Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
35 online now:
driewerf, PaulK (2 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,189 Year: 12,937/23,288 Month: 662/1,527 Week: 101/240 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 16 of 154 (663888)
05-27-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
03-11-2012 4:16 PM


I'll take a stab at it.
This thread will be for foreveryoung and others who share his view on the superiority of the 'protestant canon' (or any canon, for that matter) to defend their position and present evidence in its favor. I'd like to see the discussion follow along these lines:

uh i'm not protestant so i hope i'm not disqualified already.

First, those arguing for superiority of one of the canons will have to define that canon. This will mean listing all of the books that make up the canon as well as the versions of those books where significant variations exist.

May as well start with the old testament:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees

As determined by the Council of Carthage in 397ce. We have 46 books in our old testament Canon. The Protestants and evangelicals have 39 books in their old testament. The variation is 7 books. I'd have to look at the protestant OTC to determine which books are missing. (NOTE: Eastern Orthodox have 51 books).

Everyone agrees on the new Testament and it is the same in all the main christian churches.

4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John

It is 27 books. Also decided at the council of Carthage in 397ce (397ad). Interestingly the protestants did not drop the 7 books of the old testament from their canon until the 15th-16th century.

Second, these folk will have to define and defend the criteria behind labeling one canon as superior or better than another. What is it about a canon that would make it superior? For example, foreveryoung seems to think that supernatural inspiration is a criterion for a superior canon.

maybe just different instead of superior. We are old school and they are new school.

In our early church there was no canon, and there was no bible, it was a community of believers. the bible was the book of the church and the people in it. Whereas I see the protestants as the church of the bible. our church started from scratch, from the 12 apostles (notably Peter), The whole bible came centuries later, and thus is not nearly as important in our church. the protestants created their church at least a thousand or more years after we did, and used the book to created their church.

Us - The original apostolic church.

Them - the church of the bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 03-11-2012 4:16 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


(4)
Message 35 of 154 (664147)
05-29-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 8:26 PM


orly?
Jzyehoshua writes:

As for who the real Protestants were, Protestantism actually goes back about 1700 years. It's a common misconception that it began during the Reformation. There's a chart called the "Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll for example which purports to show a lineage of groups tracing the real Christian Church back, separate from Catholicism. I've written a lengthy post here addressing it, and my disagreements with Catholicism:


It doesn’t really address anything. How do the Protestants share lineage or beliefs with the long list of heretics that you have listed. All you did was list some groups targeted by the RCC and then the rest of the essay simply just anti-Roman Catholic. It doesn’t say anything about how Protestants are related to the Cathari (for example). Do protestants use any of the extra new testament works (no)? Are all the protestants nontrinitarian (no)? Does Protestantism reflect the Cathari’s concern of not eating meat (no)? I don’t see anything that ties or supports the myth that protestants existed before the reformation. All these listed groups of heretics (and you missed some important ones, which makes me think you just copied this from someone else). The idea that this is anything about how the heretics of the dark and middle ages are the real protestants quickly fades after the early part of the essay with all the links.

Real protestants came from the Reformation, they are a direct product of Johannes Gutenberg and his printing press. Allowing the Bible to be translated and “written” and then printed out numerous times so that people could read the bible in their own language. This caused people to reform against the RCC by reading things in the book that contrasted with the Church’s doctrine.

As I said Earlier, Catholics = Church of the Apostles; Protestants = Church of the Bible.

Joshua David Zambrano writes:

I believe Roman Catholicism was instituted in A.D. 380 by Roman Emperor Theodosius I as a way to destroy Christianity. Before that, Rome had tried unsuccessfully to stamp out Christianity in defense of government power over the people and to protect its pagan traditions by lining up crucified Christians all along its highways, feeding them to lions, seizing their property, and imprisoning them to work in underground mines for the rest of their lives. That wasn't working, people continued to become Christians. Therefore, Rome declared "Christianity" the state religion but only pardoned Christians who swore allegiance to Rome, and confessed belief in the newly-created doctrine of the Trinity under the Nicene Creed…
… I believe Catholicism was in effect Satan's attempt to persecute real Christianity while removing popular appeal by creating a fake Christianity.

This allowed Rome to continue persecuting the real Christians, giving itself justification for doing so (since now they were "heretics" rather than "Christians"), allowed it to preserve its pagan traditions under the guise of "Christianity", allowed it to attack all forms of real Christianity as heretical, eliminating them wherever they'd sprout, and allowed it to retain power over government and the people (confession could be considered a population control tactic, e.g.).

Oh please show how the heretics are the Real Christians, and how they are the real protestants.

Your Ideas are so Euro-centric that it is amusing. How did the Rome Eliminate the Coptic Christians, How did Rome Eliminate the Greek Orthodox, the Assyrian (the oldest church), The Russian Orthodox, The Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (St. Thomas Christians), The Tewahedo Church (Ethiopia), Syriac Christians, The Armenian Church, the Maronites (Lebanon).

If indeed non-roman = real Christian, then you have to consider the above. Or did you just mean non-roman-European churches are the Real protestants and the real Christians?

Out of pure curiosity are you a Chalcedonian or Miaphysite Christian?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 8:26 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


(6)
Message 37 of 154 (664273)
05-30-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 8:26 PM


orly? part II
Joshua David Zambrano writes:

I have Catholic friends who I very much respect and admire who I'm convinced are Christians. I really do hate to offend them. Nevertheless, I am likewise convinced the institution of Catholicism is not Christian, and is in fact one of the greatest institutions for evil and assault on Christianity ever introduced on Earth.

Lulz.
Well thanks for the preface, I would like to preface myself by saying that contrary to popular opinion I am not trying to troll you here, but I am going to have to engage you on your falsehoods. 1st of all you cannot possibly have Catholic friends that you respect and admire when you think their church was founded by Satan to bring down all of Christianity (as it says later in your essay). Just be honest. Listening to you, We (Roman Catholics) are worse than atheists (you should get Buzsaw in here, he loves to hate us). I realize that these are your beliefs and you are entitled to them, but I have to question you about much of it.

I believe Roman Catholicism was instituted in A.D. 380 by Roman Emperor Theodosius I as a way to destroy Christianity.

Interesting, especially because back in the early church there was a pentarchy (rule of five); 5 holy sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). Catholicism was already all across the Empire, something that was helped by Pax Romana and because the Romans built roads all over the place. The flow of goods and ideas was encouraged.
Before that, Rome had tried unsuccessfully to stamp out Christianity in defense of government power over the people and to protect its pagan traditions by lining up crucified Christians all along its highways, feeding them to lions, seizing their property, and imprisoning them to work in underground mines for the rest of their lives. That wasn't working, people continued to become Christians. Therefore, Rome declared "Christianity" the state religion but only pardoned Christians who swore allegiance to Rome, and confessed belief in the newly-created doctrine of the Trinity under the Nicene Creed.

I am not sure where you get your history of the western world from but ok. The Edict of Milan in 313ce (AD313) proclaimed religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire. The Romans were more practical than they are credited with, using syncretism to ally their faith with those of new peoples. Christianity became the state religion after most of the people became Christian, not before hand.

Those who believed Jesus and God the Father were separate entities, and that Jesus was the first-born of creation (a created being rather than eternal, according to Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14) were declared Arians and exterminated. This was only the beginning of Catholic persecutions of "heretics". Next were the Novatians and Donatists, who both believed in re-baptizing rather than infant baptism. They too were declared heretics and slaughtered.

Seriously!?!
Remember the topic here about Canon? The Canon was not established until 397 at the council of Carthage. So attributing Colossians and Revelation as evidence cannot be used. Mainly because the Arians were determinded to be heretics in 325 (1st Council of Nicaea) 72 years before the bible. You really can’t bring up the bible before it was “the bible” and use that. Also note that the 1st council of Nicaea is accepted by Anglicans, the Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Protestants, and Roman Catholics. This makes it more than a little ridiculous sounding that it was ALL the Roman Catholics who labeled the Arians as heretics, when in factual reality 4th century Christendom made the declaration. It is also rather odd that protestants today side with the rest of the Christians on Nicaea, and thus against the Arians, yet somehow you are trying to argue that the Arians were the orginial protestants. Please explain in case I have you confused or have missed your point.
I believe Catholicism was in effect Satan's attempt to persecute real Christianity while removing popular appeal by creating a fake Christianity. This allowed Rome to continue persecuting the real Christians, giving itself justification for doing so (since now they were "heretics" rather than "Christians"), allowed it to preserve its pagan traditions under the guise of "Christianity", allowed it to attack all forms of real Christianity as heretical, eliminating them wherever they'd sprout, and allowed it to retain power over government and the people (confession could be considered a population control tactic, e.g.).

Real Christians!?! Like say the Arians, who were called heretics by all the other Christians? I also like how you bring up Novatians and Donatists without mentioning why they were heretical. You try to blame it on re-baptism, but that was not the reason. The reason was that Novatian (the Antipope), held a strict view that refused to accept lapsed Christians, and refused to forgive them, because under duress and persecution some of the Christians (the Lapsi) renounced Christianity. This attitude would have denied Peter for denying Christ. The Donatists were very similar, but in north Africa (Tunisia and Libya), they said that anyone who gave into the persecution were not a part of the church, so in 313 when the Diocletianic Persecution (303ce-313ce) ended, and Christianity was “legal” many people came out of the shadows to renew their faith and the Donatists said they could not. Since my Christianity is about conversion and forgiveness I have to agree that the views of the hardline Donatists were in error. I know that Protestants today have nothing in common with the Novatians or the Donatists, but perhaps you could explain to me how they are? A great example is my friend who is a Baptist youth minister, he was raised in that denomination, born again in that denomination, and in college turned to a live of drugs and sex, renouncing his Christian faith (I was there it was a blast). As a more mature adult, he was born again, again (for the 2nd time) and welcomed back into the flock with open arms. This is not something either the Novatians or the Donatists would allow, it is something that the Catholics (and I guess Baptists) would definitely allow.

I don’t want to dogpile you with tons of posts so I’ll refrain from questioning your logic, reasoning, and source information until you answer the questions I have posted here and in post #35.

I look forward to your response.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 8:26 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 05-31-2012 12:17 AM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 41 of 154 (664835)
06-05-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
06-05-2012 3:38 PM


delete
nevermind.

Edited by Artemis Entreri, : protestants never show up when Catholics defend themselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2012 3:38 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 53 of 154 (671335)
08-24-2012 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by New Cat's Eye
08-24-2012 10:46 AM


Re: Jude *quotes* Enoch
Protestants never seem to stop amazing me with everything they think they know, compared to the reality of the situation. I eagerly await an answer to yet another "house of cards" scenario like this one.

Pax vobiscum

OFF TOPIC
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-24-2012 10:46 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-24-2012 12:11 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply
 Message 55 by jar, posted 08-24-2012 12:27 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 59 of 154 (671558)
08-27-2012 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by jar
08-24-2012 12:27 PM


Re: Jude *quotes* Enoch
semantics much?

of course not all of them. the originals who broke with the catholic communion (Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.), the post-catholics are NOT the ones I was referring too.

I am mostly talking about the "i read the bible all by myself and now I am going to create my own faith" christians. I think "most" evangelical protestants fall into this category (Baptists, Pentacostals, 7th day adventist); aka the American Christians. you know the sort of crazy that isn't-allowed-in-Europe-Christians.

OFF TOPIC
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 08-24-2012 12:27 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2012 2:20 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 61 by jar, posted 08-27-2012 2:51 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 08-27-2012 3:39 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 63 of 154 (671575)
08-27-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
08-27-2012 2:51 PM


Re: Jude *quotes* Enoch
you are very wierd.

1st you quote me on the silliest of semantics because you obviously think in absolutes, and because not ALL protestants.

:: Roll Eyes::

jar writes:

But it is also unrelated to the question under discussion it seems.

then you quote me to tell me that i am off topic (from your POV). why would you even respond at all?

OFF TOPIC
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 08-27-2012 2:51 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AdminPD, posted 08-27-2012 4:21 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 64 of 154 (671576)
08-27-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Phat
08-27-2012 3:39 PM


Re: Jude *quotes* Enoch
I never understood why a so called "professional" church guy had any more of a mind to understand scripture than a layman.

gee i don't know, maybe because it wasn't one guy. Maybe because its an apostolic tradition, you know started by 12 guys who followed Jesus around. because it predates the bible by almost 400 years. Maybe because it doesn't get its legitamacy from a book that was translated into German or English in the 16th century. Maybe because it realizes that the bible is only part of the answer. Maybe because it predates the whole idea of "denominations". Maybe you are just missing the point.

I dunno it could be a lot of reasons now that I think about it.

And while I agree that some can read what they want into scripture, this goes for churches as well as individuals.

hmmm less so with groups. I prefer stuff that is peer reviewed by a larger audience of aherents so that the idea can be discussed, and challeged, and even refuted, rather than one german guy who created a "faith" after reading one book in german in the 16th century, but that is me.

Finally, it is my belief that if one searches for truth with a sincere heart, truth will find them.

well...good luck with that.

OFF TOPIC
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 08-27-2012 3:39 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2858 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 66 of 154 (671578)
08-27-2012 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by NoNukes
08-27-2012 2:20 PM


Re: Jude *quotes* Enoch
You seem to be using the term "Protestant" to refer to a class of worshippers that excludes Lutherans. Such a usage would be ... non-standard, and it should not be too terribly surprising if someone did not pick up on that usage without some help.

no. let me break it down again

I was commenting on a fellow catholic (catholic scientist) and his amusing observation on a protestant poster who seems to not know what he/she thinks he/she knows. Which is a common thread here amongst the pro-creationist Christians (amusingly also protestant). And this very strange poster chimes in with the most junior-high school semantic response of “not ALL protestants”.

So like a fool I respond to the "juvenile semantics guy" (I should know better by now), and explain which protestants I think fit into this category that I and Catholic Scientist where amused by, and I said that Lutherans and Anglicans are not in this group. Not that they are not protestants (because they are the original ones), but that they are not sort I was referring to. For instance I know quite a few Lutherans, and I don’t think any of them are creationists, I also know a decent number of Baptists and I don’t know any of them who aren’t creationists. So when I say those crazy Christians who believe in creationism, I am not talking about the Christians who know creationism is bullshit (like the Lutherans).

Does this make sense or is it more confusing?

OFF TOPIC
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2012 2:20 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2012 4:39 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2012 6:46 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020