ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

The Original Scripture

Why do Catholics say they are the original and one true Church, when it is written in Scripture, the Church was Christian, not Catholic? Acts 11:25-26.

Why do Catholics say we received the Bible from them when they have practices which clearly goes against what is written in Scripture?

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Early Church Quiz
 ---Rob on 12/8/15
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



\\Please cite for the readers/viewers of this blog the name of a Credible and valid scholar and historians who agrees with your statement.
---john9346 on 1/19/16\\

Whom would you consider credible and valid scholars and historians, john9346?

**Why do Catholics say we received the Bible from them when they have practices which clearly goes against what is written in Scripture?**

Aside from this sentence being a non-sequituur (the second clause does not proceed logically from the first clause), Protestants have non-biblical practices dear to themselves, such as revivals, altar calls, and invitation hymns.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/21/16


strongaxe states, "Regardless of whether Enoch is genuine or not, it proves my point that, just because a book is quoted in another Bible book or not, that doesn't prove whether it is, itself, inspired."

Well, It is obvious you do not understand the classification for inspiration.


Strongaxe states, "The Book of Enoch was written around 200 BC, and fragments are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate Jesus."


Please cite for the readers/viewers of this blog the name of a Credible and valid scholar and historians who agrees with your statement.
---john9346 on 1/19/16


Strongaxe states, "Jude 14-15 are virtually identical to Enoch 1:9."

Sir, you are in error, a close exam/study reveals:

1. There are variations in what Jude states.

2. The statement alleged Jude quoted from Enoch is actually grounded in the OT.

"It is to be noted that the whole New Testament contains not even one explicit citation of any of the Old Testament Apocrypha which are considered as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church."

Dr. Roger Nicole (theologian, scholar, professor)
---john on 1/19/16


john9346:

The Book of Enoch was written around 200 BC, and fragments are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate Jesus. Jude 14-15 are virtually identical to Enoch 1:9. Whether or not you believe it to be authentic, the fact remains that Jude quoted from the existing book of Enoch, and spoke of it authoritatively.

Regardless of whether Enoch is genuine or not, it proves my point that, just because a book is quoted in another Bible book or not, that doesn't prove whether it is, itself, inspired (since most churches include Jude but exclude Enoch).
---StrongAxe on 1/18/16


"It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time"-Josephus Against Apion Ch.8 (1st c. AD)
Josephus and many other early historians and church fathers considered only 22 books divine in the OT.
Around Jerome's time (4th c.) some had Ruth and Lamentations as separate books from Judges and Jeremiah resp.
None had Maccabees and other historical non-inspired books.
The 24 are in the current Jewish Bible and are broken into 39 in all other Bibles.
---micha9344 on 1/18/16




strongaxe,

1. There are no evidence that the book of Enoch was around when Jude was written.

2. All Apocryphal Writings are attributed to "False Authorship."

3. It is vital for you to note that these writings were written during the "Period of Silence." when there were know prophets in Israel.

See, 1 Maccabees 4:46, 9:27, and 14:41
---john9346 on 1/18/16


Cluny,

Listen to Jerome on the apocrypha.
"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church . . . I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon."

Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. VI, St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jeromes Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954)
---john on 1/18/16


Cluny states, "Neither did the authors of Matthew, Mark, or Luke."

Correction, ever read the words, "Jesus Said." "The Spirit says." "It is written," or "the Scriptures say." "So that it might be fulfilled." these statements alone mean "Inspiration." "Divine Authority."

Cluny states, "The fact remains that all the pre-Reformation churches consider these books inspired and part of the Bible."

Well, Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Athenacious, John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Basil the Great were Pre-Reformation and they did not believe and teach the Apocrypha was "Inspired."
---john9346 on 1/17/16


strongaxe asks, "Show me where such inspiration is claimed in Psalms, Proverbs, and Esther."

Gladly,

Messianic/prophetic Ps. 2, 22, 41:9, 110:1-2, 45:6-7.

Prov 1:7, 2:5-9, 3:5-7, 6:16-19, and 16:9.

Esther is a portrait of Yhwh preserving his People Israel see Gen 12:1-3, and 17.
---john on 1/17/16


\\Remember, the writers themselves of the Apocrypha never claimed "Inspiration." as the Eastern Orthodox or the rcc or Acc (Melkite) states.
\\

Neither did the authors of Matthew, Mark, or Luke.

And what's "Acc"?

The fact remains that all the pre-Reformation churches consider these books inspired and part of the Bible.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/15/16




john9346:

You said: they do from Genesis-revelations the statements...

Show me where such inspiration is claimed in Psalms, Proverbs, and Esther.

You will not find these statements in apocryphal writings.

Yes you do, in many of them. It's just not guaranteed to be true. (e.g. the Qur'an claims to be revelations from God, but do you believe it just on that account?)

Because your assertion is true in some cases where it should be false, and false in some cases where it should be true, it is not a good yardstick in either direction.

Also, Jude authoritatively quotes 2 Enoch, which is not in our canon. Why not?
---StrongAxe on 1/15/16


Strongaxe states, "So what? Most of the universally accepted books of the Bible do not claim inspiration for themselves either,"

Correction, they do from Genesis-revelations the statements, "God Said." "Thus Says The Lord." "Jesus Said." "The Spirit says." "It is written," or "the Scriptures say." these statements alone mean "Inspiration." "Divine Authority."


You will not find these statements in apocryphal writings.
---john9346 on 1/15/16


In response to strongaxe


"In the course of time a legend attached itself to this Greek version of the law, telling how it was the work of seventy or rather seventy-two elders of Israel who were brought to Alexandria for the purpose. It is because of this legend that the term Septuagint (from Latin septuaginta, 'seventy') came to be attached to the version. As time went on, the term came to be attached to the whole of the Old Testament in Greek, and the original legend of the seventy was further embellished."

FF. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988)
---john on 1/15/16


john9346:

You wrote: Remember, the writers themselves of the Apocrypha never claimed "Inspiration." as the Eastern Orthodox or the rcc or Acc (Melkite) states.

So what? Most of the universally accepted books of the Bible do not claim inspiration for themselves either, but that doesn't make them uninspired, does it?

There are no Historical Evidence for a cannon of the Septuagint.

Whenever Jesus or the Apostles quoted the Old Testament, their Greek matched the Septuagint. Furthermore, in quotes where the Septuagint DISAGREES with the Masoretic Hebrew, Jesus and Apostles agree with Septuagint rather than Masoretic. What does that tell you?
---StrongAxe on 1/15/16


Cluny said, "Hardly all of them, or even most."

Name one, but the main focus is the Apocrypha has never been viewed, "Inspired." or "Divinely Authoritative."

Remember, the writers themselves of the Apocrypha never claimed "Inspiration." as the Eastern Orthodox or the rcc or Acc (Melkite) states.
---john9346 on 1/12/16


\\his works are still credible\\

Hardly all of them, or even most.

Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
---Cluny on 1/12/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Cluny states, "Next, Maccabees and other books were translated as part of the LXX two centuries before Christ!"

First, if you knew it was The Council of Jamnia, then it would have been helpful for you to have mentioned it in your prior response so those reading can look it up to know the truth...

A couple things to note:

1. There are no Historical Evidence for a cannon of the Septuagint.

2. The name "Septuagint." derives from a legend concerning 70 or 72 elders who suppose to have completed it in 72 days.

3. All of the manuscripts are found in the Fourth and Fifth Century with Christian Origins.
---john9346 on 1/11/16


Cluny,

I am not sure of your point?

Yes, Origen was condemned,however, his works are still credible he did not list Maccabees or any Apocryphal Book as "Inspired." or "Divinely Authoritative."

Neither did Origen's Teacher Clement of Alexandria list Apocryphal Writings as "Inspired."
---john on 1/11/16


\\Sounds like you are referencing The Council of Jamnia?//

Yep.

\\If so you should know the issue of Maccabees wasn't the focus, it was the books the jews had always considered "Cannonical."
\\

First off, the word is spelled "Canonical". There is no double N in it.

Next, Maccabees and other books were translated as part of the LXX two centuries before Christ!

Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
---Cluny on 1/10/16


cluny states, "The Jews did not exclude these writings until TWO GENERATIONS after the beginning of the Church."

Sounds like you are referencing The Council of Jamnia?

If so you should know the issue of Maccabees wasn't the focus, it was the books the jews had always considered "Cannonical."
---john on 1/10/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


john9346, Origen was condemned as a heretic by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Orthodox accept Maccabees (and the rest of the Deutero-canonical/Apocrypha) as Scripture.

They are included in all Orthodox Bibles in whatever language.

Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
---Cluny on 1/10/16


Cluny states, "By whom? Only by Protestants, a minority of Christians, and then only very late."

Sir, you are in error, Jerome a Hebrew Scholar taught by Jews stated the following about fourth-fifth century:


"The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus, the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus, the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers, the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is law. The second class is composed of the ProphetsTo the third class belong the Hagiographa10"
---john9346 on 1/10/16


Cluny said, "The Orthodox say it does."

well, there is a contradiction here because Jerome, Augustine, and Origen did not believe and teach Maccabees was "Inspired."

So, the following statement is a contradiction.

"The foundation of Orthodox theology rests firmly on the tradition of the church fathers, namely on those whose inspiration and instruction have formed the conscience of the church through the ages," (Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today,
---john9346 on 1/10/16


\\In truth, Christ and the writers of the New Testament never quoted from the books of the Apocrypha. \\

They never quoted from Obadiah, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, or Esther, either. Should they be in the Bible?

\\That is why they are not considered inspired.\\

By whom? Only by Protestants, a minority of Christians, and then only very late.

\\ The Jews did not consider them inspired. Why should we?\\

The Jews did not exclude these writings until TWO GENERATIONS after the beginning of the Church. If you want to believe the spiritual descendants of those who rejected Jesus, I can't stop you.

Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
---Cluny on 1/10/16


Send a Free Special Occasion Ecard


In truth, Christ and the writers of the New Testament never quoted from the books of the Apocrypha. That is why they are not considered inspired. The Jews did not consider them inspired. Why should we?

The RCC and the Orthodox church will claim they are referenced, but their references are too vague to be conclusive.
---trey on 1/9/16


cluny: "The Orthodox say it does."

The Orthodox are not orthodox at all. They believe the fantasies invented by the RCC.



---jerry6593 on 1/10/16


\\Maccabees does not fit inspired.
---micha9344 on 1/7/16
\\

The Orthodox say it does.

Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
---Cluny on 1/9/16


My point was John did not show Jesus celebrating Hanukkah.
The passage does show the feast of the dedication.
This is Jewish history, not to be confused with inspired scripture.
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
-This is also Jewish history.
-Shall the Roman record that show how this event came to be also be included in scripture?
-Is the Roman record inspired because it deals with all of the Jews?
-What about the account in Josephus' writings, they must be inspired as well.
- Why not put Josephus' works in your Bible?
There is a separation between historical and inspired.
Maccabees does not fit inspired.
---micha9344 on 1/7/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Nicole,

Here is where can read for yourself in context

Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, St Augustins City of God and Christian Doctrine, The City of God XVIII.26,36 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

Also, if you read the verses cited for you prior the author of Maccabees didn't say nor view Maccabees "Cannonical." "Inspired." "Divine Authority."

May Yahweh make the way of truth to you this day,

John
---john9346 on 1/5/16


Augustine states clearly theJews did not accept the Apocrypha.---john9346

Which Augustine? Which document did he write that as you claim?

Cite your sources!


Micha, you are confused.
John, not the Gospel of John give Scripture proof of the Gospel of John 10:22 that it is in your Bible outside of Maccabees of Jesus celebrating Hanukkah.

The Blogger John is correct!

But as I explained earlier, all Jews (orthodox or not) celebrate Hanukkah BASED on the events WRITING in Maccabees in my Bible.

Even Wikipedia agrees. (a Secular source)

So, we have ALL Jewish people following Maccabees Scriptures, Wikipedia connecting the two, and Orthodox/Catholic's Bibles having writing proofs of the incident.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/5/16


/Jesus and the Apostles celebrated Hanukkah as John give passage in John 10:22.\-Nicole_Lacey on 1/1/16
-John is giving a setting here-where and when.
-John does not say that Jesus nor the Apostles celebrated it.
-Jesus fulfilled all Scripture including celebrating the Passover, Festival of Weeks, and Festival of Tents.
-Since the Festival of Lights is not Scripture, it was not necessary for Him to attend.
-Not withstanding, Scripture does not say He didn't attend either.
-The direct statement "Jesus celebrated Hanukkah" by referencing to John 10:22 is invalid.
---micha9344 on 1/4/16


Nicole asked, " (Cite your sources."

Augustine states clearly theJews did not accept the Apocrypha.

"During the same time also those things were done which are written in the book of Judith, which, indeed, the Jews are said not to have received into the canon of the scriptures ... And the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which, are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not, by the Jews, but by the Church,"

"The Jews do not have this Scripture which is called Maccabees, as they do the law and the prophets, to which the Lord bears testimony as to his witnesses."
---john9346 on 1/3/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


Nicole said, "(Good one, but who said quoted? I said STUDIED and FOLLOWED which is better)"

Ma'Am, why would they study that which is not "Inspired." "Divinely Authoritative."


The writer of Maccabees didn't view writings "Inspired." "Divinely Authoritative."

See, 1 Maccabees 9:27

Remember, Trent didn't define until 1546.
---john on 1/3/16


Come on, why do I have the account of Hanukkah in my Bible, but you don't?

Jesus and the Apostles celebrated Hanukkah as John give passage in John 10:22.

I bet you all have secretly looked up Hanukkah online and are amazed it is in Maccabees.

So, I will leave it alone unless someone else foolishly tries to go against the Jewish beloved feast.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/1/16


Nicole, 1. The Jews rejected Maccabees.

(Cite your sources. Even WIKIPEDIA a secular source STATES it is both books of Maccabees!
Go ahead and read Wikipedia if your are too afraid to open a Catholic Bible.)

2. Neither Jesus nor his apostles ever quoted Maccabees.
(Good one, but who said quoted? I said STUDIED and FOLLOWED which is better)

3. The writer of Maccabees didn't view the writings as being "Inspired." or "Divine Authority." (Nonsense)

4. There is much Non-biblical Historical Sources that establishes Chanukah's Authenticity.---john9346

Unless you combine the Orthodox, RCC and the mere fact it supports the Jews' YEARLY CELEBRATION of Hanukkah which they believe as well.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/1/16


Nicole,

1. The Jews rejected Maccabees.

2. Neither Jesus nor his apostles ever quoted Maccabees.

3. The writer of Maccabees didn't view the writings as being "Inspired." or "Divine Authority."

4. There is much Non-biblical Historical Sources that establishes Chanukah's Authenticity.
---john9346 on 12/31/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


Honica, Is found in Jn 1022---john on

Thanks, but if you mean Hanukkah, it is in Maccabees. The WHOLE Story.

John 10:22 Only states the Feast of Dedication was then taking place in Jerusalem.

Are you claiming the Jews are cerebrating a feast because Jesus (BTW, Who they don't accept) in the NT attended it?

They never read the Gospel of John.

I have the WHOLE STORY of Hanukkah in my Bible.
Just as the Jewish people TODAY celebrate this feast.

Are they wrong?
Or are you missing parts of the Scriptures?

John, thanks for finding that Scripture.
Proof both books of Maccabees are TRUE.
Even Jesus studied the books of Maccabees.

Nice to know I am reading the SAME Scripture Jesus read.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/31/15


Brendan states, "John, you are wrong! All Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that we must use both Scripture and Tradition."


"When received into the Orthodox Church, a convert promises, I will accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother,"

The Orthodox Church, (Ware, Timothy (1993-04-29).
---john9346 on 12/28/15


Honica,

Is found in Jn 1022 (NT)
---john on 12/28/15


Rob, why do you reject Scriptures which has the Jewish beloved feast of Hanukkah?

It's in the RCC's Scripture.

Martin Luther had the account of Hanukkah in his Bible.

Are you saying since Hanukkah isn't in your Bible the Jewish people are cerebrating a FAKE Tradition???????

Please explain not ignore, Rob.

Thank you
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/27/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Brendan states, "John, you are wrong! All Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that we must use both Scripture and Tradition."

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."

Catechism of the Catholic Church

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

Paragraphs 85 and 47

Also see paragraph 100
---john9346 on 12/27/15


Agreed Monk Brendan. You are correct.

Happy New Year.
---Samuelbb7 on 12/27/15


RioLion said, "Roman Catholicism did not come into existence as a denomination until the Reformation as it was the Council of Trent that defined its doctrine. It was too bad that those that made up that Council knew little or nothing about the Bible or what the Apostles really taught."

Forgive me, but the Roman Catholic Church, as an entity, was around in 1054, because that is when the Orthodox and Catholic split from each other. Look up Orthodox/Catholic Schism on Google.

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 12/18/15


The problem with your last post Monk Brendan is that the Orthodox can make that same exact claim.

But my problem is to be an Apostolic church every leader had to be a follower of Jesus Christ and be a Bishop based on the Standard set forth by the bible.

1Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach,
Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre,

Some Popes would pass. Many would fail. So therefore it is a false claim.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 12/17/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


"For many years way before the Universal church later the Roman Catholic Church came ..."

You really meant to say that "For many years way before the Universal church later the catholic Church came..."

Roman Catholicism did not come into existence as a denomination until the Reformation as it was the Council of Trent that defined its doctrine. It was too bad that those that made up that Council knew little or nothing about the Bible or what the Apostles really taught.

---RioLion on 12/17/15


Luke said, "For many years way before the Universal church later the Roman Catholic Church came together the Apostles taught the early church all that God was revealing to them, and the church accepted their teachings."

The Apostles were the early Universal Church. It was the 120 who first received the Holy Spirit that made up that Universal Church.

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 12/17/15


For many years way before the Universal church later the Roman Catholic Church came together the Apostles taught the early church all that God was revealing to them, and the church accepted their teachings. The early church had every confidence that what the Apostles taught them was indeed the will of God.
Like the prophets before them they too would die, but God had taken steps to ensure that His message would always be available. The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles to record God's will in the Scriptures and the church accepted their writings. The council simply affirmed what the early church had long since affirmed, that the 27 books we know as the New Testament were canonical.
---Luke on 12/17/15


"Of course, James says we are justified by, our works, and NOT by faith alone. This is why Luther called it "the epistle of straw."

Cluny, I can see why Luther would want to clear things up since James said in (Chap.1:17,18) that we are save by the graciousness of God. Two different Greek words for "gift" emphasize the perfection and inclusiveness of God's graciousness. And in (v18) The phrase "of His own will" in the Greek, this phrase makes the point that regeneration is an active expression of God's will. James intends here to mean that the sovereign will of God is the source of our new life. James could not be contradicting himself. Our works are not involve in our salvation.
---Luke on 12/16/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


Rob asked, "Why do Catholics say they are the original and one true Church, when it is written in Scripture, the Church was Christian, not Catholic?"

Well sir, the term "Catholic." in its original historical meaning refers to all "Christians." who are united in one Lord and in 1 doctrine.

This is what Ignatius had in mind when he used the term in the epistle to the Smyrnaeans chapter 8.
---john9346 on 12/15/15


\\Where do you claim Luther inserted "alone" to the passage?\\

He did, and he said that if someone objects, the answer is, "Dr. Luther will have it so."

Of course, James says we are justified by, our works, and NOT by faith alone. This is why Luther called it "the epistle of straw."

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/15/15


Since none of us is perfect, Rob, I am sure we all can fool our own selves somehow and not even know we are doing so. So, why do we? We are not perfect.

Why do we fool ourselves into only or mainly pointing at how others are wrong? The Bible clearly does say, "For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God, and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17)

Therefore, are we at least as careful to point out to people how we ourselves are wrong, as our example of honesty (1 Peter 5:3, James 5:16), and since we in Jesus will be judged "first" . . . since this is what the Bible says?
---Bill on 12/15/15


Monk, you stated:
"Wasn't it Luther that added alone to Romans 3:28?"
I cannot tell where you claim Luther added "alone" to the passage. It reads:
" Therefore we concluded that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law"
Where do you claim Luther inserted "alone" to the passage? Paul's Epistle is pretty clear. That by faith alone a man is justified. No works of man are included, a more clear passages are found in Romans 4:3-5.
"...Now to him that works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,"
---Luke on 12/15/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


Trav said, "Adding things?? Ha. More accurate, is the protestant cutting things. ..."

You just love needling me, don't you Trav? I have been reading the Bible, steadily, since I was 26 years old. I read a chapter or two (or three or four or more) every night before I go to bed. I started that shortly after I gave my life to Jesus. I began with Matthew, read through the Gospels and the NT, and then began with Genesis. When I end reading Revelations, I go back to Genesis, and start reading again.

No, I cannot quote BCV for everything. My memory doesn't work that way. But I know where everything is.

Wasn't it Luther that added alone to Romans 3:28?

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 12/14/15


Protestants came around some 1300 years later and started adding things.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/8/15

Adding things?? Ha. More accurate, is the protestant cutting things. Your cult church traditions and superstitions for a starter.
You are a late comer christian to scripture. Your past witness is, that you wouldn't know if something is added or not.
Scripture posted, you didn't even realize existed. Scriptures washing the sand out of "universal/catho-lic", foundation. Isa_45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Isa_65:22 They shall not build, and another inhabit, ...
Heb 8:8.
---Trav on 12/14/15


Nicole, for the life of me I have not been able to find what you said concerning Article (9) in the Vatican Council II, I have right in front of me and nowhere do I find what you wrote down.
Are you reading what you wrote from a website online or do you have the books on Vatican II?
---Luke on 12/14/15


Nicole,

I want to remind you of the following and ask the seekers of truth of this blog to give attention:


"Those who do not have good arguments or verses for their views. Often resort to juvenile remarks, snide comments and personal attacks."
---john9346 on 12/13/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


Remember, what happen on another blog when you didn't know what the Council of Trent said about the books of the bible.

You told me I was wrong then until you were provided quotations as well as where they can be found.---john9346 on 12/13/15

Nope!

I asked and asked and you kept saying "I already given you the answer."

Which you didn't.

Now, what does one question have to do with you providing a WRONG citation or footnote for THIS blog?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Stick to this lie you wrote.

You are caught with your hand in the cookie jar and your response is to point to something else in hopes for me to turn my head?

Surely your mama didn't fall for that trick?
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/13/15


Nicole,
Ma'am, I strongly suggest you go back in look it up.

Remember, what happen on another blog when you didn't know what the Council of Trent said about the books of the bible.

You told me I was wrong then until you were provided quotations as well as where they can be found.
---john9346 on 12/13/15


The Pope places himself as the sole representative of GOD on earth.

That is the job of the Holy Spirit.---Samuelbb7 on 12/12/15

What, Jesus forgot about the Holy Spirit when He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth?

I want to say more, but I promised I wouldn't.


The Holy Spirit is God.

Why would He need to represent the 2nd Person of God became Man Jesus????

That doesn't make sense.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/12/15


"the title Vicar of Christ is expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ.... Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ.

The Pope places himself as the sole representative of GOD on earth.

That is the job of the Holy Spirit.

3John 1:9,10

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
---Samuelbb7 on 12/12/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


Happy to explain John 9346, Sir. You cited

//"For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation." Ch 1 par 3 Vatican 2---john9346 on 12/9/15

I gave the CORRECT information to your citation

Ch 1 par 3 Vatican 2 doesn't state what you said. I gave the true citation
This is the start of it:

PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER THREE
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
ARTICLE 9
"I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH" Paragraph 3. The Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic 811 "....---Nicole_Lacey on 12/10/15
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/11/15


Nicole,

Please explain to those on this blog what is untrue about what I said and cited "Source."

Ma'am, please explain to this blog??
---john9346 on 12/11/15


Nicole,
What is your point??---john9346 on 12/10/15

You were caught not telling the truth.

//Vatican 2 decree on ecumenism (introduction)
"For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation."
Ch 1 par 3 Vatican 2 ---john9346 on 12/9/15


Make sure what you are citing is correct.

It isn't nice to lie on others.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/10/15


Really Nicole?

I accepted Christ and Christ Alone as my Lord and Savior at the age of 11.

People often ask if I'm' a Christian? I.don't recall anyone ever asking if I Catholic?

If anyone should ever ask if I'm Catholic, I will answer NO!
---Rob on 12/11/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


Nicole,

What is your point??
---john9346 on 12/10/15


Rob, even non Christians only think a Christian is Catholic.

It like the copying machine.

We (people my age and older) called it the Xerox machine for ALL copying machines.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/10/15


john9346
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER THREE
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

ARTICLE 9
"I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH" Paragraph 3. The Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic 811 "This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic."256 These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other,257 indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself, it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/10/15


\\What is needed is a balance between the two, such as hearing God's word and doing it (Matt 7:24).
\\

St. James said something similar in his letter. "Be doers of the word and not hearers only, DECEIVING YOUR OWN SELVES."

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/10/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


John 9346 said, "Well sir, Wroman catholics believe in what is called, "Sola Ekklesia." or"The Church Alone."

John, you are wrong! All Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that we must use both Scripture and Tradition. A person can read the Bible from one end to the other without understanding a personal relationship with Jesus. It can even happen when they read the Bible multiple times, such as Jim Jones and the Peoples' Temple (aka Jonestown massacre).

What is needed is a balance between the two, such as hearing God's word and doing it (Matt 7:24).

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 12/10/15


We did not receive our Bible from the councils or the Roman Catholics. There were early councils among state churches that listed the books already received as Gods word for centuries, but that is a far stretch from divine authority to identify Gods word.
The truth is that Gods words were always verified by the prophets, even the newest books. Paul writes about his words spoken of God:
"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 1 Cor 14:37
---michael_e on 12/9/15


Rob you asked, "Why do Catholics say they are the original and one true Church,"

Well sir, Wroman catholics believe in what is called, "Sola Ekklesia." or"The Church Alone."

This means all one needs to do to obtain salvation is "The Church."

see following statement:


Vatican 2 decree on ecumenism (introduction)


"For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation."

Ch 1 par 3 Vatican 2
---john9346 on 12/9/15


Michael E. said, "Our Bible was inspired, completed, and preserved before Constantine's religion came to power.
The scripture preserved through history by Gods work men was acknowledged in the day it was written."


Oh really? How did it come down from heaven? Papyrus sheets? Or was it the KJV, already typeset, printed, and arranged in the form of a book, with the words of Jesus in red?

Look--someone had to collect all of the various texts, check and make sure that all the texts are consistent with the Received Text of the OT. They were guided by the Holy Spirit, and as such, could not include error.

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 12/9/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


"During that time, the various communities started reading various passages from scrolls by the Apostles, etc. In 325, the Emperor called a council of bishops where they got together at Nicea, and started working together against heresy"
When Constantine created the hierarchy by bringing together the Roman Empire with the Christian churches, he was made it's head, even though he was not himself at the time a Christian. He had agreed to become one. At the time joining to the church, you became a Christian, even if you were not saved.
Then if you got baptized they believed you would be saved and your sins would be forgiven. Constantine did not know the Word of God, how could he judge what was heresy?
---Luke on 12/9/15


Proponents of extra-biblical revelation suggest we didn't identify the Bible until some church council told us. Convenient, if you want to prove your own revelations through church council. Unless you trace your spiritual heritage through corrupt church teachings, this is wrong.
Our Bible was inspired, completed, and preserved before Constantine's religion came to power.
The scripture preserved through history by Gods work men was acknowledged in the day it was written.
1Thess 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
---michael_e on 12/9/15


The One True Church--made up of baptized believers, along with Deacons, Priests, and Bishops, consistently taught the Word of God for the first three centuries without the Bible.

During that time, the various communities started reading various passages from scrolls by the Apostles, etc. In 325, the Emperor called a council of bishops where they got together at Nicea, and started working together against heresy. At that time, they codified the books that--guided by the Holy Spirit--belonged in the New Testament.

Now this was the United One True Christian Church that did all that. Then the Protestants came around some 1300 years later and started adding things.

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 12/8/15


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.