Apparitions of Mary at Medjugorje

It is absolutely true. But, WHO decided the 27 books were the ones out of all the spurious ones? What church did the Holy Spirit use to determine that those 27 books were canonical? Certainly not a group of Baptist. Historians make it clear. Take the blinders off.

 

Ok, just what it's so obvious in the letters of st. Ignatius of Antioch that tell you they did not belong in Scripture ? I know why pope Damascus and the church Council decided they didn't belong in the Canon. Could you have come to the same determination that they did based on just a knowledge of Old Testament scripture?

 

The Holy Scriptures where Holy Scriptures when they where wtitten, and where directly given to God's people. There was no secret to the people of God who received them.

Those 27 books did not come into existence all at once. But as they were wrtten and presented to a respective Church. And over a time were copied and shared with sister churches. And publicly read.

"Baptist" is a post reformation name given New Testament Christians. The verious New Testament groups since at least the 4th century had been called "Ana-Baptists" by irregular churhes

 

There is no evidence those so-called letters ascribed to Ignatius of Antioch even existed before the third century.

 

Here is from a third party BLOGer.

The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries? Dating & authorship of Ignatius' epistles and about the early bishops

 

Sure there is! How Do We Know Ignatius’ Letters are Genuine? – Shameless Popery

 

A claim is not proof. "St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote a series of letters somewhere about c. 107-110, . . ." That site presented no evidence to justify that interpetation for that date.

 

Demons cannot perform supernatural miracles because they cannot create. Demons rely on natural phenomena to present the appearance of a miracle, which is what takes place during many false Marian apparitions. Supernatural miracles, such as the immediate drying of a crowd of 70,000 witnesses after a deluge at Fatima is a supernatural miracle that only God can do. Bone and muscle tissue that suddenly heals and reconstitutes itself is a supernatural miracle that only God can do. People regaining their sight while their retinas are still detached constitutes a supernatural miracle. Demons cannot accomplish any of these.

Someone being cured of a bad back is likely not a supernatural miracle. Someone walking with a shattered spinal cord is.

Thus, those who come to Jesus and proclaim that they are performing miracles, are automatic liars, because true miracles can only be performed by God THROUGH a vessel such as Peter, or the Virgin Mary, The Virgin Mary has indeed appeared in many places, and has indeed been the conduit through which God has performed many miracles.

 

The Ignatian Epistles and their Claims. The External Evidence.

 

Shake my head, how do you come up with this?
I don't for a second doubt you believe what you have just declared. I just have no idea where such a belief comes from. Certainly it isn't from the Bible, so I have to assume it's from some mystical ascetic living on a pole in the Saharan desert.
This entire thread comes across as a Dan Brown fiction. I'm waiting for the Knights of Templar to be invoked at any moment.

 

In the strict sense only God can create (Genesis 1:1). Yet God is going to allow as we read in Revelation 13:11-13, ". . . And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, . . ."

Jesus warns about the lost thinking they should be saved because, ". . . Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? . . ." -- Matthew 7:21-23.

 

There is another reason I reject those letters ascribed to be of Ignatius of Antioch, the teaching found in them are not according to the word of God. This video presents this issue.



Jesus had His disciples do the baptizing (immersing), John 4:1-2. Jesus taught an equal brotherhood, Matthew 23:8. The deacon Philip baptized (immersed) new converts, Acts of the Apostles 8:12; Acts of the Apostles 8:26-40.

 

Please is there ANY early church father you'd call legit? I bet they say Ignatius was legit.

There would have been an uproar since the apostles are STILL ALIVE. There is no one to reject Ignatius' beliefs till 2019?

He was disciple of JOHN and APPOINTED BY PETER.

Being the very next generation of bishop after an apostle your saying Jesus' lead his own institution so badly that even the first generation as the bible teaches to pick out bishops failed. rendering scripture as useless advice.

I don't think you would consider ANY church father legit. Because they believe NOTHING like you do. The second your done reading revelations you chop it to 1500 years later.

 

Where is the list? Where is the list of the books that should be in the Bible stated in the Bible? Surely if the scriptures tell us everything we need to know and that all we need is right there in them, there must be a list of the books that should be included in the canon somewhere. Where is the list?

 

"Where is the list of the books that should be in the Bible stated in the Bible?"

Well its right here on the bible durrr.....

Finding out where the list comes from is a sure way of taking gun into your denomination's mouth and pulling the trigger twice.