Posted on 01/29/2005 6:12:28 AM PST by NYer
Hamilton, Ontario, Jan. 28, 2005 (CNA) - Canadian archaeologist Russell Adams, a professor at McMaster University has recently unearthed evidence, which helps to show the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Professor Adams and his team of colleagues have found information that points to the existence of the Biblical Kingdom of Edom existing at precisely the time Scripture claims it existed.
The evidence flies in the face of a common belief that Edom actually came into existence at least 200 years later.
According to the Canadian Globe and Mail, the group’s findings “mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.”
The Kingdom of Edom, mentioned throughout the Old Testament, and a continuous source of hostility for Biblical Israel, is thought to have existed in what is now southern Jordan.
The group made their discovery while investigating a copper mining site called Khirbat en-Nahas.
According to the Globe and Mail, radiocarbon dating of their finds, “firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.”
The evidence is also said to suggest that the Kingdom existed at the same time David, who scripture recounts as warring with Edom, was king over Israel.
Your argument is a non sequitur.
There were lots of discussions about the cannon of the Bible. The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419).
You accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that the Catholic Church decreed were canonical, and accept no others. But why? What is the basis of your belief? A feeling deep inside? The Holy Spirit did not deliver a table of contents. He did guide the Church to the truth.
Non-Catholics have a real problem, in that they believe that all they need to believe is in the Bible. However, the Bible never makes that claim. The Bible never says that the Bible is sufficient and all one needs. This belief is a tradition of man. The Bible is profitable, yes, (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but where does the Bible say that it is sufficient? It doesn’t. We have over 20,000 denominations that make the claim that they have the proper interpretation of scripture. If Martin Luther would have had his way, you would have a different Bible (“Tell them Martin Luther says it is so”). The Jehovah’s Witnesses changed the Bible to meet fit their beliefs. The Mormons came up with a whole new scripture. How can a non-catholic tell them they are wrong?
Jesus wanted us to be one. “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 1 Cor 1:10-13
The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that His Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until His return, even though some of the human leaders of the Church may have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy. Jesus established His Church and assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). He gave them authority, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have thus have confidence that His Church teaches only the truth.
So to paraphrase Augustine, I believe the Bible is the Bible because the Catholic Church tells me it is. The alternative is to believe a tradition of man.
I do apologize for missing the credit to Catholic Answers – that was an oversight. They do such a good job putting things together that it doesn’t make sense to restate their answers.
I'm not going to join in a fight over dueling resources, but I do have a few questions. I've noted time and again that Catholics state Luther "threw out" several books from the Bible. But clearly, the Catholic Church is guilty of the same offense. While adapting the Septaugint translation of the Hebrew canon as the "Old Testament", the Catholic Church "threw out" the books of Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Maccabees. If it is justifiable for the Catholic Church to throw out some of the deuterocanonical books, why is it unjustifiable for Luther to have done the same thing? After all, Luther rejected the deuterocanonical books before the Catholic Church difinitevely canonized its Bible at the Council of Trent.
It's a question of authority.
The Church has the authority to determine the canon of Scripture because It's Christ's Church. "If he doesn't listen to the church, treat him as a heathen or publican" --Jesus.
What authority did Luther have to determine the canon of Scripture? He didn't claim infallibility. And he wasn't even true to his principle of "the Bible alone." If he was, he would have accepted the Bible that was used by Christians of his time.
Instead of Mr. Dean's warped version of the Codex Sinaiticus, here is the turn of the century Catholic view:
Codex Sinaiticus
(The symbol is the Hebrew character Aleph, though Swete and a few other scholars use the letter S.)
A Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, of the greatest antiquity and value; found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine's Monastery, by Constantine Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered in a rubbish basket forty-three leaves of the Septuagint, containing portions of I Par. (Chron.), Jer., Neh., and Esther; he was permitted to take them. He also saw the books of Isaias and I and IV Machabees, belonging to the same codex as the fragments, but could not obtain possession of them; warning the monks of their value, he left for Europe and two years later published the leaves he had brought with him under the name of Codex Friderico-Augustanus, after his patron. They are preserved at Leipzig. On a second visit, in 1853, he found only two short fragments of Genesis (which he printed on his return) and could learn nothing of the rest of the codex. In 1859 he made a third visit, this time under the patronage of the Czar, Alexander II. This visit seemed likewise fruitless when, on the eve of his departure, in a chance conversation with the steward, he learned of the existence of a manuscript there; when it was shown to him, he saw the very manuscript he had sought containing, beyond all his dreams, a great part of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament, besides the Epistle of Barnabas, and part of the "Shepherd" of Hermas, of which two works no copies in the original Greek were known to exist. Thinking it "a crime to sleep", Tischendorf spent the night copying Barnabas; he had to leave in the morning, after failing to persuade the monks to let him have the manuscript. At Cairo he stopped at a monastery belonging to the same monks (they were of the Orthodox Greek Church) and succeeded in having the manuscript sent to him there for transcription; and finally, in obtaining it from the monks as a present to the Czar, Tischendorf's patron and the protector of their Church. Years later, in 1869, the Czar rewarded the two monasteries with gifts of money (7000 and 2000 roubles each) and decorations. The manuscript is treasured in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. Tischendorf published an account of it in 1860; and, under the auspices of the czar, printed it in facsimile in 1862. Twenty-one lithographic plates made from photographs were included in this edition, which was issued in four volumes. The following year he published a critical edition of the New Testament. Finally, in 1867, he published additional fragments of Genesis and Numbers, which had been used to bind other volumes at St. Catherine's and had been discovered by the Archimandrite Porfirius. On four different occasions, then, portions of the original manuscript have been discovered; they have never been published together in a single edition.
The Codex Sinaiticus, which originally must have contained the whole Old Testament, has suffered severely from mutilation, especially in the historical books from Genesis to Esdras (inclusive); the rest of the Old Testament fared much better. The fragments and books extant are: several verses from Gen., xxiii and xxiv, and from Num., v, vi, vii; I Par., ix, 27-xix, 17; Esdras, ix,9 to end; Nehemias, Esther, Tobias, Judith, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, Isaias, Jeremias, Lamentations, i, 1-ii, 20; I Machabees, IV Machabees (apocryphal, while the canonical II Machabees and the apocryphal III Machabees were never contained in this codex). A curious occurrence is that Esdras, ix, 9 follows I Par., xix, 17 without any break; the note of a corrector shows that seven leaves of I Par. were copied into the Book of Esdras, probably by a mistake in the binding of the manuscript from which Codex Sinaiticus was copied. Our Esdras is called in this codex, as in many others, Esdras B. This may indicate that it followed Esdras A, as the book called by Jerome III Esdras (see ESDRAS) is named in ancient codices; the proof is by no means sure, however, as IV Machabees is here designated Machabees D, as was usual, although the second and third books of Machabees were absent from the manuscript. The New Testament is complete, likewise the Epistle of Barnabas; six leaves following Barnabas are lost, which probably also contained uncanonical literature: the "Shepherd" of Hermas is incomplete, and we cannot tell whether other works followed. In all, there are 346 1/2 leaves. The order of the New Testament is to be noted, St. Paul's Epistles preceding Acts; Hebrews following II Thess. The manuscript is on good parchment; the pages measure about 15 inches by 13 1/2 inches; there are four columns to a page, except in the poetical books, which are written stichometrically in two columns of greater width; there are 48 lines to a column, but 47 in the Catholic Epistles. The four narrow columns give the page the appearance of an ancient roll; it is not impossible, as Kenyon says, that it was in fact copied from a papyrus roll. It is written in uncial characters, well formed, without accents or breathings, and with no punctuation except (at times) the apostrophe and the single point for a period. Tischendorf judged that there were four hands engaged in the writing of the manuscript; in this he has been generally followed. He has been less happy in obtaining acceptance of his conjecture that one of these scribes also wrote the New Testament of the Vatican Codex. He recognized seven correctors of the text, one of them contemporaneous with the writing of the manuscript. The Ammonian Sections and the Eusebian Canons are indicated in the margin, probably by a contemporary hand; they seem to have been unknown to the scribe, however, who followed another division. The clerical errors are relatively not numerous, in Gregory's judgment.
In age this manuscript ranks alongside the Codex Vaticanus. Its antiquity is shown by the writing, by the four columns to a page (an indication, probably, of the transition from the roll to the codex form of manuscript.), by the absence of the large initial letters and of ornaments, by the rarity of punctuation, by the short titles of the books, the presence of divisions of the text antedating Eusebius, the addition of Barnabas and Hermas, etc. Such indications have induced experts to place it in the fourth century, along with Codex Vaticanus and some time before Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephræmi Rescriptus; this conclusion is not seriously questioned, though the possibility of an early fifth-century date is conceded. Its origin has been assigned to Rome, Southern Italy, Egypt, and Caesarea, but cannot be determined (Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, London, 1901, p. 56 sqq.). It seems to have been at one time at Caesarea; one of the correctors (probably of seventh century) adds this note at the end of Esdras: "This codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus [d. 309]; which exemplar contained at the end of the subscription in his own hand: `Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected it'." Pamphilus was, with Eusebius, the founder of the library at Caesarea. Some are even inclined to regard Codex Sinaiticus as one of the fifty manuscripts which Constantine bade Eusebius of Caesarea to have prepared in 331 for the churches of Constantinople; but there is no sign of its having been at Constantinople. Nothing is known of its later history till its discovery by Tischendorf. The text of Codex Sinaiticus bears a very close resemblance to that of Codex Vaticanus, though it cannot be descended from the same immediate ancestor. In general, Codex Vaticanus is placed first in point of purity by contemporary scholars and Codex Sinaiticus next. This is especially true, for the New Testament, of the Gospels. The differences are more frequent in the Old Testament where the codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus often agree.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04085a.htm
We all agree Luther was confused, but how is asking for a Biblical proof of "Sola Scriptura" a "strawman"?
"I would not call the founding fathers Calvinists, but you are welcome to: ~ Dominick
Thanks for the permission. LOL
The 55 Framers (from North to South):
John Langdon, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Nicholas Gilman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Elbridge Gerry, Episcoplian (Calvinist)
Rufus King, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Caleb Strong, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Nathaniel Gorham, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Roger Sherman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Oliver Ellsworth, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Alexander Hamilton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
John Lansing, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
Robert Yates, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
William Patterson, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
William Livingston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Jonathan Dayton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
David Brearly, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Churchill Houston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Benjamin Franklin, Christian in his youth, Deist in later years, then back
to his Puritan background in his old age (his June 28, 1787 prayer at the
Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist")
Robert Morris, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
James Wilson, probably a Deist
Gouverneur Morris, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Thomas Mifflin, Lutheran (Calvinist-lite)
George Clymer, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Thomas FitzSimmons, Roman Catholic
Jared Ingersoll, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
John Dickinson, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Read, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
Richard Bassett, Methodist
Gunning Bedford, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Jacob Broom, Lutheran
Luther Martin, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
Daniel Carroll, Roman Catholic
John Francis Mercer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James McHenry, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Daniel of St Thomas Jennifer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Washington, Episcopalian (Calvinist; no, he was not a deist)
James Madison, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Mason, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Edmund Jennings Randolph, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James Blair, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James McClung, ?
George Wythe, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Richardson Davie, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Hugh Williamson, Presbyterian, possibly later became a Deist
William Blount, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Alexander Martin, Presbyterian/Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
John Rutledge, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, III, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Abraham Baldwin, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
William Leigh Pierce, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Houstoun, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Few, Methodist
*
Emory Report November 29, 1999 Volume 52, No. 13 http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1999/November/ernovember.29/11_2 9_99hamilton.html
"...Marci Hamilton ... [is] a nationally recognized expert on constitutional and copyright law. ....
Her forthcoming book, Copyright and the Constitution, examines the historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright law and asserts that the American "copyright regime" is grounded in Calvinism, resulting in a philosophy that favors the product over the producer.
Calvinism? Hamilton's interest in the intersection of Calvinist theology and political philosophy emerged early in her career when she began reading the work of leading constitutional law scholars. She was puzzled by their "theme of a system of self-rule." "They talked about it as if it were in existence," she said. "My gut reaction was that direct democracy and self-rule are a myth that doesn't really exist."
What Hamilton found was that a "deep and abiding distrust of human motives that permeates Calvinist theology also permeates the Constitution." Her investigation of that issue has led to another forthcoming book, tentatively titled The Reformed Constitution: What the Framers Meant by Representation.
That our country's form of government is a republic instead of a pure democracy is no accident, according to Hamilton. The constitutional framers "expressly rejected direct democracy. Instead, the Constitution constructs a representative system of government that places all ruling power in the hands of elected officials."
And the people? Their power is limited to the voting booth and communication with their elected representatives, she said. "The Constitution is not built on faith in the people, but rather on distrust of all social entities, including the people." ...
..Two of the most important framers, James Wilson and James Madison, were steeped in Presbyterian precepts.
It is Calvinism, Hamilton argued, that "more than any other Protestant theology, brings together the seeming paradox that man's will is corrupt by nature but also capable of doing good." In other words, Calvinism holds that "we can hope for the best but expect the worst from each other and from the social institutions humans devise."
"Neither Calvin nor the framers stop at distrust, however," Hamilton said. "They also embrace an extraordinary theology of hope. The framers, like Calvin, were reformers." -Elaine Justice
*
1776 Declaration of Independence [excerpt]:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*. [snip]
According to recent scholarship, this document was modeled after the Dutch Calvinist Declaration of Independence. In other words, this statement of basic principles was simply a restatement of what Protestant Political theorists and preachers had been saying for centuries.
*
Religion and Patriotism the Constituents of a Good Soldier Samuel Davies (1755) http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/davies.html
Samuel Davies-Presbyterian preacher and president of the College at Princeton. .. One of Davies' most fond disciples was Patrick Henry. .. The similarities between the tone and rhetoric here and the rhetoric of Henry are apparent.
"To protect your Brethren from the most bloody Barbarities--to defend the territories of the best of Kings against the Oppression and Tyranny of Arbitrary Power to secure the inestimable Blessings of Liberty, British Liberty, from the Chains of French slavery-
-to preserve your estates, for which you have sweat and toiled, from falling prey to greedy Vultures, Indians, Priests, French, and hungry Gallic Slaves, or not-more-devouring Flames-
-to guard your Religion, the pure Religion of Jesus, streaming uncorrupted from the sacred fountain of the Scriptures; the most excellent, rational and divine religion that ever was made known to the sons of Men;
to guard such a precious Religion (my heart grows warm while I mention it) against Ignorance, Superstition, Idolatry, Tyranny, over Conscience, Massacre, Fire, and Sword, and all the Mischiefs, beyond Expression, with which Popery is Pregnant-
-to keep from the cruel Hands of Barbarians and Papists your Wives, your Children, your Parents, your Friends-
-to secure the Liberties conveyed to you by your brave Fore-Fathers, and bought with their blood, that you may transmit them uncurtailed to you Posterity-
-these are the Blessings you contend for; all these will be torn from your eager Grasp, if this Colony [Virginia] should become a province of France. And Virginians! Britons! Christians! Protestants! if these Names have any import or Energy, will you not strike home is such a Cause?...
===
William Livingston, "Of Party Divisions," Independent Reflector (1753).
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/54-liv.html
"..Almost all the Mischiefs which Mankind groan under, arise from their suffering themselves to be led by the Nose, without a proper Freedom of Thought and Examination.
Upon this Priestcraft has erected its stupendous Babel, and Tyranny rear'd her horrible Domination.
And indeed, well may we expect, as the righteous Punishment of our Guilt, to be abandon'd by Heaven to Delusion and Error, if instead of obeying the Directions of that sacred Ray of the Divinity, in Virtue of which we claim kindred with the highest Order of Intelligences, we blindly surrender ourselves to the Guidance of any Man, or Set of Men whatever."
"Ultimately, then, we base our confidence in the correctness of our present canon on the faithfulness of God."
Was God faithless when He gave the UNIVERSAL CHURCH a Canon different that the one you accept for over 1,000 years?
If you cannot see the hatred and bigotry reeking from your post, then you need help.
Let’s just start with one example-
1. They should confess their sins to God alone
2. Only God can forgive sins.
This is just not biblical.
“Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20: 21-23)
Note a few things.
1. This is only the second time in the Bible that God breathed on man. The first was when God breathed life into Adam. Something special was going on here. He was establishing the priesthood of His Church with special powers.
2. In order to choose between forgiving or not forgiving, they must hear the sin! This is the Catholic sacrament of Penance, or Confession.
3. Jesus did not say “When God forgives anyone their sins they are forgiven”, but he gave this power to the leaders of His Church.
The Reformation was wrong then, and remains wrong now.
Please quote, then explain these Scriptures one by one in your own words, will you?
1 John 2:27 ~ Jesus
Romans 8:28-30; 9:11-13;
Acts 13:48;
Eph. 1:4-6
John 6:65
Why don't YOU in your own words repudiate the hatefilled comments you cut-n-pasted first?
"-to keep from the cruel Hands of Barbarians and Papists your Wives, your Children, your Parents, your Friends- "
If you cannot do that, discussion ends, as your bigotry and hatred of truth make you unable to be counted as civilized.
See above. Matchett posts really ugly, hatefilled anti-0Catholic screeds. You post a positive proof direct from the Bible of his error. Bets on how he responds?
Of course, you wouldn't make that same accusation against Luther would you. All of the "reformers" "needed help" for their "hatred and bigotry", right?
Funny you never noticed that I never make the same accusations against you when you slander Luther or other Protestants.
As always, I get tired of riding in circles with angry one-armed-boat-rowers after a while, so I'm outta here. See ya!
Good, embracing hatred and bigotry, you ride off unable to civilly defend your errors.
>>-to keep from the cruel Hands of Barbarians and Papists your Wives, your Children, your Parents, your Friends-<<
Pitifully, this made me laugh more than anything. I never realized how EVIL we are!
My hubby thinks that Catholic Bigotry is all in my head!
You're throwing pearls before some pretty foul and legion swine Narses. The thread is now in the SBR. Use your time and fine talents where they may bear fruit. Don't let the devil and his minions tie you up and waste your valuable efforts.
Indeed. Bigotry and hatred like that posted here belongs hidden from view.
I could just as easily ask you why YOU accept the same books I do. After all, Luther offered his Biblical Canon before the Catholic Church canonized its version at Trent. The simple fact is, the criteria for what composes our Bible transcends Catholic doctrine. The canonization of the Old Testament was taken care of long before the Catholic Church claimed ownership. The Old Testament of my Bible matches the Hebrew Canon. The Old Testament of your Bible is a partial collection of the Septaugint translation of the Hebrew Canon. I prefer to limit my Old Testament to that described by Christ in Luke 44. You prefer to add the Deuterocanonical (disputed) books. But since those books are never quoted by Christ (and it is doubtful they are ever alluded to by the Apostles), most early church authorities considered them uninspired, and they are generally of inferior quality to the Protocanonical books universally accepted by Catholics and Protestants, I am satisfied with my Bible. And if/when I chose to read the Deuterocanonical books (and I do find historically significant) I can find them in places other than my Bible.
With regard to the New Testament, Your assumption is that it is impossible to agree with some Catholic doctrine without agreeing to all of it. While there is much of Catholic doctrine I reject, there is also much I agree with. In fact, by ignoring misguided translations of Catholic doctrine by Catholics on sites such as this one, and studying the Catholic Catechism as published by the Vatican, I can honestly say I find more to agree with than disagree with. I agree with the composition of the New Testament as canonized by the Catholic Church.
"Non-Catholics have a real problem,..."
No more so than Catholics. Our biggest problem is that we are human and fall short of the glory of God. If Protestants believed that the Bible is "sufficient", I would suggest you wouldn't find so many Protestant churches in your neighborhood. I know very few Protestants who refuse to attend a church or who learn about God solely through private Biblical study and meditation. And your bogus claim about 20,000 denominations is a flawed argument that has been sufficiently debunked earlier in this thread.
"If Martin Luther would have had his way, you would have a different Bible "
Apparently he did have his way. We do have a different Bible than the Catholic Church. Luther chose not to add things to the Hebrew Scripture. He chose not to supplement the Old Testament beyond what Christ Himself refered too. Conversely, like Joseph Smith and Jehovah's Witnesses, the Catholic Church has supplemented the Bible with "disputed" books of questionable origin. Since the Protestant Bible appears to be the only Bible that hasn't ADDED to the original Hebrew Canon, I suggest it is up to the Catholic Church to explain to the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses why they are wrong.
"The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years."
Based on criteria retroactively defined by the Roman Catholic church.....
"Jesus established His Church and assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops"
Jesus mentioned the pope?
"We can have thus have confidence that His Church teaches only the truth."
Then you must agree with the following...
"All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."
>>The thread is now in the SBR<<
What's that?
The proverbial dustbin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.