catholicdebateforum at Yahoo! Groups

Re: In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice SS in writing

CoffeeCup — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:29:58 GMT

... Enoch 'Scripture.' He quoted it, and even called Enoch a prophet. But this does not constitute labelling it Scripture.Â Enoch is not a deuterocanonical

Re: In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice SS in writing

adriancombe — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:57:01 GMT

... No, the point of the OP is that citation doesn't have any bearing on canonicity.

Re: In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice SS in writing

adriancombe — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:50:10 GMT

... The primary false claim is that canonicity is based on citation. The secondary false claim is that they only cited the Jewish canon. However, I did not

Re: In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice SS in writing

Aljldf Ajljfd — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:29:56 GMT

i guess i don't mind repeating myself if you don't. ... Most New testament quotes from the Old testament do not explicitly cite the passage

Re: In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice SS in writing

CoffeeCup — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:28:08 GMT

... No. ... Enoch 'Scripture.' He quoted it, and even called Enoch a prophet. But this does not constitute labelling it Scripture.Â Enoch is not a

Re: In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice SS in writing

Aljldf Ajljfd — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:57:56 GMT

Mr Westman wrote: [what deuterocanonical did they cite?] The non-canonical book of Enoch 1:9 * A noncanonical is a deuterocanonical? In any case, Jude did

Re: Scriptural evidence of the Primacy of Peter

Aljldf Ajljfd — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:35:49 GMT

Let's try to respond to a little more: Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation stones and

Re: In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice SS in writing

CoffeeCup — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:53:34 GMT

... authors cited only the Jewish Canon, none of the deuterocanonicals. ... The non-canonical book of Enoch 1:9: "And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of

Re: Scriptural evidence of the Primacy of Peter

Aljldf Ajljfd — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:05:34 GMT

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. * Peter was prominent. And 'prime' for quite a

Re: In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice SS in writing

Aljldf Ajljfd — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:56:27 GMT

have claimed the OT canon is based on citation. In other words, the NT authors cited only the Jewish Canon, none of the deuterocanonicals. * If that claim's

Greek books

Kathryn E. Stuart — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:09:55 GMT

Am cleaning out things I don't use any more and have some of the books that I used to study Greek (for beginners). Also have a Greek Interlinear Bible and

Primacy of Peter attested to by Early Church Fathers

Kathryn E. Stuart — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:55:53 GMT

II. Primacy of Peter?s Apostolic See "The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the

Scriptural evidence of the Primacy of Peter

Kathryn E. Stuart — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:51:09 GMT

Scripture Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke

In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice SS in writing the

adriancombe — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:16:22 GMT

Hello all. After long silence I have decided to hit the ground running as it were. Many non-Catholic Christian interlocutors, particularly in discussions of

Re: Happy Thanksgiving!

jandrayer@... — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:50:27 GMT

Thank you, Matilda. Blessings. ________________________________ From: Matilda Kallas To: