Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No you didn't. You cited a heretic who said, almost 300 years after Christ, that the church had practiced infant baptism from early times, that's all. The books of the New Testament that speak of infant baptism were all in widespread use in the Christian world before this and considered to be inspired.I just proved that it was derived from Holy Tradition.
Catholicism had its origin in the cult of the circumcision, tinkering with the gospel to make up their own gospel. Their claim to authority and infallibility is illegitimate. We note that "the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11 That is, Christians are to scrutinize all things in light of established scripture.
When scrutinized we find Catholic theology to be significantly deviant from scriptural theology. In fact Catholicism is about as far from scriptural Christianity as is Islam. But Catholicism has gotten away with its heresies because of this fallacious claim to infallibility and its insistence that it not be scrutinized.
It is written,
"Do not let anyone lead you astray." 1John 3:7
"Let no one deceive you with empty words" Eph 5:6
How is one to carry that out with regards to Catholic theology?
See proof
The Origin of the Catholic Apostate Church
Catholicism
Without the Church, the Bible would not have existed.
This is true. But neither did the Church create the books of the Bible.
She only recognized them in the way that Balboa found the Pacific Ocean. He didn't create it, you know; and neither did the institutional church "make" the Bible just because it put its stamp of approval on the books that were already in use.
Ah! So the big point you wanted us to know is that the Church collected the books we later called "the Bible" and put them into a single binding.Please, stop putting words in my mouth. I said the Bible, not the individual books.
They were all Christians, yes. No one has disputed that, to my recollection.Though Thursday is correct in his statements that the authors of the NT books were members of the Church.
This is my understanding of the Bible and its creation. If you disagree please cite your sources. This will help me greatly with my Bible studies.
The Bible is an historical document commisioned by, and edited to, satisfy Helena Augusta (the mother of Roman Emporer Constantine). Helena directed and funded the building of many churchs and the preservation of religious artifacts.
Most of the books of the new testament were written by Paul, who was not an Apostle and who I consider a false (self proclaimed) profit. The purpose of Pauls letters to the churches seems to be to promote the authority and organization of the male leaders of the church.
Mary Magdala, he Apostle closest to Jesus, was ostracized and driven from the continent by the male Apostles to die in a cave in France.
Many books excluded from the Bible seem to contadict or distract from the lifestyle and epiphany of Helena.
The old testament and the new testament seem to describe two different Gods. The old testament seems to be full of "fear and punishment" (the wrath of God), where as the new testament seems to promote "love and forgiveness" (the message of Jesus).
I accept the Bible as an imperfect history of the teachings of God and Jesus, written by man and interpreted differently by everyone who reads it. There was a reason that God only wrote the ten commandments and Jesus didn't write anything. What was the reason?
Please exclude the writtings of Paul in your hysterical criticisms of my heretical beliefs.
Sibyl.
Clearly you do not know the history of the Bible. Without the Church, the Bible would not have existed. Period. This is a historical fact and is not up for debate.
It is only Catholic laity you hear claiming that the Catholic Church compiled the canon; Catholic theologians are generally not so incautious.
Incorrect, please do some history research on the creation of the Bible.
Please cite your sources in your comments. I am a novice.
Where in the bible does God or Jesus instruct man to create the Bible.
Arrogance and piety are not virtues.
No, I am not incorrect. Your theologians would say that the Church did no more than recognise the scriptures which had been authored by God. The idea that there were no scriptures prior to 393 is a nonsense.
Please cite your sources in your comments. I am a novice.
Where in the bible does God or Jesus instruct man to create the Bible.
Arrogance and piety are not virtues.
You misunderstand. I never said there was no scripture before 395*, because the OT was scripture and had been around long before then. It was the books of the NT that were not declared scripture until the late 4th century and therefore the Bible (which contains both the OT and NT) came into the world.
Then there is nothing to dispute about the authority of Scripture.You misunderstand. I never said there was no scripture before 395*, because the OT was scripture and had been around long before then. It was the books of the NT that were not declared scripture until the late 4th century and therefore the Bible (which contains both the OT and NT) came into the world.
This is not to say that the books were not true prior to that....
This is true. But neither did the Church create the books of the Bible.
She only recognized them in the way that Balboa found the Pacific Ocean. He didn't create it, you know; and neither did the institutional church "make" the Bible just because it put its stamp of approval on the books that were already in use.
Well no, I remind them that Martin Luther decided what should be considered scripture. I fail to see your point in the matter.When it suits them, Catholics are apt to remind Protestants that they made their own determination of what should be considered as scriptural at the Reformation. When it doesn't suit them, they prefer instead to tell Protestants that the Catholic Church gave them the Bible.
It is called the Synod of Hippo, and yes it was there that the biblical cannon was first approved, but then was later approved at the Council of Carthage in 397 and sent to Rome.The Council of Hippo was in 393, and Carthage in 397.
It was the Church that declared them as divinely inspired. Prior to this there was no guarantee that the books for true or false.Ah! So the big point you wanted us to know is that the Church collected the books we later called "the Bible" and put them into a single binding.
Once again I never said Scripture has no authority, I said that it is not the Sole or Highest authority given the reasons in the OP, which is what SS claims.Then there is nothing to dispute about the authority of Scripture.
Well, now you've taken it upon yourself to qualify my statement by adding to it. I'd suggest stopping there and turning your attention to the point I actually did make, whether or not you agree with it.However, the Church most assuredly did not simply recognize the Bible as if it was some entity that came into existence independent of the Church.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?