to the end of the Book of Revelation. The adding in that context does not refer to the Bible, but to the Book of Revelation alone. (Just an FYI.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BasiliskJC Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Originally posted by Keyan Farlander However, I believe you are refering to the end of the Book of Revelation. The adding in that context does not refer to the Bible, but to the Book of Revelation alone. (Just an FYI.) Ummmmmm......If you don't already know this I'll tell you. Revelation is part of the BIBLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Originally posted by BasiliskJC Ummmmmm......If you don't already know this I'll tell you. Revelation is part of the BIBLE. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 I believe that ^ about sums it up. :/ Now I'm about 0.05 percent in the mood for a debate right now, so I'm not going to argue about anything else. Besides, Nute declared himself the victor already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.