Catholicism vs Protestantism

I read my Bible plenty, but I don't read into it the conclusions that you seem to. Luke 24 doesn't have Jesus listing out the books of the Old Testament, nor is there any contextual reason to infer that some declarative statement about the canon is being made. Simply that Jesus explained to those two men how what they knew already pointed to Him and the cross. Mentioning that there are Scriptures doesn't give what those Scriptures are, and no canon had been declared either Jewish or Christian. It's only by looking at the history and tradition of canonicity that we can determine what matches with the criteria that came to define what fit in the canon.

Please read that chapter over and over again until it sinks in. Obviously you do not take the words of Christ seriously enough. And therefore I will not bother to show you from Luke 24 that the Hebrew canon was being confirmed at that time, while the apostles were being taught about Christ from that same Tanakh, called "all the Scriptures". And not just on that day but for 40 days following the resurrection of Christ.

Jesus never establishes a canon. there is no passage of Jesus where He says these books we keep and these books we reject. most sects had different scriptures. the only ones that i can think of that didnt accept the apocrypha as scripture where the pharisees, the ones that conspired to kill Jesus. the Essens, the sect of John B had no problem with them.



the LXX had already been established for more than 400 years

but it did make make man believe he could throw out scripture on his own authority.

gnostics had nothing to do with the writing of the LXX and even if they did, they were not the ones burning people alive and using roman legions to push their agenda.


not sure where your getting this info from. greek was spoken everywhere in Palestine. and the greek language has nothing to do with anything in the first place, the LXX was a greek translation, but it was translated from a Jewish source, and that Jewish source included the apocrypha. that collection was known at the time of Jesus and the 12 when it was written all scripture is inspired. do you really think Jesus and the 12 were ignorant of the LXX?
and if the Jewish translaters translated the wrong text it would have been the greatest scandal of all time, it would have happened 200 years before Jesus and the 12 and therefore this scandal would have been addressed by someone, and there is nothing anywhere suggesting this.
you keep saying its a corrupt text, this idea was blown out of the water with the discovery with the DSS which match up with the LXX much better than the MZ.
your also defending the pharisees, they are the ones that gave us the MZ. and if there was ever an anti Jesus agenda it would have been lead by them. the MZ began at council of jamnia around 80 ad. thats just a few years after James is killed and the 1st church of Jerusalem disappears, and all of a sudden the pharisees want to make a new bible canon that no one ever had a problem with before. what a coincidence!

when the protastants went to the MZ over the LXX it had nothing to do with which was a better translation, it had everything to do with politics. Catholics use the LXX and therefore we will use the MZ, in your face vaticano! if you cant see that your very naive

if Luke 24 is Jesus establishing a canon then by your own logic all the NT should be excluded from the bible, as well as all the writings, Proverbs, Song of songs, Job, etc. just bad logic all around. no serious theologon has ever used this passage to suggest its Jesus making a canon.

i always liked Jesus teaching on a tree and its fruit in Matthew 7:16-20. coincidentally the only other place in scripture you can find a teaching on a tree and its fruit is in Sirach, a book some dont even believe is scripture.

Sirach 27:6-7
6 (A)You can tell how well a tree has been cared for by the fruit it bears, and you can tell a person's feelings by the way he expresses himself. 7 Never praise anyone before you hear him talk; that is the real test.

I trust some history but not made by catholic because inconsistent with bible

You not answere my question yet

Why Elijah that had lower status from Mary, elevated to heaven, get publication in the Bible and not mary

Do you believe history of doctrine that whosoever pay, their love one get forgiveness and out from purgatory faster?

I don't know about you but I don't believe that kind of history

Unless you answere this question I think will be wasting time to continue this discusdions

since there are some that believe the LXX is a "corrupted" text, i thought it might be fun to compare a few passages when Jesus and the 12 quoted the Hebrew bible.

We will start with Jesus when He quotes Is :

Jesus -

Matthew 15:9 (KJV): "But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.

Isaiah 29:13 (KJV – MZ)
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

what?

Isaiah 29:13 (LXX):
13 And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.

much better.

what about James?

James 4:6
But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.


Proverbs 3:34 (KJV - MZ)
"Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly."
that doesnt sound like what James is quoting?

Proverbs 3:34 (LXX):
"The Lord resists the proud; but he gives grace to the humble."
that sounds more like what James was quoting.


Thats just a few and there are many many more.

If we go with the peshitta of the 2nd century AD, I think we will have a 22 book New testament.


"This New Testament, originally excluding certain disputed books (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become a standard by the early 5th century. The five excluded books were added in the Harklean Version (616 AD) of Thomas of Harqel."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta


Did you find something different in your research?

Two things that I think would be interesting for us to talk about:


How does a person get to be an apostle? Did the office of apostle end a long time ago?


Are Catholics Christians? Are they part of the body of Christ?

Speaking of Revelation, I like to think of how Revelation is viewed as the main difference between Catholic and Protestant.


For most Protestants, including myself, the story goes something like this: God showed me that this Bible is the correct one. And as I read it, God gives me the correct interpretation. That's how I know that what I believe is the truth.


For Catholics, God gives Revelation to the church as a whole, as a group. It isn't up to the individual to decide for themselves if the church is right or not.

Based on my experience, if a person is highly motivated to end up with the 66 book Canon, they will often fall into a circular reasoning pattern:


Real Christians always knew to accept the right books and exclude the rest.

Who were the real Christians?

The ones who accepted the right books and excluded the rest.

My son calls it the papist expansion pack... PXP!

I believe apostle must appointed by God. In the Bible we know how Jesus call and chose th 12 apostle, one of them betrayed Him than Christian pray and fasting to ask God for another apostle, so we see here we can pray for apostle, than God chose Paul so we have 13 apostle, mean not necessary 12

And I don't know what do you mean by the office of apostle.

Do we have apostle now? My friend is a member of apostolic church, they believe his pastor is apostle, but I am not sure. Is up to God if he chose a new apostle, but I doubt the procedure human ordering apostle now.

I wish I able to say yes, sadly after learn her doctrine my answer is no.

No because Christian believe the salvation only Happen when we accept Jesus as the only savior.

Lumen gentium say Muslim and Jews don't need to confest jesus as God to be save.

now,

I believe salvation is simple, like you say the early Christian only have 22 book and they save.

I believe If a man only have one verse john 3:16. And accept it, he is save

Yes, God appoints apostles. In the book of Acts, what role did the church play in that process?


The office of apostle is like role or ministry of an apostle.

Like this

1 Corinthians 12: 28 God has set some in the assembly: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracle workers, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, and various kinds of languages.

For Mathias, the church play the role

Acts 1:26 King James Version (KJV)

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

After pray and fasting they gave forth the lots

I never hear this happen in modern church

For Paul, the church not chose him.

Did the ministry of an apostle still needed today?

Base on that verse (1 cor) I believe yes.

Do you mean that to be a Christian, a person has to both

believe in Jesus

and

believe that if a person does not confess Christ in this life they can't go to heaven?

The lumen gentium is a long document, and it is written in at least college-level English. As I've said before, your English is good. However, it's not college-level.


Does the lumen gentium contain this exact quote?

"Muslim and Jews don't need to confest jesus as God to be save."

Or is that based on your understanding of the part of it that you read?

I didn't answer your question because they're about doctrine of the Catholic church rather than historical things. Those doctrine can be shown to not arise in the early church but as late arrivals. Yet even Protestants still cling to a rather unbiblical and late arrising view of penance and repentance from which the idea of indulgences came. I'm speaking purely of looking to the writings of the church fathers, the apologists, and others in the church not to enforce as doctrine but to check our own readings to ensure we're not introducing modern biases to the text.

Sure! And when Paul preaches on Mars Hill, he doesn't quote any Scripture at all that I can see!

1. Bible say to be save must believe in Jesus john 3:16

Is a person need to confess publicly? To me it is not necessary as soon as you believe and die in the next second before you have time to confess publicly or baptized, you are save.


Let me quote the part of lumen gentium and tell me why you not believe what I believe

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes .,.those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things

What is your opinion On verse 125

To me it mean Talking about Israel as god chosen people and god not repent or change his mind. And Jews are save without Jesus. Let read an article from New York time that make me believe that

Vatican Says Catholics Should Not Try to Convert Jews

Quote
The Gifts and Calling of God Are Irrevocable,” the document was issued by the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews.

End quote

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/...catholics-should-not-try-to-convert-jews.html

Let me make a simple analysis

Vatican say catholic should not try to convert Jews
What did vatican mean by convert? To make them catholic?

Yep because Catholic not save them anyway, but to me it also mean no need to tell them to believe in Jesus.

Please read that quotation and let me know your analysis