Ping
Who ya going to believe...your lying eyes and the holy spirit bringing you understanding...or what someone else tells you the bible says? There is of course a role for the church and for teachers but if what they teach goes against the bible they are a false church and false disciples.
By ‘dumb’ do you mean ‘silent’?...................
Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not. .This is a long time canard of the RCC. There was broad agreement on which books were inspired before the Catholic church made it "official". The idea that nobody knew which books should be canonical before the Roman Catholic church figured that out is absurd.Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not. If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question. .
COMMENT: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.
So if the pope tells you to jump off a bridge are you going to jump off the bridge?
Too many times though it seems that someone will require you to believe something that’s not even in the Bible. I believe God did intend for his word to be in written form, and there is even one verse that says “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches” (Rev. 1:11).
I thank you for such a thread because there was another thread here on FR recently that contained a disturbing display of antipathy for the Bible and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Yeah. Who needs a Bible - the inspired Word of God - when we have child molesting priests headed up by popes like Francis telling us we don’t need the Bible?
Actually, this discussion is dumb because it is discussion various interpretations of the Bible and obscures the fact that the Hebrew sages were correct: The LORD wrote the Torah and then used it as the template of the world. The End was Determined from the Beginning. God is sovereign.
“COMMENT: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation,”
That is a stupid argument, in as much as it insists on what Jesus said as what is important, and then dismisses that it is from the bible that we know anything of what Jesus said, as the oral history of knowing that was scribed by the new testament writers. No, salvation is not given for reading the bible, but understanding what Jesus preached is and reading the bible is how we come to understand that (and how new and successive preachers came to know it.
Does any of what I just said eliminate or try to override the fact that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be with us always, and to be our spiritual source of His authority? No. And the “stupid bible” tells us that as well.
Any religion that seeks to discredit the Bible in order to advance their doctrine, says all that needs to be stated.
Matthew 23:9
King James Version
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
1 Timothy 4:2-4
King James Version
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
2 Timothy 3:16
King James Version
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
What am I missing here? Is he equating Jesus' miracles to Jesus' "doctrines"? (Same for the section later labeled "FIVE".)
NINE Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A. D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations. The persecutions against the Church, which had gained new intensity, prevented these New Testament books from being properly authenticated and placed under one cover. However, this important work was begun after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313 A.D., allowing it to be practiced in the Roman Empire. .COMMENT: This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only" theory, at least up to 400 A. D.
That seems to be saying "Since the churches didn't have the full Bible at their disposal, they must have had some other source of correct doctrine" (which you must think was some infallible information transmitted by word of mouth from the bishop of Rome or something??). That does not logically follow.
First, churches didn't need to have every single doctrine or historical fact. Did they need all the details about Paul's missionary journeys from Acts? Or course not. Second, they probably got things wrong.
Catholics accuse Protestants of Sola Scriptura
Protestants accuse Catholics of Sola Ecclesia
Both accusations are incorrect.
Catholics believe PRIMA Ecclesia
Protestants believe PRIMA Scriptura
Both allow for Devine revelation.
The Codex Sinaiticus (Shelfmark: London, British Library, Add MS 43725), designated by siglum א [Aleph] or 01 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering of New Testament manuscripts), δ 2 (in the von Soden numbering of New Testament manuscripts), or Sinai Bible is a fourth century Christian manuscript of a Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Greek Old Testament, including the Apocrypha along with the deuterocanonical books, and the Greek New Testament, with both the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas included. It is written in uncial letters on parchment. It is one of the four great uncial codices (these being manuscripts which originally contained the whole of both the Old and New Testaments). Along with Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible, and contains the oldest complete copy of the New Testament.[1] It is a historical treasure,[2] and using the study of comparative writing styles (palaeography), it has been dated to the mid-fourth century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
In other words, it is from about 350 AD. It was kept in a Greek Orthodox monastery. It dates from before the origin of the Catholic church in the Great Schism of 1054.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man.: but holly men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
The writings of the Word of God was sanctioned by God. This makes moot any of the other scribblings of your thread. Which is dumb.
The Word of God is inspired by God. The roman catholic church is not.
God is infallible. The pope is not.
Lent is not Scriptural. Nor is purgatory.
Man cannot forgive sins.
All meat is to be received if cleansed by God.
Isn’t fish a meat? Why doesn’t this false doctrine go back to the Church origin? Because it can’t be supported by the Inspired Word of God.
Why are catholic priests not allowed to marry? The Word of God warns against such doctrines.
Why does the catholic church allow cardinals (which is not even a Scriptural office) to VOTE into a false throne, a false head of the catholic church? Nowhere in the Bible does such an office appear.
We are to bow before the Lord Jesus Christ. Not some clown posing as the head. And certainly not to kiss his ring. This is idolotry.
Doesn’t everyone know that the pope and all the embedded child molesters know the truth all of you should be following? They are so serious about getting their truth out that they are willing to bankrupts dioceses the world over.
Listen to all the child molesters! They know how wrong the Bible is, and how wrong each of you are, in following it.
Absurd, opinionated heresy. The Bible is the Word of God.
>>ELEVEN
Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.
.
Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.
If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question.<<
Hey. look! You answered your own question!:
>>TWENTY-FIVE
During the Middle Ages, did the Catholic Church manifest hostility to the Bible as her adversaries claim? Under stress of special circumstances, various regulations were made by the Church to protect the people from being spiritually poisoned by the corrupted and distorted translations of the Bible; hence opposition to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Wycliff and Tyndale.
.
COMMENT: Individual churchmen may at times have gone too far in their zeal, not to belittle the Bible, but to protect it. There is no human agency in which authority is always exercised blamelessly.<<
Did you say NO HUMAN AGENCY? Or perhaps the Church which is composed of humans is not a human agency? What’s it going to be?