eric Posted May 22, 2006 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 2 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,073 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/02/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/10/1923 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Sorry Fiosh, honey. Was only pushing a few buttons, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismarc Posted May 22, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 136 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/20/1950 Share Posted May 22, 2006 John3;16 said, The reason that many of the books of the Apocrypha were not included in the canon is that they did not meet the standards of scripture, they were not written by the Apostles, they were not written by eyewitnesses of Christ, there is no continuity in them, they are not referenced as scripture by the disciples of the Apostles as the accepted 27 books are... None of the books in the OT were written by the Apostles! Why do you not use the complete OT as used by Jesus and His Apostles? Why do you use a bible with these inspired books removed? In the 16th century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the OT that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha." Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first). Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ. The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture. During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded 7 books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the OT. Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismarc Posted May 22, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 136 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/20/1950 Share Posted May 22, 2006 The use of contraceptives is considered to be sin by the RCC for anyone --- married priests or laity. This was a consistent teaching of all Christians until 1930 when for some reason non-Catholics strayed from the Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John3;16 Posted May 23, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 274 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/09/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/16/1955 Share Posted May 23, 2006 None of the books in the OT were written by the Apostles! Why do you not use the complete OT as used by Jesus and His Apostles? Why do you use a bible with these inspired books removed? The New Testament has numerous direct reference to Old Testament Scripture, which validates those books, and these N.T. books were never in question as to their legitimacy or challenged in regards to meeting the standards that books were required to meet to be included in the canon. The New Testament witness to the Old Testament as Sacred Scripture: Matthew 21:42; 22:29; 26:54, 56 Luke 24 John 5:39; 10:35 Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28 Romans 1:2; 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4; 16:26 1Corinthians 15:3. 4 Galatians 3:8; 3:22; 4:30 1Timothy 5:18 2 Timothy 3:16 2 Peter 1:20,21; 3:16 reference: The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell "In the 16th century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the OT that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha." Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first)." Martin Luther was a Catholic who brought indictments against the Catholic Church, he and his followers were protesting practices and interpretation of scripture, so it is no doubt that they began with the books that were authorized by the Vatican, and I do not know the history as to what caused them to remove certain books, but it could be because those books of the apocrypha were not added to the canon until the until the counter-Reformation Council of Trent. (1546-63) "In the 16th century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the OT that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha." Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest)" Hebrew apocrypha comes from the Greek word apokruphos, meaning "hidden or concealed." In the fourth century A.D., Jerome was the first to name this group of literature Apocrypha. The Apocrypha consists of the books added to the old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants reject these additions as canonical Scripture. reference: The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict; Josh McDowell Historical Testimony of the exclusion of the apocrypha: 1. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C.-A.D. 40) quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the three fold classification, but he never quoted from the apocrypha as inspired. 2. Josephus (A.D. 30-100), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books as twenty two. Neither does he quote the apocrypha books as Scripture. 3. Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost of the canonical books of the Old Testament. 4. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (A.D. 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha. 5. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries. 6. Many of the great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismarc Posted May 23, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 136 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/20/1950 Share Posted May 23, 2006 John3;16 said, According to the above reference and the many references that are listed in the book, the books of the Apocrypha were not widely accepted by the early church, and not until the fifteenth century were those books officially added to the canon. You obviously didn't read any of my post #33! How do expect to learn the truth about Catholicism by reading anti- Catholics like Josh MacDowell? Read and learn: The Canon of Scripture by Sebastian R. Fama There is a significant difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Catholic Bibles contain seven more books than Protestant Bibles do. The 7 books, all in the OT, are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Catholics call the disputed books Deuterocanonical and consider them to be inspired. Bible Christians call them Apocryphal and consider them to be spurious. The list of books that comprise the Bible is referred to as the canon. During Jesus' time there were two OT canons in use. There was the Palestinian canon, which is identical to the Protestant OT and there was the Alexandrian canon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael333 Posted May 23, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 35 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/18/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 23, 2006 (edited) There is no evidence of Peter ruling over the other Apostles, or any other similarities to the structure of the government of the Roman Catholic Church. FYI: There have been many comments so far from Protestents who are commenting on the doctines and structure of the RCC that is completely opposite to what the RCC actually teaches. Also, if Catholics mis-speak about teachings of Protestent churches, then please bring this to light. The main goal of these discussions is to bring the Truth into the light for all to see. Not mislead with false or misguided interpretations of both the Bible and Christ's Church. To say there is no evidence, I would have to ask - have you even read the NT? Please do not critisize and comment on the structure of the RCC until you have thoroughly researched it yourself. There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter Edited May 23, 2006 by Michael333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John3;16 Posted May 25, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 274 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/09/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/16/1955 Share Posted May 25, 2006 chrismarc "Most Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the OT. When the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) set the canon of the NT, they also confirmed the Septuagint as the OT. Further evidence of the Septuagint's acceptance by the early Church can be found in the NT itself. It quotes the OT approximately 350 times. Three hundred of those quotes are from the Septuagint. Surely this amounts to an overwhelming endorsement by the early Church." It appears that the Roman Catholic Church did not accept all books included in the Septuagint, so if Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh were considered not to be "Inspired by the Holy Spirit", so then, the argument that any book found in the Septuagint qualifies it as the word of God, then looses its creditability as a tool to determine Holy Scripture. Source: http://www.septuagint.net/ Septuagint - What Does It Contain? The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. The term "Apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period between the last book in the Jewish scriptures, Malachi, and the arrival of Jesus Christ. The apocryphal books include Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh. However, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches include the Apocrypha in their Bible (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). The term "Apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period between the last book in the Jewish scriptures, Malachi, and the arrival of Jesus Christ. The apocryphal books include Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh. "And so the canon stood. Unchanged until the Protestant Reformation when Luther threw out the seven Deuterocanonicals because they contradicted his new doctrines. He also wanted to throw out Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed." The term "Apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, The Apocrypha books were not included in the canon until the 15th century, the Apocrypha were not included in the canon. There are many letters from antiquity that reveal which books are considered sacred. "The list of books that comprise the Bible is referred to as the canon. During Jesus' time there were two OT canons in use. There was the Palestinian canon, which is identical to the Protestant OT and there was the Alexandrian canon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismarc Posted May 25, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 136 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/20/1950 Share Posted May 25, 2006 John3;16 said, It appears that the Roman Catholic Church did not accept all books included in the Septuagint, so if Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh were considered not to be "Inspired by the Holy Spirit", so then, the argument that any book found in the Septuagint qualifies it as the word of God, then looses its creditability as a tool to determine Holy Scripture. The Apocrypha books were not included in the canon until the 15th century, the Apocrypha were not included in the canon. That's right, just as we all agree with the RCC on the books of the NT, we should also agree with their divinely guided delineation of the OT. The Apocrypha consists of 11 or 12 books (depending upon how they are divided), because the letter of Jeremiah is sometimes added to Baruch. They were written between the years 300 B.C. and 100 B.C. Apart from these 11 or 12 books of the Apocrypha, there were 3 other books that were translated with the Hebrew OT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John3;16 Posted May 26, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 274 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/09/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/16/1955 Share Posted May 26, 2006 chrismarc "True, false religions or heresies sprung up right from the beginning and were countered or declared anathema by the Church then and now. This actually proves the solid continuance of the Church as founded by Jesus on Peter (Mt 16:18-19)." The Church was first persecuted by the Jews, then by the Roman Empire, and finally by the Roman Catholic Church, the Apostles never used persecution or torture against those who disagreed with them or held to other beliefs, in fact the Apostles, disciples, and followers of Christ were the ones who suffered persecution. The Roman Catholic Church is a model of the Roman Empire, not the true Church of God, Jesus foretold of the persecutions that his disciples would face. John|15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. Matthew|5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew|5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Matthew|5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Romans|12:14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. The teachings of Christ never instructed His Church to torture, kill, or to maim others, even if they disagree with your practices or beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church of today may not be the same Church that performed those loathsome acts, and as she has repented of such acts, she should also separate herself from being associated with that dreadful past. Romans|12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. Romans|12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Romans|12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismarc Posted May 26, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 136 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/20/1950 Share Posted May 26, 2006 John3;16 said, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church began during the rein of Constantine, and I also believe that the R.C.C. does quite a bit of revision to history, they claim it and state that it always was, I also believe that there is Christianity within the R.C.C but there also exists some paganism, which manifested itself in her past, example the Apostle Peter would not allow anyone to bowl down in front of him, yet even Catholic bishops received this honor, then there are relics, and indulgences, prayer to Saints, there are many traditions that are contrary to Scripture. i don't really care what you believe, as you are just following a man-made religion and self-interpretation of incomplete Scriptures. i prefer to stick with the Church Christ founded on Peter (very clear in Scriptures). You are so typical of blinded anti-Catholics, when you cannot win a particular argument ( in this case the canon of Scripture), you merely move on to more false beliefs of His Holy Church, which have been addressed since the beginning of the Church. Until you remove your Protestant glasses, discussion with you or others is futile and i shall not waste my time and energy. Peace be with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts