G
Ginger2
Guest
But I already said that even if there were 500 Christian denominations it does not mean there are 5000 different doctrines.
Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
Have you bothered to understand how Barrett derived these calculations, or do you insist on an emotional basis to reject them. You have offered up no proof that he is wrong in stating 30 000 plus christian denominations.
You also insist on saying that Barrett lied, when I stated Barrett made a mistake.
P.S. David Barrett is a born again christian.
E
elvisman
Guest
And I already showed you that there are some very key doctrinal differences such as the Trinity, baptismal regeneration, soul sleep, justification, etc.
You seem to be arguing in circles instead of accepting the fact that there is only one truth - not 500, 5,000 or 30,000.
E
elvisman
Guest
This is absolutely untrue as there were debates going on all the way to the councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th and 5th centuries.
Your assertion that the books of the New Testament were known to be inspired in the first century is ludicrous and completely unfounded by history - Church and secular. I don’t know of one Protestant minister, let alone theologian who would ever make this claim.
How you could even claim this is beyond the realm of reason, not to mention completely revisionist.
Also - don’t forget that the Protestant Rebels threw out certain books of the Old Testament after the Rebellion (“Reformation”). This and the fact that Luther wanted to remove books from the New Testament as well, including, James and Revelation. Thank God his peers convinced him otherwise. This was 1400 years after the first century.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
My point is, I can’t honestly and in good conscience do something that I believe God does not want us to do. I believe that if I were to do it anyway it would be condemning me because I am doing something I truly and utterly believe is wrong and by denying what God has set in my heart in doing so I am turning my back on Him.
Again, you think that protestants are only out to do what feels good. It is not the case, it has a lot to do with conviction. To deem it otherwise is to show yourself a very judgemental and ignorant person.
When you state that protestants pick and choose their beliefs based on what ‘feels’ or looks good and throw the rest out you are saying we are just looking for a good high and leaving the rest out. YOU do not know our hearts nor our walk with God so don’t presume to know so.
This statement makes no sense. Why would I want to bear false witness? I don’t presume to know your heart nor walk with God and would never comment on the fact. The bible, in the ten commandments, says to NOT bear false witness and I don’t intend to start.
This is on topic. You stated that protestants pick and choose their beliefs in accordance to their personal interpretations. I was responding.
Not false, you wrote the statement. I was merely responding to it. Albeit in frustration and for that I apologize but I don’t apologize for what I said, just how harshly I may have said it.
H
Hisalone
Guest
There you go again.
Nice rant.
G
Ginger2
Guest
If you don’t believe in One God in three persons, Father, son and Holy Spirit, you are not Christians.
If someone is raised Catholic and grows up and starts a church of heresy, shall I call him a Catholic? Shall I claim that his church is a Catholic denomination and each Catholic denomination has a different interpretation of Scriptures?
That is what you are doing.
If one Catholic perish strays from the truth, and faithful Catholics leave the perish, shall I say they split because they each rely on personal interpretation of Scriptures…
That is what you are doing
Every cult is not an off-shoot of Protestanism. WACO TX was not a Protestant denomination, neither was Jonestown, etc.
Just as the Polish Catholic Church is not a denomination of Catholicism.
Ginger
G
Ginger2
Guest
Name one from the first century.
1st century Christian knew the Apostles were writing Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’‘s writings as Scripture. (this was written about 66-67 A.D.)
Since Peter considered Paul’‘s writings as Scripture, I should think Peter’'s writings were also considered Scripture (Afterall, he was the first pope
)Certainly the Gospel of Matthew, also, He was one of the twelve. (Matthew was written between 42 -50 AD)
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us NOT TO THINK [of men] ABOVE THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 57 A.D.)
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all goodworks.” Acts 3:16-17 THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 63 A.D.
All of these were written and in circulation before 2 Peter.
That is false. Luther kept the Scriptures just as Jerome did. I’ve explained this and supplied proof to support my claims, yet here we are again, right back where we started with Catholics making the same false claim time and time again long after it’s been disproved.
So this time, instead of me showing you the proof you’re wrong, why don’t you try something different and provide proof for your claims? Proof, not empty accusations.
Ginger
E
elvisman
Guest
I’m not sure I understand this post as it is confusing - but you got 2 things correct (in red).
If you don’t believe in One God in three persons, Father, son and Holy Spirit, you are not Christians.
If someone is raised Catholic and grows up and starts a church of heresy, shall I call him a Catholic? Shall I claim that his church is a Catholic denomination and each Catholic denomination has a different interpretation of Scriptures?
That is what you are doing.
If one Catholic perish strays from the truth, and faithful Catholics leave the perish, shall I say they split because they each rely on personal interpretation of Scriptures…
That is what you are doing
Every cult is not an off-shoot of Protestanism. WACO TX was not a Protestant denomination, neither was Jonestown, etc.
Just as the Polish Catholic Church is not a denomination of Catholicism.
Ginger
E
elvisman
Guest
E
elvisman
Guest
None of this backs up your claim that First Century Christians were using the bible as we know it today.Name one from the first century.
1st century Christian knew the Apostles were writing Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’‘s writings as Scripture. (this was written about 66-67 A.D.)
Since Peter considered Paul’‘s writings as Scripture, I should think Peter’'s writings were also considered Scripture (Afterall, he was the first pope
Certainly the Gospel of Matthew, also, He was one of the twelve. (Matthew was written between 42 -50 AD)
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us NOT TO THINK [of men] ABOVE THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 57 A.D.)
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all goodworks.” Acts 3:16-17 THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 63 A.D.
All of these were written and in circulation before 2 Peter.
That is false. Luther kept the Scriptures just as Jerome did. I’ve explained this and supplied proof to support my claims, yet here we are again, right back where we started with Catholics making the same false claim time and time again long after it’s been disproved.
So this time, instead of me showing you the proof you’re wrong, why don’t you try something different and provide proof for your claims? Proof, not empty accusations.
Ginger
There were MANY other writings that were considered authoritative by many early believers and many books that that we have today that were rejected by many of them.
Catholic Encyclopedia/Wikipedia:
“The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.
Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the third century.”
From a Protestant site:
"In 140 A.D., Marcion’s New Testament includes the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline epistles, except the epistles to Timothy and Titus. He includes Luke, after editing it to remove everything Jewish. He rejects Matthew, Mark, and John."
"In 200 A.D., In some areas, a few people object to the following books, mainly because of uncertain authorship. The main reason Revelation is included in this list is because of its heavy use by heretics:"
Hebrews
2 Peter
Jude
2 John
3 John
Revelation
A few people felt that the following books should be part of the New Testament:
Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistles of Clement
The Shepherd of Hermas
2nd Century - Origen’s collection included the Shepherd of Hermas
By the early 200’s, there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation.
367 A.D. - The earliest example of the 27-book canon came from an Easter letter from Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
The North African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the 27-book NT canon together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.
History is against you.
E
elvisman
Guest
Singingbeauty -
I have many problems with the beliefs ofvariaous Protestant denominations - and I think God does as well.
Some of these are the false and unfounded notions that are encompassed in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. These are the beliefs that cause Protestants to reject many teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
**What I don’t have is animosity towards Protestants as you may think. Most of my 12 siblingd left the Curch for various Protestant denominations and I love them all immensly. **
Regardless of your accusations, I have never judged the heart of anybody. I can only judge a person’s actions - their fruits.
H
Hisalone
Guest
If you want or expect an answer you need to word your question in a respectfull manner.
E
elvisman
Guest
**I’ll take that as an “I don’t know”.
Amazing - this, coming from a person who has told me that I’m not even a Christian.**
R
rinnie
Guest
Um. OTCA we are on the same side here. That was exactly my point. I wanted to hear what she had to say about it.There wasn’t a Protestant around to see the light of day when the bible was compiled…good grief…And Oral Tradition IS in the bible because that’s how Jesus taught! Good grief again…
H
Hisalone
Guest
Sure I know.I’ll take that as an “I don’t know”.
Amazing - this, coming from a person who has told me that I’m not even a Christian.
Because you misunderstood my statement that I am instructed not to be unequally yoked
you accuse me of saying something I did not say.
If you were a Christian Im sure you would conduct yourself accordingly.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
You act as if ALL protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. I subscribe to neither.
But in any case, until you know each and every person individually - you can’t say that all protestants pick and choose beliefs to their liking and throw the rest out because it is too hard to swallow or they just don’t wanna. Some (if not most) have strong convictions that they believe is from God (including myself) and to ignore that conviction is to turn our backs on God.
E
elvisman
Guest
I refer to your post #213. I had asked you the following question:Sure I know.
Because you misunderstood my statement that I am instructed not to be unequally yoked you accuse me of saying something I did not say.
If you were a Christian Im sure you would conduct yourself accordingly.
**Catholics are non-believers?
This was your reply:
“Yes”
You have judged wrongly.
E
elvisman
Guest
Please read my posts before shooting from the hip with your replies.
This is what I said:
"Some of these (beliefs ofvariaous Protestant denominations ) are the false and unfounded notions that are encompassed in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide."
I never said "All Protestants this" or "All Protestants that".
Apparently, you’re reading things that aren’t there.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
I really don’t get this. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not Biblical. They were created by the Reformers and forever inserted error into the teachings of Christ through the churches those men founded. It continues to be the problem today, men continuing to invent/teach error and found even more churches.
The very nature of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide separate the believer from Apostolic teaching because it “gives” the believer the false idea that he/she can intepret for himself/herself what something means. The Bible says don’t do that.
If you are a member of a non-Catholic Church you are not following all of the commands of Christ as He gave them to His Church. You are following the changed teachings of man. Just look how the teachings have changed from one denomination to another over the last 500 years. Look at how man has dropped the sacraments or teach that they mean something different than they always meant to Christians/Catholics for over 1500 years before man made his changes.
Every single writing that you have on Christianity was provided by the Catholic Church. You don’t have anything else except the errant teachings/writings of MEN of the last 500 years. They are teaching heresy against Christ’s Church whether you believe it or not. Read the ECF’s, that alone will tell you what the beliefs and teachings of the Early Church were and why. The ECF’s were taught by the Apostles themselves. These teachings were taught orally and by Sacred Tradition for centuries before the Catholic Church compiled them into what we know as the Bible. The Bible IS a compliation of Catholic teachings. The only thing any of us should be searching for and talking about is what the context was at the time they were taught and written. Only the Catholic Church knows the context and through the power of the Holy Spirit, has protected Scripture FROM heresy. Luther was a heretic. So were Calvin and Zwingli. Why is it then, that thousands of denominations later and millions of non-Catholic Christians later, does ANYONE follow their teachings/changes/private interpretations of what the Catholic Church provided for them? There is only One Truth and it has been protected by the Holy Spirit because Jesus promised His Church, the Catholic Church, that He would guide and protect her until the end of time. If you don’t believe this, then you can throw your Bible away, it can’t be of any importance then.
- Status