The Path to Salvation

[Jan001]

I would think you would agree the meaning of "Helpful" and "Thoroughly Furnished" differ tremendously.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

All Scripture is a useful tool that the Church's authorized leaders use to help the followers of Jesus Christ to become completely catechized and thereby thoroughly knowledgeable on how to do the good works that God commands them to do.

Ephesians 2:10

 

[Jan001]

Jesus is the word, and it is the word of God that must be consumed not literal flesh.

I haven't seen anyone literally eating their Bibles.

 

[Jan001]

Many Catholic Church teachings directly contradict the written word of God. Please consider checking out "Only for Catholics: Who Believe, Love and Serve Our Lord Jesus Christ" by Kevin J Conner. Eternity is a long, long time. May God Bless!

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Only+for+Catholics+kevin+j+conner&crid=1NXDD5QJXAA98&sprefix=only+for+catholics+kevin+j+conner%2Caps%2C84&ref=nb_sb_noss

I thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. I do, however, disagree with this author.

When properly interpreted and properly understood, the New Testament Scriptures back up the Catholic Church's teachings. It was the earliest leaders of the Catholic Church who authored the New Testament Bible. It was these members and their successors who were given God's authority to interpret their own Scriptures.

 

[Valletta]

All scripture in the finalized canon is the inspired word of God. It contains all that necessary

You are not to add to the Word of God. "It contains all the necessary" is a man-made teaching. Repeating such does not make it true. Don't confuse God's word with man-made tradition. For example, the 66 book Bible is a man-made tradition that was not in existence in the first half of Christianity.

 

[trophy33]

It is the gospel that was handed down throughout the ages from the first bishops to the bishops of today. Jesus Christ's church has a hierarchal structure.

Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

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

 

[trophy33]

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

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.

 

[Wansvic]

There are three persons in the one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son is also called Jesus.

Jesus commanded his apostles to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not command anyone to baptize in the name of Jesus. We must obey Jesus.

The use of the words "baptism of Jesus" is an idiom. It was used to differentiate between the baptism that Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:18-20 and the baptism that John had commanded for people to receive before the death of Jesus.

Luke 7:29
And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John.

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.

 

[Wansvic]

This contradicts what the early church taught. Whoever wrote this book is in error.

Very early Church manuscript:

The Didache:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism​

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

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.

 

[Wansvic]

Jesus emphatically taught that his followers must eat his real flesh and drink his real blood.

John 6:53-56
Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.

In the original language, the word for eat was trogo which means to gnaw or chew.

When Jesus taught his followers that they would be required to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, many of them stopped following him. They were appalled at what he was teaching.

John 6:52
The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

Did Jesus tell them, "Oh you misunderstood, I meant to say that you will have to symbolically eat my flesh and drink my blood?"

No, he did not. He emphatically states:

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

Many of the Jews refused to believe Jesus' teaching, and so they stopped following him.

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.


"From the rising of the sun even until the going down" means "daily." Every day, in all Catholic and Orthodox Masses, the ordained priests re-present Jesus' one perfect offering, under the appearances of bread and wine, to his Father in atonement for all the sins of the world. This is not a new sacrifice; it is the exact same sacrifice that Jesus offered at his Last Supper.

Luke 22:19-20
And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Matthew 26:26-28
Mark 14:23-24

"And a pure offering" means the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine.

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 point of Malachi 1 is God's people were disrespecting Him by foregoing His commands regarding prayer and sacrifice offering. They made up their own rules. Verse 11 reveals His name will be great among Gentiles. In every place prayer would be offered in His name; (not titles) as such their offering would be pure. As prophesied, the Gentiles came to understand that pure offering is done in the name of Jesus. "...whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." Col 3:17

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name SHALL BE great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense SHALL BE offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name SHALL BE great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts."( Mal. 1:11)

 

[Wansvic]

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

All Scripture is a useful tool that the Church's authorized leaders use to help the followers of Jesus Christ to become completely catechized and thereby thoroughly knowledgeable on how to do the good works that God commands them to do.

Ephesians 2:10

Relying on outside sources that contradict the inspired word of God is not the answer.

 

[Wansvic]

I haven't seen anyone literally eating their Bibles.

Guess I needed to include quotes as I did in Post 41, Jesus is the very Word of God made flesh. To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus is to "consume" the word.

 

[Wansvic]

You are not to add to the Word of God. "It contains all the necessary" is a man-made teaching. Repeating such does not make it true. Don't confuse God's word with man-made tradition. For example, the 66 book Bible is a man-made tradition that was not in existence in the first half of Christianity.

ALL does mean ALL. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16

As to your second point, those who wrote the 66 books of the bible were inspired by God. The OT books (scrolls) were referenced often indicating they were in circulation during Jesus' ministry. And those who were inspired to pen the NT writings were actual eyewitnesses of the events that took place before and after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. I do agree however, that the inclusion of the apocrypha is a man-made tradition.

The books of the apocrypha were written in what is known as the Silent years; 400 years between Malachi and Matthew. (400 BC - 1 AD) The books do contain historical information. But during this period there were no prophets and no one who heard from God. As such, the books written did not contain inspiration from God. 1 Maccabees 4:46, 9:27, 14:41 reveal there were no prophets at that time to reveal what God's people should do.

Also, before 1546 the Roman Catholic bible did not include the apocrypha. In 1546 the apocrypha was included in their bible in response to the Protestant Reformation. Excerpt: The Apocrypha had been treated with respect by the early Church and some were included in early versions of the Bible, they were not officially part of the biblical canon for many centuries. The Council of Trent formally declared them to be Scripture, solidifying their place within the Roman Catholic Bible.

Lastly, it is important to note that Jesus did not mention any of the books of the apocrypha as scripture:
"And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

"Then He said to them, these are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” Luke 24:44

 

[Valletta]

ALL does mean ALL. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16

As to your second point, those who wrote the 66 books of the bible were inspired by God. The OT books (scrolls) were referenced often indicating they were in circulation during Jesus' ministry. And those who were inspired to pen the NT writings were actual eyewitnesses of the events that took place before and after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. I do agree however, that the inclusion of the apocrypha is a man-made tradition.

The books of the apocrypha were written in what is known as the Silent years; 400 years between Malachi and Matthew. (400 BC - 1 AD) The books do contain historical information. But during this period there were no prophets and no one who heard from God. As such, the books written did not contain inspiration from God. 1 Maccabees 4:46, 9:27, 14:41 reveal there were no prophets at that time to reveal what God's people should do.

Exactly. All Scripture is profitable, but never does it say ONLY Scripture. That is a man-made teaching that grew popular during the reformation. Men should not add to the Word of God. Remember the Catholic Church was thriving before one word of the New Testament was written. As to the 66 books selected by men, what men did is take the 73 books chosen by the Catholic Church and decided upon by the Catholic Church in the later 300s, drop seven of the books, and use the same order, the canon, chosen by the Catholic Church. Those are two man-made Protestant traditions. There were no 66 book Bibles in the first half of Christianity. Who were these men that decided, do you know their names, and by what authority did those men claim they should decide? There are a number of books in the Bible that Jesus did not quote directly from, are you promoting dropping more books from the 66?

Also, before 1546 the Roman Catholic bible did not include the apocrypha. In 1546 the apocrypha was included in their bible in response to the Protestant Reformation. Excerpt: The Apocrypha had been treated with respect by the early Church and some were included in early versions of the Bible, they were not officially part of the biblical canon for many centuries. The Council of Trent formally declared them to be Scripture, solidifying their place within the Roman Catholic Bible.

Lastly, it is important to note that Jesus did not mention any of the books of the apocrypha as scripture:
"And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

"Then He said to them, these are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” Luke 24:44

Your statement about the Catholic Bible not containing 73 books until 1546 is false. In the early centuries the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at Catholic mass, but the mass readings from other books varied from region to region. The Catholic Church set out to determine what was God-breathed text and what was not. The Catholic Church kept getting closer to this final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. 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. Essentially every European Bible consisted of those 73 books that we use today, in the same order, up until the beginning of the reformation.

 

[trophy33]

Remember the Catholic Church was thriving before one word of the New Testament was written.

Calling it "the Catholic Church" is dishonest, though. It creates the illusion that the institution called the (Roman) Catholic Church existed back then, which is untrue.

At best, we could call the first Christians "catholic" with the lower "c", but it would mean something quite different.

 

[Wansvic]

Exactly. All Scripture is profitable, but never does it say ONLY Scripture. That is a man-made teaching that grew popular during the reformation. Men should not add to the Word of God. Remember the Catholic Church was thriving before one word of the New Testament was written. As to the 66 books selected by men, what men did is take the 73 books chosen by the Catholic Church and decided upon by the Catholic Church in the later 300s, drop seven of the books, and use the same order, the canon, chosen by the Catholic Church. Those are two man-made Protestant traditions. There were no 66 book Bibles in the first half of Christianity. Who were these men that decided, do you know their names, and by what authority did those men claim they should decide? There are a number of books in the Bible that Jesus did not quote directly from, are you promoting dropping more books from the 66?


Your statement about the Catholic Bible not containing 73 books until 1546 is false. In the early centuries the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at Catholic mass, but the mass readings from other books varied from region to region. The Catholic Church set out to determine what was God-breathed text and what was not. The Catholic Church kept getting closer to this final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. 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. Essentially every European Bible consisted of those 73 books that we use today, in the same order, up until the beginning of the reformation.

Man need not go to outside sources for instruction in righteousness. God provides all that's needed in His word, and will lead those who have been filled with the Holy Ghost into all truth. It's a promise.

As you say, my statement was no accurate: "Also, before 1546 the Roman Catholic bible did not include the apocrypha." Actually the apocrypha was declared to be scripture in 1546 at the Council of Trent. The following excerpt in the post made mention of that fact:
Excerpt: The Apocrypha had been treated with respect by the early Church and some were included in early versions of the Bible, they were not officially part of the biblical canon for many centuries. The Council of Trent formally DECLARED THEM TO BE SCRIPTURE, solidifying their place within the Roman Catholic Bible.

 

[Valletta]

Calling it "the Catholic Church" is dishonest, though. It creates the illusion that the institution called the (Roman) Catholic Church existed back then, which is untrue.

At best, we could call the first Christians "catholic" with the lower "c", but it would mean something quite different.

The word "Christian" actually was a name first used by the pagans to describe followers of Jesus. Check it out in the Bible.

"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." ((Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8 circa 110 A.D).

 

[Valletta]

ALL does mean ALL. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16

As to your second point, those who wrote the 66 books of the bible were inspired by God. The OT books (scrolls) were referenced often indicating they were in circulation during Jesus' ministry. And those who were inspired to pen the NT writings were actual eyewitnesses of the events that took place before and after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. I do agree however, that the inclusion of the apocrypha is a man-made tradition.

The books of the apocrypha were written in what is known as the Silent years; 400 years between Malachi and Matthew. (400 BC - 1 AD) The books do contain historical information. But during this period there were no prophets and no one who heard from God. As such, the books written did not contain inspiration from God. 1 Maccabees 4:46, 9:27, 14:41 reveal there were no prophets at that time to reveal what God's people should do.

Also, before 1546 the Roman Catholic bible did not include the apocrypha. In 1546 the apocrypha was included in their bible in response to the Protestant Reformation. Excerpt: The Apocrypha had been treated with respect by the early Church and some were included in early versions of the Bible, they were not officially part of the biblical canon for many centuries. The Council of Trent formally declared them to be Scripture, solidifying their place within the Roman Catholic Bible.

Lastly, it is important to note that Jesus did not mention any of the books of the apocrypha as scripture:
"And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

"Then He said to them, these are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” Luke 24:44

Yes, all means all, but NOT "only." Do not change the Word of God.

As to your 1546 story, you have fallen for a hoax. Realize that everything you may find on the Internet or in anti-Catholic publications is not true. There was, and sadly is, a lot of hatred and people fabricate information. The historical documents contradict your claim. 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. For all of Europe the Bible consisted of 73 books in all of the years up until the reformation when Protestants came up with their own version. Please research this for yourself. Finally, as I've told you, a number of books in the Protestant Bible were not directly quoted by Jesus. This does not make those books invalid.

 

[Wansvic]

Yes, all means all, but NOT "only." Do not change the Word of God.

As to your 1546 story, you have fallen for a hoax. Realize that everything you may find on the Internet or in anti-Catholic publications is not true. There was, and sadly is, a lot of hatred and people fabricate information. The historical documents contradict your claim. 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. For all of Europe the Bible consisted of 73 books in all of the years up until the reformation when Protestants came up with their own version. Please research this for yourself. Finally, as I've told you, a number of books in the Protestant Bible were not directly quoted by Jesus. This does not make those books invalid.

Everyone is entitled to accept whatever church history they choose. What solidifies my lack of confidence in Roman Catholic Church is their many practices established by councils, etc. that directly contradict the word of God. Organizations that deem traditions of more significance than the very word of God are not to be trusted.

 

[Wansvic]

Exactly. All Scripture is profitable, but never does it say ONLY Scripture. That is a man-made teaching that grew popular during the reformation. Men should not add to the Word of God. Remember the Catholic Church was thriving before one word of the New Testament was written. As to the 66 books selected by men, what men did is take the 73 books chosen by the Catholic Church and decided upon by the Catholic Church in the later 300s, drop seven of the books, and use the same order, the canon, chosen by the Catholic Church. Those are two man-made Protestant traditions. There were no 66 book Bibles in the first half of Christianity. Who were these men that decided, do you know their names, and by what authority did those men claim they should decide? There are a number of books in the Bible that Jesus did not quote directly from, are you promoting dropping more books from the 66?


Your statement about the Catholic Bible not containing 73 books until 1546 is false. In the early centuries the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at Catholic mass, but the mass readings from other books varied from region to region. The Catholic Church set out to determine what was God-breathed text and what was not. The Catholic Church kept getting closer to this final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. 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. Essentially every European Bible consisted of those 73 books that we use today, in the same order, up until the beginning of the reformation.

As I said, it is important to note that Jesus did not mention any of the books of the apocrypha as scripture. He did, however, state the following:
"And beginning at Moses (first five books) and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." Again, there were no prophets during the time the books of the Apocrypha were written.

"Then He said to them, these are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” Luke 24:44

 

[Valletta]

Everyone is entitled to accept whatever church history they choose. What solidifies my lack of confidence in Roman Catholic Church is their many practices established by councils, etc. that directly contradict the word of God. Organizations that deem traditions of more significance than the very word of God are not to be trusted.

View attachment 366492

View attachment 366493
View attachment 366494

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.