A scripture that completely defeats Mormons and Protestents!

[Zundrah]

The last chapter in the bible (Revelations);

“I warn any one who hears the words of this book of prophecies, if he adds to these words, God will add to him the disasters written about in this book.
And if any one removes from this book of prophecies, he will have removed from him the kingdom of heaven that is promised in this book.”

As for this; “I warn any one who hears the words of this book of prophecies, if he adds to these words, God will add to him the disasters written about in this book.”
The book of Mormon adds to the bible! So it is obvious by this scripture that the book of Mormon is invalid!

And as for this; “And if any one removes from this book of prophecies, he will have removed from him the promise of the kingdom of heaven that is mentioned in this book.”
The protestant church removed books from the bible! So this scripture also says that the protestant teaching is wrong!

 

[Zundrah]

Only one conclusion can be drawn - The catholic church is the one true church!
As the scripture “On this rock” will protest!

 

[MatthewCrossman]

I appreciate where you are coming from, but I’m pretty sure that particular verse is referring specifically to ‘this book’ as in Revelation.

 

[Zundrah]

I appreciate where you are coming from, but I’m pretty sure that particular verse is referring specifically to Revelation.

Do you really think so? Some one else told me that, but I wasn’t sure so I made the thread anyway. But do you think that it could be referring to the whole bible by any chance?

 

[KingTheoden]

I appreciate where you are coming from, but I’m pretty sure that particular verse is referring specifically to ‘this book’ as in Revelation.

Yeah, this is the Church perspective as far as I am aware. But you are coming at this from the right direction Zundrah. I suppose you can make the argument that many modern heresies add to Revelation by constantly scaring people that ‘next tuesday will be the end time.’

We can take a look a book store to see the number of Protestant/Non-demoninational books claiming some secret insight into the endtimes (usually how it is approaching quickly, and often that the author has the silver bullet solution). It seems to me such speculation dances pretty close to if not on top of John’s warning.

 

[Zundrah]

Yeah, this is the Church perspective as far as I am aware. But you are coming at this from the right direction Zundrah. I suppose you can make the argument that many modern heresies add to Revelation by constantly scaring people that ‘next tuesday will be the end time.’

We can take a look a book store to see the number of Protestant/Non-demoninational books claiming some secret insight into the end times (usually how it is approaching quickly, and often that the author has the silver bullet solution). It seems to me such speculation dances pretty close to if not on top of John’s warning.

But… aww… I’m at a loss now. I really thought I had defeated protestants and Mormons…
Oh well, better luck next time!

P.S. Any other help would be badly appreciated! Or even to hear a Mormon or Protestant point of view too!

 

[Cachonga]

Prov 30:5-6 says, “Every word of God is fire tried: he is a buckler to them that hope in him. Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar:” (DR). I think this carries the same idea Zundrah was looking for. As far as “defeating protestants”, I would point to the article “St. Jerome and the Canon”. In particular, the last portion of the article reads -

Please read the following explanation from the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Martin Luther:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

The apocrypha are useful for edification, but canonical in the sense that they are the rule for confirming matters of faith, no!

Based on this, I would suggest that it is the Catholic Church that added to God’s word (at the Council of Trent).

 

[Zundrah]

Cachonga,
that’s a very good point you have.
The catholic church have always been accused of editing the doctrines in the bible and teaching something new other than what the bible says.

And the problem with different bibles add to the accusation that we are teaching the wrong message.

A fantastic example;
In the story of Jacob, when he wrestled with God, God popped his hip out of joint!
But in other bible versions, is was said to be an angel who wrestled with him and did it!
But in the holy bible, it says God!
So which are we to believe?

I had a long argument with my minister about this! She said it was an angel, but my bible clearly said “God”!

 

[MatthewCrossman]

Yeah, this is the Church perspective as far as I am aware. But you are coming at this from the right direction Zundrah. I suppose you can make the argument that many modern heresies add to Revelation by constantly scaring people that ‘next tuesday will be the end time.’

We can take a look a book store to see the number of Protestant/Non-demoninational books claiming some secret insight into the endtimes (usually how it is approaching quickly, and often that the author has the silver bullet solution). It seems to me such speculation dances pretty close to if not on top of John’s warning.

Indeed Zundrah, I too believe your intent is spot-on. And KingTheoden’s point is very valid…particularly the fundamentalist churches are so big on ‘end times’ and apocalyptic prophecies etc. Amazing how many of these extra-biblical prophecies (kinda ironic, isn’t it?) have been off-point. I’m thinking of guys such as David Wilkerson (The Vision, 1973).

 

[Zundrah]

Indeed Zundrah, I too believe your intent is spot-on. And KingTheoden’s point is very valid…particularly the fundamentalist churches are so big on ‘end times’ and apocalyptic prophecies etc. Amazing how many of these extra-biblical prophecies (kinda ironic, isn’t it?) have been off-point. I’m thinking of guys such as David Wilkerson (The Vision, 1973).

Thanks MatthewCrossman,
As we are on the conversation of corruption, will some one please tell me about the story that apparently there was two popes once! Is that true!? Or is that a made up story?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Thanks MatthewCrossman,
As we are on the conversation of corruption, will some one please tell me about the story that apparently there was two popes once! Is that true!? Or is that a made up story?

Yes, I think there was a time where a validly elected pope and another pope continued to play pope invalidly. Not sure what that proves.
Why would that be a big deal?

 

[Cachonga]

Zundrah:

In the story of Jacob, when he wrestled with God, God popped his hip out of joint!
But in other bible versions, is was said to be an angel who wrestled with him and did it!
But in the holy bible, it says God!
So which are we to believe?

I have looked at a few different versions, and they say Jacob wrestled with a man. Afterward Jacob said he had wrestled with God. This was very likely a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus. Remember when Abraham provided hospitality to 3 “men” who were on their way to Sodom? When they resumed their journey, one of them stayed back and spoke to Abraham as God would with His friend. Did Abraham talk with an angel or with God? And what about when Daniel’s friends were thrown into the furnace? The king looked and saw 4 men walking around, unhurt, in the furnace. He declared that the 4th man looked like a son of God. These appear to be instances of God appearing as a human.

On the question of multiple popes, there have been times when there were more than one person claiming the office at the same time. I believe the usurpers were considered Antipopes.

 

[Zundrah]

Yes, I think there was a time where a validly elected pope and another pope continued to play pope invalidly. Not sure what that proves.
Why would that be a big deal?

Well, I thought there only could be one at any time? Why did they elect another one when they already had one?
I will say, I don’t know much about the pope so I don’t really know what would make it a big or small deal… Maybe you do?

 

[Zundrah]

I have looked at a few different versions, and they say Jacob wrestled with a man. Afterward Jacob said he had wrestled with God. This was very likely a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus. Remember when Abraham provided hospitality to 3 “men” who were on their way to Sodom? When they resumed their journey, one of them stayed back and spoke to Abraham as God would with His friend. Did Abraham talk with an angel or with God? And what about when Daniel’s friends were thrown into the furnace? The king looked and saw 4 men walking around, unhurt, in the furnace. He declared that the 4th man looked like a son of God. These appear to be instances of God appearing as a human.

On the question of multiple popes, there have been times when there were more than one person claiming the office at the same time. I believe the usurpers were considered Antipopes.

Well, God did appear as human in the beginning, so I don’t see why he wouldn’t do that again. He can do what ever he wants, and I don’t argue whether or not he does appear in human form. That sounds fine to me. I will except that.

"On the question of multiple popes, there have been times when there were more than one person claiming the office at the same time. I believe the usurpers were considered Antipopes.
"

How did it happen though? Who chooses who gets to be the next pope? Wouldn’t it be the pope that already is?

 

[Filioque]

As to the detractors who claim that more than one Pope existed at the same time… We have seen controversies in the recent past where groups have contested elections of Presidents and other officials, the groups claiming to have been wronged supporting the idea that the person they wished had been elected was the true office holder. The same goes with the theory of “Multiple” Popes. While only one is the validly elected Pope, it did not stop others from claiming to be Pope.

As to the objection by Protestants that St. Jerome who was given the task of Translating the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible into Latin. While a learned and holy man, St. Jerome was not in any position to define for the Church what books were canonical or not. It does point out that without the Teaching Authority of the Church, there was confusion among Chrisitans (only Catholics and a few Monophosite and Arians around at the time) the Scriptures as we have them would not exist as a canonical set of books. Even if the writings attributed to St. Jerome are his own, and he did hold books that the Catholic Church held (Long before Trent) to be canonical, are his own writings, as a priest who submitted to the Authority given by Jesus to the Church, he did translate all the books that he was tasked to translate, and not just the books that Protestants accept. To use St. Jerome as the answer to what are or are not canonical books would be like having a well read clerk at the DMV decide which traffic laws should or should not be followed. They may be very learned, but lack the authority to make the final decision. This does not deminish the great work St. Jerome did, nor his holiness, but rather places him into the proper context, not minimalized or exaggerated.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well, I thought there only could be one at any time? Why did they elect another one when they already had one?
I will say, I don’t know much about the pope so I don’t really know what would make it a big or small deal… Maybe you do?

I believe you are talking about the Avignion Pope debacle. It presents no problem because one can not be blamed for someone having delusions of grandure can they? Believing you are the valid pope and being the valid pope seem to be two different things.

 

[Cachonga]

Filioque:

Even if the writings attributed to St. Jerome are his own, and he did hold books that the Catholic Church held (Long before Trent) to be canonical, are his own writings, as a priest who submitted to the Authority given by Jesus to the Church, he did translate all the books that he was tasked to translate, and not just the books that Protestants accept.

Do you have evidence that the writings attributed to St. Jerome are not his?

Filioque:

To use St. Jerome as the answer to what are or are not canonical books would be like having a well read clerk at the DMV decide which traffic laws should or should not be followed. They may be very learned, but lack the authority to make the final decision. This does not deminish the great work St. Jerome did, nor his holiness, but rather places him into the proper context, not minimalized or exaggerated.

And yet people like John of Damascus, Gregory the Great (a Pope), Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado, and Cardinal Cajetan (just to name a few) agreed with this “lowly DMV clerk”. If a clerk at the DMV gives an opinion, it doesn’t mean anything. But if a Judge agrees with the opinion, doesn’t that validate the opinion? Wouldn’t Gregory the Great be similar to a Judge in your analogy? If not, what position does he take? (BTW - I don’t believe he’s the only Pope that accepted St. Jerome’s opinion on this.)

 

[guanophore]

But… aww… I’m at a loss now. I really thought I had defeated protestants and Mormons…
Oh well, better luck next time!

P.S. Any other help would be badly appreciated! Or even to hear a Mormon or Protestant point of view too!

Well, though your conclusion is correct, the premise is not. At the time that verse was written, there was no “bible”. The Holy Writings that were collected centuries later and bound into what we currently call “The New Testament” were largely separated from one another. In fact, this book of Revelation was hotly contested for inclusion in the NT. It almost didn’t make it! From a historical perspective, I dont’ think this can be applied to the rest of the Scripture.

Besides, since the Catholic Church collected the 27 books that became the NT, added them to the Alexandrian Septuagint and called them the “Bible”, it would be accurate to say that Catholics added the entire NT.

 

[TheQuestioner]

And yet people like John of Damascus, Gregory the Great (a Pope), Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado, and Cardinal Cajetan (just to name a few) agreed with this “lowly DMV clerk”. If a clerk at the DMV gives an opinion, it doesn’t mean anything. But if a Judge agrees with the opinion, doesn’t that validate the opinion? Wouldn’t Gregory the Great be similar to a Judge in your analogy? If not, what position does he take? (BTW - I don’t believe he’s the only Pope that accepted St. Jerome’s opinion on this.)

Sorry friend, but even if a Judge agreed with the clerk, the judge still has to submit to the laws set by those that came before him. The Pope is not the Church. The lowly DMV clerk may have had his own opinion, but at the end of the day he submits to the law. In the same way St. Jerome and others had their own opinion, but as high ranking as any of them may have been, at the end of the day the submitted to the Church.

The personal opinion of popes does not matter here. The Bible was defined and compiled and the books that were part of it were unchangeable. This took place at the council of Carthage in 397 AD. Before then there was no real bible. There were many books and which ones were to be used was anyone’s game, but in the Council of Carthage the Church finally solidly defined the Cannon.

*"Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, *2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John."

 

[guanophore]

Prov 30:5-6 says, “Every word of God is fire tried: he is a buckler to them that hope in him. Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar:” (DR). I think this carries the same idea Zundrah was looking for. As far as “defeating protestants”, I would point to the article “St. Jerome and the Canon”. In particular, the last portion of the article reads -

Based on this, I would suggest that it is the Catholic Church that added to God’s word (at the Council of Trent).

If such were the basis, then this would, indeed, be the correct conclusion. However, Catholic doctrine is not formed by any one or two persons, as it is in other ecclesial communities. The doctrine is created by Christ and given to us from the Apsotles. Since they used these texts as canonical, the Church accepts them in that light. No one person, Cardinal Cajetan, or even Jerome, however Holy, has private revelation that can trample what came to us from the Apostles. They are only menm, and their knowledge is limited. Therefore, we go with the revelation of God, and since Jesus used these books, we accept them. Furthermore, the infallible councils of the church adopted the Alexandrian Septuagint at the same time the NT was formed, so if one is not correct, perhaps the other is not either!