HisServant
New member
Sure... but they are worthless without the Holy Spirit granting discernment and understanding.
Standing Up To Rome
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
Sure... but they are worthless without the Holy Spirit granting discernment and understanding.
nab
but many here know that I always quote from the kjv, their bible because it should not be an issue
they make it an issue
not us
Cruciform
New member
It's clear that you simply have no idea what you're talking about, as every single claim in your post is distorted and false. Better check your sources. Come back when you manage to stumble upon an actual argument against the Catholic Church being Christ's one historic Church.
Cruciform
New member
So, then, you actually have no proof for your entirely unsubstantiated claim. That's what I thought. So much, then, for your claim.
Cruciform
New member
Who said anything about "ROMAN Catholics"? The Roman (Latin) Rite of the Catholic Church did not develop until after the Apostolic Era. Our position is that the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. has been commonly known as "the Catholic Church" from the end of the 1st century A.D. So yes, the writers of the New Testament documents were indeed, in this sense, "Catholics."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
turbosixx
New member
True statement but what does scripture say? 15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits.
Most of the atrocities committed by the church are based or caused by their doctrine. I’m not aware of NT scripture that supports the torture and killing of people who speak against truth. I agree an individual’s failure to follow truth is not the fault of the church.
That's the problem. I recognize scripture as doctrine but Catholics view scripture through the lens of "church" doctrine. That makes it very difficult to do battle.
turbosixx
New member
What are your sources? Let me guess, the "church".
Brother Vinny
Active member
Doubly difficult if you don't recognize you bring your own interpretive lens to Scripture, as well.
Cruciform
New member
Scripture and the teachings of the early Christian Church (that is, as recorded in the writings of the Early Church Fathers).
turbosixx
New member
Agreed. I do my very best to look past my filters and listen to others who point out my bias.
turbosixx
New member
I meant what sources do you trust for the reported crimes for example, the killing of an estimated 50 million "heretics".
WeberHome
New member
-
CLAIM: There would be no Bible but for the Roman Catholic Church.
RESPONSE: That's a good example of the political axiom that if a lie is
repeated often enough; anon it will be accepted as fact.
It is totally false to say there would be no Bible but for the Catholic Church.
The Old Testament canon was already completed and in wide-spread
circulation throughout the Greek and Roman worlds way before Jesus
himself was even born.
While Nazi Germany may have pioneered rocket science; it's well to
remember that the Roman Catholic Church did not pioneer either the Old nor
the New Testament. Constantine's panel merely condensed an already
existing abundance of early Christian manuscripts that the Roman Catholic
Church itself did not author; and his motives were far more political than
spiritual. The man was a pig; and his panel chairman a tyrannical bully.
Modern Christian scholars of all denominations accept the existing New
Testament not because it was compiled by Catholic authorities, but because
they're own independent investigations have led them to conclude (as did
Constantine's panel) that extant manuscripts of the New Testament
scriptures are valid reproductions of the inspired originals.
Constantine himself didn't actually become a Christian until he was an old
man on his death bed. Although he didn't submit to Christianity's Christ
during his active years of life; he did manage to change the laws of his
kingdom so that it was no longer illegal to be a Christian within his
jurisdiction: which was quite prudent of him given that Christians were
multiplying and might have turned to rebellion. But rivalry and agitation
amongst the Christians themselves was a far greater problem.
It's a well known political principle that a nation divided in its religion cannot
be unified in its politics. It was Constantine's hope that a universal Christian
handbook would unify the Christian factions in his kingdom; subsequently
bringing about an improved domestic tranquility.
Rome has been very good at conquering people, and at forcing people to
take up its religion; but it has utterly failed to unify people's minds. Rome
may subdue people, it may subjugate them and control them, it may torture
and abuse them, and it may oppress them, but that doesn't mean it won
them. Catholicism its very own self is infected with schism. It has failed to
unify itself, let alone unify the rest of Christendom.
OBJECTION: How can you possibly think that God would let someone that
you label a "pig" be responsible for one of the holiest compilation of
documents to ever be introduced into the world of men?!
RESPONSE: While I'm answering that objection, keep in mind that
Constantine himself did not author the documents compiled in the New
Testament, nor did anybody on his committee.
Have you ever considered the operation of the holiest sacrifice for sins ever
offered in the world of men: Jesus Christ's crucifixion? Was he crucified by
Christian holy men? Was he crucified by Jewish holy men? No, Jesus Christ
was sacrificed for the world's sins by a pagan Roman governor's pagan
Roman military garrison.
And the Temple, the one that existed in Jerusalem in Christ's day, wasn't
built under the auspices of a Jewish holy man, nor of a Christian holy man;
but rather, a heathen pagan named Cyrus, king of Persia (Ez 1:1-4). That
same Temple was later remodeled and beautified not by a Jewish holy man,
nor by a Christian holy man, but by a bloody heathen named Herod The
Great, the very same Herod who ordered the wholesale slaughter of all the
little Jewish boys two-years old and under (Matt 2:16). Herod's Temple was
labeled by Jesus as "my Father's house" (John 2:16) and was the very one
he zealously purged of merchants and their wares.
Let that be a lesson: God oftentimes uses means that the world of men
consider inappropriate. After all, it was a promiscuous slut who helped
Joshua's scouts escape detection in Jericho. You know what became of her?
Well; after the campaign, she married a Jewish guy named Salmon, and of
them came Boaz, who married Ruth, which led to David, and eventually to
the holiest human being this planet has ever hosted: Jesus Christ, Son of
God, Son of Man. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
And oh! My favorite is the naughty lady by the well of Samaria who was
married five times and shacking up with a guy when she and Jesus met. It
was to her that he revealed the nature of the "water" of John 3:5. To this
good day, educated Xian theologians professing to be Christ's followers still
squabble over the precise nature and purpose of that water; while she got it
straight from the horse's mouth.
Ironically, most Catholics are far more influenced in their religious thinking
by the Roman Catechism than by the 27 manuscripts Constantine's
committee chose for a New Testament. When the average Catholic is
introduced to New Testament Christianity for the first time, very often they
don't recognize it as New Testament Christianity; and readily dismiss it as
Protestant heresy because the New Testament clearly does not harmonize
with Rome's Catechism; and in point of fact, the Catechism all too often
actually contradicts the Bible; in addition to seriously embellishing it; making
Christianity more strict, and more cumbersome, than it really is; just as
Judaism's traditions did in Christ's day.
Below is a book I highly recommend to anybody curious about the origin of
the Bible. It's a small book, approximately 5½ x 8½ of 224 pages counting
the index and the notes. The font is roughly Courier New size 11 which is
large enough to be easily read by most folks.
How We Got The Bible
By Neil R. Lightfoot
ISBN-10: 1-56731-722-7
ISBN-13: 978-1-56731-722-0
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
CLAIM: There would be no Bible but for the Roman Catholic Church.
RESPONSE: That's a good example of the political axiom that if a lie is
repeated often enough; anon it will be accepted as fact.
It is totally false to say there would be no Bible but for the Catholic Church.
The Old Testament canon was already completed and in wide-spread
circulation throughout the Greek and Roman worlds way before Jesus
himself was even born.
While Nazi Germany may have pioneered rocket science; it's well to
remember that the Roman Catholic Church did not pioneer either the Old nor
the New Testament. Constantine's panel merely condensed an already
existing abundance of early Christian manuscripts that the Roman Catholic
Church itself did not author; and his motives were far more political than
spiritual. The man was a pig; and his panel chairman a tyrannical bully.
Modern Christian scholars of all denominations accept the existing New
Testament not because it was compiled by Catholic authorities, but because
they're own independent investigations have led them to conclude (as did
Constantine's panel) that extant manuscripts of the New Testament
scriptures are valid reproductions of the inspired originals.
Constantine himself didn't actually become a Christian until he was an old
man on his death bed. Although he didn't submit to Christianity's Christ
during his active years of life; he did manage to change the laws of his
kingdom so that it was no longer illegal to be a Christian within his
jurisdiction: which was quite prudent of him given that Christians were
multiplying and might have turned to rebellion. But rivalry and agitation
amongst the Christians themselves was a far greater problem.
It's a well known political principle that a nation divided in its religion cannot
be unified in its politics. It was Constantine's hope that a universal Christian
handbook would unify the Christian factions in his kingdom; subsequently
bringing about an improved domestic tranquility.
Rome has been very good at conquering people, and at forcing people to
take up its religion; but it has utterly failed to unify people's minds. Rome
may subdue people, it may subjugate them and control them, it may torture
and abuse them, and it may oppress them, but that doesn't mean it won
them. Catholicism its very own self is infected with schism. It has failed to
unify itself, let alone unify the rest of Christendom.
OBJECTION: How can you possibly think that God would let someone that
you label a "pig" be responsible for one of the holiest compilation of
documents to ever be introduced into the world of men?!
RESPONSE: While I'm answering that objection, keep in mind that
Constantine himself did not author the documents compiled in the New
Testament, nor did anybody on his committee.
Have you ever considered the operation of the holiest sacrifice for sins ever
offered in the world of men: Jesus Christ's crucifixion? Was he crucified by
Christian holy men? Was he crucified by Jewish holy men? No, Jesus Christ
was sacrificed for the world's sins by a pagan Roman governor's pagan
Roman military garrison.
And the Temple, the one that existed in Jerusalem in Christ's day, wasn't
built under the auspices of a Jewish holy man, nor of a Christian holy man;
but rather, a heathen pagan named Cyrus, king of Persia (Ez 1:1-4). That
same Temple was later remodeled and beautified not by a Jewish holy man,
nor by a Christian holy man, but by a bloody heathen named Herod The
Great, the very same Herod who ordered the wholesale slaughter of all the
little Jewish boys two-years old and under (Matt 2:16). Herod's Temple was
labeled by Jesus as "my Father's house" (John 2:16) and was the very one
he zealously purged of merchants and their wares.
Let that be a lesson: God oftentimes uses means that the world of men
consider inappropriate. After all, it was a promiscuous slut who helped
Joshua's scouts escape detection in Jericho. You know what became of her?
Well; after the campaign, she married a Jewish guy named Salmon, and of
them came Boaz, who married Ruth, which led to David, and eventually to
the holiest human being this planet has ever hosted: Jesus Christ, Son of
God, Son of Man. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
And oh! My favorite is the naughty lady by the well of Samaria who was
married five times and shacking up with a guy when she and Jesus met. It
was to her that he revealed the nature of the "water" of John 3:5. To this
good day, educated Xian theologians professing to be Christ's followers still
squabble over the precise nature and purpose of that water; while she got it
straight from the horse's mouth.
Ironically, most Catholics are far more influenced in their religious thinking
by the Roman Catechism than by the 27 manuscripts Constantine's
committee chose for a New Testament. When the average Catholic is
introduced to New Testament Christianity for the first time, very often they
don't recognize it as New Testament Christianity; and readily dismiss it as
Protestant heresy because the New Testament clearly does not harmonize
with Rome's Catechism; and in point of fact, the Catechism all too often
actually contradicts the Bible; in addition to seriously embellishing it; making
Christianity more strict, and more cumbersome, than it really is; just as
Judaism's traditions did in Christ's day.
Below is a book I highly recommend to anybody curious about the origin of
the Bible. It's a small book, approximately 5½ x 8½ of 224 pages counting
the index and the notes. The font is roughly Courier New size 11 which is
large enough to be easily read by most folks.
How We Got The Bible
By Neil R. Lightfoot
ISBN-10: 1-56731-722-7
ISBN-13: 978-1-56731-722-0
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
Ben Masada
New member
Standing up to Rome
Standing up to Rome
True that no one could at that time but it would mean something to try.
Standing up to Rome
True that no one could at that time but it would mean something to try.
Cruciform
New member
Medieval history, for one, specifically the established fact that your supposed "50 million" far exceeds the entire population of Europe in the Middle Ages! Try again. :doh:
Cruciform
New member
Addressed briefly here and here. In addition, consider this:
The Catholic Church gave Christians the Bible~
The first official list of books contained in what is the Bible was done at the Council of Hippo in 393 and then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. However, the Council of Trent in 1556 was the first time the Church infallibly defined these books as ‘inspired’ because it was questioned by Reformers. We have to admit, the apostles did not walk around with nice leather bound Bibles in their hand. There are many parts of the Bible that are oral tradition which was written down because when early believers attended the Synagogue or church, the scripture was read. They did not have their own copy with their name engraved on the front. Oral tradition was the norm of practice long before writing and reading was a part of life. The Jews followed the Old Testament before Jesus was born and Jesus is pictured in Scripture reading from the Old Testament in the Synagogue. There were multiple writings from this time but it was only after the list of books determined to be the ‘inspired Word of God’ by the Catholic Church first with the Council of Hippo in 393 that the world had what is called “The Bible”. The Bible remained the original 73 books determined by the Catholic Church until the Reformation, when Martin Luther threw out 7 books of the Old Testament that disagreed with his personal view of theology…the same Old Testament adhered to by the Jews. He threw these 6 books out in the 16th Century. Luther also attempted to throw out New Testament books James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. In referring to James, he said he wanted to ‘throw Jimmy into the fire’ and the book of James was ‘an epistle of straw’ with no usefulness. After Pope Damasus I approved the 27 New Testament Books however in 382 AD, Luther agreed with the Pope and accepted the New Testament books but denied the Old Testament books …which remained out of his Bible. Non-Catholics will accept the Biblical books which are contained in the Protestant Bible but do not acknowledge they are accepting and trusting the authority of the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church was the one who proclaimed the entire list, as a whole, as ‘inspired’. The letters within the Bible are not the only letters and materials written by the Apostles so, as a result, those contained within the Bible had to be declared ‘inspired’ and it was the Catholic Church which did that duty.
http://www.catholic365.com/article/1723/5-reasons-the-catholic-church-is-the-true-church.html
The first official list of books contained in what is the Bible was done at the Council of Hippo in 393 and then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. However, the Council of Trent in 1556 was the first time the Church infallibly defined these books as ‘inspired’ because it was questioned by Reformers. We have to admit, the apostles did not walk around with nice leather bound Bibles in their hand. There are many parts of the Bible that are oral tradition which was written down because when early believers attended the Synagogue or church, the scripture was read. They did not have their own copy with their name engraved on the front. Oral tradition was the norm of practice long before writing and reading was a part of life. The Jews followed the Old Testament before Jesus was born and Jesus is pictured in Scripture reading from the Old Testament in the Synagogue. There were multiple writings from this time but it was only after the list of books determined to be the ‘inspired Word of God’ by the Catholic Church first with the Council of Hippo in 393 that the world had what is called “The Bible”. The Bible remained the original 73 books determined by the Catholic Church until the Reformation, when Martin Luther threw out 7 books of the Old Testament that disagreed with his personal view of theology…the same Old Testament adhered to by the Jews. He threw these 6 books out in the 16th Century. Luther also attempted to throw out New Testament books James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. In referring to James, he said he wanted to ‘throw Jimmy into the fire’ and the book of James was ‘an epistle of straw’ with no usefulness. After Pope Damasus I approved the 27 New Testament Books however in 382 AD, Luther agreed with the Pope and accepted the New Testament books but denied the Old Testament books …which remained out of his Bible. Non-Catholics will accept the Biblical books which are contained in the Protestant Bible but do not acknowledge they are accepting and trusting the authority of the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church was the one who proclaimed the entire list, as a whole, as ‘inspired’. The letters within the Bible are not the only letters and materials written by the Apostles so, as a result, those contained within the Bible had to be declared ‘inspired’ and it was the Catholic Church which did that duty.
http://www.catholic365.com/article/1723/5-reasons-the-catholic-church-is-the-true-church.html
For more info, see the following detailed source:
Read the entire book HERE.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Last edited:
WeberHome
New member
-
Webster's defines an heretic as: (1) a dissenter from established church
dogma; especially a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who
disavows a revealed truth, and (2) one who dissents from an accepted belief
or doctrine; viz: a nonconformist.
There are lots of Catholics right here in the USA disagreeing with Rome who
would never consider themselves heretics; but that's exactly what they are
anyway. The New Testament Greek word for heretic is hairetikos (hahee-ret
ee-kos') which means: a schismatic; viz: someone in your very own church
who causes dissent, reformation, division, discord, disputes, and
disharmony.
In other words: heretics aren't outsiders; no, a true heretic goes to the
same church you go to and professes to believe and practice the very same
religion that you profess to believe and practice; viz: for Catholics, a heretic
would be a professing Catholic who openly disagrees with Rome, and
attempts to persuade other Catholics to follow suit; for example on issues
like abortion, female priests, and LGBT marriage.
Heresy is a serious sin; stubborn cases call for excommunication.
†. Titus 3:10-11 . . A man that is an heretic after the first and second
admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth,
being condemned of himself.
Heresy is different than apostasy, which is defined as: renunciation of a
religious faith, and/or abandonment of a previous loyalty. In other words: an
apostate is a defector whereas an heretic is a dissenter.
Q: Why can't I oppose Rome's stance on some things? Surely you don't
suggest that makes me a bad Catholic. I'm just being democratic; after all:
dissent is a human right.
A: The USA is a democracy consisting of a representative form of
government. Christ's church is a theocracy consisting of a monarchal form of
government; viz: his church is not a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people; but rather; it's a government of Christ, by Christ,
and for Christ-- a monarch who expects nothing less than 110% loyalty from
his subjects; which, relative to John and Jane Doe pew warmer, implies
submission to Rome.
†. Matt 16:19 . . And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Those keys were not given to John and Jane Doe; they were given to the
hierarchy; therefore, Catholics who dissent with Rome are actually rebelling
against the Christ whom Rome supposedly represents. It's a domino effect
all the way to the top.
†. Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.
Dissention within Christ's church isn't democratic; no, dissention within the
Church is all the same as pagans practicing dark arts and/or worshipping
Shiva and Vishnu.
†. 1Sam 15:23 . . For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and
insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.
Several years ago, on Good Morning America, a Monsignor was asked by
David Hartman and Joan Lunden about Catholic dissidents, and he replied:
They've left the Church; and don't know it.
†. Matt 12:30 . . He that is not with me is against me
One of the New Testament's Greek words for "lord" is despotes (des-pot'
ace) which indicates absolute rule; viz: despotism. That word is applied to
Christ in more than one location in the New Testament. Despots typically
have little patience with dissenters.
According to the May 2, 2005 issue of Newsweek, a Gallup pole taken during
April 2005, on "difficult moral questions" showed that 74% of USA Catholics
would follow their own conscience rather than the authority of Rome. Just
20% said they would follow Rome. Apparently 6% were undecided.
Look; let me give that 74% a word of advice (and also that 6% who're
undecided); and this coming from a 71 year-old ex Catholic who was faithful
to Rome for the first 24+ years of his life. If you can't give your whole
hearted support to those whom you profess to believe hold the keys of the
kingdom; then it's time to bow out. It would be far better for all concerned,
yourself included, to defect and to self-excommunicate rather than to hang
around causing division and attempting to reform a religion that you find
impossible to support as-is.
Dissenting Catholics are not true Catholics at all; no, not in any sense of the
word. They're hybrids; actually Protestant Catholics, who have, in spirit,
already left the Church but just can't bring yourselves to step out the door
and make it final.
†. Rev 3:15-16 . . I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I
would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither
hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
Webster's defines an heretic as: (1) a dissenter from established church
dogma; especially a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who
disavows a revealed truth, and (2) one who dissents from an accepted belief
or doctrine; viz: a nonconformist.
There are lots of Catholics right here in the USA disagreeing with Rome who
would never consider themselves heretics; but that's exactly what they are
anyway. The New Testament Greek word for heretic is hairetikos (hahee-ret
ee-kos') which means: a schismatic; viz: someone in your very own church
who causes dissent, reformation, division, discord, disputes, and
disharmony.
In other words: heretics aren't outsiders; no, a true heretic goes to the
same church you go to and professes to believe and practice the very same
religion that you profess to believe and practice; viz: for Catholics, a heretic
would be a professing Catholic who openly disagrees with Rome, and
attempts to persuade other Catholics to follow suit; for example on issues
like abortion, female priests, and LGBT marriage.
Heresy is a serious sin; stubborn cases call for excommunication.
†. Titus 3:10-11 . . A man that is an heretic after the first and second
admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth,
being condemned of himself.
Heresy is different than apostasy, which is defined as: renunciation of a
religious faith, and/or abandonment of a previous loyalty. In other words: an
apostate is a defector whereas an heretic is a dissenter.
Q: Why can't I oppose Rome's stance on some things? Surely you don't
suggest that makes me a bad Catholic. I'm just being democratic; after all:
dissent is a human right.
A: The USA is a democracy consisting of a representative form of
government. Christ's church is a theocracy consisting of a monarchal form of
government; viz: his church is not a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people; but rather; it's a government of Christ, by Christ,
and for Christ-- a monarch who expects nothing less than 110% loyalty from
his subjects; which, relative to John and Jane Doe pew warmer, implies
submission to Rome.
†. Matt 16:19 . . And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Those keys were not given to John and Jane Doe; they were given to the
hierarchy; therefore, Catholics who dissent with Rome are actually rebelling
against the Christ whom Rome supposedly represents. It's a domino effect
all the way to the top.
†. Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.
Dissention within Christ's church isn't democratic; no, dissention within the
Church is all the same as pagans practicing dark arts and/or worshipping
Shiva and Vishnu.
†. 1Sam 15:23 . . For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and
insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.
Several years ago, on Good Morning America, a Monsignor was asked by
David Hartman and Joan Lunden about Catholic dissidents, and he replied:
They've left the Church; and don't know it.
†. Matt 12:30 . . He that is not with me is against me
One of the New Testament's Greek words for "lord" is despotes (des-pot'
ace) which indicates absolute rule; viz: despotism. That word is applied to
Christ in more than one location in the New Testament. Despots typically
have little patience with dissenters.
According to the May 2, 2005 issue of Newsweek, a Gallup pole taken during
April 2005, on "difficult moral questions" showed that 74% of USA Catholics
would follow their own conscience rather than the authority of Rome. Just
20% said they would follow Rome. Apparently 6% were undecided.
Look; let me give that 74% a word of advice (and also that 6% who're
undecided); and this coming from a 71 year-old ex Catholic who was faithful
to Rome for the first 24+ years of his life. If you can't give your whole
hearted support to those whom you profess to believe hold the keys of the
kingdom; then it's time to bow out. It would be far better for all concerned,
yourself included, to defect and to self-excommunicate rather than to hang
around causing division and attempting to reform a religion that you find
impossible to support as-is.
Dissenting Catholics are not true Catholics at all; no, not in any sense of the
word. They're hybrids; actually Protestant Catholics, who have, in spirit,
already left the Church but just can't bring yourselves to step out the door
and make it final.
†. Rev 3:15-16 . . I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I
would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither
hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
That “someone” in our churches today is Jesus of Nazareth.
Christians are uncomfortable with the teachings OF Jesus. They would much rather declare him as “Son of God,” “born of a virgin,” “Messiah,” “Savior,” etc. rather than wrestle with his parables and his ethical teachings.
Unless Christianity can stop worshiping Christ and start following Jesus, the faith that we love will vanish and shrink.
everready
New member
Addressed briefly here and here. In addition, consider this:
The Catholic Church gave Christians the Bible~
The first official list of books contained in what is the Bible was done at the Council of Hippo in 393 and then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. However, the Council of Trent in 1556 was the first time the Church infallibly defined these books as ‘inspired’ because it was questioned by Reformers. We have to admit, the apostles did not walk around with nice leather bound Bibles in their hand. There are many parts of the Bible that are oral tradition which was written down because when early believers attended the Synagogue or church, the scripture was read. They did not have their own copy with their name engraved on the front. Oral tradition was the norm of practice long before writing and reading was a part of life. The Jews followed the Old Testament before Jesus was born and Jesus is pictured in Scripture reading from the Old Testament in the Synagogue. There were multiple writings from this time but it was only after the list of books determined to be the ‘inspired Word of God’ by the Catholic Church first with the Council of Hippo in 393 that the world had what is called “The Bible”. The Bible remained the original 73 books determined by the Catholic Church until the Reformation, when Martin Luther threw out 7 books of the Old Testament that disagreed with his personal view of theology…the same Old Testament adhered to by the Jews. He threw these 6 books out in the 16th Century. Luther also attempted to throw out New Testament books James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. In referring to James, he said he wanted to ‘throw Jimmy into the fire’ and the book of James was ‘an epistle of straw’ with no usefulness. After Pope Damasus I approved the 27 New Testament Books however in 382 AD, Luther agreed with the Pope and accepted the New Testament books but denied the Old Testament books …which remained out of his Bible. Non-Catholics will accept the Biblical books which are contained in the Protestant Bible but do not acknowledge they are accepting and trusting the authority of the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church was the one who proclaimed the entire list, as a whole, as ‘inspired’. The letters within the Bible are not the only letters and materials written by the Apostles so, as a result, those contained within the Bible had to be declared ‘inspired’ and it was the Catholic Church which did that duty.
http://www.catholic365.com/article/1723/5-reasons-the-catholic-church-is-the-true-church.html
For more info, see the following detailed source:
Read the entire book HERE.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Rome didn't give us Gods word.
Question: Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Bible being written?
Answer: No. The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.
Here is a short history of the Bible.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/kjb_from_catholics.htm
everready