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

Prove Catholic Books Not True

How to prove that the added books of a Catholic bible are not true?

Moderator - They are not canonized.

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Rose on 9/12/05
     Helpful Blog Vote (13)

Post a New Blog

Cluny, The original inspired Hebrew scriptures do not contain the uninspired apocrypha in their Bible. And the septuagint is proven to be nonhebraic and noninspired writings. The complete body of Holy Scripture never had 80 books, for the Apocrypha are noninspired writings which were added later between the O.T. and N.T. inspired scriptures, these were purposely kept out of both testaments because of their questionable authenticity and their contradictory doctrines to the inspired scriptures. It is well known today that the apocrypha and the septuagint is proven not to be holy scripture, and it never was, and orthodox Judaism rightly reject these body of writings.
---Eloy on 10/13/10

\\They were added in the Septuagint.
They are not in the Jewish Bible.\\

They were not cut out of the Hebrew canon until the Rabbinical Synod of Jamnia in 90 AD--a good TWO GENERATIONS after the starting of the Church.

They obviously existed in Hebrew (and such texts have been found) or they woudn't have been translated to start with.
---Cluny on 10/12/10

CANON= o.t. Tanakh: Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy+ Prophets: Yehoshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, Yechezkiel, (12 lesser prophets): Hoshea, Yoel, Amos, Obadiah, Yonah, Michah, Nachum, Habakkuk, Xephaniah, Heggai, Zechariah, Malachi+ Writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Iyob, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Danyal, Ezra, Nechemiah, I Chronicles, II Chronicles: N.T. Gaza: Gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John+ Life: Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude+ Prophecy: Revelation.
---Eloy on 10/12/10

They were added in the Septuagint.
They are not in the Jewish Bible.
The Dead Sea scrolls were 80% Masoretic style and only 5% Septuagint style.
They were included in the Latin Vulgate c.405AD, but noted that they were noncanonical.
Esdras 1 and 2 are different versions of the same book(s), Ezra/Nehemiah.
No church uses all of the Septuagint books.
---micha9344 on 10/12/10

These books were deconanized in the 16th century by Protestants (and if Martin Luther had his way, Protestants will reject several books in the NT too). Before then, all ancient and Apostolic Churches accepted them as Scriptures, and they still do.

Christians for the past 2,000 years (Latin/Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy, Non Chalcedonian Churches, Syriac, Armenian, etc) have accepted these books as genuine Scriptures. Why changed this 1,600 years AFTER the fact?

Eloy is speaking falsehood. They are Scriptures.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 10/12/10

Catholics didn't add them.

Protestants removed them.

Orthodox and pre-reformation Eastern Churches all accept them.
---Cluny on 10/12/10

Rose, I agree with the Moderator, the "added" books are not the canon. An also their content contradicts the Holy Scriptures content. This is a common thing that religions do, they "add" their own nonInspired man-made writings and books to the Holy Bible, in order to feed their flesh, rather than obey God's clear and unadulterated Word.
---Eloy on 10/12/10


In "Two Dinosaurs" you said Cluny, Pray to my Jesus for your self, for your so-called praying for me is unheard.

Who are you to presume to know what God hears and does not, unless you are God himself?

You also said Jerry, You will find my name in Mark 15:34. You have spoken falsehood, manifesting NonChristian fruit, and yet you profess to be of my body and of my Lord

If your name is "My God", whose God are you? It is very dangerous for any man (except Jesus who really IS God) to think he is a God . This is a dangerous blasphemy the serpent suggested in Eden, and people have been falling for ever since.

Also, we profess to be of the Body of Christ, not the Body of Eloy.
---StrongAxe on 10/12/10

\\"MarkV, I am proven to post truth, and you are proven to post falsehood."

Consider that this is coming from a man who can actually imagine God telling him to commit homicide.
---Cluny on 10/12/10

"MarkV, I am proven to post truth, and you are proven to post falsehood."
Oh.... is this like when you referred to yourself as God on another blog? Is that the "truth" you are speaking of?
Don't feel bad Mark. This is typical Eloy.
---Elder on 10/12/10

Eloy, you made my point, that instead of answering the question, you respond with condemnation. And even posted again something you do. read what you said. They very words you say, is exactly what you do. While you are right sometimes on some answers, you are wrong many times. I do believe there is a hope for you though, because there is always a hope while you are alive. You can still read, and so long as you are alive, can read God's Word, and while it is not clear to you yet, the Spirit may reveal it to you the next time Christ comes to your house to tell you He has made the mansion for you. Then you will see the Truth in His light.
---MarkV. on 10/12/10

MarkV, I am proven to post truth, and you are proven to post falsehood. "Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Is.5:20. After you get saved, then you too will post truth rather than blapheme.
---Eloy on 10/12/10

Mark V

The very idea of Sola Scriptura (which is extra biblical and anti-biblical (tradition of men) and you defend it. You condemn the traditions of men that are found in the RCC, such as the Papacy, but fail to condemn the traditions of men found in Protestantism, such as Sola Scriptura (every variation of it).

As far as Waggoner, like I said, many Church Historians/Scholars/Theologians have also study Church History all their lives and have come to a different conclusion than him: J.N.D Kelly (non Orthodox/Catholic), Thomas C. Oden (non Orthodox/Catholic), Jaroslav Pelikan (non Orthodox/Catholic) just to name a few. That is all I said, and yet, I touch one your nerves. Very interesting.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 10/12/10

Igantius, you defend the RCC when its convenient to you, and where they don't you do what you say Waggoner does. His only doing what your doing, no different other then he works hard to find what happened in the past. He has a motive, just like all man do when they spend their lives studying the History of the Church.
Second you said,
"3) Traditions? Well, you place your tradition of men (Sola Scripture, a extra/anti-biblical tradition) above what Holy Scriptures and the Early Christians taught."
Where do I put the ahead the traditions of man? Sola Scriptura only means "Scripture interprets Scripture" those are not traditions of man, but a way of learning how to interpret what is already Truth.
---MarkV. on 10/11/10

Ignatius #2: If you would learn how to use "Sola Scriptura" you would see that the traditions you believe in are wrong, because Scripture really interprets itself. Then you would see that Idol worship, and water does not save anyone. Only Christ can do that. And no amount of works will get you in. How do you find out? But interpreting Scripture with Scripture. Not by some person in a church counsel who wants everyone to believe he is the only vessel to God. God cannot be found out by searching. He can be known only as He is revealed to the heart by the Holy Spirit through the Word, not by traditions of man.
---MarkV. on 10/11/10

Mark V,

1) I only defend the RCC where there is a need, when misrepresentation and falsehood is being spread about the RCC. However, I have written about the heretical teachings of the RCC in other blogs.

2) I only said that Waggoner's personal opinions of the Fathers and his interpretation of Church is NOT shared by other Scholars/Historians, and yet, it is seem that I hit one of your nerves. SDA that I have talked to label the Fathers as "pagan philosophers" because they disagree with them when it comes to Jewish Sabbath keeping.

3) Traditions? Well, you place your tradition of men (Sola Scripture, a extra/anti-biblical tradition) above what Holy Scriptures and the Early Christians taught.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 10/11/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

Eloy 2, You many times answer great from Scripture and even give details, that is the way you should answer all the time. So people can learn. What you present as Truth, will have the effect God wants it to have, what you present that is not Truth will have no effect on anyone. I encourage you to be more helpful since you know some topics others don't. If you feel bad to be challenge you should not post. Do it for the glory of Christ not for yourself.
---MarkV. on 10/11/10

Ignatius, I know you don't like to hear negative comments about the RCC, because it somehow touches your denomination. But history is recorded by many writers not only Waggoner, but many who look into the past of history, and bring the events that happened and the conditions during those times. You don't like that, but it is history whether you like it or not. Take the fact that you believe in traditions over Scripture many times, and the traditions at that time were idolarious traditions. With the Romans and Greeks and their many gods, all new converts came into the Church. The Church did not witness to them the gospel, and waited for them to be transformed by the Spirit, all they did was join the church, with no true conversion.
---MarkV. on 10/11/10

Eloy, the problem is you do not always tell the truth of Scripture. That is the problem. So many times you have no answer for others then to condemn whoever ask. Why? Because you do not have an answer. Like saying there is righteous by nature without the righteousness of Christ, when the Bible clearly states there is no one righteous. I gave you at least three passages and you give a passage of someone who was doing righteous deeds. Self-righteous of course since they were without faith, and anything without faith is sin. You know that but you continue to say there is righteous people by nature. Contradicting the word. Others have questioned you and you have no answer for them. That is why I tell you not to condemn but to show Scripture.
---MarkV. on 10/11/10

MarkV, all that I preach is truth. Every disser of the truth is condemned, and I am powerless to change this truth: for there is right and there is wrong, and those whom accept this are saved, and those whom reject this are rejected. That is why exists a heaven and a hell, those whom reject the truth are given strong delusion to believe a lie, so that they all are rightly condemned for their dissing of righteousness. I will not dilute the gospel into worthlessness, nor sugar-coat the truth to make it more acceptable to the hearer. The cross is no emblem of sweet pablum, but it is bloody and raw and real, and we must each likewise crucify our selves completely in order for Christ's new life to be manifested in the place of our unconverted life.
---Eloy on 10/10/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products

""Fathers of the Catholic Church" which is an accumalation of great writers...heathenism and paganism idea's entered the Church..." (Mark V)

Of course, this is debatable, and such a viewpoint is not shared even by many Protestant scholars/historians. Of course, Ellet Joseph Waggoner (who was a SDA, and they generally dislike the Fathers for obvious reasons), is entitled to his personal opinion (some Protestants tend to label the Early Church Fathers as Pagan Fathers just because they disagree with their dogmas). If the Church did fell into paganism/heathenism right after the last Apostle's death, then the teachings of the Bible is made void and certain teachings we all have is to be question..

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 10/10/10

Eloy, concerning this topic you've spoken of you are so right. The way you explain things sometimes is not exceptable to others even to me, but when you defend the Word of God, in this area you do a good job. Only by reading the actions of those involved in church history do we find what kind of people they were and where they came from at that time. I've been reading a book call, "Fathers of the Catholic Church" which is an accumalation of great writers who studied how bad things where and how heathenism and paganism idea's entered the Church through many philosophers who were corrupt and were given a place in the Church in leadership. Idol worshippers were many, that was the religion of Romanism greeks and many others.
---MarkV. on 10/10/10

\\And I already told you that the ancient Hebrew scroll was already titled long before unsaved clay manufactured their blasphemous septuagint. \\

I realize you want credit for this, but you have actually not said this at all on any blog.

The clearly Greek names (from the LXX) Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (Arithmoi in Greek), and Deuteronomy is NOT what the books of the Torah are called in Hebrew. Their Hebrew names are their opening words.

But, of course, since you can read the Bible in Hebrew, you already know this.

I have no trouble with your saying the translators of the LXX were not saved. Nor were the original Hebrew prophets saved, as Christ had not yet come.
---Cluny on 10/10/10

Cluny, the unsaved also bore false witness against Christ, and falsely professed that their lies were the truth, even when Christ produced evidence in front of them and even afterwards, yet their lying tongues have gone down to the grave with them while the Truth-bearer ascends to heaven to judge them. And I already told you that the ancient Hebrew scroll was already titled long before unsaved clay manufactured their blasphemous septuagint. There are many writngs in the world, like dead sea scrolls, but there is only one Holy Writ which was written many generations before and long long before any heretical clay copied from them and placed them in the clefts of the dead sea.
---Eloy on 10/9/10

Shop For Christian Homeschool Curriculum

You see, the unsaved will seize onto any thing new which purports to be better or older than the already established Holy Scripture. None of these "finds" are new, for the enemy has been trying to supplant the original Writ from the beginning, saying, "Did God say?" And the Truth opposing all these "new" (which is really "old and moldy") words is, "Yes, indedd, you know that your God did say." Now get back to the Holy Bible people, which is proven to be Truth, and get back to Life: and trash to the apocryphas, the septuagints, the mythologies, the philosophies, the gnostics, the dead sea fragments, and any other NonInspired writings.
---Eloy on 10/9/10

Actually, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest mss of the OT were in the Greek LXX.
---Cluny on 10/8/10

\\No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D.\\

This, of course, is not true.

BTW--where do you think you get the names for the Torah book Genesis, Exodus, etc, except from that awful LXX you despise so much?

They are NOT known by this name in Hebrew.

Or did you know that?
---Cluny on 10/8/10

Cluny, yes, the dead Apocrypha from man which are proven not to be in the Holy TaNaK, and proven to be Noninspired, contain lies and antiChrist heresies of reincarnation, of praying for the dead, of dead saints interceding for the living, and of atoning for ones sins by paying alms, etc. It is also proven that there was no preChristian LXX. No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D. In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of NT-OT quotation, the later formulators of the Greek OT made it conform with the New Testament Text. What scholars refer to as "Septuagint papyri" are 24 pieces of paper, written 200 years after the death of Christ.
---Eloy on 10/8/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce

Eloy, have you actually read these books in question?
---Cluny on 10/7/10

Trying to harmonize falsehood with truth is like planting tares among the wheat, they are always a separate specie, and trying to harmonize falsehood with truth is like trying to yoke ravenous wolves with sheep and saying there is harmony, there is no fellowship with light and darkness, and no worhip of Jesus with idolatry.
---Eloy on 10/7/10

Of course there are apparent contradictions in the Proto-Canonical books of the Bible too. I find it amusing that most Protestants attack the "deutrocanonical" books using the same tactics that Atheists use on every single book of the Bible.

If anyone is interested, there have been written articles harmonizing the apparent contradicts in these books with the rest of Scriptures.

Christians have been accepting these books as Scriptures since the 1st century. Why changed now?

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 10/6/10

Every one of them contradicts the Holy Scripture, and a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
---Eloy on 10/6/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage

The Holy Spirit is Counselor-
Put your faith in God alone-not the counsil of man.
Does God confirm them as His Word?
We can't rely on the counsil of men-only the Counselor.

Is 9:6,Jn 14,1Cor 2:9-16

God confirms His Word.

My understanding-
God is God enough to bearwitness to His Word-whether any teaching is His or not.
Trust that He Will guide-Teach and confirm.
---char on 10/6/10

"The important question is: were those book included in the canon as made by the council of Nicea, which decided what books were canon and which not. If they were, we should read them too" (peter)

Give proof from the documents of the Holy Synod of Nicea held in 325AD (which death specifically with Arianism) that it had ANYTHING to do with the canonization of Scriptures. Where did the Synod answer the question?

On this note, later councils did canonized them, and we find the Early Christians using these extra books as Scriptures. The Church has accepted them as Scriptures (as seen in Liturgical services). Only Protestants, 1,600 years AFTER the fact, decanonized them for personal reasons.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 10/5/10

Cluny, and Moderator: The important question is: were those book included in the canon as made by the council of Nicea, which decided what books were canon and which not. If they were, we should read them too
---peter on 10/5/10

The extra books- Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, 1-3 Maccabees, 1 Esra (different names in manuscripts), Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, additions to Esther and Danial-(Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon, and Story of Holy Susanna), the Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151, that are in my Bible are canonized Scriptures in Eastern Christianity, and the Roman Church accepts the above, with the exception of 3 Maccabees, and 1 Esra.

However, the Moderator is correct. It was not canonized by Protestant Christians in the 16th century, but all Pre-Reformation Churches accepted them as genuine parts of Scriptures, and they still do.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 10/5/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation

Who is edified?

The Word of God leads back to Him.
In the process of following your worship,praise, pray etc... will be to Him.
When following His Word-to Him be the glory-no-other.
---char on 10/3/10

What happened was that the Protestants DE-canonized them centuries after they were accepted by all Christians.

To say that these books were not canonized is simply not true.
---Cluny on 9/2/10

Most Man - made trin rcc literature came from here 2nd.Cor.11 v's 14 - 15 & he is making people believe it's from God.

If anything, the rcc literature Is an Abomination to Almighty God.
---Lawrence on 9/2/10

Rose, this has been covered in many posts; SEE: "Is the Catholic Bible Different" and "Why Was The Apocrypha Removed" if you want to see RCC and Protestant members arguing the issue with each other. Send me a message, I'll discuss more lengthy details with you.

Basically, the Jews rejected them *and* none of them are ever mentioned in the NT; even though they already existed long before Jesus was born!
---danie9374 on 11/23/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing

What is the meaning of cannonized?

Moderator - Approved by the universal church (wide body of churches) as to be the living scriptures from God. Most of the churches at the time had most or all of the books of the Bible and where able to compare with the other churches from around the world. The groups of church leaders that approved the Bible included only a few priests from Rome because the Roman Catholic church as we know it today wasn't even totally formed nor did they represent, but a few people at the conferences that approved the books of the NT Bible as we know it today.
---Yura on 5/6/07

Ask the Holy Spirit.
---wes on 1/3/06

Both Protestantism and RCism at that time were heavily influenced/allied to the temporal powers.
Rulers used religion to keep the people under their control.
No doubt there were those who put to death heretics thinking it was the right thing to do, but I suspect it was because these people represented a threat to the establish rulers of the countries.
And at that time the Vatican wielded tremendous international power, and was unscrupulous in using it.
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/28/05

Emcee ... Oliver Cromwell did not reign, he ruled. He was a particularly poisonous Protestant, who caused the eradication of a large part of the RCC believers in England.
The Inquisition was setn up by the Spainish, and spread its activities thoughout Europe, operating for a time in England when it was ruled by a RC monarch.
The KJV was translated during the reign of James, much later than Henry VIII.
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/28/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises

Alan- There are four marks of the true church.1: The church is one (Rom:12:5,1 Cor 10:17,12:13).2: The Church is Holy( Eph 5:25, Rev 19:7) 3: The Church is Catholic ( Matt 28:18-20, Rev 5:9-10) and finally The Church is Apostolic 9 Eph 2:19-20).
---ruben on 9/28/05

Ruben ... what evidence do you have of Jesus establising the "Catholic Church"
He instituted, by His death and resurrection, the worldwide body of Christians, and indeed that is one definition of the the word "catholic. But He did not set up the organisation now known as the RCC
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/28/05

Ruben:I believe Alan is right it was not Luther. But During the reign of Oliver Cromwell the inquisition was set up giving rise to christians & catholics being killed,there was this purge in England, England was at one time Catholic & it was in the reign oF Henry the VIII that there was a break away from the Catholic church,. because the pope did not allow Henry to divorce his wife. Henry needed a male heir which was not forthcoming.At this time the KJV came into existance.
---Emcee on 9/28/05

Ruben "Read the books of Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553)"
Was that by order of Luther ?
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/28/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation

i'm with Wesley on this, let's stick with the Christian Bible and not the Catholic Bible. Evenso many current Christian Bibles substitute the Spirited words from God, for uninspired words of unregenerate man, and thereby they dilute the power of God. Some omit the miracles and signs done by the Spirit, some remove the Heavenly Trinity, and some denigrate the full deity of Christ.
---Eloy on 9/28/05

Mod- Catholic church has been around way before 4 century, which you have not provided me with where you get the information. Consider this -First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325) The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of POPE SYLVESTER. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea.

Moderator - 325 AD is the 4th century. 3 of the 318 bishops were from Rome. It sounds like we are saying the same thing. Once Emperor Constantine's empire fell through his three sons, the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today began to form.
---ruben on 9/27/05

Alan- Read the books of Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). About the Early church was Catholic founded by Jesus in 33 Ad, read the writing of Pope clement 1, Irenaeus,Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian of carthage, Jerome,Justin Martyr etc..etc..About Peter in Rome-Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

Moderator - Please read the Bible and not heresy of men. Jesus Christ and Peter never proclaimed in the Bible to be Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church didn't even exist until the 5th century AD.
---ruben on 9/27/05

Ruben ... can you please provide evidence that Martin Luther ever murdered anyone, or encouraged it. Did Peter ever go to Rome? When did the early Christian Church become the Catholic Church? Why does a Roman Catholic say "I am not a Christian, I am a Catholic"
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/27/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages

(Bible was canonized only 3 Roman Catholics out of 100+ bishops attended because the Catholic Church as we know it today didn't exist.) Since it was only 3 Catholic's What were the names of them and what year are you talking about? If the catholic's Church kill millions like you say they did and tythe Reformation killed only 100, why would that be good for them? A kill is a kill, we both did bad! By the way, how were they Roman Catholic if the Church was not around?

Moderator - They were Roman Catholic in that they came from the city of Rome; not Roman Catholic as practiced today. The Church as more known today came after the fall of the Roman Empire and the Roman bishop took the little remaining power still available in the empire which formed the Roman Catholic Church over the next 100 years.
---ruben on 9/27/05

The added books were included in the Catholic Bible at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

They were not recognized by the early church as there were doctrinal problems as well as geographical errors. Even Jerome who put together the Vulgate has reservations about them but included them at the discretion of the pope.

The Jews did not include them in the canon and Jesus quoted from every OT book except those that were added to the Catholic bible.
---lee on 9/26/05

Moderator - Those few people didn't kill millions of Christians over hundreds of years. Nor did they or the Catholic Church write the NT Bible; the Apostles did that.Oh Yes, they did(Luther and company did), please read your history book. The BIBLE is a Catholic book, if not THEN WHAT EARLY CHURCH PUT THE BIBLE TOGETHER?

Moderator - How did Luther kill millions of Christians? Please send me to a few sources to read. If I remember correctly, the Catholic Church tried to kill the Christians in Germany and they defended themselves. The apostles did write the Bible. When the Bible was canonized only 3 Roman Catholics out of 100+ bishops attended because the Catholic Church as we know it today didn't exist. You should know this history.
---ruben on 9/25/05

Heres one for you. PROVE THAT THE ADDED BOOKS IN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE ARE TRUE. I know that there is no way you can, but something is telling me that you will try.
Please, let's focus on the real Bible. You know, the one with the 66 books. The one that is cannonized. You know, the Word of God.
---Wesly on 9/25/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans

Ruben ... I studied the Reformation at school. and I do not recall that Luther killed or advocated the killing of anyone.
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/25/05

There are fundamentalist all over the U.S. and I am proud to be a fundamental baptist from the south. Most are not from the south, but most are from the United States.
---shira_5965 on 9/25/05

(Moderator - Approved by the universal church (wide body of churches) as to be the living scriptures from God) Names of the Early Church and what year was the Bible put together and which books were consider CANON? Also Luther,Zwingli,Calvin, KILLED peoples as well. Please mention these REFORMERs as well, you can read this in your history books as well.

Moderator - Wasn't Luther a Catholic Priest that became a reformer? Those few people didn't kill millions of Christians over hundreds of years. Nor did they or the Catholic Church write the NT Bible; the Apostles did that.
---ruben on 9/25/05

Moderator you say "The Christian churches never disappeared even when during the Crusades the Catholic Church killed millions of Christians and Jews so that could try to act that like they didn't exist as well as to burn their non-catholic Bibles" Are you sure you do not mean the Inquisition? Surely the Crusades were against the Muslim Ottomans?

Moderator - Yes, you are correct Inquisition.
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/24/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance

Mike thanks for the info. I had the opportunity to visit some Coptic churches in Egypt. They are beautiful in their liturgy and their buildings are beautiful as well. But the structure of their services and traditions are nothing like what some non-catholic, dont call them protestant, denominations practice who claim to be the direct descendants of the early church. Google fundamentalist Baptist and see how many surprisingly claim to be the original church. Funny how they are almost all in the south.
---randy on 9/15/05

Mod-(even when during the Crusades the Catholic Church killed millions of Christians and Jews so that could try to act that like they didn't exist as well as to burn their non-catholic Bibles.) Did not the Protestant Reformation also kill christians under Martin luther,John Calvin and Wesley?

Moderator - Luther was a Catholic still unlearning his teaching (kidding). Please give the history of the three. Thanks.
---ruben on 9/15/05

The story of Satan and Michael fighting over the bones of Moses isn't even in the RCC Bible.
It is found in the Assumption of Moses, a rather obscure OT apocypha.
---mike6553 on 9/15/05

Randy, by tradition the Coptic church of Egypt, and its related churches, were founded by the evangelist Mark, after the death of Peter. Historically their claim is valid.
There are churches in India who claim to descend from Doubting Thomas, who went to India to preach. Again tradition, but these 2 groups could claim to be the oldest..
---mike6553 on 9/14/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays

I don't have a RC bible handy Co ach so I can't check that, but it is in the KJV.
Nice to see you BTW, where you been hiding?

Thanks "other Bob" my son Bob writes here on occasion too, you Bobs should take a #!
---NVBarbara on 9/13/05

Not to take a side on this debate(i am just trying to learn) but ...the story of Satan and (i believe)Micheal disputing over Moses` bones is this not the only time any of these books are referred to in the NT???Is this in madcabee(not sure)
---co_ach on 9/13/05

I think that any added books other than the ones that should be in the Bible should be used as toilet paper! Sorry for being so blunt but God hates that! It's like putting words in God's mouth. The apocrapha is not a part of the Bible!
---Ralph on 9/13/05

I'm the other Bob. I do not believe that the added books in the catholic bible are the word of God. I don't know how to prove it, but my Pastor who is anointed and very knowledgeable on the subject, can. I'll have to speak to him and do research. I believe that there are only 66 books in the Bible, which contains the precious Word of God.
---Bob on 9/13/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance

Bob, can you give ONE instance where any verse from the apocrapha was quoted by Jesus? I think you may be wrong here, that is but one reason they are not in anything but the Douay bible, and even then not all the books are included. Parts of it contradict what is in the rest of the bible.
---NVBarbara on 9/13/05

Both the RCC and the Orthodox churches claim lineage to the early believers in ACTS as well. Is there an unbroken line of believers that has existed since then or even a place of worship that predates early Catholic Churches. Some say that they exist but have not seen evidence of them other than word of mouth. The oldest uninterrupted gathering of believers that I have found are RCC/Orthodox.
---randy on 9/13/05

Firstly, I think those who support these dubious documents need to tell me why I should believe in them.
1/ Bel and the Dragon. A Persian fire god myth.
2/Tobias. Nice story, bu what does it contribute to our need for salvation.
3 The various Macabees. 1st history, the rest re-writes of 1.
4/ The rest are are also rejected by the Jews.
---mike6553 on 9/13/05

I have seen many times in this blog about churches that were not RCC or Orthodox that have existed since the times of Christ. I travel extensively in the mid-east, Greece, and have lived for several years in North Africa and have not found evidence of these ancient churches, either in their buildings or their congregations. Can anyone suggest where I can find these? I have read Trail of Blood and found it full of supposition but little fact.

Moderator - Read the New Testament specifically the Book of Acts. This is the beginning of church history not RCC or Orthodox which came later.
---randy on 9/13/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating

Bob: Can you show us in scripture where Jesus and the Jewish people mentioned the books of which we speak or quoted from them? Scriptural answers please, not just your opinion. Thanks and God Bless!
---Debbie on 9/13/05

Moderator, I heard of what you said about the catholic church persecuting true christians. I also heard that the catholic church tortured non catholics if they refused to become catholic. I heard this after I left the catholic church for good. Tell us more, because I only know bits and pieces.

Moderator - Do a study on the Inquisitions on the net or history books. Just type the word in a search engine.
---Peter on 9/13/05

Who says they are not true. Just because they were not available when some small group of people decided to "select" what books should be in the Bible, does not mean they are not true. They were referred to by Jesus and the New Testament writers certainly used quotes from these books. By the way I am definitely NOT catholic.

Moderator - "Who says they are not true" What is the "they" you are referring to?
---Bob on 9/13/05

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.