how are the protestant so sure that the bible is true?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

the corrupt evil church were the ones who compiled the bible and could change and add things there as much as they wanted...how are we now supposed to believe in the bible?...i still don't get this,protestants see the roman catholic church as a false corrupt institution that only used religion for their own profits(which is completely true)but they do believe in the bible that this church compiled...i really don't get this

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 25, 2005

Answers

sdq,

The Catholic Church (Roman, Orthodox,Syrian, Coptic...)is only responsible for some books of the New Testament and a about 7 from the Old Testament.

66 books accepted as canonical + 1 and 2 Maccabees + Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)...were preserved by the Jews.

The first 5 books of the Old (Genesis-Deuteronomy) were preserved by the Samaritans.

But your concern that things were added or subtracted is legit.

Some of the originals were revised or modified.

The Christian Yahwist

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


well i meant the NT

the NT is what christianity especially is based on

without the NT there would be no christianity...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 25, 2005.


What difference does it make, SDQA?

Pre-Judaism was a plethora of conflicting beliefs, then came Judaism. Judaism set the foundation for Christianity. Hello, Judeo- Christian Religion. But, hang on...

Protestants have been interpreting the Bible since Luther's time. Who is to say that any interpretation outside of the Church is kosher? The Bible has been "edited", translated, updated, versionized, and scandalized for generations and indoctrinations. So, while you go picking at the Catholic Church, don't forget all those Protestant flavors. Oh, and say "hello" to them Pilgrims who fled regilious persecution and set out to establish a freedom of religion in the New World. Nobody seems to take issue about their skewd and heretical beliefs. America was not built on Christian Faith. If anything, it was built on tolerance for the freedom to believe as one saw fit. Hello, personal interpretation of the Bible. BTW, have you seen text from the Geneva Bible? Talk about illiteracy (sp?).

................ ..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


you didn't answer my question rod...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 25, 2005.

I don't believe in the Bible. I believe in God. There is a fine line that seperates one from Bible Believers and Believers in Christ. I've heard pastors say that "the Bible saves". It does not. The Bible is a compilation of books. Yes, we can accept truth that is recorded in Scriptures. But, we cannot accept all interpretations from man. Can we believe everything that is written? Yes and no. We can study history and then realize the true intension of some Scriptures. We can focus on the real message in the Epistles. We can even apply those teachings to our modern day lives. But, ultimately, we have faith in God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is first. Then, we are gonna have to trust the Gospel writers, their understandings, views, inspirations, and accuracy.

Some will argue. Just read about Lilith in those older Bibles and compare her to our more recent editions. Lilith was erroneously documented in the Bible. Or, was she?

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.



Here is Lillith for SDQ.

He probably doesn't know what it it.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AoHJ

Lillith at Catholic- 2003

I believe this is one of the best answers I have read from you, Rod. The Bible doesnnt save. That is absolutely true.

The Chrisian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


I' glad you found it, Elpidio. I was looking for that thread. The only one I have is at home in my hard drive.

Here is the "Reed Sea" thread for SDQA.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


You would have an excellent point sdqa, if in fact you were correct about where the Bible comes from and who gave it to us.

But you are mistaken. The Holy Scriptures are inspired by God--and this same God--by Divine Providence--gave us the Bible.

The Scriptures were recognized by the early body of believers long before Roman Catholicism even existed.

Many people suppose that the decisions about what books would be in the Bible--were made by a church council behind closed doors, where they debated the issues, and then accepted some books, and rejected others.

Questions we might then ask would be, "Why should I believe that the church has the *right* list of inspired books?" or "Why does the Roman Catholic Church have additional books not found in the Protestant Bibles?" or "Why do the Protestants believe the Bible is the sole basis of authority for faith and practice?"

Not only does the Catholic Church have more books in their Bible, but they also view the Bible differently.

Did the New Testament give birth to the Church--or did the Church give birth to the New Testament? How you answer that question will determine what you believe about how the Bible came together..

The argument will go like this--The Bible alone cannot be our authority because the Bible itself cannot tell us which books should be in it. The Catholic Church, therefore claims that since popes and councils determined the New Testament--they therefore have authority over the Bible and we must accept them as infallible.

To put it differently, if the church is fallable, she might have been in error regarding the books she selected. Why would we trust them?

The Catholic relies on its infallable Church--and the biblical Christian or Protestant relies on something else entirely--God's providence.

The Bible is a remarkable collection of 66 books, united by a common theme, and like a tapestry it weaves together the story of God's redemption of the human race. That these books should be collected, and accepted as the Word of God is itself a miracle of God's providence.

When God authorized the writing of a manuscript, and the people of God recognized it as such--it was preserved. For example, Moses wrote "All the words of the Lord" (Exodus 24:4; Joshua 8:30-35), and these writings were carefully laid in the ark of the covenant (Deut. 31:26); so were the writings of Joshua (Joshua 24:26) and Samuel, whose words were put "In the book and placed...before the Lord" (1 Sam. 10:25). The same can be said for Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2) and Daniel.

Obviously the number of books increased and subsequent generations honored them as the Word of the Lord. For example, Ezra possessed a copy of the Law of Moses and the Prophets (Nehemiah 9:14, 26-30). This Law was read and revered as the Word of God.

Of course not all Jewish religious literature was considered a part of the inspired list of books. For example the book of Jashar existed (Joshua 10:13) as well as the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14) and others (1 Kings 11:41). These books have not survived the centuries, so we don't know their contents.

As the canon grew in size, it was often refered to with the phrase "Moses and the Prophets," and later it was refered to as "the Law, Prophets, and writings" (or "the Psalms"). Jesus himself alluded to this three-fold division when He spoke of "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44).

If you were to look at the table of contents of a Hebrew Old Testament--you would notice two differences from our English Old Testament. First it has only twenty-two books, not thirty-nine. Yet, it is important to note that the content is the same. It is just that the Hebrew Bible combines certain books.

The second thing is that the order is different. The last book in the Hebrew Bible is Chronicles--not Malachi. But that is the interesting proof that Jesus' Bible was the same as the Hebrew Old Testament.

The first murder in the Old Testament was, of course, when Cain killed Abel. The last murder according to the Hebrew Old Testament was when the Prophet Zechariah, was stoned to death in the temple (2 Chron. 24:20-21).

Here now we can understand the words of Jesus:

"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:34-35)

These two murders are *bookends* for the whole of the Hebrew canon, and (though arranged differently) as our own Old Testament. Interestingly, eighteen out of the twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon are quoted in the New Testament (All except Judges, Chronicles, Esther, and Song of Solomon). But by clear implication these books were regarded as holy Scripture since Christ frequently refered to the whole Old Testament as a unit.

The Jews agreed that the Old Testament canon closed in about 400 B.C. with the prophecy of Malachi. The period between the Old Testament and the New Testament is often refered to as "The Four Hundred Silent Years"

Wherein do we see the providence of God? Remember that these books were selected by the people of God without the benefit of a council that debated the merits of each book. The people of God themselves distinguished writings, sometimes discussing and disagreeing--but these decisions were never in the hands of a select committee.

Yet there was a council that met in Jamnia in A.D. 95 and the canon of the Old Testament was on its agenda. Yet the council only ratified books that the Jews had already accepted five centuries earlier. The authentic books already proved their worth; the wheat had already been separated from the Chaff.

The same holds true for the way in which the New Testament came together...

The New testament books were listed long before any Catholic council sat behind closed doors to affirm what we already understood.



-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.


As long as mortal humans have a hand at jumbling books and cutting pages out of the Scriptures, confusion will continue to blanket man's understandings.

Faith, you are gonna make SDQA blinder than a bat in a dark cave.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


"the NT is what christianity especially is based on - without the NT there would be no christianity... "

On the contrary. Christianity existed and Christ's Church was growing before a word of the New Testament was written, and His Church preached the fullness of Christian truth for over three centuries before they decided to gather some of their writings into a book. Would the Church have ceased to exist if the Apostles had not written letters? Or if the Church had not decided to bind those letters into a book? Of course not. The fact is, the New Testament is based on the teachings of the Church, as given by Christ to the Apostles, orally, and as taught by the Apostles everywhere they went, orally. The teachings of the Church are not "based on" the Bible. Christ founded a Church, to provide the means of salvation for all men. The existence of that Church doesn't depend on anything else.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 25, 2005.



That's ridiculous Paul--since the Word is Jesus Himself.

Jesus' words were being written and circulated simultaneously. The Word gave life to His Body--the church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.


You would have an excellent point sdqa, if in fact you were correct about where the Bible comes from and who gave it to us.

Yeah!

But you are mistaken.

Oh.....never mind.

The Holy Scriptures are inspired by God--and this same God--by Divine Providence--gave us the Bible.

Yes. I want names!

The Scriptures were recognized by the early body of believers long before Roman Catholicism even existed.

Yes, included in those Scriptures were the "other gospels". Those had to be hidden away from real believing folks. Who took those books out??????????

Many people suppose that the decisions about what books would be in the Bible--were made by a church council behind closed doors, where they debated the issues, and then accepted some books, and rejected others.

Yes......go on.

Questions we might then ask would be, "Why should I believe that the church has the *right* list of inspired books?"

Because, up above in your post you said that they were inspired by God.

or "Why does the Roman Catholic Church have additional books not found in the Protestant Bibles?"

Because, you claimed that God inspired these men to compile the Bible.

or "Why do the Protestants believe the Bible is the sole basis of authority for faith and practice?"

Because, the Protestants rebelled against the authority of the Church. It snowballed into complete heresy. Not all, but the word has it that these Protestants border on worshipping the Bible, instead of God.

Not only does the Catholic Church have more books in their Bible, but they also view the Bible differently.

Yes, the light from stained glass windows does make for a different view of Scriptures.

Did the New Testament give birth to the Church--or did the Church give birth to the New Testament? How you answer that question will determine what you believe about how the Bible came together..

God, through His Son, gave birth to the Church. That's what I was talking about folks. The New Testament is the focal point of worship. The New Testament is text. Jesus Christ is the giver of His Church.

The argument will go like this--The Bible alone cannot be our authority because the Bible itself cannot tell us which books should be in it. The Catholic Church, therefore claims that since popes and councils determined the New Testament--they therefore have authority over the Bible and we must accept them as infallible.

You have my vote! I agree. Too bad it is only a myth, which you seem to enjoy spreading. Actually, it is the Holy Spirit who drives the authority.

To put it differently, if the church is fallable, she might have been in error regarding the books she selected. Why would we trust them?

Because, your Protestant leaders followed Her. Then, it crumbled as a result of all that tinkering done by them Protestant fellows.

The Catholic relies on its infallable Church--and the biblical Christian or Protestant relies on something else entirely--God's providence.

Yes, I agree. Protestant self-interpretations multiplied by thousands, I would agree. But, to call it "God's providence" would be risky. That's like saying "Once Saved, Always Saved"-- risky.

The Bible is a remarkable collection of 66 books, united by a common theme, and like a tapestry it weaves together the story of God's redemption of the human race. That these books should be collected, and accepted as the Word of God is itself a miracle of God's providence.

Your count is off, Faith. People didn't have Bibles til much later, but they did have faith and Traditions, which were treasured and accepted because God provided the human race with Salvation through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Our only worship is in Him, not the Bible.

When God authorized the writing of a manuscript, and the people of God recognized it as such--it was preserved. For example, Moses wrote "All the words of the Lord" (Exodus 24:4; Joshua 8:30-35), and these writings were carefully laid in the ark of the covenant (Deut. 31:26); so were the writings of Joshua (Joshua 24:26) and Samuel, whose words were put "In the book and placed...before the Lord" (1 Sam. 10:25). The same can be said for Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2) and Daniel.

Uh........and where is this Arc??

Obviously the number of books increased and subsequent generations honored them as the Word of the Lord. For example, Ezra possessed a copy of the Law of Moses and the Prophets (Nehemiah 9:14, 26-30). This Law was read and revered as the Word of God.

Later,it was to be replaced by the New Covenant. Jesus did not write it on parchment or stone.

Of course not all Jewish religious literature was considered a part of the inspired list of books. For example the book of Jashar existed (Joshua 10:13) as well as the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14) and others (1 Kings 11:41). These books have not survived the centuries, so we don't know their contents.

So, it is a moot issue.

As the canon grew in size, it was often refered to with the phrase "Moses and the Prophets," and later it was refered to as "the Law, Prophets, and writings" (or "the Psalms"). Jesus himself alluded to this three-fold division when He spoke of "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44).

Relevance??

If you were to look at the table of contents of a Hebrew Old Testament--you would notice two differences from our English Old Testament. First it has only twenty-two books, not thirty-nine. Yet, it is important to note that the content is the same. It is just that the Hebrew Bible combines certain books.

Oh......relevance?

The second thing is that the order is different. The last book in the Hebrew Bible is Chronicles--not Malachi. But that is the interesting proof that Jesus' Bible was the same as the Hebrew Old Testament.

Well, you can always read them in the order you wish. I don't think the story will change.

The first murder in the Old Testament was, of course, when Cain killed Abel. The last murder according to the Hebrew Old Testament was when the Prophet Zechariah, was stoned to death in the temple (2 Chron. 24:20-21).

Oh............ok.

Here now we can understand the words of Jesus:

"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:34-35)

These two murders are *bookends* for the whole of the Hebrew canon, and (though arranged differently) as our own Old Testament. Interestingly, eighteen out of the twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon are quoted in the New Testament (All except Judges, Chronicles, Esther, and Song of Solomon). But by clear implication these books were regarded as holy Scripture since Christ frequently refered to the whole Old Testament as a unit.

The Jews agreed that the Old Testament canon closed in about 400 B.C. with the prophecy of Malachi. The period between the Old Testament and the New Testament is often refered to as "The Four Hundred Silent Years"

Wherein do we see the providence of God? Remember that these books were selected by the people of God without the benefit of a council that debated the merits of each book. The people of God themselves distinguished writings, sometimes discussing and disagreeing--but these decisions were never in the hands of a select committee.

What would you call such a group, if not a "committee"?

Yet there was a council that met in Jamnia in A.D. 95 and the canon of the Old Testament was on its agenda. Yet the council only ratified books that the Jews had already accepted five centuries earlier. The authentic books already proved their worth; the wheat had already been separated from the Chaff.

The same holds true for the way in which the New Testament came together...

The New testament books were listed long before any Catholic council sat behind closed doors to affirm what we already understood.

Yes, but the list was much longer. Whew! I'm glad they took them books out! Imagine the size of the Bible had they not filtered through all of those books. It boggles the mind!!

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.


No rod, the first available list in our records show 27 New Testament books. This list came before any Catholic council ever sat down to give it their stamp of approval. The wheat had already been sifted from the chaff., the good already highly valued, the bad already rejected by the people of God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.

Athanasius' Easter Letter containing list of 27 New Testament books

The New Testament was already well recognized by the early believers without any official council to approve it.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.


Athanasius was a Catholic bishop who became the 39th Pope. He is a pillar of Catholic orthodoxy. I would hardly expect HIM to be spouting gibberish.

There were however others who wished non-inpsired books to be in the Bible, as well as others who wanted to REMOVE inspired books. The councils of Hippo and Carthage (if I remember right) with the guidance of the Holy Spirit decided the matter for good. It wasn't until some heretic came along 1000 years later and committed one of the worst crimes in the history of civilization -- removing 7 inspired books from the Bible -- that anyone seriously questioned which books were inspired and which weren't.

Fortunately, the Catholic church continues to keep the *entire* Word, and not just the parts pleasing to her ears.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 25, 2005.



Great link, Faith!

For ALL of the ancient lists of canon, go here

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

Funny thing is, they are all different! Why several of them don't even list Revelations!

Up until the time of Carthage, the canon was under GREAT dispute, as you can see from the various lists linked above. It was at Carthage and Hippo that it the canon was "set."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 25, 2005.


Interestingly, all of the "lists" after Carthage read the same. It is interesting to note the Book of Revelations had a rather late "stamp" of approval. Note the final footnote.

Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).

The Third Council of Carthage was not a general council but a regional council of African bishops, much under the influence of Augustine. The English text below is from Metzger.

Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.(d)

(a) That is, First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings.

(b) The five books ascribed to Solomon in the Septuagint are Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Psalms of Solomon.

(c) That is, Ezra and Nehemiah.

(d) Text according to Metzger. According to Zahn (Geschichte, ii, pp. 252-3), in 419 another council held at Carthage gave the concluding words in the following form: "the Revelation of John, one book. Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of Rome], and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to be read in church." And so in Westcott.

******

The canon was most assuredly, without a single solitary doubt, "canonized" by the Catholic Church!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 25, 2005.


The point Gail--

Is that those councils only ratified what was already understood by early believers.

There is still great dispute about books.., but the truth is that we have the Word of God by God's providence--not man's decision.

The canon happened in spite of us....

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.


Oops, confused Anastasius (39th pope) with Athanasius (still a saint, but remained a Bishop, orthodox, battled with the Arians ~30 years earlier). My bad.

There is still great dispute about books.., but the truth is that we have the Word of God by God's providence--not man's decision

That's right, God told the councils of Hippo and Carthage which books were inspired, and which weren't. It was MAN'S decision later to attempt to change that number by shortening the Word.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 25, 2005.


"Is that those councils only ratified what was already understood by early believers."

Faith, if that were true all of the lists prior to Carthage would have been the same, but they aren't, which merely shows that the list was not "understood" as you say until Carthage.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 25, 2005.


Sorry Frank, but as Athanasius has displayed in his letter--the New Testament canon was already understood...

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.

faith,

Just to be clear, are you saying that YOU believe that everything that Athanasius wrote is what the Christian church believes? In other words, are you saying that if someone *contradicts* what Athanasius wrote, they are WRONG?

Frank

-- Someone (chimingin@twocents.cam), January 25, 2005.


Faith, the site you linked is truly awesome.

Here is a link to New Testament quotes from the "septuagint," that version you claim was not used by the apostles. http://www.bible- researcher.com/quote01.html

Here is a link to the disputed list of O.T. books, who disputed them and why. http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon4.html

Here is a link to the disputed N.T. books, who disputed them and when. http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon3.html

I would think that you would have read the site you linked, but it appears all you did was take one article and try to make a case. This site is EXHAUSTIVE with regards to how we got the canon, Faith, and it did INDEED come through the Church.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 25, 2005.


Also Frank,

Even Athanasius rejected the seven apocryphal books from the ranks of inspired Scripture. They are not written by prophets of god from Old Testament times, or by any of the apostles of Christ. They do not qualify....

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.


I'm not interested in all those other links Gail. I was making the point that the New Testament Scripture was understood by true believers long before any council ever convened to put their stamp of approval on anything.

We would know our Scriptures with or without the councils...because this is the work of God--in Spite of man.

I am tired of the claim that the Church gave us the Bible. That is pompous. God used men in whatever way He did. Good or bad, sinners and the like...to accomplish His Word.

No one gets the credit but God.

The apocryphal books are *out* because they should be.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.


Faith,

Athanasius' list was one of many recommended lists circulating at that time, ALL OF THEM DIFFERENT. Didn't you read the site you took that from?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 25, 2005.


Gail,

Athanasius' list reveals that the councils you claim decided the canon--really only confirmed the list already understood. That is my point.

I have not read the entire site I linked you to. Not interested really.

I have read a few other lists and it doesn't change anything. The New Testament Canon as we understan it today--exactly-- was noted before any of those councils.

The point being that early believers were indeed able to recognize inspiration, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit--starting at Pentecost--God's Word has slowly become evident to us.

And of course, the Jewish Hebrew Bible [canon] was understood even before Jesus came...

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.


I agree with Rod's first two posts.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 25, 2005.

And my point is that they all understood it differently, Faith. So who made the final decision as to what would be canonical?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 25, 2005.

'You would have an excellent point sdqa, if in fact you were correct about where the Bible comes from and who gave it to us.

But you are mistaken. The Holy Scriptures are inspired by God--and this same God--by Divine Providence--gave us the Bible.

The Scriptures were recognized by the early body of believers long before Roman Catholicism even existed.

Many people suppose that the decisions about what books would be in the Bible--were made by a church council behind closed doors, where they debated the issues, and then accepted some books, and rejected others.

Questions we might then ask would be, "Why should I believe that the church has the *right* list of inspired books?" or "Why does the Roman Catholic Church have additional books not found in the Protestant Bibles?" or "Why do the Protestants believe the Bible is the sole basis of authority for faith and practice?"

Not only does the Catholic Church have more books in their Bible, but they also view the Bible differently.

Did the New Testament give birth to the Church--or did the Church give birth to the New Testament? How you answer that question will determine what you believe about how the Bible came together.. '

[the problem is that there was no bible before the RCC,first there was the church and then the bible,yes you are correct there were scriptures before the RCC existed but how are we so sure that these scriptures are the same that the RCC had put in the bible?]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 26, 2005.


Because they have surpassed the test of time and because even the authors themselves tell us.

Some books were accepted as Scripture soon after they were written.

For example, look at this amazing confirmation from Peter of Paul's authority. Peter confirms that what Paul wrote is inspired Scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

There are other examples.

Jude quotes from Peter in Jude 17; cf. 2 Peter 3:2, and Paul cite's Luke's gospel as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18; cf Luke 10:7.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.


SDQA, the Lord worked through the Catholic Church to finally canonize the N.T. in Carthage. Prior to that, there were many different lists of cannon floating around, per the link Faith provided. (The one she refuses to read)

The greater question is: If the Lord directed the Church to make the accurate selection of books for the canon, then why couldn't the Lord direct His Church throughout the ages? Because it is Christ who said, "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." And so we see that the Church has survived longer than any other institution, through the middle ages, through war, through famine, through persecution; through evil people WITHIN and evil people without.

Faith loves to use Athanasius as her personal canonizer, but throws out Athanasius when it comes to Mary, veneration of saints, baptism and the Eucharist. That's not very consistent. It is like that though with Bible believing fundamentalists and other Protestant groups; i.e. picking and choosing scriptures they need to support their arguments while throwing out the rest; picking and choosing historical facts to undergird their arguments whilst pitching the rest.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2005.


god does not and did never direct the RCC,the RCC is a evil corrupt institution;jesus never takled about ANY church in a literal way,church meant body of believers,so anybody who follows him...peter would be the rock on which this body should been built,not the RCC;and also to remind you there was no RCC in the time of peter,there was no such institution and peter never had the title of pope,the catholics later gave him that title to make the story fit :'peter was the first pope,the rock on which their church is built'

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 26, 2005.

But, jeeweez! SDQA, you are simply repeating some of that Anarchist propaganda about the Catholic Church. Why not make the effort to wipe your slate clean and approach the Catholic Church with an unbaised and open mind? If you discover that the Church is wrong, it will be found through your own investigation, not by the herding instincts of closed-minded anarchist's propaganda.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


No Gail,

It doesn't matter whether or not there were other supposed lists floating around. The point is that Athanasius had the exact list of 27 books long before any council came along.

My point is that by God's providence--His inspired Word was recognized. Whether I agree with Athanasius on doctrine has nothing to do with anything.

The *Rock* on which Jesus built His church is Himself. The statement Peter made which said, "You are the Son of the Living God--the Christ" (not an exact quote)., is the declaration that Jesus was affirming. He was not affirming anything about Peter--the verse is about Jesus.

Nowhere in Scripture is the *Rock* ever anything but a reference to God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.


Actually, the point is...

You pick and choose to fit your interpretations. Evidence: Athanasius.

So, how much more do you accept from Athanasius???

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


I don't accept anything but God's Word as authoritive. Men will make mistakes.

I used Athanasius' Easter Letter not to confirm him, but to confirm that the New Testament Scriptures were recognized before any council ever convened.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.


Good job!

"I don't accept anything but God's Word as authoritive. Men will make mistakes. "--Faith.

So, Martin Luther would fall into the same predicament, yes? Or, are you gonna say that you have the power to know that God gave Luther authority? Hmmm......ok. If that is even fractionally true (that you have that power), then would you provide a list of people who have been given this authority? Do you see the problem, Faith? Your guys vs. our guys. And on and on...

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


Martin Luther made plenty of mistakes.

But Martin Luther is just a man. He is not a founder of any religion nor do I follow him.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.


"He is not a founder of any religion nor do I follow him. "--Faith.

IS your birthday up for renewal anytime soon? Remind me to get you a history book as a gift. I won't tell the Lutheran's about what you said, nor every Protestant denomination in existence today.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


Martin Luther is not the founder of Lutheranism or any other protestant denomination. Plain and simple.

Luther led a great reformation.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.


Uh....look at the effects of The Great Reformation. Are you gonna say that Luther had no role in opening the floodgates of rebellion in social and ecclesiastical change? Luther is the reason you can interpret the Scriptures the way you do.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


Luther is one of the reasons that we have come back to the truth and follow the only founder of Christianity--Jesus Christ.

Rome was leading us down the wrong road., that wide road that far too many are traveling.

Luther was one of the most heard wake-up calls...

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.


Luther founded the Lutheran Church, faith.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


Flip flop....

Make up your mind, Faith. Which is it?

"But Martin Luther is just a man. He is not a founder of any religion nor do I follow him. "--Faith.

"Luther is one of the reasons that we have come back to the truth and follow the only founder of Christianity--Jesus Christ. "--Faith.

Just another textual proof of your "flip-flop" style, Faith.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


Oh Good Grief, Faith, the only reason you chose Athanasius is because his list matches your own. Why not Augustine's list, Faith, why didn't you choose Augustine's list? (Oh, I know, because it wouldn't suit your purpose.)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2005.

Faith,

I took a closer look at Athanasius' list, and he lists both Baruch and Ecclesiasticus as inspired.

Those two books aren't in the Protestant Old Testament are they? How do you explain that? The source YOU are quoting as proof doesn't agree with you! Give it up faith, *SOMEONE* decided which books to include in the Canon, you can be correct and go with the Catholic church, or incorrect and use whatever books you want.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2005.


Ok........then:

It looks like your Protestant Bible, Faith, will have to include those two books. You have provided the evidence to add those books to your incomplete Bible.

Or, you can retract your post and start all over again.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


"By the late 1500s the Reformation had spread throughout Europe. Followers of Martin Luther's teachings were labeled "Lutherans" by their enemies and adopted the name themselves."

http://www.elca.org/co/roots.html

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2005.


Luther did not found any church or religion. Sorry.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.

Next, you'll tell us the world is flat, the moon is cheese, and the sun orbits the earth.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


Faith,

Uh, you forgot to address the part about having extra books in the Bible. One of those things you have to ignore when separated from Christ's church, I guess.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2005.


Not ignoring it Frank. I can't find the time to look it up again. But I know that the book of Baruch is not really written by the same Baruch that Jeremiah quoted. I can't remember the details but will research it again just as soon as I can find the time.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.

I quoted this from the Lutheran Church Org's MAIN website.

"By the late 1500s the Reformation had spread throughout Europe. Followers of Martin Luther's teachings were labeled "Lutherans" by their enemies and adopted the name themselves."

Then Faith wrote this:

"Luther did not found any church or religion. Sorry."

Faith, you best get a hold of those Lutherans and tell them to get their historical facts straight!

***

I have truly never met ANYONE as disinterested in truth!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2005.


Martin Luther never even heard of the Lutheran church, Gail. He is not the founder.

He is in part responsible for the movement against Catholicism, but he is hardly a founder of a new religion. He would never have intended that.

People may have begun churches due to his influence, but all these churches will claim only one founder--Jesus Christ.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.


Nope, wrong. Had they maintained their faith in God, they would have remained Catholic. But, instead they went off and made their own personal "church(es)". Anyways, Luther wasn't out to destroy the Church; he was still Catholic (in his mind, that is).

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.


Well, they can claim Jesus as their founder all they want, but then what "Is Christ divided," for one says "I follow Luther," and other "I follow Calvin" and another "I follow Dave Hunt!" And they all say "Christ called us to this." BALONEY! It is all about rebellion, pure and simple.

And they all teach their own doctrines as FACT, and all of their FACTS contradict each other, and then they split because they don't like the FACTS, and so off they go to start another sect, all based on FACT.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2005.


could you please answer my question without going off-topic?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 27, 2005.

The point I maintain is that martin Luther did not found any church.

Your other issues are confused at best, Gail.

Protestants are biblical., unlike the Catholic Church who follows corrupt men from the past. Men who murdered each other to take their seat on that false throne!

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 27, 2005.


Hello Faith..

I've been reading your posts for quite sometime off and on, and would like to ask you a question which may help sdqa as well.

You keep referring to the "early Church" and "early believers"..and agree with sdqa's position that in no way was Peter the first Pope of the Catholic Church..

You also say that the Catholic Church did not, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, compile the bible or canonize it, since those same "early Church" people had already done so.

So here's what I'd like to know. Where did all of those church people go? There is absolutely no mention of "them" historically. One cannot pick up any textbook or historical record and read of any people throughout the many centuries who were NOT members of the Catholic Church, and yet were a thriving Christian community, disseminating the Christian gospels. Where were they from the time of Christ until the 1500's?????

There is no record of them in Europe, Africa, or Asia. Where are their letters to one another..their villages..their pottery, any tiny scrap of historical records that they existed at all? And more importantly, if they existed as a separate entity from the Catholic Church,with the promise made to THEM by Christ himself that He would be with THEM always, why didn't they thrive? Where did they disappear to for 1500 years?

Are people to believe that there were early Christians separate from the Catholic Church and they just ceased to exist somehow? Only to be resurrected 1500 years later ?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 27, 2005.


SDQA, your question is an excellent one. If you look through the answers by some on this thread, you will see that they answer the question by going into complete denial, and/or inventing history. They have convinced themselves that the Bible just evolved with no human intervention, and if there was human intervention, those humans were certainly not Catholic.

You asked a good question, but I am afraid you have not gotten an honest answer, at least by some.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.


Hello Lesley,

Thank you for your post.

You keep referring to the "early Church" and "early believers"..and agree with sdqa's position that in no way was Peter the first Pope of the Catholic Church..

Yes, Peter was part of the early church but he was not a pope.

You also say that the Catholic Church did not, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, compile the bible or canonize it, since those same "early Church" people had already done so.

Not exactly. We know that the Roman Catholic Church canonized the Bible under those councils. But my point was that all they did was affirm the books already accepted as Scripture by earlier believers.

In other words, no descisions were made as to what books to keep or disregard by any Roman Catholic Church, that hadn't already been widely agreed upon anyway. Those decisions were made already by believers filled with the Holy Spirit who intuitively knew inspiration without some stamp of approval by a Roman Catholic council.

So here's what I'd like to know. Where did all of those church people go? There is absolutely no mention of "them" historically. One cannot pick up any textbook or historical record and read of any people throughout the many centuries who were NOT members of the Catholic Church, and yet were a thriving Christian community, disseminating the Christian gospels. Where were they from the time of Christ until the 1500's?????

I am not quite sure what you mean? Early Christian history is quite available. The earliest believers were of course, the people of Jesus time--His disciples and those who were born-again from the time of pentecost and onward.

We have first and second century believers and church fathers...etc.

However, by the time of Constatine--the church took a turn for the worst when it allowed pagan Rome and its religion merge with the true Christian church. This is where Roman Catholicism begins--in my opinion.

There is no record of them in Europe, Africa, or Asia. Where are their letters to one another..their villages..their pottery, any tiny scrap of historical records that they existed at all? And more importantly, if they existed as a separate entity from the Catholic Church,with the promise made to THEM by Christ himself that He would be with THEM always, why didn't they thrive? Where did they disappear to for 1500 years?

I think you misunderstand because you believe that the church was alway Roman Catholic. The early church was catholic--little case *c*., and they were not under Roman rule. That didn't begin to occur until, like I said--the time of Constatine. Search the Scriptures yourself to see if you can find any examples of any of the churches of the New Testament times being under the thumb of any other church.

Are people to believe that there were early Christians separate from the Catholic Church and they just ceased to exist somehow? Only to be resurrected 1500 years later ?

Perhaps this question is answered up above?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 27, 2005.


That's true, faith.

The whole Catholic Church has never been under the Rule of the Pope (Bishop) of Rome.

The split of 1054 between Roman Latin Rite and Greek Rite(Orthodox0 showed that.

The Christian Yahwist The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.


Faith, can we at elast not brign up the "Constantine allowed Roman Paganism in thus Mother and chid worship wa imported" argument? I mean, tis been hackd to peices and is dead now, so let it rest.

think Cahtolisism became Corrupt over time? Sos did Luther and Calvin and Lmox and many others, by they didnt see the need ot think the whole of it fell to peices with constantine, and as noted, Paganism in Roeme diverges frm Curent Catholic Beleifs, or pat beelifs, even by the way you present those beelifs.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.


Ok..so you believe that the Christians who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries had nothing to do with the Catholic Church..is that correct?

That the Catholic Church came into existance with the advent of the Emperor Constantine? Is that also correct?

So according to what you believe, there was a single major group of Christians from the time of Christ until the time of the Emperor Constantine. (for the sake of discussion, lets not toss in heretics, etc)..THEN there must have been a separate group of Christians who decided to "break away" and form the Catholic Church.

OK, so again, I'm asking..where are the "original Christians"? If what you believe is truth, then there would have to have been TWO major Christian religions existing from that time forward: "The new Christian Church of Rome", as of 400AD, and the "original Christian Church as founded by Jesus Christ from day 1" ..

The Original Christian Church would have had a ton of people as followers of the TRUTH, since they would have had all of the gospels with them, and would have been preaching (according to you) that the entire Word of God is contained in them and nobody needs anything else.They would have been in existance for over 3 centuries. They would have been diametrically opposed to the teachings of the "New Catholic Church".

Surely,there would have been many learned men from this "original Church" available to pass along vast amounts of writing and historical evidence of their presence in the known world. Where were they from 400AD until 1500????

If the "early Church" wasn't a part of the "early Catholic Church", what happened to those people? What is your explanation for their complete and utter historical non-existance?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 27, 2005.


Lesley, the word Catholic began to be attached to people who did not folow the Gnostic groups, Tatian, ...by the late second Century.

The distiction became clear by AD 325 with the Arian-catholic schism.

Was thre Church called Catholic in the first century, Lesley? No.

It was called the Way. See Acts 9, 19, 24, 26.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.


"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC Church." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

Ignatius sat under the tutelage of St. John the Apostle. It is also clear that the was already at this very early date ONE, SINGLE, SOLITARY, UNIT!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.


Yes, Elpidio..I know, thank you.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 27, 2005.

My goodness that quote from Ignatius is early! Just to think that someone who was influenced by St. John himself was a Eucharist partaking CATHOLIC!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.

Lesley,

You said:

Ok..so you believe that the Christians who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries had nothing to do with the Catholic Church..is that correct?

Well, that's a little misleading because the early church was catholic--just not Roman Catholic. There is a difference there, though I am not sure if you recognize it.

That the Catholic Church came into existance with the advent of the Emperor Constantine? Is that also correct?

This is that point in time when Christianity merged with Pagan Rome.

So according to what you believe, there was a single major group of Christians from the time of Christ until the time of the Emperor Constantine. (for the sake of discussion, lets not toss in heretics, etc)..THEN there must have been a separate group of Christians who decided to "break away" and form the Catholic Church.

The change was slow, the deception sugar-coated. the time in point when people started recognizing the problem was almost immediate, but it was a time before people were making headway in trying to stop the church from going further astray.

OK, so again, I'm asking..where are the "original Christians"? If what you believe is truth, then there would have to have been TWO major Christian religions existing from that time forward: "The new Christian Church of Rome", as of 400AD, and the "original Christian Church as founded by Jesus Christ from day 1" ..

I think you are not thinking this through properly. The changes were slow and subtle...and it took time before people tried to reform the church back to what she was suppose to be. The early believers didn't go anywhere. Eventually they died, I assume.

The Original Christian Church would have had a ton of people as followers of the TRUTH, since they would have had all of the gospels with them, and would have been preaching (according to you) that the entire Word of God is contained in them and nobody needs anything else.They would have been in existance for over 3 centuries. They would have been diametrically opposed to the teachings of the "New Catholic Church".

Paul Himself warned that there were those who were eager to change the gospel with falsehood. Apostacy happened as it was predicted would happen according to the Bible. Paul taught us how to make sure we are fooled and Christ promised that His body could not be divided. So something else must be true about *who* is Christ's true body-- since division has been a problem since the begining of the church-- with Rome at the heart of the matter!

Surely,there would have been many learned men from this "original Church" available to pass along vast amounts of writing and historical evidence of their presence in the known world. Where were they from 400AD until 1500????

I hope you don't think that Martin Luther was the very first man to recognize the apostacy, Lesley...

If the "early Church" wasn't a part of the "early Catholic Church", what happened to those people? What is your explanation for their complete and utter historical non-existance?

This is confused rhetoric Lesley. There are no people missing in action. You simply do not understand what happened. The other thing I would like to point out is that the early church was not *Roman* Catholic. It was catholic., universal. The apostles were preaching to the ends of the earth.., and this is continues to this day.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 27, 2005.


Gail,

I have read that quote of yours and it strikes me that there is nothing in it to suggest that *catholic* means Roman or that by Eucharist implies Transubstantiation. It depends on what you believe as to how that quote will read. It doesn't prove your point at all.

I'd be curious to see if the original quote actually capitalizes the word catholic., not that that would prove it was meant Roman Catholic.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 27, 2005.


Correction in post to Lesley...

Paul Himself warned that there were those who were eager to change the gospel with falsehood. Apostacy happened as it was predicted would happen according to the Bible. Paul taught us how to make sure we aren't fooled and Christ promised that His body could not be divided.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 27, 2005.


I have not found any other quotes from this period: 110 AD or between 30-190 AD calling the Church catholic, Gail except for Polycarp's letter.That's already in 155 AD. The others cannot truly be dated like the Muratorian Canon.This shows that the term began to gain acceptance right after the spread of Gnosticism and Marcionite churches.

The word Catholic them must either be an interpolation (addition) to the text of Ignatius, or its meaning must be related to its true translation. Catholic answers gives it as cat-according, holikos-from a whole. http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

But in other literature from those days I notice it means general. Like Do you have a general idea of what Catholic means?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

Okay, well here's a few more then, and NO, they are not interpolations, Elpidio, the writings of the fathers in toto can be found at ccel.org

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp,16:2(A.D. 155),in ANF,I:42

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,1:10,3(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:331-332

"For the blessed apostle Paul himself,following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order--to the Corinthians afirst...there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world...Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing...to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous,called also Valentinus,or of Militiades we receive nothing at all." The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177),in NE,124

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?'...Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those menlived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus,until on account of their ever restless curiosity,with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled." Tertullian,On the Prescription Against Heretics,22,30(A.D.200),in ANF,III:253,257

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.


That's right, Faith, and it has been changed over and over again by the numerous heretic sects that have formed since the Reformation.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.

Sorry Gail,

But by Catholic Church is not meant the Roman Catholic Church--which of course didn't even exist until the time of Constatine. Actually--I am not even sure that the church was called Roman Catholic even yet.

I suspect the title Roman Catholic, [along with all its false teachings] didn't actually declare that name for itself until the time of the Reformation--in order to fight the movement.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 27, 2005.


FAITH-Can youprove he PAGAN link at all?

Most SECULAR hisorians tend to beelive the slow evolution of Cahtlisism began in he irts cengury and later took its form as wha we recognise today over the coruse of he first 5 cenguries, with changes happening in eahc of hte irts 5 centuries.

They do NOT see Paganism mergign with rme, and the representation fo Catholci beleifs you present do nto resemble anyhtig Paan Romans did.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.


Zarove, you should know by now that facts and evidence mean nothing to Faith. She lives in her own little make believe world where she ignores scriptures she doesn't like, and historical facts she doesn't like.

The truth is that there was always ONE CHURCH up until the reformation. Any other sects that branched off, or remained outside the Church were viewed by the Fathers as schism.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.


Stamping your feet on the ground and just saying so--doesn't make it so, Gail.

When did the *Roman* Catholic Church take its name? Look into it.

None of your quotes call it the Roman Catholic Church and I suspect that the original quotes contained the word catholic with a lower case "c."

Zarove--could we stay on the topic? The Pagan connection is not really the subject here--and you are right, we already went through it in another thread. I am not about to go repeating everything so that you could stamp your feet too.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 27, 2005.


I don't have to "stomp my feet" Faith, the record is there. I have MOUNDS of evidence, and you HAVE NOT ONE SHRED of evidence for your goofy claims. No one believes your nonsense except others who are as self-deluded as you are.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.

Repeating yourself??

Actually, Faith, your propaganda against the Church is like a broken record. It also gets scratchier and more difficult to listen to as time passes. Eventually, your tune will vanish into a hissy noise of little importance, but only as an anoyance. Lol!

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.


And with nare a shred of evidence!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.

Like I said, gail, they are late in origin.

The Church was called the Way. Acts 9, 19, 24, and 26.

Its member were called disciples, brothers, Nazarenes (Jewish Messianic), and Christians(Gentiles).

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.


"I have not found any other quotes from this period: 110 AD or between 30-190 AD calling the Church catholic"

That is what you said, Elpidio, I have showed you otherwise.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.


There are at most 3, Gail:Ignatius (AD 110), Polycarp(157 AD?),a dn muratorian canon(177 AD ?).

Yet, there are more than 3 quotes that state the name was the Way, Gail. These are in the Bible. Catholic Church is not in the Bible.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.


Faith, Im not foot stamping, but he "Constantine merge rman paganism with Christyainity" claim is getitgn old since it lacks creidble evidence.

Most seuclar historians curntly beleive that over itme the Churc aaired certian ideas that developed and evovled inot he modenr Cahtolic Chruhc, they do not maintian, as you do, that ithad a spacific origion with a singular individual.

Others, such as thed Catholcis themselves, claim it was always the way it was.

Both can show reaosns for htinkign this.

You can show no evidence f rthe "Constantine merged rmsn paganism with the Christain Cruhc" idea.

So drop it, its nto going anywhere.

With no evidence you have no proof.

As to elp, the name spacifcaly doesnt matrter.

As to Gail.

There wasmroethna one CHurhc before he reformation, as thOrthodox attest. Yes they where ocnsidered Schismatic by rome, but they existed seperatley, so did the waldenses, the Arians, the Pelegarians, ect...

so outside chruhces did exist at soem point Preious to the Protestant reformation.

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.


Oh, right, Zarove, of course you're right. I forgot about the Orthodox split.

Elpidio, the word Catholic, to my understanding simply means universal. Perhaps it began to be called by that name because of it's spreading-like-wildfire throughout the region.

At any rate, the word was coined very early on, and by none other than Ignatius.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.


Faith..I have to give you credit for being the best side-stepper of all.. Point is that you said it yourself..the church cannot be divided..yup, that's 100% correct. What your position is, is the same as someone saying that the geographical spot now known as North America wasn't North America until somebody NAMED it "North America"..as in, it didn't exist at all until it had a proper name.

Same argument you used for Martin Luther not starting the Lutheran Church..granted that he did not wake up one fine morning and say , "hey, I think I'll start the Lutheran Church." But START it, he sure did. His actions started it..without him and his actions, it wouldn't have begun, nor would it bear his name.

The ORIGINS of the Catholic Church began when Christ said to Peter, upon THIS rock I shall build My Church. The NAME came later. Those church fathers you spoke of were bishops of the Catholic Church. AND when the Holy Spirit decided the time was right for it to happen, the Catholic Church council met and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit DECIDED which books would comprise Holy Scripture, and which would not.

There were NO other Christians around..you said so yourself. Now just THINK ABOUT THAT. If GOD HIMSELF had not given the Catholic Church the fullness of TRUTH, and GOD HIMSELF had desired that some OTHER TRUTH would have been made, do you think for an instant that GOD would have permitted over 1500 years (or even 1100 by your count) of ERROR to be foisted upon Christians all over the entire world until the Reformation? "the gates of hell will NOT prevail against it."

Strong words indeed..yet by your reckoning, all of those early faithful Christians just kind of up and died, or fell into error and God let it happen..kind of insulting to God don't you think?

The bible was assembled and canonized by the Catholic Church, sdqa..historical fact. Look it up in sources written by Protestants who aren't afraid of history. As to how Protestants can accept the bible as inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet reject the same Church which the Holy Spirit guided to produce the bible? I guess you'd have to wander off and find a few protestant sites and ask them.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 27, 2005.


And Faith keeps making a big deal out of "Roman" being attached to Catholic, which was attached to the Church against its will, to some extent, not too many years ago. Now, I know Faith isn't interested in what any-old-Dictionary has to say, but for the rest of the folks out there who are interested in facts . . .

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.


Gail,

The whole point of my reminding you that the catholic church doesn't mean Roman Catholic Church is to show you that just because early church fathers refered to Christianity as catholic--does not mean they meant Roman Catholicism as it is today.

I am not denying that the church is catholic. But it meant and means something entirely different than what you think.

Insulting me now--just proves that you have no alternative.

Goofy claims? Show me evidence that the early church was called Roman Catholic--or better yet, show me proof that Rome was the head of all the other New Testament churches...

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 27, 2005.


Lesley,

you say:

Faith..I have to give you credit for being the best side-stepper of all.. Point is that you said it yourself..the church cannot be divided..yup, that's 100% correct. What your position is, is the same as someone saying that the geographical spot now known as North America wasn't North America until somebody NAMED it "North America"..as in, it didn't exist at all until it had a proper name.

That is a bad analogy because certainly North America is not the same land that it was before we came and changed it's population, culture and history to be that of ours--Americans. Would the Indians agree that it is the same land as it once was before we took it from them?

Same argument you used for Martin Luther not starting the Lutheran Church..granted that he did not wake up one fine morning and say , "hey, I think I'll start the Lutheran Church." But START it, he sure did. His actions started it..without him and his actions, it wouldn't have begun, nor would it bear his name.

The people of the Protestant Reformation are not Lutherans. Some sects might have chose his name for their denomination--but Luther started a movement, not a religion or different church. He is not the founder of anything Christian--Jesus is.

The ORIGINS of the Catholic Church began when Christ said to Peter, upon THIS rock I shall build My Church. The NAME came later. Those church fathers you spoke of were bishops of the Catholic Church. AND when the Holy Spirit decided the time was right for it to happen, the Catholic Church council met and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit DECIDED which books would comprise Holy Scripture, and which would not.

Well that is merely a claim Lesley--one I have heard before. I disagree and have shown why. Do you think that if the council at Jamnia didn't meet in A.D. 95 to affirm the Old Testament canon, that somehow--the Jewish people would not have known the Hebrew Scriptures?

There were NO other Christians around..you said so yourself. Now just THINK ABOUT THAT. If GOD HIMSELF had not given the Catholic Church the fullness of TRUTH, and GOD HIMSELF had desired that some OTHER TRUTH would have been made, do you think for an instant that GOD would have permitted over 1500 years (or even 1100 by your count) of ERROR to be foisted upon Christians all over the entire world until the Reformation? "the gates of hell will NOT prevail against it."

The reason that Christ's true church cannot be divided is because it is a mystery--hidden in Him. We are His true Body of believers--the catholic church of Jesus Christ--a called out body of believers. We are a spiritual reality and the number of true believers has been being added daily since the day of Pentecost! We can't be touched or divided because we are not an earthly institution or religious enterprise. We are His body--and we can be found only in Him. His kingdom is *not* of this world, Lesley....

Strong words indeed..yet by your reckoning, all of those early faithful Christians just kind of up and died, or fell into error and God let it happen..kind of insulting to God don't you think?

All of those early Christians are in Christ---safe. All true believers are.

The bible was assembled and canonized by the Catholic Church, sdqa..historical fact.

No one denies that the Roman Catholic Church canonized the Bible, Lesley. The point is that the Holy Spirit gave us His Word and determined what books would be His--not some Roman Catholic council-- as exampled by the fact that Athanasius gave us the very same list long before that councils ever sat down to determine what the Holy Spirit had already determined.

Look it up in sources written by Protestants who aren't afraid of history. As to how Protestants can accept the bible as inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet reject the same Church which the Holy Spirit guided to produce the bible? I guess you'd have to wander off and find a few protestant sites and ask them.

This is where you confuse just *who* really gave us the Word of God. The apostles and prophets who authored the Scriptures were not Roman Catholics, and neither were the early believers who accepted and rejected the right books long before Catholicism even existed!



-- (faith01@myway.com), January 27, 2005.


Why didn't you answer the dictionary entry I gave you concerning the name "Roman" Catholic, Faith? You keep asking for more and more and more, but you never look at what I offer, and if you do, you have some flippant piss-ant response like what I'd expect from a 5 year old.

And just like the dictionary entry I offered, I have offered quote after quote after endless quote on all manner of subjects, but you do not even hazard a glance. Ignatius? Out the window. Polycarp? Out the window? Augustine? Out the window. Clement? Out the window. Athanasius? Well, just once, and just for a moment, because it suited your fancy.

You come up with the goofiest arguments against all manner of things, scripturally and historically that I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE! If you don't believe me, ASK ANYONE ELSE ON THE FORUM!

Then, on top of all of this, you cut and splice articles from other people like that article you posted on the Eucharist that you copied from some poor fellow named "Tony Pirog" and tried to pass that off as your own. Oh, I know "protecting your sources." What a load of B.S.! Whoever heard of that guy anyway! What do you do, just surf the net until you find someone you can forge off as your own? It's pathetic.

You think I'm stomping my feet, well, you're close -- I'm shakin' the dust off of 'em!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2005.


OK

I DONT CARE IF THE CHURCH WAS CALLED CATHOLIC OR ROMAN CATHOLIC

THE CORRUPT CHURCH COMPILED THE BIBLE

THE NAME OF THE CHURCH DOESNT MATTER

CAN ANY PROTESTANT HERE PLEASE TELL ME HOW HE/SHE CAN BE SO SURE ABOUT THE BIBLE IF THE CORRUPT CHURCH COMPILED IT

PLEASE DONT GO OFF TOPIC AND IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS LUTHER OR THE NAME OF THE CORRUPT CHURCH START A NEW THREAD

IF YOU CAN ANSWER MY QUESTION PLEASE ANSWER IT IF YOU CANT THEN DONT SIMPLY DONT REPLY...

THANK YOU,

SDQA

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 28, 2005.


Luther and the Catholic Church are key to this discussion, SDQA. Protestants, for the most, have followed some fraction of Luther's work. The Bible, as Protestants adopt, has been changed as a result of Luther's tamperings. So, truth for the Protestant is different than the Catholic truth in regards to the Holy Bible. If you cannot identify Luther in the mix of things, you may never retrace where things changed in the "modern" Bible.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.


Oh, are we mad Gail?

Get used to it--the term "Roman Catholic" is different from the term catholic church., and those early church fathers never heard of Roman Catholicism.....none of your quotes support the notion that the early church was Roman Catholic.

I don't try to pass anything off as my own--you don't even know who I am.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 28, 2005.


the bible was compiled at 397 AD or something

that weren't the church fathers

it was the corrupt church...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 28, 2005.


sdqa,

Did you not catch a single point I made about the fact that the Bible was not written or compiled by the Roman Catholic Church?

It was written by God's prophets and apostles and understood by early believers long before the Roman Catholic Church came along and gave it their stamp of approval.

In other words, there is no reason to doubt the Word as we have it just because that Church caonized the Bible officially. We didn't really need that stamp of approval and would still have our Scriptures had they not canonized them.

You need to trust in the Holy Spirit and the fact that God isn't going to let men interfere with His will. He uses men to further His purpose. He would have His Word in our hand under any circumstances...

No need to reject His Word because you don't like that Church. God used worse things than that to further His purposes...

By God's divine providence we have and can trust His Word. Scripture defines Scripture--as I tried to show, but I suspect you missed the point altogether, or you wouldn't still be complaining about the same thing.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 28, 2005.


Hee...hee!

"I don't try to pass anything off as my own--you don't even know who I am. "--Faith.

Actually, the issue isn't who you are; it's whose writings are those.

............

Oops! I almost forgot:

Lol!

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.


sdqa at least has it half right..

try following this;

1. the various letters (epistles)and other writings which would eventually be put together to make up the New Testament, were, or course written BEFORE the proper name of the Catholic Church was ever uttered by anybody on the face of the earth.

2. The men who wrote them were EITHER eyewitnesses to the works of Jesus Christ, OR directly inspired by the Risen Christ, OR disciples of those men. (the actual writers).

3. The men who WROTE the actual scriptures not only wrote down what came to be "scripture" BUT ALSO did OTHER ORAL TEACHING as well, which IS NOT WRITTEN DOWN..see 2Thessalonians, verse 15.

4. The men who wrote what would eventually become scripture and did oral teachings appointed OTHER men to teach AFTER them.

5. These men who came after the gospel writers, apppointed OTHER men to come after THEM. (this is easy when you get the hang of it)

6. As the WORD of the gospels spread throughout the then known world, this "new religion" became a threat to the one political power which ruled the then known world..The Roman Empire.

7. members of this new religion were persecuted..it didn't stop the growth at all. Men continued to appoint other men to succeed them in spreading the gospel.

8. By the time of the rise to power of the Emperor Constantine, as head of the ROMAN Empire, whose seat of power was (not surpisingly) in ROME..Constantine became fond of the Christian "sect" due to a vision that he had had before a battle. It is undisputed historical FACT that Constantine did not initially, overnight become a full- fledged Christian. What he DID do, was to invite the known leaders of the Christian religion to ROME to be under his personal protection, and to be free from all persecution, and to set up complete and free worship of their religion.

9. The men who were the appointed successors of the original writers of the scriptures went to Rome.

10. The word "catholic", as Faith has correctly pointed out, means "universal". There was ONE Christian Church..founded by Jesus Christ. It was and is, "catholic", as in universal. The history of it's leadership ENDING up in Rome is as outlined above.

11. The fact that Constantine himself initially mixed pagan worship with Christian worship in his own error is no reflection upon the Church in those days..he was a confused man who was in transition (as are many people today). The Roman temples were filled with a combination of pagan and Christian worship on HIS orders, not those of the Christian Church.

12. Historical FACT is that eventually, Christianity flourished and paganism did not, and the Christian Church in Rome became the "Roman Catholic Church" with ALL of Europe being Christian.

13. This same Catholic Church met in council, and taking ALL of the various ancient documents which it had held for hundreds of years (remember those men who appointed those other men to come after them?) and DECIDED WHICH were HOLY SCRIPTURE and which were not.

14. over a THOUSAND YEARS later..think of that now. How many years? It's truly staggering when you stop and THINK about it. Martin Luther said "Nope." "It's wrong."

Now in order to believe that. You HAVE to believe,as Faith does, that God gave a promise to the "early Church" that He would be with the Church "always" and then somehow disappeared until Martin Luther came along..that there was some sort of spiritual vacuum which existed from around 400AD to 1500. YET the Holy Spirit came back just long enough to have the type set on the bible and then went away again. Because as much as Faith would like to have it be otherwise,YOU are correct sdqa..the BIBLE WAS compiled BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

OR, you'd HAVE to believe that the Holy Spirit some how was with the Catholic Church and then wasn't..He left?



-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 28, 2005.


sdqa,

Did you not catch a single point I made about the fact that the Bible was not written or compiled by the Roman Catholic Church?

It was written by God's prophets and apostles and understood by early believers long before the Roman Catholic Church came along and gave it their stamp of approval.

[actually the scriptures were written by the prophets and apostels,not the bible]-sdqa

In other words, there is no reason to doubt the Word as we have it just because that Church caonized the Bible officially. We didn't really need that stamp of approval and would still have our Scriptures had they not canonized them.

[the canonizing of the scriptures was not a stamp of approval,but it was to determine which things will be in the bible;today we don't have the originals of the scriptures,we only have the bible,what i a trying to say is that the corrupt church could put there anything they want and not canonize other things they actually should]-sdqa

i think the problem is faith,that you see the scriptures and the bible as the same thing;the corrupt church compiled the bible with the scriptures,at least so they claim;because they are corrupt and evil i can trust them about this,i can't be sure if they have put the actual scriptures in the bible and if it was the complete collection of the scriptures,additional scriptures that weren't maybe canonized could give a complete different meaning to many things that we find in the bible today

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 28, 2005.


Lesley,

Great job. That is precisely what happened according to the EVIDENCE.

***********

Faith, does Tony know that you stole his article?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 28, 2005.


Im stul waiting for convencing proof of Paganism beign added in constantine reign.He ws nto that confused. Remember faith beelived mary devotion is equel to Paganism... the "Mother and child" cult owrhsipwd as the " Roman State Religion." Inded, no Mother and CHold cult existed.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 28, 2005.

Zarove..my info comes from back in the day when I attended college in the 1960's..we had texts which taught that Constantine initially decreed that all of the Roman temples were not only to continue display the usual Roman gods and goddesses, but that the signs of Christianity were ALSO to be equally given preference. Sort of a "cover all the bases" mentality. I have never in my life heard of any Madonna-child worship in Rome.

Will try to find reliable modern sources for Constantine's initial "confusion" when he halted persecution of the Christians but had not yet become one himself.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 28, 2005.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

read an overview of Constantine there.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 28, 2005.


Gail?

Who is Tony?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 28, 2005.


sdqa,

Do you not understand that the books were already listed by Athanasius long before a council ever convened? And that council didn't change a thing. The neither added or subtracted any books that weren't already added or subtracted by people of God from the earlier years.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 28, 2005.


Lesley, Imeant Faith and her spacific claims, not yours.

-- ZAR (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 29, 2005.

oh sorry,i didn't know this faith

could you give me some more information about it?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.


sdqa...Athanasius was ONE of the PILLARS of the CATHOLIC CHURCH..a bishop who lived in the days of Constantine and after Constantine. Like many of his time, he had his own opinion of what "should" be considered scripture and what "should" not be considered scripture.

Since there were varying opinions on this subject, and HAD been for a few hundred years, a COUNCIL was called to determine "once and forever" what WOULD be FIXED as "scripture". His was by far, not the only list or the only opinion running around. Faith likes his list because it coincides with what she believes.

Point is, for purposes of YOUR question, Athanasius was a prominent Catholic Bishop, not some member of another "church" who hated those "evil roman catholics" who were in error". His "list" was his opinion of what books should be scriptual..Augustine had his list, way different from Athanasius..others had their lists..sorry, but these men were ALL Catholics.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 29, 2005.


SDQA, here is the Carthage Council's list that was finally ratified (you were right) in 397, and then it was confirmed at the council of Hippo. Below is the actual translation of the minutes of that meeting provided by Bruce Metzger.

*************  Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).

The Third Council of Carthage was not a general council but a regional council of African bishops, much under the influence of Augustine. The English text below is from Bruce Metzger. Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures (listed below), nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John.

Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read."

*************

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.


sdqa

The fact that the majority of the New Testament had been well known long before any council sat down to confirm it, is my point.

Athanasius himself declared that his list was not of his own making, but had been determined over the years by God fearing people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The reason he felt the need to make the list more clear--was to fight the gnostic writings that were being used to lead people astray.

Here is his letter:

Athanasius (A.D. 367). Athanasius was the bishop of Alexandria. His list was published as part of his Easter Letter in 367. After the list he declares, "these are the wells of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the sayings in these. Let no one add to these. Let nothing be taken away." The English text below is from Metzger.

From his Thirty-ninth Festal Epistle.

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second(a) being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth(b) as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second (c) are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

6. These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.

7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

found here

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.


So basically we have two Catholics here, Athanasius and Augustine (who came later) who do not share the exact same vision regarding the content of the canon. It was eventually worked out.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 29, 2005.

Not only that, Jim, but the Cheltenham list is considerably different from Athanasius' list and more resembles Augustine's list, which would seem rather odd since The Cheltenham list was written around 360, preceding Athanasius' list. Also of interest is that the Cheltenham list contains the deuteros but excludes Hebrews.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/cheltenham.html

The earliest, list, however, is the the Muratorian Fragment (170 A.D.) which is linked here http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html, and as anyone can see it is really a "rough draft" of the canonical list, as it is vastly different from the canonical list of today, whether Protestant or Catholic; i.e, it was a work-in-progress. This fragment is most interesting in that it reveals the "practical" development of the canonical list. The Bible as we know it did just "happen" as some suppose, with no human interaction, but rather the Holy Spirit inspired our Catholic forefathers, and guided them in assimilating the Word of God.

*****

It is easy to see the real problems with having differing lists of canon floating around. It caused a great deal of confusion, as one could imagine. Therefore, it was encumbant upon the Church (the ONE of which both Augustine and Athanasius were members) to finally get the matter settled, which it did at Carthage. (See text above)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.


Of course the "majority of the New Testament" was known to people before any council sat down to canonize it. Is anyone saying that the council WROTE the New Testament?

The problem, which has been stated numerous times now, is that there were widely varied OPINIONS among Bishops of the Church itself as to exactly WHICH of the MANY letters, and books in their possession ought to be considered not only just good to read for the edification of one's soul, BUT as the "inspired WORD of GOD."

Athanasius, if he were alive at the time of the council, would have been the FIRST to say that ONE MAN's opinion does not fly in the face of the will of the Holy Spirit. It became clear at the council what the will of God was. The result is the bible as it was canonized by the Catholic Church. It remained so for another 1000+ years until Martin Luther came along and put into play events which would alter the scripture for the first time.

Again, sdqa has an excellent point. The Catholic Church assembled and canonized the bible. It is recognized as Holy Scripture by all Protestant churches. Faith is the only person in my entire life I have ever heard of who says that the Catholic Church did not both assemble and canonize the bible. It is historical fact that the Church did so.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 29, 2005.


ok...authanasius' list is a list of things that are canonized,but the content of these things isn't mentioned in his list

ok the council didn't add anything else BY NAME but how are you so sure that they didn't add anything else BY THE CONTENT and did other things away

and how can we be sure that authanasius's list contains all the things it should contain if he was a catholic also?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.


i meant by the content of the gospels and the NT

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.

faith,

OK, so again, I'm asking..where are the "original Christians"? If what you believe is truth, then there would have to have been TWO major Christian religions existing from that time forward: "The new Christian Church of Rome", as of 400AD, and the "original Christian Church as founded by Jesus Christ from day 1" ..

I think you are not thinking this through properly. The changes were slow and subtle...and it took time before people tried to reform the church back to what she was suppose to be. The early believers didn't go anywhere. Eventually they died, I assume

Christ said He would be with His church forever. If all the worshippers died out, He lied. Obviously then, your hypothetical worshippers weren't His church, the Catholic church is.

None of your quotes call it the Roman Catholic Church and I suspect that the original quotes contained the word catholic with a lower case "c."

The name of the church NOW isn't the Roman Catholic Church as far as I know, it's the Catholic church. "Catholic" means "universal", and until there were other people in the 1500's claiming to be Christians, it could have been written with a small "c", but then one capitalizes names in general.

Gail,

don't have to "stomp my feet" Faith, the record is there. I have MOUNDS of evidence, and you HAVE NOT ONE SHRED of evidence for your goofy claims. No one believes your nonsense except others who are as self-deluded as you are.

Gail, she just doesn't care, and doesn't want to learn. What you ARE doing that's very useful though is providing good quotes for *other people* that may read this and NOT be closed to the truth, and may benefit from hearing the truth, even if faith herself has no interest in it.

Elpidio,

Yet, there are more than 3 quotes that state the name was the Way, Gail. These are in the Bible. Catholic Church is not in the Bible

right below your post Lesley answered you quite succintly. If you still want to call the Catholic FAITH "the Way", I don't think anyone would say you were wrong, but you'd probably have to explain why you are doing so.

14. over a THOUSAND YEARS later..think of that now. How many years? It's truly staggering when you stop and THINK about it. Martin Luther said "Nope." "It's wrong."

Lesley,

That's the part I can never understand about Protestants is how they can think that Christ let people use an incorrect Bible for over 1000 years! Especially the sola scriptura types, how can they reconcile Christ saying He would always be with His church and yet say that the Bible they were using that whole time was wrong? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 29, 2005.


Frank, and that is precisely why SDQA's question is so logical.

Gail

P.S. BTW, SDQA, the list from the Council of Carthage is different from Athanasius' list in that it finally and emphatically lists the deuterocanonicals (or apochrypha) which books were listed at Cheltenham.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.


Gail,

Athanasius explained why those apocryphal books were to remain outside the canon. Notice that he calls the list that he draws up as canon? Hmmm.

Frank,

This seems quite confused, care to elaborate?

Christ said He would be with His church forever. If all the worshippers died out, He lied. Obviously then, your hypothetical worshippers weren't His church, the Catholic church is.

If Christ's church is His spiritual body of believers--then it makes perfect sense., though I am not sure I understand you correctly.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.


Oh hold on a minute--Frank??

I never said that Christ's church died out..........I said early believers died, as all people eventually die. Lesley was asking what happened to them?

All true believers live and die.., and Christ is with us all the way...even in death, as Paul said, to be apart from the body is to be *with* Christ.

It is a fact that the earthly church became corrupted.., even starting in Paul's day....

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.


I elaborated above, Faith, and you must have been busy..I'll try again.

You say that God's promise to never leave His Church was given by Jesus to Peter, right? And since Peter was alive and well in 33 AD, that promise HAD to be made then, right?

So then all of the early Christians WERE members of that Church..yes? That Church that Jesus Christ founded..the Christian Church.

And, according to you, these early Christians after Pentacost went out and preached Christ's Gospel everywhere..yes? And they wrote down what was preached.

And everything was going well with this early Church UNTIL, according to you, these good and faithful Christians somehow got hooked up with the folks in Rome..then these "early Christians" either fell into error and went along with the Roman Catholics, or they "died out". Because you say the "early church has nothing to do with the Catholic Church".

So this begs the question, which I asked earlier, what happened to the promise that God made that He would be with the Church forever? Your answer was that HIS Church is "spiritual"..

So, the "Spiritual Church" was in some sort of vacuum from somewhere around 400AD until the Protestant Reformation, since the ENTIRE CHRISTIAN WORLD was 100% Catholic, or do you believe that there was some sort of large group of "others" which existed, (unknown to anyone on the face of the earth) who went about preaching the gospels, setting up schools, and teaching sola scriptora from 400AD to the 1500's?

In order to believe your concept, one has to believe that such a group existed, or that God lied and abandoned HIS church for over 1000 years, and then returned. Which do you believe, Faith?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 29, 2005.


Lesley--

There are two types of church in the New Testament. The *church* or the called out body of believers *eclessia* which began at pentecost--this is a spritual body united in baptism through faith in Jesus Christ.

Then there are churches-- groups of local people who were united in this body spiritually--who then meet together in a building, temple., or sometimes even in houses.

Christ's true *church* is united by faith into His body--and because this is not about a building or local congregation--but a true body of believers--it is this body, the church, that can't be divided or broken, though plenty of local congregations and religions have always had their share of division and trouble because of false doctrine., etc....

The Body of Christ is a mystery He has hidden in Himself. It is not any earthly institution on the face of this earth., and that means Catholicism as well.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.


So,the body of believers DID exist Faith, all throughout those years of 100% Catholicism? Meaning that all of those Roman Catholics were of course a part of that body of believers?

Or are you saying that only those folks who had already died in Christ and were a part of His mystical body prior to 400AD are the "church", then the "church" picked up again in the 1500's on earth???

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 29, 2005.


Lesley--

Only true believers are a part of His true Body. I can't really say who was and who wasn't part of that body back then, whether Roman Catholic or not.

I would say that it surely became alot tougher to be a true believer with all the apostacy going on and all the false teachings being taught. But just the same, I am sure there were many true believers even in Catholicism.

True believers have been added to this body from the very begining-- and we come from everywhere (univirsal).

Today this Body continues to grow and I am sure some Roman Catholics are in it. It depends on what they believe about Jesus and who it is they look to their salvation. Jesus is the only way to the Father. Not Mary, not the Roman Catholic Church--just Jesus.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.


Faith, that's the most accurate statement I've read from you..I'm not being sarcastic either..you wrote "I really can't say."

And you're right. The very idea that God would abandon His Church, or not keep His promise to Her is outrageous. And you are also right when you point out that the Church is the Body of Christ, made up of believers..

And to imagine that God would allow HIS CHURCH to flounder, and to go for over 1100 years in error, is beyond comprehension..to have the end result be that there are many teachings instead of one..to have the end result be disunity of HIS people instead of unity..to have the end result be chaos instead of accord?

To have young men such as sqda be pondering if the Holy men who assembled scripture had evil intent?

sqda..if the Catholic bishops had any self-serving ideas when they met in Carthage, they would have tossed together a bunch of documents which outlined nicely the oral traditions of the Catholic Church..you'd be now reading "scripture" which quoted Jesus as saying things such as "Be sure to pray daily to my Mother..it's what I want you to do." Or, "Just want to make sure you all are clear that when I said take THIS and EAT it, I meant it literally, and I want you to make it a sacrament." or better still, "Make sure you don't do anything that isn't written down in some kind of epistle, sanctioned by the church fathers."

It would have been incredibly EASY to do that..who would have been there to STOP them?????

So why didn't they do that? Because, despite what Faith thinks, these men HAD all of the knowledge, both written and oral passed down to them directly from the ORIGINAL apostles and Paul. They KNEW it came from God Himself and they wouldn't have DARED to fool with it. Even the materials which were NOT decided to be scriptual were held to be "holy" and worthwhile.

Take a few minutes and THINK for yourself about this.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 29, 2005.


But Lesley,

I think you miss the key thing here, in that He has not abandoned His true church and there is no chaos within His own Body--which is spiritual for now. His body is not any one religion or institution on the face of the earth., though we (His Body) dwell within many churches. That is the mystery..none of us can say for sure just who is and who isn't His--He knows us.

His Body is made up of true believers who have seen Him by His own revelation....

Surely you don't believe that every single person who is a member of the Catholic religion is necessarily His?? And conversely, you must recognize that there are many people outside of the Roman Catholic Church who have a great heart for God., yes?

Jesus will surprise many when He turns to then and says, "Depart from me--for I never *knew* you." They will reason with Him, "But didn't we prophecy in your name and perform many miracles?" And He will send them away into eternal seaparation because they did not belong to Him.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.


Faith..let's not get sidetracked here..be more than happy to have you start another thread.. the ISSUE raised with this thread was by sdqa..

"How are the Protestants so sure that the bible is true.."

Your hypothesis is that the early church who wrote the bible had nothing to do with the Catholic Church who assembled and canonized the bible.

When asked to clarify, you now say that when you speak of the "church" you are speaking of the "body of Christ" , not the physical church on earth.

You admit that the Catholics who lived in the ages from 400AD until the 1500 could possibly be a part of the spiritual church.

A physical church would be necessary to take quill to parchment and write the scriptures, and a physical church would also be necessary to go out and preach the gospel to all men. The physical church which did those things happened to be the Catholic Church..the same physical church gathered together at Carthage and assembled and canonized the bible.

One cannot possibly separate the two, as if it were possible to have God withold His spirit from the ONLY PHYSICAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH ON THE PLANET and still maintain HIS promise only to those who "despite it's false teachings" remain in His favor.. WHERE would they GET the truth if HIS CHURCH wasn't teaching it for over 1100 years??????????????????? OSMOSIS?

There were NO OTHER teachings Faith..NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 29, 2005.


being part of the body of believers is an idividual thing,someone can be part of the RCC but still be part of the body of believers...

jesus meant with this body everyone who follows him...

many catholics as individuals follow and believe in him but the RCC has been all this time around for different reasons

"There are two types of church in the New Testament. The *church* or the called out body of believers *eclessia* which began at pentecost--this is a spritual body united in baptism through faith in Jesus Christ.

Then there are churches-- groups of local people who were united in this body spiritually--who then meet together in a building, temple., or sometimes even in houses.

Christ's true *church* is united by faith into His body--and because this is not about a building or local congregation--but a true body of believers--it is this body, the church, that can't be divided or broken, though plenty of local congregations and religions have always had their share of division and trouble because of false doctrine., etc....

The Body of Christ is a mystery He has hidden in Himself. It is not any earthly institution on the face of this earth., and that means Catholicism as well. "

[completely correct,this is the only true interpretation of the term 'church' mentioned in the bible]-sdqa

no god did never abandon the RCC,because god never was with the RCC,like faith said jesus's body is not an earthly institution...the RCC abandoned god by placing themselves on his position,by suscribing theirselves the authority only god can have and by abusing this position for their own profits

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.


to go back to my original question

"ok...authanasius' list is a list of things that are canonized,but the content of these things isn't mentioned in his list

ok the council didn't add anything else BY NAME but how are you so sure that they didn't add anything else BY THE CONTENT and did other things away

and how can we be sure that authanasius's list contains all the things it should contain if he was a catholic also? "

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.


For me, sdqa..

It's a matter of faith in the providence of God. Would he go through as much trouble as He did to breathe His inspired words through His prophets and apostles down through the generations, only to have it foiled by evil intent?

The other reason I know t0o trust the Scriptures intuitively is that it was by these very Scriptures that my eyes were opened and I saw God's revelation--Jesus Christ. It was in a moment that I was born- again, changed forever. I can never forget that moment and since that time, I have had an unquenchable thirst for His Word, and like a sponge I keep absorbing more and more revelation each and every time I open the Bible.

That doesn't come from me--trust me. If you knew the old me--you would not believe it!

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.


I have to say that I never fully appreciated the Bible verse until now which begins "cast not your pearls before swine..". It applys fully. Shaking off the proverbial dust from my sandals and leaving sdqa and Faith to discourse blindly between themselves.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 29, 2005.

How can you prove that someone living 1700 years ago did not alter texts, add and delete? You can't.

If you choose to believe Augustine and Athanasius were purposefully deceitful because they were Catholic --- that is your choice. I don't understand what their motive would be. They believed their work was sacred and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is unlikely they would risk condemning themselves by purposely misleading everyone who came after them.

You are asking for a kind of "hard" proof that really can't be given in the way you would like to see it.

You'ld need a time machine to go back and moniter their work, see all of the scriptures that were floating around and then be divinely inspired yourself so as to recognize what belonged so you could be sure they weren't making any mistakes or unscrupulous "errors".

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 29, 2005.


Lesley says:

Faith..let's not get sidetracked here..be more than happy to have you start another thread.. the ISSUE raised with this thread was by sdqa.. "How are the Protestants so sure that the bible is true.."

Your hypothesis is that the early church who wrote the bible had nothing to do with the Catholic Church who assembled and canonized the bible.

So far so good, except you need to say Roman Catholic Church--as there is a definate difference caused by a slow corruption...

When asked to clarify, you now say that when you speak of the "church" you are speaking of the "body of Christ" , not the physical church on earth.

Well, I don't exactly just *now* say that. It seems that way to you since you are new to this forum.

You admit that the Catholics who lived in the ages from 400AD until the 1500 could possibly be a part of the spiritual church.

Admit?? There are always true believers from every part of the world.., they are universal or catholic, though not necessarily Roman Catholic. But of course! True believers can be found anywhere...even in a religion that unfortunately leads more astray....but those people who see Jesus, do so in spite of Roman Catholicism..

A physical church would be necessary to take quill to parchment and write the scriptures, and a physical church would also be necessary to go out and preach the gospel to all men. The physical church which did those things happened to be the Catholic Church..the same physical church gathered together at Carthage and assembled and canonized the bible.

I disagree. The early church looked nothing like Roman Catholicism. Don't believe me? Just search the New Testament to find any of those apostles practicing their faith as the Roman Catholic Church started to do since the time that Constatine merged Christianity with pagan Rome!

One cannot possibly separate the two, as if it were possible to have God withold His spirit from the ONLY PHYSICAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH ON THE PLANET and still maintain HIS promise only to those who "despite it's false teachings" remain in His favor.. WHERE would they GET the truth if HIS CHURCH wasn't teaching it for over 1100 years??????????????????? OSMOSIS?

Sorry Lesley--but you don't seem to be able to quite grasp what I am saying. Truth comes from the Scriptures--and although you may not like it--not only did Roman catholics preach God's Word to all nations...

The early church was not Roman Catholic--they were catholic., universal--a body of true believers...we still exist today Lesley. Our bodies are His Temple...and His Kingdom is not of this world...certainly we have a physical presence--but we surely are not caught up in your religion alone.

There were NO OTHER teachings Faith..NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.

The only authorative teaching come from the Scriptures Lesley....anything that has been added by your Church is unwritten tradition.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.


Dang, except the scriptures themselves say THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH. Gee, Faith, if only St. Paul would've got this straight!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.

No, they say that God is the pillar and foundation of the church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.

No it doesn't say God is the pillar and foundation of the truth, Faith, it says that the Church is:

1 Tim 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God -- which is the CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD --- the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Which would agree with your man, Athanasius:

"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very TRADITION, TEACHING AND FAITH of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." Athanasius,Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis,1:28 (A.D. 360),in SHAP,133-134

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.


The LIVING GOD --- is the pillar and foundation of the truth. God is the rock and foundation of truth--Jesus is the rock., etc...The church is *His body* so in a sense--the same thing...but the church is not the Roman Catholic religion in any respect anyway. Paul certainly was not refering to Roman Catholicism....

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.

There you go with that tunnel vision thing you've got going on. God is not the subject of the phrase, Faith. There are 3 little words before LIVING GOD, and they are CHURCH OF THE. Do you see them? Open your eyes, now look to the left of "living God". Yes, that's it, backup, backup, backup . . . There they are -- CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD.

What, do you think you can just pick words out of scripture? You don't even have to read a phrase within the scripture, just a word or two will do.

Do you know what, I bet I could make millions of sentences out of the Bible by just picking a word here or there and then connecting them with other words here and there . . . Why, I bet if I do that I could come up with . . . the RAPTURE theory!! (Whoops, someone's already done that . . . and making a mint too!)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.


....church with a lower case *c*--big difference Gail. It surely doesn't mean the Roman catholic Church. Paul never heard of it!

The true church is His Body and He is the rock and foundation of our faith.

1 Tim. 314-16

Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

God's household is the people who are the church of the living God who is the pillar and foundation of truth.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.


So you acknowledge now that the church -- little c -- is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and you further believe that all the little sects out there with there millions of conflicting doctrines are "pillars of truth!" (Or is it just your little sect that is the pillar and foundation of the truth?)

TRUTH does not contradict itself -- as it cannot, because it is TRUTH. If TRUTH could contradict itself, it would no longer be truth.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.


no Gail--since the church is not a building or institution or religion-- The body of Christ is the people--the true believers.....in Christ--who mis the pillar and foundation of truth-- the Word.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.

faith is right about the interpretation of the church

i don't see how the roman catholics can't or don't want to see that the RCC in the time of constantine and later is completely different from the early christian communities

the body of believers ins't a pshysical body like an earthly institution,if it was i would be sure that jesus would mention it,i would be sure that he will say it as clearly as he said that he was the son of god and that you have to believe in him,he didn't mention it...

also if you don't agree that he talked about a spiritual church,the early christian community that was even called 'universal'='catholic' by ignatius has nothing to do with the INSTITUTION established by constantine for politcal reasons...and we saw throughout the centuries how this institution was

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 30, 2005.


SDQA, The Church is a kingdom, SDQA, that is for sure. It is a kingdom not of this world. The Church suffered throughout evil men, persecutions, bloody battles and surely was a political ramming rod for centuries, AS WAS the Lutheran Church and Calvinism in its time. The Church -- all churches -- are now free of the snare of that political quagmire.

You and Faith have a lot in common, you are both blinded with rebellion. Your rebellion toward law and order and all things Catholic comes from the rage you feel at the worthliness of worldly governments and/or any type of institution. Faith's rebellion, however, is diabolical.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 30, 2005.


SDQA, The Church is a kingdom, SDQA, that is for sure. It is a kingdom not of this world. The Church suffered throughout evil men, persecutions, bloody battles and surely was a political ramming rod for centuries, AS WAS the Lutheran Church and Calvinism in its time. The Church -- all churches -- are now free of the snare of that political quagmire.

[the church is a 'kingdom' of this world,history has proven this;the church didn't suffer throughout evil men,the church was/is made out of evil men...what has the RCC done to change this awful world in which we live...?they are an evil corrupt institution that was established only for political reasons and has only served for political reasons and for their own profits,i'm sick of their ****,who do they think they are? do they think that they just can 'play' god? where does it say in the bible about the papacy? where does it say about the approval of non-biblical doctrines? where does it say that the church mentioned in the bible is an istitution? where does it say that the pope is infallible on the chair of peter? where does it say that THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is the church of jesus? where???????]-sdqa

"You and Faith have a lot in common, you are both blinded with rebellion. Your rebellion toward law and order and all things Catholic comes from the rage you feel at the worthliness of worldly governments and/or any type of institution. Faith's rebellion, however, is diabolical."

[unjustice is the cause of my rebellion,although i am against any form of hierarchal authority among people,i would have no problem with the religious authority and hierarchy of the RCC if they weren't a bunch of murderers,thiefs,liars,child molesters etc...and if they didn't use god's and jesus's name for their own goals...and why is faith's rebellion diabolical? and why isn't mine also?]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 30, 2005.


Because you are ignorant of the truth; she is not.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 30, 2005.

Gail,

You made my point for me when you listed all those denominations along with catholicism. None of them are the true church of Jesus Christ--as you point out--even though you didn't mean to.

All religions and churches have divided and have had their share of evil--which cannot happen to His true Body.

His kingdom is not of this world precisely because it is spiritual-- tucked away in Him.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.


Sorry Faith, Jesus commanded His disciples to take their grievances to a visible Church, not an invisible mirage.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 30, 2005.

We all do that within our own churches today Gail--just as back then. But that has nothing to do with who His true Body is, which isn't caught-up in any one religious institution or building..

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.

Sorry Faith, that answer doesn't solve the problem of, say, a "Methodist versus Baptist" conflict does it? There is no authority in which both parties can attend, and therefore their dilemna makes Christ's injunction meaningless within Protestantism. Christ instituted ONE VISIBLE Church, it has the mantle and it has the promise. Protestantism simply cannot answer Christ's command.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 30, 2005.

If you know the Scriptures--then you know that the churches back then all had their own governed body. There was no head church. It wasn't any different for them. Someone from Thessalonica would not take their friend from Corinth to their church in Thessalonia. Jesus was teaching people "within their community" (believers/church) how to handle a dispute within their own church community/body.

You miss the point to that teaching.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.


Protestants have "Prophecy Tours" and "Deity Debates." Basically, a large number of Pastors and ministers across the US get together to "settle" certain issues amoung Protestants. But, as Gail pointed out, we have no common authority, so everything is subject to personal interpretation. On the plus side, majority is less prone to error, but as evidenced that we still have numerous denominations, nothing is ever decided on a level that can have any impact.

In my opinion, Protestants possess great potential in spreading the gospel once the divisional walls have been taken down.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.


... because it is the divided hearts that turn believers away from the truth, and repel unbelievers.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 30, 2005.

We have the only common authority that counts--Jesus Christ as revealed in His Word through His apostles. In fact that is the same authority each of the churches in the New Testament had as well. Rome was not the head of any church then, and she is certainly not the head today.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.

So, let's say, your Presbyterian friend offends you, you consult her (per scripture), she still refuses to repent, so is that when Jesus appears and settles the matter? Is that what Jesus says he will do?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 30, 2005.

I could ask you the same thing Gail--that is, unless you don't have friends who are Presbyterian.

I think the point Jesus was making was about how each local congregation should handle their brothers and sisters in their community/church of faith.

I would handle it the way in which the New Testament teaches...if I am having a problem with someone in my church--

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 30, 2005.


The remedy simply does not apply to those outside the Church. That's because Jesus invented ONE Church, not millions of conflicting, bickering sects that each have their own man-made interpretation of scripture.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 31, 2005.

I think history shows that rebuking by scripture is why there are so many denominations. Say I see something in scripture, I believe in it. Then a church memeber says, "No, that is not right and here is why.." Okay, but instead of me accepting this, even if it is wrong, I go start a new denomination. I believe I'm still Christian, just with different views on certain issues.

I think the proper way is to remain in the previous congregation while still holding onto a conflicting belief. Paul wanted us to be of one mind, one Spirit. If someone is way off, scripture will help.

But it isn't necessary to reject a person even if he/she refuses to see it different. So what if someone rejects the Trinity teaching? Is he/she no less a memeber of the church?

I think rebuking w/scripture has more to do with conduct and less with doctrine.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.


You are right Luke, that is a huge problem within Protestantism. Many many divisions are created due to scriptural interpretations.

What I am specifically talking about here, however, is Christ's admonition that "if your brother offends you, go to him in private." Then Christ goes on to say, basically, if that doesn't work, take one or two brothers with you and confront the fellow, then if THAT doesn't work take it to the Church for the purposes of excommunication.

This admonition works as long as you are in the same denomination, but does not work if you get into a conflict with someone of a different denominational affiliation. Which denomination do you take to your grievance and how is that denomination going to carry out the excommunication of this wayward fellow? It's impossible.

Christ's admonition applies to ONE Church and one Church only, the one He beget!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 31, 2005.


That's exactly why it's a sin to associate with anyone from another denomination! *Slaps table*

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.

*Slap table*....*Hits fork*....*Fork goes flying across table*....*Fork lands in 70 year old man's soup*....*Luke gets ribbed by close female friend*....*Afternoon stroll in the park postpone til dry cleaning bill returns from the cleaners*....

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.


You guys are getting a little "slap" happy, aren't you?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 31, 2005.

Which reminds me....

If it is a sin to associate with people from another denomination, what should I do with my Protestant (Baptist raised) wife??

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.


Gail,

For one thing--the *church* had not been revealed at that point in time, so Jesus was certainly not speaking about the same thing you think He was.

Maybe we should see what word the original transcript actually used that has been translated church. Some texts say assembly.

And we know that the churches that did develope after jesus ascended into heaven--were neither Roman or governed by Rome of any head church at all. Each was its own governed body...and the book of Acts teaches us how this body should operate in it's local...

We can and do still turn to the same head--Jesus and His apostles-- for that purpose.

Roman Catholicism is as much a part of the problem with earthly institutions as any....

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 31, 2005.


"Roman Catholicism is as much a part of the problem with earthly institutions as any.... "--Faith.

Hmmm....."any" meaning all those conflicting doctrines???? :)

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.


rod--there is no doubt that Rome developed its own doctrines that were not in Scripture--which is why people protest.

So ignore that if you choose. I choose to see it for what it is....apostacy.

Jesus protected His body from any and all of this, so I am not concerned. We, those who truly believe in Him--are tucked safely away in Him. He knows who we are and He will return to take us from this place to be with Him forevermore : )

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 31, 2005.


Jesus gave this Church the authority to excommunicate. An invisible church cannot do that.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 31, 2005.

Let me just try to understand your position here.

So, those conflicting--Protestant-- doctrines are in apostacy, in your estimation, yes?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.


Therefore, it is only your invisible church that is saved.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.


http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-post-reply-form.tcl

THE new thread.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-post-reply-form.tcl

Please cease postign on tis one, the server wont be able to take such a logn thread. Nor will soem computers.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2005.


Really Gail--Jesus excommunicates true believers who are *called out* and are found in Him?

Verses Please??

Or are you talking about an unbeliever found within a local assembly?

And please., excommunicate.., Jesus said that? The same Jesus who died for us even while we were still sinners would so easily excommunicate someone for---what? Unbelief? Why would He bother to even come in the first place if that were truly His attitude?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 31, 2005.


http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-post-reply-form.tcl THE new thread.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-post-reply-form.tcl

Please cease postign on tis one, the server wont be able to take such a logn thread. Nor will soem computers.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2005.


[Please do not post in this thread. Further posts will be deleted or moved.]



-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 31, 2005.


Dear brothers in Christ, God is not the author of confusion early christian had what? these writing were from first hand testomonies eye wittnesses passed on mostly by fellowship and some in letter form in the body and spirit of Christ they were with him the Holy Spitit was sent and is the truth in what they wrote. I have a 8th grade education and I can see the truth and the spirit that drells in me as a believer in Jesus in these writings tells me it is the truth do you have the Comforter be carefull for every word you speak you will give a account on the day reference KJV Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Luke 11:12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? JOHN15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

-- dennis chrisinger (dchris903@aol.com), February 24, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ