The Path to Salvation

[Wansvic]

I urged you to do your one research and you just go back to the same anti-Christian fabricated information. The most common anti-Catholic tactic, when confronted with legitimate documentation refuting a claim, is to move on with a long list of fallacious claims, ten, twenty, even a hundred, the more the better. See if you can research for yourself on just this one question about the 73 books of the Bible without jumping to more accusations. Here's where you can start. The most famous historical Catholic Bible, KJV aside, is the Latin Vulgate by Saint Jerome . Jerome made a footnote about the Jews not including the Deuterocanonicals in their canon, and this has brought many anti-Catholics incorrectly to claim Jerome was against their inclusion in the Bible. I think a much more common anti-Catholic story is that Catholic Church indeed had 73 books but claim Jerome was against it from the start. Again, Jerome was noting it and made it clear he would follow whatever decision was made by the Catholic Church. Yet you claim the books were not included until 1546! This is such an amateurish initial error, the Catholic Chuch has often reaffirmed various doctrine when heresy arose, and someone saw it reaffirmed at Trent and assumed it was the first time--but it is disturbing that the lie continues for so long, to me it shows the devil never sleeps. This should be easy to verify or refute, see how many 66 books Bibles you can find from the first thousand years of Christianity and post the results for us all.

I acknowledged my comment was misleading since I neglected to specify the books were not recognized as scripture until 1546.

And, I do agree the devil never sleeps, but for an entirely different reason than you. Jesus' answer to the devil's distortions could not be more clear, It is Written! This is the primary reason I lack confidence in Roman Catholic Church their practices directly contradict the very word of God. The attached list includes many erroneous practices brought about through their "prestigious" Councils.

View attachment 366492

View attachment 366493
View attachment 366494

 

[Valletta]

I acknowledged my comment was misleading since I neglected to specify the books were not recognized as scripture until 1546.

You made the same error, rewording it does not correct it. While the Gospels were recognized as Holy Scripture and quickly used as readings at the Catholic masses in the first centuries of Christianity, from region to region there were differences in which texts were used. The Catholic Church set out to determine what was Holy Scripture, and what was not. This was a prayerful process that spanned centuries. Understand there were many beautiful texts examined, praising God but that did not make those texts Holy Scripture. Of course, any book that was not 100 percent in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected. For the Apostles and other Catholics, Jesus Himself in the Holy Eucharist is our "New Covenant," or "New Testament." As the Catholic Church was choosing new books for the Bible those books began to be referred to as "books of the New Testament."
Have you examined the historical documentation for yourself? Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. The God-breathed books of the Bible are liturgical books, books that are used for the Catholic mass.
I take it that the search I asked you to do for yourself did not turn up a 66 book Bible from the first half of Christianity--that's because there are none. Although there were slight differences outside of Europe, in Europe the Bible consisted of 73 books until Protestants dropped seven of the books for their own version of the Bible during reformation times. They even, as part of Protestant tradition, use the same order of books that the Catholic Church established in the late 300s. Luther wanted more books dropped, but was unsuccessful. For example, Revelation remains in the Bible. When I say dropped I mean not recognized as Holy Scripture. The Deuterocanonicals were moved but remained within the bindings of the King James Bible until the 1800s.

 

[Wansvic]

You made the same error, rewording it does not correct it. While the Gospels were recognized as Holy Scripture and quickly used as readings at the Catholic masses in the first centuries of Christianity, from region to region there were differences in which texts were used. The Catholic Church set out to determine what was Holy Scripture, and what was not. This was a prayerful process that spanned centuries. Understand there were many beautiful texts examined, praising God but that did not make those texts Holy Scripture. Of course, any book that was not 100 percent in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected. For the Apostles and other Catholics, Jesus Himself in the Holy Eucharist is our "New Covenant," or "New Testament." As the Catholic Church was choosing new books for the Bible those books began to be referred to as "books of the New Testament."
Have you examined the historical documentation for yourself? Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. The God-breathed books of the Bible are liturgical books, books that are used for the Catholic mass.
I take it that the search I asked you to do for yourself did not turn up a 66 book Bible from the first half of Christianity--that's because there are none. Although there were slight differences outside of Europe, in Europe the Bible consisted of 73 books until Protestants dropped seven of the books for their own version of the Bible during reformation times. They even, as part of Protestant tradition, use the same order of books that the Catholic Church established in the late 300s. Luther wanted more books dropped, but was unsuccessful. For example, Revelation remains in the Bible. When I say dropped I mean not recognized as Holy Scripture. The Deuterocanonicals were moved but remained within the bindings of the King James Bible until the 1800s.

As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[Valletta]

As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Always remember that anyone can write a book. There has been a lot of discussion over the years about Jerome and the Latin Vulgate. Check out the historical documents for yourself. Jerome made a note that the major group of Jews of the day rejected the Deuterocanonicals. It was a note, in his defense, in 402 A.D. Jerome wrote:

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

 

[Valletta]

To gnaw or chew doesn't apply to the process of receiving the communion wafer. And gnawing or chewing on the literal flesh of Jesus would be an act of cannibalism. However, when viewed in the proper context of symbolism it is clear to gnaw or chew on the word, is to ponder its meaning.

The word used was no longer a general word to eat, but very specifically one showing the actual physical act of eating--chewing. The opposite of "ponder."

 

[Wansvic]

The word used was no longer a general word to eat, but very specifically one showing the actual physical act of eating--chewing. The opposite of "ponder."

Do you not understand that born again believers already have Jesus dwelling inside of them?

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. 8:9

 

[Valletta]

Do you not understand that born again believers already have Jesus dwelling inside of them?

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. 8:9

I was born again through the sacrament of Baptism. From the beginning of the reformation the three major leaders each came up with and preached different and opposing ideas about the Holy Eucharist, and I don't know how many exist today. Read John 6. As some of His disciples find the truth to be a hard saying, Jesus gets more and more and more emphatic. Many of his disciples could not believe and walked away.
As to the Bible, I hope you have done research for yourself and realize the Latin Vulgate contained 73 books and those afterward in Europe contained 73 books up until the reformation. It is good to be grounded in history, you can still believe Catholics got it wrong. But who specifically decided on 66? At the time the Catholic chose the 73 books, the main body of Jews left did not include the deutorcanonicals in their Holy Scripture. Of course many Jews had become Catholics, and the Catholic Church decided they were under no obligation to follow Jews who had rejected the Gospels and indeed had rejected Jesus. Thus the commentary from Saint Jerome.

Here is a link in regard to the world's oldest existing Bible:

"The Bible is written in Greek and was transcribed by four scribes according to AP writer, Nardine Saad. It contains the entire New Testament but is missing parts of the Old Testament. The Deuterocanonical books are also, not surprisingly, contained within the pages of this Bible.
Saad reports that the 400 pages are made of animal skin, each measuring 15 inches by 13.5 inches."

The world’s oldest Bible now available online

As of today, the earliest copy of the Bible is now online.

catholiceducation.org

 

[Wansvic]

I was born again through the sacrament of Baptism. From the beginning of the reformation the three major leaders each came up with and preached different and opposing ideas about the Holy Eucharist, and I don't know how many exist today. Read John 6. As some of His disciples find the truth to be a hard saying, Jesus gets more and more and more emphatic. Many of his disciples could not believe and walked away.
As to the Bible, I hope you have done research for yourself and realize the Latin Vulgate contained 73 books and those afterward in Europe contained 73 books up until the reformation. It is good to be grounded in history, you can still believe Catholics got it wrong. But who specifically decided on 66? At the time the Catholic chose the 73 books, the main body of Jews left did not include the deutorcanonicals in their Holy Scripture. Of course many Jews had become Catholics, and the Catholic Church decided they were under no obligation to follow Jews who had rejected the Gospels and indeed had rejected Jesus. Thus the commentary from Saint Jerome.

Here is a link in regard to the world's oldest existing Bible:

"The Bible is written in Greek and was transcribed by four scribes according to AP writer, Nardine Saad. It contains the entire New Testament but is missing parts of the Old Testament. The Deuterocanonical books are also, not surprisingly, contained within the pages of this Bible.
Saad reports that the 400 pages are made of animal skin, each measuring 15 inches by 13.5 inches."

The world’s oldest Bible now available online

As of today, the earliest copy of the Bible is now online.

catholiceducation.org

The Apostle Paul's question is still relevant today, Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? Acts 19

"And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:2-4

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38

 

[Valletta]

The Apostle Paul's question is still relevant today, Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? Acts 19

"And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:2-4

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38

I remember the deacon at mass remarking on how he could feel the Holy Spirit above us all in our church at mass.

Luke 3:16 John answered them all, saying, “I am baptizing you with water, but one mightier than I is coming. I am not worthy to loosen the thongs of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

John 20: 21-23 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” RSVCE

 

[Wansvic]

I remember the deacon at mass remarking on how he could feel the Holy Spirit above us all in our church at mass.

Luke 3:16 John answered them all, saying, “I am baptizing you with water, but one mightier than I is coming. I am not worthy to loosen the thongs of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

John 20: 21-23 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” RSVCE

During a conversation with His disciples Jesus revealed there's a difference between the Holy Spirit being with someone and in someone.

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, (meaning currently) and shall be in you. (a future experience)" John 14:16-17

The Acts 19 account reveals people can believe in Jesus yet not have the Holy Spirit. The 12 men received the Holy Spirit after excepting Paul's message and submitting to water baptism in Jesus' name.

"He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve." Acts 19:1-7

 

[Valletta]

During a conversation with His disciples Jesus revealed there's a difference between the Holy Spirit being with someone and in someone.

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, (meaning currently) and shall be in you. (a future experience)" John 14:16-17

The Acts 19 account reveals people can believe in Jesus yet not have the Holy Spirit. The 12 men received the Holy Spirit after excepting Paul's message and submitting to water baptism in Jesus' name.

"He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve." Acts 19:1-7

Indeed, we are born again through the sacrament of Baptism and we are purified.

 

[Wansvic]

Indeed, we are born again through the sacrament of Baptism and we are purified.

The word reveals receiving the Holy Ghost/Spirit is experienced separate from belief and obedience to water baptism in Jesus' name. Every detailed conversion account confirms this truth and aligns with Jesus' statement, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5

Acts 2:38-39 (Jews) The group did not receive the Holy Ghost the moment they believed in Jesus.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, (water baptism) and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (become indwelt by the Holy Ghost)
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

As revealed and confirmed in the word, receiving the Holy Ghost was not simultaneous with belief or water baptism in the name of Jesus; it was a separate experience.


Acts 8:12-17 (Samaritans-half Jewish-half Gentile)
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Acts 10:43-48 (Gentiles)
43 "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,"

The next verses reveal what Peter was talking about in verse 43 above:

"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


Acts 19:2-6 (Disciples who did not realize they had to water baptized in Jesus name)
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

 

[Jan001]

But what is the gospel, exactly? How is it different from the biblical gospel?

The gospel is all that Jesus taught his apostles/disciples both verbally and by example. Jesus commanded them to preach/teach his gospel throughout the whole world. He did not command them to write a book, call it the Bible, and then have his followers individually interpret the meaning of his words for themselves.

 

[Jan001]

Where it the proof that the RCC has the complete oral statements of the apostles, as you claimed?

Please, try harder. These non-answers are a waste of time.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia) Ignatius biography​

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (St. Ignatius))​

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution 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; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

 

[Jan001]

The apostles obeyed Jesus' command and baptized in a name. Again, let that sink in, they did not repeat Jesus' command but rather obeyed the command. That is why there is not a single reference to the phrase in all the detailed baptism accounts in the word.

What was the command of Jesus?

Matthew 28:19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Son. He did not command the apostles to baptize people in the literal name of Jesus. The apostles did not baptize anyone in the literal name of Jesus. The apostles precisely obeyed Jesus' command and baptized everyone in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

As I've said before, the Jews used idioms. There was the baptism commanded by John and the baptism commanded by Jesus. These were the two types of water baptism. Whenever Jesus' name was associated with the baptism, it meant the baptism that Jesus himself commanded in Matthew 28:19.

 

[Jan001]

The book is actually a Vatican II Bible Catechism distributed by the Roman Catholic Church. As to the Didache, scholars are skeptical of to its origins since much of its contents contradict the word.

I am sure you will find errors in many books, including Catholic ones. This Catechism should have been scrutinized more carefully for errors before allowing its printing.

Jesus' explicit command:

Matthew 28:19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[Valletta]

The word reveals receiving the Holy Ghost/Spirit is experienced separate from belief and obedience to water baptism in Jesus' name. Every detailed conversion account confirms this truth and aligns with Jesus' statement, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5

Acts 2:38-39 (Jews) The group did not receive the Holy Ghost the moment they believed in Jesus.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, (water baptism) and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (become indwelt by the Holy Ghost)
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

As revealed and confirmed in the word, receiving the Holy Ghost was not simultaneous with belief or water baptism in the name of Jesus; it was a separate experience.

After almost 2000 years it is still the same in the Catholic Church. When an adult wishes to convert to the Catholic Church he or she first believes and THEN is baptized. We are saved through the sacrament of Baptism as the Bible says:

Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCE

 

[trophy33]

The gospel is all that Jesus taught his apostles/disciples both verbally and by example. Jesus commanded them to preach/teach his gospel throughout the whole world. He did not command them to write a book, call it the Bible, and then have his followers individually interpret the meaning of his words for themselves.

Another non-answer. What is the "good message" (= gospel) Christ taught that is missing in the Bible?

 

[trophy33]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia) Ignatius biography​

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (St. Ignatius))​

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution 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; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Not the proof I was asking for. This is just the opinion of Ignatius about the role of bishops.

I was clearly asking you where is the proof that the RCC has the complete oral teaching of Christ/apostles.

I am losing interest/patience in waiting for your answers. You take 14 weeks pause and then come with non-answers. So I am logging out of this thread.

 

[Wansvic]

What was the command of Jesus?

Matthew 28:19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Son. He did not command the apostles to baptize people in the literal name of Jesus. The apostles did not baptize anyone in the literal name of Jesus. The apostles precisely obeyed Jesus' command and baptized everyone in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

As I've said before, the Jews used idioms. There was the baptism commanded by John and the baptism commanded by Jesus. These were the two types of water baptism. Whenever Jesus' name was associated with the baptism, it meant the baptism that Jesus himself commanded in Matthew 28:19.

Please provide scriptural proof that the apostles baptized using the phrase, "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."