And the infallible teachings of Peter (that CONDEMNED guy) followed them into those seven PERFECT Catholic churches in Asia.
Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?
As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.
Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.
Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiegogo.com ...
Why indeed; since the JEWS already KNEW that the EMPTY CHAIR was for the Messiah!
IMPOSSIBLE; for a HUMAN!
'assumed' or not!
terycarl - He just doesn’t want to do those naughty things....
Elsie - Is this a parable; or an example of reading the mind of GOD?
The Expanded Monty Python translation?
Did you pluck this from some dark place?
Why can't you even quote your 'first pope' accurately???
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
And the infallible teachings of Peter (that CONDEMNED guy) followed them into those seven PERFECT Catholic churches in Asia.
Catholic do not define protestants as non-catholics...we define Protestants as non-Catholic CHRISTIANS...or followers of Christ....merely, perhaps, incomplete or misguided...
Your 'first pope' was sent to the Jews.
I'm not Jewish...Jesus was.
I don't think whether you are Jewish has any bearing on the TRUTH.
So are your leaders...
Which again presupposes what need to be proved, that there was a uniform infallible canon that a RC could not dissent from. Thus you need to answer my questions in post to you in response to this question and others, which has so far been ignored.
The reason why Luther removed books from the Bible was because of passages in the Old Testament that contradicted his new doctrines, like his rejection of Purgatory and praying for the dead. Really? We were just told by another RC that these books were not important for RC doctrines, which explains why Paul did not cite them them. Of course, he did not even teach Purgatory and praying for the dead, which are actually "new doctrines."
Regardless, besides 2Mac, what other apocryphal books were cited against Luther in supporting RC doctrines, so that he would be motivated to reject them?
And why was this not the motive of other Catholics who also rejected apocryphal books?
And how does praying for men who died in mortal sin, so that they may be resurrected instead of damned, support purgatory and praying for the dead?
Even if you reject the Authority that wrote the NT,
Authority? To make this charge you must make the NT a corporate project commissioned by an authoritative magisterium, and that this church is the church of Rome now, for we do not reject the individual members of the church which wrote writing letters even though they were not commissioned by a magisterium nor even all officially universally affirmed as being from God for over 1400 years.
The writers had authority without the sanction of a magisterium which only affirmed their work later, while the NT they wrote and the church they were of was critically different than they church of Rome, beginning with the latter's premise of assured veracity.
, and preserved and canonized the Bible,
The old "we gave you the Bible, you must submit to Rome" logic, the presuppositions of which must be understood. To be meaningful. your argument must be that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determining, conveying and preserving Truth. And to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Is this what you are saying?
Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed.
No sooner do we refute one RC who tried this by another papist pops up with the same polemic. However,
Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.
Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)
Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)
“No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.
Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,
Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)
The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)
Also,
The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382.
And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)
This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint –
That proves nothing at all, as to be meaningful it presumes both that the 1st c. LXX contained the deuteros (deuterocanonical) and that they were uniform in doing so, which is a unproven dubious claim.
The most obvious example is the story of the mother who watched her seven sons tortured to death for their faith, who in turn was also tortured and murdered. The entire story is recounted in 7 Macabbees.. Hebrews 11:35 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.
Even if this can be shown to reference 2 Maccabees 7. it also proves nothing, any more than the Lord citing the fall of the tower in Siloam (Lk. 13:4) means the source of the story is Scripture, or Paul citing an infallible truth spoken by a pagan poet. (Acts 17:28) In contrast to books of the Hebrew canon, neither this nor any of the other supposed references to the deuteros are referred to as "Scripture." By which the Lord substantiated His mission by and said to search, (Lk. 24:44; Jn. 5:39) - and which means there was an established body of them, and out of which Paul reasoned and Apollos mightily convinced the Jews by. (Acts 17:2; 18:28) Or are called the word of God/the Lord," or "it is written," etc.
Jesus didn't hand out Bibles.
While there were no Bibles to hand out for multitudes, in contrast to your RC marginalization, the Lord began His ministry by quoting Scripture to defeat the devil, (Mt. 4:4ff) substantiated His Truth claims by Scripture and the miracles it provides for, and ended His instruction after,
he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
. The canon of Scripture had to come from somewhere. Who or what entity infallibly determined the canon of Scripture?
Again, like the Jewish tempters of Christ, your questions are based upon presuppositions that must be questioned, thus the question remains, is an infallible magisterium essential for correct discernment of both men and writings of God? And is an infallible determination of a complete canon of Scripture even essential?
You now have more questions to answer so get to work. Posting more parroted polemics only provides more propaganda.
let's see now...you conducted a private study of the bible and some other related books and came to the conclusion that your interpretation of the bible was correct and that of the 2,000 year old Catholic and hstorical church was wrong.....Pathetic.
Jesus had no sins of His own so He took on ours and died in our place.
Catholics would understand this if they spent less time worshiping Mary, bowing to idols and playing with corpses.
terycarl wrote -
let’s see now...you conducted a private study of the bible and some other related books and came to the conclusion that your interpretation of the bible was correct and that of the 2,000 year old Catholic and hstorical church was wrong.....Pathetic.
- Making it “personal?”
Is this about the topic or about a poster?
and some people don't think God answers prayer!!!!!!!!!
Bear, do you know who your bishop is ?
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Catholics seem to mistake Mary for God.
2196 was a post to metmom who stated Jesus came to set us free, not put us into bondage....I merely challenge the interpretation of what bondage is...
Your refusal to give a straightforward answer testifies to avoidance, or that your cannot answer them, and thus you have no argument. Again,
the question of definition must be asked, which is upon what basis was the original holy, catholic, apostolic church established? On the premise that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such possesses assured infallibility, as Rome claims?
And that this is essential for the conveyance, determination, assurance and preservation of Truth, and with authenticity being assured by historical descent?
It sees to me you are articulate, intelligent, with an astute, agile, and facile command of the Scriptures and Biblical languages. If you are wholly convinced the Catholic Church is erroneous, and the Eastern Orthodox as well, why not be an advocate for an Independent Fundamental Baptist remnant that is the direct descendant of genuine apostolic New Testament churches ? And if not, will you in a sentence name which denomination(s) you deem acceptably authentic New Testament churches ? Is there a kosher alternative to publicly confessing Jesus is LORD and Messiah tomorrow in a local Catholic Church (assembly) ?
You questioning is all based upon a fundamental issue of determination of Truth and authenticity, as were the questions asked of Christ by the powers that be on this issue, and thus like as with them, it is you which must clearly answer the questions put to you, rather than avoiding them.
Bear, do you know who your bishop is ?
Do you know your Bishop’s wife?
See 1 Timothy 3:1-12
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.