Still waiting for an answer

Unfortunately, you missed the point of what DHK was saying.

What the catholic church says: One must believe in what we say to be saved (otherwise you will be outside the church, hence, not saved...I believe the term is anathema (sp?)). By extension, one must believe in the AOM to be a saved catholic. Well, if the AOM was not declared until 1950 (infallibly), then what of the other years. If it was not infallibly declared, one MUST be free to either believe it or disregard it (just as you are free to believe in evolution right now or not...the church has made no official infallible position on this issue right now). So, before 1950, one could be a saved catholic who DID NOT believe in the AOM, but as of 1950, that very same person would be a heretic and would no longer be saved. As a matter of fact, they could be kicked out of the church! Imagine that. I could be a bible believing, Jesus loving/praying/knowing he saves me and I will follow him to the end so the earth and beyond Christian, but because I don't believe in the AOM the CC says I am neither saved nor welcome in their church! HA! Gotta love it.

This, in a nutshell, is why the catholic church is not 'The Church'.

I can already see some arguments you might try to use, so I will address them before you ask (to save time).

What about the trinity . The church legally defined the trinity. It can, and was, recognized in scripture and people did believe it. You are, once again, erroneously giving WAY too much credit to the CC.

What about the bible, the CC gave you your official red letter bible! Hey, thanks for officially declaring what was already well known. What does that prove? Not much of anything. Hey...I officially declare that the New York Yankees are a good baseball team. WOW! Insight!

In Christ,
jason

 

DHK,

If your interpretation isn't your own private interpretation, then whose is it? Your pastor's? Your denomination? If that is so, how do you know your denomination's interpretation is correct out of the thousands of other denominations? Did someone tell you infallibly that your interpretation that you got from somewhere is correct? If they all can have their own interpretation, why can't the Catholic Church?

[ August 23, 2002, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

Jason,

A study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?

You may say, "We know by examining the contents of the books. Some books—like 1 Corinthians and Revelation—obviously belong. Others—like Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians—obviously don’t."

But is it really so obvious? Tell me, what is so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired? And what is so obviously unorthodox in The Shepherd or the Didache or Clement’s letter or any of the other first- and second-century Christian writings? You’ve never even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we possess are centuries newer than the originals. Like it or not, you have to take the say-so of the Catholic Church that in fact those copies are accurate, as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures. You do accept her testimony as trustworthy, or else your Protestant Bible would not have those 27 books.

 

DHK,

I posed your statements about the Catholic Church on my message board. The members are mixed so the responses are from Catholics and Protestants:

[ August 23, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

How do I handle that? It is called faith in God. God can use anybody. I personally believe him when he says he will preserve his word. So, I take it on faith that the bible we have now is the bible we should have (in terms of the books). It has nothing to do with the CC.

No, I do not accept the CC's testimony as trustworthy, I trust God's using sinners throughout history to provide knowledge for us. I do not trust the CC with preserving the bible either. I believe God did it.

This is all beside the point though....the original point was the internal inconsitencies in the CC. That point, I would like to remind you, has yet gone unaddressed. If you do not feel it is important to address it, do not be suprised when intelligent and logical Christians will not subscribe to the CC's doctrine.

In Christ,
jason

 

Remember the Catholic church did not first determine the NT cannon, it was the Eastern Orthodox church which came up with the list of twenty-seven books first. The consensus by the Eastern church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius’ Easter letter from Alexandria. 27 years before Hippo. The Roan Church accepted a canon that did not include the book of Hebrews, but eventually followed the East in including all 27 books. In other words, Rome made their decision from the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Paul written it an he was an apostle. Peter declares Paul's writings scripture. It's in the Bible.

Jesus said in Matt 23:35 from blood of Abel (Genesis) to Zach (Chronicles) and then the NT. I believe Christ is speaking about the canon. From genesis to Chronicles. That would exclude the Deutros or as Jerome called it 'Apocrypha'.

Also the Council of Carthage in AD 419 says “canonical Scriptures..two books of Paraleipomena..two books of Esdras..”

As you can see the Council of Carthage was using the LXX. Why else would they use the word ‘papaleipomena’(Greek for Chronicles). Apparently the Vulgate wasn’t being used very much at this time. (History can prove that.) Since the LXX was being used then Esdras I was the Apocryphal book I Esdras or to the Vulgate III Esdras, which the RCC doesn’t consider canonical.

Ooops was the infallible Pope wrong?

Actually the RCC didn't have an 'infallible decision' on the canon until Trent. 1546(?).

 

I believe the reason for that is so we don't worship the Paper and ink it was written on.
(2nd commandment)

 

Here's a couple more details about that, the OT books originally had a different order and the books which are 1st and 2nd, where originally single books and so 1st and 2nd Chronicles were a single book and that book of Chronicles was the last book in the Canon of the Palestinian Jews.

 

How we know what is Scriptuer in the NT.

Apostle Paul quotes Luke Gospel as Scripture. Apostle Peter says Pauls writings are Scripture.
Matthew is an Apostle. Mark is associated with Apostle Peter. John is an Apostle. This leaves us with Hebrews(not really knowing for sure who wrote it.) We consider it Paul's writting or someone close to Paul. James(Jesus brother) is an Apostle. Jude(Jesus brother) quotes Peter. Jude is associated with James.

Summary: THe NT was written by apostles or written by people who had close relationships with the Apostles. For example LUKE. Luke traveled with Paul.

All other writers had no Apostle to approve the writings. Clement was well after the apostles.

 

The gates of Hell have prevailed in that the Catholic Church has not kept itself pure (as if it ever was in the first place). The rise of Montanism, the Waldenses, and so many others, as well as the entire Reformation, was all in objection to the "Church," the Roman Catholic Church, in specific and all of its corruptions. Christ's church is not corrupted. The other denominations do not make the claims that the Catholic Church does, that the word church in Mat. 16:18 refers to them. Some cults do. I suppose that would put the Catholic Church among the cults, instead of Christianity.

I never said they did. Many of them did. Most of them would never admit to being the one and only true church as the Catholics do. They don't claim infallibility like the Catholics do. Persecution is wrong, and no one did it better than the Catholics.
BTW, all of the above mentioned groups persecuted the Baptists.

Is it that hilarious? The Dark Ages were a direct result of the Catholic Church keeping the common person in ignorance (especially of the Word of God). The Word of God was kept in monasteries, where the common person could not reach it, and in a language which the common person could not read it. Protectors of the Word of God indeed. When one of the early manuscripts was found, they also found monks burning some of the other manuscripts. They burned Tyndales' Bibles because they didn't want the Bible in the hands of the commmon person. Here is a quote from Tyndale. When he returned to Gloucester in 1522, he said to one of the religious leaders there:

"If God spare my lyfe, ere many yeares I wyl cause a boye that dryveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than thou doest." Though he was burned at the stake for his work by the RCC, he did as he promised, and helped to pull Europe out of ignorance, largely caused by the RCC.

 

See Hebrews 6:2 - what were the "instruction about baptisms and laying-on of hands"?

 

Correct. But, people are.

The Apostles weren't perfect either - Peter had lots of issues to deal with. And Judas...

Were the Apostles worthy to be Apostles?? They sinned! Jesus chose sinners to spread the gospel - that's a novel idea.

If the Catholic Church is not His Church because it's full of sinners then I'd love to meet your congregation. I must admit, I've never met anyone who has never sinned so it will be a relief to meet your pastor.

At least in the Catholic Church we're able to find tares among the wheat (Mt. 13:24-30; also Mt. 13:47-52).

[ August 28, 2002, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

I think the fact that you use, as authority, an author who so obviously believes in Mary's Immaculate Conception ("the holy Virgin"), and even questions whether she even died at all, as a SOURCE TO DISPROVE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, is both disrepectful and outlandish.

 

I forgot that Protestants have not had their share of sexual deviants.

No, lets. Because you are right. The Church was indeed founded by Jesus Christ, which Catholics firmly accept as truth. Peter, on the other hand, was the FOUNDATION on which Christ, the FOUNDER, built his church.

Many protestants believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

I have to admire your spirit. Too bad it's so negative and hate filled.

 

You deny free will? Also, since when is the Catholic Church officially responsible for the actions of the English? Bad Catholics does not equal Bad Catholicism.

 

DHK,

So your method of answering my question is by asking me another question? That's called begging the question, and it means you want to avoid my question by throwing irrelevant other situations, which, I might add, you only mentioned but did not back up.

Let's go back to my question. Please tell me the name of the pope, bishop, or other actual church leader who not only sanctioned put pushed for the burning of this man. One or two non-bias sources (encylopedia, etc) would be most helpful in backing your claims up.

I'm not stupid, as you so presume. Did attrocities happen? Of course they did. I'm asking, though, was it "Catholics" who did this, or "the Catholic Church." You equate the two, when that is absurd.

Of course, I'll also ask the question (which you will dodge) of why, if the Catholic Church is so excellent at changing our written/oral history, why you have a closet full of examples of how evil the church is. No, you see, what you do is use history as an authority if it's against the Catholic Church, but if it's FOR the Catholic Church, it's unreliable. Not only does this make your arguments inadmissable, but it shows that you're interest here is not to shed light on people on the dark, but shove your own darkness and bitterness against a church that you left on others who don't share your twisted view on God's Holy Church.

Again, I'm all for open discussion, but you're crossing logic barriers that can't be crossed. Either a Catholic burned him at the stake, or the CATHOLIC CHURCH burned him. Provide me with answers. Either the CATHOLIC CHURCH changes history to make themselves look better, or they don't. And if they did, why did they leave such a mess for you to toy with, and then seek forgiveness for it? Good questions I can't wait to see you avoid.

 

The leaders of the Catholic church had no problem with him being burned as they did not want the laity to have access to the scriptures. When the majesterium was not directly involved in the attrocities they were indirectly involved simply because they did nothing to prevent it nor did they discipline those who were directly involved.