Trustworthiness of the Bible Canon?

[Byblos]

The canon was compiled and "closed" by what WOULD BECOME the RCC. There was no RCC as we know it TODAY or even 1000 years ago.

Then it's on you to show that it wasn't because the RCC maintains that it was and has the historical credentials to prove it.

I must confess that I prefer the RCC Canon to the protestant one, I like the books of the "Apocrypha".
I also like reading the "Apostolic fathers" too.

Me too.

[PaulSacramento]

The canon was compiled and "closed" by what WOULD BECOME the RCC. There was no RCC as we know it TODAY or even 1000 years ago.

Then it's on you to show that it wasn't because the RCC maintains that it was and has the historical credentials to prove it.

I don't understand what you mean here...

[Byblos]

The canon was compiled and "closed" by what WOULD BECOME the RCC. There was no RCC as we know it TODAY or even 1000 years ago.

Then it's on you to show that it wasn't because the RCC maintains that it was and has the historical credentials to prove it.

I don't understand what you mean here...

What I mean is that the RCC has apostolic succession from the time of Christ. It maintains that it is the same church then as it is today and by virtue of having this apostolic succession, it has the historical credentials to prove it is the same church then as it is today. If you disagree, it's on you to show why.

[RickD]

Byblos, for us uninformed, could you demonstrate the beginning of apostolic succession? For example, where did Peter, or any apostle, designate bishops as the apostle's successors?

Thanks

[PaulSacramento]

The canon was compiled and "closed" by what WOULD BECOME the RCC. There was no RCC as we know it TODAY or even 1000 years ago.

Then it's on you to show that it wasn't because the RCC maintains that it was and has the historical credentials to prove it.

I don't understand what you mean here...

What I mean is that the RCC has apostolic succession from the time of Christ. It maintains that it is the same church then as it is today and by virtue of having this apostolic succession, it has the historical credentials to prove it is the same church then as it is today. If you disagree, it's on you to show why.

AH, I understand what you mean now.
Question, when did the "riff" between the East and West Catholic church happen? ( and by catholic I mean the universal christian church).

[Byblos]

Byblos, for us uninformed, could you demonstrate the beginning of apostolic succession? For example, where did Peter, or any apostle, designate bishops as the apostle's successors?

Thanks

Peter is the rock.

Peter and keys of authority.

Peter as the first Pope.

Papal Succession

More on Apostolic Succession.

List of Popes from Peter to today.

[PaulSacramento]

Byblos, for us uninformed, could you demonstrate the beginning of apostolic succession? For example, where did Peter, or any apostle, designate bishops as the apostle's successors?

Thanks

Peter is the rock.

Peter and keys of authority.

Peter as the first Pope.

Papal Succession

More on Apostolic Succession.

List of Popes from Peter to today.

And the Orthodox church?

[Byblos]

And the Orthodox church?

What about it?

[PaulSacramento]

And the Orthodox church?

What about it?

Do they not have claim to apostolic secession? and where they not part of the canonization process?

[Byblos]

And the Orthodox church?

What about it?

Do they not have claim to apostolic secession? and where they not part of the canonization process?

It was the same body and now the orthodox Church is in a state of schism. Deep down there isn't even a matter of doctrinal dispute, there's really no reason for the schism other than human stubbornness. But this does not invalidate apostolic succession in any way.

[PaulSacramento]

And the Orthodox church?

What about it?

Do they not have claim to apostolic secession? and where they not part of the canonization process?

It was the same body and now the orthodox Church is in a state of schism. Deep down there isn't even a matter of doctrinal dispute, there's really no reason for the schism other than human stubbornness. But this does not invalidate apostolic succession in any way.

You are correct, but the catholic church that agreed on the canon was NOT the RCC of today and that is my point.
Sure the RCC of today has direct claim on the preservation of the canon, but so does the Orthodox church.

[Byblos]

You are correct, but the catholic church that agreed on the canon was NOT the RCC of today and that is my point. Sure the RCC of today has direct claim on the preservation of the canon, but so does the Orthodox church.

You are making the claim that the RCC of today is not the same organization that gave us the canon, a claim against historical proof, might I add. Now all you have to do is back up your claim.

[PaulSacramento]

You are correct, but the catholic church that agreed on the canon was NOT the RCC of today and that is my point. Sure the RCC of today has direct claim on the preservation of the canon, but so does the Orthodox church.

You are making the claim that the RCC of today is not the same organization that gave us the canon, a claim against historical proof, might I add. Now all you have to do is back up your claim.

Well, the RCC of today does not include the Orthodox church, was that the case when canon was established?
The RCC has numerous creeds, were they ALL there when the canon was established?
Was the doctrine of papal infalbility around when the canon was established?
And so forth.

The RCC of today has an unbroken tie to the past yes, but that doesn't make the RCC of today the same as the catholic church of the 4th century.

[Byblos]

You are correct, but the catholic church that agreed on the canon was NOT the RCC of today and that is my point. Sure the RCC of today has direct claim on the preservation of the canon, but so does the Orthodox church.

You are making the claim that the RCC of today is not the same organization that gave us the canon, a claim against historical proof, might I add. Now all you have to do is back up your claim.

Well, the RCC of today does not include the Orthodox church, was that the case when canon was established?

As I said, the schism does not invalidate apostolic succession. At most you can argue there are now 2 bodies that claim succession. That one is the true one and the other isn't is a matter of debate (which can be shown).

The RCC has numerous creeds, were they ALL there when the canon was established?

More assertions. And what do creeds have to do with the claim of continuity?

Was the doctrine of papal infalbility around when the canon was established? And so forth.

And again, what does infallibility have to do with succession? But if you think the body that infallibly gave us the Word of God is not infallible and merely relied on human reason to do so then why aren't you an Arian?

The RCC of today has an unbroken tie to the past yes, but that doesn't make the RCC of today the same as the catholic church of the 4th century.

You may or may not be right. What is clear, however, is that you haven't shown it.

[PaulSacramento]

Bylbos,
No one is arguing the history of succession of the RCC, I am just stating that history doesn't change that the RCC of today is NOT the same as the catholic church of the 4th century and a prime example is that the RCC of today has doctrines that were not in place in the 4th century ( Papal infallibility being a prime example).
To same that the RCC of today is the same as the catholic church of the 4th century simply because they can trace their lineage back to them, doesn't seem to make any sense to me, sorry.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say.