Question about history of Eucharist views

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "You are willing to accept any deception that comes along, calling them miracles. Seeing shadows on walls, or natural conditions in the knots of trees, etc. and flocking to them to "see the miracle"."

You are essentially constructing a straw man. I, as a Catholic, do not accept just any claim to a miracle. In fact, the Magisterium is quite skeptic with regard to miracles, and the authorities of the Church employ detailed and drawn-out investigations that may even take years to find a conclusion before a miracle is deemed authentic.

Please stop misrepresenting the Catholic Church in this regard.

Thanks.

 

Then teach your followers! They seem to be easily duped!

 

Interestingly, in Mosaic law, the instruction was to NOT drink the blood of the sacrifice, and now you expect God to change things and tell us to drink His blood? You know, it is the same God that told us, "I am God and I change not". You folks have a delemma on your hands! </font>[/QUOTE]Good point. Let's get rid of all the other changes that Christ made as well and go back to Judaism. Dilemma solved!

 

Yelsew,

Are you Catholic? You say that you are not affiliated to any religion. I think you misunderstood my post, but I'll explain that when I have more time. For now I'll ask you this:

By what authority do you make the statements you make about your interpertation of the Bible?

 

Yelseew replied, where I last said:

What delemma, Yelsew?

Exactly, that the old Mosaic laws are now "fulfilled" if you will. But Yelsew, I think Christ did this on purpose to "shake them up," and had they stayed with Him, it would have all be resolved when they have discivered that Jesus was not speaking of His natural body and blood, but His body and blood, real body and blood but under the appearance of the accidents of bread and wine, no longer bread and wine but now His body and blood!

How could Christ do such a thing? Don't ask me, He's GOD!

So in reality, the old laws of Leviticus are not violated at all, albeit they are now no longer valid, being "fulfilled" as it were....

Yelsew, as I already speculated, Jesus used those old laws to create the tension He wanted to test their faith, where even some of His own disciples left him.

I call John 6 that place in scripture where Jesus "separated the men from the boys."

Yelsew, we Catholics call this.......A MIRACLE!

First of all, I must tell you something here: This miracle is not so declared by the Church, did you know that? In other words, the Church has not declared it one way or the other. In fact, in all reported miracles that doesn't envolve a miraclous healing, I know of none that has been declared as "authentic." The very most the Church will do is declare that there is nothing that bars anyone from believing it. BUT at the same time, it does not make it a requirement that Catholics do so. Such miracles are not part of the "required package" of dogmatically declared doctrines that, to be a Catholic in good standing, one must believe. And example of a required belief to be a Catholic - The belief in the Trinity. The miracle of Lanciano, Italy in NOT a required belief.

Now, having said that, most Catholics believe this is an authentic miracle because of the years of documentation, both scientific and medical. I happen to be one of them, Yelsew.

Do you believe in the Trinity, Yelsew? If so, you just declared a dogma of the Church you believe in!

And that is exactly what the Church looks for, Yelsew. In fact, the Catholic Church has had to place sanctions on reported apparitions when they were shown to be either fraudulent, of natural causes, or otherwise dilusional. The Catholic Church goes down kicking and screaming in giving any kind of acceptance; the most they would ever say, for example, of the apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima is "Worthy of belief." Noting more, and nothing less.

Yelsew, document for me please, these "ruses" you claim, and then go back and explain what it is that the early fathers said about the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist that approches the end of the apostolic era!

Yelsew, I will declare before you now and to all of the participants in this conference:

I am an uneducated Lay Catholic!

I have no formal schooling in bible scholarship, theology, exegesis or any of that stuff, and that certainly makes me an "expert" at nothing at all!

I do read, study people who are much smarter then I, scripture, and agonized over doctrines and churches for years, and of course, much prayers. In other words, I stand on the shoulders of those great Catholic apologists the run interference me, the Magisterium of the Church, her wonderful catechism, and her teachings as documented by the early church fathers. A better backup I could not ask for!

Therefore, being the "dummy" that I am, I should be a complete push-over in refuting all of the things I have posted here, right Yelsew?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

Aw shucks, Carson, ya mean the image of the Blessed Virgin on a tortilla I saw in the store the other day won't qualify?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

Mark 14:23-25 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

The Lord himself, after he referred to the wine as his blood of the new testament, in the very next verse, clearly refers to the same as the fruit of the vine. If in fact, the Lord himself had changed the wine and bread into his literal body and blood, why would he then refer to the wine as the fruit of the vine, when it was actually his literal blood? Obviously, Christ's reference to the wine being his blood, was symbolic, thus the clear reference to the fruit of the vine in the very next verse.

John 6:53-58 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Again, Jesus himself explains what the symbolism regarding the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood means in verses 56 & 57 above. As Christ lived by his Father, so to, will Christ's followers live by him. Did the Lord Jesus continually eat and drink the flesh and blood of God the Father while here on earth? Of course not. Neither does the new covenant believer eat and drink the literal flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 11:24-27 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

As verse 26 points out, the Lord's supper is performed as a reminder of that which is our salvation, that is the Lord Jesus Christ's death on our behalf. It is not the sacrifice of the Lord again, through the literal ingestion of the literal flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus.

Rom 12:1-5 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

The sacrifice of the new covenant is a spiritual sacrifice. It is the sacrifice of self to God in and through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. These things are spiritual, not literal. That which is spiritual, is that which is truth, and everlasting. That which is literal, is that which is passing away. The church of Rome, reverting back to the old covenant, is taking away that which is spiritual, and eternal, and replacing it with that which is literal, and doomed to pass away. Establishing once again, a literal priesthood, made up of mere men who can never save those who come to them. The Lord Jesus Christ himself, is the high Priest of every true believer. Every sinner has access to the throne of God the Father through his Son Jesus Christ. This is a truth hidden from those who would accept the priesthood of the church of Rome. This is a truth that was hidden by the church of Rome for many centuries, until the Protestant reformation began it's undoing.


Heb 9:24-28 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Christ is the high priest of every believer. He ever liveth to intercede for them. All have access to he throne of God through Jesus Christ. These spiritual truths have been established through the Son of God. They have done away with the old covenant need for a human intercessor between man and God. The establishment of transubstantiation, and the need of a priesthood to perform it, has reestablished an old covenant system, and is usurping the authority of God, through the ministry of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is nothing more than the attempt of the church of Rome to establish itself in a position of authority over humanity.

Heb 10: 9-14 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Heb 2:16-18 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 3:1 1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Heb 4:14-16 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.


Heb 7:26-28 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Heb 8:1-2 1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

Here we go with the "authority" question again.

As a believer in Jesus Christ and a disciple maker in accordance with the Command of Jesus Christ, I am a priest in the Church of Jesus Christ, the CHRIST-IAN Church established and built upon the ROCK of who and what Jesus is. Therefore, I have every authority to interpret the Word of God that any priest is given. No, I do not translate from the original language, that has already been done, apparently to God's satisfaction because He has blessed the Work.

I am in the "Bride of Christ", and I work within the "Body of Christ" without making a "pledge of Allegiance" to any denomination or any congregation. I tithe to the church where ever I happen to be when it is time to tithe. And I am free to worship with whomever, and wherever I choose. I am not constrained by a "legal system" employed by any denomination or congregation. And I can address any topic without fear of retribution from any higher authority save for the Divine Father, Son and Holy Spirit! I take my ques from Jesus, the object of my faith. I listen to the Holy Spirit, and I am often surprised by the wisdom and insight that He provides, but more important I pray to and Talk to God the Father without an intermediary. Imagine that! Talking with the Top Guy, letting him know that I would not have it any other way...even if I could. Thanking Him continuously for the bounty of his Grace, Mercy, Love and Justice that He alone has shown toward me, a lowly sinner saved!

That is my position relative to authority. You, as a human, do not have a higher or more appropriate position of authority, so don't come back telling me what a sinner I am for not bowing to the church, I am every bit as much a part of the church as any of you. I know that gauls some of you, but there is nothing you can do to change me. All you can do is change you!

For the Administrators of this BBS, I am every bit as "Baptist" as any of you. For Non Baptist posters, I am every bit as catholic, reformer, protestant, etc. as any of you. But none of that matters, I AM CHRISTIAN, and That is ALL that matters!

 

I was not aware that Luther talked to himself. Why do you conclude he was a heretic? According to his confession, "Nothing has been received on our part that is against Scripture or the Church Catholic."

Is it because he believed that the Body and Blood of Christ is present according to His Word rather than the Pope's command? Is it because he confessed the Catholic faith of Athanasian Creed that so many of your Roman Cardinals now deny? Or, is it because he would be saved by Christ alone rather than by the word of someone who exalts himself above all that is called God?

[ June 27, 2003, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

No reason to get your knickers all in a knot, it was just a question. Thank you for answering it though.

When I attended a local university here in Michigan we regularly had a "preacher" on our campus standing of to the side preaching as students passed by. He would often go into fits of rage screaming "slut" "whoremonger" and other generally nasty things at female students. Those of us who got close enough to talk to him learned that he believed at the current time only him and his wife were going to go to heaven and everybody else was doomed to hell. He believed that he had the authority given by God to say and believe the things he did.

However, God has a different message for him, that we can only pray that he will pick up on:


2 Peter 1:19-21 (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

Hi John,

You asked, "Is it because he confessed the Catholic faith of Athanasian Creed that so many of your Roman Cardinals now deny?"

Would you mind naming these "Roman Cardinals"?

 

Brother Adam,
Sorry for the tone, but from the time I started participating on the Baptist Board, I have been asked that same question at least a dozen times by theology majors of one or another seminary. People who were indoctrinated into a particular belief system whether or not they acknowledge it.

You posted a scripture and it is good. But there are other scriptures that tell us to search out the scriptures like the Bereaens, and to come together and reason one with another. Paul told Timothy to "Study to show thyself approved..." and others.

We have a God that made man, and not the other way around. God knows how he made us and the faculties that he enabled within us. He is no respecter of man, treating all men the same, providing equal justice, equal grace, equal love, equal mercy for each and all, thus giving equal opportunity to each and ALL as well.

God gave gifts to man that enable some men to do some extraordinarily great works, while the gifts given to others result in mundane works, and still others are enabled to do only the simplest of works. That is why Works are not a measure used by God for man's salvation, lest any man should boast.

From those whom he gave much, much is expected. But he expects each of us to bring to him the full measure that what he gave us should produce. If he gave us a flour sack, he expects the sack to be full when we return it to him. If he gave us a dump-truck, he expects it to be full upon it's return to him. He gives out rewards for the fullness of our work, and nothing less. If we come back with only the empty flour sack, he takes that away and gives it to the one with the dump-truck.

Now, sins enacted are works too! But, they are works harmful to man, and they are "prohibited" for man, and are thus called sin which demands a wage be paid, and that wage is death, a death that the sinner must pay. God made Laws to show man what sin is and to restrain man from sinning, but we choose to continue to sin, so God gave us His son, the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world to pay the penalty (death) for our sins so that we could have eternal life. Otherwise our natural death, the first death, would be the final thing in man's existance, for it is appointed unto man "once to die, then the Judgment".

The result of God's judgment are these:
Eternal life for those with faith in God, especially in Jesus, even on his name.
OR,
The second death, which is being cast into the lake of fire, for those who lack such faith in God, especially in Jesus, even on his name.

From what I read in the scriptures, there will be many more cast into the lake of fire than there are that receive eternal life.

Being a practical man, I do not want to risk my eternity on the decisions or interpretations of essential elements of information (EEOI) made by other men, knowing them to be as fallible as I. Therefore, I consciously chose to follow the source of Life, Jesus, taking only guidance in understanding from the others. My course is set by Jesus, with course corrections being given me by the Holy Spirit, and with "minor enfluence" from other men. I am not a follower of man. I am not a Calvinist, nor am I an Arminian, nor am I a Papal follower, I do not follow Peter, Paul, John, Matthew, etc. I follow Jesus, the true shepherd. His sheepfold is wherever He, or his Holy Spirit is.

The True Church is not a single faction or denomination that has a name or a form of Government. It is instead, the collective of believers in Jesus Christ, thus the name Christian. That is why I am "non-aligned", and "not-affiliated" with any faction or denomination or congregation that has a form of Government. I do not believe any one of them, or any collective of them, is the True Church. I believe that after Jesus returns for His bride, that many who are "Members in Good standing" of one of those factions or denominations will be found standing in the buildings they call churches, instead of seated at the Bridegroom's supper enjoying their Bride Groom. It is those left behind that will be out of oil for their lamps, that have dirt stains on their garments, that followed the wrong shepherd.

 

I'll assume from your post that you believe the scriptures, as we're written by inspired men, canonized by councils of men, and are translated by man, to be infallible. (I do too)

Did Christ appoint a head to his church? Or just what was he telling Peter when he said "Upon this rock I will build my church"? In your opinion that is.

How do you know which of the texts belong in the Bible? For instance, the Catholic stance is that there are 7 more books than the protestant stance. Who is right? Why?

Thanks for your help. I'm always interested in hearing what others have to say.

 

First all-

The catholic reformers that eventually started the reformation did not "make up their own Bibles". The 66 that we have today - are the same 66 of the NT church. The RCC has chosen to INCLUDE some others after the reformation - but basically we all use the same 66.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Catholic church "admits" that IF the non-Catholic view of the Lord's Table is correct - then Catholicism is practicing idolatry for they are truly worshipping what is nothing more than a piece of bread - if the non-Catholic view is correct.

I find that confession - to be telling.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

From what I understand they made a statement after the reformation due to the confusion set out in the reformation about the scriptures. From what I have read the Church has always used them as canonical and did not reopen the canon.

I'm sure Carson knows more, or when I get home I'll yack on specifics.

 

The scriptures are fallable allright! Every force that has gone up against them has fallen!

I believe the ROCK upon which Jesus Built his church is the Solid Rock Truth of WHO and WHAT Jesus is. He is the Son of God, The Messiah! For what other reason, or upon what other ROCK can a church be built? Peter simply voiced the truth that 11 of the original 12 Apostles had come to realise. And the Apostles were commissioned to Go into the world and make disciples, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A daunting task at the very least, which resulted in a collective called a Church that grew into universal religion named Christianity.

For a couple thousand years the writings relating to Jesus and Christianity have been preserved, we call that the bible. Having read the additional books the Roman church includes, I find them worthy of being read. Whether or not to include them as part of the Holy Bible, I make no declaration other than that there may be other writings that are just as worthy of being included. Did any of those books strengthen my faith? Probably not, but they did not weaken it either. They were additional information related to same topic. Is the bible effective without them? Absolutely! Is the Gospel message enhanced by them? NO! Are they needed? Some find them necessary, because at least one Catholic Doctrine is based upon at least one of them. However, I find the 66 completely sufficient unto salvific faith.

 

Hi Bob,

You wrote, "The 66 that we have today - are the same 66 of the NT church."

Recreating history, are you?

The canon of the New Testament was not formally defined until the end of the fourth century by a particular council in Rome under Pope Damasus I (382) and particular councils in Northern Africa (Hippo in 393; Carthage in 397; Carthage in 419 under Augustine and Pope Boniface I). Before this time, the Church universal held to numerous different canons esp. with regard to the various epistles (this is a sample list, by no means exhaustive):

2 Peter
James
Jude
Revelation
2 John
3 John
Shepherd of Hermas
the Epistle of Barnabas
the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache)
Apostolic Constitutions
Gospel According to the Hebrews
Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans
the Epistle of Clement
III Corinthians
Apocalypse of St Peter
Acts of St Paul

With regard to the OT canon, the list announced at Hippo in 393 (Canon #29) is as follows:

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under the title of divine writings. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon [i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus], the twelve books of the Prophets [i.e., Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah [including Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church [i.e., the Roman church] shall be consulted.” (note the reference to the Church in Rome)

The Protestant International Bible Commentary says:

"Even if one holds that Jesus put His imprimatur upon only the 39 books of the Hebrew OT, as is implied above, he must admit that this fact escaped the notice of many of the early followers of Jesus, or that they rejected it, for they accepted as equally authoritative those extra books in the wider canon of the LXX (1) . . . Polycarp [one of John's disciples], Barnabas, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen--Greek and Latin Fathers alike--quote both classes of books, those of the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha, without distinction. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his City of God (18.42-43) argued for equal and identical divine inspiration for both the Jewish canon and the Christian canon." (2)

(1) The LXX, or Septuagint, was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. This is the version the ancient Christians, including the authors of the New Testament, mainly used. In fact, most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament come from the LXX, not from the Hebrew version.

(2) Gerald F. Hawthorne, "Canon and Apocrypha of the Old Testament,” International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 37, 35

Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelley writes in Early Christian Doctrine, (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), p. 53-54:

"[The Old Testament] always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. . . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas . . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary."

Marvin Tate, Old Testament professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote the following in his article, “Old Testament Apocalyptica and the Old Testament Canon,” in Review and Expositor 65, 1968, p. 353:

“It seems clear that the Protestant position must be judged a failure on historical grounds, insofar as it sought to return to the canon of Jesus and the Apostles. The Apocrypha belongs to this historical heritage of the Church.”

 

[ June 28, 2003, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: AdoptedDaughter ]

 

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "I believe the ROCK upon which Jesus Built his church is the Solid Rock Truth of WHO and WHAT Jesus is."

Just for your info, David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote:

"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely" (The Gospel of Matthew {Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972}, 261).