At least 10 lostt books of Hebrew scripture and at least 3 lost Pauline epistles are mentioned in the Bible

you would not understand them anyway, same as you dont understand bible

>Taking the Lord's name in vain

like Tolstoy stated would God communicate to men in a manner in which not every single one of them could understand Him without 3rd party interpretation? pumping out parable after parable with some of them contradicting others has led to infinite interpretation and infinite dispute. unless God s goal was to leave the world dumbfounded, confused, lost &in constant quarrel which is entirely possible then none of the Abrahamic faiths should be taken seriously.

Matthew 13:10-17
Isaiah 55:9

Yeah because people definitely learn how to fish by giving them fish rather than teaching them how to fish.

If anything, this is proof Tolstoy was a fucking hack.

>hurr durr gonna start my own religion and leave my wife and OH NO I'm fuckin dead!
Idiot.

>Those are historical poems and records.
So are all the historical and poetic books in the Bible.

>actual prophecy cited in scripture is lost
>th-that doesn't count though, I blame the jews

>actual letters of Paul cited in his surviving letters are lost
>minority views say fragments of them might have survived in the other letters
>therefore they totally survived!

You think there's stuff missing from the canon? You know you can't just make stuff up and claim it's what Catholics believe right? Church tradition doesn't preserve what was in those lost books, you're talking about a different issue. There are revelations from God which informed the scripture we have, that are lost forever.

Seems like quite an oversight on the part of the big cheese in the sky

>Implying God overlooks anything

>I didn't like it
>no you just ddn't understand it

Religious text or meme fiction, there needs to be a moratorium on this argument.

well the god of Abraham certainly does

The god of Abraham is omniscient.

>Praising His church with His name is vanity
Wew lad

Scripture mentioning a text or even affirming its truth does not make that text scripture. An example which should make this clear:
>Titus 1:12-13a "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true."
Is this writing about Cretans scripture? No.
Please present a magisterial document which states this.

Only you and God know if that was your intention. I hope it was. I also hope you're not too proud to acknowledge your sins.

"God" used as an interjection is vanity, yes.

why are christcucks so obsessed with policing one another?

Secular people aren't?

>t. lapsed catholic

God isn't even His name genius.
Lol father Guido sarducci over here holier than thouing strangers across the internet

>Following a religion as if its a football team
Yikes.
Cringe. This is some neckbeard-tier nonsense

>God isn't even His name genius.
Taking God's name in vain is the invocation of God for a purpose that is not worshipful.

Lol i guess calling Catholicism based isn't worshipful.

And anyways God isn't His name. God is what he is. He is a god, the God, but His name is YHWH. Or anglicized as Jehovah or Yahweh. In the Latin tradition of the church they never even use the word God. Don't know why all y'all pseud Christians gotta get your panties in a bunch playing gotcha online.

If you're Catholic this doesn't matter, because the Church put the Bible together and is the definitive authority for the practice of the faith. I don't know what the Sola Scriptura churches would say about this sort of thing, though.

Sorry to be he one to tell you this, but hellfire, trinity, rosary, infant baptism, calling people “father” and going to heaven when you die isn’t biblical teaching.

Your religion is the Disney of religions.

This is true.

Using "God" as an interjection is expressing something about yourself, so it is not worshipful.
I already told you what taking God's name in vain means. It doesn't require literally using a name of God, which is besides the point entirely.
>In the Latin tradition of the church they never even use the word God
The Latin equivalent would be "deus", so yes they did.

I asked earlier in the thread but I would be interested to see a Catholic present a magisterial document which states that the biblical canon is incomplete or open, as I suspect that is not the Catholic teaching on this subject at all.

>Catechism of the Catholic Church
>IV. The Canon of Scripture
>120. It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.
>This COMPLETE LIST is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New. [list of books follows; emphasis mine]

Full citation is pt. 1, sec. 1, ch 2, art. 3, IV.120

You won't Russel my Jimmies. There is a plethora of information that proves you wrong that is easily accessible online. I've lost my taste for debating this on Veeky Forums though. Usually when someone comes in with that much vitriol they have no interest in taking an open look at the beliefs of the church.
But what I expressed about myself is gratitude that the religion he gave me is good, or "based". Deus is not the same word as God. Which is my point they're both nouns referring to the same being but from different languages. This shows that they are not his name because if they were it would be the same word or a slightly different phonetic version of it across all languages. Like King Thomas and Rex Tomas. Thomas/Tomas is the name and King/Rex is two different words from two different languages expressing the same station. We capitalize God out of respect, same as Him or He, but God, Him, and He are not His names and He doesn't even have a gender these are just linguistics to make Him more relatable to common lay people.

>But what I expressed about myself is gratitude...
You're not understanding the point I was making. I don't care to argue about it further.
>Deus is not the same word as God...
None of that is relevant to the issue. The commandment is not restricted to the literal "name" YHWH. It includes anything used as a symbol of divinity.
>to make Him more relatable to common lay people.
As a common lay person you should listen to your own Church and stop calling your Church "based" when people claim that it teaches heresy; cf.

It most certainly is not. In fact, the canon was pointedly declared closed at the Council of Trent.

That's fine, but the church could always call another council if they wished (they won't). It's have to be like a really big deal and whatever, but it's not like they CANNOT do it. You see what I'm saying? The Catholic Church can evolve, it's what many Protestants don't like about it. It's what I like about it.

>1.1.2.3.II.105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
>"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
>1.1.2.3.II.106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
>1.1.2.3.IV.120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.
>This complete list is called the canon of Scripture.
The Church cannot change the canon, as the canon is the *complete* list of books inspired by the Holy Spirit, authored by God, and handed on as such by the Church.

4 and 5 might refer to Chronicles, and 8 may not refer to an actual book, as Kings contains the prophecy of Ahijah.

I'm What issue am I talking about and what are you talking about? I am confused. Look at John 20:30
>Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
That's incompleteness in that sense.

Geez guys, my first post was misleading garbage... I mean incompleteness in the sense that we would have to go to the Church for issues because it is not found in the Bible, like when the Gentiles were wondering if they had to enter the Old Covenant first (by circumcision) first before entering the New Covenant. There was nothing in the Bible regarding that at the time. So it was the responsibility (given by Christ) of apostolic tradition to take the issue and resolve.

sorry for misunderstanding :/

I agree with everything that is catechism, but I disagree with your conclusion that
>The church CANNOT change the Canon
The catechism did not say this explicitly. What it said was that our current complete canon was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Is the Holy Spirit dead?
Is the Church cut off from communion with the Holy Spirit?
Are miracles, saints, and prophets no longer possible in this age of modernity? And would the Church dare to disobey an order from these divine interventions?

The answer is no. And if you'd like an example consider the visions at Fatima.

If the Holy Spirit sent a messenger to the Church tomorrow the Church would be obliged to contemplate the message.

The fact that you appeal to Fatima, which is a private revelation which no one is obligated to believe, shows you have no clue what you are talking about. The canon is closed. There will be no additions because it is complete.

There's another book mentioned in Jude I think that is supposed to also be about the life of Moses.

I don't see why some books being missing is really a problem though.

>no one responds to this post
Veeky Forums btfo

>user clarifies what he meant
What is there to respond to?

that's why i wrote Veeky Forums btfo

My appeal to Fatima was only to say that the Church is still open to intercession. And not only that, but the Church itself was moved by that intercession by both canonizing the children and consecration of Russia and the World to the immaculate heart of Mary as per requested in the vision even when unobligated so that should show you the degree to which it is willing to move in light of divine intervention. Do you not believe that it is *possible* that divine intervention could amend which it itself has wrought?

*That* which it, itself has wrought.

>The Catholic Church can evolve, it's what many Protestants don't like about it. It's what I like about it.
In my experience it's the complete opposite.

>Am I expected to take this shit seriously if a bunch of it is lost forever?
You are suppose to take seriously the canon of text that church has declared authoritative. If it's not part of the canon originally anyway I'm not sure why you even worry.

curious, how is Veeky Forums btfo by the no replies?
This is a genuine question

This server and the backups will be destroyed eventually. You will die, are we supposed to take you seriously?

WHO SUMMONED ME

I learned yesterday that there were more than the four Gospels and that Irenaeus was the one who selected the ones that are now regarded as the canonical ones. What's up with that? What about the others?

The four in the Bible were all written in the first century. All the others were written after that period, and they vary in content much more than the four canonical gospels.

Irenaeus was a Jew who hijacked Christianity, along with all the other fathers, because they realized that Christianity forever and completely BTFO judaic tribal horseshit and they inserted themselves into the religion. That's why.

>blocks your path

>Da Joos

I'll give you one post to defend the completely unnecessary gematria bullshit to prove me wrong.

>Am I expected to take this shit seriously if a bunch of it is lost forever? If anyone's in doubt, see below.
No. The most important works are omitted. Read the Nag Hammadi library

the Virgin Christos vs Chad Messiah

>he fell for the Sola scriptura meme

Atheists are sleeping with literalism the surface of a dirt bed.

You can't make this shit up.

What did he mean by this?

Atheists are infatuated with reading the Bible at a surface level that does it no justice to how complex and precise it is. Atheists are too sleeping on the "surface of a dirt bed", showing that they 1.) are again on the surface of something much deeper(the earth) and 2.) are pretty stupid for pushing such literalism onto the Bible that they are as dumb as primitive neanderthals that slept on the ground.

But that user isn't an atheist and your wording was awful. English is not your first language, is it?

> that user isn't an atheist
so be it
> your wording was awful
forgot the "on" between "literalism" and "the"

Geez buddy, sorry about missing one word. I hope you can actually unpack what I was saying now. I feel as though I have to lay it all out for fucking Veeky Forums—which I did, but that could be due to my mistake of forgetting the single word, "on".

Because they argued against his flawed post quite happily, but literally gave up when he corrected himself.

>>Following a religion as if its a football team
If you want to be proud of something, be proud of God

The God of the Pentateuch is certainly not omniscient, he changes his mind several times, which is impossible if he already knows everything.

If you look at the philosophical debate around omniscience, it's essentially been determined that it's impossible. Not even Swinburne accepts full omniscience.