Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not true...the Catholic church added books to the OT cannon...
I know I'm never going to convince you, MBG. Your mind is made up and you're sticking to your Mike Vlach article.
But to anyone else who might be reading... Just go check out a good history of the Bible. There are lots out there. The Catholic Church didn't "add" anything, and even good Protestant (or even secular) historians will affirm this.
I know I'm never going to convince you, MBG. Your mind is made up and you're sticking to your Mike Vlach article.
But to anyone else who might be reading... Just go check out a good history of the Bible. There are lots out there. The Catholic Church didn't "add" anything, and even good Protestant (or even secular) historians will affirm this.
My mind is made up until I find any evidence to the contrary, like I said, if you read my posts, I have studied this for years...not one article, I studied biblical history within and with out the RC, both formally and informally, so no you saying something I have heard the Catholic church say for years and I even taught by the way, when it contradicts evidence, no, I will not change my mind...
MBG
People keep saying that books were added by the Catholics...or dumped by the Protesants....well IMHO I think the very fact that after all these years no one can agree on what books are worthy or not worthy is a pretty good indication that all the books are flawed to some extent. Wouldn't it be wiser to read them ALL why not just include everything?
People keep saying that books were added by the Catholics...or dumped by the Protesants....well IMHO I think the very fact that after all these years no one can agree on what books are worthy or not worthy is a pretty good indication that all the books are flawed to some extent. Wouldn't it be wiser to read them ALL why not just include everything?
Because it is God who canonizes not man. And God has authored only so many books...what He needs us to know, and He is capable of protecting His own Word.
It does not make sense to say because men do not agree, God's Word therefore must be flawed.
Why not read them all, because many books were written that were not inspired of God...
Because it is God who canonizes not man. And God has authored only so many books...what He needs us to know, and He is capable of protecting His own Word.
It does not make sense to say because men do not agree, God's Word therefore must be flawed.
Why not read them all, because many books were written that were not inspired of God...
MBG
I understand what you are saying but why does God not make it clear to man which are canon and which are not? Men are the ones who historically have met and determined which books are worthy and which are not...hence the disagreement in the first place. So aren't you safer to read them all and let the Holy Spirit guide you individually to which are canon and which are not instead of trusting the men who have decided previously?
I have no reason to doubt you. But when you write things like, "The Catholic Church added books" to the Bible, I have to wonder if your conclusions are based upon a broad view of history, or if you're only studing the typical anti-Catholic "histories."
Taking sacred tradition out of the picture, one could certainly make a case that the Catholic Church is invalid. Many secular historians certainly believe so. But coming to the conclusion that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible at the Council of Trent is just historic nonsense by any measure. It would be like claiming George Washington crossed the Rubicon to declare himself Emperor of Rome. Just didn't happen.
And how did He do that? Did He crack the heavens and throw down the "God-authorized" Bible? No. The Bible itself tells us how we know what is Truth and what isn't.
12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you."
-- John 16: 12-14
That was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when Christ sent the Holy Spirit to the Church.
Remember the Great Commission:
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28: 18-20)
Jesus sent His Church into the world, not His book. The Bible itself says this. The Spirit-guided Church did indeed authorize the Bible. You bet. So when you say that God canonized the Scripture, you are correct. However, God did that through His Church.
The Bible says not to take away or add to the Scriptures that are there. So, adding anything else and using it as Scriptures or God's Word, wouldn't that be totally a sin??? I don't believe that God makes mistakes. It was His commandment that the Bible be written. So any other book, with any other name should not be counted as Holy Scriptures, should it? Could the Bible have really been broken up so much? Just as Christianity has been with so many denominations? I'm so puzzled by this as well! No wonder so many believe Christians are crazy, fairytale people! No wonder they don't believe! We are so divided, it really IS crazy, don't you agree?
The Bible says not to take away or add to the Scriptures that are there. So, adding anything else and using it as Scriptures or God's Word, wouldn't that be totally a sin??? I don't believe that God makes mistakes. It was His commandment that the Bible be written. So any other book, with any other name should not be counted as Holy Scriptures, should it? Could the Bible have really been broken up so much? Just as Christianity has been with so many denominations? I'm so puzzled by this as well! No wonder so many believe Christians are crazy, fairytale people! No wonder they don't believe! We are so divided, it really IS crazy, don't you agree?
Yup it's crazy. But you will find your own peace with it as many have before you. I do suggest that you look into a good history of the bible to see what you think yourself on which books are and aren't canon. A good history wouldn't be Catholic or Protesant but it will include also secular sources as they have nothing to gain by including or excluding certain books.
I think I'll seek the Lord on this one. He certainly knows the truth. It's time for praying and seeking Him for guidance and wisdom! Thanks everyone!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
