Thursday, October 29, 2009

Canon of Sacred Scripture

One thing Protestants SHOULD find easy to admit, but for
some reason do not - is the FACT that the Canon of Sacred
Scripture came to them via the Catholic Church, as guided
by the Holy Ghost. There is no "inspired Table of Contents,"
and not ONE of the Apostles, or other New Testament writers
of Scripture bothered to jot down for us precisely what the
Canon of Sacred Scripture should be - or would be. In fact,
it would be nearly 400 years before the Canon was solidified,
including the New Testament Canon, for the Christian Church,
which was, indeed, the Catholic Church.

During the first nearly 400 years of Catholicism there were
SEVERAL Canons of Sacred Scripture put out and accepted in
varying regions. In the late 4th Century three separate
non-ecumenical councils decreed the Canon. Then, St. Jerome
was commissioned by the Pope to translate the original Greek
and Hebrew into the common (or vulgar) tongue of that day,
which was Latin. The Canon of Sacred Scripture did not vary
after that point. Then, some 1100 years after St. Jerome,
along came Luther and Co. who started changing that which
the Christian/Catholic Church had been using for over a
millennia - and continues to use to this day. Due to the
German princes who were using Luther's propaganda to stir
up the Peasants Revolt, the popularity of Luther's canon
was rising. The Church then utilized the authority given
her in Matthew 18:18 and infallibly declared the Canon of
Sacred Scripture according to the same canon used by St.
Jerome's Latin Vulgate at the Council of Trent.

These are unbiased FACTS of HISTORY. Any objective
reader of history can surely attest to that. No one who
honestly and objectively reads history can deny these
facts.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Posted to ACTS http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACTS/message/1512

3 comments:

  1. The canon did indeed come from the Catholic church for it bears the Catholic mark on it via the Catholic interpolations. "He shall be called a Nazarene" (matt 2:23) is not a real OT passage. Nor is Hosea 11:1 a prophecy about Jesus although the Catholic editor has made 'Matthew' claim it is such. Every prophecy fulfillment attribution in Matthew chapters 1-2 is dishonest. Yes indeed, this is the CATHOLIC canon. That's why I'm going back to the original Christian Bible: Marcion's Gospel and Apostolicon. Every REAL Protestant should do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jesus says "of all those born of women none is greater than John" showing that Jesus was not born of women, for he certainly is not less thanm John! And again in John 6:51 "I am the bread that came down from heaven and the bread is my flesh" showing that he came down from heaven already having his flesh, as John says in his first epistle "Jesus came in the flesh" not was born into the flesh. He descended bodily from heaven. Mary is John Mark's mother which is why he denies her saying at Cana "woman, what is there between me and thee?" And says to John Mark "behold thy mother." For Jesus only borrowed her for the narrative of John's gospel and only so he could repudiate the false concept that he was born. Again when in Mark the crowd says "your mother and brothers are outside" tempting him, to see if he will look while the crowd knows they are not truly there, he repudiates the concept that he has any mother other than those who do his Father's will! And Joseph is nothing but a Catholic literalization of the title 'Messiah ben Joseph'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Beowulf,
    Sorry I didn't see this sooner.

    You wrote:
    > The canon did indeed come from
    > the Catholic church for it bears
    > the Catholic mark on it via the
    > Catholic interpolations.

    sw: Thank you for the concession here, we agree - but not for the same reasons.

    > "He shall be called a Nazarene"
    > (matt 2:23) is not a real OT
    > passage.

    sw: Actually, there are several passages this could apply to, but I am preparing a fuller response to this offline. I'll get back to you.

    > Nor is Hosea 11:1 a prophecy
    > about Jesus although the
    > Catholic editor has made
    > 'Matthew' claim it is such.

    sw: Who is this "Catholic editor?" I don't deal in vague assertions.

    > Every prophecy fulfillment
    > attribution in Matthew chapters
    > 1-2 is dishonest.

    sw: Another empty allegation. Put up the evidence, or don't bother with invalid assertions.

    > Yes indeed, this is the CATHOLIC
    > canon.

    sw: Thanks again for the concession.

    > That's why I'm going back to the
    > original Christian Bible:
    > Marcion's Gospel and
    > Apostolicon.

    sw: Are you enjoying your Gnosticism? Marcion himself was not a gnostic, but the cult which followed him was.

    > Every REAL Protestant should do
    > the same.

    sw: At least you have that right! You're protesting against the Church which Jesus Christ, our God built to pursue the one built by the man, Marcion.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.