The Pre-Tribulational Rapture

[Campion]

Like I said, there were no books, there were scrolls and letters. Some of these scrolls and letters were combined to make a single “book” at various stages in the church history, but the original writings that contained the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles were collected and disseminated by the end of the first century.

peace to you

Really? You made this claim earlier...

By the end of the first century the 66 books we know as the Bible were collected by the Christian churches (not the Roman Catholic Church which didn’t exist) and compared to first hand witness accounts to what the apostles taught. The “canon” literally means a measuring rod.

This became the standard by which all documents were compared. I believe that collection is the work of God Holy Spirit Who is clearly seen in Acts as directing and influencing these early churches.

They have been very faithfully copied and preserved, despite the Catholic translation into Latin, which occurred about 400 AD with Jerome and added many errors in the translation, undoubtedly to support the Bishop of Rome’s attempt to control the churches.

The current list used by Catholics were added by the Catholic Church during the reformation to support Catholic doctrines not found in scripture that had been rejected by the reformers, including the doctrine of the Pope as Vicar of Christ, purgatory and plenary indulgences and the perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus.

peace to you

To demonstrate the Catholic Church added books, you need to provide a list of 66 books by ANYONE in Christian history prior to the Reformation.

Can you do that?

 

[canadyjd]

Really? You made this claim earlier...

To demonstrate the Catholic Church added books, you need to provide a list of 66 books by ANYONE in Christian history prior to the Reformation.

Can you do that?

Thank you for correcting me.

I should have stated all the writings that now make up the 66 books of the Bible were collected and disseminated to churches by the end of the first century. That is the only scripture we have.

I need only to show what the first century church considered to be authoritative scripture. This is made clear by the tens of thousands of ancient Kone Greek manuscripts that came from Constantinople and other areas conquered by the Muslims.

When Catholic priests learned to read the Kone Greek, they realized Jerome made many errors translating into Latin intentionally or through ignorance of the Greek.

The books added to the Catholic Church canon at the Council of Trent were clearly an attempt to lend authority to unbiblical doctrines not found in the original teaching of Jesus and His disciples including Pope as Vicar of Christ, purgatory, perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus, plenary indulgences and many others.

peace to you

 

[Campion]

Thank you for correcting me.

I should have stated all the writings that now make up the 66 books of the Bible were collected and disseminated to churches by the end of the first century. That is the only scripture we have.

I need only to show what the first century church considered to be authoritative scripture. This is made clear by the tens of thousands of ancient Kone Greek manuscripts that came from Constantinople and other areas conquered by the Muslims.

You have yet to provide a Church using a 66-book canon. I'm still waiting.

When Catholic priests learned to read the Kone Greek, they realized Jerome made many errors translating into Latin intentionally or through ignorance of the Greek.

The books added to the Catholic Church canon at the Council of Trent were clearly an attempt to lend authority to unbiblical doctrines not found in the original teaching of Jesus and His disciples including Pope as Vicar of Christ, purgatory, perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus, plenary indulgences and many others.

peace to you

The Council of Trent accepted the books of previous councils (i.e. Florence). Therefore, how could they have added books when there merely restated what prior councils accepted?

"Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments..." - Council of Trent, Session IV, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, 1546

Trent did not make up a canon out of thin air. Rather, the Council "receives and venerates...all the books..."

Do you know what it means to receive something? It means to be given something. It requires an origin apart from one's self. What Trent did was dogmatize the canonical books because the Reformers were removing books.

Once again the Catholic Church has always had the same 73-book canon, declared at Carthage and Rome, affirmed by Damasus, Innocent, Galasius, the Fathers at Florence, then declared dogmatically at Trent when the Protestants began removing books from the canon, and affirmed yet again at Vatican I.

I will ask again: Can you provide ANY Church in all of Christian history using a 66-book canon?

 

[Revmitchell]

But the reference to a 1000 year reign (never says on the earth btw) is to be taken in a wooden literal sense?

peace to you

The answer is yes but do you really think that is an equal comparison? You cant just deal with the one passage?

 

[canadyjd]

You have yet to provide a Church using a 66-book canon. I'm still waiting.



The Council of Trent accepted the books of previous councils (i.e. Florence). Therefore, how could they have added books when there merely restated what prior councils accepted?

"Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments..." - Council of Trent, Session IV, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, 1546

Trent did not make up a canon out of thin air. Rather, the Council "receives and venerates...all the books..."

Do you know what it means to receive something? It means to be given something. It requires an origin apart from one's self. What Trent did was dogmatize the canonical books because the Reformers were removing books.

Once again the Catholic Church has always had the same 73-book canon, declared at Carthage and Rome, affirmed by Damasus, Innocent, Galasius, the Fathers at Florence, then declared dogmatically at Trent when the Protestants began removing books from the canon, and affirmed yet again at Vatican I.

I will ask again: Can you provide ANY Church in all of Christian history using a 66-book canon?

I already shown my proof via the tens of thousands of Kone Greek manuscripts brought from the East. These existed far early than the Vulgate, some fragments date to the end of the first century and were diligently copied and avoided the corruption of non-biblical Catholic Church doctrine that came much later.

Prior to Trent many of your current 73 books were considered non-scripture apocryphal books.

Please show 1 Catholic Church that existed in the first century and any that included 73 books in its canon.

I won’t be waiting because I know you will never hold yourself to the same standard you are attempting to hold me.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 7 pm EDT / 4 pm PDT

This thread is closed