Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

1) as Faith said, it is not technically correct to refer to the Church as ROMAN Catholic until the Bishop of ROME becomes dominant.2) as I understand it, nearly all of our present canon was generally accepted by the early church. When some heretical canons were proposed (e.g. Marcion), church councils dealt with these heretical proposals and recognized the canon which had already been generally accepted.In other words, the church councils did not determine the canon and force everyone to accept it. Rather, the canon had ALREADY been determined, and the church councils merely acknowledged and ratified what had already been generally accepted.

Show the list from the Latin text (Latin, right? ) that is in the title of our posts.Then explain how it does support your argument (it won't be the biggest deal since it is broken off if I remember ).

Why would it have been unknown?Remember the word "occult" refers to hidden knowledge.....

quote:

---

1) as Faith said, it is not technically correct to refer to the Church as ROMAN Catholic until the Bishop of ROME becomes dominant.

---

Well, it also has to do with the church order of Paul in his authentic epistles verses the forged Pastoral Epistles system (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and after.Let us start with Clement of Rome.from Wikipedia.

quote:

---

Pope Clement I (Latin: Clemens Romanus; Greek: Ῥ; died 99), also known as Saint Clement of Rome, is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as Bishop of Rome, holding office from 88 to his death in 99.[2] He is considered to be the first Apostolic Father of the Church.[3]

​

Few details are known about Clement's life. Clement was said to have been consecrated by Saint Peter,[3] and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century. Early church lists place him as the second or third[2][4] bishop of Rome after Saint Peter. The Liber Pontificalis[5] presents a list that makes Pope Linus the second in the line of bishops of Rome, with Peter as first; but at the same time it states that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Pope Cletus, for the priestly service of the community, devoting himself instead to prayer and preaching, and that it was to Clement that he entrusted the Church as a whole, appointing him as his successor. Tertullian considered Clement to be the immediate successor of Peter.[6] In one of his works, Jerome listed Clement as "the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter", and added that "most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle".[7] Clement is put after Linus and Cletus/Anacletus in the earliest (c. 180) account, that of Irenaeus,[8] who is followed by Eusebius of Caesarea.[9]

​

Clement's only genuine extant writing is his letter to the church at Corinth (1 Clement) in response to a dispute in which certain presbyters of the Corinthian church had been deposed.[2] He asserted the authority of the presbyters as rulers of the church on the ground that the Apostles had appointed such.[2] His letter, which is one of the oldest extant Christian documents outside of the New Testament, was read in church, along with other epistles, some of which later became part of the Christian canon. These works were the first to affirm the apostolic authority of the clergy
....
Epistle of Clement[edit]

​

Main article: 1 Clement

​

Clement's only existing, genuine text is a letter to the Christian congregation in Corinth, often called the First Epistle of Clement or 1 Clement. The history of 1 Clement clearly and continuously shows Clement as the author of this letter. It is considered the earliest authentic Christian document outside of the New Testament.

​

Clement writes to the troubled congregation in Corinth, where certain "presbyters" or "bishops" have been deposed (the class of clergy above that of deacons is designated indifferently by the two terms).[2] Clement calls for repentance and reinstatement of those who have been deposed, in line with maintenance of order and obedience to church authority, since the apostles established the ministry of "bishops and deacons." [2] He mentions "offering the gifts" as one of the functions of the higher class of clergy.[2] Although one who reads the Epistle will note that when the term "offering the gifts" by the bishops is used, it has no reference to "communion" and or Remembrance of the Lord but that of the gifts of ministering to the church with no actual indication of a specific gift.[23] The epistle offers valuable insight into Church ministry at that time and into the history of the Roman Church.[2] It was highly regarded, and was read in church at Corinth along with the Scriptures c. 170.[2]

​

Clement of Rome - Wikipedia

---

It was written about the same time as the Pastoral Epistles.Here is Oxford scholarship

quote:

---

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF WORLD RELIGIONS
p.226
Clement of Rome, St. Traditional third *bishop of Rome, perhaps to be connected with the fellow worker of *Paul (Philippians 4.3). A letter from the Roman church to that of Corinth is ascribed to him and is known as 1 Clement. The letter, a somewhat pompous appeal for peace in the church of Corinth, shows the beginning of Roman claims to authority over the churches.

---

Here is a good work that can be read online

quote:

---

Early history of the Christian church
from its foundation to the end of the fifth century
Louis Duchesne
....

​

Chapter 5
....
Towards the middle of the 2nd century, the monarchical
episcopate also comes before us as an undisputed
fact of received tradition, in the Western Christian com-
munities of Rome, Lyons, Corinth, Athens, and Crete, as
well as in more Eastern provinces. Nowhere is there a
trace of any protest against a sudden and revolutionary
change, transferring the government from a college of
bishops to that of a single monarchical ruler. From the
2nd century onward in some places at least it was possible for them to name the bishops linking them to
the apostles. Hegesippus, who travelled from church to
church, made in various places a collection of lists of
bishops, or drew them up himself from local recollections
and documents. The line of succession of the bishops of
Rome dates back to St Peter and St Paul, and is known to
us through St Irenaeus ; that of Athens, dating back to
Dionysius the Areopagite, is given by St Dionysius of
Corinth. In Rome, the episcopal succession was so well
known, and its chronology so clear, that it served to fix
the date of other events. It was said of different heresies,
that they appeared under Anicetus, or Pius, or Hyginus.
In the discussion as to the observance of Easter, Irenaeus
fixed a date in the same way, going back farther still, to
Telesphorus and to Xystus I., that is to the time of Trajan
and of St Ignatius.

​

What conclusion can be drawn from all this, if not that
the system of government by a monarchical bishop was
already in existence, in countries west of Asia, at the time
when such books were written as the Shepherd of Hennas
or the Second Epistle of Clement, the Teaching of the
Apostles, and the First Epistle of St Clement ; and that,
therefore, the testimony of these old writers to the col-
legiate episcopate does not preclude the existence of the monarchical episcopate? Towards the end of the 2nd
century, the author of the Muratorian Canon said of
Hermas, that he wrote a short time before, under the
episcopate of his brother Pius : nuperrime, temporibus
nostris, sedente cathetra (sic) urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio
episcopo fratre eius. Thus Hermas seems only to know of
the collegiate episcopate, yet writes under a monarchical
bishop, his own brother. About the time of Commodus,
a Modalist teacher was cited more than once to appear
before the ecclesiastical authority of Smyrna. Hippolytus,
who recounts the event ^ uses the expression " the priests "
(ot irpecr/SvTepoi). Yet it is quite certain that Smyrna
then had a bishop. Moreover, the collegiate episcopate,
which was certainly the original system in more places
than one, was not likely to be the final form : it had to
modify itself very soon. Government cannot be carried
on by commission, unless presided over by a head who
has it well in hand, who inspires it, guides it, and acts in
its name. Probably the members of these episcopal
colleges in primitive times were rather more on an
equality with their president, than are canons of our day
with their bishop. According to the rather confused
memories which tradition has transmitted to us, they for
long retained the power of ordination, which now especially
characterises the episcopal dignity. The priests of
Alexandria in replacing their dead bishop, not only
elected, but also consecrated his successor.- This custom
no doubt dated from a time when Egypt had no church
but that of Alexandria. It would not be surprising to
find that the same circumstances had led to the same
results in Antioch, Rome, and Lyons, and in fact, in
every place where the local churches had a very wide
jurisdiction.

​

We are thus able to explain the custom of designat-
ing both the president and his counsellors by a common denomination. We ourselves speak of the clergy, the
priests, of a parish, although there is considerable differ-
ence between the authority of the parish priest and that
of his curates. In like manner, when they spoke of the
priests of Rome, or the bishops of Corinth, the term
covered both the higher grades of the hierarchy. But
the natural course of events tended to concentrate the
authority in the hands of one person, and this change,
if change there were, was one of those which come about
of themselves, insensibly, without anything like a revolu-
tion. The president of the episcopal council in Rome,
Alexandria, Antioch, and many other places, stood out
sufficiently from his colleagues to be separately and
easily remembered. The Church of God which " dwells
in Rome" may have inherited the supreme authority of
its apostolic founders in a diffused form ; this authority
concentrated itself in the priest-bishops as a body, and
one of them embodied it more specially, and exercised
it. Between this president, and the one monarchical
bishop of succeeding centuries, there is no difference in
principle.

---

It has to do with the church order as much as anything.Clement is venerated by protestants too.Here is Wikipedia.

quote:

---

Venerated in

​

Roman Catholic Church
Anglican Communion
Lutheran Church
Eastern Orthodoxy
Russian Orthodox Church

---

The writings you are quoting are clearly Roman Catholic, giving their revisionist history of the Church. "Bishop of Rome after Saint Peter" gives it away. Peter was never in Rome as far as anyone knows, and he was certainly never Bishop of Rome.Early church fathers may certainly be revered by Protestants, but the way they are talked about is far from the way the Roman Church talks about them.

I feel that the early church fathers that are extant will be quite devoted to the Primacy of Peter (Hegesippius and Clement of Alexandria will be exceptions to the rule ), since James looms large in the early centuries.The same Irenaeus that is big on Peter being the Bishop of Rome is the same one who said John authored the fourth Gospel and also said that Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was a disciple of his. I should caution that I get Irenaeus and his dittohead Tertullian confused easily.Papias was the first to say Peter went to Rome. The tradition is fairly early considering Papias was born in the first century and was the Bishop of Hieropolis as early as 100 AD I think.What to think of the office of Bishop is another thing.Was Peter ever a Bishop ( whatever it meant ) ?The Roman church was ideological as far back as the late 1st century and it seems like it was willing to make things up.But the Christian communities of the late first and early second century got to write books in the name of Apostles. He who writes the rules gets to make the rules.The canon is the rule.Was there an unrecorded (in extant writings from the 2nd century ) canon from the Roman church? Or from those in its orbit ?We can only speculate.

If you want to be convincing about any of that you need to give clear references to online quotes of Papias, Irenaeus and Tertullian about Peter being in Rome, because that's news to me.

Maybe, maybe not. But why such an obsession with written lists? The canon was generally accepted before any lists were formulated. The lists were made in response to heretics like Marcion. The canon was early; the lists came later.

I will get back with you, as I am short for time. I need to find the best quotes and dont have time. I was hoping that this group (see link) had their book free online (it is super cheap but I no longer have my copy).I called them up, pretending to be a Catholic (to avoid an argument plus I wanted to thank them for their great work), and raised the issue of Acts 15 and James.They have a bunch of free videos online.They did some new research on Acts 15 I see. They claim that Greek grammar in Acts proves Peter was the first Pope.What do you think of these videos?The Bible Teaches That Jesus Made Peter The First PopeAlso, Papias, contrary to common commentary, actually didn't say John Mark wrote his memoirs of Peter in Rome. I fell into that trap. I used to know not to fall into that common pit, but forgot. People, including scholars, let traition from later in the 2nd century, dictate (and perhaps read too much into) that Papias was describing Rome as the setting or the Book of Mark. I remembered that right atr I read your post yesterday.

quote:

---

Maybe, maybe not. But why such an obsession with written lists? The canon was generally accepted before any lists were formulated. The lists were made in response to heretics like Marcion. The canon was early; the lists came later.

---

I think Marcion understood Paul a lot better than the "orthodox" but that was because he rejected the Pastoral Epistles (and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35)1 Corinthians 12

quote:

---

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

---

I want to do a thread on Marcion, but it would be heavy on pasting. I have lots of great sources, including journals.Harnack was a scholar who accepted the fourfold Gospel canon in the early 1st century, and that sort of ruled the day in the early 20th century. (now no reputable scholar would put the fourfold Gospel before 150 at the earliest)Here is Oxford on Marion.

quote:

---

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF WORLD RELIGIONS

​

Marcion.
...rejected the Old Testament, and from the New Testament admitted to his cannon only the letters of Paul and an edited version of the gospel of Luke. His orthodox opponents reckoned him among the *gnostics, but his system lacks typical gnostic mythology. Marcion was sympathetically studied by A. von *Harnack who saw him as a kind of ancient *Protestant.

---

Marcion was only a heretic because he knew Paul allowed females in the church leadership, plus he held to charismatic leadership like Paul held. He rejected the Pastoral Epistle church hierarchy that is essentially Roman Catholic.

quote:

---

Jesus and Gospel
By Graham N. Stanton
p 63

​

In the early decades of the twentieth century, the views of the great giants, Theodore Zahn and Adolf von Harnack, were influential : many scholars accepted their view that the fourfold Gospel emerged very early in the second century, well before Marcion. More recently, particularly under the influence of Hans von Campenhausen, most scholars have accepted that the fourfold Gospel emerged in the second half of the second century and that the Muratorian Fragment and Irenaeus are our primary witnesses.

---

Stanton attempts to bring it back to the old day's view with his research.But the view of the day does not see Marcion as rejecting a fourfold gospel canon.

Why would Jesus be excluded from any Canon?

The Samaritan Orthodox Canon recognizes only those books that would have been considered canonical at the time Jesus lived. That is actually only the Pentateuch and while they recognize most of the other books of the Old & New Testament as sacred writings they consider them extra-canonical, much like the modern Western Protestant Apocrypha.Again, stuff like this should be part of any childhood Christian Sacred Studies.

Beyond that, the question is extremely Christianity centric. The Hebrew Canon includes the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, which collective match most of, but not all of the Old Testament in the Protestant canon.

How would he have understood Paul? Had he met him? What makes one belief paradigm acceptable over another? What makes Reincarnation more or less probable than Resurrection? Why do humans pick and choose one canon over another? Why do some rely on a Source for their argument while others "make up" their own conclusion based only on logic, reason, and reality?
Use your own words and keep pasting to a minimum. I would prefer it if you simply used links rather than quotes. (You do know how to make a link, dont you? Use the peek feature to find out how it is done)