Don't sell those Rosary beeds?

Michael G

PDN wrote: »

I wonder if they were Catholic rosary beads or Anglican ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Rosary

Hardly Anglican. As far as I know the High Church element of Anglicanism is more or less absent from the Church of Ireland.

Michael G

DublinWriter wrote: »

Joe Duffy said to the person complaining today that the shop also sold jigsaws, and where exactly in the Bible did it say that jigsaws were forbidden?

A characteristically fatuous remark by Mr Duffy. The Rosary represents something at odds with evangelical Protestant beliefs. A jigsaw is just a toy.

DublinWriter wrote: »

The COI people who rang in to defend the Dean acquitted themselves really well and showed that religious tolerance in the ROI is light years ahead as opposed to the attitude of the original complainer from NI.

As a Catholic, I am much more in sympathy with the man who made the complaint. I would not be happy to find something for sale in a Catholic church, a book for example, that contradicted Catholic belief. "Religious tolerance" is not the same as indifferentism or syncretism. It means being honest about but respectful of our differences about very important things. It doesn't mean we should all be swimming around in the same tasteless watery soup.

Tim Robbins

wolfsbane wrote: »

About 100%, if they both took them from the same source.

Are you saying there was single source for Canon and the decision for which books would make up the New Testament - all news to me. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Bible was copied by monks. Mostly in Ireland in the Dark Ages.

When the monks went out into Europe in the 8the century they actually clashed with the RC church.

So the RC church was not th eonly keeper of the sacred documents. Not to mention the role of the Eastern orthodox church.

Brian, I know the documents weren't written by the RC Church. My point is who Where did the Monks get the Bible from?

Note: I think the problem in this discussions is when I say Bible I mean what is Canon, now copies of the different books that are in it.
Are you saying the Monks were copying the NT or just some books that co-incidentally ended up as Canon.

Run_to_da_hills

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Brian, I know the documents weren't written by the RC Church. My point is who Where did the Monks get the Bible from?

Note: I think the problem in this discussions is when I say Bible I mean what is Canon, now copies of the different books that are in it.
Are you saying the Monks were copying the NT or just some books that co-incidentally ended up as Canon.

There is not one history of the Bible, but two. One is a history of God preserving His words through His people. The other is of the devil using organised religion to pervert God's words through its "scholars."

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are you saying there was single source for Canon and the decision for which books would make up the New Testament - all news to me. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate.

Tim, knowing how you love analogies , think on this.

Imagine that a nation developed a democratic government complete with a parliament, constitution, declaration of human rights etc. Then a military dictatorship took over the country and, for several generations, ran the place as a totalitarian regime. However, they still maintained a puppet parliament, and paid lip service to the constitution and declaration of human rights - but of course they added extra clauses that basically rendered the effect of these documents null and void. Finally people power prevails and democracy is restored to the nation. Parliament again functions and the constitution and declaration of human rights are stripped of their additions and once again become meaningful guarantees of the rights of the citizens. Would you claim that the new democracy owes its character to the military dictatorship? After all, they inherited parliament, the constitution, and the declaration of human rights from the previous regime. Would it not be more accurate to say that the new democrats simply restored the older democracy that had existed before the dictators took over?

This is exactly how non-Catholic Christians view Church history. The Scriptures were accepted as a Canon at a time when the Church was totally unrecognisable as Roman Catholicism. Then the Church became corrupted and began to add extra doctrines on that made the Scriptures ineffectual (eg the worship of images, rosary beads that directed prayer to Mary not to Christ, extra books in the Bible, infant baptism etc). Today non-Catholic Christians attempt to get back to the purity of the primitive Church before it was hijacked. Therefore they use the same Bible that the pre-Catholic Church used, and, I might add, the same Bible that was always used by Copts, Nestorians, Orthodox and other versions of Christianity that never submitted to the primacy of Rome.

lostexpectation

I have to say apart from it coming from these bigoted OO types, isnt' what he says make alot of sense (relatively) ie not praying through some object but directly through the word of god, not thinking that the bread becomes the body, not having the pope in between you and god, sounds very reasonable, I always thought that protestantism was some sort of political corruption of christianity, but it makes more sense then catholicism.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

This is exactly how non-Catholic Christians view Church history.

Yes I have heard that before and I think it is spin. None of the Protestant Churchs (Anglicans, Calvinist, Lutherans) etc were in existence before the RC Church only after.

The Scriptures were accepted as a Canon at a time when the Church was totally unrecognisable as Roman Catholicism.

]

Therefore they use the same Bible that the pre-Catholic Church used, and, I might add, the same Bible that was always used by Copts, Nestorians, Orthodox and other versions of Christianity that never submitted to the primacy of Rome.

There is no evidence of the New Testament been finalised and agreed before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. Somewhere along the way decision(s) had to made has to what was Canon and what was not? i.e.
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John all ok, but Thomas, Mary, Peter not.
In fact nobody knows when, where the Canon of New Testament was finalised and agreed. It just "sort of" happened.

You are arguing if all these decisions were made long before the arrival of the RC Chruch and the Protestants just returned to that. There is no evidence of this. We'd be better at discussing evidence rather than jumping into analogies.

I don't know why the Protestants on boards get so defensive about this. It was actually, Anglican theologian, Dr. Robert Beckford, and his documentary "Who wrote the Bible" were I found out about this.

Also the Catholic Enclyopedia states:

"The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council."

Caveat

Michael G wrote: »

Hardly Anglican. As far as I know the High Church element of Anglicanism is more or less absent from the Church of Ireland.

Yes ,you are correct.

A characteristically fatuous remark by Mr Duffy. The Rosary represents something at odds with evangelical Protestant beliefs. A jigsaw is just a toy.

As a Catholic, I am much more in sympathy with the man who made the complaint. I would not be happy to find something for sale in a Catholic church, a book for example, that contradicted Catholic belief. "Religious tolerance" is not the same as indifferentism or syncretism. It means being honest about but respectful of our differences about very important things. It doesn't mean we should all be swimming around in the same tasteless watery soup.

Good post Michael

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes I have heard that before and I think it is spin. None of the Protestant Churchs (Anglicans, Calvinist, Lutherans) etc were in existence before the RC Church only after.

You appear to have managed to miss the point completely. The Churches you mention are ones that attempted to get back to the doctrine & practice of the Christian Church as it existed pre-Roman Catholicism.

The Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament record a Christian Church with no mention of purgatory, no mention of Roman primacy, no mention of a Pope, no mention of papal infallibility, no mention of infant baptism, no mention of the apocryphal books, no mention of the veneration or worship of Mary, no mention of the erection of statues, no mention of the Immaculate Conception, no mention of the Assumption of Mary, no mention of the canonisation of saints, no mention of relics, no mention of a class of clergy & priests, and no mention of rosary beads - in short, we see a Church in the Book of Acts that is unrecognisable as Roman Catholicism.

That is not spin. It is clear fact. In the early days of the Christian Church, when the Canon of Scripture was being formed, there was a complete absence of every distinctive feature of Roman Catholicism. The inescapable historical conclusion is that a portion of the Church (that in Western Europe) gradually added extra doctrines and practices until it developed into what we know as the Roman Catholic Church.

I would suggest you read one or two good Church History books (Protestant or Catholic, it doesn't matter, they all show the same historical development). A good starter for a newcomer to the subject would be A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson: http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Paul-Johnson/dp/0743282035
Johnson, former editor of The Spectator, is a Roman Catholic but has produced a very even-handed history of the Church. He clearly outlines how the distinctive features of Catholicism developed after the recognition of the Canon of Scripture.

You are arguing if all these decisions were made long before the arrival of the RC Chruch and the Protestants just returned to that. There is no evidence of this. We'd be better at discussing evidence rather than jumping into analogies.

I am happy to discuss evidence, but thought an analogy might help you since you appear to have hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely and are obviously not familiar with much of the evidence.

There is plenty of historical evidence of each of the 66 books contained in any modern Bible being used by churches prior to the development of the Roman Catholic Church. An example would be the Muratorian fragment of 170 AD http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html
This plainly identifies most of our New Testament books yet speaks of Pius as being simply the Bishop of the congregation in Rome, not ascribing him any position of primacy over the rest of the Churches.

Now, Tim, you wanted to discuss evidence. Maybe you would provide some evidence for the quite extraordinary and anachronistic claim that the distinctive features of Catholicism existed prior to the Church's use of any of the books that non-Catholic Christians recognise as scriptural?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

You appear to have managed to miss the point completely. The Churches you mention are ones that attempted to get back to the doctrine & practice of the Christian Church as it existed pre-Roman Catholicism.
The Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament record a Christian Church with no mention of purgatory, no mention of Roman primacy, no mention of a Pope, no mention of papal infallibility, no mention of infant baptism, no mention of the apocryphal books, no mention of the veneration or worship of Mary, no mention of the erection of statues, no mention of the Immaculate Conception, no mention of the Assumption of Mary, no mention of the canonisation of saints, no mention of relics, no mention of a class of clergy & priests, and no mention of rosary beads - in short, we see a Church in the Book of Acts that is unrecognisable as Roman Catholicism.

Can we stick to the point please PDN?
You are talking about Roman Catholicism in general. In post 39, I am talking specifically about the Canon of the New Testament, not the worship of Mary, rosary beeds etc. So can we stick to that please?

There is plenty of historical evidence of each of the 66 books contained in any modern Bible being used by churches prior to the development of the Roman Catholic Church. An example would be the Muratorian fragment of 170 AD http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html
This plainly identifies most of our New Testament books yet speaks of Pius as being simply the Bishop of the congregation in Rome, not ascribing him any position of primacy over the rest of the Churches.

I am not discussing books of the Bible being used before the canon of the New Testament. Obviously books of the Bible were used before the Canon of the New Testament. But that is a separate issue. I am talking about the canonisation of it.

Now, Tim, you wanted to discuss evidence. Maybe you would provide some evidence for the quite extraordinary and anachronistic claim that the distinctive features of Catholicism existed prior to the Church's use of any of the books that non-Catholic Christians recognise as scriptural?

But that is not the claim I am trying to argue. Come on, are you straw manning?
Please let's stick specifically to the Canonisation of the New Testament.
Now you are saying that Protestants feel they are returning to the early Church before the RC corrupted it. Was the early Church using the exact same New Testament then?

It's as simple as this PDN:
Q.1 When were there books of New Testament decided?
Q.2 Was this decision made by what you see as a corrupt church? If not, who made it and why was it the correct decision?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can we stick to the point please PDN?
You are talking about Roman Catholicism in general. In post 39, I am talking specifically about the Canon of the New Testament, not the worship of Mary, rosary beeds etc. So can we stick to that please?

I am sticking to the point. You want to argue that the Canon of Scripture was inherited from the Catholic Church. Therefore it is important to know whether the Church at that time was indeed recognisable as Roman Catholicism or indeed was a pre-existing entity that more resembles modern Protestantism than Roman Catholicism.

My argument is that the Canon of Scripture was developed and recognised by a form of Christianity that was certainly not Roman Catholicism. I believe that there is abundant historical evidence for that position. I would like to hear any evidence you have that contradicts my thesis.

I am not discussing books of the Bible being used before the canon of the New Testament. Obviously books of the Bible were used before the Canon of the New Testament. But that is a separate issue. I am talking about the canonisation of it.

Again, I will make allowances for the fact that Church History is not a subject with which you are familiar. The official adoption of a doctrinal stance by a Church Council (be it the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture etc) are simply a way in which a Church recognises stuff that has already been going on for many years in church congregations. Therefore the date that a Church Council officially adopted 66 books as the Canon of Scripture has no relevance to the fact that the majority of Christians already used such a Canon. Therefore the use of biblical books is very relevant to the issue at hand.

Please let's stick specifically to the Canonisation of the New Testament.
Now you are saying that Protestants feel they are returning to the early Church before the RC corrupted it. Was the early Church using the exact same New Testament then?

It's as simple as this PDN:
Q.1 When were there books of New Testament decided?
Q.2 Was this decision made by what you see as a corrupt church? If not, who made it and why was it the correct decision?

The books of the New Testament were decided by a gradual process over the first 150 years or more of the Church's history. They were accepted by multitudes of churches that were not corrupt. Eventually this canonisation was officially ratified by a Church Council. That Church Council. in doctrine and practice, had not yet developed into anything that we would recognise as Roman Catholicism.

Again, I would encourage you to read up on Church History. It is a fascinating subject and you will find plenty of material that makes good ammunition for criticising organised religion. You will see that major developments often occurred in quite a democratic and organic fashion, with hierarchies often just endorsing what was already accepted by popular consent.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

The books of the New Testament were decided by a gradual process over the first 150 years or more of the Church's history. They were accepted by multitudes of churches that were not corrupt. Eventually this canonisation was officially ratified by a Church Council. That Church Council. in doctrine and practice, had not yet developed into anything that we would recognise as Roman Catholicism.

Can you provide any evidence of this?

Again, I would encourage you to read up on Church History.

Please just provide evidence. I have quoted the Catholic Encylopedia which supports my view that nobody knows when, where, why the books of the New Testament were decided. What evidence do you have that rebutts that please?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can you provide any evidence of this?

By the early 200's, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena).Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Now, Tim, you are the one making an extraordinary claim that runs contrary to every accepted historian's version of early Christianity. Therefore I am asking you to produce evidence. The above quote from Wikipedia states that the New Testament canon was accepted by almost all Christians by about 150 AD. Can you provide any evidence at all that the Church of 150 AD bore any of the distinguishing marks of Roman Catholicism?

Tim Robbins

If I may refer to a previous post of yours:

The books of the New Testament were decided by a gradual process over the first 150 years or more of the Church's history. They were accepted by multitudes of churches that were not corrupt. Eventually this canonisation was officially ratified by a Church Council. That Church Council. in doctrine and practice, had not yet developed into anything that we would recognise as Roman Catholicism.

Can you elaborate on the ratification of the Church Council please?
Are you referring to Councils of Carthage? If not could you say which council you are referring to?
Thank you.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If I may refer to a previous post of yours:
Can you elaborate on the ratification of the Church Council please?
Are you referring to Councils of Carthage? If not could you say which council you are referring to?
Thank you.

There were two Councils of Carthage, one in 397 and one in 419. I don't know which one you have in mind.

However, I was referring to earlier Councils, namely the Council of Laodicea in 360, the Council of Rome in 382, and the Council of Hippo in 393.

PDN

By the way, Tim, if you are really determined not to read any Church History books then I would recommend a great little non-partisan website called www.religionfacts.com

It basically gives a dispassionate assessment of the beliefs, claims and history of many religious movements. Its section on Roman Catholicism notes that:

religionfacts.com wrote:

The Roman bishop Leo I (440-461) is considered the first pope by historians, as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom. In his writings one can find all the traditional arguments for papal authority, most notably that which asserts Christ had designated Peter and his successors the "rock" on which the church would be built.

So I guess it would be fair, from a non-partisan historical standpoint, to say that 440 marks the beginning of an organisation headquartered in Rome and claiming authority over all other Christians - ie Roman Catholicism.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

I am sticking to the point. You want to argue that the Canon of Scripture was inherited from the Catholic Church. Therefore it is important to know whether the Church at that time was indeed recognisable as Roman Catholicism or indeed was a pre-existing entity that more resembles modern Protestantism than Roman Catholicism.

My argument is that the Canon of Scripture was developed and recognised by a form of Christianity that was certainly not Roman Catholicism. I believe that there is abundant historical evidence for that position. I would like to hear any evidence you have that contradicts my thesis.


Again, I will make allowances for the fact that Church History is not a subject with which you are familiar. The official adoption of a doctrinal stance by a Church Council (be it the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture etc) are simply a way in which a Church recognises stuff that has already been going on for many years in church congregations. Therefore the date that a Church Council officially adopted 66 books as the Canon of Scripture has no relevance to the fact that the majority of Christians already used such a Canon. Therefore the use of biblical books is very relevant to the issue at hand.

Please let's stick specifically to the Canonisation of the New Testament.
Now you are saying that Protestants feel they are returning to the early Church before the RC corrupted it. Was the early Church using the exact same New Testament then?


The books of the New Testament were decided by a gradual process over the first 150 years or more of the Church's history. They were accepted by multitudes of churches that were not corrupt. Eventually this canonisation was officially ratified by a Church Council. That Church Council. in doctrine and practice, had not yet developed into anything that we would recognise as Roman Catholicism.

Again, I would encourage you to read up on Church History. It is a fascinating subject and you will find plenty of material that makes good ammunition for criticising organised religion. You will see that major developments often occurred in quite a democratic and organic fashion, with hierarchies often just endorsing what was already accepted by popular consent.

PDN is saying it all better than I could.

Let me just give a rough summary of what I'm saying: Protestants have the same NT as Catholics because both accept it as the Scripture handed on from the apostles.

The formal recognition of it by the Council hundreds of years later only clarified the issue in a time when heresy abounded. Just as with other big issues, like the Trinity, the formal statements by gathered churches were a defensive response - not a construction of new ideas.

The other crucial point is that the Roman Catholic Church was even then only in the embryo stage, as the Christian Church experienced more and more corruption in doctrine and practice. Churches of more or less authentic Christians continued throughout the Roman Catholic era, enduring persecution and slander from its powerful imitator.

And of course some true Christians continued to exist within the Roman Catholic system.

The Reformation signalled not the beginning of non-RC Christianity, but its ability to exist openly without being slaughtered by Crusades. To the remnant of the underground Church was then added the massive growth of Protestant (mostly ex-RC) believers.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

There were two Councils of Carthage, one in 397 and one in 419. I don't know which one you have in mind.

However, I was referring to earlier Councils, namely the Council of Laodicea in 360, the Council of Rome in 382, and the Council of Hippo in 393.

1. Council of Laodicea 360: The Canon of the New Testament as it is today was not agreed at this. Revelations was left out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea

2. Council of Rome in 382: This was head by Pope Damasus I. This was 2 years after 380, when "Emperor Theodosius I enacted a law establishing Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire and ordering others to be called heretics."
Source -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic#Church_History

You have chosen to take an interpretation of history when the Roman Catholic Church begins at 440, Leo I. Perhaps you are doing that because it suits your argument. But either way, I am not sure Roman Catholics would agree with that. Perhaps Noel or Michael might like to comment.

Michael G

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You have chosen to take an interpretation of history when the Roman Catholic Church begins at 440, Leo I. Perhaps you are doing that because it suits your argument. But either way, I am not sure Roman Catholics would agree with that. Perhaps Noel or Michael might like to comment.

Thanks Tim. Noel will choose for himself but I wouldn't know where to start. PDN quotes the website he recommends as saying that "The Roman bishop Leo I (440-461) is considered the first pope by historians, as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom." What historians? Perhaps the first surviving original written record dates from then (I don't know), but Catholic belief is based on Matthew 16:18 and on Tradition.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

2. Council of Rome in 382: This was head by Pope Damasus I. This was 2 years after 380, when "Emperor Theodosius I enacted a law establishing Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire and ordering others to be called heretics."

I think you are confusing Catholicism with Roman Catholicism (understandable if you refuse to read any books on the subject). Theodosius' edict used 'Catholicism' as referring to the Nicene credal position adopted by the majority of Christians as represented by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria.

You may not be aware of this, but the term 'Pope' as used by Damasus was also used by many other Bishops at that time (simply meaning 'father'). Indeed, for many years Rome acknowledged that the Bishop (or Pope) of Constantinople had equal authority with Rome. It was not until the East-West schism in the early 11th Century that the title of 'pope' was declared to belong to the Bishop of Rome and no other. This is an example of how much of the defining character of Roman Catholicism was adopted at a very late date.

Council of Laodicea 360: The Canon of the New Testament as it is today was not agreed at this. Revelations was left out.

Yes, it is quite true that the Book of Revelation (singular not plural) was not listed by the Council of Laodicea. In fact, the exact canon of Scripture as used by non-Catholics was never approved by any Church Council. There were always books omitted or added. For non-Catholics, the authority of these books was decided by the usage of church congregations all over the known world, not by any hierarchical decree.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I think you are confusing Catholicism with Roman Catholicism (understandable if you refuse to read any books on the subject).

Leave out the personal insults please. When did I say I refuse to read books. That silly petulant insult is highly annoying and has no place in this discussion. If you don't respect me, don't bother talking to me.

Theodosius' edict used 'Catholicism' as referring to the Nicene credal position adopted by the majority of Christians as represented by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria.

You may not be aware of this, but the term 'Pope' as used by Damasus was also used by many other Bishops at that time (simply meaning 'father'). Indeed, for many years Rome acknowledged that the Bishop (or Pope) of Constantinople had equal authority with Rome. It was not until the East-West schism in the early 11th Century that the title of 'pope' was declared to belong to the Bishop of Rome and no other. This is an example of how much of the defining character of Roman Catholicism was adopted at a very late date.

I don't see what that has got to do with it. It is simply a matter of when the Roman Catholic Church began. You say it is with Leo 1. I am questioning that. Michael seemed to point Roman Catholic teaching is not consistent with this. Perhaps Noel would like to comment.

In fact, the exact canon of Scripture as used by non-Catholics was never approved by any Church Council. There were always books omitted or added. For non-Catholics, the authority of these books was decided by the usage of church congregations all over the known world, not by any hierarchical decree.

Well then why are you referencing Church councils at all then? Your reasoning is very confusing.

It is completely unclear to me how the non-Catholics decided their New Testament Canon. This is a very pertinent question because it is exactly the same as the Roman Catholic New Testament Canon.

Logically there are two possibilities:
1. The Roman Catholic Church decided it and the reformed Churches kept the same one.
2. Someone else decided it, before the RC Church did. Who? When? Where?
Could Luther, Calvin etc answer these questions a few hundreds years ago?
Well if we can't get clear answers today, I doubt very much they could.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Leave out the personal insults please. When did I say I refuse to read books. That silly petulant insult is highly annoying and has no place in this discussion. If you don't respect me, don't bother talking to me.

If only people who respect you are allowed to answer your posts then that is going to limit the discussion somewhat, isn't it?

I don't see what that has got to do with it.

That is the problem. You don't seem to grasp the core of the debate. I post facts demonstrating that Roman Catholicism as we know it is a comparatively late historical development (certainly much later than the Canon of Scripture). This is highly relevant since all the characteristics that distinguish Roman Catholicism from Protestantism postdate the formation of the New Testament canon. Therefore it would appear to be bad history that claims that Protestants got their Bible from Roman Catholicism.

Michael seemed to point Roman Catholic teaching is not consistent with this.

Of course it isn't. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only true Church. Throughout its history it has arrested, tortured and executed those who disagree. Of course its teaching will try to support its own exclusive claims.

I am suggesting that evidence from partisan sources is tainted. You are unlikely to get any real insight if you choose to rely on purely Roman sources, or indeed on the writings of Paisleyites and other committed Protestants. Therefore I tried to help by linking to a nonpartisan site that states the views of historians. You, although an atheist (if I remember correctly), prefer to rely on the Roman Catholic Church's own self-promotion rather than a nonpartisan source. It is difficult for me to avoid any other conclusion than that you are trying to find sources that will support your argument rather than evidencing any genuine desire to uncover the facts.

Well then why are you referencing Church councils at all then? Your reasoning is very confusing.

It is completely unclear to me how the non-Catholics decided their New Testament Canon. This is a very pertinent question because it is exactly the same as the Roman Catholic New Testament Canon.

Logically there are two possibilities:
1. The Roman Catholic Church decided it and the reformed Churches kept the same one.
2. Someone else decided it, before the RC Church did. Who? When? Where?
Could Luther, Calvin etc answer these questions a few hundreds years ago?
Well if we can't get clear answers today, I doubt very much they could.

I am referencing Church Councils because you asked me to in post #46.

My point all along has been that non-Catholics (I reject the term 'Protestant' as not applicable to many of us) do not rely on pronouncements by Church hierarchies as to what is true or not true. The fact, therefore, that Church Councils affirmed certain books as canonical has no bearing on what we believe. Such Councils merely agreed with a process that had already taken place at grass roots level.

The Christian Church decided which books were Scriptural long before anything we would recognise as Roman Catholicism ever existed. Thousands of individual congregations all over the known world had reached a consensus. This is the reason why Luther, Calvin et al rejected certain books from the Roman Catholic Bible. Their historical research (a fruit of the burgeoning scholarship of the renaissance) demonstrated which books had been commonly accepted as Scripture by early Christians. Prior to the Renaissance, such information was limited and controlled by Church authorities and so was not available. This is why the Renaissance and the Reformation, in the eyes of historians, are inextricably linked.

Certainly scholarship in Luther and Calvin's day was not what it is now. Luther wanted to exclude four books from the Canon that are today acknowledged by Protestants and Catholics alike. Subsequent scholarship has confirmed that the early reformers were correct in ignoring Luther since the books in question (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) were all treated as Scriptural by the majority of Christians in the earliest years of the Church.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

If only people who respect you are allowed to answer your posts then that is going to limit the discussion somewhat, isn't it?

I appreciate the concept of treating with reverence those who question can be a lofty one - as you said in another thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54960454#post54960454

PDN wrote:

Patient questioning is fine, and no Christian should have a problem with that. After all, Christians are encouraged to always be ready "to make a defence to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). (I personally find the defence bit easier than the gentleness or reverence...)

But even in a wider context of Christianity, a bit of respect wouldn't go amiss. Note - if I couldn't understand something scientific and I was asking someone who could I think I get a lot more respect.

PDN wrote: »

The Christian Church decided which books were Scriptural long before anything we would recognise as Roman Catholicism ever existed.

Can you be more specific here? Do you mean one and only one Christian Church? Where was this church and what was the nature of this decision?
Meeting, council or did it just sort of happen.
It appears, the New Testament was not decided by 360, for we agree that at Laodicea, Revelation was not Canon. Now are you saying there was another Church that had Revelation in Canon? Or that Revelation just sort of made it's way in and in the Council of Rome ramification of it was just coincidence?

It would appear the non Catholic / Protestant Churches are not returning to the early Christian churches pre 150 AD as they are using revelation.

Would you agree with that?

Thousands of individual congregations all over the known world had reached a consensus. This is the reason why Luther, Calvin et al rejected certain books from the Roman Catholic Bible.

Name one book of the New Testament they rejected? Please let's keep this on the New Testament. You are not sticking to the point bring the OT into it.

Also you have stated your opinion that the Roman Catholic Church began in 408 with Leo 1, A.D. 440, just so there is no counfusion can you clarify
1. When you think the Catholic Church began?
2. When you think the Christian Church began?

You are saying that the decision for Canon was made at "grass roots level". Are you therefore saying that all Christians were co-incidentally using the exact same 27 books in New Testament Canon? I doubt it.

Finally, if the New Testament canon was agreed (or reaffirmed) in the council of Rome would you agree there have been no changes to the New Testament canon since then, even though there were changes before?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's rather a Christian attitude PDN.

I really don't know what you're talking about. I am perfectly happy to engage in debate with posters irrespective of whether they respect me or not. If you start demanding that other posters respect you or don't talk to you then I think you're going to have difficulty on an internet discussion board.

If you or others post statements about Christianity then I am free to respond, irrespective of whether I respect you or not.

Can you be more specific here? Do you mean one and only one Christian Church? Where was this church and what was the nature of this decision?
Meeting, council or did it just sort of happen?

I am referring to the Christian Church as all those who worshipped Jesus Christ and participated in local congregations - what is commonly known as the Church Universal. These congregations, by a process of trial and error, gradually determined which books they would treat as Scriptural and which were rejected. It was not a formal pronouncement or Council. Historians agree that it was very much a bottom-up process than a top-down diktat. There was not total uniformity, as we would expect in such an organic process, a few individual congregations here or there added a book or two or left one out, but for the vast majority there was a consensus of opinion that the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were Scriptural.

It appears, the New Testament was not decided by 360, for we agree that at Laodicea, Revelation was not Canon. Now are you saying there was another Church that had Revelation in Canon? Or that Revelation just sort of made it's way in and in the Council of Rome ramification of it was just coincidence?

It would appear the non Catholic / Protestant Churches are not returning to the early Christian churches pre 150 AD as they are using revelation.

Would you agree with that?

No, I would not agree at all.

The Book of Revelation was viewed as Scripture by Christians long before the Council of Laodicea. It is quoted as Scripture by early Christian leaders and teachers such as Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus (120-200 AD), Tertullian (155-220 AD), Hippolytus (170-235 AD), Clement of Alexandria (150-211 AD) and Origen (185-254 AD).

You are making the mistake of focusing on a few formal actions in Church History (the Councils) and ignoring the vast majority of evidence that speaks of the everyday life of the Church. Church Councils were political affairs, and it hardly surprising that ecclesiastical leaders who were now under the direct control of the Imperial authorities would wish to disown a book that is strongly anti-government, describes Rome as 'Babylon' and prophesies its violent destruction. Incidentally, history has a habit of repeating itself. The Three-Self Patriotic churches in China (officially tolerated churches that accept Communist control and are subject to censorship) forbid their pastors from preaching from Revelation. Very Laodicean of them.

For non-Catholics, our definition of Scripture is determined by the usage of the earliest Christians, not the self-serving pronouncements of ecclesiastical princes in the pay of the Roman Empire. If we received our Bible from the Roman Catholic Church, then we would have accepted their canon of Scripture as defined by their Councils and included books like Tobit and Baruch.

Name one book of the New Testament they rejected? Please let's keep this on the New Testament. You are not sticking to the point bring the OT into it.

That is not true. Your original claim earlier in the thread was that Protestants got their Bible (not just the New Testament) from the Roman Catholic Church. By trying to shift your stance to focus on the New Testament alone you are the one who is failing to stick to the point.

Also, I am not bringing the Old Testament into it. I am rather referring to the intertestamental books, or DeuteroCanonical books, which the Roman Catholic Church accepts, which were proclaimed as canonical by Church Councils, but which most non-Catholics reject on the historical grounds that they existed at the time of Christ but were not treated as Scripture by Jesus or His first followers.

Also you have stated your opinion that the Roman Catholic Church began in 408 with Leo 1, A.D. 440, just so there is no counfusion can you clarify
1. When you think the Catholic Church began?
2. When you think the Christian Church began?

The Catholic Church (Catholic means universal) is the Christian Church which began on the Day of Pentecost a few weeks after the death of Jesus. Nearly all Christians (including Protestants) subscribe to the Apostles' Creed which says "I believe in the holy Catholic Church".

The Roman Catholic Church is a completely different animal, claiming that all those not in communion with Rome are not real Christians and therefore are outside the Church Universal, and therefore not 'Catholic'. It is difficult to pin an exact date on when the Roman Catholic Church began, as we are talking about a gradual process of theological invention and political shennanigans.

If you want to refer to the RC Church in the context of the OP, with its complete set of exclusive practices such as rosary beads, papal infallibility, belief in the assumption of Mary etc - then the answer would be the 19th Century.

If you want to refer to the point where an organisation headquartered in Rome began to teach that it was the only true church and that all others must submit to it, then the reign of Leo, beginning in 440AD, would be a reasonable starting point.

However, in my opinion the rot had already set in before then. The uniting of Church and State under Constantine in the 4th Century set the stage for the later development of Roman Catholicism.

You are saying that the decision for Canon was made at "grass roots level". Are you therefore saying that all Christians were co-incidentally using the exact same 27 books in New Testament Canon? I doubt it.

No, not all Christians. I don't think that there has ever been a time in history when all Christians have agreed on anything. There are always minorities who hold differing views. For example, there are posters on this board who profess to be Christians yet reject doctrines that are held by 99% of Christians.

What I am saying is that the vast majority of Christians were accepting the same 27 New Testament books as Scriptural long before any Church councils considered the matter. This was not 'coincidentally'. They are the books that met fairly standard guidelines for inclusion in the Scriptures (apostolic authorship etc). Also there was a lot of interaction between the churches with visiting preachers etc, so it is hardly surprising that they reached a consensus.

You may doubt it, but most historians don't.

One thing that needs to be understood is that early Christians did not initially have two separate canons for the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is to read our modern concepts anachronistically back into history. They either viewed a book as Scripture or as not Scripture. Also, this was not just a matter of academic debate but rather of life and death. Living under persecution, they faced execution if found with banned books in their homes. Therefore it was important to know which books were worth risking your life for. After all, why get arrested for possessing a Gnostic gospel if it wasn't even the Word of God anyway? So Christians had a very real incentive to decide which books were canonical and which were not. They could easily be compared to cells of the resistance in different parts of Nazi occupied Europe who quickly developed common practices and systems of communication even though there was no centralised headquarters or bureaucracy.

Finally, if the New Testament canon was agreed (or reaffirmed) in the council of Rome would you agree there have been no changes to the New Testament canon since then, even though there were changes before?

The Council of Rome, in my opinion, got their list of OT books wrong, and managed to get it right in regard to the NT (although they were wrong about some of the authorship). Thus the Council's canon agrees with non-Catholics on the NT books (because they both are based on pre-existing usage).

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

That is not true. Your original claim earlier in the thread was that Protestants got their Bible (not just the New Testament) from the Roman Catholic Church. By trying to shift your stance to focus on the New Testament alone you are the one who is failing to stick to the point.

No I said they got the concept of having a Bible from the Roman Catholics, see post 9.
Thereafter, with respect to Canon, I referred specifically and only to New Testment.
See posts 11, 13, 22, 34, 35, 39, 42, 44, 50, 53 and again in 55.
So to say I am not sticking to a point in post 55, when that is the point I have been sticking to and mentioned explictly in 10 previous posts is just ridiculous.

The Catholic Church (Catholic means universal) is the Christian Church which began on the Day of Pentecost a few weeks after the death of Jesus. Nearly all Christians (including Protestants) subscribe to the Apostles' Creed which says "I believe in the holy Catholic Church".

The Roman Catholic Church is a completely different animal, claiming that all those not in communion with Rome are not real Christians and therefore are outside the Church Universal, and therefore not 'Catholic'. It is difficult to pin an exact date on when the Roman Catholic Church began, as we are talking about a gradual process of theological invention and political shennanigans.

Ok so now you are saying it is not clear the Roman Catholic Church did begin Leo I. To be honest, I think this is one reason why we are at an impasse.

You seem to change your mind on this.
In post 48 of this debate, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055115831&highlight=Athanasius&page=3, you indicated it's 314 AD, and then you then change (below) to the 19th century.

If you want to refer to the RC Church in the context of the OP, with its complete set of exclusive practices such as rosary beads, papal infallibility, belief in the assumption of Mary etc - then the answer would be the 19th Century.

I am not sure how that helps. Say in 5 years times, the RC bring in 6 new traditions and in 6 years times two people have a conversation when did the RC begin, one could use your reasoning and just say - last year.

It seems if I may say a matter of theological dispute when the Roman Catholic began simple as that. In my opinion it seems that Roman Catholic Church think they began when you think the Catholic Church began.

If you want to refer to the point where an organisation headquartered in Rome began to teach that it was the only true church and that all others must submit to it, then the reign of Leo, beginning in 440AD, would be a reasonable starting point.

However, in my opinion the rot had already set in before then. The uniting of Church and State under Constantine in the 4th Century set the stage for the later development of Roman Catholicism.

See above.

What I am saying is that the vast majority of Christians were accepting the same 27 New Testament books as Scriptural long before any Church councils considered the matter.

Hold on, Revelation was not considered Canon at Laodicea.
So how do we know that was accepted by the majority of Christians before the Council of Rome, please?

They are the books that met fairly standard guidelines for inclusion in the Scriptures (apostolic authorship etc). Also there was a lot of interaction between the churches with visiting preachers etc, so it is hardly surprising that they reached a consensus.

Where is the evidence of any consensus of exact New Testament Canon outside the councils and synods? Athanasius Easter letter seems to be the only other evidence. Was this a recommendation or a reflection - we don't know.

Thus the Council's canon agrees with non-Catholics on the NT books

what a nice co-incidence.

Basically PDN, we don't know percentages of usage for any of the books in the first few centuries after the life Jesus Christ. We don't have much evidence outside the councils, synods and Athanasius' Easter letter of any officiating as what could be canon and what was not.

It is possible that councils only rattified what was widely in use at the time and their role was entirely superflous. I doubt it very much, it seems to me that councils intention was to provide some direction, organisation etc to Christianity. They may have been influence by what was widely in use at the time, but to say they play no role at all in finalizing Canon or that without them New Testament Canon would be the exact same, I think is improbable and naieve.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No I said they got the concept of having a Bible from the Roman Catholics, see post 9.

In that case there is little point arguing with such ahistorical nonsense. The concept of having a Bible, or holy Scriptures, goes way back before either Christianity or Roman Catholicism. The concept was inherited from Judaism.

Ok so now you are saying it is not clear the Roman Catholic Church did begin Leo I. To be honest, I think this is one reason why we are at an impasse.

You seem to change your mind on this.
In post 48 of this debate, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...anasius&page=3, you indicated it's 314 AD, and then you then change (below) to the 19th century.

I'm sorry if the concept of an organisation developing over a period, rather than at one given point in time, is too much to grasp. I assure you I am doing my best to keep this as simple as possible.

What I said is clear enough for any person of average intelligence to grasp.
1. The Roman Catholic Church in its present form, with its full range of extrabiblical doctrines and practices has only existed as such since the 19th Century.
2. If you want to use a much broader definition of Roman Catholicism (ie as an organisation headquartered in Rome and claiming absolute authority over all of Christianity, then the reign of Leo I, which began in 440, would make a good starting point.
3. However, most of the root causes can be traced to the Church/State union under Constantine in 314AD.

The link to another thread simply records that I said, "I would contend that to call the early Church (pre-314AD) Roman Catholic is akin to calling the continent of North America 1000 years ago the United States." This certainly does not indicate that I believe that was the date when Roman Catholicism began. I will assume that in your excitement you didn't take time to read the post carefully, rather than that you are being deliberately dishonest.

I am not sure how that helps. Say in 5 years times, the RC bring in 6 new traditions and in 6 years times two people have a conversation when did the RC begin, one could use your reasoning and just say - last year.

Well, that is part of the problem. The Roman Catholic Church likes to portray itself as unchanging, and therefore as having always existed in something akin to it's present form. For example, calling people 'Popes' who lived long before the concept of the papacy had developed. I was pointing out that we need to look more carefully at the gradual development of Roman Catholicism.

It seems if I may say a matter of theological dispute when the Roman Catholic began simple as that. In my opinion it seems that Roman Catholic Church think they began when you think the Catholic Church began.

Your faith in accepting Roman Catholicism's own version of history is quite touching. (Are you as accepting of their claims on scientific matters?) Of course they say that, to say otherwise would be to reveal that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to demanding the submission and allegiance of all other Christians.

Hold on, Revelation was not considered Canon at Laodicea.
So how do we know that was accepted by the majority of Christians before the Council of Rome, please?

By the fact that it was quoted and cited as Scripture by a wide range of early Church leaders who were framing their arguments in a way calculated to influence the maximum numbers of Christians. This really is quite elementary and, I would stress again, reading a good Church History book (preferably written from a secular non-partisan stance) or two would help you enormously if you want to debate these matters from an informed perspective.

Where is the evidence of any consensus of exact New Testament Canon outside the councils and synods? Athanasius Easter letter seems to be the only other evidence. Was this a recommendation or a reflection - we don't know.

There are thousands of manuscripts, documents and letters surviving from the early centuries of the Church. Many of these warn against certain books and cite others as Scripture. From these historians have been able to make a very good job of ascertaining which books were accepted by the majority of Christians.

Think of it this way. If I was debating with you it would make little sense for me to quote 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as an authoritative source. Since we both know it to be a fraud there would be no point. If I quote an authority I will seek to ensure that it is one respected by us both, otherwise I'm wasting my time. Similarly, the fact that so many early Christian literature quotes from books as 'clinchers' debates gives historians a good idea of which books were considered Scriptural and which were spurious.

what a nice co-incidence

How so coincidence? Both are based on historical evidence - a common source that preceded Catholicism and Protestantism.

We don't have much evidence outside the councils, synods and Athanasius' Easter letter of any officiating as what could be canon and what was not.

Given the wealth of early Christian literature you would be hard pressed to find a single reputable historian who will agree with that.

It is possible that councils only rattified what was widely in use at the time and their role was entirely superflous. I doubt it very much, it seems to me that councils intention was to provide some direction, organisation etc to Christianity. They may have been influence by what was widely in use at the time, but to say they play no role at all in finalizing Canon or that without them New Testament Canon would be the exact same, I think is improbable and naieve.

I am amazed that someone with obvious little knowledge of a subject would attempt to paint most historians of the period as naive.

There was, of course, a very good reason why the Councils felt the need to make a list of canonical books. Once they found themselves sufficiently removed from the time of Jesus and the first apostles, there were many who tried to write their own books and pass them off as Scripture (the Gnostic books for example). Therefore the point of the lists produced by the Councils of Laodicea and Rome was not to pass judgment on books that the Church had already accepted as Scripture, but rather to rule out the new pretenders that were springing up everywhere.

Tim Robbins

Can I summarize where we are at right now?

You think:The 27 books of New Testament were in wide use, before any council, without the need for any council (even though in your last post you said the council of Rome were ruling out "new pretenders springing up everywhere").
Ergo the councils or the Roman Catholic Church had no influence on what was to be New Testament Canon.

You also think it is not clear when the Roman Catholic church began. You have various views on this.

I think:
I agree that the 27 books of the New Testament were in wide use, before any council, without the need for any council. However, to say that all Christians were using the exact same 27 books is highly improbably, especially when there were many other Christian books. I would say that some Christians groups were using X of the 27 books, other Christian groups were using Y of the 27 books where X is not equal Y and both X or Y could be less or even greater than 27.

Either way sometime in the course of history there was a convergence to exactly 27 books and it stayed that way. Now, even though there is ample evidence many of these books were used before Athanasius and the councils, there is no evidence of this exact list of 27 books and only these 27 books used as Canon, at an earlier time than any of these references.

So for me it boils down to three simple questions:
1. What are the earliest historical reference of these 27 books and only these 27 books as being NT Canon we still have today?
I would say they are Athanasius and the councils.

2. Are these references from the Roman Catholic Church?
Well there seems to be some Theological dispute here. You seem to change your own mind when the RC Church began, anytime you suggest is different to when they think.

3. How much influence did these references have on final Canon of the New Testament?
This seems an unknown. They may have had a huge influence or they have been merely a reflection or co-incidence.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You seem to change your own mind when the RC Church began, .

I think anyone with basic literacy can read this thread and see that I have been entirely consistent as to when the RC Church began. If you can't debate without resorting to untruths then there is little point in continuing this.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I think anyone with basic literacy can read this thread and see that I have been entirely consistent as to when the RC Church began. If you can't debate without resorting to untruths then there is little point in continuing this.

There's no untruths, you have mentioned three different times. That very accusation is an untruth itself. Basically your reasoning is very muddled, I am trying to summarize and work my way through so I can understand it, but it's impossible. I get the impression you are unable to treat this subject with objectivity because you have a chip on your shoulder about the RC Church. I have been there myself. But I'd like to think at this age of my life I wouldn't hold grudges.