Confused

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke_4_4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Luke 4:4:
40.png
ElizabethJoy:
Second, if your church is not claiming to be the original Catholic Church, then what is the Church of the Great God doing with this on its web site?
ccg.org/_domain/originalcatholicchurch.org/English/english.htm
Click to expand...
QUOTE]

If you had bothered to read that website you would have seen it has nothing to do with CGG. That is from the Christian Churches of God website. CCG.
I just find it intersting that there is another group out there also claiming to be the original church and their doctrines are the complete opposite of yours. It would seem there are other besides HWA’s followers that completely disagree with your teachings. Many CLAIM to be the original church but that doesn’t make their claim valid.

By the way, I’m still waiting for an answer to question that I presented to you earlier. Or, doesn’t Herbert have an answer for that one?
Click to expand...
 
Luke 4:4:
If you had bothered to read that website you would have seen it has nothing to do with CGG. That is from the Christian Churches of God website. CCG.
Click to expand...
I beg your pardon - I didn’t notice the one-letter difference in the URL’s.

ccg.org vs. cgg.org - frankly, the statements made on both sites were so outlandish that it didn’t occur to me that I wasn’t on another CGG site.

I also make a mistake on the Boettner thing - I had been under the impression that Boettner’s book was much older than it is and that HWA just lifted some of Boettner’s ideas. Now, it looks like Boettner may have lifted ideas from HWA.

Either way, they’re both inept and dishonest in scholarship and irresponsible (at the least) in their theology.
I just find it intersting that there is another group out there also claiming to be the original church and their doctrines are the complete opposite of yours.
Click to expand...
This has been happening since a few years after Jesus was crucified. Remember Simon Magus? He was one of many. Why are you surprised that it continues to occur, today?
It would seem there are other besides HWA’s followers that completely disagree with your teachings.
Click to expand...
If I tell you that 2+2=5 and get you to agree with it, does that mean that we’re right? No. It just means that the number of people in this room who believe that 2+2=5 has just doubled.

Our ability to function in this world is hampered if we fail to grasp the very basic fact that 2+2=4. We will have a never-ending series of conflicts just trying to live in this world if we continue in our ignorance - even if we manage to convince hundreds or thousands of others that 2+2=5. We have not changed the truth of mathematical laws.

Which is kinder for the rest of the people in the room? To let us continue in our shared delusion? Or to try to educate us and show us that 2+2=4? That the product of 2+2 always has been 4, even when there were no symbols or words for numerical concepts? The product always will be four, no matter how many people we convert to our new math.

Now, suppose that not only our ability to cooperate with the rest of the world, but that the fate of our eternal souls rests on knowing the answer to “2+2=?” How much kinder is it that someone will intervene and try to tell us the immutable truth?

It never occurred to me as a young person to question anything in Plain Truth or The World Tomorrow or anything written by HWA. **The concept that a “man of God” might lie about other Christians never even entered my mind. **And if it had, I wouldn’t have known how to refute what he was saying. I could have had Christ, if I had known that what I was learning was wrong. I could have been a Christian. Instead, I got a sort of Armstrong-ianity. Very pale substitute. :nope:

The people here are trying to hand you the truth to counter HWA’s false teachings. No one is going to force-feed it to you. It takes a large dose of humility and accepting the idea that you might not be right in order to even consider that maybe another church outside your own has it right.

You came here with the original charge that churches are changing what Jesus preached.

Your church is built first on the original teachings of HWA - he claimed to teach ONLY what Christ did. You say your church is Bible-only - even while it relies heavily on the private revelations of Herbert W!

**But your church has changed since its inception and has disavowed some of those teachings while clinging to others. **

If the teachings of HWA were so true and correct and in accordance with Christ’s, then why is your church dumping some of them?

Can you at least consider the possibility that some of your own church leaders have seen for themselves the less-than-honest scholarship and the faulty reasoning from the great HW?

And can you simply consider the possibility that if this man was less than honest in his writing and teaching on matters of history, he could also be less than scrupulous in his interpretation of Scripture and presentation of private revelations?

You’re very young - I hope that you have a long and happy life full of the mercy, love, blessings and graces from God. If you find that in your church, that is wonderful.

Elizabeth
 
Luke
The versus you quoted are very fitting. They tell us that no man can undertand gods words unless he opens that mans mind. That person must be given the power of the holy spirit to undertsand the scriptures true meaning. The catholic church as a whole has obviously not been given the power of the holy spirit.
Click to expand...
Show me by using the Bible that God has given YOU, not the Church **HE founded, **to understand the true meaning of scriptures. Please answer this from the BIBLE!!! And BTW show me that the following applies to YOU and not to the Church HE founded.John 14 “…I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate….” And also this “… but the Advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you….” You come in here and are telling us that the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus founded does not have the Holy Spirit, however, you do?
“….” This is what happens when people follow their own ideas.”
People like catholics?
Click to expand...
No my friend. The Church has been following Gods commands for 2000 years. Yet that means nothing to you. It’s people like YOU. who who are following your own ideas. Read what the ECF’s taught before we had the canon of the bible. Your ideas are a novelty and man made
Catholics are following their own ideas. Sunday worship is there idea is it not? Easter and christmas are their ideas are they not? Mass, the pope, cardinals, bishops, nuns. All their ideas! Mans ideas. Not Gods. Bottom line.
Click to expand...
Look Luke…. :DThis has been explained to you time and time again using scripture. But your heart is hardened and you WILL NOT HEAR. You refuse because you have YOUR OWN ideas; YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION. This has been explained again and again to you. BUT YOU WILL NOT HEAR. Fine, have it your way, but let me tell you this Luke, you are NOT going to convince Catholics here to abandon the Church that Jesus founded. You want to go your merry way and follow your own ideas, fine. We will pray for you. Many here had exactly the same ideas that you had and same confusion. Probably were really stubborn , but they opened themselves to the Holy Spirit and were convicted and are now staunch Catholics, great defenders of the truth and happy that the Holy Spirit lead them to the truth.
It iss obviously a beleif in the catholic church that for some reason GOd needs Mans help. God is somehow not capable of telling people his true message without mans help. Nowhere in the bible is this found.
Click to expand...
NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE?

Yes, God needed men to write the Bible. HE didn’t write it. HE INSPIRED it. Yes, God could have done it all by Himself, but He in His infinite Wisdom chose men to spread His true message. Jesus, God Himself, sent men out into the world. Why did he tell Peter to “feed my sheep” if He didn’t want to use men” Why didn’t He do it Himself” God indeed needed man to spread HIS message. It was HIS choice to use men. Matt: 28 19-20. “Go therefore make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, AND TEACH THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THE COMMANDS I GAVE YOU. AND KNOW THAT I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS; YES, TO THE END OF TIME.” You are telling me that God lied and abandoned the Church He founded until you came along. Come on Luke, open your eyes, ears and above all your heart.
I see that you have a zeal for our Lord, but regrettably at this point you have a lot of learning to do. You need to ask God for wisdom. I (and I’m sure the rest of Catholics here) will pray for you. Because you are really, as the topic of this thread says, “confused”.
 
TobyLue and ElizabethJoy, I say to you both, AMEN!!! Great Posts!

Now am I the only one that’s getting tired of playing handball (where you hit the ball against a hard wall and it comes back). Luke 4:4, Good Luck! I, too, hope that you continue your search for Truth and learn one day to Cross the Tiber!

NotWorthy
 
Luke 4:4:
Just a few questions for everyone.

I was just wondering why the many “christian” churches of this world don’t feel that they have to keep Gods laws. And why is it that they twist Gods laws around to fit their needs or add things to his word whenever it suits them.

i.e. the sabbath. God clearly states that the sabbath is on the seventh day. Last time I checked the seventh day was saturday not sunday. SOmeone show me whaere God changed the sabbath day to Sunday.

Gods Holy Days. How is it that the “christian” churches of this world celebrate pagen holidays like christmas and easter which were created by men but fail to keep Gods Holy Days such as Pentacost, the Day of atonement or the Feast of Trumpets.

The list goes on and on. Clean and unclean foods, Though shall have no other Gods befor me (i.e. the Pope),
Dave
Click to expand...
Dave, I think you missed something important. The law of Moses that God gave to the Isrealites was not given to Christians. It was given to the Isrealites. Christians were never under the law of Moses. Christians never had to be circumcised nor did Christians every have to follow the Jewish feast days. And Christians never had to worship on the Sabbath. Christians are only under the new Law of Christ, and in that law Christians worship on Sunday and follow the teachings as Jesus gave them. When a Jew because a Christian he passed from being under the authority of the Law of Moses to being under the Law of Christ, the law of the Gospel as taught by His Church. Just as when someone moves from Ohio to California, after a while he is no longer under the laws of Ohio, he is now under the laws of California. The laws don’t change, but the authority of the laws over the persons change.
Now of course, before the time of Moses, all men had to follow the natural law, which included the ten commandments, except for the day of the week in which to worship. There is nothing in the natural law which indicates the Sabbath is the day to worship.
Thus, before Christ, all non Israelites had to follow the teachings in the 10 commanments, because they were part of the natural law put in our hearts. When God gave the ten commandments to the Israelites, he was giving the natural law to them in a written form, except for the day of worship, which was a part of the ceremonial law, not part of the moral law (natual law).
If you belonged to the Church God founded, you could have learned these things.
 
Peace be with you!
Luke 4:4:
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

The Bible is the word of God. If we bleieve in him then we must also believe his word. You connot truley have the first without the later.

Dave
Click to expand...
Not the lower case “book” and “this prophecy”. It would be impossible for that line to refer to the Bible (the Book with a capital) because the Bible DID NOT EXIST YET. That line refers to the book of Revelation ONLY.

The Bible was put together by the CATHOLIC CHURCH at the Councils of Carthage in the late 4th Century (there were over 200 writings claiming Apostolic origin at the time, did you know that? probably not). In fact, the final canon of the Bible was not finalized until the year AD 419 at the 4th Council of Carthage. It remained in the same form until Martin Luther decided he knew better what was and was not the Word of God and removed the Deuterocanonicals, Hebrews, James, and Revelation. Even without accepting the Deuterocanonicals, which I’m sure you don’t, by accepting that the canon of Scripture is closed you are RECOGNIZING THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The councils that compiled the Bible were composed of Catholic bishops and authorized by the pope.
If you don’t recognize that authority, then the canon of Scripture can’t be closed and you could take out 1 and 2 Peter of 2 John and add Martin Luther or John Calvin.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Typo above^^^

Should say "**Note **the lower case ‘book’ ".
 
Dave,

You seem like a passionate person, and I applaud that. I, like you, am a young man seeking the Truth, and I have found it in its most complete form on Earth in the Catholic Church. As a student of philosophy and history at a public institution I can assure you that the Catholic Church makes the most sense historically, philosophically, and scriputurally!

You must recognize the fallaciousness of your argument on this point. You continually ask the question, how do you know the Catholic Church, which is run by men, is not wrong? Why not just follow the Bible? It is good to ask these questions, but it is not enough to ask them, you must honestly seek the answer to them.

I could just as easily ask you the same question about the Bible. How do we know that the men who received divine inspiration were not mistaken. Surely Ss. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, etc… were fallible men who sinned and made mistakes like the rest of us. How do we know these mistakes didn’t carry over into their writing? We know that divinely inspired men (who happened to make up the Catholic Church) decided which books should be included into today’s Bible. How do we know they did not choose the wrong books? How do we know the “gospel of Thomas” the “gospel of Marry Magdelene” or the “cross gospel” were not the divinely inspired books and these early Christians were mistaken by not including them? These books would paint a vastly different Christianity than the one we know today.

Any Catholic can answer this question simply. The Church, made of of Christ’s apostles, the apostles of Christ’s apostles, their apostles, etc… passed on the traditions and teachings of Christ and his apostles and men like Paul. When Christ formed the Church he gave the protection of the Holy Spirit to Peter and assured that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church. He gave Peter and the Apostles the ability to pass on this gift through Apostolic Succession throughout the ages. These men carried on Christ’s teachings and formed for us a collection of divinely inspired books we know as the Bible. That is not all Christ gave us, though. He assured us that His Church would live on under His protection and that it would help us to interpret the Bible and carry on the traditions and beliefs he taught us. Christ was right! Two-thousand years later His Church has spread this message without any break in the like of succession, just as He promised. As an intelligent man once said, If you were making Italian food, you wouldn’t just read it out of a recipe book. You would seek the advice and guidance of those who have been making Italian food for years who learned recipes from someone who learned it from someone else, all the way down the line. This is what the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Bible is. The Bible is the STORY of the Church, Christ knew that to simply give us a book would lead to wildly different interpretations even by those who were holding only to the Bible. What makes more sense, that Christ would have given us this institution from the start and it would endure for 2,000 years and beyond or that only in the 16th or 20th century a few men would finally get it right.

I know that deep down in your heart, Dave, whether you care to admit it or are even aware of it yet, your soul yearns for the whole truth. It yearns to know that what Christ gave us is so much greater than a book, but a physical and continual family that would last until his return. I will pray for you that you stay honest to your soul and to your mind and one day reach the fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church.

God Bless,
Alex
 
OK, maybe this will quiet Luke down:

Sabbatarians insist that St. Paul preached to the Jews on the Sabbath, and therefore, the Sabbath is still the day of worship:
They are right about his preaching to the Jews on their Sabbath as shown in Acts 13:14, Acts 13:44, and Acts 18:4. What they fail to realize is, since that was the day when the Jews were gathered in the Synagogue, as it was their Sabbath, he could preach to the maximum number gathered in one place, all at one time. That was the only reason for his preaching to the Jews on their Sabbath.
He preached to the Jews first on their Sabbath, while they were gathered in one place and then after he preached to the Gentiles as shown in Acts 13:46. Also, they fail to see that St. Paul was not under the Law of the Old Covenant, but under the Law of Christ, “And I have become to the Jews a Jew that I might gain the Jews; to those under the Law, as one under the Law, that I might gain those under the Law; to those without the Law, though I am not without the Law of GOD, but am under the Law of Christ.” 1Cor 9:20-21

To break this down, in easier terms:
St. Paul said he was not under the Law of the Jews (the Old Covenant).
However, he said he was not without the Law.
He said his Law was a different Law.
He said his Law is the Law of Christ (the New Covenant).

**Sabbatarians insist that it was the Catholic Church which changed the day of worship to Sunday, the first day of the week. They say there is absolutely no Biblical evidence for doing this:
Well, they are wrong again. The Catholic Church is the protector of Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition, and as protector, it abides by what Holy Scripture, Tradition, and the Holy Spirit tells it. The day of worship was moved from Saturday to Sunday because the Lord rose on Sunday, and it is a celebration of the Resurrection. Christians wanted to get on with the New Covenant and separate themselves from the Old Jewish traditions. The Catholic Church had the full authority given by Jesus Christ Himself to do this. See Matthew 16:19 where Peter, and Peter alone, is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (the Church), and he is given the power of binding and loosening. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus Christ gave the other Apostles the power of binding and loosening, but He did not give them the keys.
The Apostles did this as shown very plainly in Scripture in Acts 20:7,
“And on the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, WHEN WE HAD MET FOR THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD, Paul addressed them…”
Right here is the beginning of Sunday worship.
Thank you for insisting it was the Catholic Church which changed the day to Sunday, for since the Apostles made the change, all you did was to confirm that they were all Catholic.

The first day of the week is Sunday and the ‘breaking of the bread’ is the Catholic Mass.
So translated, that verse reads, “WE MET ON SUNDAY FOR MASS.”

Continued -

**
 
** Seventh Day Adventists have told me that the ‘first day of the week’ mentioned in this verse is really the ‘seventh’ day or the ‘Sabbath’. This is a ‘twisting’ of Scripture by them to fit their teaching. Twisting Scripture is something the cults do to try and make Bible verses conform to their beliefs. Please, someone tell me how the “first” day means the “seventh” day? What wording would Luke have to use in order to convince you that he was talking about Sunday and not Saturday?
To use the same argument that Sabbath keepers use regarding Acts 20:7, I will have to refer you to Gen 2:2-3, where it says GOD rested on the seventh day. Using the same logic as Sabbath keepers use, then GOD really rested on the sixth day. Is that not true?
In Acts 20:7, St. Luke did not say they met on the morning of the first day, or at noon, or in the evening. He merely said “on the first day”. Acts 20:8 does mention that there were “many lamps” in the upper room which indicates it was evening of the first day. Acts 20:9-11 support that it was indeed evening. It was customary to meet in the evening for the “Breaking of Bread”, since Jesus instituted the Holy Eucharist in the evening during the Last Supper. As I have said before, Sabbath keepers insist that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. By using the very same arguments that they do, I am forced to conclude, by using Acts 20:7 and
1Cor 16:2 as proof, that since it was the work of the Apostles that did this, they will also have to admit that Scripture shows that all of the Apostles were Catholic as mentioned earlier. This fact of course has been known by all Catholics for centuries.

From home.inreach.com/bstanley/sabbath.htm

NotWorthy**
 
I give all of you credit for answering all of Luke’s questions. I stopped and didn’t want to post any more when he said, “I have no idea what Sola Scriptura is, I follow the Bible.” That did it for me. Congrats to all of you who was being very patient with him. 👍
 
Poor Dave.

You’re going to hurt yourself, beating your head against that wall.

That wall is Truth and it won’t budge, although the little smiley guy might keep banging at for years.

Shaking the dust off my sandals…

Good luck to you!

Elizabeth
 
Luke 4:4 said:
franknelte.net/Nelte_HTML/GALATIAN.htm
studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html
studytoanswer.net/rcc/beads_vs_bible.html
studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_mass.html

Dave :banghead:
Click to expand...

Very interesting but you still haven’t explained how you know that the bible is the Word of God and that all of the books in the bible belong in the bible and all of the books excluded from the bible should have been excluded. Until you PROVE this, referring to the bible as your final authority is a waste of time.

If the Catholic church got it right when it assembled the bible, then there is every reason to believe that it was guided by the Holy Spirit in this effort and there is every reason to beleive that the Holy Spirit has guided it in all other matters as Christ promised that the Spirit of truth would guide them in all truths.

And if the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Catholic church in all truths, then there is no reason to believe that the Spirit guided the church in putting togther the bible either.

So which is it?
  1. *] The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic church and therefore the church was guided in putting together the bible.

    *] (a) The Holy Spirit does not guide the Catholic Church.

    (b) Offer OTHER proof that the bible is the word of God and everything in there belongs in there and everything not in there doesn’t belong in there.
 
I know this is mostly a repeat post, but…

Does the Bible contain every Word and Teaching from God? Doesn’t John specifically say that if he recorded every word that Jesus uttered, all the books in the world could not contain it?

If we are to live by every word that comes from the mouth of God, and the Bible does NOT contain every word, then there must be something else. Hmmm, what could it be… .I know! Maybe it’s the Church!

Yes! That’s it! “Hold to these traditions we’ve passed on to you by word and letter”.

Jesus spent forty days teaching the Apostles after His resurrection. Not much of what He said was recorded in the New Testament. But, since His time with the Apostles was nearing an end, don’t you think He said some mighty important things?

Or do you think MAYBE He taught them how to set up His Church in order for the Gates of Hell not to prevail.

For Jesus left us a Church, NOT a Bible.

Good Luck!

NotWorthy
 
Luke 4:4 said:
franknelte.net/Nelte_HTML/GALATIAN.htm
studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html
studytoanswer.net/rcc/beads_vs_bible.html
studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_mass.html

Dave :banghead:
Click to expand...

I would prefer an actual answer to my queries, rather than a series of links that don’t really apply. Intellectual dishonesty will only lead you to emptiness and despair. All I am asking for is an honest dialogue. I hope you don’t see this as “banging your head against a wall.”

God Bless,
Alex
 
Sir Knight:
Very interesting but you still haven’t explained how you know that the bible is the Word of God and that all of the books in the bible belong in the bible and all of the books excluded from the bible should have been excluded. Until you PROVE this, referring to the bible as your final authority is a waste of time.
If the Catholic church got it right when it assembled the bible, then there is every reason to believe that it was guided by the Holy Spirit in this effort and there is every reason to beleive that the Holy Spirit has guided it in all other matters as Christ promised that the Spirit of truth would guide them in all truths.
And if the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Catholic church in all truths, then there is no reason to believe that the Spirit guided the church in putting togther the bible either.
So which is it?
  1. *] The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic church and therefore the church was guided in putting together the bible.

    *] (a) The Holy Spirit does not guide the Catholic Church.
    (b) Offer OTHER proof that the bible is the word of God and everything in there belongs in there and everything not in there doesn’t belong in there.
Click to expand...

  1. Which is it?
    Its #2
    studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html
    The scripture as we know it today was around far befor the catholic church decided to make it into the bible. Despite what Catholicism may tell you.
    Is it not also true that the catholic bible includes the apocrypha? I do not have these books in any of my bibles therefor I don’t concider my bible to be the bible that the catholics decided was true. It would seem that the catholic bible is far different from the bible used by most other christians in the world unlike what you people claim.
    Dave
 
Luke 4:4:
Which is it?
Its #2
studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html
The scripture as we know it today was around far befor the catholic church decided to make it into the bible. Despite what Catholicism may tell you.
Is it not also true that the catholic bible includes the apocrypha? I do not have these books in any of my bibles therefor I don’t concider my bible to be the bible that the catholics decided was true. It would seem that the catholic bible is far different from the bible used by most other christians in the world unlike what you people claim.
Dave
Click to expand...
Dave, Dave, Dave. You are quoting anti-Catholic websites that, honestly, have no idea what they’re talking about. Just because something is on the internet doesn’t make it true…I’m sure you’ve had at least one teacher tell you that. Are you disputing the fact that the canon of Scripture was established by the Catholic Church? Are you disputing the fact that the canons from the Councils of Carthage and Hippo verify this? Are you disputing the fact that the Deuterocanonicals were included in the original canon of Scripture? History and Truth do not change because people want them to; they are objective, not subjective.

Hopefully you will read and respond to this: **Paul cites 2 Maccabees in his letter to the Hebrews: “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35). Look through the Old Testament in your Bible all you want, from Genesis to Malachi, but you wont find that story. However, if you look in 2 Maccabees 7:1-9, you’ll find it. Here is the proof that the Apostles used the books that we call the Deuterocanonicals (the Letter of Barnabas in AD 74 cites the book of Sirach as well).
Even Martin Luther knew that story referred to 2 Maccabees, which is why he removed Hebrews from the Bible as well. He couldn’t have a book citing a book he had already removed, now could he? By the way, Luther also removed James and Revelation too, though those–along with Hebrews have since been put back in by Protestants…curious, isn’t it? In fact, Revelation seems to be one of the favorite books for Protestants to quote from to try to…get this…disprove Catholicism!
I find it absolutely hillarious that you Protestants will accept, without question, the NT canon of Scripture as decided upon by the Catholic Church, but reject the OT canon that was ESTABLISHED AT THE VERY SAME COUNCIL!!!
Oh, and for your information, the Bible that the Catholics use is the same Bible that the Orthodox Church uses: that’s a total of around 1,350,000,000 people. I’d say that makes up the “most other Christians” you mentioned. It’s not the Protestants that have the most people using the incomplete Bible; it’s the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that are using the correct one. Besides, some Protestant Bibles even contain the Deuterocanonicals now, such as Today’s English Version.

**In Christ,
Rand
 
Luke 4:4:
Which is it?
Its #2
studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html
The scripture as we know it today was around far befor the catholic church decided to make it into the bible. Despite what Catholicism may tell you.
Is it not also true that the catholic bible includes the apocrypha? I do not have these books in any of my bibles therefor I don’t concider my bible to be the bible that the catholics decided was true. It would seem that the catholic bible is far different from the bible used by most other christians in the world unlike what you people claim.
Dave
Click to expand...
(I wrote some other stuff, but the forums shut down and I dont think it went through)
First of all it is very odd that this link relies so much on history to “prove” the Deutero-Canonical books are un Scriptural, when on the flip side we use history to easily destroy your position you shrug it off.

The thorn in the side of that article is Wisdom 2:12-20 it is a classic. I suggest everyone to scroll down to the part of that link (towards the end) where this passage is “refuted”. The attempt at destroying the credibility of that passage is so sad all respect for “scholarship” in that article is lost.
 
Dave has anyone told you that, “perceptions are real, but not always accurate.” That is all you have is, perceptions of the Catholic Church, and they are not accurate at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top