To My "Bible Only" Christian Brothers and Sisters, From A Catholic Convert [a humble vanity]

[Jvette]

Sorry for the lack of formatting in that post. Don’t know what happened.

[MarkBsnr]

Very good.

Hmm, we haven’t discussed things in a while. Just saying hi. :)

[MarkBsnr]

Mind you, you’d arrive as meat paste. That is a vicious acceleration.

Nonsense. Bugatti drivers experience it all the time.

[MarkBsnr]

I think one of the cutest tactics here is the role of Sola Trafficus Copta, when they alone decide when enough has been said on a topic.

I know the type.

CountryGal did the same thing after telling us about the priest condemning babies to hell. Probably the same priest who ran the church she described, the one sans Stations of the Cross.

I found one of those too...

I understand, best to cut and run once it's clear you're hopelessly losing - but it's still amusing.

And so it goes.

[MarkBsnr]

>> “Odd. I’ve been the one posting in-context Scripture with references to Apostolic teachings and early Church beliefs.” <<

. Exactly, no scripture, plus men’s attempt to cancel scripture and that is a rejection of God’s word. You never put a single line of relevent, contextual scripture in any post.

So the excerpts from Matthew backed up with other NT scripture aren't in your Bible either.

Umm, can you at least tell me what is in your Book of Matthew? I subscribe to the tradition version with 26 chapters.

Everything distinctly “catholic” is a stench in the nostrils of YHVH. (although it pleases satan)

Over the years, I have posted extensive Scripture as proof of Church practices. I guess that you have missed them.

[MarkBsnr]

I was reading 1 Kings this morning and I had to wonder how the first Temple was built without any drawings or images. I also wondered how the loophole was found to permit the engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers and how the massive olive wood statues of the cherubim were permitted. Makes you go hhhhmmmmmmmmm.

Exodus beginning in Chapter 24 is highly instructive as well. But I don't imagine that it's in their Bible either.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Umm, can you at least tell me what is in your Book of Matthew?” <<

.
Yes, total condemnation of Catholic practices:

Mat 6:7
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Mat 15:3
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mat 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

Mat 23:9
And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Not in your Bible, are they?

[alnick]

Jim Jones was NOT Assembly of God. He founded his own religion.

[terycarl]

Jim Jones was NOT Assembly of God. He founded his own religion.

so did Assembly of God!!

[editor-surveyor]

Jim Jones was Disciples of Christ, a liberal flake-off of Baptists.

[dfwgator]

Jim Jones was a Marxist atheist, who realized by cloaking his Marxism in religion could be much more effective.

[terycarl]

Not in your Bible, are they?

let's see not, the crucifixation has taken place and the apostles decide to fulfill their command to go forth and teach all nations. They have a copy of the Torah and a pile of various letters, documents, notes, submitted by followers up to date. As they try to decipher the various submissions, more keep coming in from apostles and other followers who have gone about their tasks. They recieve a gospel from James, Barrabas, Thomas, and letters and documents from all over the area. They decide to make a "book" compiling all the things that they recieve from their followers, but they must first edit it and decide what to use and what they will not put in their book.

They (the early Catholic church) take a look at Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and THEY decide that these will be the gospels, the good news of Christianity. They also include a bunch of letters from Paul, James, and many various and sundry writings which THEY considered relevant. They did, however, eliminate many which simply did not pass THEIR muster. They formulated the book and had someone HAND WRITE IT. As years went by, the monks and other clergy of the Catholic church copied the new bible many thousands of times. Only royalty and the wealthy could afford to purchase a copy hence the lack of distribution among the common people. Along came Gutenberg and his printing press.

from that point on, virtually anyone who could read (few at the time) could afford a bible, and soon one was available in many different languages (of course converted from language to language by Catholics. (there was no one else).The Catholics even left that pesky book of Matthew in...since they were the only ones around, they certainly could have eliminated it!!!

So, sit back, relax, read your Catholic protected bible, and let the true Christian church decide on how to handle St Matthew. I'm sure he will be impressed by their efforts!!

[editor-surveyor]

>> “They recieve a gospel from James, Barrabas, Thomas” <<

.
Absolute falsehood!

Thank God my Bible was secure 300 years before the Pharisees founded the pagan catholic church. The real church had the four real gospels and all of the epistles centuries before the catholic church existed.

It must feel good to belong to a ‘church’ that deliberately defies the commandments of Christ, and makes a seance mockery of his communion remembrance.

[narses]

editor-surveyor wrote:

Thank God my Bible was secure 300 years before the Pharisees founded the pagan catholic church. The real church had the four real gospels and all of the epistles centuries before the catholic church existed.

Really? Care to try and document the dates? Say when "my Bible was secure 300 years before"? What date was "your Bible" secure? What translation is that? And what date do you claim the Catholic Church was founded by those pesky pharisees?

[editor-surveyor]

>> “What date was “your Bible” secure?” <<

In the late first century. The epistles had been circulated thoroughly around the Mediterranean.

[narses]

“In the late first century.”

When and where did that happen and how do you know that?

[editor-surveyor]

I know it from reading Origen on how he assembled his codices. The pieces were just about everywhere anybody looked.

[narses]

What translation is that?

[Natural Law]

"In the late first century. The epistles had been circulated thoroughly around the Mediterranean."

The Bible wasn't possible that early The Jewish canon was not set until early in the 3rd century. It wasn't until the middle of the 2nd century that some written gospels and epistles began to be circulated. Remember that being Christian was a capital offense in the Roman Empire and the possession of Scripture could lead to a confiscation of all property and even martyrdom.

The bible was not necessary while the Apostles lived and while their students and direct witnesses lived. The Apostolic Tradition sufficed. It wasn't until there was a question about which readings were necessary to support the Liturgy that the Catholic Episcopacy began to debate the canon.

[Natural Law]

"I know it from reading Origen on how he assembled his codices."

Origen didn't write anything until the 3rd century.