so... i'm expressing dissatisfaction that something vitally important is being omitted from the bible, and the defense for this is that there is even more vitally important information being omitted?
so how do we know which traditions to follow? how do i know i should not be following the gnostics or the mormons or the jehovah's witnesses or whatever weird new/old thing there might be?
Because the Tradition of the Church runs through the bishops, who go in a straight line back to the apostles of Jesus Christ. We can trace the origin of the Gnostics to the second century, long after the death of the apostles. Same with the Mormons (1800s) and JWs.
1. how do we know this about the bishops? we take their word for it...? i dont know what youre talking about at all here, it sounds made up. i know there were deacons around a half century after jesus' death, but the bishops were implemented centuries later with rome's christianization
2. where do you get this info about the gnostics, and even if it's true, why does that negate their beliefs?
3. the apostles weren't perfect... they forsook jesus
1. No...bishops were not invented centuries later. Ignatius of Antioch, a direct disciple of the apostle John and successor of Peter in Antioch, wrote of the bishops leading the city Churches, with the presbyters leading various parishes within that Church, and the deacons assisting the presbyters. Before Ignatius, they were all known as presbyters, but there was one "Arch-Presbyter" who led the City Church. He later became known as the bishop, but the concept is there.
2.Professor Craig Evans, who was one of the translators of the Gospel of Judas. Because they clearly invented their information about Jesus. They cannot trace it to eyewitnesses.
3. Peter forsook Jesus. I never said they were perfect, but they were the eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and Jesus entrusted His gospel to them. They passed it onto their successors, the bishops.
4. Lots of reasons, he was known to be a treasure-seeker and a creator of fanciful tales.
1. i'm well aware that when you have an organization, such as a church, there's going to be a leader. being the leader doesnt make you the bishop. youre saying the concept is there because these presbyters were the leaders, well, you havent said a single thing about their actual specific function other than that. i dont see any link btwn them and bishops.
2. "clearly invented"? by what standard do you say that? read the first couple chapters of johns gospel for "clearly invented"
first off... being a treasure seeker is irrelevent here, far as i can see. second, if i'm going to just believe in joseph smith preumptively, and i need evidence to sway me to the other side, then i'll believe his 'fanciful tales' automatically too. besides, your early church leaders had fanciful tales. paralyzed person walking because peter's shadow passed over him, god striking people dead left and right, and im sure some other stuff i'm not remembering atm
1. Okay, each church building was led by a presbyter. There was one presbyter in that region who is called the bishop, who has been appointed by an apostle, and who ordains and leads all the other presbyters. All bishops trace their lineage back to the apostles. We have the lists proving this.
2. Because they appear too late to be reliable and have no connection to eyewitnesses.
3. what is with all of this eye witness account business. the earliest gospel is mark, who wasnt even an eye witness, and it was written 20 years after the crucifiction, and he gathered his information from biased people who were willing to go broke following jesus for 3 years
i hit reply on your original statement and youtube put it somewhere else in here. if you care to find then you can reply, although it will probably not sway me just as i wont sway you.
It's important to note, however, that there was little dispute over the biblical books by the time of these councils. There was never any dispute for the four gospels, Acts, the Pauline letters, 1 Peter, and 1 John. The books that were mildly (not heavily at all) disputed but made it in were 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
The reason that these decrees were not included in the canon of scripture is because scripture is not the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The entirety of Holy Tradition is contained in Holy Scripture, the councils of the Church, and the consensus of the writings of the church fathers. There was simply no need to place it in the Bible, as the doctrine of "scripture alone" is a much later Protestant innovation.
Hey man. The canon of scripture was formed over a few hundred years, but there are two main councils which formally defined the canon. The Council of Carthage in 348 and the Council of Rome in 382. This issued the canon of scripture as Orthodox Catholic Christians have it today.
The decrees of the entire Church, when they are accepted by the entire Church are indeed divinely inspired and infallible.This is the purpose of the seven ecumenical councils,to issue infallible definitions of doctrine.
I hope that answered your questions satisfactorily. Happy thanksgiving!
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
so... i'm expressing dissatisfaction that something vitally important is being omitted from the bible, and the defense for this is that there is even more vitally important information being omitted?
blasphemite 2 years ago
The Bible was never intended to be the entire authoritative deposit of faith. That's a very Protestant idea.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
so how do we know which traditions to follow? how do i know i should not be following the gnostics or the mormons or the jehovah's witnesses or whatever weird new/old thing there might be?
blasphemite 2 years ago
Because the Tradition of the Church runs through the bishops, who go in a straight line back to the apostles of Jesus Christ. We can trace the origin of the Gnostics to the second century, long after the death of the apostles. Same with the Mormons (1800s) and JWs.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
1. how do we know this about the bishops? we take their word for it...? i dont know what youre talking about at all here, it sounds made up. i know there were deacons around a half century after jesus' death, but the bishops were implemented centuries later with rome's christianization
2. where do you get this info about the gnostics, and even if it's true, why does that negate their beliefs?
3. the apostles weren't perfect... they forsook jesus
4. why not just believe joe smith?
blasphemite 2 years ago
1. No...bishops were not invented centuries later. Ignatius of Antioch, a direct disciple of the apostle John and successor of Peter in Antioch, wrote of the bishops leading the city Churches, with the presbyters leading various parishes within that Church, and the deacons assisting the presbyters. Before Ignatius, they were all known as presbyters, but there was one "Arch-Presbyter" who led the City Church. He later became known as the bishop, but the concept is there.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
2.Professor Craig Evans, who was one of the translators of the Gospel of Judas. Because they clearly invented their information about Jesus. They cannot trace it to eyewitnesses.
3. Peter forsook Jesus. I never said they were perfect, but they were the eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and Jesus entrusted His gospel to them. They passed it onto their successors, the bishops.
4. Lots of reasons, he was known to be a treasure-seeker and a creator of fanciful tales.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
1. i'm well aware that when you have an organization, such as a church, there's going to be a leader. being the leader doesnt make you the bishop. youre saying the concept is there because these presbyters were the leaders, well, you havent said a single thing about their actual specific function other than that. i dont see any link btwn them and bishops.
2. "clearly invented"? by what standard do you say that? read the first couple chapters of johns gospel for "clearly invented"
blasphemite 2 years ago
first off... being a treasure seeker is irrelevent here, far as i can see. second, if i'm going to just believe in joseph smith preumptively, and i need evidence to sway me to the other side, then i'll believe his 'fanciful tales' automatically too. besides, your early church leaders had fanciful tales. paralyzed person walking because peter's shadow passed over him, god striking people dead left and right, and im sure some other stuff i'm not remembering atm
blasphemite 2 years ago
1. Okay, each church building was led by a presbyter. There was one presbyter in that region who is called the bishop, who has been appointed by an apostle, and who ordains and leads all the other presbyters. All bishops trace their lineage back to the apostles. We have the lists proving this.
2. Because they appear too late to be reliable and have no connection to eyewitnesses.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
The church father Irenaeus identifies two main criteria for acceptance into the canon of scripture.
1. Apostolic authority (there were a few exceptions)
2. Conformity with the received tradition handed to the bishops, ultimately from the first bishops, the apostles of Jesus Christ.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
3. what is with all of this eye witness account business. the earliest gospel is mark, who wasnt even an eye witness, and it was written 20 years after the crucifiction, and he gathered his information from biased people who were willing to go broke following jesus for 3 years
4. ok lots of problems with your statements here
blasphemite 2 years ago
3. Mark wrote based on the testimony of Peter. 20 years isn't that much at all. Of course there is bias. All history is biased.
4. Like?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
i hit reply on your original statement and youtube put it somewhere else in here. if you care to find then you can reply, although it will probably not sway me just as i wont sway you.
blasphemite 2 years ago
It's important to note, however, that there was little dispute over the biblical books by the time of these councils. There was never any dispute for the four gospels, Acts, the Pauline letters, 1 Peter, and 1 John. The books that were mildly (not heavily at all) disputed but made it in were 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
The reason that these decrees were not included in the canon of scripture is because scripture is not the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The entirety of Holy Tradition is contained in Holy Scripture, the councils of the Church, and the consensus of the writings of the church fathers. There was simply no need to place it in the Bible, as the doctrine of "scripture alone" is a much later Protestant innovation.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Hey man. The canon of scripture was formed over a few hundred years, but there are two main councils which formally defined the canon. The Council of Carthage in 348 and the Council of Rome in 382. This issued the canon of scripture as Orthodox Catholic Christians have it today.
The decrees of the entire Church, when they are accepted by the entire Church are indeed divinely inspired and infallible.This is the purpose of the seven ecumenical councils,to issue infallible definitions of doctrine.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago