Non-denom Christians are part of a denomination

[NDfan]

Gabriel
Now when it comes to the “Universal” Catholic Christian faith throughout the Whole World, The Chair of Peter aka “Vicar of Christ” “Primeminister of the kingdom of God on earth”, better known today as “Papa” or “Pope”. When Peter speaks: maybe you should listen to the news carefully, “The World Listens” some may not obey the “Vicar of Christ” never the less the World knows when “Peter Speaks all fall silent”. This is recorded in the first Catholic council in Jerusalem from the book of Acts of the Apostles and it still holds true today.

Gabriel they didn’t fall silent because Peter was speaking my brother. They fell silent to glorify GOD because they realized GOD extended salvation to the Gentiles. Incidentally do you know how the Pope got his title? Leo wanted to centralize the power of the church to Rome requiring all the patriarchs to report to him. He appealed to the Roman Emperor at the time who granted him the request because of course Rome was the center of the entire empire. The Emperor then extended the title of Pontificus Maximus which was the same title used for Caesar. What I find interesting is that Christ commanded the church leaders not to exercise authority over one another similar to how the pagans or heathens lorded it over the people. Yet the same title used for Caesar who considered himself a lord was given to the Bishop of Rome. So this power you are mentioning seems to come more from government intervention than from Christ. We may differ here on our thoughts but you can’t deny the historicity of it.

Where Peter is called upon, is when the teachings of Jesus come under attack either from within or abroad, The “Rock” Peter will not be moved by every wind of doctrine, and his Seat has been given the Promise from Jesus that he will be with him until the end of the age, even though the gates of hell will come against him and his Church, they will never prevail against the (body of Jesus Christ) Catholic church.

Gabriel, Amen brother I believe as you do the gates of hell will never prevail against the Catholic church. Thank GOD for that.

Yes this is true, but there is only One body, One baptism, One Lord proffessed to and believed to behold the "True body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in this world, and that is the Catholic church with Peter present day Pope Benedict VI.

Well again I think we will differ here. But that’s Ok I respect your faith.

Now before you go into the Eastern bit. Let me assure you, we are not different bodies of believers we are still one and the same body of Jesus Christ. There is a difference between “schism” which some not all Eastern Orthodox church’s are in, this does not mean they are severed from the same body of Jesus Christ, for both Lungs of the body breathe the same faith other than “schism”.

But Gabriel do you know the Orthodox don’t hold the same doctrines you do?? They don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox readily admit that many church fathers stated Mary was a sinner. They won’t submit to the authority of the Pope which is huge as you just said above. There are many other doctrinal differences between the 2 so I wouldn’t consider you one in the same just currently in schism. There’s a lot to overcome to heal that schism.

Peace be with you, I hope this dialogue does not bore you all, forgive me for the lengthly posts.

Gabriel not all my brother. Not at all. This is one of the best dialogues I’ve ever had with you.

PEACE and GOD Bless

 

[jblake]

NDfan;:

So the Armaic is only speculation. If Matthew’s Gospel really did exist in Armaic as some suggest I wish we had it. It would probably clear things up one way or another.

(Mat 16:18 Peshitta Test) ܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܐܒܢܝܗ ܠܥܕܬܝ ܘܬܪܥܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ ܠܐ ܢܚܤܢܘܢܗ ܀

Transliterated,we have AP ANA AMR ANA LK DANT HW KAPA WEL HDA KAPA ABNYH LEDTY WTREA D$YWL LA NXSNWNH ;

jonathon

 

[fbl9]

I think the problem I have is I see church leaders within the Catholic church that have created some erroneous doctrines. I can’t profess allegiance to that church if I don’t believe the doctrines are rooted in scripture. I mean no disrespect at all honestly but that’s what I struggle with.

contd.

Hi NDfan recheck my post #27 i replied to most of your post, but my reply is contained within the quoted part.

What did Jesus mean when He stated “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?..

IN another post you made the comment to the effect that the Jewish leaders know which books are scripture…to which i reply these are the same people who REJECTED THE WORD OF GOD WHEN MADE FLESH,and you are telling me to trust that they know which is the word of God or not.Would one not trust a CHRISTIAN in this matter or a non beleiver in Christ???

 

[Athanasiy]

Are they not??? I have friends that go to a non-denominational church called the Vinyard… but it sure seems like a denomination… it has a “theology” and they have unified beliefs and seem sort of charismatic… anyone know about this sort of thing? One questioned me on baby baptisms…

I think , non-denominational churches are very different in their theologies. If , there are the church statutes , they are different from one another , and for some questions they do not even have the answers.
Yes , many of them are , a sort of charismatic , and some of them are very successful in converting the young people.
The young people , its our future , the young people are the ones who shall live in the future.
Therefore , one thing worries me ,
it is the ‘’ paradigm of spirituality ‘’
I would advise to all pastors of non-denominational churches to read the Roman Catholic Catechism , ( from the Vatican perspective.)
The right doctrines about the Incarnation , questions on morality , ethical questions , the questions of sexual morality - are very important.
and they , in my opinion determine the paradigm of spirituality , in that or that non-denominational community , in some way - more than any thing else.

To have a success working with the modern young people , its not easy , because , I think this generation of young people have no analogy with the past generations of young people .
And to bring some one to the church today , and to make the one to be interested in God - its very not easy.

I am positively surprised with the success of some of these churches.
Because , some times you see there , many types of modern youth , you see the ex - drugs addicts , ex- street women .
You see the people who has got tired from fornication , disordered life and the ones who by conversion has found the peace , faith hope and joy in life.

As I say , the matter which worries me , is the paradigm of spirituality.

 

[fbl9]

. The essentials are viewed as anything Christ commanded us to do.
.

Just curious when one is baptised in your group what manner of words are spoken? ie I baptise you in the name…

 

[NDfan]

Hi NDfan recheck my post #27 i replied to most of your post, but my reply is contained within the quoted part.

What did Jesus mean when He stated “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?..

That if one is in Christ’s church they would not go to hell. The church will always stand.

IN another post you made the comment to the effect that the Jewish leaders know which books are scripture…to which i reply these are the same people who REJECTED THE WORD OF GOD WHEN MADE FLESH,and you are telling me to trust that they know which is the word of God or not.Would one not trust a CHRISTIAN in this matter or a non beleiver in Christ???

No FBL not for the OT. You have to remember the Jews considered the OT canon closed after 400BC. This is way before Jesus ever came onto the scene if you will. Besides as mentioned in another post, Jerome and many Popes said outright that the apocryphal books are not to be used for doctrines of faith. Only for edification.

 

[NDfan]

Just curious when one is baptised in your group what manner of words are spoken? ie I baptise you in the name…

I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Just as Christ commanded in Matthew 28:19.

 

[NDfan]

(Mat 16:18 Peshitta Test) ܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܐܒܢܝܗ ܠܥܕܬܝ ܘܬܪܥܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ ܠܐ ܢܚܤܢܘܢܗ ܀

Transliterated,we have AP ANA AMR ANA LK DANT HW KAPA WEL HDA KAPA ABNYH LEDTY WTREA D$YWL LA NXSNWNH ;

jonathon

Jon the Peshitta is a translation from the original Greek. Not the other way around.

 

[fbl9]

That if one is in Christ’s church they would not go to hell. The church will always stand.

No FBL not for the OT. You have to remember the Jews considered the OT canon closed after 400BC. This is way before Jesus ever came onto the scene if you will. Besides as mentioned in another post, Jerome and many Popes said outright that the apocryphal books are not to be used for doctrines of faith. Only for edification.

First one then would have to sort through the 1000’s of “churches” in existence to be able to find His church.If the church will always stand then how can it fall into error as you have claimed?

This you are wrong on,the Hebrew cannon as it stands now was made long after such date…Perhaps 400BC was a cut off date which the Hebrew canon worked back from.
These Popes which refered to the apocryphal books do have any knowledge of which books they were refering to?and a source for these words?

 

[fbl9]

I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Just as Christ commanded in Matthew 28:19.

thanks

 

[jblake]

NDfan;:

the Peshitta is a translation from the original Greek.

a) Debatable. Very debatable.

b) Do you know what language Tradition says that the book I quoted from was written in?

jonathon

 

[Roy5]

NON-DENOMINATIONALS DIFFER

Okay, non-denominational churches vary considerably.

(1) Most of the newer non-denominational churches are evangelical and not connected to one of the traditional Protestant denominations. They often have a Pentecostal flavor, though not always. They use non-denominational partly because they view themselves that way, but they also find that this appeals to many people who want to be simply 'Christians' and not denominational.

 (2) There are many older local churches that are multi-denominational. They usually exist in smaller communities and are the union of, say, a Methodist and a Presbyterian Church. They often call themselves a community or a federated church. They almost always preserve traditions from both. For example, a combined Methodist-Presbyterian Church may say 'trespasses' in the Our Father (Presbyterians usually say 'debts') while serving communion in th pews (Methodists usually go toward the altar to receive communion). You will find many community or federated churches that involve Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and liberal Baptists. These denominations can join together easily. If Lutheran or Episcopal, such an arrangement is more difficult. The same is true among strongly evangelical churches where theological differences may make such cooperative ministries rare.

 3. Ironically, here in the Northeast a very high percentage of members in the new and often large nondenominational churches are former Catholics. Why? I'm not sure. They are often led by charismatic pastors (and often their wives, too) who preach in a dynamic and dogmatic fashion.

  4. Despite the word nondenominational, such churches are essentially Protestant and often less liturgical and sacramental than mainstream Protestant churches. Ministers usually do not wear robes, for example, and they likely do not preach from the lectionary. One of their secrets of success may be that laity are very-much upfront, provided prominent positions of leadership. They also emphasize popular music - praise songs - and begin with singing that sometimes can resemble a rock concert in its intensity. 

   5. There is an old and respected theory advanced by someone named Troesch (sp?) that such independent churches gradually settle down become more mainstream, perhaps resulting in new denominations,

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi. NDfan; It appears we have discussed much on differences of belief. Would it be fair to say My Catholic belief’s are doctrine and your non denominational belief’s are your own interpretations of what you interpret scripture to reveal?

I believe from your responses that non denominational’s have a 20th century understanding of what “Church” is from a Catholic understanding from 2000 years of what and who “Church” is.

As far as Peter, and Rock are concerned, Paul has recorded in his Epistles to referring to Peter from his “Aramaic” name that Jesus gave him “Kephas”, are you aware of these scriptures?

HIstorians, Biblical Scholars and Theologians have confirmed this “Rock” naming is singular only to identifying Peter or Kephas from the Aramaic, to which Paul referrs to Peter as “Kephas” or “Rock” from the name Jesus gave him again as stated in scripture. Ask why did not the translators change Paul’s rendering from the Aramaic “Kephas” to the Greek “Petros”. Because they transliterated Paul’s Epistles not translated them.

I am sorry, a late 20th century biblical interpretation does not withstand the test of time to discount Jesus naming “Simon Bar Jona” to “Rock”, from this time on, "Simon Bar Jona’s name is now “Peter” or “Rock” or as Paul states from the orginal language of Jesus in Aramaic “Kephas” which also means “Rock”.

If scripture teaches and Paul believed that Jesus built his church on “Simon Bar Jona’s” Faith. why does scripture refer to “Simon Bar Jona” in his Aramiac name and Greek translation “Rock”, “Peter” or “Kephas”.

The Greek rendering to which you subscribe to is only using the (Petros, small stone) Masculine noun rendering from Petras (Massive Rock) which should of been the word used since it is closest to “Kephas” instead of Petros. But the Catholic translators used a Masculine noun instead of a feminine noun to referr to Peter which is Petros from the Greek instead of the feminine noun Petras.

I dont know how to explain to you about the debate of the “Apochryphal books”. Yes many Popes, Saints and theologians have debated these books. And it appears you are referring to their recorded arguments, I applaud you. But what you fail to see, is that these are just rebuttles they are not infallibly denying these “Deuterocanonical” books. Yes, “Deutero” meaning these books in question have been scrutinized by the Catholic church.

The Catholic church has confirmed these books as canonical and closed forever from ever being debated since the council of Trent.

Cont.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cont.

Now the New Testament has quotations and teachings from these “Deuterocanonical” books of which the King James Version of the Bible has rejected as Canonical. If this thread allows I will post them for you and give you the site to see for yourself. Now some of these you will need the orginal language to reveal it parallel New testament references to the “Deuterocanonicals” of which your non denomination rejects.

It’s quite an extensive study but you asked for proof, so here it is;

Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26
Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15
Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1
Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8
Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12
Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24
Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14
Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4
Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60
Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2
Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1
Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s
Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10
Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11
Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15
Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15
Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6
Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37
Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3
Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19
Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17
Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17
Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10
Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17
Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17
Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1
Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19
Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s
Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3
Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15
Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s
Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13
Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21
Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22
Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10
Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15
Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15
Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2
Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4
Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54
Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17
Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28
Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17
Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35
Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2
Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20

Mark
Mark 1:15 Tobit 14:5
Mark 4:5 Sirach 40:15
Mark 4:11 Wisdom 2:22
Mark 5:34 Judith 8:35
Mark 6:49 Wisdom 17:15
Mark 8:37 Sirach 26:14
Mark 9:31 Sirach 2:18
Mark 9:48 Judith 16:17
Mark 10:18 Sirach 4:1
Mark 14:34 Sirach 37:2
Mark 15:29 Wisdom 2:17s

Luke
Luke 1:17 Sirach 48:10
Luke 1:19 Tobit 12:15
Luke 1:42 Judith 13:18
Luke 1:52 Sirach 10:14
Luke 2:29 Tobit 11:9
Luke 2:37 Judith 8:6
Luke 6:35 Wisdom 15:1
Luke 7:22 Sirach 48:5
Luke 9:8 Sirach 48:10
Luke 10:17 Tobit 7:17
Luke 10:19 Sirach 11:19
Luke 10:21 Sirach 51:1
Luke 12:19 Tobit 7:10
Luke 12:20 Wisdom 15:8
Luke 13:25 Tobit 14:4
Luke 13:27 1 Maccabees 3:6
Luke 13:29 Baruch 4:37
Luke 14:13 Tobit 2:2
Luke 15:12 1 Maccabees 10:29 [30]
Luke 15:12 Tobit 3:17
Luke 18:7 Sirach 35:22
Luke 19:44 Wisdom 3:7
Luke 21:24 Tobit 14:5
Luke 21:24 Sirach 28:18
Luke 21:25 Wisdom 5:22
Luke 24:4 2 Maccabees 3:26
Luke 24:31 2 Maccabees 3:34
Luke 24:50 Sirach 50:20s
Luke 24:53 Sirach 50:22

John 1:3 Wisdom 9:1
John 3:8 Sirach 16:21
John 3:12 Wisdom 9:16
John 3:12 Wisdom 18:15s
John 3:13 Baruch 3:29
John 3:28 1 Maccabees 9:39
John 3:32 Tobit 4:6
John 4:9 Sirach 50:25s
John 4:48 Wisdom 8:8
John 5:18 Wisdom 2:16
John 6:35 Sirach 24:21
John 7:38 Sirach 24:40, 43[30s]
John 8:44 Wisdom 2:24
John 8:53 Sirach 44:19
John 10:20 Wisdom 5:4
John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
John 14:15 Wisdom 6:18
John 15:9s Wisdom 3:9
John 17:3 Wisdom 15:3
John 20:22 Wisdom 15:11

Acts
Acts 1:10 2 Maccabees 3:26
Acts 1:18 Wisdom 4:19
Acts 2:4 Sirach 48:12
Acts 2:11 Sirach 36:7
Acts 2:39 Sirach 24:32
Acts 4:24 Judith 9:12
Acts 5:2 2 Maccabees 4:32
Acts 5:12 1 Maccabees 12:6
Acts 5:21 2 Maccabees 1:10
Acts 5:39 2 Maccabees 7:19
Acts 9:1-29 2 Maccabees 3:24-40
Acts 9:2 1 Maccabees 15:21
Acts 9:7 Wisdom 18:1
Acts 10:2 Tobit 12:8
Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 10:25
Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 11:30, 33 etc.
Acts 10:26 Wisdom 7:1
Acts 10:30 2 Maccabees 11:8
Acts 10:34 Sirach 35:12s
Acts 10:36 Wisdom 6:7
Acts 10:36 Wisdom 8:3 etc.
Acts 11:18 Wisdom 12:19
Acts 12:5 Judith 4:9
Acts 12:10 Sirach 19:26
Acts 12:23 Judith 16:17
Acts 12:23 Sirach 48:21
Acts 12:23 1 Maccabees 7:41
Acts 12:23 2 Maccabees 9:9
Acts 13:10 Sirach 1:30
Acts 13:17 Wisdom 19:10
Acts 14:14 Judith 14:16s
Acts 14:15 Wisdom 7:3
Acts 15:4 Judith 8:26
Acts 16:14 2 Maccabees 1:4
Acts 17:23 Wisdom 14:20
Acts 17:23 Wisdom 15:17
Acts 17:24, 25 Wisdom 9:1
Acts 17:24 Tobit 7:17
Acts 17:24 Wisdom 9:9
Acts 17:26 Wisdom 7:18
Acts 17:27 Wisdom 13:6
Acts 17:29 Wisdom 13:10
Acts 17:30 Sirach 28:7
Acts 19:27 Wisdom 3:17
Acts 19:28 Daniel 14:18, 41
Acts 20:26 Daniel 13:46
Acts 20:32 Wisdom 5:5
Acts 20:35 Sirach 4:31
Acts 21:26 1 Maccabees 3:49
Acts 22.9 Wisdom 18.1
Acts 24:2 2 Maccabees 4:6
Acts 26:18 Wisdom 5:5
Acts 26:25 Judith 10:13

Romans
Romans 1:19-32 Wisdom 13-15
Romans 1:21 Wisdom 13:1
Romans 1:23 Wisdom 11:15
Romans 1:23 Wisdom 12:24
Romans 1:28 2 Maccabees 6:4
Romans 2:4 Wisdom 11:23
Romans 2:11 Sirach 35:12s
Romans 2:15 Wisdom 17:11
Romans 4:13 Sirach 44:21
Romans 4:17 Sirach 44:19
Romans 5:5 Sirach 18:11
Romans 5:12 Wisdom 2:24
Romans 9:4 Sirach 44:12
Romans 9:4 2 Maccabees 6:23
Romans 9:19 Wisdom 12:12
Romans 9:21 Wisdom 15:7
Romans 9:31 Sirach 27:8
Romans 9:31 Wisdom 2:11
Romans 10.7 Wisdom 16.13
Romans 10:6 Baruch 3:29
Romans 11:4 2 Maccabees 2:4
Romans 11:15 Sirach 10:20s
Romans 11:33 Wisdom 17:1
Romans 12:15 Sirach 7:34
Romans 13:1 Sirach 4:27
Romans 13:1 Wisdom 6:3s
Romans 13.10 Wisdom 6.18
Romans 15:4 1 Maccabees 12:9
Romans 15:8 Sirach 36:20

cont.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cont. New Testament references the Deuterocanonical books;
1 Timothy
1 Timothy 1:17 Tobit 13:7, 11
1 Timothy 2:2 2 Maccabees 3:11
1 Timothy 2:2 Baruch 1:11s
1 Timothy 6:15 Sirach 46:5
1 Timothy 6:15 2 Maccabees 12:15
1 Timothy 6:15 2 Maccabees 13:4

2 Timothy
2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 17:26
2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 23:10v1
2 Timothy 2:19 Sirach 35:3
2 Timothy 4:8 Wisdom 5:16
2 Timothy 4:17 1 Maccabees 2:60

Titus
Titus 2:11 2 Maccabees 3:30
Titus 3:4 Wisdom 1:6

Hebrews
Hebrews 1:3 Wisdom 7:25s
Hebrews 2:5 Sirach 17:17
Hebrews 4.12 Wisdom 18.15s
Hebrews 4:12 Wisdom 7:22-30
Hebrews 5:6 1 Maccabees 14:41
Hebrews 7:22 Sirach 29:14ss
Hebrews 11:5 Sirach 44:16
Hebrews 11:5 Wisdom 4:10
Hebrews 11:6 Wisdom 10:17
Hebrews 11.10 Wisdom 13.1
Hebrews 11:10 2 Maccabees 4:1
Hebrews 11:17 1 Maccabees 2:52
Hebrews 11:17 Sirach 44:20
Hebrews 11:27 Sirach 2:2
Hebrews 11:28 Wisdom 18:25
Hebrews 11:35 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42
Hebrews 12:4 2 Maccabees 13:14
Hebrews 12:9 2 Maccabees 3:24
Hebrews 12:12 Sirach 25:23
Hebrews 12:17 Wisdom 12:10
Hebrews 12:21 1 Maccabees 13:2
Hebrews 13:7 Sirach 33:19
Hebrews 13:7 Wisdom 2:17

James
James 1:1 2 Maccabees 1:27
James 1:13 Sirach 15:11-20
James 1:19 Sirach 5:11
James 1:2 Sirach 2:1
James 1:2 Wisdom 3:4s
James 1:21 Sirach 3:17
James 2:13 Tobit 4:10
James 2:23 Wisdom 7:27
James 3:2 Sirach 14:1
James 3:6 Sirach 5:13
James 3:9 Sirach 23:1, 4
James 3:10 Sirach 5:13
James 3:10 Sirach 28:12
James 3:13 Sirach 3:17
James 4:2 1 Maccabees 8:16
James 4:11 Wisdom 1:11
James 5:3 Judith 16:17
James 5:3 Sirach 29:10
James 5:4 Tobit 4:14
James 5:6 Wisdom 2:10
James 5:6 Wisdom 2:12
James 5:6 Wisdom 2:19

1 Peter
1 Peter 1:3 Sirach 16:12
1 Peter 1:7 Sirach 2:5
1 Peter 2:25 Wisdom 1:6
1 Peter 4:19 2 Maccabees 1:24 etc.
1 Peter 5:7 Wisdom 12:13

2 Peter
2 Peter 2:2 Wisdom 5:6
2 Peter 2:7 Wisdom 10:6
2 Peter 3:9 Sirach 35:19
2 Peter 3:18 Sirach 18:10

1 John
1 John 5:21 Baruch 5:72

Jude
Jude 13 Wisdom 14:1

Revelation
Revelation 1:18 Sirach 18:1
Revelation 2:10 2 Maccabees 13:14
Revelation 2:12 Wisdom 18:16 [15]
Revelation 2:17 2 Maccabees 2:4-8
Revelation 4:11 Sirach 18:1
Revelation 4:11 Wisdom 1:14
Revelation 5:7 Sirach 1:8
Revelation 7:9 2 Maccabees 10:7
Revelation 8:1 Wisdom 18:14
Revelation 8:2 Tobit 12:15
Revelation 8:3 Tobit 12:12
Revelation 8:7 Sirach 39:29
Revelation 8:7 Wisdom 16:22
Revelation 9:3 Wisdom 16:9
Revelation 9:4 Sirach 44:18 etc.
Revelation 11:19 2 Maccabees 2:4-8
Revelation 17:14 2 Maccabees 13:4
Revelation 18:2 Baruch 4:35
Revelation 19:1 Tobit 13:18
Revelation 19:11 2 Maccabees 3:25
Revelation 19:11 2 Maccabees 11:8
Revelation 19:16 2 Maccabees 13:4
Revelation 20:12s Sirach 16:12
Revelation 21:19s Tobit 13:17

To see more on the New Testament and Deuterocanonical references please review the following site;

cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

 

[fbl9]

i knew there existed a list somewhere for this… thanks Gaberial of 12 for your effort to do this
the next question that will be asked is how many of these quotes can be solely found in the duetro-cannonical books?by this i mean that the duetro’s are the only place besides the NT that these quotes can be found.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

NDfan; you have mentioned that the Catholic church has changed or invented some of her own doctrines? and this is one of the reasons why you cease being Catholic? Have you been informed about these doctrines how they have been defended and defined from attacks, and abuse not invented, you have been misinformed. Has it occurred to you that the Catholic church did not invent the doctrine of the “TRINITY” Yes this is a Catholic doctrine to which many Christian non denominations and or Protestant denominations subscribe too. That the Catholic church just like she did the Deuterocanonical books, defined, defended an already Apostolic belief from change or attack. This summarizes all her defined doctrines in history not inventions, you are misinformed.

I have debated others on these topics using the documents which my opponents used to show that the Catholic church invented these apostolic belief’s while she was only defending Catholic doctrines, and what surfaced was that my opponent was reading into the documents his/her already prejudiced views. Upon revealing the facts and the apostolic belief, revealed that the Catholic church was only defending the apostolic belief or defining it in a different age for those to comprehend these apostolic teachings.

Now we can take these one at a time, but this is not the thread for such digression of facts. This thread deals with “Non-denom Christians are part of a denomination” to which you and I apparently agree that Non denom’s are not part of a denomination.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

i knew there existed a list somewhere for this… thanks Gaberial of 12 for your effort to do this
the next question that will be asked is how many of these quotes can be solely found in the duetro-cannonical books?by this i mean that the duetro’s are the only place besides the NT that these quotes can be found.

Check the site, they have them also;

Your very welcome and peace be with you

 

[Roy5]

RE THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS

 Not sure whether this is relevant to the thread, but Protestants traditionally have recognized the apocryphal books but have not included them in the OT canon. Often they have been placed between the OT and NT. 

  I think the argument is not important. Protestants can claim that their OT is identical to the books found in the Hebrew scriptures in the neighborhood synagogue.

  Most of such issues are minor. The main issues between Catholicism and Protestantism revolve around six issues: (1) the authority of the Papacy; (2) veneration of Mary and saints; (3) the teaching of transubstantiation; (4) confession, and the authority of priests to declare forgiveness of sins; (5) the question of birth control; and (6) the value of good works - specifically the granting of indulgences (time off from Purgatory) through recitation of prayers, etc.  Then there are issues less based on doctrine, such as celibacy of clergy and ordination of women. 

   I hope and pray for the day when denominationalism will be replaced by one church which has such a big tent that it will welcome Christians of various viewpoints. After all, it's preposterous that we should claim significant knowledge of this mammoth and mysterious universe, still believing too many superstitions that made sense in medieval times, before there were effective telescopes and microscopes. Follow Jesus in our daily walk - love God and one another - but when it comes to doctrine "think and let think". I find views contrary to my own or those of the church interesting rather than offensive or wrong. It's troubling that so many Christians become so defensive and judgmental when someone disagrees.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

RE THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS

 Not sure whether this is relevant to the thread, but Protestants traditionally have recognized the apocryphal books but have not included them in the OT canon. Often they have been placed between the OT and NT. 

  I think the argument is not important. Protestants can claim that their OT is identical to the books found in the Hebrew scriptures in the neighborhood synagogue.

Gabriel of 12;
The Apochryphal books are very instrumental on how the Catholic theologians debated these books, and how they remained Canonical never the less. Protestants do include them today but not as canonical or inspired of God. Mainly for the reasons the Jewish community rejected them because they had no “Hebrew” counter parts, but the dead sea scrolls proved this theory to be false. Even though the Catholic church kept them as canonical simply because Jesus and the apostles taught from these Apocryphal books.

The question asked from antiquity to those who rejected the books (7) was, Who would you believe, the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ and persecuted his Catholic church, or accept these books as taught from Jesus and the apostles? So having the Jewish canon does not justify ones bible as fully Christian, when the Catholic bible contains all of the “Tora” and all that Jesus revealed from scripture.

Peace be with you