This Seems Big.

No, even the mainstream William F. Albright, archeologist, said that evangelicals and fundamentalists were correct in dating the New Testament to 60 AD or so.

 

He should not, but he COULD.

And this would not have any bearing as the deposit of faith, catholic doctrine has not nor cannot be changed.

You can read about Popes who have been completely evil.

I just recently read about one who cheated with some guy's wife and was beaten to death. --->

Pope John XII - Wikipedia

 

I bet I can be more correct dating it between 0-33 ad.

What you need is book 67 that says which are the valid 66 books.

And then find that elusive 31,103th bible verse that states the bible is the sole, only, final rule of authority.
(i googled the number)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The vicar of Christ beaten to death for adultery. And what happened to the wife? The husband? Maybe John XII was not officially ex cathedral. See also Pope Joan, mistress of John XII.

This is another pathetic example of His Emanence not feeding the lambs. See Alexander VI and the Borgias.

They must have been antipopes. How is there a continuity in the Bishopric of Peter with all the antipopes in the lineup?

"Come out from among them, saith The Lord, touch not the unclean thing."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

That ain't nothing brother. At one time a church leader not only in adultery but he had the husband killed by throwing him in the front lines of battle.

Maybe Donatism is more your style? Donatism - Wikipedia

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More proof of the depravity of man--that includes you and me. Are you going to get to heaven Brother? How?

See Ephesians 2:8-10.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

In theory, yes. He'd be slapped down and very possibly deposed by his fellow-bishops in short order if he did so publicly , but he's capable of having the same doubts and struggles about his faith as the rest of us.

 

Apart from Revelation which dates to the 90s. And that still doesn't help us know which texts were treated as NT and which were not. What were circulating in the 100sAD were the equivalent of some of the works of Shakespeare and some of the works of Marlowe, Bacon and Spenser without the authors' names on the works, whereas we have the complete works of Shakespeare and know who wrote what. It took the Church in the 4th century (after Constantine!) to accurately sift the wheat from the chaff there.

 

And yet the Baptists seem to have rubbed along fairly ok with that problem for the last 400 years; you know the old joke - "ask two Baptists a question about doctrine and you'll get three different answers."

 

Laughable, like your reading comprehension?

You can insist a lie to be true till your blue in the face, its still a lie.

I understand why you don't want to debate something we actually believe, because there wouldn't be anything wrong with it.

 

It would help a great deal if you would quote from New Advent exactly what you mean. I do not read anything about papal infallibility except when a statement is ex cathedra.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

 

Well, there is not just one church (assembly) ref e.g., 7 churches in Rev, there are many assemblies, Peter may have been the head of the assembly in Rome, at least until he died. If only one apostle is supposed to be in charge for all time, I would vote (if I have a vote in this) for James (Jacob) as head of the Assembly in Jerusalem or second, John as head of the Assembly in Ephesus; Peter (Shimon) would come in third I suppose.

 

I know that that is what you have been saying although you do not give your source. That is not what Roman Catholicism teaches, to be fair to them. It would help if you could find your statement replicated from actual dogma listed by the link here:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

 

Rather than post a lengthy tomb in which much would be ignored, anyway, I would merely suggest you take a single rather short book and read to compare. That way at least you would have direct understanding of why you hold your view and not rely merely upon what others say your view should be.

For example: The centuries taught view, that only the church can interpret the Bible.(Documentation of this teaching). Would it not be in your best interest to actually see for your self? That you have such authority and ability?

Because of the length, and because of the ease of reading, I suggest the wonderful book of John.

It starts out with "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God...".

I'm not asking you to interpret the book, I am merely suggesting that you actually find factual and specific disagreement between three translations; the Catholic authorized bible, that you can find here, the NASB (which admittedly I like) and the NIV (which many Catholics and protestants use). Both these online versions can be found here.

I'm not looking for an argument, I've done the work, but I am looking for your edification.

There may certainly be great disagreement on what church is the true church, but ultimately, if indeed the Word was in the beginning, it was with God, and was God, as all three Bibles state, then it is most Certain that the beginning of any truth must be found in the Word.

I trust your integrity will not allow neglect of this simple request. It is not unlawful and is meant merely to help.

 

The problem with swimming in a cesspool is that one has to keep one's head above water. Other than that, come on in the water is fine.