This guy is totally disorganized in his thinking. He throws out unrelated bits of information but doesn't form a systematic understanding of what they mean. He also is a mere "proof texter" when it comes to Scripture. He obviously knows nothing about Church history and has no real grasp of biblical theology or the continuity between the two testaments. Lets deal with him briefly.

 

1) Where does he get the notion that NT Church was to be modeled after the OT Israel (i.e. with the sacrificial law,..etc.)? What scriptures can he point to? (i.e. although there may be some similarities, where does it clearly state it - anything else is sheer speculation).

 

I see. When he appeals to Scripture, he is being scholarly. When we appeal to Scripture it is "sheer speculation." I am sorry, but EVERYBODY'S opinion is speculation EXCEPT the one who has the AUTHORITY to speak. In the prot system, nobody has the right to dismiss someone else's position as speculative since everyone's opinion is equally speculative in their view. As such we Catholics are entitled to our opinions and all the prot can do is disagree with our interpretation. He has no right to say that we are right or wrong. In the Catholic Church, we have the Magisterial authority to speak for Christ ("He who hears you hears me" - Luke 10:16) and thus we do have the right to dismiss prot "speculations" as spurious. I am afraid that this person shows extreme ignorance concerning the whole content of the Bible both in the NT and the OT. He sounds like a dispensationalist (or like the early heretic Marcion) who wants to totally abrogate everything from the OT as if it were unimportant. The NT Church is indeed modeled on the OT. Baptism replaces circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). The Mass replaces the Passover (1Cor 5:7) and the temple sacrifices (1Cor 10, Hebrews 13:10). The twelve apostles replace the ruling Sanhedrin. St Peter replaces the High Priest. The law of love replaces the law of Moses. Etc, etc, etc... We could go on. Most importantly we have the words of Jesus:

 

And we have the words of St Paul:

 

In essence, St Paul teaches that the Christians are composed of a "remnant" of Jews and an "ingrafting" of Gentiles. There is not a new tree, but the old roots support both old and new branches. Besides, if you read in Acts it is clear that the Jewish Christians (including St Paul!) still participated in the temple cultus, the rituals, the dietary laws and other Jewish customs until the Temple was destroyed. That was why there was a big dispute in the Early Church over Judaizing. While the Temple was still stood, the earliest Christians still saw themselves as JEWS who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah. They therefore modeled their earliest churches on the customs of the Jews in the Diaspora with a council of ruling elders, a bishop who held the purse strings, and deacons who acted in the communities name in works of charity. (See the 1880 Bampton Lectures from Oxfordd for a full treatment of this.)

 

What does the "New Covenant" mean?

 

It doesn't mean that it is in diametric opposition to the Old Covenant. There are both continuities and differences. The basic relationship between God and his people has NOT changed. The 10 Commandments still apply as do the rules about sin and atonement. In fact the whole point of Hebrews is that the sacrifices of the OT were an anticipation of the one sacrifice of Christ from which they derived their power to atone for sin in the era before Christ. The Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New, not abolished.

 

What does the proverb in Mat. 9;17 mean?

 

If we examine the whole quote, it is obvious that Jesus is talking about the "new order" he is establishing among the Jews as the Messiah. He is saying that there must be a RENEWAL in Israel when old things will be made new. This was the message of repentance that both Jesus and St John the Baptizer preached. It has nothing to do with any alleged total discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity.

 

2) The Aaronic priesthood was abolished in Jesus. He is not of the order of Aaron, but of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:11-12). Jesus does not need to offer daily sacrifices (Heb. 7:27) because by one sacrifice he has perfected us.

 

This is Catholic teaching. No argument here.

 

Therefore, why does he use the Aaronic priesthood to justify the RC priesthood when the Bible says that it is done away with?

 

I don't understand this allegation. No one is using the Aaronic priesthood to "justify" the priestly nature of Christian ministry. There are parallels between the ministries in both testaments which are inherent in the fact that they have a common source in the OT. Even prot ministers bless their people, interpret the Bible for them and enforce discipline in their congregations. I have even heard some prots "justify" their church orders based largely on the OT models because they believed them to be based on the inspired word of God (which they are).Not all functions of the OT priesthood were abolished by Christ. I defy this man to show a single text where the NT says that ALL functions of the priests are unnecessary. All it says in Hebrews is that the sacrificial system used for the atonement of sin has been superceded. Pastoral ministry is handed over to the elders of the Church and they begin to fulfill the role usually played by the priests in Judaism.

 

What does he think of Heb. 10:14-18? Ask him if his sins are forgiven - if so, acc'd to Heb 10:18 he does not need any more sacrifices?

 

Again this is Catholic doctrine. There is no further sacrifice needed for sin other than the sacrifice of Christ. Nevertheless, one can fall away from a state of grace. If we continue on in the same chapter of Hebrews we find:

 

Again, this is Catholic doctrine. The issue seems to be that this prot doesn't understand the significance of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. It is not a NEW sacrifice, but the making present of the ONE sacrifice of Calvary in like fashion to the Jewish understanding of the "making present" of Passover. (See my comment on the Mass and the Passover). The actual sacrifice of Jesus did not occur on Calvary. That is where he died. The sacrifice was properly brought to completion when Jesus ascended into heaven into the presence of the Father to offer himself as a living sacrifice for sin. Many scholars have noted the significance of the Ascension as the equivalent of the whole-burnt offering (in Hebrew it is literally the "ascension" offering) from the OT. The sacrifice of Christ is announced by anticipation at the Last Supper which documents the ONLY place in the passion narratives where Jesus uses the priestly language in offering himself for sin. His subsequent suffering, death, Resurrection and Ascension are all necessary elements to complete the sacrificial offering which he started at the Last Supper. Now, Jesus is currently presenting his sacrifice to the Father in eternity and will continue to do so forever just as it shows in the book of Revelation. We are merely being called into the presence of this eternal offering. As St John said:

 

Note: St John doesn't say Jesus WAS the expiation but that he IS the expiation. Jesus' mediation is eternally NOW. When we participate in the Eucharist, we experience this. This particular way of viewing time was inherent in the Jewish traditions about Passover. It was no accident that the very sacrifice of Christ was begun at a Passover ritual and completed just before Pentecost (the feast celebrating the giving of the Commandments to Moses). It allowed the descent of a new spirit from God upon the new Israel. To focus too narrowly on Jesus' death on the cross misses the whole biblical teaching on the redemption and leads to silly unbiblical notions like the idea that Jesus' sacrifice was merely confected at his death at some time in the past.

 

In 1Pe. 2:5-9 Peter says that we are all a royal priesthood.

 

As we have noted earlier, the "priesthood of the believer" has always been part of Catholic doctrine and pre-Christian Judaism. St Peter quoted Exodus 19:6 in verse 9 above showing that this referred to ancient Israel and each Israelite was considered a priest to YHWH. Now ancient Israel also had a MINISTERIAL priesthood. Thus the priesthood of the believer is not incompatible with a distinctly MINISTERIAL priesthood among the elders of the Church. My opponent here is making a false dichotomy .

 

Does this mean that we are all to perform sacerdotal duties (i.e. can we all perform transubstantiation)?

 

No more than the OT "priesthood of the believer" authorized each Israelite to offer sacrifices to YHWH. According to the OT rules in Leviticus, only the Aaronic priests were permitted to do that and only under certain circumstances prescribed by God. The ONLY sacrifices that the believer is permitted to offer to God are those of his very life and actions. The believer is not authorized to celebrate the Eucharist. Only the Apostles and their designates among the elders can do that. This has been the constant tradition of the Church based upon Jesus' own command to the APOSTLES "do this in ritual memorial of me."

 

Where does he get that the Greek word for priest = elder?

 

I never said that "presbyteros" meant "priest" in Greek. The usual greek word for priest is "hiereus." But "presbyteros" IS the root word of the ENGLISH word "priest." Go look it up in the dictionary! How did that happen? Because Christian ministerial elders were ALWAYS considered to be priests. This understanding goes all the way back to the 1st Century in Christian literature and is present in all subsequent centuries. There never was a time when Christian elders were NOT considered to be priests until the protestant Deformation.

 

When the Holy Spirit enumerates the God-given gifts and functions to different believers in the Church (1Cor 12:28-30 and Eph. 4:11-13) he does not use any of the Greek words for priest. If the office of priest, as the RC defines it, with all it's exclusive powers was God-given, surely it would be mentioned here!

 

In the NT quotes he mentions, the 3 fold ministry of traditional Catholicism is clearly apparent. In particular, St Paul states:

 

Clearly, there are diverse ministries and not everyone is authorized to do everything. Notice that the ranks of 1st, 2nd and 3rd are distinguished. The levels of ministry called apostles, prophets, and teachers are used in the Didache which is a 1st Century Christian book. In the Didache, it clearly says that prophets and teachers are equivalent to elders and deacons. It also CLEARLY states that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. The ministry of Christian elders is not a sacrificing priesthood like that of the Jewish or pagan priests because Christian priests do not kill animals and/or offer their carcasses to God. On that basis they could NOT have been called priests in the technical usage of the word but only by analogy. The Christian priests were authorized to offer the Eucharist in Jesus' name by Jesus himself as a "ritual memorial" (greek: anamnesis). This is a proper sacrifice as St Paul shows in 1Cor 9-11. All of the powers of the Christian priest derive from the authority of Jesus who (like a good Rabbi) authorized only those whom he instructed to act in his name. I am afraid that this fellow is hung up on words and dictionary definitions. He just does not see the subtle development in terminology that occurred within the Christian Church once the Jewish Temple was destroyed. Prior to that, there were still sacrificing Jewish priests around and the use of the term "priest" in the Jewish Christian community would not have been appropriate. Once the Aaronic priesthood was destroyed, the Christians quickly adopted the term priest for their own ministers. (See the 1st Epistle of St Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, Chapter 40 written @95AD).Presbyter is still a proper term for a Catholic priest in English (look it up) and is in fact the proper term in some languages for Catholic priests. Whether the Christian minister is a priest who functions also as an elder or an elder who functions also as a priest is irrelevant and pedantic. The Eucharist was instituted by Jesus as the sacrificial offering of himself for sin. It is the ONLY thing that he asked to be done in a ritual memorial of him. It was therefore a sacrifice of communion which he wanted perpetuated. Consequently, he who offers it is functioning as a priest in the person of Christ authorized by Christ. Period.

 

Why doesn't Peter ever refer to himself as priest?

 

He does refer to himself as an "elder" or "presbyter" which we have shown is the same thing.

 

Nor Paul?

 

That is a lie. St Paul refers to himself as priest in Romans 15:15:

 

The term "minister" by which St Paul refers to himself in the above quote is "leiturgos" in greek which is itself another word for priest.

 

Nor any other NT person except for Jesus?

 

Another lie. There are lots of people who refer to themselves as "hiereus," but none of them do so in terms of Christian ministry. And Jesus NEVER REFERS TO HIMSELF AS A PRIEST ANYWHERE!!!! Jesus did not qualify for the Jewish priesthood since he was from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Levi. It is ONLY the author of Hebrews that refers to Jesus as high priest. If it were not for this one epistle, there would be no direct biblical warrant for calling Jesus a priest.

 

Why is he trying to play translator? The fact is that Paul says that the Lord's supper is a commemoration (1Cor. 11:23-26). That does not mean that it should be taken with indifference (1Cor. 11:20-22).

 

Huh? The term is NOT commemoration. It is "koinonia" which means "communion." Look it up in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. This is a very strong word which implies more than mere "remembering" or "commemoration." It means a substantial unity between us and the body and blood of Christ. The word that Jesus preferred to explain the Eucharist was "anamnesis." This Greek word is used in the Greek translation of the OT (Septuagint) to refer to the sacrificial memorials of the Temple. It is a technical sacrificial word being used by Our Lord and Savior to refer to his Eucharistic memorial. If you don't want to accept the sacrificial meaning of this word, argue with Jesus, not with us who follow him and HIS interpretation of HIS Eucharist.

 

The NT never says that some are priests but not others. It doesn't differentiate middle priests or any other priests.

 

But it does say that some are apostles, others prophets, others teachers, and that not everyone has the same function in the body. This guy should actually read 1Corinthians instead of merely proof-texting. He might see what St Paul was really trying to say.

 

Frank really believes that it is the real body and blood and are necessary for salvation then why doesn't he demand to partake of the wine (i.e. blood) which is only given to the priest?

 

We do have the opportunity to partake of the Precious Blood most of the time. He should not speak about things of which he has no knowledge.

 

First of all, we believe that partaking of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation BECAUSE JESUS SAID SO:

 

That settles that!

 

As to the bit about needing to partake of both cup and host, I would again refer our opponent to St Paul and ask him to read carefully what the Apostle says:

 

This seems to say that not everyone consumed both species at every Eucharist. In fact we know that the early Christian custom was to reserve some of the hosts to distribute to the sick and to those who were awaiting execution in prison. Since we believe that Jesus is fully present, body, blood, soul and divinity in either species of the Eucharist, the Catholic Church has always taught from the beginning that reception under one kind is sufficient to receive the full benefit of the sacrament.

 

If the bread and blood are real, then when Jesus partook in the Supper, was he partaking of his own body?

 

Again, you actually have to READ the Bible before you attempt to talk about it. In all of Last Supper references in the Gospels and St. Paul, it never states that Jesus partook of the Eucharist. It clearly says that he gave the blessing and distributed the elements to the Apostles. Only they received the Eucharist, not Jesus.

 

Also, when did Jesus give his "body"- at the Supper or on the Cross?

 

Why is it that when they want to be snotty, prots start talking like atheistic scoffers and unbelievers? Don't they see how that diminishes them and defames Jesus? If anyone spoke as flippantly as this about the resurrection, this fellow would be offended, but because it the Eucharist which apparently means little or nothing to him, he acts in a brazen and desultory fashion. He should be ashamed. I defy this man to show one place in any of the gospels where Jesus offers his body during the passion to anyone (God or Man) for any reason other than at the Last Supper. He offers his spirit (i.e. soul) to God Luke 23:46, but not his body. Meanwhile it is absolutely clear that Jesus did offer his body to God for the forgiveness of sins and to the apostles to be eaten at the Last Supper. As such I fail to see the point of such an impertinent question.

 

Weren't the bread and wine that Jesus broke the same that they were already eating and drinking (Mat. 26:21,26)?

 

No they weren't. Doesn't this guy know anything about the Passover? "When supper was ended he took the cup." This refers to the third of four cups of wine which had to be consumed at the Passover meal (seder). The third cup is called the Cup of Blessing or Kiddush Cup. This is what St Paul call the cup at the Eucharist in 1Cor 10:16. It is specially poured at the end of the meal proper and is considered to be the cup of salvation. After drinking this cup, no further food is to be consumed at the seder. Before drinking this cup, it was customary to have a last piece of unleavened bread to end the meal. This comes from a matzoh which is set aside at the beginning of the meal which is broken and pieces are distributed to all present. This is called the "dessert" or afikommen. Since none of the passover lamb is to be left over after the seder meal, it was likely to have been fully consumed at this point. In rabbinic teaching, the afikommen symbolizes the paschal lamb. It is rumored that among some Jews at the time of Jesus, a sandwich would be made of 2 pieces of matzoh and any lamb that might be left. (Any lamb left after that was burnt up.)So Jesus was following typical Jewish customs when he instituted the Eucharist. It was new bread and new wine that were consumed, not that which was already before them.

 

If so, did not Judas also partake of this bread (John 13:26-27)?

 

We have no way of really knowing since none of the Gospels tells us specifically. It is the opinion of many Catholic scholars that Judas did not stay to receive the Eucharist. Whatever the case, the "sop" that Jesus gave to Judas in John 13:26 was clearly not the Eucharistic speicies. Again I fail to see the significance of this question.

 

Finally, did not Jesus regard the wine as still wine (Mat. 26:29)? If he did not regard it as regular wine then does he mean that he will someday drink his own blood???

 

Matthew 26:29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

 

No, he didn't consider the sacred species to be wine. Jesus called it his blood and never refers to it as anything else thereafter. The above quote has NOTHING to do with the cup that the apostles had just consumed from his hand. Jesus is referring to the fourth cup, the cup of Elijah, which was the eschatological cup that was not to be drunk until Messiah comes. At the seder, a single cup is set out for this and everyone surreptitiously sips from it until it is gone under the pretense that Elijah has drunk it. Any scholar worth his salt knows that it is the consuming of the fourth cup that is glaringly absent from all of the biblical narratives of the Last Supper. It is not until Jesus consumes the sour wine on the cross that he finishes the passover liturgy by consuming the fourth cup in the new kingdom inaugurated by his death.

 

The Holy Scriptures were recognized as such long before the Council of Hippo canonized them in 393 AD.

 

I am afraid that this fellow knows nothing about the formation of the biblical canon. The Council of Hippo settled once and for all the limits of the canonical lists for both the NT and the OT for the Universal (ie Catholic) Church. Prior to the Council of Hippo, there were a variety of opinions about the contents of the inspired Scriptures at various times, in various places, by various people. The whole history of the process is so complex that I can't go into it here. I have previously given references that should be read for a proper understanding of the issues.

 

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church that existed at that time bore little resemblance to today's RC.

 

By the end of the 4th Century AD, the Catholic Church in all of its glory was substantially present with a sacrificing priesthood, transubstantiation, a universal Papal ministry, Episcopal apostolic succession, the sacraments, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, purgatory, and a host of other outward signs and doctrines which the Deformation rebels would later claim were medieval innovations. It is the protestant cults that were totally absent at that time. This is what John Henry Newman discovered when he was studying the early patristic material. He was shocked to find that the orthodox Christians in the 4th Century were Catholic while the only people who even looked like protestants were the heretics of that time. See his books "The Arians of the Fourth Century" and "On the Development of Christian Doctrine."

 

- The Council of Hippo did not confer any special authority on the books, but only listed them (i.e. they stated what was already common knowledge and was already being preached and accepted in the other Churches)

 

I agree that the authority of the books comes from their inspiration by the Holy Spirit and not from the Council. But the recognition of these books as representing the whole of God's written revelation to man was derived from this Council and the support its decisions received from the Magisterium (ie, the Pope). Contrary to my opponents pretensions, this mere "list" settled major disputes throughout the Church on the canonical status of various books and there was never any dispute on canonicity thereafter UNTIL the 16th Century prot deformers decided to chuck out some books in OT and NT which were not compatible with their heretical views. For some reason they let the NT books back in but have never acknowledged their error on the OT books they threw out.

 

- Athanasius of Alexandria (Note: a Greek, not a Roman) gives us the first list of books exactly as today's in 367 AD.

 

This was his private opinion. His list was NOT authoritative over the whole Church. Other extant lists both earlier and later had different contents.

 

- The "Edict of Diocletian" declared the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians in 303 AD (i.e. long before 393).

 

Big deal. There was no official closure of the canon until 393 AD, so the collections that Diocletian destroyed were not definitive. Their contents can only reflect the private opinions of the collectors. Besides we know from the Fathers that the "sacred books" included a lot of non-canonical material such as the Shepherd of Hermas. We also know that it included some of the Deuterocanonical material such a Sirach. Anyone who was familiar with this period would know this. We believe that most of Origen's works, Polycarp's "Sayings of the Fathers", and many other patristic documents were irretrievably lost. I am afraid that this proves nothing.

 

- Irenaeus in 180 AD gives us the following list which he used... Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Acts, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, I Peter, I john, Revelations.

 

Another private opinion. Notice that his list is not the same as that of Hippo. He is missing several books.

 

- The early Church Fathers quote abundantly from the OT and NT.

 

Yes, including the deuterocanonical books that the prots reject and other books that were edifying but eventually ruled not to be part of scripture. So what? If you actually look at this, it disproves the prot position. Besides, different Fathers had different canon lists. Ques. -Whose was correct? Ans.- The ones which agreed with Hippo!

 

- Peter affirms Paul's letters as being holy writ in 2Pe. 3:16 (notice that he puts them in the same category as the "other Scriptures").

 

Which epistles of St Paul was he referring to? Oh, you can't tell from the text, can you? Were you aware that there were disputes in the 2nd Century about which letters of St Paul's were authentic? Gee, I guess this quote proves NOTHING as far as the question of the Canon is concerned, does it?

 

- Paul refers to "all Scripture" (i.e. OT and whatever letters had been circulated).

 

It says "all scripture" but he NEVER gives the definition that you do. Here you are misrepresenting the word of God and I rebuke you for taking such liberties! No one knows to what St Paul was referring in 2 Tim 3:16 and so this is no help on the issue of the canon.

 

- Paul already differentiates between letters he had written and false ones (2Thess. 2:2).

 

What does this have to do with the Canon? To which letters was St Paul referring here? THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL!! There is no list of the Canonical books that comes to us in the NT. As such this whole line of argumentation is absurd and IRRELEVENT to the issues settled at Hippo.

 

- Melito, Bishop of Sardis, lists the books of the OT minus Apocrypha) in 170 AD.

 

Another private opinion. Check out his NT list. It is not the same as ours.

 

- Talmudic writings from the 1st century refer to the OT books in the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 70 AD.

 

That is incorrect. The rabbinic discussions at Jamnia were @90 AD. At those discussions they debated the canonicity of Ezekiel, Song of Songs, Ecclesiates, and Chronicles. They also debated the merits of including Sirach and Wisdom. Since these decisions were made 60 years after the Holy Spirit departed from the Jews and settled on the Church, such decisions have NO authority whatsoever for Christians. This is a case of an alleged Christian touting the authority of fervent anti-Christians against the teachings of the historic Catholic Church.

 

- Seder Olam Rabba writes in the Talmud that the prophets prophesied through the Holy Spirit until the time of Alexander. Then afterwards, departed (i.e. the Apocryphal books were written after this time).- The Babylonian Talmud states that "After the latter prophets Haggai, Zecheriah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel."

 

It is always sad when prots have to stoop this low in their attack on the historic Christian Church. Apparently my opponent is unaware that these arguments were not used by the Jews to undermine the character of the deuterocanonical material. In fact the Talmud itself is considered to be of EQUAL (if not superior) authority to the Jewish Bible and both Sirach and Wisdom were held in high esteem in the Talmud. Instead, these arguments were used to specifically deny that Jesus and St John the Baptizer were prophets and to deny any inspired status to the NT. If you accept these arguments of the Jews, then you have to deny Christ and the NT. Besides, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT or in the Jewish Bible to support such arguments. Jesus specifically said that the teaching authority from Moses was still present in Israel (Matthew 23:2) and affirmed that both he (Matthew 10:40-41) and St John the Baptizer (Matthew 11:7-9) were prophets in the OT sense. We also have the statement in John 11:51 about Caiphas that, "being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation." No Christian can claim that the prophetic spirit was silenced in Israel before the time of Christ without dire consequences. I submit that these prot arguments are extrabiblical and are not motivated by love of God's word but by the desire to use any club with which to beat the Catholics, even one that was specifically designed to deny Jesus Christ.

 

- Jesus and the Gospel writers quoted extensively from the OT but never from the Apocrypha.

 

Another lie that I have dealt with before. The so-called "Q" material borrows extensively from Tobit, Sirach, and Wisdom. St Paul also uses sections of Wisdom copied verbatim in the text of Romans. It is now glaringly apparent to everyone in the field of biblical studies that the NT is suffused with material from the wider Jewish literature of its day including the Deuterocanonical books, the Pseudepigrapha, and the Qumran material. Besides, there are several OT books that are NOT quoted in the NT. Does my opponent want to exclude them from our canon?

 

- The Bereans searched the Scriptures (OT) in Acts 17:1-3.

 

Good for them. I have been doing the same thing. Once again, though, what CANON were the Bereans using? It is never specified. With what we know about the diversity in the Judaisms of the 1st Centruy AD, we have NO idea what Canon they may have been using.

 

In short, we have substantial evidence that from the beginning, the early believers, and the Apostles themselves, recognized what was Holy Writ and what was not.

 

We have no doubt that there were books considered by some to be scripture but the limits of the Canon were never defined anywhere in the material my opponent has cited and in fact he admits that the lists may have differed both from other contemporary lists and from ours today. This proves the point that the Council of Hippo was definitive for settling disputes within the Church because thereafter all Christians spoke with one voice on this topic which they had not done before.

 

There is no doubt that as books, and letters were exchanged by Churches, the Christian populace understood what was Scripture and what wasn't.

 

This guy doesn't know what he is talking about. If he had actually read a book about the Canon of scripture he would see that this is a pious fabrication that is not supported by the historical data. There was terrible confusion concerning what was and wasn't Canonical well into the 4th Century. This sentence reflects typical prot wishful thinking on the matter and has no basis in fact.

 

Any oral tradition passed down had to conform to what was written already. Nowhere is there a hint that we can come up iwith tradition some time after the Apostles (e.g. Maryan veneration, Immaculate Conception, Mary's Assumption,...etc.) that has not already been stated by Jesus or the Apostles.

 

This is rubbish. The traditions that paralleled the Scriptures supported all of these things from the very beginning and a perusal of the Patristic texts shows the biblical foundation for all of these doctrines as understood in the early Church. There was never any question of testing Sacred Tradition by Sacred Scripture. The two were transmitted from a common source and continued through history side by side supporting each other. Remember that it is our TRADITION that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and worthy of study. If it were not for the Catholic Traditions about the Bible, the prots would never have been able to invent their concept of sola scriptura. Unfortuneately, most prots are not honest enough to admit that.

 

The Church is given the task of explaining the Scriptures, not writing them nor coming up with new doctrines.

 

The Church didn't write the NT scriptures? St Paul was not a member of the Church? St Matthew? St John? St PETER?

 

And concerning the development of "new doctrines," let me quote a highly placed source:

 

This sure sounds like the right to interpret the old doctrines and expound on the new doctrines which were implied in the old but only derived later on.

 

Jude 3 says that the "faith was once and for all given to the Saints". There is an implicit warning about new doctrines or new traditions. The problem is not tradition. The problem is tradition that has not already been given and does not conform (Col 2:8, Gal 1:9).

 

I agree. False "traditions" have arisen among protestants like: sola scriptura, justification by faith alone without good works, merely symbolic eucharists, denials of the historic organization of the Church, and apostasy from the Holy Spirit. These are contrary to Scripture and Tradition and those who supported them in the 16th Century were rightfully condemned. There is no doubt that the protestant apostasy was "another gospel" other than the one we received from the apostles.

 

As for "How the Bible came to be"? I point you to Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a Verdict".

 

This book contains warmed over third-hand arguments. It is not a scholarly text but a basic do-it-yourself apologetics manual for evangelicals in a skeptical college environment. I do not recommend this text for an in depth study of these issues. Its arguments are trite and superficial and do not do justice to the historic complexities. I have already provided numerous accessible references on this topic which are quite superior to this.